An emotive issue

We frequently rail at Parliament’s loss of power to the EU, but it is still the case that MPs have a great deal of power to hold to government to account in areas outside the competence of the EU – and they have a responsibility so to do. That is what we pay them for.

Now, do not be put off by the subject matter – which happens to be about “toys”. Look at the evidential trail and then ask yourself if the MPs concerned are doing their jobs. Let me give you bullet points:

View full article here

A profound abuse

Details coming in of the deaths of three soldiers from 1Bn The Rifles point to the continued misuse of resources and equipment in the Army, leading once more to unnecessary deaths. According to The Daily Telegraph, the three were killed while riding in an open-topped Wimik Land Rover, when they were hit by an IED scene just east of the town of Gereshk in Helmand province. What is particularly relevant here is that the vehicle was being used as part of the escort for a supply convoy, making it highly vulnerable to attack, while negating any of the claimed advantages for this type of vehicles.

View full article here

Thank you, Richard...again...for telling it like it is.
Were I to comment I would run the risk of being accused of 'negativity'.

Permanentexpat,
I will tell it how it is;
We are being not governed, but mislead, by a 'bunch' of old hemorrhoids.

I've just taken a look at the link you posted for the LPPV contract. I note that the contract is for just 5m GBP! That would make each vehicle worth 12,500 GBP each. Shurely shome mishtake? How much were those coffin-on-wheels again? 437,000 GBP a go?

-- Iain

That sum probably only takes it to main gate - to cover evaluation and development costs, including the purchase of a number of trial vehicles. The production contract is then awarded, which covers the actual cost of supply.

Now seems like a good time for Ann Winterton to ask a few searching questions? Again

PermanentExpat,

I'll assume that remark was directed at me.

My outburst was intemperate* and should have been expressed civilly, but, as I've said, it wasn't aimed at you personally, just at the negativity. (You'll just have to take my word on that.)

I don't want to be the cause of pressure to stifle anyone's free speech and certainly not yours.

Peace, please?


* For that I apologise.

She will. And it might make a little bit of difference.

Of course it was aimed at you, John...but fear not, nothing serious...just banter with a soupçon of provocation and there's nothing for which you should excuse yourself...really, as I would say to Helen

PE,

too.

Onward and upward!

Isn’t there an utter lack of logic in the MOD’s decision to invite just at this time expressions of interest from manufacturers prepared to supply up to 400 Light Protected Patrol Vehicles (LPPVs)? It was only last November that the MOD was saying (about a replacement for the Snatch Land Rover):

Is it now the case then that the MOD has suddenly discovered an appropriate vehicle OR are they hoping that by the time it is due to enter service, a suitable vehicle will miraculously materialize? If the former is the case, why do they not procure it immediately under a UOR and rush it into service? If it is the latter, and such a vehicle has still not appeared, why invite tenders just now? It just makes no sense at all. Could it perhaps be a sop to Cerberus to placate a public angry that a Snatch replacement has still not been brought into service?

Yes, the stance is wholly inconsistent. In December last Gen Houghton was asserting that there was no replacement available. If that was true, there would be no prospect whatsoever of having a vehicle which is production-ready by 2010. The only way that demand can be satisfied is by adoption of a vehicle that is already in production and was at the time Houghton made his statement.

What Houghton - and his ilk - are doing, of course, is covering his own backside. He is desperate to divert attention from the fact that the Army designated the Vector as a replacement for the Snatch and thus made a very bad decision. Doubtless, he is relying on the lack of media memory and the absence of effective parliamentary scrutiny so that, once a "new" vehicle is identified, no one will recall what was said about the Snatch.