It’s quite hard to argue here without looking as an apologist, but sadly, history has taught us otherwise. Similar accidents happened before and often no apologies were offered or compensations paid..

In this specific case, it [most probably] wasn’t a state military having done the shot, rather than group of renegades led by a Russian commander (?). Since that would [most likely] mean criminal prosecution and long-term inprisonment for the persons involved, they are trying to cover it up.. Quite different from Iran Air Flight 655 where the men of the Vincennes didn’t need to care about criminal penalty, were awarded Combat Action Ribbons and the air-warfare coordinator on duty received the Navy Commendation Medal and later Legion of Merit, right?

So the argument you and Obligatory make is that because other accidents have occurred that the Russians should be given a pass on this one?. Seriously?. Will it give your tacky little value systems a buzz if I say that the CO of Vincennes should never have been in command of that ship in that theatre that day?. Will it change one thing in this case if the Americans were as guilty of a mis-ID in the Gulf as the Russians were here?.

At what point does Vincennes justify someone giving and using a BVR weapons system to a shooting team without any means of knowing what is beyond visual range?. If anything examples like Vincennes should have popped into dull minds as a likely consequence of their actions dont you think?.

Oh and, MSphere, the crew Combat Action Ribbons and the awards were for combat actions against the Iranian Navy on the same tour as is standard practice.

So your foe uses airplanes to bomb your cities, to drop paratroops or whatever, but you would refuse yourself the right to defend yourself because you didn’t have the civil airliner formations, which you may not even be aware of? If you’re have a hand on air defense systems? How would the average soldier even know some airlines would be silly enough to fly over war zones with air defense systems and military aircrafts operating?

Nic

No Nic its even simpler than that. You don’t fire at an aircraft you haven’t identified as a para-dropper or bomber. That Buk didnt defend the rebels did it?. It killed hundreds of innocent people. You do not have the right to do that!. So the moral of the story is ‘if you dont know what you are shooting at don’t shoot’ that goes even in time of war.

If you misidentify the aircraft, as can happen, then you hold your hands up and say ‘you know what….we got that wrong…..really sorry’ and you pay the penalty deemed equal to your crime. None of this is complicated.

Snafu,

A terrible predicament certainly but the benefit cap for a couple with children is £500 per week. £2000 per month minimum. Thats a gross income of £25,000 a year give or take. To put it in context a police offer with two years service is on about the same money. Its very hard to accept that a jobless couple with 4 kids is in some way hard done to when someone going out and putting in their full working day is no better off isnt it?.

Bit of a blow from the Dutch

I was wondering about what had happened to the steady stream of EU nations that we were given the ‘nod’ would be following us straight out of the EU when we stood up, said our strident ‘NO’ to the Brussels overlords and showed the way out of the ‘rotten edifice’.

I knew that anti-federalism sentiment was strong in the Netherlands from several recent visits…..so I was keen to see how they’d react to our bold leap into the unknown. Guess we know now:

https://euobserver.com/tickers/135294

….looks like they’re a bit smarter than we are.

Now that you’ve tightened the sense up a bit, I see from where you are coming. It is the mortgage that is backed up by an insurance, so that in the event of inability to pay the mortgage because of death or disability or loss of job, the mortgage is paid off or, monthly payments of the mortgage continue to be met.

If you are letting, the mortgage provider has to be told. Risk is not associated with the tenant whether on benefit or not, other than a lessening of risk associated with occupation. Different mortgage providers do tho’ have different rules.

However tortured you want to make this John the outcome is still the same. Mortgage lenders want landlord insurance….whether that’s security for the person or property is irrelevant. Insurance providers will not insure benefit tenants…going from BBC Berks reports last year. This ties the landlords hands, if he has such a mortgage, and creates a situation were properties are sitting vacant when people are desperate for accommodation. That was the point being made.

I don’t think that insurance has got much to do with it. Now that rental benefit goes to the tenant on benefits and not direct to the landlord as it used to, landlords are loathe to let to anyone on benefits. They are witness to their rental income disappearing into fags, booze and exotic substances or, anything else that happens to be the flavour of the moment.

Buy-to-let mortgages demand landlord insurance. No landlord insurance no mortgage. I’m sure the concerns you note apply in some cases…but the insurance is a key issue.

My view is that he is a very sincere man with a very nuanced view on the world and an inability to accept deviation from that. He IS clueless as he refuses to accept the import of any fact that may demand his stance change. That sort of individual in power can be extremely dangerous as they can be read and directed very easily.

The rent model is all well and good but as typical with Labour misses the point. The idea of social housing is not to give people somewhere to live for life. A government cant build everyone a house….its silly to think otherwise. The point of social housing is to address the requirement of those in genuine need. If the fixed rent, for the new housing, is substantially below market rate and the houses nice enough why would anyone improve their position to the extent they have to leave it?. If no-one leaves their lovely social housing then the build program has to expand and expand and never end!.

Who then is responsible for the upkeep of this social housing?. Where is the money coming from to build infrastructure to service these new estates…..roads, schools, doctors, dentists, fire stations, police etc, etc. This is from Local Authorities who have been saddled with debt repayments from building the housing in the first place. Sorry mate but its fantasy football from a bloke who seems to be a terribly nice fantasist.

The tragic irony of this is the circularity of the argument.

The airlines continue to fly over a hostile ground environment as there is no perceived anti-air threat able to reach airliner cruise altitudes. There is no perceived anti-air threat because of the complexity of the infrastructure and equipment needed to coherently threaten at that altitude. The accident then happens precisely because of a clueless attempt to use that complex equipment outside of its nominal supporting infrastructure.

The culpability rests purely with whoever loaned the TEL to the rebels without ensuring they had full tactical awareness of the airspace they could deny with it. Simple as that.