It Didn’t Happen 83


If you thought that Nicola Sturgeon repeatedly mentioned the waste of money – 100 billion pounds – on updating the Trident nuclear missile system, during the leaders’ debate, plainly you need to be committed to a state mental institution. It is unthinkable that Britain’s possession of nuclear weapons should ever be questioned on British mainstream media.

It is so unthinkable, that IT NEVER HAPPENED. Not one British mainstream media report of the debate mentions Trident missiles or nuclear weapons. A Google news search on trident missiles or on nuclear weapons throws up zero references to the leaders’ debate or Nicola Sturgeon in British mainstream media today. Not one of the broadcasters’ highlight packages repeated Nicola’s outrage at the country’s throwing away money on weapons of mass destruction when so many children are living in poverty.

The media manage to report the many polls and commentators that say she won the debate, while suppressing what she actually said.

So there is nothing to see here. Go back to sleep. IT NEVER HAPPENED. YOU IMAGINED IT. IT NEVER HAPPENED.

Seriously, is that not really, really sickening and deeply, deeply scary?


83 thoughts on “It Didn’t Happen

1 2 3
  • Habbabkuk (La vita e' bella)

    Mr Goss and others

    The UK does not even spend 2% of GNP on defence.

    What is the figure for the deeply pacifist and unthreatening Russian Federation?

  • lysias

    And it’s because the Cold War is over and the military threat from Russia has ended that military budgets can be much smaller than they were during the Cold War.

  • Habbabkuk (La vita e' bella)

    I think people will find that that UK spending on defence as a percentage of GNP has declined rather more than Russian spending on same.

    Moreover, in the light of recent events, I would be less optimistic than some that the military threat from Russia has ended. Perhaps the Bear has only been in hibernation….

  • lysias

    As long as U.S. military spending remains as high as it is, and is likely to remain, the major reason for high military spending by the UK is so that the politicians running the UK can be admitted to high-level discussions and so that their vanity is maintained.

    And even if Russia retains some military clout (and they have to worry about competing with the U.S. militarily, something that allies of the U.S. do not need to do,) Russia is no longer Communist. It no longer has any desire to revolutionize the world.

  • Mary

    The Mail has this front page headline tomorrow

    ‘Is This The Most Dangerous Woman in Britain’ above a photo of Nicola Sturgeon.

    !!!!!

  • Iain Orr

    Mary

    The Mail got it right – she is, thank goodness. One way of measuring The Great Debate is the cliché count. David Cameron won it by a considerable margin; Nicola Stewart wasn’t even competing.

  • Mary

    Correction on the Mail headline.

    Online they ask the question – ‘Is womanhood the most dangerous woman in Britain’.

    The print version baldly states – Most Dangerous Woman in Britain’

  • Mary

    Damned predictive text!! You have to watch it like a hawk.

    ‘Is this the most dangerous woman in Britain’

  • RobG

    @Mary
    3 Apr, 2015 – 10:56 pm

    DA DA DAH!

    God, I’m so stressed out! as well as all those muslim bogeymen coming to get me, I’ve also got the Scottish fiend who will be trying to suck the fluids out of my body!!!

    I’m still living in the cupboard under the stairs, and as well as extra torch batteries, and copies of the Bible, I will also have the latest editions of the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph, so that I can keep informed and my way of life won’t be destroyed.

  • glenn_uk

    It’s a lot easier on my setup, Mary – no spellchecker, no predictive text. Old school.

    *

    Trowbridge wrote, “We are told that the recovered FDR corroborates everything and more that the BBC et al. have already claimed, though there not even a photo of it…

    A little later… “Have found photos of the FRD on DM

    So the great lack-of-photo conspiracy was not there? Huh. Thought not finding the FDR was supposed to be a big deal – an obvious conspiracy. When it is found, of course it is a fake.

    Dude, I told a joke yesterday, everyone else saw it as one. You saw it as clear evidence of a further conspiracy.

    That _ought_ to tell you everything you need to know about your ability to discern the truth. After all remember the quote:

    “Never, never believe anything you see online, until it is soundly proven elsewhere.” – Winston Churchill.

    *

    Some more lies for you, Trowbridge:

    http://www.france24.com/en/20150403-second-black-box-confirms-germanwings-crash-deliberate/

    Seems the only person now not involved in this massive conspiracy, is your good friend, the innocent, entirely sane Andreas Lubitz.

  • glenn_uk

    @ Tony_0pmoc: It’s not that you are unwelcome, mate. It’s your drunken BS drivel that’s unwelcome. You’ve made excellent posts and references over the years, which have been compelling revelations to me.

    It’s simply that after your usual quota of gut-rot, it’s an embarrassment to read your posts, where you talk about intimate parts of your sex life with your wife and so on. Come on, man – have you ever reviewed this crap in the light of day, while sober? (I trust that there are such occasions.)

  • glenn_uk

    Iain Orr wrote, “That was [Cameron’s] presentation of Conservative plans to save billions by pursuing rich individuals and companies for tax avoidance as if that proved Conservatives wanted all to share in the pain of bringing down the deficit.

    Excellent point. The Tories will be radical and even handed, making the rich and some huge, cash-heavy corporations actually obey the law, sometimes anyway, or at the very least strike a deal with them. But in the meantime, of course, they’ll publicly talk about their much more important goal of making that aspect of the law a bit easier on them, by cutting tax on the rich. While retaining extremely regressive taxes at high levels, like the Tory’s favourite – VAT.

    As it was written – one law for rich and poor alike, prohibiting them equally from stealing bread and sleeping under bridges.

  • Trowbridge H. Ford

    Thanks for the link, Glenn_UK, which shows that the FDR has been reduced to simply an overcooked black box, proving that it couldn’t have been on the plane with the CVR, a bright orange one.

  • Phil

    That long summer day sparkles like the sun on a jumping trout. Harold and I drank champagne against nurses advise.

  • Abe Rene

    @John Goss “There is no threat from Russia.” Buzzing our airspace and building warplanes that can outclass ours seems definitely threatening to me. Russia senses weakness, hearing of British defense cuts, and so is testing us. We should not fail the test. Therefore we should keep our defences up to date and our deterrent should be an effective one.

  • Habbabkuk (La vita e' bella)

    If Lysias thinks that the not even 2% of GNP spent by the UK on defence is ” high”, how would he describe the percentage of GNP spent by the UK govt on health, social security and education?

  • lysias

    Today’s Washington Post has an article about the UK debate. It claims the only time foreign affairs came up was with respect to the EU. The article does not even mention Trident.

  • John M (NZ)

    Perhaps in historic GDP terms the percentage spent on defence is not that high – but some of the expenditure is totally wasteful. The new aircraft carrier is one, but the major issue is nuclear weapons and the theory of deterrence. I can’t think of any occasion when the use of these missiles would not be associated with the nuclear obliteration of most of the UK. Madness is still madness even when it’s mutual. Perhaps the greatest risk in the possession of these weapons is that they will be turned on oneself. Perhaps an accident, whether conventional with the release of large amounts of plutonium, sterilising thousands of square kilometres, or a partial or full nuclear explosion. Perhaps a terrorist attack or if the country itself is falling apart and some sort of civil war ensues would see this nightmare scenario. Gun ownership in the USA is supposedly a deterrence to assault, injury and murder, yet the huge number of gun deaths in that stupid country, whether accidental, deliberate or suicidal, make the arguments for gun ownership incontrovertibly futile. Get rid of nuclear weapons, we do need more spent on health and education, but if you can’t countenance that, use the money to beef up our conventional forces, or possibly investigated a missile shield system.

  • Mary

    Agree John M (NZ). Just one thing. There are two of them. HMS Prince of Wales is coming along afterwards. Cost? Who knows. Said to be £3billion a throw. Obscene in a country where teachers are bringing in breakfast food for some of their deprived pupils who come to school hungry and wearing inappropriate clothing. Yet we are a rich country.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2972278/Britain-s-new-aircraft-carrier-HMS-Queen-Elizabeth-sighted-River-Forth-6billion-fitting-Royal-Navy-s-biggest-ship-continues.html

1 2 3

Comments are closed.