Is this true?

Post by Graham Wilson
I had a flying lesson yesterday out of Coventry airport.
As we were flying south-east of Coventry near Gaydon, my instructor
pointed out in the distance, two large trains parked up on a siding.
He said that the two trains were originally built for the channel
tunnel. However, they could not be used because they were 1/4 of an
inch too wide and they have been left sitting in this siding ever
since.
I don't think he was winding me up. I did a google search but I
couldn't find anything.
Does anyone know the story behind this?
Graham

Graham,

try asking this in uk.railway

Si

Richard Buttrey

2004-02-08 12:59:44 UTC

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:11:02 +0000, Graham Wilson

Couldn't resist. Old flying joke. IFR = I Fly Railways. :-)

Rgds

Neil

2004-02-10 09:06:51 UTC

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:59:44 +0000, Richard Buttrey

Post by Richard Buttrey
Couldn't resist. Old flying joke. IFR = I Fly Railways. :-)
Rgds

Goddamit it's "I Follow Railways" or "Roads" ;-)

Pedantically yours

Neil

Alan

2004-02-08 15:30:47 UTC

AH!
With my work hat on...
These trains were built by Metro Cammel in Birmingham for the new service
that was going to be a sleeper service via the channel tunnel.
Branson took over the company and decided that the idea of running a sleeper
service was not financially sound and wanted to cancel the order, and change
the trains to normal carriages. the trains were not viable to be changed and
that's why they are in the sidings, metro cammel want paying and Branson, he
say no!
(we produce the decals for the trains)
Alan

Chris H

2004-02-08 18:40:53 UTC

Post by Alan
(we produce the decals for the trains)

Somebody has to. I'm guessing that it's not your only product otherwise
you'd go out of business? ;-)

--
Chris H
Two wrongs don't make a right,
but three rights make a left
Please remove comedy veg to reply

Alan

2004-02-09 08:17:00 UTC

Post by Alan
(we produce the decals for the trains)

Somebody has to. I'm guessing that it's not your only product otherwise
you'd go out of business? ;-)

Just a very small part, we put decals instead of colour on the exterior of
the Eurostars, all of the Paris metro trains etc...
We produce the badging for Peugeot, Citroen, Renault, Nissan, Ford, Land
rover MG Rover, Jaguar, Honda, Toyota, we produce the door blackouts, and
sill covers, chrome injection parts etc....

Gareth A.

2004-02-09 15:57:24 UTC

Post by Alan

Post by Alan
(we produce the decals for the trains)

Somebody has to. I'm guessing that it's not your only product otherwise
you'd go out of business? ;-)

Diametric?

Alan

2004-02-09 18:53:00 UTC

Post by Alan
(we produce the decals for the trains)

Somebody has to. I'm guessing that it's not your only product otherwise
you'd go out of business? ;-)

Diametric?

Noooo (spit)
French, Dourdin

Graham Wilson

2004-02-09 22:29:07 UTC

Post by Alan
AH!
With my work hat on...
These trains were built by Metro Cammel in Birmingham for the new service
that was going to be a sleeper service via the channel tunnel.
Branson took over the company and decided that the idea of running a sleeper
service was not financially sound and wanted to cancel the order, and change
the trains to normal carriages. the trains were not viable to be changed and
that's why they are in the sidings, metro cammel want paying and Branson, he
say no!

Thanks for that.

It was just strange to see two full length trains just sitting there
in the middle of the countryside.

Almost as strange as the massive army base at Kineton that we saw from
the air. The army base was just down the road from the trains. It
does not appear on the flight maps or apparently even on Ordinance
Survey maps.

From the air, you can see a series of large bunkers that have been
built into the ground. They have grass covering the top of them.

A quick google search reveals that the bunkers at Kineton are used to
store nuclear tipped tank shells. On-line Ministry of Defence document
makes reference to: "Kineton Station Standing Operating Procedure No
73, Contingency Plans for Accidents Involving Ammunition containing
Depleted Uranium - dated September 2000."

Apparently, bomber aircraft used to be based just down the road at
Gaydon. The runway at Gaydon is now part of a vehicle testing track,
although apparently it can be turned back into a proper runway for
military aircraft at twelve hours notice.

It just surprises me that the area above the bunkers at Kineton is not
restricted airspace. You think they wouldn't want any aircraft flying
over the top of them.

Most of Coventry sits beneith Birmingham's controlled airspace where
you cannot fly any higher than 1,500 ft without permission. Yet, there
are no flying restrictions over a base that houses nuclear weapons.

Strange!

Graham

***@dircon.co.uk

Roger H. Bennett

2004-02-09 22:45:07 UTC

Post by Graham Wilson
A quick google search reveals that the bunkers at Kineton are used to
store nuclear tipped tank shells. On-line Ministry of Defence document
makes reference to: "Kineton Station Standing Operating Procedure No
73, Contingency Plans for Accidents Involving Ammunition containing
Depleted Uranium - dated September 2000."

<snip>

Post by Graham Wilson
It just surprises me that the area above the bunkers at Kineton is not
restricted airspace. You think they wouldn't want any aircraft flying
over the top of them.
Most of Coventry sits beneith Birmingham's controlled airspace where
you cannot fly any higher than 1,500 ft without permission. Yet, there
are no flying restrictions over a base that houses nuclear weapons.

Depleted uranium shells are not nuclear weapons.

Roger

Depresion

2004-02-11 09:12:44 UTC

Post by Roger H. Bennett

<snip>

Depleted uranium shells are not nuclear weapons.

Ah but can they be deployed in three quarters of an hour?

Roger H. Bennett

2004-02-11 11:14:17 UTC

Post by Depresion

Post by Roger H. Bennett
Depleted uranium shells are not nuclear weapons.

Ah but can they be deployed in three quarters of an hour?

Probably, so long as the MoD are given 12 months notice of when the 45
minutes is due to start...

Roger

"nightjar" .uk.com>

2004-02-09 22:48:20 UTC

... The army base was just down the road from the trains. It
does not appear on the flight maps or apparently even on Ordinance
Survey maps.

That is standard practice. I think it was North Weald that used to have a
'B' road approaching from both sides, which turned into an unclassified road
where it supposedly crossed the airfield. In reality, the road had been
diverted and upgraded long since, but OS were not permitted to show any
change where the base was.

...

Most of Coventry sits beneith Birmingham's controlled airspace where
you cannot fly any higher than 1,500 ft without permission.

In my experience, Birmingham is one of the more accomodating ATC zones and
it is rare to be refused permission.

Yet, there
are no flying restrictions over a base that houses nuclear weapons.

DU is not a nuclear weapon. It is simply a development of the tungsten-cored
anti-tank shells of WW2. In any case, one thing that putting restricted
areas on aviation maps does is to draw attention to the area underneath.

Colin Bignell

Chris Street

2004-02-10 00:34:06 UTC

Post by Graham Wilson

Depleted uranium weapons are kinetic energy weapons, not nuclear weapons
in any way shape or form. Anti tank shells are certainly *not* "nuclear
tipped". Britain's only nuclear deterrent after the last review is the
Trident submarine defence which can be used as a strategic and tactical
weapon. I don't even think we are part of SIOP any more.

Post by Graham Wilson
On-line Ministry of Defence document
makes reference to: "Kineton Station Standing Operating Procedure No
73, Contingency Plans for Accidents Involving Ammunition containing
Depleted Uranium - dated September 2000."
Apparently, bomber aircraft used to be based just down the road at
Gaydon. The runway at Gaydon is now part of a vehicle testing track,
although apparently it can be turned back into a proper runway for
military aircraft at twelve hours notice.
It just surprises me that the area above the bunkers at Kineton is not
restricted airspace. You think they wouldn't want any aircraft flying
over the top of them.

The bunkers would probably take an arcraft crashing onto them in their
stride. I imagine also there will be some form of air defence like
Rapier.

--
79.84% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
The other 42% are made up later on.
In Warwick - looking at flat fields and that includes the castle.

Neil

2004-02-10 09:14:19 UTC

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 22:29:07 +0000, Graham Wilson

The train heads are on OS.

Post by Graham Wilson
From the air, you can see a series of large bunkers that have been
built into the ground. They have grass covering the top of them.

You can also see these from the Dassets or from any other local high
ground

DU is near dead U, hence "depleted" ;-)

Post by Graham Wilson
Apparently, bomber aircraft used to be based just down the road at
Gaydon. The runway at Gaydon is now part of a vehicle testing track,
although apparently it can be turned back into a proper runway for
military aircraft at twelve hours notice.

Natch my uncle works there and reckons this is impossible. They
pulled lots of stuff up and have loads of wire in place. There is
also the legal-commerical wrangle that would ensure with the MoD/
Don't land there (unless you are really in the shite) for your
aeroplane will be impounded by Ford.

Well time for the CAA to prosecute you for infringement meladdo.
Look for D213/2.4. Where is it? Oh Kineton ! :-)))) This means
Danger Area 213, do not fly below 2400 feet. Look in AIP Enroute for
more informaton.

Graham Wilson

2004-02-10 21:31:30 UTC

Post by Neil
Well time for the CAA to prosecute you for infringement meladdo.
Look for D213/2.4. Where is it? Oh Kineton ! :-)))) This means
Danger Area 213, do not fly below 2400 feet. Look in AIP Enroute for
more informaton.

No infringement. Having plotted the route on a chart with the
instructor we never flew directly over the area. We flew South from
the cement works, south towards/past the transmitter, turning east
along the railway track, passing over the M40 and then turning south
towards Edgehill direction then north west before meeting up with the
A5.

It is possible to see Kineton from a distance.

(:-)

My point is that you would expect the MOD to prohibit anyone from
flying over this area period.

Graham

***@dircon.co.uk

Alan

2004-02-11 19:24:59 UTC

Have you also seen the errrr... Film archive headquarters nearby? :-) :-)

Neil

2004-02-16 12:36:07 UTC

Post by Alan
Have you also seen the errrr... Film archive headquarters nearby? :-) :-)

Huh?

Were they watching at the time? ;-)

Alan

2004-02-16 19:32:07 UTC

Post by Neil

Post by Alan
Have you also seen the errrr... Film archive headquarters nearby? :-) :-)

Huh?
Were they watching at the time? ;-)

Dr Strangelove :-) :-) :-) :-0

Graham Wilson

2004-02-16 20:13:40 UTC

Post by Neil

Post by Alan
Have you also seen the errrr... Film archive headquarters nearby? :-) :-)

Huh?
Were they watching at the time? ;-)

I think he means Blockbusters.

It's difficult to see what titles they have got in from the sky.

(:-)

Graham

***@dircon.co.uk

Sue K

2004-02-10 12:43:35 UTC

Post by Graham Wilson
Almost as strange as the massive army base at Kineton that we saw from
the air. The army base was just down the road from the trains. It
does not appear on the flight maps or apparently even on Ordinance
Survey maps.
It just surprises me that the area above the bunkers at Kineton is not
restricted airspace. You think they wouldn't want any aircraft flying
over the top of them.
Most of Coventry sits beneith Birmingham's controlled airspace where
you cannot fly any higher than 1,500 ft without permission. Yet, there
are no flying restrictions over a base that houses nuclear weapons.
Strange!

You'd think they wouldnt want people telling all and sundry about it on a
public forum either!!! D'oh!

Even stranger!

Sue

Chris Street

2004-02-10 16:36:44 UTC

You'd think they wouldnt want people telling all and sundry about it on a
public forum either!!! D'oh!

possibly because it doesn't contain nuclear weapons. Kineton is no
different from any other army barracks - don't go in as it's full of people
with big guns....

Post by Sue K
Even stranger!
Sue

"nightjar" .uk.com>

2004-02-10 21:35:22 UTC

"Sue K" <***@equi-net.co.uk> wrote in message news:c0ajll$14qbqu$***@ID-93075.news.uni-berlin.de...
...

Post by Sue K
You'd think they wouldnt want people telling all and sundry about it on a
public forum either!!!

It is probably a breach of one of the Official Secrets Acts. I wouldn't be
surprised if repeating the full information in a follow-up was also.

Colin Bignell

Graham Wilson

2004-02-10 22:36:00 UTC

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:35:22 -0000, "nightjar"

Post by "nightjar" .uk.com>
It is probably a breach of one of the Official Secrets Acts. I wouldn't be
surprised if repeating the full information in a follow-up was also.

It is hardly a secret.

A google search reveals a question/answer where an MP asked a
question in the Commons and a government minister said in reply that
depleted uranium shells have been stored at Kineton. A further google
search throws up an official MOD document freely available on the net
confirming the same information.

Graham

***@dircon.co.uk

"nightjar" .uk.com>

2004-02-11 08:26:54 UTC

Post by Graham Wilson
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:35:22 -0000, "nightjar"

Post by "nightjar" .uk.com>
It is probably a breach of one of the Official Secrets Acts. I wouldn't be
surprised if repeating the full information in a follow-up was also.

It is hardly a secret.

Which is entirely irrelevant if, as is usual for the location and contents
of military depots, it classed as an Official Secret.

Post by Graham Wilson
A google search reveals a question/answer where an MP asked a
question in the Commons and a government minister said in reply that
depleted uranium shells have been stored at ....

Parliamentry priviledge applies.

Post by Graham Wilson
A further google
search throws up an official MOD document freely available on the net
confirming the same information.

That, however, will have been carefully vetted by a team of security
experts, who should have confirmed that nothing in the document might
constitute a breach of security.

Colin Bignell

Chris H

2004-02-11 17:36:17 UTC

Post by Graham Wilson
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:35:22 -0000, "nightjar"

Post by "nightjar" .uk.com>
It is probably a breach of one of the Official Secrets Acts. I wouldn't be
surprised if repeating the full information in a follow-up was also.

Have, or are?

--
Chris H
Two wrongs don't make a right,
but three rights make a left
Please remove comedy veg to reply

Sue K

2004-02-11 08:37:21 UTC

Post by Sue K
You'd think they wouldnt want people telling all and sundry about it on a
public forum either!!!

It is probably a breach of one of the Official Secrets Acts. I wouldn't be
surprised if repeating the full information in a follow-up was also.
Colin Bignell

Good job no-one did then, isn't it?!

Besides, you can't be done for breach of OSA unless you've signed it in the
first place!!!

Sue

"nightjar" .uk.com>

2004-02-11 14:31:32 UTC

"Sue K" <***@equi-net.co.uk> wrote in message news:c0cpk0$14jq77$***@ID-93075.news.uni-berlin.de...
...

Post by Sue K
Besides, you can't be done for breach of OSA unless you've signed it in the
first place!!!

It is surprising how many people have, at one time or another in their
lives, done so and one signature is binding for life. Mind you, these days,
revealing information about military installations is probably covered by
anti-terrorist legislation as well.

Colin Bignell

Chris Street

2004-02-11 16:43:49 UTC

Post by Sue K
Besides, you can't be done for breach of OSA unless you've signed it in

the

Post by Sue K
first place!!!

Terrorism Act 2000 - collation of any information likley to be of use to
terrorists. Guess I'd better forget how to make nerve gas and nuclear bombs
- along with several thousand other chemistry and physics graduates.

Post by "nightjar" .uk.com>
Colin Bignell

Chris Street

2004-02-11 16:42:15 UTC

Post by Sue K
You'd think they wouldnt want people telling all and sundry about it on

Post by Sue K
public forum either!!!

It is probably a breach of one of the Official Secrets Acts. I wouldn't be
surprised if repeating the full information in a follow-up was also.
Colin Bignell

Good job no-one did then, isn't it?!
Besides, you can't be done for breach of OSA unless you've signed it in the
first place!!!

A common urban myth. The Act in general is as binding as any other statue
(you don't have to sign the offences against the person act in order to be
done for assualt, or murder!) however there are various sections in there
where you will sign something stating that your attention has been drawn to
these sections and as such that the penalties are much higher than the 2
years that you can ordinarily get. (the 1911 Act has much stiffer penalties
- 40 years as I recall but it's not very relevant these days)

Having signed it though you do get access to some really interesting bits
of information...

Post by Sue K
Sue

Chris H

2004-02-11 17:39:09 UTC

Post by Sue K
Good job no-one did then, isn't it?!
Besides, you can't be done for breach of OSA unless you've signed it in the
first place!!!

A common urban myth. The Act in general is as binding as any other statue
(you don't have to sign the offences against the person act in order to be
done for assualt, or murder!) however there are various sections in there
where you will sign something stating that your attention has been drawn to
these sections and as such that the penalties are much higher than the 2
years that you can ordinarily get. (the 1911 Act has much stiffer penalties
- 40 years as I recall but it's not very relevant these days)
Having signed it though you do get access to some really interesting bits
of information...

...like what sort of biscuits the Prime Minister prefers with his tea.

--
Chris H
Two wrongs don't make a right,
but three rights make a left
Please remove comedy veg to reply

Chris Street

2004-02-11 19:12:58 UTC

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:39:09 -0000, "Chris H"

Post by Graham Wilson

Post by Sue K
Good job no-one did then, isn't it?!
Besides, you can't be done for breach of OSA unless you've signed it

in the

Post by Sue K
first place!!!

A common urban myth. The Act in general is as binding as any other

statue

Post by Chris Street
(you don't have to sign the offences against the person act in order

to be

Post by Chris Street
done for assualt, or murder!) however there are various sections in

there

Post by Chris Street
where you will sign something stating that your attention has been

drawn to

Post by Chris Street
these sections and as such that the penalties are much higher than the

Post by Chris Street
years that you can ordinarily get. (the 1911 Act has much stiffer

penalties

Post by Chris Street
- 40 years as I recall but it's not very relevant these days)
Having signed it though you do get access to some really interesting

bits

Post by Chris Street
of information...

...like what sort of biscuits the Prime Minister prefers with his tea.

I doubt that's actually a secret, just not widely known. The colour of
the carpet in Century House or Vauxhall Cross however would be a
different matter.

--
79.84% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
The other 42% are made up later on.
In Warwick - looking at flat fields and that includes the castle.

Chris H

2004-02-13 11:22:10 UTC

Post by Chris Street
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:39:09 -0000, "Chris H"

Post by Chris Street
Having signed it though you do get access to some really

interesting

Post by Chris H
bits

Post by Chris Street
of information...

...like what sort of biscuits the Prime Minister prefers with his tea.

I doubt that's actually a secret, just not widely known.

No, you're right. No-one knows because nobody cares. However I was
talking 'metaphorically'

Post by Chris Street
The colour of
the carpet in Century House or Vauxhall Cross however would be a
different matter.

...and if you find anyone blabbing that sort of top secret info, phone
020 7930 9000 Immediately!

--
Chris H
Two wrongs don't make a right,
but three rights make a left
Please remove comedy veg to reply
.

Sue K

2004-02-11 21:31:01 UTC

Post by Sue K
You'd think they wouldnt want people telling all and sundry about it on

Post by Sue K
public forum either!!!

It is probably a breach of one of the Official Secrets Acts. I wouldn't be
surprised if repeating the full information in a follow-up was also.
Colin Bignell

Good job no-one did then, isn't it?!
Besides, you can't be done for breach of OSA unless you've signed it in the
first place!!!

A common urban myth. The Act in general is as binding as any other statue

Unless you have signed the form, you are technically deemed as not being
held accountable (as such, probably the wrong choice of words), especially
within the MoD. Probably why they make every Tom, Dick, Harry and passer-by
sign the bloody things! :-)

Post by Chris Street
Having signed it though you do get access to some really interesting bits
of information...

Do you heck, otherwise my job would have been a lot more interesting than it
really was!!!
(Although having said that, SC was useful when we went to Buckingham Palace
for the annual Xmas carol concert!)

Sue

Chris Street

2004-02-11 23:26:25 UTC

Post by Sue K
You'd think they wouldnt want people telling all and sundry about it

Post by Sue K
a

Post by Sue K
public forum either!!!

It is probably a breach of one of the Official Secrets Acts. I wouldn't

Post by "nightjar" .uk.com>
surprised if repeating the full information in a follow-up was also.
Colin Bignell

Good job no-one did then, isn't it?!
Besides, you can't be done for breach of OSA unless you've signed it in

the

Post by Sue K
first place!!!

A common urban myth. The Act in general is as binding as any other statue

Unless you have signed the form, you are technically deemed as not being
held accountable

That is perforce rubbish. I have for a good portion of my life had
access to information deemed secret under the Act and they certainly no
not need your signature.

The Act is at
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1989/Ukpga_19890006_en_2.htm#mdiv10

While they may server notice on you under say Section 1 and ask yout o
sign for receipt there is still no need to sign, and under say section 3
no signature is needed at all.

Post by Sue K
(as such, probably the wrong choice of words), especially
within the MoD. Probably why they make every Tom, Dick, Harry and passer-by
sign the bloody things! :-)

Post by Chris Street
Having signed it though you do get access to some really interesting bits
of information...

When you get to DV or codeword levels then you get served all sorts of
interesting notices stating that you are under the Act in relation to
section whatever....

Post by Sue K
Sue

--
79.84% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
The other 42% are made up later on.
In Warwick - looking at flat fields and that includes the castle.

Sue K

2004-02-12 08:21:40 UTC

Post by Sue K
Unless you have signed the form, you are technically deemed as not being
held accountable

That is perforce rubbish. I have for a good portion of my life had
access to information deemed secret under the Act and they certainly no
not need your signature.

Well, my apologies. Obviously my knowledge of the requirements has changed a
lot since my 7 years working for the MoD. I stand corrected by your superior
knowledge. Obviously all the Security Officers and the best part of the
Records Office were wrong too. Oh, the disillusionment!!

Sue

Steve Firth

2004-02-12 13:19:20 UTC

Post by Sue K
Well, my apologies. Obviously my knowledge of the requirements has changed a
lot since my 7 years working for the MoD. I stand corrected by your superior
knowledge. Obviously all the Security Officers and the best part of the
Records Office were wrong too. Oh, the disillusionment!!

What Chris says is true. There is no legal requirement to sign the OSA
in order to be bound by the OSA. You are however required to sign hte
OSA (and to sign off) by SyOps because it just saves an awful lot of
time in court later on. You could not waste time by claiming ignorance
(not that this is any excuse anyway) because they have evidence that you
read the OSA, you signed a piece of paper to say that you did and in the
case of material protected above "secret" you sign to say that you know
the classification of that individual item.

However you do exempliify the fact that many persons who sign the OSA
are profoundly ignorant of what it is they have signed up to.

--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but
are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for
friendly advice in a flame-free environment.

Sue K

2004-02-12 22:01:11 UTC

"Steve Firth" <usenet-***@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1g91mo3.apz1o71kmkxzzN%%steve%>

Post by Steve Firth
However you do exempliify the fact that many persons who sign the OSA
are profoundly ignorant of what it is they have signed up to.

Profoundly ignorant?? LMFAO!!!
Ok, whatever.
I know exactly what I signed. I also know exactly what I was told. If the
information I was told was wrong, and no-one has ever corrected that, am I
still ignorant, or merely believing some highly qualified and Sy cleared
personnel whom I had no reason to doubt???
(No need to answer that, by the way. I dont much care either way).

Sue

unknown

2004-02-12 22:39:03 UTC

Post by Sue K
news:1g91mo3.apz1o71kmkxzzN%%steve%>

Post by Steve Firth
However you do exempliify the fact that many persons who sign the OSA
are profoundly ignorant of what it is they have signed up to.

You mean you signed the act without bothering to read it? Wouldn't you
say that *was* profoundly ignorant?

--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but
are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for
friendly advice in a flame-free environment.

Depresion

2004-02-13 00:19:15 UTC

Post by Sue K
news:1g91mo3.apz1o71kmkxzzN%%steve%>

Post by Steve Firth
However you do exempliify the fact that many persons who sign the OSA
are profoundly ignorant of what it is they have signed up to.

You mean you signed the act without bothering to read it? Wouldn't you
say that *was* profoundly ignorant?

The contents of the act are classified you can't see it till after you have
signed. ;)

Chris Street

2004-02-13 00:47:53 UTC

Post by Depresion

Post by Sue K
news:1g91mo3.apz1o71kmkxzzN%%steve%>

Post by Steve Firth
However you do exempliify the fact that many persons who sign the OSA
are profoundly ignorant of what it is they have signed up to.

You mean you signed the act without bothering to read it? Wouldn't you
say that *was* profoundly ignorant?

The contents of the act are classified you can't see it till after you have
signed. ;)

I did post a link to the full text which is available from HMSO

--
79.84% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
The other 42% are made up later on.
In Warwick - looking at flat fields and that includes the castle.

Chris H

2004-02-13 11:04:06 UTC

Post by Sue K
news:1g91mo3.apz1o71kmkxzzN%%steve%>

Post by Steve Firth
However you do exempliify the fact that many persons who sign the OSA
are profoundly ignorant of what it is they have signed up to.

You mean you signed the act without bothering to read it? Wouldn't you
say that *was* profoundly ignorant?

Profoundly typical I'd say. How many people have actually read and
understood the credit card agreements they signed? When installing
software, how many people actually read the terms and conditions before
pressing 'yes'? Given the choice between 'job' and 'no job', who the
hell bothers to read what they're signing? They take it on trust that
everyone else has signed it and that it's OK.

You exemplify (spelled correctly) the fact that many people who use
newsgroups haven't learned people skills and are prepared to be
offensive to complete strangers.

HTH

--
Chris H
Two wrongs don't make a right,
but three rights make a left
Please remove comedy veg to reply

Steve Firth

2004-02-13 16:26:07 UTC

Post by Chris H
You exemplify (spelled correctly) the fact that many people who use
newsgroups haven't learned people skills and are prepared to be
offensive to complete strangers.

It seems many people who use newsgroups expect to be treated like
fractious five year olds, and in consequence to have their egos stroked
and their clammy little brows soothed. I tend to assume they newsgroup
users are adults. However I do find that the people who get security
cleared have a higher incidence of prima-donna egos and naive
perceptions than the rest of the population.

You'll have to make your own mind up if that includes or excludes me.

--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but
are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for
friendly advice in a flame-free environment.

Sue K

2004-02-14 16:55:29 UTC

Post by Steve Firth

Post by Chris H
You exemplify (spelled correctly) the fact that many people who use
newsgroups haven't learned people skills and are prepared to be
offensive to complete strangers.

Generalisation. Surely you mean the people you *know* who get security
cleared have a higher incidence of prima-donna egos and naive perceptions
than the rest of the population. Don't tar all with the same brush. We're
not all like that.
(By the way, seven, not five and never clammy!!)

Sue

Chris Street

2004-02-14 17:34:20 UTC

Post by Steve Firth

Post by Chris H
You exemplify (spelled correctly) the fact that many people who use
newsgroups haven't learned people skills and are prepared to be
offensive to complete strangers.

Since almost everyone employed as a civilian in a police force needs SC
clearance at least I'd doubt the veracity of the statement as well.
Certainly the average tea lady and janitor don't usually come with a
prima donna ego.

Post by Sue K
Sue

--
79.84% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
The other 42% are made up later on.
In Warwick - looking at flat fields and that includes the castle.

Dan Holdsworth

2004-02-14 00:55:43 UTC

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:04:06 -0000, Chris H
<***@ntlworld.com>
was popularly supposed to have said:

[...]

Post by Chris H
Profoundly typical I'd say. How many people have actually read and
understood the credit card agreements they signed? When installing
software, how many people actually read the terms and conditions before
pressing 'yes'? Given the choice between 'job' and 'no job', who the
hell bothers to read what they're signing? They take it on trust that
everyone else has signed it and that it's OK.

Actually, quite a lot of software licence agreements are unenforcable
and actually illegal in most countries. A case in point is the so-called
shrinkwrap licence, whereby a person buying software is assumed to agree
to the licence before they've even opened the software packet.

This has been tested in a court of law in the UK and found wanting; how
on earth is a person supposed to decide if an item of software is suitable
for the purpose intended if they cannot examine it?

The court in that case agreed that this was impossible, and that the
license agreement was therefore unenforcable since it contradicted UK
law.

--
Dan Holdsworth PhD ***@ntlworld.com
By caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, By the beans of Java
do thoughts acquire speed, hands acquire shaking, the shaking
becomes a warning, By caffeine alone do I set my mind in motion

Graham Wilson

2004-02-14 10:26:38 UTC

Post by Dan Holdsworth
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:04:06 -0000, Chris H
[...]

Consumers have substantial rights. The sale of goods act, the supply
of goods and services act all imply statutory rights. These rights
cannot be over-ruled by terms and conditions.

In addition, the Unfair Contract Terms Act (UCTA) provides that all
terms and conditions in a contract must be "reasonable".

When it comes to UCTA, the courts particularly pay attention to the
inequality of bargaining power between the parties. In other words,
the consumer is presented with a set of terms and conditions in a
pro-forma manner which they have to either accept or reject. They
cannot negotiate specific terms.

Graham
***@dircon.co.uk

Antony Lacey

2004-02-13 18:00:32 UTC

Post by unknown
You mean you signed the act without bothering to read it? Wouldn't you
say that *was* profoundly ignorant?

I did, but crossed out the statement "I have read and understood" ....
no-one ever came back to me about it. I wasn't about to put my signature
to something I hadn't read and understood.

--
Antony
Pull the plug to reply.

Sue K

2004-02-14 16:50:59 UTC

Post by Sue K
news:1g91mo3.apz1o71kmkxzzN%%steve%>

Post by Steve Firth
However you do exempliify the fact that many persons who sign the OSA
are profoundly ignorant of what it is they have signed up to.

You mean you signed the act without bothering to read it? Wouldn't you
say that *was* profoundly ignorant?

I'm sorry. I said that *where*, exactly?

(You mean you replied to a post and made assumptions without bothering to
read it?)

So no, I wouldn't.

Sue

Steve Firth

2004-02-15 01:11:32 UTC

Post by unknown
You mean you signed the act without bothering to read it? Wouldn't you
say that *was* profoundly ignorant?

I'm sorry. I said that *where*, exactly?

When you typed "Unless you have signed the form, you are technically
deemed as not being held accountable "

Which si a clear demonstration that you haven't read the OSA. The OSA
itself makes it clear that one is bound by the OSA even if one doesn't
sign it.

Post by Sue K
(You mean you replied to a post and made assumptions without bothering to
read it?)
So no, I wouldn't.

But it appears that you did.

--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but
are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for
friendly advice in a flame-free environment.

Sue K

2004-02-15 10:54:42 UTC

Post by Steve Firth

Post by unknown
You mean you signed the act without bothering to read it? Wouldn't you
say that *was* profoundly ignorant?

I'm sorry. I said that *where*, exactly?

When you typed "Unless you have signed the form, you are technically
deemed as not being held accountable "
Which si a clear demonstration that you haven't read the OSA. The OSA
itself makes it clear that one is bound by the OSA even if one doesn't
sign it.

Post by Sue K
(You mean you replied to a post and made assumptions without bothering to
read it?)
So no, I wouldn't.

But it appears that you did.

Sorry, can't find the link. You have assumed that I hadnt read it, I did not
say it. It does not demonstrate anything except your need to be correct.
(and also to have the last word).

If it means that much to you, then I am wrong, and you are right. I'm a
liar, and you spout nothing but the truth as you know everything that I have
or have not read in my life.
Hope that's ok, and that I didnt say something I didnt in that statement.

Sue

****
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you
with experience!

Steve Firth

2004-02-15 19:08:30 UTC

Post by Sue K
Sorry, can't find the link.

The words were yours from:

Message-ID: <c0e6ue$164cne$***@ID-93075.news.uni-berlin.de>

Is that the link that you could not find?

Post by Sue K
You have assumed that I hadnt read it, I did not say it.

Are you denying that you said (or rather typed) "Unless you have signed
the form, you are technically deemed as not being held accountable (as
such, probably the wrong choice of words), especially within the MoD.
Probably why they make every Tom, Dick, Harry and passer-by sign the
bloody things! :-)"

What you state is a direct contradiction of the OSA which makes it clear
that once you have been in receipt of classified information you are
bound by the OSA whether you sign a copy of the OSA or not.

How can you have read the OSA as you claim, yet be able to make such a
contradictory (and untrue) statement?

Post by Sue K
It does not demonstrate anything except your need to be correct.
(and also to have the last word).

<sigh>

--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but
are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for
friendly advice in a flame-free environment.

Chris H

2004-02-11 17:37:09 UTC

Post by Sue K
You'd think they wouldnt want people telling all and sundry about

it on

Post by Sue K
a

Post by Sue K
public forum either!!!

It is probably a breach of one of the Official Secrets Acts. I wouldn't be
surprised if repeating the full information in a follow-up was also.
Colin Bignell

Good job no-one did then, isn't it?!
Besides, you can't be done for breach of OSA unless you've signed it in the
first place!!!

Whoops!

--
Chris H
Two wrongs don't make a right,
but three rights make a left
Please remove comedy veg to reply

Richard Buttrey

2004-02-14 19:20:35 UTC

Post by "nightjar" .uk.com>
It is probably a breach of one of the Official Secrets Acts. I wouldn't be
surprised if repeating the full information in a follow-up was also.
Colin Bignell

Good job no-one did then, isn't it?!
Besides, you can't be done for breach of OSA unless you've signed it in the
first place!!!
Sue

A common fallacy unfortunately.

1. (1) A person who is or has been
(a) a member of the security and intelligence services; or
(b) a person notified that he is subject to the provisions of this
subsection, is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he
discloses any information, document or other article relating to
security or intelligence which is or has been in his possession by
virtue of his position as a member of any of those services or in the
course of his work while the notification is or was in force.

(2) The reference in subsection (1) above to disclosing information
relating to security or intelligence includes a reference to making
any statement which purports to be a disclosure of such information or
is intended to be taken by those to whom it is addressed as being such
a disclosure.

(3) A person who is or has been a Crown servant or government
contractor is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he
makes a damaging disclosure of any information, document or other
article relating to security or intelligence which is or has been in
his possession by virtue of his position as such but otherwise than as
mentioned in subsection (1) above.

(6) Notification that a person is subject to subsection (1) above
shall be effected by a notice in writing served on him by a Minister
of the Crown; and such a notice may be served if, in the Minister's
opinion, the work undertaken by the person in question is or includes
work connected with the security and intelligence services and its
nature is such that the interests of national security require that he
should be subject to the provisions of that subsection.

Rgds,

Sue K

2004-02-14 22:23:24 UTC

"Richard Buttrey" <***@zen.co.uk> wrote in
message
<snip some other stuff>

Post by Richard Buttrey
A common fallacy unfortunately.

<big snip>

I think we established all that earlier, but thanks anyway.

Sue :-)

Chris H

2004-02-10 17:03:50 UTC

On a similar vein, RR Ansty site used to be a fighter training base. I
don't think it would be a good idea to land there today though. We
prefer the engines without the aluminium tube that sits between them.

--
Chris H
Two wrongs don't make a right,
but three rights make a left
Please remove comedy veg to reply

Martin Nike

2004-02-10 18:12:01 UTC

Post by Chris H
On a similar vein, RR Ansty site used to be a fighter training base. I
don't think it would be a good idea to land there today though. We
prefer the engines without the aluminium tube that sits between them.

Isn't that going to be turned into Allesley Castle (Ansty) International
Airport? Overspill from Baginton-Bubbenhall-Border International Airport
(Coventry)

Or maybe Marconi may built a new site there...

Oh look, a Pig coming into land...

Antony Lacey

2004-02-10 19:36:36 UTC

Isn't that going to be turned into Allesley Castle (Ansty) International
Airport? Overspill from Baginton-Bubbenhall-Border International Airport
(Coventry)
Or maybe Marconi may built a new site there...
Oh look, a Pig coming into land...

I hope it's got permission to land! :-)

--
Antony
Pull the plug to reply.

Martin Nike

2004-02-10 21:37:53 UTC

Post by Antony Lacey
I hope it's got permission to land! :-)

And it's got a long enough runway!

Antony Lacey

2004-02-11 14:59:10 UTC

Post by Antony Lacey
I hope it's got permission to land! :-)

And it's got a long enough runway!

Why would a pig need usch a long runway? The ones in the Zurich advert
didn't!

--
Antony
Pull the plug to reply.

Chris H

2004-02-11 17:33:59 UTC

Post by Antony Lacey

Post by Antony Lacey
I hope it's got permission to land! :-)

And it's got a long enough runway!

Why would a pig need usch a long runway? The ones in the Zurich advert
didn't!

Ah, but they weren't real.

--
Chris H
Two wrongs don't make a right,
but three rights make a left
Please remove comedy veg to reply

Antony Lacey

2004-02-12 12:08:29 UTC

Post by Antony Lacey
Why would a pig need usch a long runway? The ones in the Zurich advert
didn't!

Ah, but they weren't real.

Now you've ruined ot for me :-)

--
Antony
Pull the plug to reply.

Chris H

2004-02-11 17:33:16 UTC

Isn't that going to be turned into Allesley Castle (Ansty)

International

Post by Martin Nike
Airport? Overspill from Baginton-Bubbenhall-Border International Airport
(Coventry)
Or maybe Marconi may built a new site there...
Oh look, a Pig coming into land...

It would smell the canteen food and fly away.

--
Chris H
Two wrongs don't make a right,
but three rights make a left
Please remove comedy veg to reply

Dan Holdsworth

2004-02-10 23:38:04 UTC

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 22:29:07 +0000, Graham Wilson

Post by Graham Wilson
Almost as strange as the massive army base at Kineton that we saw from
the air. The army base was just down the road from the trains. It
does not appear on the flight maps or apparently even on Ordinance
Survey maps.
From the air, you can see a series of large bunkers that have been
built into the ground. They have grass covering the top of them.
A quick google search reveals that the bunkers at Kineton are used to
store nuclear tipped tank shells. On-line Ministry of Defence document
makes reference to: "Kineton Station Standing Operating Procedure No
73, Contingency Plans for Accidents Involving Ammunition containing
Depleted Uranium - dated September 2000."

Depleted uranium isn't strictly nuclear; U238 won't explode and isn't
good for making bombs, nor is it particularly scarce; natural uranium
consists mostly of this isotope.

What it is good for is armour-piercing shells; it is very, very dense
and when heated (say, by being fired at extreme speed into a tank's side)
it turns to dust and catches fire, which doesn't do the occupants of the
vehicle it was fired into a great deal of good.

What it won't do is catch fire in a normal fire, nor will it go bang
for any other reason.

So, odds are the army aren't fussed about anyone trying to fly an airliner
into the bunkers; it won't actually do much save dig a hole and burn some
grass.

Chris Street

2004-02-11 23:43:55 UTC

Post by Neil
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 22:29:07 +0000, Graham Wilson

Post by Graham Wilson
Almost as strange as the massive army base at Kineton that we saw from
the air. The army base was just down the road from the trains. It
does not appear on the flight maps or apparently even on Ordinance
Survey maps.
From the air, you can see a series of large bunkers that have been
built into the ground. They have grass covering the top of them.
A quick google search reveals that the bunkers at Kineton are used to
store nuclear tipped tank shells. On-line Ministry of Defence document
makes reference to: "Kineton Station Standing Operating Procedure No
73, Contingency Plans for Accidents Involving Ammunition containing
Depleted Uranium - dated September 2000."

Depleted uranium isn't strictly nuclear; U238 won't explode

U238 is used as a fast fission tamper and will undergo fission. It's
exceedingly useful for boosting weapons yield - something like 20% of
the Nagasaki bombs yield came from fission of the uranium tamper around
the plutonium pit.

Post by Neil
and isn't
good for making bombs, nor is it particularly scarce; natural uranium
consists mostly of this isotope.
What it is good for is armour-piercing shells; it is very, very dense
and when heated (say, by being fired at extreme speed into a tank's side)
it turns to dust and catches fire, which doesn't do the occupants of the
vehicle it was fired into a great deal of good.

It's the self sharpening ability that is really useful coupled with it's
extreme density (eighth densest element)

Post by Neil
What it won't do is catch fire in a normal fire,

It will, powdered uranium will ignite in air at about 155degC and the
solid metal will burn if it gets hot enough. It'll certainly combust at
about 1000C which a house or vehicle fire can achieve.

Post by Neil
nor will it go bang
for any other reason.
So, odds are the army aren't fussed about anyone trying to fly an airliner
into the bunkers; it won't actually do much save dig a hole and burn some
grass.

--
79.84% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
The other 42% are made up later on.
In Warwick - looking at flat fields and that includes the castle.

John Rowland

2004-02-10 08:49:46 UTC

Post by Graham Wilson
However, they could not be used because they
were 1/4 of an inch too wide and they have been
left sitting in this siding ever since.

Many years ago, the tunnels on the mainline to Hastings was built too
narrow. Apparently the engineer was asked for tunnels which were x feet wide
and bricklined. This meant that they should be x feet wide after the brick
lining was fitted, but he produced tunnels which were x feet wide before
being bricklined. The tunnels were all built and bricklined before the error
was realised. Subsequently special narrow trains were built for use on this
line. More recently the tunnels were all singled so that standard width
stock could be used.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/7069/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

Neil

2004-02-10 09:07:52 UTC

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:11:02 +0000, Graham Wilson

..and what's the declared height of the danger area surrounding
Kineton?

Neil

2004-02-10 09:24:19 UTC

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:11:02 +0000, Graham Wilson

Post by Graham Wilson
I had a flying lesson yesterday out of Coventry airport.

How may hours have you got and what ground exams have you passed?

Graham Wilson

2004-02-10 21:31:28 UTC

Post by Richard Buttrey
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:11:02 +0000, Graham Wilson

Post by Graham Wilson
I had a flying lesson yesterday out of Coventry airport.

How may hours have you got and what ground exams have you passed?

Why?

Graham

***@dircon.co.uk

Neil

2004-02-11 09:52:33 UTC

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:31:28 +0000, Graham Wilson

Post by Graham Wilson
Why?
Graham

Just wondering if you're a newbie stude or not.

Have you also considered posting on : http://forums.flyer.co.uk ?

Graham Wilson

2004-02-14 09:44:55 UTC

Post by Neil
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:31:28 +0000, Graham Wilson

Post by Graham Wilson
Why?
Graham

Just wondering if you're a newbie stude or not.

Been flying for 3 months.
***@dircon.co.uk

Martin Nike

2004-02-12 00:01:58 UTC