Gatwick closed by drones
Discussion
djc206 said:
Tuna said:
The reason China has lower per-capita emissions is that a huge portion of the 1.4 billion people are basically living in near third world rural conditions.
They're working as hard as they can to change that - at any cost to the environment - and that includes coal burning power stations, deforestation, strip mining and all sorts of other things that we've moved away from in the west.
So the argument that China is OK only holds if you expect them to keep their population in conditions that would make austerity campaigners in the west weep. They aren't about to do that, so there's only one direction their environmental impact is going to go.
Against that, we're on a negative trajectory in the west. The UK recently recorded the lowest carbon emissions since 1888 - Victorian times.
Of course it's lazy making China the 'bad guys', but they are the place where the biggest wins can be made.
And they will in time. As they develop their labour costs will increase and manufacturing will move to the next third world country that can supply the consumers of the world with the stuff they want at the price they’re willing to pay. They're working as hard as they can to change that - at any cost to the environment - and that includes coal burning power stations, deforestation, strip mining and all sorts of other things that we've moved away from in the west.
So the argument that China is OK only holds if you expect them to keep their population in conditions that would make austerity campaigners in the west weep. They aren't about to do that, so there's only one direction their environmental impact is going to go.
Against that, we're on a negative trajectory in the west. The UK recently recorded the lowest carbon emissions since 1888 - Victorian times.
Of course it's lazy making China the 'bad guys', but they are the place where the biggest wins can be made.
Whilst coal is a problem China produces twice as much of its energy from renewable sources as the US. They have quite a lot of hydropower (which comes with its own issues of course) which the US doesn’t.
Fun fact: the largest open mine in the world is in Utah and is owned by a British Australian company.
Then things will suddenly look much worse.
TeamD said:
snuffy said:
TeamD said:
Since submitting someone for security clearance costs the employer money then they have every right to refuse to put an employee forward for it should they stand a chance of being declined. It's their cash, It's their choice. Serves the daft bint right.
What a farce SC is."If you join a banned organisation or go off your nut or if anything else changes that would invalidate your clearance then you must inform us". What a fking joke that is.
snuffy said:
TeamD said:
snuffy said:
TeamD said:
Since submitting someone for security clearance costs the employer money then they have every right to refuse to put an employee forward for it should they stand a chance of being declined. It's their cash, It's their choice. Serves the daft bint right.
What a farce SC is."If you join a banned organisation or go off your nut or if anything else changes that would invalidate your clearance then you must inform us". What a fking joke that is.
TeamD said:
Since submitting someone for security clearance costs the employer money then they have every right to refuse to put an employee forward for it should they stand a chance of being declined. It's their cash, It's their choice. Serves the daft bint right.
Actually I think it could (potentially) be discriminatory. The employer is not conducting, nor will be party to all of the information in a SC or DV check (it is a black box process) and as such they should not pre-suppose an outcome. Not least as I have noted that plenty of people have minor offences and pass SC/DV.
The point about SC/DV is not that you have committed offences, it's that you are transparent. You can have all sorts of history and colourful private life.
It is less of a "good character" check and more "Could someone use leverage against you based on your history in order to get information".
Vaud said:
TeamD said:
Since submitting someone for security clearance costs the employer money then they have every right to refuse to put an employee forward for it should they stand a chance of being declined. It's their cash, It's their choice. Serves the daft bint right.
Actually I think it could (potentially) be discriminatory. The employer is not conducting, nor will be party to all of the information in a SC or DV check (it is a black box process) and as such they should not pre-suppose an outcome. Not least as I have noted that plenty of people have minor offences and pass SC/DV.
The point about SC/DV is not that you have committed offences, it's that you are transparent. You can have all sorts of history and colourful private life.
It is less of a "good character" check and more "Could someone use leverage against you based on your history in order to get information".
Vandenberg said:
Already having an impact, I am currently working at client site, and one of the younger members of the team had been selected to work on a high profile UK project that requires security clearance.
She was told at the end of the week that their forms wouldn't even be submitted for SC due to her getting arrested at the recent demo.
She spent most of thursday afternoon in the toilets crying, she was doing ok, albeit very quiet on friday, until someone asked her if she was still going to Orlando for her summer holiday as it was iffy if she would get an ESTA. Another afternoon of crying.
I anticipate more tears when she twigs that her career arc has a serious dent in it. Good life lesson for her, actions however well intentioned have consequences.
Stupid silly bint jumps on that week's bandwagon and pays stupid silly price. Sympathy zero.She was told at the end of the week that their forms wouldn't even be submitted for SC due to her getting arrested at the recent demo.
She spent most of thursday afternoon in the toilets crying, she was doing ok, albeit very quiet on friday, until someone asked her if she was still going to Orlando for her summer holiday as it was iffy if she would get an ESTA. Another afternoon of crying.
I anticipate more tears when she twigs that her career arc has a serious dent in it. Good life lesson for her, actions however well intentioned have consequences.
I wouldn't mind betting she's been dining out on "look at clever me, I got arrested by the pink boat" in the weeks since.
“Gatwick drone arrest couple receive £200k payout from Sussex Police”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-53041...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-53041...
jakesmith said:
I am party through total circumstance, to substantial inside information on this case and would honestly love to share it but would likely cost someone their career. I know it is frustrating and pointless saying this but I wanted to say that anyway and get it off my chest.
As Mrs Doyle would say......... El stovey said:
“Gatwick drone arrest couple receive £200k payout from Sussex Police”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-53041...
Seems reasonable. Their good name was dragged through the mud. My recollection is that the media did them no favours either so they may be in line for another payment.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-53041...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff