Discussion:
Airlines warn Tories not to sell stake in air traffic control
(too old to reply)
Joe Curry
2011-02-06 14:02:09 UTC
Permalink
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk

Dan Milmo

....Seven of Britain's leading airlines have warned the government not
to sell Nats, the national air traffic control service, arguing that
the system is a key strategic asset not suitable for full
privatisation....

Full Story

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/feb/06/nats-airlines-government-stake-selloff
tim....
2011-02-06 15:02:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Curry
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk
Dan Milmo
....Seven of Britain's leading airlines have warned the government not
to sell Nats, the national air traffic control service, arguing that
the system is a key strategic asset not suitable for full
privatisation....
I would have to suggest to the airlines that that is a reason completely
outside of their interests and if that is the best that they can come up
with they have no reason at all to suggest that it shouldn't be sold

tim
William Black
2011-02-07 09:24:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Curry
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk
Dan Milmo
....Seven of Britain's leading airlines have warned the government not
to sell Nats, the national air traffic control service, arguing that
the system is a key strategic asset not suitable for full
privatisation....
How would they know?
--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Roland Perry
2011-02-07 09:49:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Joe Curry
....Seven of Britain's leading airlines have warned the government not
to sell Nats, the national air traffic control service, arguing that
the system is a key strategic asset not suitable for full
privatisation....
How would they know?
Apart from owning 42% of it, you mean?
--
Roland Perry
William Black
2011-02-08 16:16:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by William Black
Post by Joe Curry
....Seven of Britain's leading airlines have warned the government not
to sell Nats, the national air traffic control service, arguing that
the system is a key strategic asset not suitable for full
privatisation....
How would they know?
Apart from owning 42% of it, you mean?
The security of the state is not their business and they have little or
no expertise in the area.
--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Graeme Wall
2011-02-08 17:36:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Roland Perry
Post by William Black
Post by Joe Curry
....Seven of Britain's leading airlines have warned the government not
to sell Nats, the national air traffic control service, arguing that
the system is a key strategic asset not suitable for full
privatisation....
How would they know?
Apart from owning 42% of it, you mean?
The security of the state is not their business and they have little or
no expertise in the area.
Problem is, neither does the Government.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Photo galleries at <http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net>
William Black
2011-02-08 18:11:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Roland Perry
Post by William Black
Post by Joe Curry
....Seven of Britain's leading airlines have warned the government not
to sell Nats, the national air traffic control service, arguing that
the system is a key strategic asset not suitable for full
privatisation....
How would they know?
Apart from owning 42% of it, you mean?
The security of the state is not their business and they have little or
no expertise in the area.
Problem is, neither does the Government.
The government employs people who are, and the government takes their
advice.
--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Graeme Wall
2011-02-08 18:28:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Roland Perry
Post by William Black
Post by Joe Curry
....Seven of Britain's leading airlines have warned the government not
to sell Nats, the national air traffic control service, arguing that
the system is a key strategic asset not suitable for full
privatisation....
How would they know?
Apart from owning 42% of it, you mean?
The security of the state is not their business and they have little or
no expertise in the area.
Problem is, neither does the Government.
The government employs people who are,
ITYM 'who have'...
Post by William Black
and the government takes their
advice.
And your evidence they do is?
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Photo galleries at <http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net>
William Black
2011-02-09 09:15:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Roland Perry
Post by William Black
Post by Joe Curry
....Seven of Britain's leading airlines have warned the government not
to sell Nats, the national air traffic control service, arguing that
the system is a key strategic asset not suitable for full
privatisation....
How would they know?
Apart from owning 42% of it, you mean?
The security of the state is not their business and they have little or
no expertise in the area.
Problem is, neither does the Government.
The government employs people who are,
ITYM 'who have'...
Post by William Black
and the government takes their
advice.
And your evidence they do is?
Are you actually that stupid or are you being obtuse?
--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Graeme Wall
2011-02-09 09:58:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Roland Perry
Post by William Black
Post by Joe Curry
....Seven of Britain's leading airlines have warned the government not
to sell Nats, the national air traffic control service, arguing that
the system is a key strategic asset not suitable for full
privatisation....
How would they know?
Apart from owning 42% of it, you mean?
The security of the state is not their business and they have little or
no expertise in the area.
Problem is, neither does the Government.
The government employs people who are,
ITYM 'who have'...
Post by William Black
and the government takes their
advice.
And your evidence they do is?
Are you actually that stupid or are you being obtuse?
Personal abuse is always such a good way of making your point isn't it.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Photo galleries at <http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net>
tim....
2011-02-09 10:37:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Roland Perry
Post by William Black
Post by Joe Curry
....Seven of Britain's leading airlines have warned the government not
to sell Nats, the national air traffic control service, arguing that
the system is a key strategic asset not suitable for full
privatisation....
How would they know?
Apart from owning 42% of it, you mean?
The security of the state is not their business and they have little or
no expertise in the area.
Problem is, neither does the Government.
The government employs people who are,
ITYM 'who have'...
Post by William Black
and the government takes their
advice.
And your evidence they do is?
Are you actually that stupid or are you being obtuse?
Personal abuse is always such a good way of making your point isn't it.
Yeabut, the idea that the government systematically employs advisors and
then ignores them is unlikely. Asking for evidence that this isn't what
happens is just plain silly.

tim
Graeme Wall
2011-02-09 11:26:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim....
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Roland Perry
Post by William Black
Post by Joe Curry
....Seven of Britain's leading airlines have warned the government not
to sell Nats, the national air traffic control service, arguing that
the system is a key strategic asset not suitable for full
privatisation....
How would they know?
Apart from owning 42% of it, you mean?
The security of the state is not their business and they have little or
no expertise in the area.
Problem is, neither does the Government.
The government employs people who are,
ITYM 'who have'...
Post by William Black
and the government takes their
advice.
And your evidence they do is?
Are you actually that stupid or are you being obtuse?
Personal abuse is always such a good way of making your point isn't it.
Yeabut, the idea that the government systematically employs advisors and
then ignores them is unlikely.
Not unlikely at all. One flagrant example is the reccommended number of
units of alcohol a week it is safe to drink. The politicians didn't
like the figures the medical profession came up with because it didn't
fit their tabloid 'binge-drinking Britain' agenda so they unilaterally
halved them.
Post by tim....
Asking for evidence that this isn't what
happens is just plain silly.
In the light of the above I don't think it is silly.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Photo galleries at <http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net>
tim....
2011-02-09 14:06:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by tim....
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Roland Perry
Post by William Black
Post by Joe Curry
....Seven of Britain's leading airlines have warned the
government
not
to sell Nats, the national air traffic control service, arguing that
the system is a key strategic asset not suitable for full
privatisation....
How would they know?
Apart from owning 42% of it, you mean?
The security of the state is not their business and they have little or
no expertise in the area.
Problem is, neither does the Government.
The government employs people who are,
ITYM 'who have'...
Post by William Black
and the government takes their
advice.
And your evidence they do is?
Are you actually that stupid or are you being obtuse?
Personal abuse is always such a good way of making your point isn't it.
Yeabut, the idea that the government systematically employs advisors and
then ignores them is unlikely.
Not unlikely at all. One flagrant example is the reccommended number of
units of alcohol a week it is safe to drink. The politicians didn't like
the figures the medical profession came up with because it didn't fit
their tabloid 'binge-drinking Britain' agenda so they unilaterally halved
them.
I think you need to look up the definition of systematically .

tim
Graeme Wall
2011-02-09 14:55:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim....
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by tim....
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Roland Perry
Post by William Black
Post by Joe Curry
....Seven of Britain's leading airlines have warned the
government
not
to sell Nats, the national air traffic control service, arguing that
the system is a key strategic asset not suitable for full
privatisation....
How would they know?
Apart from owning 42% of it, you mean?
The security of the state is not their business and they have little or
no expertise in the area.
Problem is, neither does the Government.
The government employs people who are,
ITYM 'who have'...
Post by William Black
and the government takes their
advice.
And your evidence they do is?
Are you actually that stupid or are you being obtuse?
Personal abuse is always such a good way of making your point isn't it.
Yeabut, the idea that the government systematically employs advisors and
then ignores them is unlikely.
Not unlikely at all. One flagrant example is the reccommended number of
units of alcohol a week it is safe to drink. The politicians didn't like
the figures the medical profession came up with because it didn't fit
their tabloid 'binge-drinking Britain' agenda so they unilaterally halved
them.
I think you need to look up the definition of systematically .
Dodgy Dossier anyone? The Falkland's War happened because the then
government ignored the warnings from it's advisors and sent all the
wrong signals to the junta in Buenos Aires. Arguably the second world
war happened because the Chamberlain administration ignored the warnings
about Hitler's ambitions for far too long. And these are just the
headline examples.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Photo galleries at <http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net>
William Black
2011-02-09 16:41:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim....
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Roland Perry
Post by William Black
Post by Joe Curry
....Seven of Britain's leading airlines have warned the
government
not
to sell Nats, the national air traffic control service, arguing that
the system is a key strategic asset not suitable for full
privatisation....
How would they know?
Apart from owning 42% of it, you mean?
The security of the state is not their business and they have little or
no expertise in the area.
Problem is, neither does the Government.
The government employs people who are,
ITYM 'who have'...
Post by William Black
and the government takes their
advice.
And your evidence they do is?
Are you actually that stupid or are you being obtuse?
Personal abuse is always such a good way of making your point isn't it.
Yeabut, the idea that the government systematically employs advisors and
then ignores them is unlikely.
Not unlikely at all. One flagrant example is the reccommended number of
units of alcohol a week it is safe to drink. The politicians didn't like
the figures the medical profession came up with because it didn't fit
their tabloid 'binge-drinking Britain' agenda so they unilaterally
halved them.
Goodness, you really are that stupid!
--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Graeme Wall
2011-02-09 21:14:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim....
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Roland Perry
Post by William Black
Post by Joe Curry
....Seven of Britain's leading airlines have warned the
government
not
to sell Nats, the national air traffic control service, arguing that
the system is a key strategic asset not suitable for full
privatisation....
How would they know?
Apart from owning 42% of it, you mean?
The security of the state is not their business and they have little or
no expertise in the area.
Problem is, neither does the Government.
The government employs people who are,
ITYM 'who have'...
Post by William Black
and the government takes their
advice.
And your evidence they do is?
Are you actually that stupid or are you being obtuse?
Personal abuse is always such a good way of making your point isn't it.
Yeabut, the idea that the government systematically employs advisors and
then ignores them is unlikely.
Not unlikely at all. One flagrant example is the reccommended number of
units of alcohol a week it is safe to drink. The politicians didn't like
the figures the medical profession came up with because it didn't fit
their tabloid 'binge-drinking Britain' agenda so they unilaterally
halved them.
Goodness, you really are that stupid!
Justify that remark if you can. What is stupid about reporting the facts?
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Photo galleries at <http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net>
William Black
2011-02-10 07:42:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim....
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Roland Perry
Post by William Black
Post by Joe Curry
....Seven of Britain's leading airlines have warned the
government
not
to sell Nats, the national air traffic control service,
arguing
that
the system is a key strategic asset not suitable for full
privatisation....
How would they know?
Apart from owning 42% of it, you mean?
The security of the state is not their business and they have little or
no expertise in the area.
Problem is, neither does the Government.
The government employs people who are,
ITYM 'who have'...
Post by William Black
and the government takes their
advice.
And your evidence they do is?
Are you actually that stupid or are you being obtuse?
Personal abuse is always such a good way of making your point isn't it.
Yeabut, the idea that the government systematically employs advisors and
then ignores them is unlikely.
Not unlikely at all. One flagrant example is the reccommended number of
units of alcohol a week it is safe to drink. The politicians didn't like
the figures the medical profession came up with because it didn't fit
their tabloid 'binge-drinking Britain' agenda so they unilaterally
halved them.
Goodness, you really are that stupid!
Justify that remark if you can. What is stupid about reporting the facts?
The process is remarkably similar in all these cases. They run on rails...

Here's how this one will go:

1. Objection on security grounds.

Answer: Appearance by Air Vice Marshall Sir Tarquin Handlebar-Moustache
before commons select committee saying "For reasons of national security
that I cannot divulge, Oh no it isn't".

2. Objection on the grounds of Health and Safety:

Answer: Appearance before a commons select committee by Lord
Clashing-Gears, emeritus professor of Stuff Going Wrong at Imperial
saying 'No greater risk than before, indeed it may even be safer."

3. Objection on the grounds of cost.

Answer: Appearance before a common's select committee by Dr
Heartless-Bastard, senior economic advisor to HM Treasury who says
"Actually, we'll make a fortune."

This is all followed by the privatisation. Anyone who buys the shares
will make money.

Sir Tarquin, Lord Clashing-Gears and Dr Heartless-Bastard all get seats
on the board of the British Aerospace/SERCO/Hunting subsidiary that runs
the system when they retire from government service.

Costs to the airlines go up about 15%, which is passed straight onto
the cost of the tickets.

No conspiracy, no evil politicians, just people doing their jobs...
--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Graeme Wall
2011-02-10 07:57:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim....
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Roland Perry
Post by William Black
Post by Joe Curry
....Seven of Britain's leading airlines have warned the
government
not
to sell Nats, the national air traffic control service,
arguing
that
the system is a key strategic asset not suitable for full
privatisation....
How would they know?
Apart from owning 42% of it, you mean?
The security of the state is not their business and they have little or
no expertise in the area.
Problem is, neither does the Government.
The government employs people who are,
ITYM 'who have'...
Post by William Black
and the government takes their
advice.
And your evidence they do is?
Are you actually that stupid or are you being obtuse?
Personal abuse is always such a good way of making your point isn't it.
Yeabut, the idea that the government systematically employs advisors and
then ignores them is unlikely.
Not unlikely at all. One flagrant example is the reccommended number of
units of alcohol a week it is safe to drink. The politicians didn't like
the figures the medical profession came up with because it didn't fit
their tabloid 'binge-drinking Britain' agenda so they unilaterally
halved them.
Goodness, you really are that stupid!
Justify that remark if you can. What is stupid about reporting the facts?
The process is remarkably similar in all these cases. They run on rails...
1. Objection on security grounds.
Answer: Appearance by Air Vice Marshall Sir Tarquin Handlebar-Moustache
before commons select committee saying "For reasons of national security
that I cannot divulge, Oh no it isn't".
Answer: Appearance before a commons select committee by Lord
Clashing-Gears, emeritus professor of Stuff Going Wrong at Imperial
saying 'No greater risk than before, indeed it may even be safer."
3. Objection on the grounds of cost.
Answer: Appearance before a common's select committee by Dr
Heartless-Bastard, senior economic advisor to HM Treasury who says
"Actually, we'll make a fortune."
This is all followed by the privatisation. Anyone who buys the shares
will make money.
Sir Tarquin, Lord Clashing-Gears and Dr Heartless-Bastard all get seats
on the board of the British Aerospace/SERCO/Hunting subsidiary that runs
the system when they retire from government service.
Costs to the airlines go up about 15%, which is passed straight onto the
cost of the tickets.
No conspiracy, no evil politicians, just people doing their jobs...
And the relevance to the discussion of all this tosh is?
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Photo galleries at <http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net>
William Black
2011-02-10 08:08:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by tim....
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Roland Perry
Post by William Black
Post by Joe Curry
....Seven of Britain's leading airlines have warned the
government
not
to sell Nats, the national air traffic control service,
arguing
that
the system is a key strategic asset not suitable for full
privatisation....
How would they know?
Apart from owning 42% of it, you mean?
The security of the state is not their business and they have
little or
no expertise in the area.
Problem is, neither does the Government.
The government employs people who are,
ITYM 'who have'...
Post by William Black
and the government takes their
advice.
And your evidence they do is?
Are you actually that stupid or are you being obtuse?
Personal abuse is always such a good way of making your point isn't it.
Yeabut, the idea that the government systematically employs advisors and
then ignores them is unlikely.
Not unlikely at all. One flagrant example is the reccommended number of
units of alcohol a week it is safe to drink. The politicians didn't like
the figures the medical profession came up with because it didn't fit
their tabloid 'binge-drinking Britain' agenda so they unilaterally
halved them.
Goodness, you really are that stupid!
Justify that remark if you can. What is stupid about reporting the facts?
The process is remarkably similar in all these cases. They run on rails...
1. Objection on security grounds.
Answer: Appearance by Air Vice Marshall Sir Tarquin Handlebar-Moustache
before commons select committee saying "For reasons of national security
that I cannot divulge, Oh no it isn't".
Answer: Appearance before a commons select committee by Lord
Clashing-Gears, emeritus professor of Stuff Going Wrong at Imperial
saying 'No greater risk than before, indeed it may even be safer."
3. Objection on the grounds of cost.
Answer: Appearance before a common's select committee by Dr
Heartless-Bastard, senior economic advisor to HM Treasury who says
"Actually, we'll make a fortune."
This is all followed by the privatisation. Anyone who buys the shares
will make money.
Sir Tarquin, Lord Clashing-Gears and Dr Heartless-Bastard all get seats
on the board of the British Aerospace/SERCO/Hunting subsidiary that runs
the system when they retire from government service.
Costs to the airlines go up about 15%, which is passed straight onto the
cost of the tickets.
No conspiracy, no evil politicians, just people doing their jobs...
And the relevance to the discussion of all this tosh is?
If you're too stupid to understand it you're not fit to take part in the
discussion.
--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Graeme Wall
2011-02-10 08:33:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by tim....
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
14:54:21 on
Post by William Black
Post by Joe Curry
....Seven of Britain's leading airlines have warned the
government
not
to sell Nats, the national air traffic control service,
arguing
that
the system is a key strategic asset not suitable for full
privatisation....
How would they know?
Apart from owning 42% of it, you mean?
The security of the state is not their business and they have
little or
no expertise in the area.
Problem is, neither does the Government.
The government employs people who are,
ITYM 'who have'...
Post by William Black
and the government takes their
advice.
And your evidence they do is?
Are you actually that stupid or are you being obtuse?
Personal abuse is always such a good way of making your point isn't it.
Yeabut, the idea that the government systematically employs advisors and
then ignores them is unlikely.
Not unlikely at all. One flagrant example is the reccommended number of
units of alcohol a week it is safe to drink. The politicians didn't like
the figures the medical profession came up with because it didn't fit
their tabloid 'binge-drinking Britain' agenda so they unilaterally
halved them.
Goodness, you really are that stupid!
Justify that remark if you can. What is stupid about reporting the facts?
The process is remarkably similar in all these cases. They run on rails...
1. Objection on security grounds.
Answer: Appearance by Air Vice Marshall Sir Tarquin Handlebar-Moustache
before commons select committee saying "For reasons of national security
that I cannot divulge, Oh no it isn't".
Answer: Appearance before a commons select committee by Lord
Clashing-Gears, emeritus professor of Stuff Going Wrong at Imperial
saying 'No greater risk than before, indeed it may even be safer."
3. Objection on the grounds of cost.
Answer: Appearance before a common's select committee by Dr
Heartless-Bastard, senior economic advisor to HM Treasury who says
"Actually, we'll make a fortune."
This is all followed by the privatisation. Anyone who buys the shares
will make money.
Sir Tarquin, Lord Clashing-Gears and Dr Heartless-Bastard all get seats
on the board of the British Aerospace/SERCO/Hunting subsidiary that runs
the system when they retire from government service.
Costs to the airlines go up about 15%, which is passed straight onto the
cost of the tickets.
No conspiracy, no evil politicians, just people doing their jobs...
And the relevance to the discussion of all this tosh is?
If you're too stupid to understand it you're not fit to take part in the
discussion.
In other words you have no answer so have to resort to insults.

I ask again what has this tosh got to do with whether government takes
notice of its advisors?
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Photo galleries at <http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net>
William Black
2011-02-10 08:57:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by tim....
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
14:54:21 on
Post by William Black
Post by Joe Curry
....Seven of Britain's leading airlines have warned the
government
not
to sell Nats, the national air traffic control service,
arguing
that
the system is a key strategic asset not suitable for full
privatisation....
How would they know?
Apart from owning 42% of it, you mean?
The security of the state is not their business and they have
little or
no expertise in the area.
Problem is, neither does the Government.
The government employs people who are,
ITYM 'who have'...
Post by William Black
and the government takes their
advice.
And your evidence they do is?
Are you actually that stupid or are you being obtuse?
Personal abuse is always such a good way of making your point
isn't
it.
Yeabut, the idea that the government systematically employs
advisors
and
then ignores them is unlikely.
Not unlikely at all. One flagrant example is the reccommended number of
units of alcohol a week it is safe to drink. The politicians didn't like
the figures the medical profession came up with because it didn't fit
their tabloid 'binge-drinking Britain' agenda so they unilaterally
halved them.
Goodness, you really are that stupid!
Justify that remark if you can. What is stupid about reporting the facts?
The process is remarkably similar in all these cases. They run on rails...
1. Objection on security grounds.
Answer: Appearance by Air Vice Marshall Sir Tarquin Handlebar-Moustache
before commons select committee saying "For reasons of national security
that I cannot divulge, Oh no it isn't".
Answer: Appearance before a commons select committee by Lord
Clashing-Gears, emeritus professor of Stuff Going Wrong at Imperial
saying 'No greater risk than before, indeed it may even be safer."
3. Objection on the grounds of cost.
Answer: Appearance before a common's select committee by Dr
Heartless-Bastard, senior economic advisor to HM Treasury who says
"Actually, we'll make a fortune."
This is all followed by the privatisation. Anyone who buys the shares
will make money.
Sir Tarquin, Lord Clashing-Gears and Dr Heartless-Bastard all get seats
on the board of the British Aerospace/SERCO/Hunting subsidiary that runs
the system when they retire from government service.
Costs to the airlines go up about 15%, which is passed straight onto the
cost of the tickets.
No conspiracy, no evil politicians, just people doing their jobs...
And the relevance to the discussion of all this tosh is?
If you're too stupid to understand it you're not fit to take part in the
discussion.
In other words you have no answer so have to resort to insults.
Nope.

You're too stupid to understand.

You have proved this quite comprhensively.

Now go away and play.
--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Graeme Wall
2011-02-10 09:12:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by tim....
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
14:54:21 on
Post by William Black
Post by Joe Curry
....Seven of Britain's leading airlines have warned the
government
not
to sell Nats, the national air traffic control service,
arguing
that
the system is a key strategic asset not suitable for full
privatisation....
How would they know?
Apart from owning 42% of it, you mean?
The security of the state is not their business and they have
little or
no expertise in the area.
Problem is, neither does the Government.
The government employs people who are,
ITYM 'who have'...
Post by William Black
and the government takes their
advice.
And your evidence they do is?
Are you actually that stupid or are you being obtuse?
Personal abuse is always such a good way of making your point
isn't
it.
Yeabut, the idea that the government systematically employs
advisors
and
then ignores them is unlikely.
Not unlikely at all. One flagrant example is the reccommended number of
units of alcohol a week it is safe to drink. The politicians didn't like
the figures the medical profession came up with because it didn't fit
their tabloid 'binge-drinking Britain' agenda so they unilaterally
halved them.
Goodness, you really are that stupid!
Justify that remark if you can. What is stupid about reporting the facts?
The process is remarkably similar in all these cases. They run on rails...
1. Objection on security grounds.
Answer: Appearance by Air Vice Marshall Sir Tarquin
Handlebar-Moustache
before commons select committee saying "For reasons of national security
that I cannot divulge, Oh no it isn't".
Answer: Appearance before a commons select committee by Lord
Clashing-Gears, emeritus professor of Stuff Going Wrong at Imperial
saying 'No greater risk than before, indeed it may even be safer."
3. Objection on the grounds of cost.
Answer: Appearance before a common's select committee by Dr
Heartless-Bastard, senior economic advisor to HM Treasury who says
"Actually, we'll make a fortune."
This is all followed by the privatisation. Anyone who buys the shares
will make money.
Sir Tarquin, Lord Clashing-Gears and Dr Heartless-Bastard all get seats
on the board of the British Aerospace/SERCO/Hunting subsidiary that runs
the system when they retire from government service.
Costs to the airlines go up about 15%, which is passed straight onto the
cost of the tickets.
No conspiracy, no evil politicians, just people doing their jobs...
And the relevance to the discussion of all this tosh is?
If you're too stupid to understand it you're not fit to take part in the
discussion.
In other words you have no answer so have to resort to insults.
Nope.
You're too stupid to understand.
You have proved this quite comprhensively.
Now go away and play.
More insults because you haven't got an answer. Do you even understand
the question?
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Photo galleries at <http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net>
Roland Perry
2011-02-08 20:59:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Roland Perry
Post by William Black
Post by Joe Curry
....Seven of Britain's leading airlines have warned the government not
to sell Nats, the national air traffic control service, arguing that
the system is a key strategic asset not suitable for full
privatisation....
How would they know?
Apart from owning 42% of it, you mean?
The security of the state is not their business and they have little or
no expertise in the area.
Problem is, neither does the Government.
The government employs people who are, and the government takes their
advice.
And why do you think the airlines don't employ such people?
--
Roland Perry
William Black
2011-02-09 09:14:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by William Black
Post by Roland Perry
Post by William Black
Post by Joe Curry
....Seven of Britain's leading airlines have warned the
government not
to sell Nats, the national air traffic control service, arguing that
the system is a key strategic asset not suitable for full
privatisation....
How would they know?
Apart from owning 42% of it, you mean?
The security of the state is not their business and they have little or
no expertise in the area.
Problem is, neither does the Government.
The government employs people who are, and the government takes their
advice.
And why do you think the airlines don't employ such people?
Because they have no need to and it would be a waste of money.

Airlines are not in the busienss of deciding security policy for the nation.
--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Roland Perry
2011-02-09 11:12:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Roland Perry
Post by William Black
The government employs people who are,
[experts in security]
Post by William Black
Post by Roland Perry
Post by William Black
and the government takes their
advice.
And why do you think the airlines don't employ such people?
Because they have no need to and it would be a waste of money.
Security is a major part of an airline's operations - of course they
have relevant experts.
Post by William Black
Airlines are not in the busienss of deciding security policy for the nation.
They can (and do) lobby, and are tasked with much of the implementation.
Selective dragging of feet (or over-enthusiasm) in the latter can be
regarded as "deciding what's necessary to do", in the real world.
--
Roland Perry
William Black
2011-02-09 16:40:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by William Black
Post by Roland Perry
Post by William Black
The government employs people who are,
[experts in security]
Post by William Black
Post by Roland Perry
Post by William Black
and the government takes their
advice.
And why do you think the airlines don't employ such people?
Because they have no need to and it would be a waste of money.
Security is a major part of an airline's operations - of course they
have relevant experts.
In personal and physical security, yes.

However the security of the nation state is not about who has the key to
the server room...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by William Black
Airlines are not in the busienss of deciding security policy for the nation.
They can (and do) lobby, and are tasked with much of the implementation.
Selective dragging of feet (or over-enthusiasm) in the latter can be
regarded as "deciding what's necessary to do", in the real world.
They lobby in much the same way a bus company lobbies about traffic
lights and bus lanes, from a position of 'I want to make more money'.
--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Roland Perry
2011-02-09 17:20:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Roland Perry
Security is a major part of an airline's operations - of course they
have relevant experts.
In personal and physical security, yes.
However the security of the nation state is not about who has the key
to the server room...
Agreed, but they will have experts on all aspects.
Post by William Black
Post by Roland Perry
Post by William Black
Airlines are not in the busienss of deciding security policy for the nation.
They can (and do) lobby, and are tasked with much of the implementation.
Selective dragging of feet (or over-enthusiasm) in the latter can be
regarded as "deciding what's necessary to do", in the real world.
They lobby in much the same way a bus company lobbies about traffic
lights and bus lanes, from a position of 'I want to make more money'.
It's not quite the same. They will, for example, lobby from a point of
view that "we'll do what's necessary, but our experts say this aspect
isn't, so we can save money by doing it differently".
--
Roland Perry
William Black
2011-02-10 07:44:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Roland Perry
Security is a major part of an airline's operations - of course they
have relevant experts.
In personal and physical security, yes.
However the security of the nation state is not about who has the key
to the server room...
Agreed, but they will have experts on all aspects.
Why on earth would a commercial airline have experts on national security?

And how do they get access to the classified information that is used
when decisions affecting national security are made?

They're running a flash bus company.
--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Graham Harrison
2011-02-10 07:57:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Roland Perry
Security is a major part of an airline's operations - of course they
have relevant experts.
In personal and physical security, yes.
However the security of the nation state is not about who has the key
to the server room...
Agreed, but they will have experts on all aspects.
Why on earth would a commercial airline have experts on national security?
And how do they get access to the classified information that is used when
decisions affecting national security are made?
They're running a flash bus company.
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat single
handed with a quarterstaff.
Do you remember the BA flight to Washington that was under threat a few
years ago? I am certain that the original tip-off to BA came from the
National Security Services. It went to the Security Department in BA who
worked with the National Service to determine what action to take.
Security at airlines covers a wide remit. They monitor world news as well
as receiving tips like the one mentioned. They also monitor their own
staff. They look at ticket purchasing patterns. They watch forms of
payment. In the case of BA while they are a private company they are seen
by many people as being part of Britain and that puts them in the position
of being part of the national risk and therefore they are party to elements
of national security information.
William Black
2011-02-10 08:14:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham Harrison
Post by William Black
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Roland Perry
Security is a major part of an airline's operations - of course they
have relevant experts.
In personal and physical security, yes.
However the security of the nation state is not about who has the key
to the server room...
Agreed, but they will have experts on all aspects.
Why on earth would a commercial airline have experts on national security?
And how do they get access to the classified information that is used
when decisions affecting national security are made?
They're running a flash bus company.
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Do you remember the BA flight to Washington that was under threat a few
years ago? I am certain that the original tip-off to BA came from the
National Security Services.
Quite possibly.

It was certainly not a matter relating to the security of the state, it
was a matter involving a criminal attempt to kill people.

It went to the Security Department in BA who
Post by Graham Harrison
worked with the National Service to determine what action to take.
Ho ho ho...

'Worked with'.

Love that.

"Hello, I'm from MI-5 and we'd like to work with you..."

This means:

"Do exactly as we say and you may stay out of jail..."
Post by Graham Harrison
Security at airlines covers a wide remit. They monitor world news as
well as receiving tips like the one mentioned.
The BBC monitors world news from Caversham Park and passes the
information to the Security Service.

Airline security staff read the papers.

They also monitor their
Post by Graham Harrison
own staff. They look at ticket purchasing patterns. They watch forms of
payment. In the case of BA while they are a private company they are
seen by many people as being part of Britain and that puts them in the
position of being part of the national risk and therefore they are party
to elements of national security information.
Some, yes, they have no access to intelligence information, neither
do they have any idea of the requirements or threats facing the military
or access to military contingency planning information.
--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Roland Perry
2011-02-10 08:56:07 UTC
Permalink
they have no access to intelligence information, neither do they have
any idea of the requirements or threats facing the military or access
to military contingency planning information.
You keep reducing the scope of what you mean by "security", but even
that very limited subset isn't true, especially if the security staff in
question are ex-military (ie they will know the type of threats and have
an appreciation of the contingencies which are planned for). And that
information is available outside of the military, too.
--
Roland Perry
William Black
2011-02-10 09:20:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
they have no access to intelligence information, neither do they have
any idea of the requirements or threats facing the military or access
to military contingency planning information.
You keep reducing the scope of what you mean by "security",
No. I think I said 'the security of the nation state' very early in the
discussion.

but even
Post by Roland Perry
that very limited subset isn't true, especially if the security staff in
question are ex-military (ie they will know the type of threats and have
an appreciation of the contingencies which are planned for).
But they will NOT have access to the current information.

And that
Post by Roland Perry
information is available outside of the military, too.
Some is, some isn't.

The point I keep making is that the security of the state is not a mater
for an airline.

They aren't for that.

If they're spending the kind of money a nation state spends on security
evaluation the shareholders are getting robbed.

The airline's input into all of this is limited to what happens to the
aircraft and how their check-in staff treat people, and most check-in
staff these days don't actually work directly for the airlines.

Physical security and passenger security checks are a matter for the
airport rather than the airline.

The major input into any debate about the ownership of the air traffic
control system will be from the air force who have their own air traffic
control system and who will know exactly how any ownership issues will
affect the overall air traffic control system.
--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Roland Perry
2011-02-11 09:45:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Roland Perry
they have no access to intelligence information, neither do they have
any idea of the requirements or threats facing the military or access
to military contingency planning information.
You keep reducing the scope of what you mean by "security",
No. I think I said 'the security of the nation state' very early in
the discussion.
Very early on we were talking about the "security" implications of
selling off NATs. That's something a relevant "security expert" can give
a useful opinion on, without having seen the most very recent daily MI5
briefings. But someone with that background will know all the main
arguments from their previous experience.
Post by William Black
The point I keep making is that the security of the state is not a
mater for an airline.
They aren't for that.
They are required to make various checks on staff and customers, with at
the very least an excuse by party politicians that this is in the name
of national security.
Post by William Black
If they're spending the kind of money a nation state spends on security
evaluation the shareholders are getting robbed.
So what they need to evaluate is how *much* resource they need to commit
to this.
--
Roland Perry
William Black
2011-02-11 18:27:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by William Black
They aren't for that.
They are required to make various checks on staff and customers, with at
the very least an excuse by party politicians that this is in the name
of national security.
Ho ho ho...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by William Black
If they're spending the kind of money a nation state spends on
security evaluation the shareholders are getting robbed.
So what they need to evaluate is how *much* resource they need to commit
to this.
They know.

None.

They're running a bus company
--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Roland Perry
2011-02-11 21:26:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Roland Perry
Post by William Black
If they're spending the kind of money a nation state spends on
security evaluation the shareholders are getting robbed.
So what they need to evaluate is how *much* resource they need to commit
to this.
They know.
None.
Airlines with no security - what a strange concept for any air traveller
to get his head around.
Post by William Black
They're running a bus company
Actually, they are also running NATS; remember, the 42% shareholding.
--
Roland Perry
William Black
2011-02-12 08:15:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by William Black
Post by Roland Perry
Post by William Black
If they're spending the kind of money a nation state spends on
security evaluation the shareholders are getting robbed.
So what they need to evaluate is how *much* resource they need to commit
to this.
They know.
None.
Airlines with no security - what a strange concept for any air traveller
to get his head around.
Post by William Black
They're running a bus company
Actually, they are also running NATS; remember, the 42% shareholding.
If you think shareholders run a company's operations you are actually
dafter than I thought.
--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Roland Perry
2011-02-12 09:47:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Roland Perry
Post by William Black
They're running a bus company
Actually, they are also running NATS; remember, the 42% shareholding.
If you think shareholders run a company's operations you are actually
dafter than I thought.
There seems to be little point in being a shareholder in this sort of
situation unless you are allowed to use it to influence the way the
company operates[1]. Indeed, the shareholders' shareholders would expect
it.

[1] Or in the immediate case in point, use your position as a
knowledgeable shareholder to lobby government because you think
something bad's going to happen.
--
Roland Perry
William Black
2011-02-12 16:34:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by William Black
Post by William Black
They're running a bus company
Actually
, they are also running NATS; remember, the 42% shareholding.
Post by Roland Perry
If you think shareholders run a company's operations you are actually
dafter than I thought.
There seems to be little point in being a shareholder in this sort of
situation unless you are allowed to use it to influence the way the
company operates
How?

Ring up the boss and say 'If you don't do what I want I'll have you
sacked at the next AGM, no matter how much money you make me?"

Have you considered living in the real world?
--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Roland Perry
2011-02-12 17:36:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Roland Perry
There seems to be little point in being a shareholder in this sort of
situation unless you are allowed to use it to influence the way the
company operates
How?
Ring up the boss and say 'If you don't do what I want I'll have you
sacked at the next AGM, no matter how much money you make me?"
Have you considered living in the real world?
It would seem to me to be more useful discussing company governance
(where it's generally regarded that a 42% stakeholding is quite
decisive) than posting infantile insults.
--
Roland Perry
William Black
2011-02-12 17:49:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by William Black
Post by Roland Perry
There seems to be little point in being a shareholder in this sort of
situation unless you are allowed to use it to influence the way the
company operates
How?
Ring up the boss and say 'If you don't do what I want I'll have you
sacked at the next AGM, no matter how much money you make me?"
Have you considered living in the real world?
It would seem to me to be more useful discussing company governance
(where it's generally regarded that a 42% stakeholding is quite
decisive) than posting infantile insults.
I'm afraid what you've said so far in this conversation only warrants
infantile insults.
--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Roland Perry
2011-02-12 18:14:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
I'm afraid what you've said so far in this conversation only warrants
infantile insults.
Let me know when you reach Australia.
--
Roland Perry
Loading...