May covered up Trident malfunction

[hibsbollah]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/22/ltrident-malfunction-cover-up-claims-labour-urges-investigations

Astonishing.

[Moulin Yarns]

4 times Andrew Marr asked the question and she just skirted round the question,not once answering it.

[marinello59]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/22/ltrident-malfunction-cover-up-claims-labour-urges-investigations

Astonishing.

Dishonest and incredibly stupid.

[-Jonesy-]

24 hours since this story broke and still no answers. Prime Minister flat out refuses to answer yes or no if she had prior knowledge of this before the renewal vote. How much deceit and dishonesty does the government have to display before people realise there is something seriously wrong with Westminster?
We're not talking about the cover up of some MP claiming some DIY at our expense, a ****ing nuke went the wrong ****ing way!!

[The Green Goblin]

I can´t decide if May is in total denial about what she says, arrogant beyond belief in her own sense of being untouchable or just completely clueless. There wasn´t a flicker of emotion when she refused to answer that question yesterday. It was like watching a robot. That is just as scary as the subject she was refusing to answer a question about. Philip K Dick called it the "absence of appropriate affect" - the blank humanoid who is capable of anything because there is a part of the psyche missing or muted, usually empathy or shame.

[hibsbollah]

24 hours since this story broke and still no answers. Prime Minister flat out refuses to answer yes or no if she had prior knowledge of this before the renewal vote. How much deceit and dishonesty does the government have to display before people realise there is something seriously wrong with Westminster?
We're not talking about the cover up of some MP claiming some DIY at our expense, a ****ing nuke went the wrong ****ing way!!

:agree: It is, or should be, an enormously important story. By her evasive responses it looks like she evidently knew about the malfunction. She then made a speech to the Commons supporting the extention of this weapons system without disclosing that she knew of the weapons test malfunction. A weapons system, as if we didn't know, that is eye wateringly expensive, money that could be better used in education and on the NHS and has arguable strategic value anyway.

In a sane world it would be a resignation issue.

[RyeSloan]

I get the fact she is covering up the knowledge of a failed test and that's worthy of a good kicking but does anyone seriously think that one failed test would change the dynamic of whether the UK should have an independent submarine based nuclear deterrent?

In other words should she have revealed the failed test? Yes.
Would that materially change anyone's view on Trident? No.

[hibsbollah]

I get the fact she is covering up the knowledge of a failed test and that's worthy of a good kicking but does anyone seriously think that one failed test would change the dynamic of whether the UK should have an independent submarine based nuclear deterrent?

In other words should she have revealed the failed test? Yes.
Would that materially change anyone's view on Trident? No.

It might have changed some people's views on it. Some people who are decision makers and representatives of the people. And this information was kept from them. That's what matters.

[Moulin Yarns]

Not to put too fine a point on it but it went in theopposite *****ing direction, and more than 8,000 miles away from the intendedtarget!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GXaZKVxIv4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GXaZKVxIv4)

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

:agree: It is, or should be, an enormously important story. By her evasive responses it looks like she evidently knew about the malfunction. She then made a speech to the Commons supporting the extention of this weapons system without disclosing that she knew of the weapons test malfunction. A weapons system, as if we didn't know, that is eye wateringly expensive, money that could be better used in education and on the NHS and has arguable strategic value anyway.

In a sane world it would be a resignation issue.


Behave, a resignation issue?

Agree her evasion spoke volumes, but i think you could make a solid case that telling the world about such a fault would not be in the nations interests. Certainly not a resignation issue.

I would have thought there is a mechanism for giving parliament oversight of such issues in a confidential manner.

[marinello59]

Downing Street have admitted she was told about the failed test when she became PM.

[Hibs Class]

:agree: It is, or should be, an enormously important story. By her evasive responses it looks like she evidently knew about the malfunction. She then made a speech to the Commons supporting the extention of this weapons system without disclosing that she knew of the weapons test malfunction. A weapons system, as if we didn't know, that is eye wateringly expensive, money that could be better used in education and on the NHS and has arguable strategic value anyway.

In a sane world it would be a resignation issue.

Not sure it would be a resignation issue. But supposing it was, right now who would replace her? Boris Johnson, Liam Fox, David Davies? Might be better to stick with May and assume she knows her card has been marked.

[hibsbollah]

Downing Street have admitted she was told about the failed test when she became PM.

This now makes the Andrew Marr interview even more of a car crash. The Times had already broken the story. It shouldn't have come as any surprise that the question would be asked, and at some point the truth would come out. So why refuse to answer the question four times in front of the TV cameras?

A 'safe pair of hands' indeed :faf:

Here's hoping the opposition parties play this properly later on.

[The Green Goblin]

Behave, a resignation issue?

Agree her evasion spoke volumes, but i think you could make a solid case that telling the world about such a fault would not be in the nations interests. Certainly not a resignation issue.

I would have thought there is a mechanism for giving parliament oversight of such issues in a confidential manner.

Perhaps there is, but clearly it wasn´t applied, was it? It beggars belief that the MPs who voted on it had no idea that this had happened, and that this critically important information was deliberately withheld from them, resulting in parliament being misled. As for "not in the nation´s interests"....how is the nation´s safety not in their interests?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Perhaps there is, but clearly it wasn´t applied, was it? It beggars belief that the MPs who voted on it had no idea that this had happened, and that this critically important information was deliberately withheld from them, resulting in parliament being misled. As for "not in the nation´s interests"....how is the nation´s safety not in their interests?

I meant that undermining your own deterrant to the world wouldnt be in the nation's interests.

I presume that MPs have oversight of lots of things that are not for public cosumption, this should have been one of them.

I agree its a muck-up, i just dont agree its worth bringing down a PM over.

[allmodcons]

Behave, a resignation issue?

Agree her evasion spoke volumes, but i think you could make a solid case that telling the world about such a fault would not be in the nations interests. Certainly not a resignation issue.

I would have thought there is a mechanism for giving parliament oversight of such issues in a confidential manner.

This is right wing Tory speak for just about anything at the moment.

"Let us not provide any information that might threaten the national interest".

Why did she not have the character to come clean? The system is tested for a reason, no?

FWIW, I don't think it is resignation issue but this episode speaks volumes about her character, or lack of it.

Be interesting to see if our wonderful free press will give her as hard a time as they give Corbyn.

[Moulin Yarns]

Had a missile test by China, North Korea or, Russia resulted in this type of malfunction does anyone think we (the UK government) would not be making capital out of it?

Yes tests have to be made, but we (the public) should be told when it goes wrong as we are when it goes right.

[marinello59]

This is right wing Tory speak for just about anything at the moment.

"Let us not provide any information that might threaten the national interest".

Why did she not have the character to come clean? The system is tested for a reason, no?

FWIW, I don't think it is resignation issue but this episode speaks volumes about her character, or lack of it.

Be interesting to see if our wonderful free press will give her as hard a time as they give Corbyn.

Lead item on all the news channels and also their online content. Splashed across the front pages of most newspapers. Experts rolled out to explain just why this was such a serious matter. And the story was initially broken by The Times. Apart from that they will probably all pretend it never happened.

[marinello59]

Had a missile test by China, North Korea or, Russia resulted in this type of malfunction does anyone think we (the UK government) would not be making capital out of it?

Yes tests have to be made, but we (the public) should be told when it goes wrong as we are when it goes right.

Especially when we have paid £17million for that test.

[Moulin Yarns]

Especially when we have paid £17million for that test.

Film has been released of the trident missile landing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJSqWLvb8Hg

[grunt]

But supposing it was, right now who would replace her? Boris Johnson, Liam Fox, David Davies? Might be better to stick with May and assume she knows her card has been marked.Good point. I can't think of another time in my life when there has been such a dearth of talent at Westminster. And as for the "opposition"...

[allmodcons]

Lead item on all the news channels and also their online content. Splashed across the front pages of most newspapers. Experts rolled out to explain just why this was such a serious matter. And the story was initially broken by The Times. Apart from that they will probably all pretend it never happened.

Good to hear. I don't buy a newspaper and haven't seen any TV today.
Thanks for letting me know that the press have been balanced today M59.

[Smartie]

Good to hear. I don't buy a newspaper and haven't seen any TV today.
Thanks for letting me know that the press have been balanced today M59.

I'd like to think I'm more on the healthy side of cynical as opposed to being an outright conspiracy theorist but from Marr's initial robust questioning to the wall-to-wall coverage the matter has received in the news today, there is no denying that our press have acted entirely appropriately on this occasion, given the severity of the matter in question.

[hibsbollah]

I'd like to think I'm more on the healthy side of cynical as opposed to being an outright conspiracy theorist but from Marr's initial robust questioning to the wall-to-wall coverage the matter has received in the news today, there is no denying that our press have acted entirely appropriately on this occasion, given the severity of the matter in question.

I don't think there was much choice. By mid morning today the initial hesitancy for anybody to take the lead on it on Sunday or this am had been overturned. Credit to The Times in this instance.

[hibsbollah]

Had a missile test by China, North Korea or, Russia resulted in this type of malfunction does anyone think we (the UK government) would not be making capital out of it?
.

I suppose we should be grateful that the North Korean weapons systems work better than ours seem to. Otherwise their missile tests could easily fly into downtown Seoul or Tokyo and WW3 might start.

Still, these things keep us all safe.

[Mr Grieves]

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/23/europe/trident-missile-failure-theresa-may/

US defence official confirms that this happened.

At the same time as the UK minister for defence refuses to give any details.

[beensaidbefore]

Why does Joe public need to know? Apart from getting on our soapboxes and having a rant about it what will the public do with this info?

Some things should be on a need to know basis, I'm not sure announcing to the world that we have a ***** defence system is the best move.
Surely this must have taken place under Cameron and iv not heard his name mentioned by the press once. Why is he not to blame?

Btw, I have no love for May.

[The Green Goblin]

Why does Joe public need to know? Apart from getting on our soapboxes and having a rant about it what will the public do with this info?

Some things should be on a need to know basis, I'm not sure announcing to the world that we have a ***** defence system is the best move.
Surely this must have taken place under Cameron and iv not heard his name mentioned by the press once. Why is he not to blame?

Btw, I have no love for May.

I think it is relevant in the context of a debate on whether or not to spent billions of pounds to renew it. I think that´s one of the most important points here.

[ronaldo7]

I think it is relevant in the context of a debate on whether or not to spent billions of pounds to renew it. I think that´s one of the most important points here.

We also hear about the successful missile tests when they're done. Why shouldn't we be told when they fail?

The UK gov have been caught once again trying to cover up a major event, just prior to an important vote on the same issue.

Teresa May was an embarrassment yesterday on Marr, but she'll just shrug it off, and go on, as if nothing's happened.

[beensaidbefore]

I think it is relevant in the context of a debate on whether or not to spent billions of pounds to renew it. I think that´s one of the most important points here.

But are we really having a debate at this point in time. I know we are on here, but is that going to change anything where it matters? People are all over the media shouting the odds, but at this point in time what does it really matter? I understand that we need to know, but folk seem quite annoyed by timescales. That's the bit I'm not so sure is relevant. Un

[beensaidbefore]

We also hear about the successful missile tests when they're done. Why shouldn't we be told when they fail?

The UK gov have been caught once again trying to cover up a major event, just prior to an important vote on the same issue.

Teresa May was an embarrassment yesterday on Marr, but she'll just shrug it off, and go on, as if nothing's happened.
I think we should be told. I think this happened before she was in the door though so why the personal attacks on her? Unless she was dealing with defence issues before, can't remember why she did?

[speedy_gonzales]

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/23/europe/trident-missile-failure-theresa-may/

US defence official confirms that this happened.

At the same time as the UK minister for defence refuses to give any details.
Reading that link, it all seems pretty straightforward, missile without payload launched, missile detects a problematic issue so self destructs.

Apart from the cost, is it any different from any other ordnance failing, or a round jamming?

Perhaps the next instalment will be more reliable?!?

[ronaldo7]

I think we should be told. I think this happened before she was in the door though so why the personal attacks on her? Unless she was dealing with defence issues before, can't remember why she did?

Personal attacks?

I've said I thought she was an embarrassment, and I stand by that. If she can't answer a simple question when asked over and over again, then she deserves all she gets.

It was stupid an naïve to believe she would get away with something as important as this.

[beensaidbefore]

Personal attacks?

I've said I thought she was an embarrassment, and I stand by that. If she can't answer a simple question when asked over and over again, then she deserves all she gets.

It was stupid an naïve to believe she would get away with something as important as this.

Sorry, I didn't mean you were attacking her. Just in the media. And if they have known about it for ages, why now? Whats the agenda and who is trying to influence Joe public?

She is a puppet, and towing the party line just like they all do. I hope from more from our PM but I won't hold my breath.

[GreenLake]

Something like this might have happened albeit on a larger scale.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8MEVVU3bxM

[beensaidbefore]

Reading that link, it all seems pretty straightforward, missile without payload launched, missile detects a problematic issue so self destructs.

Apart from the cost, is it any different from any other ordnance failing, or a round jamming?

Perhaps the next instalment will be more reliable?!?

Exactly. Thats the point in tests. How do we make sure it works? Test it.

[ronaldo7]

Exactly. Thats the point in tests. How do we make sure it works? Test it.

The point of the tests is for the Sub and crew to be put through their paces with regards to the launch. They passed that test, it's just that the missile failed, at a small cost of £17million

It would be nice to know if you were a submariner on that boat, that you will be carrying weapons that are fit for purpose.

If parliament were not informed about the failure, how can they come to an informed view of the system?

[Pretty Boy]

Exactly. Thats the point in tests. How do we make sure it works? Test it.

And if said test fails immediately before a vote to decide whether to renew the weapons system surely to make an informed decision those voting need to be aware of the failure?

[ronaldo7]

Whilst Michael Fallon was on his feet in Parliament failing to answer questions on the subject, the US were spilling the beans to CNN.

Take back control, Parliament is sovereign they said. Aye right.

https://t.co/PstIcHhrLz

[lord bunberry]

Exactly. Thats the point in tests. How do we make sure it works? Test it.
I think the issue is that by not informing parliament prior to a vote, some believe she has misled parliament.

[Hibbyradge]

:agree: It is, or should be, an enormously important story. By her evasive responses it looks like she evidently knew about the malfunction. She then made a speech to the Commons supporting the extention of this weapons system without disclosing that she knew of the weapons test malfunction. A weapons system, as if we didn't know, that is eye wateringly expensive, money that could be better used in education and on the NHS and has arguable strategic value anyway.

In a sane world it would be a resignation issue.

Agreed.

I haven't been following the news today so I may have missed them, but hopefully we'll hear calls for her to resign.

[hibsbollah]

And by way of context, the estimated cost of trident renewal is £205 billion. Almost meaninglessly big.

The government appointed OBR gave a 'stark' warning a few days ago that the NHS needs £88 billion extra funding by 2067. The political message was that the whole system is crazy unaffordable.

Its not melodramatic to say that these decisions will shape our lives and our kids lives.

[ronaldo7]

The four previous launches were accompanied by press releases, and video. I can't believe the Uk gov wouldn't know this story would break. I suppose, for them, it was better that it came out after the vote to renew Trident with its exorbitant costs

For all their bluster today in parliament about it not being in the national interest to discuss it, during the launch in 2012, two Russian spy ships were in the vicinity monitoring the launch. They even sent a message to the crew, acknowledging the successful launch.

[beensaidbefore]

And if said test fails immediately before a vote to decide whether to renew the weapons system surely to make an informed decision those voting need to be aware of the failure?

OK, didn't realise that was the case. That makes timing very relevant.

[Peevemor]

We know that the test cost £17m, but I doubt anyone knows the additional costs that will be incurred as a result of the failure. I'd imagine that there will be comprehensive diagnostics, remedial work and further testing to be carried out.

[RyeSloan]

And by way of context, the estimated cost of trident renewal is £205 billion. Almost meaninglessly big.

The government appointed OBR gave a 'stark' warning a few days ago that the NHS needs £88 billion extra funding by 2067. The political message was that the whole system is crazy unaffordable.

Its not melodramatic to say that these decisions will shape our lives and our kids lives.

One is an estimate of the life time cost of Trident, the other is an estimate of the additional annual cost of the NHS. Rather incomparable figures.

If you want something comparable the NHS budget is currently about £115bn so you could say the life time cost of Trident is the equivalent to less than two years NHS costs.

Some might think that is a price worth paying for our national security, others will disagree and some will wonder if such a comparison says anything at all [emoji12]

[Scouse Hibee]

It failed a test.....err that's
kind of why we test them. No reason to publicise the fact at all and don't understand the outcry.

[Scouse Hibee]

The point of the tests is for the Sub and crew to be put through their paces with regards to the launch. They passed that test, it's just that the missile failed, at a small cost of £17million

It would be nice to know if you were a submariner on that boat, that you will be carrying weapons that are fit for purpose.

If parliament were not informed about the failure, how can they come to an informed view of the system?

Same difference still failed a test so now it can be rectified. Mountain out of a molehill.

[Moulin Yarns]

It failed a test.....err that's
kind of why we test them. No reason to publicise the fact at all and don't understand the outcry.

The outcry, if indeed that is what it is, is against our esteemed leader and how she mishandled the situation.

4 times she was asked if it was true, live on TV, and 4 times she shuffled round the answer.

Secondly, she withheld the information before a crucial vote in parliament on the renewal of said missiles. Questions have to be asked whether a different outcome in the vote to renew might have transpired had MPs been aware of ALL the facts.

The 'outcry' is not about whether the public were told, it is the whole secretive attitude of our UNELECTED leader when it appears the world media was already aware of it. Both The Sunday Times and CNN have both published the information.

[Scouse Hibee]

The outcry, if indeed that is what it is, is against our esteemed leader and how she mishandled the situation.

4 times she was asked if it was true, live on TV, and 4 times she shuffled round the answer.

Secondly, she withheld the information before a crucial vote in parliament on the renewal of said missiles. Questions have to be asked whether a different outcome in the vote to renew might have transpired had MPs been aware of ALL the facts.

The 'outcry' is not about whether the public were told, it is the whole secretive attitude of our UNELECTED leader when it appears the world media was already aware of it. Both The Sunday Times and CNN have both published the information.

I wouldn't have expected her to release any information regarding an issue that relates to National Security. Regardless of the opposition to this project the kind of stuff simply shouldn't be released in my opinion anyway.

[lord bunberry]

I wouldn't have expected her to release any information regarding an issue that relates to National Security. Regardless of the opposition to this project the kind of stuff simply shouldn't be released in my opinion anyway.
They release the information on all the other tests. It's impossible to keep things like this a secret with other countries monitoring what we're doing.

[Scouse Hibee]

They release the information on all the other tests. It's impossible to keep things like this a secret with other countries monitoring what we're doing.

No they release what they want,when they want.You have no knowledge of what is kept under wraps.

[Moulin Yarns]

I wouldn't have expected her to release any information regarding an issue that relates to National Security. Regardless of the opposition to this project the kind of stuff simply shouldn't be released in my opinion anyway.

ON the Andrew Marr Show she was asked, 4 times, if she knew about the test failure before the vote on renewal of trident. HOW does that relate to national security when it was already in the public domain? Stop defending her, she deliberately refused to answer the question on whether she knew about it and did not inform parliament.



Speaking on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show she said: "I have absolute faith in our TRIDENT missiles. When I made that speech in the House of Commons, what we were talking about was whether or not we should renew our Trident, whether or not we should have Trident missiles and an independent nuclear deterrent in the future."

Pressed by Mr Marr, who said, "Did you know that it had happened?" Ms May said: "I think we should defend our country."

Mr Marr asked: "This is a very serious incident. Did you know about it?"

Ms May again skirted the issue and did not give a yes-or-no answer.
"Prime Minister, did you know?" Mr Marr asked.

Ms May said: "There are tests that take place all the time, regularly, for our nuclear deterrent."

Finally Mr Marr conceded: "I'm not going to get an answer."




All she needed to do was say yes, she was aware of it and that would have defused the whole situation she has created by her denial.

[Scouse Hibee]

ON the Andrew Marr Show she was asked, 4 times, if she knew about the test failure before the vote on renewal of trident. HOW does that relate to national security when it was already in the public domain? Stop defending her, she deliberately refused to answer the question on whether she knew about it and did not inform parliament.




All she needed to do was say yes, she was aware of it and that would have defused the whole situation she has created by her denial.

Was there a denial? Or did she just refuse to answer a journalist because she felt there was no positive to become of it.

[Moulin Yarns]

Was there a denial? Or did she just refuse to answer a journalist because she felt there was no positive to become of it.

Denial, refuse to answer, same difference.

[Hibs Class]

Denial, refuse to answer, same difference.

Not the same at all.

[Moulin Yarns]

Not the same at all.

I would argue that refusing to answer was her denying it

[Hibs Class]

I would argue that refusing to answer was her denying it

Maybe so, and it did remind me of Howard/Paxman a few years ago. But if she had denied it she would now probably have to resign, whereas refusing to answer was evasive (and damaging) but not dishonest

[Hibrandenburg]

I wouldn't have expected her to release any information regarding an issue that relates to National Security. Regardless of the opposition to this project the kind of stuff simply shouldn't be released in my opinion anyway.

Would you be happy about having bought a car sold to you on the understanding that it's in perfect working condition, only to find out after you've paid for it that it's faulty?

[Scouse Hibee]

Would you be happy about having bought a car sold to you on the understanding that it's in perfect working condition, only to find out after you've paid for it that it's faulty?

I would be happy if the fault was identified on the test drive rather than it breaking down when I really needed it.

[Moulin Yarns]

Would you be happy about having bought a car sold to you on the understanding that it's in perfect working condition, only to find out after you've paid for it that it's faulty?

Funnily enough I was thinking along similar lines.

You want to buy a car (or nuclear deterrent) you should test drive it first. If something goes wrong during the test drive you would be entitled to say no thanks I'll try something else.

After all, both a car and nuclear deterrents are big purchases.

[Moulin Yarns]

I would be happy if the fault was identified on the test drive rather than it breaking down when I really needed it.


Funnily enough I was thinking along similar lines.

You want to buy a car (or nuclear deterrent) you should test drive it first. If something goes wrong during the test drive you would be entitled to say no thanks I'll try something else.

After all, both a car and nuclear deterrents are big purchases.

As I say, you find a fault during your test drive, in all honesty you would return it and not buy a faulty car. So why buy a renewal of a faulty nuclear deterrent?

[Scouse Hibee]

As I say, you find a fault during your test drive, in all honesty you would return it and not buy a faulty car. So why buy a renewal of a faulty nuclear deterrent?

As in all product recalls they generally fix the fault and all good to go. They very rarely scrap the model altogether.

[Hibrandenburg]

As in all product recalls they generally fix the fault and all good to go. They very rarely scrap the model altogether.

The point is though you are entitled to know the facts before you buy. If the dealer was in the know about the fault prior to sale then he's conned you. Also if you knew about the fault prior to sale it may impact your decision.

[speedy_gonzales]

T

The 'outcry' is not about whether the public were told, it is the whole secretive attitude of our UNELECTED leader when it appears the world media was already aware of it. Both The Sunday Times and CNN have both published the information.
I fail to grasp the relevance here, by your own measure we had an unelected leader here for 18 months until last years election.
Anyways, I always thought the public elected their local candidate, but the party elected the leader, no?

[Moulin Yarns]

The point is though you are entitled to know the facts before you buy. If the dealer was in the know about the fault prior to sale then he's conned you. Also if you knew about the fault prior to sale it may impact your decision.

Dear Trading Standards

I was recently in the market for a nuclear deterrent,possibly launched from a submarine, but when I got it home I discovered it hadan inherent fault. Instead of flying to its intended target 5,000 miles awayoff the coast of Africa it took off and headed for my closest (until last week)ally before I was able to stop it.

Am I able to return it for a full refund as I was clearlysold faulty goods? Should I maybe have had a test drive before I paid for it ingood faith?

Yours sincerely (honest)

Theresa May

[Moulin Yarns]

Dear Trading Standards

I was recently in the market for a nuclear deterrent,possibly launched from a submarine, but when I got it home I discovered it hadan inherent fault. Instead of flying to its intended target 5,000 miles awayoff the coast of Africa it took off and headed for my closest (until last week)ally before I was able to stop it.

Am I able to return it for a full refund as I was clearlysold faulty goods? Should I maybe have had a test drive before I paid for it ingood faith?

Yours sincerely (honest)

Theresa May


Got a response


Dear Ms May


Unfortunately as nucleardeterrents would not be classed as consumer goods you would have not anyrecourse via the Consumer Rights Act. Consequently any remedy would haveto be in accordance with the terms of the contract.

You are therefore advised toread the terms and conditions specified in the contract, and perhaps seek legaladvice from your solicitor. If this situation is not covered by thecontract then your only recourse would be to take the matter to court, though Iappreciate you may be reluctant to do so as you haven’t had a lot of luck withthem lately!


Regards

[wpj]

Got a response

😁

[ronaldo7]

I wouldn't have expected her to release any information regarding an issue that relates to National Security. Regardless of the opposition to this project the kind of stuff simply shouldn't be released in my opinion anyway.

I see you've swallowed the UKgov line, hook, line, and :titanic: that they've been putting about since May was found out. This was an exercise, in which other nations, and air traffic control in the vicinity, and the determined route of the missile were informed. It's a pity the missile failed, and had to be extinguished by the Yanks.

Independent deterrent, my bahookie.

Your deflection of the real issue, in which May fails to inform Parliament of the failure, just prior to a vote to renew, speaks volumes.

[Just Alf]

The point is though you are entitled to know the facts before you buy. If the dealer was in the know about the fault prior to sale then he's conned you. Also if you knew about the fault prior to sale it may impact your decision.
Indeed... you might still go ahead but ask for extra testing, maybe even a wee discount for any subsequent delay.


Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Scouse Hibee]

I see you've swallowed the UKgov line, hook, line, and :titanic: that they've been putting about since May was found out. This was an exercise, in which other nations, and air traffic control in the vicinity, and the determined route of the missile were informed. It's a pity the missile failed, and had to be extinguished by the Yanks.

Independent deterrent, my bahookie.

Your deflection of the real issue, in which May fails to inform Parliament of the failure, just prior to a vote to renew, speaks volumes.

I've swallowed nothing,just common sense really that information relating to missile testing is not splashed about everywhere. Believe it or not lots of things happen that you have not been told about

[Slavoj Zizek]

I suppose we should be grateful that the North Korean weapons systems work better than ours seem to. Otherwise their missile tests could easily fly into downtown Seoul or Tokyo and WW3 might start.

Still, these things keep us all safe.

This is perfect MSM [sic] fodder designed to divert leftist thinkers attenton away from what is happening on the ground.

The Scottish working class/labour movement [lol] you purport to represent gives no france's about Trident/Trump/NATO

You fell for it.

Hook, line, sinker and copy of the Guardian.

[Read SPIKED online]

[--------]

I've swallowed nothing, just common sense really that information relating to missile testing is not splashed about everywhere. Believe it or not lots of things happen that you have not been told about

Just what I was thinking, SH.

Given that for good or ill Trident IS a major part of the UK defence set-up, and that whether we like it or not, Mutually Assured Destruction aka thermonuclear deterrence seems to have worked so far, I'd rather not have the PM standing up in the House of Commons announcing to all and sundry that our missiles don't work all that well ...

Morally abhorrent it may be, but if it stops some nutter from launching a first strike against the UK, then that's OK with me.

As for May saying that she would use the missiles in certain circumstances, the same argument stands.

If I'm confronted by an intruder in my house and I have an effective weapon to hand, I want him (or her) to be absolutely convinced that I'm going to use it on them with enthusiasm and commitment unless they empty their pockets and leave quietly right away.

[McD]

I fail to grasp the relevance here, by your own measure we had an unelected leader here for 18 months until last years election.
Anyways, I always thought the public elected their local candidate, but the party elected the leader, no?


Been saying this to many people who use the 'unelected' description.

we vote for a local MP.
Party members vote for a party leader (from their incumbent MP pool).
party with the most MPs in Parliment becomes the major party, and party leader becomes Prime Minister.

same applies to Scottish parliamentary elections, as you alluded to.

[ronaldo7]

I've swallowed nothing,just common sense really that information relating to missile testing is not splashed about everywhere. Believe it or not lots of things happen that you have not been told about


:faf:

You do realise the MOD have been posting evidence of those missile tests for decades.:aok:

This one was posted by the MOD 4 Years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FZYeVM7ucY

You seem to be a bit out of your depth here, Scouse.:greengrin

[barcahibs]

To be honest I'd have kept quiet as well, if only because the current hysteria and over reaction is exactly what her advisors would have predicted.

It was stupid to hush it up as it was bound to come out but i can get why they did it.


It failed, big deal, thats why we test things. I believe this is the first failure in something like 160+ Trident launches by UK/US (we share missiles, there aren't any 'British' missiles so this could just as easily have happened to the Americans). Compared to other similiar systems around the world that's an incredible success rate (the new Russian system has something like a 50% failure rate).

I had a lightbulb burst last week - time to switch to candles?

If nothing else at least it reminds a Trump administration that our missiles can fly in their direction too ;)

[Scouse Hibee]

:faf:

You do realise the MOD have been posting evidence of those missile tests for decades.:aok:

This one was posted by the MOD 4 Years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FZYeVM7ucY

You seem to be a bit out of your depth here, Scouse.:greengrin

How many failures have they reported?

Not so out of my depth as you think laughing boy :-)

[ronaldo7]

How many failures have they reported?

Contrary to your belief that everything is being hidden from us. You'll find that their have been many failures. Jane might know.:wink:

Teresa just cocked up with her refusal to say routine.

[Scouse Hibee]

Contrary to your belief that everything is being hidden from us. You'll find that their have been many failures. Jane might know.:wink:

Teresa just cocked up with her refusal to say routine.

So answer the question then, how many tridents have failed?

[ronaldo7]

So answer the question then, how many tridents have failed?

If I told you, I'd have to kill you.:greengrin

[Scouse Hibee]

If I told you, I'd have to kill you.:greengrin

So Theresa you either don't know or are unwilling to say for the sake of National Security. I get it. :-)

[ronaldo7]

So Theresa you either don't know or are unwilling to say for the sake of National Security. I get it. :-)

:agree: Although an 87% success rate for ICBM's is rather poor, don't you think?

Now back on track.

Theresa, did you know or not?

[The Green Goblin]

I've swallowed nothing,just common sense really that information relating to missile testing is not splashed about everywhere. Believe it or not lots of things happen that you have not been told about

I think in this case it was the missile itself which was splashed about everywhere... :wink:

[steakbake]

"Not in the national interest" is becoming a byword for a lack of accountability. Denying that something happened when it plainly did is a national embarrassment not an act of national interest.

Until recently, it wasn't in the national interest for the government to inform voters of what the product of the EU ref will be.

Declaring things as being in the national interest or not evades debate, accountability and the truth.

[Hibrandenburg]

"Not in the national interest" is becoming a byword for a lack of accountability. Denying that something happened when it plainly did is a national embarrassment not an act of national interest.

Until recently, it wasn't in the national interest for the government to inform voters of what the product of the EU ref will be.

Declaring things as being in the national interest or not evades debate, accountability and the truth.

:agree:

[steakbake]

:agree: Although an 87% success rate for ICBM's is rather poor, don't you think?

Now back on track.

Theresa, did you know or not?

She knew alright but decided to deflect and deny rather than own the situation.

Instead, a row has blown up which leaves her looking (as she is) evasive and slippery. "In the national interest" means blaming the people who have drawn attention to the facts of the matter, whereas this could have been avoided by the simplest measure of truth and ownership of the situation.

[ronaldo7]

Anyone remember this guy. William McNeilly, quickly shuffled out of the way after he blew the whistle on the debacle that is Trident.

https://t.co/XK7nGwwXNs

[Moulin Yarns]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-38744322

OOPS!

[allmodcons]

To be honest I'd have kept quiet as well, if only because the current hysteria and over reaction is exactly what her advisors would have predicted.

It was stupid to hush it up as it was bound to come out but i can get why they did it.


It failed, big deal, thats why we test things. I believe this is the first failure in something like 160+ Trident launches by UK/US (we share missiles, there aren't any 'British' missiles so this could just as easily have happened to the Americans). Compared to other similiar systems around the world that's an incredible success rate (the new Russian system has something like a 50% failure rate).

I had a lightbulb burst last week - time to switch to candles?

If nothing else at least it reminds a Trump administration that our missiles can fly in their direction too ;)


That's a laugh the UK doesn't have their own missiles, they are leased from the USA. They are even tested under US supervision.

If Trump is in anyway nervous, he might want to look closer to home.

[RyeSloan]

That's a laugh the UK doesn't have their own missiles, they are leased from the USA. They are even tested under US supervision.

If Trump is in anyway nervous, he might want to look closer to home.

It's a complex picture but the war heads themselves are British built I believe but indeed the missiles are leased from the US and stored in the US when not on a UK sub.

[Colr]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/22/ltrident-malfunction-cover-up-claims-labour-urges-investigations

Astonishing.

A chick in our defence against attack and she doesn't want to broadcast this in a public arena!! Outrageous!! I wonder why.

Churchill would never have done this. He would have sent the details to the German's.

[hibsbollah]

A chick in our defence against attack and she doesn't want to broadcast this in a public arena!! Outrageous!! I wonder why.

Churchill would never have done this. He would have sent the details to the German's.

You really haven't bothered your arse to read the thread or find out what the 'outrage' is actually about, have you?

[Colr]

You really haven't bothered your arse to read the thread or find out what the 'outrage' is actually about, have you?

I have bothered my arse and cannot believe people are nieve enough to be outraged at a common sense position.

I will never get the time back I wasted on reading the ***** I have read on this thread.

[Moulin Yarns]

I have bothered my arse and cannot believe people are nieve enough to be outraged at a common sense position.

I will never get the time back I wasted on reading the ***** I have read on this thread.


Enjoy the video and then tell us again that she was right in her response.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyNgAVdrwkM

EDIT: if you only want the Trident bit start after 14:30 minutes.

Q: When you made the speech in the House of Commons did you know about the misfire?
A: I have every faith in Trident
Q: Did you know it happened?
A: she continued babbling on about the need for a nuclear deterrent
Q: This is a very serious incident, did you know about it when you spoke in the House of Commons?
A: The issue we were talking about in the House of Commons was a very serious issue, it was whether to renew Trident
Q: Prime Minister, Did you know?
A: There are tests that take place all the time, what we were talking about was, eh, um , the replacement...
Q: I'm not going to get an answer about this, am I? In which case can I ask you one other question about social care?

This is not about whether it was in the public domain, it is about her knowing about the PM knowing and not giving the full information to parliament before a crucial vote. I wonder how many MPs would have voted the same way had the been aware of the facts?

[RyeSloan]

Enjoy the video and then tell us again that she was right in her response.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyNgAVdrwkM

EDIT: if you only want the Trident bit start after 14:30 minutes.

Q: When you made the speech in the House of Commons did you know about the misfire?
A: I have every faith in Trident
Q: Did you know it happened?
A: she continued babbling on about the need for a nuclear deterrent
Q: This is a very serious incident, did you know about it when you spoke in the House of Commons?
A: The issue we were talking about in the House of Commons was a very serious issue, it was whether to renew Trident
Q: Prime Minister, Did you know?
A: There are tests that take place all the time, what we were talking about was, eh, um , the replacement...
Q: I'm not going to get an answer about this, am I? In which case can I ask you one other question about social care?

This is not about whether it was in the public domain, it is about her knowing about the PM knowing and not giving the full information to parliament before a crucial vote. I wonder how many MPs would have voted the same way had the been aware of the facts?

To answer your question at the end...probably about 99% of them.

Said it before, knowledge of the failed test would not have changed many people's minds on whether or not to have an independent nuclear based deterrent.

Not to say she shouldn't have just have answered nor that the information shouldn't have been disclosed just that if it had it would not have made one jot of difference.