Blackheath Common? What, like - out in the middle of the Heath?
Craster wrote:
Blackheath Common? What, like - out in the middle of the Heath?
At the army base by the end of Hare & Billet Road.
Well you've made that boring now, haven't you?
Craster wrote:
Blackheath Common? What, like - out in the middle of the Heath?
On top of the Helter-Skelter in the carnival fairground.
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-st ... neier.html
Quote:
If one of those things is ever fired, either in anger or by accident, it'll shower white-hot supersonic shrapnel across the extremely crowded residential heart of a city.
It's a good thing I'm a novelist who dabbles in technothrillers, not a terrorist. If I was a terrorist I'd be licking my lips, trying to work out how to trigger a missile launch. Using a motor-powered model aircraft, free flight design (no radio controls to jam) aimed vaguely towards the Olympic stadium, with a nice radio beacon or some sort of infra-red source (a flare, perhaps) on its tail to make it easy to track? These missiles will be the close-in option, because we know the RAF will already be flying combat air patrols over London; they won't have much time to evaluate threats or respond intelligently. So launch from the back of a panel van, like the IRA mortar attacks on places like Heathrow or 10 Downing Street. The twist in the scheme would be to aim past the missile launchers along a vector that would attract a hail of hypervelocity missile launches in the direction of, say, a DLR station at rush hour.
It's a good thing I'm a novelist who dabbles in technothrillers, not a terrorist. If I was a terrorist I'd be licking my lips, trying to work out how to trigger a missile launch. Using a motor-powered model aircraft, free flight design (no radio controls to jam) aimed vaguely towards the Olympic stadium, with a nice radio beacon or some sort of infra-red source (a flare, perhaps) on its tail to make it easy to track? These missiles will be the close-in option, because we know the RAF will already be flying combat air patrols over London; they won't have much time to evaluate threats or respond intelligently. So launch from the back of a panel van, like the IRA mortar attacks on places like Heathrow or 10 Downing Street. The twist in the scheme would be to aim past the missile launchers along a vector that would attract a hail of hypervelocity missile launches in the direction of, say, a DLR station at rush hour.
it's a fucking good job that those guarding the missile are paid lots of money, as there's no way they'd take a bribe on their wages.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Quote:
it'll shower white-hot supersonic shrapnel across the extremely crowded residential heart of a city.
[..]
It's a good thing I'm a novelist who dabbles in technothrillers
[..]
It's a good thing I'm a novelist who dabbles in technothrillers
Mmmhmm.
They should probably sack all the army chiefs, police and the security services with all their analysts and put novelists who dabble in techno-thrillers in charge of the arrangements.
They're not very big missiles, so there wouldn't be very much white-hot, high-speed shrapnel.
markg wrote:
They should probably sack all the army chiefs, police and the security services with all their analysts and put novelists who dabble in techno-thrillers in charge of the arrangements.
I should be in charge. we'd have barrage balloons and shit like that.
markg wrote:
They should probably sack all the army chiefs, police and the security services with all their analysts and put novelists who dabble in techno-thrillers in charge of the arrangements.
Anyway, the solution is now clear: ban all vans from London, just in case they're secretly hiding a homemade ground-to-air launched unguided drone/missile lure.
(I'm sorry, I just can't take this nonsense seriously? Bloody Olympics; apparently all about "bringing people together in the fellowship of sport" or whatever - but we need batteries of unfeasibly complex and expensive missiles to keep stray airliners out of the sand pits).
Captain Caveman wrote:
markg wrote:
They should probably sack all the army chiefs, police and the security services with all their analysts and put novelists who dabble in techno-thrillers in charge of the arrangements.
Anyway, the solution is now clear: ban all vans from London, just in case they're secretly hiding a homemade unguided drone/missile lure.
(I'm sorry, I just can't take this nonsense seriously? Bloody Olympics; apparently all about "bringing people together in the fellowship of sport" or whatever - but we need batteries of unfeasibly complex and expensive missiles to keep stray airliners out of the sand pits).
Careful, disparaging the spirit of the Olympics is now a criminal offence!
Wouldn't surprise me!
Captain Caveman wrote:
Wouldn't surprise me!
Squirt was probably referencing this, from the same blog post:
Quote:
(Oh, and incidentally it would be illegal for me to say this if I happened to live in London or my blog was hosted in England—the enabling laws for the Olympics override our basic civil rights, including free speech. Luckily I'm north of the border in a country that remains semi-free. But if a future independent Scotland even thinks about bidding to host the Olympics, you bet I'll be organizing street marches in opposition ...)
Is any of that even vaguely true? Man appears to be the UK version of a freeper headcase.
markg wrote:
put novelists who dabble in techno-thrillers in charge of the arrangements.
Tom Clancy, of course, famously wrote about a plot to kill the President of the USA by landing a civilian airliner on his head... in 1994.kalmar wrote:
Is any of that even vaguely true? Man appears to be the UK version of a freeper headcase.
Oh, he's pretty nuts, indeed. But that doesn't make his suggestion any less potentially cunning a way for terrorists to ju-jitsu the security forces.Squirt wrote:
They're not very big missiles, so there wouldn't be very much white-hot, high-speed shrapnel.
Granted. But, on the whole, any amount of white-hot, high-speed shrapnel impacting my cornflakes as I eat breakfast is more than I'd prefer to see. kalmar wrote:
Captain Caveman wrote:
Wouldn't surprise me!
Squirt was probably referencing this, from the same blog post:
Quote:
(Oh, and incidentally it would be illegal for me to say this if I happened to live in London or my blog was hosted in England—the enabling laws for the Olympics override our basic civil rights, including free speech. Luckily I'm north of the border in a country that remains semi-free. But if a future independent Scotland even thinks about bidding to host the Olympics, you bet I'll be organizing street marches in opposition ...)
Is any of that even vaguely true? Man appears to be the UK version of a freeper headcase.
Gah. Wings Over Greenwich is probably in Skunkworks status as we speak...
Also, Stross has one important advantage over Stu when it comes to frothy proclamations of Scottish independence -- Stross didn't move to England 20 years ago...
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
kalmar wrote:
Is any of that even vaguely true? Man appears to be the UK version of a freeper headcase.
Oh, he's pretty nuts, indeed. But that doesn't make his suggestion any less potentially cunning a way for terrorists to ju-jitsu the security forces.Hmph, I'm not convinced of that threat - terrorists appear to be fucking idiots by and large, or they'd already have mastered landing large lumps of plastic explosive from R/C aircraft, or any of the dozens of far simpler techno hacks described by other techno-thriller-dabbling novelists..
Spoofing ground to air missiles? Seriously? There's lower hanging fruit than that.
Quote:
Squirt wrote:
They're not very big missiles, so there wouldn't be very much white-hot, high-speed shrapnel.
Granted. But, on the whole, any amount of white-hot, high-speed shrapnel impacting my cornflakes as I eat breakfast is more than I'd prefer to see.Massive physics fail there anyway, IMO. Any "shrapnel" from the missile itself will be neither white hot nor at supersonic speed by the time it reached the ground, a moderate hailstorm would probably cause more damage to your breakfast.
Not to say I'd want a battery of the things on my roof, but that blog post was some hysterical rubbish
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Also, Stross has one important advantage over Stu when it comes to frothy proclamations of Scottish independence -- Stross didn't move to England 20 years ago...
Heh, indeed. Don't get me started on that one.
Captain Caveman wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Also, Stross has one important advantage over Stu when it comes to frothy proclamations of Scottish independence -- Stross didn't move to England 20 years ago...
Heh, indeed. Don't get me started on that one.
O RLY? Should we dismiss any of your opinions about cars if you don't own one of them, then?
While I do disagree with a lot of what Stu says, I'm not of the opinion he has to live in Scotland to care about it.
I'd be interested to see if he'd move back if it did become independent, though.
Grim... wrote:
Captain Caveman wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Also, Stross has one important advantage over Stu when it comes to frothy proclamations of Scottish independence -- Stross didn't move to England 20 years ago...
Heh, indeed. Don't get me started on that one.
O RLY? Should we dismiss any of your opinions about cars if you don't own one of them, then?
While I do disagree with a lot of what Stu says, I'm not of the opinion he has to live in Scotland to care about it.
I'd be interested to see if he'd move back if it did become independent, though.
I don't really want to be drawn on this to be honest. Let's say if I had any issues, I'd say them to his face, on his site†...
† Well, when I say "site", I mean "Blog"... because I am banned from his forum.
Captain Caveman wrote:
I'd say them to his face, on his site...
...
Grim... wrote:
Captain Caveman wrote:
I'd say them to his face, on his site...
...
To be fair, his face is on his site:
Attachment:
Picture 4.png
Chinny just means he is going to shout at his computer screen for a bit. Again.
Grim... wrote:
Captain Caveman wrote:
I'd say them to his face, on his site...
...
You've lost me mate. Normally when I post something there, he responds in person within about 5 minutes, regardless of the time of day. He's there alright.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Also, Stross has one important advantage over Sean Connery when it comes to frothy proclamations of Scottish independence
FTFY
kalmar wrote:
Captain Caveman wrote:
Wouldn't surprise me!
Squirt was probably referencing this, from the same blog post:
Quote:
(Oh, and incidentally it would be illegal for me to say this if I happened to live in London or my blog was hosted in England—the enabling laws for the Olympics override our basic civil rights, including free speech. Luckily I'm north of the border in a country that remains semi-free. But if a future independent Scotland even thinks about bidding to host the Olympics, you bet I'll be organizing street marches in opposition ...)
Is any of that even vaguely true? Man appears to be the UK version of a freeper headcase.
Probably an over-exaggeration of reports about ensuring only sponsors' logos are seen, and the warnings given to volunteers and ticketholders about uploading pictures to sinister Facebook. But as MaliA noted earlier, the relevant Act does give the Olympics people a lot of power.
Captain Caveman wrote:
Grim... wrote:
Captain Caveman wrote:
I'd say them to his face, on his site...
...
You've lost me mate.
I was making a joke about the phrases "to his face" and "on his site" being in the same sentence.
Thinking about it, I doubt I'd know him if he crashed into me.
Grim... wrote:
Captain Caveman wrote:
Grim... wrote:
Captain Caveman wrote:
I'd say them to his face, on his site...
...
You've lost me mate.
I was making a joke about the phrases "to his face" and "on his site" being in the same sentence.
Thinking about it, I doubt I'd know him if he crashed into me.
You would, he drives an MX5 that runs on vimto.
Plus there's a good chance any collision would leave you superglued together.
Here we go again, one mention of Stu, and all the jokes come out. Its been fucking years.
Pundabaya wrote:
Here we go again, one mention of Stu, and all the jokes come out. Its been fucking years.
Kern wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Also, Stross has one important advantage over Mel Gibson when it comes to frothy proclamations of Scottish independence
FTFY
FTFY
Pundabaya wrote:
Here we go again, one mention of Stu, and all the jokes come out. Its been fucking years.
It's been exactly the same length of time since you last whined about it too.
Well, if James Bond has taught me anything, it is always your missiles/helicopter/nuclear sub which is used against you, so I can only hope these are fakes.
Also, I did like that they would be guarded, by unarmed guards. Good plan.
Also, I did like that they would be guarded, by unarmed guards. Good plan.
Bobbyaro wrote:
Well, if James Bond has taught me anything, it is always your missiles/helicopter/nuclear sub which is used against you, so I can only hope these are fakes.
Also, I did like that they would be guarded, by unarmed guards. Good plan.
Also, I did like that they would be guarded, by unarmed guards. Good plan.
I think I saw on the blackheath discussions that the military wouldn't be armed, but that the police guarding the military would be. My first thought is that we have a rule that says the military can only be armed in the uk in certain specific circumstances.
ApplePieOfDestiny wrote:
I think I saw on the blackheath discussions that the military wouldn't be armed, but that the police guarding the military would be. My first thought is that we have a rule that says the military can only be armed in the uk in certain specific circumstances.
Kind of makes sense. We always prefer public protection to be the domain of the civil powers rather the military ones.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Pundabaya wrote:
Here we go again, one mention of Stu, and all the jokes come out. Its been fucking years.
It's been exactly the same length of time since you last whined about it too.
He's right to whine about it though. The jokes weren't exactly funny then either.
EDIT - I may have woken up grumpy this morning
Yeah, so the MOD is placing caches of surface-to-air missiles in London, with unarmed squaddies in attendance, and is planning to fly jets over them. Okay, nothing could go wrong there.
I'm glad I don't live in those apartments.
I'm glad I don't live in those apartments.
Pundabaya wrote:
Yeah, so the MOD is placing caches of surface-to-air missiles in London, with unarmed squaddies in attendance, and is planning to fly jets over them. Okay, nothing could go wrong there.
I'm glad I don't live in those apartments.
I'm glad I don't live in those apartments.
how are they unarmed if they have a load of missiles on them?
Fun as firing a shoulder mounted surface to air missile into your opponent's face is on Call of Duty, I feel that it might backfire somewhat in real life.
Details, details...
Bobbyaro wrote:
Fun as firing a shoulder mounted surface to air missile into your opponent's face is on Call of Duty, I feel that it might backfire somewhat in real life.
Given some of the squaddies I've met, probably literally.
Finally, a reason to support the Olympics. Our £9 billion (and rising) has got us a bouncy Stonehenge!
Grauniad piece.
Grauniad piece.
You know, with all the talk of 'Olympic partners' being hugely protected... I wonder what would happen if Usain Bolt showed up with a CM Punk style Pepsi logo tattoo.
I still don't really care about it all, but the more I hear about it the more I feel sorry for the athletes. Imagine working for years towards competing at this level, only to have your chance to shine overshadowed by the IOC, it's sycophants and their collective mentalness & greed.
I'm no exactly the biggest fan of governing bodies in sport anyway. The SFA are a joke, British/Scottish Cycling & the UCI are parasites and don't get me started on that fanny that's in charge of the bools league
I'm no exactly the biggest fan of governing bodies in sport anyway. The SFA are a joke, British/Scottish Cycling & the UCI are parasites and don't get me started on that fanny that's in charge of the bools league
Another news story on the internal website, with the two posters about transport showing a show jumper on horseback holding up an escalator, and a rowing team filling a train (complete with their boat).
It really says it all. The Olympics matters more than you, so fuck off.
It really says it all. The Olympics matters more than you, so fuck off.
I wonder how quickly Seb Coe would sue us if we subtitled this site: 'Be Excellent to Each Other: official opponents of the 2012 Olympics (and Stewart Lee)'
