In article , Richard Lamont
writes

Well that was fun, wasn't it children? Form three Guardian readers into
a committee and watch them wring their hands and dither.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!
--
Andrew
Electronic communications can be altered and therefore the integrity of this
communication can not be guaranteed.
Views expressed in this communication are those of the author and not
associations or companies I am involved with.

Boy was I impressed with that lot, I'm bloody glad I don't work for or eat
at Yo Sushi, he couldn't make a decision if his life depended upon it, still
it was nice seing Parlament burn, it would keep all the wet tube passengers
warm.

I wouldn't trust those 3 to find their own arses with both hand and a map.

ISII
"Andrew P Smith" wrote in message
...
In article , Richard Lamont
writes

Well that was fun, wasn't it children? Form three Guardian readers into
a committee and watch them wring their hands and dither.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!
--
Andrew
Electronic communications can be altered and therefore the integrity of
this
communication can not be guaranteed.
Views expressed in this communication are those of the author and not
associations or companies I am involved with.

"Richard Lamont" wrote in message
...
Nick Cooper wrote:

"Three people ar egiven the chance to run their country during a major
crisis."

One is a "rogue" airliner over London, immediately followed by a Tube
train stuck under the Thames. And the tunnel is leaking....

Well that was fun, wasn't it children? Form three Guardian readers into
a committee and watch them wring their hands and dither.

LOL!

The lessons they learnt should be digested by all those within U.T.L. who
don't have to make dreal time ecisions with insufficent information. At
least they had advisors and no passengers whinging that the 17:31 Chesham
hasn't turned up yet ;-)

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:29:28 +0000, Richard Lamont
wrote:

Nick Cooper wrote:

"Three people ar egiven the chance to run their country during a major
crisis."

One is a "rogue" airliner over London, immediately followed by a Tube
train stuck under the Thames. And the tunnel is leaking....

Well that was fun, wasn't it children? Form three Guardian readers into
a committee and watch them wring their hands and dither.

I expected there was going to be a certain amount of hand-wring, but
wasn't prepared for just how ludicrously over-cautious they were. In
the case of the airliner, I was sat there shouting, "shoot the *******
down!" at the TV while they were still arguing whether or not to try
to get it to divert to Stansted!

Still not convinced of the Underground angle, either....
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

"Nick Cooper 625" wrote in message

From the clips shown on 'BBC Breakfast' this AM, the "dilemma" is
whether to tryu to rescue the passengers stuck in the rapidly-filling
tunnel, or to close, "the watertight doors." Question is, is it still
possible to do that?!

Yes it is.... Flood gates still exist on the LUL

South Ken to Sloane Square being one place

Richard Lamont wrote in message . ..
Nick Cooper wrote:

"Three people ar egiven the chance to run their country during a major
crisis."

One is a "rogue" airliner over London, immediately followed by a Tube
train stuck under the Thames. And the tunnel is leaking....

Well that was fun, wasn't it children? Form three Guardian readers into
a committee and watch them wring their hands and dither.

Couldn't have put it better. I hope this remains a pilot. I missed the
begininng, and was left wondering how bombs going off at Waterloo
would casue a catastrophic failure of a tunnel under the Thames at
least a hundred yards away beneath the river bed. Must have been
pretty big bombs. Or was this once of those amazing coincidences
beloved by Casualty scriptwriters? I'd also like to know how the whole
Underground network became flooded by the tunnel collapse about a
minute after it happened as was implied. As I recall the whole network
would not be at risk of flooding by one tunnel collapse anyway.

On the subject of watertight doors, do they still put them on river
tunnels? The Jubilee extension crosses the Thames at several points
the DLR also crosses now. I don't recall seeing anything on the DLR,
but can't really see on the Jubilee as some idiot has put tinted glass
walls along the platform edges.

In article ,
(Neill Wood) wrote:

Couldn't have put it better. I hope this remains a pilot. I missed the
begininng, and was left wondering how bombs going off at Waterloo
would casue a catastrophic failure of a tunnel under the Thames at
least a hundred yards away beneath the river bed. Must have been
pretty big bombs. Or was this once of those amazing coincidences
beloved by Casualty scriptwriters?

IIRC, There were two 'bombs' - one went off at concourse level, the
other on a Northern Line train. Coincidence? I think the programme
makers were trying to make them realise that it was a coordinated attack
against London with the bombs, power cuts, and plane problems all
arriving at the same time.

I'd also like to know how the whole
Underground network became flooded by the tunnel collapse about a
minute after it happened as was implied. As I recall the whole network
would not be at risk of flooding by one tunnel collapse anyway.

Yes, that seemed a bit more suspect. However if the doors hadn't been
closed I guess that a large proportion of the deep level lines in the
central area would have been flooded. Presumably circle/district etc
would have been less susceptible as they are much nearer street level
and maybe above the normal level of The Thames in some places?

Personally speaking, if those 3 ever form part of a cabinet in this
country, I will be immediately volunteering to take part in the first
explaratory trips to Mars - that should be just about far enough away to
be safe from their 'decision' making!

James

Personally speaking, if those 3 ever form part of a cabinet in this
country, I will be immediately volunteering to take part in the first
explaratory trips to Mars - that should be just about far enough away to
be safe from their 'decision' making!

James

Although the program was even funnier than I was told it would be.
I wonder just how many people smirking at them making the wrong
decision would be happy to give the order to kill 100 innocent people
without the hindsight of knowing the plane was going to crash into
parliament. How many people would give the order to seal up a tunnel
with a underground train full of injured people on board. Its very
easy to mock and laugh at a fictional set up. Or to give advice and
opnions in this matter. But how many people would in a real life
situation have the guts to order the death of 100's without being 100%
that it will save more lives that it loses.
And also if it was your
wife/girlfriend/husband/boyfriend/child/parent/realtive on the train
or plane. Would you be so keen to see them die without being 100%
their life would save a lot more?

CJG Now Thankfully Living In The North wrote:

But how many people would in a real life
situation have the guts to order the death of 100's without being 100%
that it will save more lives that it loses.
And also if it was your
wife/girlfriend/husband/boyfriend/child/parent/realtive on the train
or plane. Would you be so keen to see them die without being 100%
their life would save a lot more?

Hence the proverbial "loneliness of command" and readiness of many to
crticise but only with hindsight.

In article ,
(CJG Now Thankfully Living In The North)
wrote:


Personally speaking, if those 3 ever form part of a cabinet in this
country, I will be immediately volunteering to take part in the first
explaratory trips to Mars - that should be just about far enough away to
be safe from their 'decision' making!

James

Although the program was even funnier than I was told it would be.
I wonder just how many people smirking at them making the wrong
decision would be happy to give the order to kill 100 innocent people
without the hindsight of knowing the plane was going to crash into
parliament. How many people would give the order to seal up a tunnel
with a underground train full of injured people on board. Its very
easy to mock and laugh at a fictional set up. Or to give advice and
opnions in this matter. But how many people would in a real life
situation have the guts to order the death of 100's without being 100%
that it will save more lives that it loses.
And also if it was your
wife/girlfriend/husband/boyfriend/child/parent/realtive on the train
or plane. Would you be so keen to see them die without being 100%
their life would save a lot more?

I appreciate that argument - and yes, it is very easy for me to mock
whilst sitting in my sitting room at home. away from all the pressure,
the noise etc. I still feel however that the two incidents that really
made me think 'O ma word' - allowing a plane known to be piloted by
terrorists to enter London's airspace, and spending 20 minutes
discussing whether to close watertight flood doors or not - particularly
the latter one was a bit of a no brainer. As one of the participants put
it 'if we close the doors and the roof holds, we'll be no worse off, but
if we don't and the roof caves in then we've killed thousands' or words
to that effect.

I would like to think that had there been personal relatives of people
making the decisions involved, that those people would not be required
to make the decision in case they became 'emotionally motivated' or
whatever the latest buzz word is for that.

I guess at the end of it all we have to hope that the scenario the BBC
devised remains a fictional one and none of us are ever called to make
such decisions.

James