Gatwick closed by drones

Author
Discussion

djc206

5,878 posts

75 months

Saturday 1st June 2019
quotequote all
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.

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.

wc98

9,297 posts

90 months

Saturday 1st June 2019
quotequote all
djc206 said:
What do I win? Is it a second hand drone? Or a pink yacht?
it was so good i think you should be allowed to choose. just contact the site owners and let them know the one you decide on wink

3.1416

453 posts

11 months

Saturday 1st June 2019
quotequote all
Is it?

Do I need to turn on the Beeb Bot?

Turning on is now a 'Bad Thing'


TTmonkey

15,320 posts

197 months

Saturday 1st June 2019
quotequote all
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.

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.
No China won’t. What will happen over the next couple of decades is that’s many millions of Chinese people currently doing low impact living will gain enough wealth to do far more eco damage. Hundreds of millions of people suddenly wanting airconed homes, cheap personal transport, travel to foreign places for holidays, and worst, pork and beef portions with every meal like westerners.

Then things will suddenly look much worse.

snuffy

5,348 posts

234 months

Saturday 1st June 2019
quotequote all
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.
I made no comment about SC in that respect. TBH, it seems to me that it gets used as a mechanism to operate a closed shop more often than not.
No, I know you didn't. I was just commenting on SC in general. My experience is that it's often cited as being needed by people/companies who don't really understand what it's needed for so they err on the side of caution.

TeamD

4,570 posts

182 months

Saturday 1st June 2019
quotequote all
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.
I made no comment about SC in that respect. TBH, it seems to me that it gets used as a mechanism to operate a closed shop more often than not.
No, I know you didn't. I was just commenting on SC in general. My experience is that it's often cited as being needed by people/companies who don't really understand what it's needed for so they err on the side of caution.
Most "cleared" folk that I encounter through work appear to be decidedly lacklustre in the skills department, it's a "qualification" in that respect.

Vaud

34,892 posts

105 months

Saturday 1st June 2019
quotequote all
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".

TeamD

4,570 posts

182 months

Saturday 1st June 2019
quotequote all
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".
It isn't discriminatory. The employer has to pay for it, if they choose not to then it is their prerogative. If I were the employer then I would seriously be thinking about whether that person was the kind of person I wanted representing my company, let alone paying for them to go through security vetting.

CAPP0

15,814 posts

153 months

Saturday 1st June 2019
quotequote all
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.

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.