Drought

Forums New posts
Findlayhibby

Findlayhibby

Private Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2007
One measure Andy Burnham could do immediately is to nationalise the water industry.I can almost guarentee you come November Britain will be hit by flooding.I see another CEO was given another big pay day today.Instead of spending money on our arms industry we should be spending it on combating global warming.We can no longer ignore it.
 
Findlayhibby said:
One measure Andy Burnham could do immediately is to nationalise the water industry.I can almost guarentee you come November Britain will be hit by flooding.I see another CEO was given another big pay day today.Instead of spending money on our arms industry we should be spending it on combating global warming.We can no longer ignore it.
Click to expand...
Imagine we had also funded preventing the coming ice age....40 years ago.
Imagine wed funded stopping the Ozone layer Disappearing....25 years ago.
Imagine we had funded stopping Global Warming...20 years ago.

Should we really fund the latest narrative???????

The reason they have now named it Climate Change...is cause they were wrong on every other occasion.
But the same people make billions each new narrative.


The problem is not due to a drought.
Its mismanagement,old infrastructure,and a huge increase in population....without expanding the infrastructure.

There is billions of litres of litres lost through leaks every single week.
 
Ryan69 said:
The problem is not due to a drought.
Its mismanagement,old infrastructure,and a huge increase in population....without expanding the infrastructure.

There is billions of litres of litres lost through leaks every single week.
Click to expand...
I can't agree that climate change isn't a thing but as far as this goes you're right.
An outrageous state of affairs that needs addressed.
 
Parts of the UK had hotter weather 50 years ago in 1976. There was comparable heatwaves in 1995 over 30 years ago.

Here in Scotland our reservoirs are full with plenty of rain.

You highlight the incompetence of the privatised water authorities in England quite correctly. If they had invested properly in the infrastructure their reservoirs would be in a much better state and more full. I'd suggest that's the issue rather than global warming. Nobody is suggesting the climate isn't changing but already out extreme net zero bollocks is making us poorer and is totally futile in the big picture.

Lastly I disagree that we should be cutting our defence budget. The world has never been so dangerous.
 
There’s no doubt that the water industry is a shit-show and inefficient as hell.
But there is a drought.
And there is man-made climate change.
And one is very much connected to the other.
 
Smurf said:
Lastly I disagree that we should be cutting our defence budget. The world has never been so dangerous.
Click to expand...
Genuine question, possibly for another thread but exactly what do you think Britain needs for adequate defence?
Are you under threat of nuclear attack?
Do you just want to beef up conventional forces and arms so you can go to war with who?
Honestly if there was ever a nation who would benefit from total nuclear disarmament and complete neutrality it's Britain.
Rein in the big boy thinking folks and just look after each other.
 
Last edited:
Ryan69 said:
Imagine we had also funded preventing the coming ice age....40 years ago.
Imagine wed funded stopping the Ozone layer Disappearing....25 years ago.
Imagine we had funded stopping Global Warming...20 years ago.

Should we really fund the latest narrative???????

The reason they have now named it Climate Change...is cause they were wrong on every other occasion.
But the same people make billions each new narrative.


The problem is not due to a drought.
Its mismanagement,old infrastructure,and a huge increase in population....without expanding the infrastructure.

There is billions of litres of litres lost through leaks every single week.
Click to expand...
I thought you didn’t believe in global warming?
 
Bangkokhibby said:
Genuine question, possibly for another thread but exactly what do you think Britain needs for adequate defence?
Are you under threat of nuclear attack?
Do you just want to beef up conventional forces and arms so you can go to war with who?
Honestly if there was ever a nation who would benefit from total nuclear disarmament and complete neutrality it's Britain.
Reign in the big boy thinking folks and just look after each other.
Click to expand...
Warfare and defence isn't my specialist subject but Britain/UK/Scotland/England/Wales/North of Ireland/Northern Ireland whatever the fuck we are calling it 😅 is under attack pretty regularly by a lot of different kinds of threats and warfare not just conventional military warfare. Take your pick from space, cyber, espionage & intelligence, information including social media, economic, infrastructure & undersea. Then there's chemical, biological and radiological. And of course terrorism. The idea we (or they FFS) could just say we are 'neutral' and avoid all of these threats is for the birds.


connerg said:
The UK is governed by Westminster.
Click to expand...
Because in a referendum the people of Scotland voted to remain in the political union of the UK. In a free democratic vote the Yes campaign failed to persuade the majority of their case. And if truth be told are still not persuading a majority.
 
Smurf said:
Warfare and defence isn't my specialist subject but Britain/UK/Scotland/England/Wales/North of Ireland/Northern Ireland whatever the fuck we are calling it 😅 is under attack pretty regularly by a lot of different kinds of threats and warfare not just conventional military warfare. Take your pick from space, cyber, espionage & intelligence, information including social media, economic, infrastructure & undersea. Then there's chemical, biological and radiological. And of course terrorism. The idea we (or they FFS) could just say we are 'neutral' and avoid all of these threats is for the birds.



Because in a referendum the people of Scotland voted to remain in the political union of the UK. In a free democratic vote the Yes campaign failed to persuade the majority of their case. And if truth be told are still not persuading a majority.
Click to expand...
Smurf said:
Warfare and defence isn't my specialist subject but Britain/UK/Scotland/England/Wales/North of Ireland/Northern Ireland whatever the fuck we are calling it 😅 is under attack pretty regularly by a lot of different kinds of threats and warfare not just conventional military warfare. Take your pick from space, cyber, espionage & intelligence, information including social media, economic, infrastructure & undersea. Then there's chemical, biological and radiological. And of course terrorism. The idea we (or they FFS) could just say we are 'neutral' and avoid all of these threats is for the birds.



Because in a referendum the people of Scotland voted to remain in the political union of the UK. In a free democratic vote the Yes campaign failed to persuade the majority of their case. And if truth be told are still not persuading a majority.
Click to expand...
I'm sure the OP is aware of this, maybe that's why he lives in Thailand.
His question is about defence, not what happened in 2014.
 
Bangkokhibby said:
Genuine question, possibly for another thread but exactly what do you think Britain needs for adequate defence?
Are you under threat of nuclear attack?
Do you just want to beef up conventional forces and arms so you can go to war with who?
Honestly if there was ever a nation who would benefit from total nuclear disarmament and complete neutrality it's Britain.
Rein in the big boy thinking folks and just look after each other.
Click to expand...
Interesting point.

The history of the UK having nuclear weapons in an complex one. Why did a Labour government make that choice? A number of reasons.

There was concern about how to repel an attack in Europe from the Soviet Union, especially after the Soviet's got the bomb. As soon as that was in play old school mass mobilisation defence was a thing of the past. Obviously there would be smaller conflicts, but this was very much with a view to third world war scenarios. Why an independent deterrent? I'm sure there was some imperial pride going on, but much of it was down to the US withdrawing cooperation post war. This was partly about asserting American dominance but also fear of secrets being leaked, given the various spy scandals. But there was also a strong sense of not being beholden to the US. Obviously that relationship has fluctuated over the years, but post war a lot of cooperation with the US stopped abruptly. So if Britain wanted nuclear weapons they had to go alone.

So what were the options available to the British Government? They could have just not gone nuclear. They could have gone for a mass shelter programme, though worth asking the question about what happens after any attack. Who is coming to help? In the end they chose to go nuclear. Was it the right decision? You can argue that 80 years later we are still here. Is the world a safer place? That's much more debatable. Would Britain unilaterally disarming make a difference? TBH I don't know. We're a small part of the world nuclear arsenal, but would we spared bombs if we didn't have any? I'm not so sure.
 
Findlayhibby said:
One measure Andy Burnham could do immediately is to nationalise the water industry.I can almost guarentee you come November Britain will be hit by flooding.I see another CEO was given another big pay day today.Instead of spending money on our arms industry we should be spending it on combating global warming.We can no longer ignore it.
Click to expand...
I assume you mean nationalise the water industry in England and Wales, because in Scotland the water is already in public hands, and we don't want anything to do with any national [in the UK sense] water company that will ultimately be managed from Westminster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
  • Menu
  • Home
  • Hibs Chat
  • New Posts
  • Just Back
  • Chatroom