jbritchfordExcellent point.
Who knows where technology will be in 10 years time, when the propulsion of the 2030s starts being designed?
This concept is something I’m certainly keeping an eye on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SABRE_(rocket_engine)
jbritchfordI got toothpaste in my eye once. It burns and it’s sticky, so you can’t wash it out very easily. Thankfully it was only a small amount, but I didn’t half feel silly afterwards 😀
jbritchfordI got toothpaste in my eye once. It burns and it’s sticky, so you can’t wash it out very easily. Thankfully it was only a small amount, but I didn’t half feel silly afterwards 😀
jbritchfordSo, to drag this back up again…
If the UK decides to revert to the F-35B, does that mean that a carrier based tanker is more, or less useful?
Given the shorter range of the F-35B, being able to top these up for long range strike missions would be useful, but given that the carriers would be set up for STOVL operations then I think the only aircraft that might fit the bill for a RN carrier tanker would be other F-35s or a modified V-22.
Has there been any consideration of converting the V-22 for this role?
jbritchfordOther than a ski-jump on the front of the ship, which isn’t even wholly necessary, what are the associated costs with going back to the STOVL design for the carriers?
jbritchfordI guess given the recent noises coming from London the swap might not be required after all!
Any ideas on when we might get an official answer?
jbritchfordWhere does all the money go from the British budget?
Incompetence and political expediency
jbritchfordGood news.
But I wonder how useful this will be for the UK if we decide to go down the F-35C route?
Will we be able to swap this B with a C for the USN?
jbritchfordLincoln, maybe I wasn’t being clear in what I wrote, so I want to clarify.
When I mentioned DNA, I didn’t mean that it is an invalid form of evidence, quite the opposite. I meant to show that with the introduction of this new evidence, multiple miscarriages of justice have been uncovered, demonstrating how fallible the courts can be. Yes, DNA evidence now makes them less imperfect, but who knows what other forms of evidence will be discovered in future years that would have changed the ways verdicts might have gone? Be it guilty or innocent, verdicts can be wrong, which is why I believe that the death penalty is simply too big a risk to take, to say nothing of giving the state the power to take the life of citizens.
I also meant to challenge to notion that simply giving harsher punishments will reduce re-offending. If reducing re-offending is our aim we should take a step back and examine why prison systems in Norway and other places, with lower recidivism rates, can achieve this. Maybe it is due to cultural difference, maybe it is to do with the prison system, an interaction of these factors, or other things – but until we examine it we won’t know.
Going back to a 19th Century style of crime and punishment, or possibly something even more draconian, seems to be what you are suggesting. Can you provide us any evidence that this is going to help us reduce crime and recidivism?
It seems to me that culture and economic prosperity are two of the major factors in determining crime rates in a community, if we ignore the determining factors and only try to clean up the mess then we aren’t going to reduce crime rates, are we?
jbritchfordLincoln, maybe I wasn’t being clear in what I wrote, so I want to clarify.
When I mentioned DNA, I didn’t mean that it is an invalid form of evidence, quite the opposite. I meant to show that with the introduction of this new evidence, multiple miscarriages of justice have been uncovered, demonstrating how fallible the courts can be. Yes, DNA evidence now makes them less imperfect, but who knows what other forms of evidence will be discovered in future years that would have changed the ways verdicts might have gone? Be it guilty or innocent, verdicts can be wrong, which is why I believe that the death penalty is simply too big a risk to take, to say nothing of giving the state the power to take the life of citizens.
I also meant to challenge to notion that simply giving harsher punishments will reduce re-offending. If reducing re-offending is our aim we should take a step back and examine why prison systems in Norway and other places, with lower recidivism rates, can achieve this. Maybe it is due to cultural difference, maybe it is to do with the prison system, an interaction of these factors, or other things – but until we examine it we won’t know.
Going back to a 19th Century style of crime and punishment, or possibly something even more draconian, seems to be what you are suggesting. Can you provide us any evidence that this is going to help us reduce crime and recidivism?
It seems to me that culture and economic prosperity are two of the major factors in determining crime rates in a community, if we ignore the determining factors and only try to clean up the mess then we aren’t going to reduce crime rates, are we?
jbritchfordI think most nations would though.
jbritchfordJust my tuppence –
It seems to me that for a judicial system that works we need to get back to basics and decide just what our system is for, and what it is trying to achieve. Naturally, I think we all want to live in a society where crime is zero, or where it does exist, offenders can be convinced to not re-offend. But what is the best method?
There is a tendency to go for the knee-jerk reaction of extreme punishment, essentially where society takes its revenge on offenders in an attempt to deter them and others from committing crimes in the future.
Another school of thought, where we should attempt to reform prisoners through education and constructive pursuits is used in some places, notably Norway.
In both cases the desired outcome is the same, to have offenders leaving their time of incarceration and to prevent them from further transgressions. So which method has a lower recidivism rate?
Many studies have concluded that reform is the answer. Even when the death penalty was prescribed as the answer for everything from petty theft upwards, even when Saudi Arabia mutilates thieves and beheads blasphemers, is this enough to stop it from happening? No.
The fact is that creating brutal, punishment oriented environments for offenders only serves to brutalise them further. This and the fact that we have pursued the revenge policy of incarceration over that of reform for decades and centuries without being able to successfully reduce recidivism of crime rates demonstrates to me that a new approach is needed.
This said, it must be recognised that there are some, particularly those who are violent or mentally ill, who must be incarcerated for the protection of society as a whole. In some cases this may mean they are never released, as they simply cannot recover using current methods, and even if they could society may not be willing to take any chances.
The UK seems to be somewhere in the middle of the two extremes, but I still think we need to take a long hard look at it. If we want to have a system that turns offenders into productive members of society again, we shouldn’t simply go for ever harsher punishments if they don’t produce the results we want them to. If you want a revenge system, that’s one thing, but come out and say it and then we can debate its merits. If, however, you want a system to reduce crime and recidivism, we should take a step back and look at examples that actually deliver this.
As for the death penalty, which Phantom II brought up, I’m afraid I have to disagree with him on several counts. Innocent people can and have been convicted of murder in the past, the judicial systems of all nations are imperfect and make mistakes. Since DNA testing was introduced, in the United States alone, 289 people convicted of murder have been found innocent. To hand over such power to a system we know is imperfect is morally wrong, in my opinion. I would supporters of the death penalty to tell us what rate of wrongful execution they would be willing to accept? This is not hyperbole, this is an honest question. We know that courts make mistakes.
I also believe that handing over the power of life and death over citizens to the state is something that we should not grant it. A situation where a person, be they a police officer or otherwise, must use lethal force as a means to protect their life or that of others is one thing, to allow the state to choose individuals and deem them unworthy of further life is both dangerous and an affront to human dignity. To say that this goes through the courts and a jury of peers is simply shifting us back to our other problem – we know that courts make mistakes.
Thirdly, you mention that you don’t want to have to pay to sustain a murderer’s incarceration. I can understand this, but it seems a very weak argument. We all pay for things through our taxes that, if given the choice, we would not. Some people don’t want to contribute so much to social welfare, others might not believe we should spend money on the military, or the arts, or foreign aid. Just because you find it distasteful to have to pay to feed a criminal isn’t a justification for capital punishment. If you want to tackle government spending there are huge number of payouts or tax breaks that could be looked at before we decide the state should be allowed to kill people we find distasteful to save money.
p.s. sorry, this turned into quite the essay :D;)
jbritchfordJust my tuppence –
It seems to me that for a judicial system that works we need to get back to basics and decide just what our system is for, and what it is trying to achieve. Naturally, I think we all want to live in a society where crime is zero, or where it does exist, offenders can be convinced to not re-offend. But what is the best method?
There is a tendency to go for the knee-jerk reaction of extreme punishment, essentially where society takes its revenge on offenders in an attempt to deter them and others from committing crimes in the future.
Another school of thought, where we should attempt to reform prisoners through education and constructive pursuits is used in some places, notably Norway.
In both cases the desired outcome is the same, to have offenders leaving their time of incarceration and to prevent them from further transgressions. So which method has a lower recidivism rate?
Many studies have concluded that reform is the answer. Even when the death penalty was prescribed as the answer for everything from petty theft upwards, even when Saudi Arabia mutilates thieves and beheads blasphemers, is this enough to stop it from happening? No.
The fact is that creating brutal, punishment oriented environments for offenders only serves to brutalise them further. This and the fact that we have pursued the revenge policy of incarceration over that of reform for decades and centuries without being able to successfully reduce recidivism of crime rates demonstrates to me that a new approach is needed.
This said, it must be recognised that there are some, particularly those who are violent or mentally ill, who must be incarcerated for the protection of society as a whole. In some cases this may mean they are never released, as they simply cannot recover using current methods, and even if they could society may not be willing to take any chances.
The UK seems to be somewhere in the middle of the two extremes, but I still think we need to take a long hard look at it. If we want to have a system that turns offenders into productive members of society again, we shouldn’t simply go for ever harsher punishments if they don’t produce the results we want them to. If you want a revenge system, that’s one thing, but come out and say it and then we can debate its merits. If, however, you want a system to reduce crime and recidivism, we should take a step back and look at examples that actually deliver this.
As for the death penalty, which Phantom II brought up, I’m afraid I have to disagree with him on several counts. Innocent people can and have been convicted of murder in the past, the judicial systems of all nations are imperfect and make mistakes. Since DNA testing was introduced, in the United States alone, 289 people convicted of murder have been found innocent. To hand over such power to a system we know is imperfect is morally wrong, in my opinion. I would supporters of the death penalty to tell us what rate of wrongful execution they would be willing to accept? This is not hyperbole, this is an honest question. We know that courts make mistakes.
I also believe that handing over the power of life and death over citizens to the state is something that we should not grant it. A situation where a person, be they a police officer or otherwise, must use lethal force as a means to protect their life or that of others is one thing, to allow the state to choose individuals and deem them unworthy of further life is both dangerous and an affront to human dignity. To say that this goes through the courts and a jury of peers is simply shifting us back to our other problem – we know that courts make mistakes.
Thirdly, you mention that you don’t want to have to pay to sustain a murderer’s incarceration. I can understand this, but it seems a very weak argument. We all pay for things through our taxes that, if given the choice, we would not. Some people don’t want to contribute so much to social welfare, others might not believe we should spend money on the military, or the arts, or foreign aid. Just because you find it distasteful to have to pay to feed a criminal isn’t a justification for capital punishment. If you want to tackle government spending there are huge number of payouts or tax breaks that could be looked at before we decide the state should be allowed to kill people we find distasteful to save money.
p.s. sorry, this turned into quite the essay :D;)
jbritchfordAre we all just supposed to be drones here to service an entity name ‘the economy’?
With people having an extra day off to celebrate I would have thought if anything MORE would be spent on that day. It’s not like any businesses are going to buy any less because of the extra day off, they might put if off for a day, but that’s all.
Sign In
