id stringlengths 24 24 | title stringclasses 442 values | context stringlengths 151 3.71k | question stringlengths 12 270 | answers dict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
5a56cdf36349e2001acdcf5f | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | Dannatt criticised a remnant "Cold War mentality", with military expenditures based on retaining a capability against a direct conventional strategic threat; He said currently only 10% of the MoD's equipment programme budget between 2003 and 2018 was to be invested in the "land environment"—at a time when Britain was engaged in land-based wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. | What time period was Britain involved in the Cold War? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56cdf36349e2001acdcf60 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | Dannatt criticised a remnant "Cold War mentality", with military expenditures based on retaining a capability against a direct conventional strategic threat; He said currently only 10% of the MoD's equipment programme budget between 2003 and 2018 was to be invested in the "land environment"—at a time when Britain was engaged in land-based wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. | What was 10% of Iraq's military budget to be invested in? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
56f97e179b226e1400dd14b9 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The Defence Committee—Third Report "Defence Equipment 2009" cites an article from the Financial Times website stating that the Chief of Defence Materiel, General Sir Kevin O’Donoghue, had instructed staff within Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) through an internal memorandum to reprioritize the approvals process to focus on supporting current operations over the next three years; deterrence related programmes; those that reflect defence obligations both contractual or international; and those where production contracts are already signed. The report also cites concerns over potential cuts in the defence science and technology research budget; implications of inappropriate estimation of Defence Inflation within budgetary processes; underfunding in the Equipment Programme; and a general concern over striking the appropriate balance over a short-term focus (Current Operations) and long-term consequences of failure to invest in the delivery of future UK defence capabilities on future combatants and campaigns. The then Secretary of State for Defence, Bob Ainsworth MP, reinforced this reprioritisation of focus on current operations and had not ruled out "major shifts" in defence spending. In the same article the First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, Royal Navy, acknowledged that there was not enough money within the defence budget and it is preparing itself for tough decisions and the potential for cutbacks. According to figures published by the London Evening Standard the defence budget for 2009 is "more than 10% overspent" (figures cannot be verified) and the paper states that this had caused Gordon Brown to say that the defence spending must be cut. The MoD has been investing in IT to cut costs and improve services for its personnel. | Who was the Chief of Defence Materiel in 2009? | {
"answer_start": [
154
],
"text": [
"General Sir Kevin O’Donoghue"
]
} |
56f97e179b226e1400dd14ba | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The Defence Committee—Third Report "Defence Equipment 2009" cites an article from the Financial Times website stating that the Chief of Defence Materiel, General Sir Kevin O’Donoghue, had instructed staff within Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) through an internal memorandum to reprioritize the approvals process to focus on supporting current operations over the next three years; deterrence related programmes; those that reflect defence obligations both contractual or international; and those where production contracts are already signed. The report also cites concerns over potential cuts in the defence science and technology research budget; implications of inappropriate estimation of Defence Inflation within budgetary processes; underfunding in the Equipment Programme; and a general concern over striking the appropriate balance over a short-term focus (Current Operations) and long-term consequences of failure to invest in the delivery of future UK defence capabilities on future combatants and campaigns. The then Secretary of State for Defence, Bob Ainsworth MP, reinforced this reprioritisation of focus on current operations and had not ruled out "major shifts" in defence spending. In the same article the First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, Royal Navy, acknowledged that there was not enough money within the defence budget and it is preparing itself for tough decisions and the potential for cutbacks. According to figures published by the London Evening Standard the defence budget for 2009 is "more than 10% overspent" (figures cannot be verified) and the paper states that this had caused Gordon Brown to say that the defence spending must be cut. The MoD has been investing in IT to cut costs and improve services for its personnel. | Which department is overseen by the Chief of Defence Materiel? | {
"answer_start": [
212
],
"text": [
"Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S)"
]
} |
56f97e179b226e1400dd14bb | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The Defence Committee—Third Report "Defence Equipment 2009" cites an article from the Financial Times website stating that the Chief of Defence Materiel, General Sir Kevin O’Donoghue, had instructed staff within Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) through an internal memorandum to reprioritize the approvals process to focus on supporting current operations over the next three years; deterrence related programmes; those that reflect defence obligations both contractual or international; and those where production contracts are already signed. The report also cites concerns over potential cuts in the defence science and technology research budget; implications of inappropriate estimation of Defence Inflation within budgetary processes; underfunding in the Equipment Programme; and a general concern over striking the appropriate balance over a short-term focus (Current Operations) and long-term consequences of failure to invest in the delivery of future UK defence capabilities on future combatants and campaigns. The then Secretary of State for Defence, Bob Ainsworth MP, reinforced this reprioritisation of focus on current operations and had not ruled out "major shifts" in defence spending. In the same article the First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, Royal Navy, acknowledged that there was not enough money within the defence budget and it is preparing itself for tough decisions and the potential for cutbacks. According to figures published by the London Evening Standard the defence budget for 2009 is "more than 10% overspent" (figures cannot be verified) and the paper states that this had caused Gordon Brown to say that the defence spending must be cut. The MoD has been investing in IT to cut costs and improve services for its personnel. | Which programme was mentioned as being underfunded? | {
"answer_start": [
765
],
"text": [
"Equipment Programme"
]
} |
56f97e179b226e1400dd14bc | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The Defence Committee—Third Report "Defence Equipment 2009" cites an article from the Financial Times website stating that the Chief of Defence Materiel, General Sir Kevin O’Donoghue, had instructed staff within Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) through an internal memorandum to reprioritize the approvals process to focus on supporting current operations over the next three years; deterrence related programmes; those that reflect defence obligations both contractual or international; and those where production contracts are already signed. The report also cites concerns over potential cuts in the defence science and technology research budget; implications of inappropriate estimation of Defence Inflation within budgetary processes; underfunding in the Equipment Programme; and a general concern over striking the appropriate balance over a short-term focus (Current Operations) and long-term consequences of failure to invest in the delivery of future UK defence capabilities on future combatants and campaigns. The then Secretary of State for Defence, Bob Ainsworth MP, reinforced this reprioritisation of focus on current operations and had not ruled out "major shifts" in defence spending. In the same article the First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, Royal Navy, acknowledged that there was not enough money within the defence budget and it is preparing itself for tough decisions and the potential for cutbacks. According to figures published by the London Evening Standard the defence budget for 2009 is "more than 10% overspent" (figures cannot be verified) and the paper states that this had caused Gordon Brown to say that the defence spending must be cut. The MoD has been investing in IT to cut costs and improve services for its personnel. | Who was the Secretary of State for Defence in 2009? | {
"answer_start": [
1066
],
"text": [
"Bob Ainsworth MP"
]
} |
56f97e179b226e1400dd14bd | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The Defence Committee—Third Report "Defence Equipment 2009" cites an article from the Financial Times website stating that the Chief of Defence Materiel, General Sir Kevin O’Donoghue, had instructed staff within Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) through an internal memorandum to reprioritize the approvals process to focus on supporting current operations over the next three years; deterrence related programmes; those that reflect defence obligations both contractual or international; and those where production contracts are already signed. The report also cites concerns over potential cuts in the defence science and technology research budget; implications of inappropriate estimation of Defence Inflation within budgetary processes; underfunding in the Equipment Programme; and a general concern over striking the appropriate balance over a short-term focus (Current Operations) and long-term consequences of failure to invest in the delivery of future UK defence capabilities on future combatants and campaigns. The then Secretary of State for Defence, Bob Ainsworth MP, reinforced this reprioritisation of focus on current operations and had not ruled out "major shifts" in defence spending. In the same article the First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, Royal Navy, acknowledged that there was not enough money within the defence budget and it is preparing itself for tough decisions and the potential for cutbacks. According to figures published by the London Evening Standard the defence budget for 2009 is "more than 10% overspent" (figures cannot be verified) and the paper states that this had caused Gordon Brown to say that the defence spending must be cut. The MoD has been investing in IT to cut costs and improve services for its personnel. | Which publication said the 2009 defence budget was more than 10% overbudget? | {
"answer_start": [
1502
],
"text": [
"London Evening Standard"
]
} |
5a56d1a86349e2001acdcf66 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The Defence Committee—Third Report "Defence Equipment 2009" cites an article from the Financial Times website stating that the Chief of Defence Materiel, General Sir Kevin O’Donoghue, had instructed staff within Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) through an internal memorandum to reprioritize the approvals process to focus on supporting current operations over the next three years; deterrence related programmes; those that reflect defence obligations both contractual or international; and those where production contracts are already signed. The report also cites concerns over potential cuts in the defence science and technology research budget; implications of inappropriate estimation of Defence Inflation within budgetary processes; underfunding in the Equipment Programme; and a general concern over striking the appropriate balance over a short-term focus (Current Operations) and long-term consequences of failure to invest in the delivery of future UK defence capabilities on future combatants and campaigns. The then Secretary of State for Defence, Bob Ainsworth MP, reinforced this reprioritisation of focus on current operations and had not ruled out "major shifts" in defence spending. In the same article the First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, Royal Navy, acknowledged that there was not enough money within the defence budget and it is preparing itself for tough decisions and the potential for cutbacks. According to figures published by the London Evening Standard the defence budget for 2009 is "more than 10% overspent" (figures cannot be verified) and the paper states that this had caused Gordon Brown to say that the defence spending must be cut. The MoD has been investing in IT to cut costs and improve services for its personnel. | Who is the head of the London Evening Standard? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56d1a86349e2001acdcf67 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The Defence Committee—Third Report "Defence Equipment 2009" cites an article from the Financial Times website stating that the Chief of Defence Materiel, General Sir Kevin O’Donoghue, had instructed staff within Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) through an internal memorandum to reprioritize the approvals process to focus on supporting current operations over the next three years; deterrence related programmes; those that reflect defence obligations both contractual or international; and those where production contracts are already signed. The report also cites concerns over potential cuts in the defence science and technology research budget; implications of inappropriate estimation of Defence Inflation within budgetary processes; underfunding in the Equipment Programme; and a general concern over striking the appropriate balance over a short-term focus (Current Operations) and long-term consequences of failure to invest in the delivery of future UK defence capabilities on future combatants and campaigns. The then Secretary of State for Defence, Bob Ainsworth MP, reinforced this reprioritisation of focus on current operations and had not ruled out "major shifts" in defence spending. In the same article the First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, Royal Navy, acknowledged that there was not enough money within the defence budget and it is preparing itself for tough decisions and the potential for cutbacks. According to figures published by the London Evening Standard the defence budget for 2009 is "more than 10% overspent" (figures cannot be verified) and the paper states that this had caused Gordon Brown to say that the defence spending must be cut. The MoD has been investing in IT to cut costs and improve services for its personnel. | What did the MoD mention about the defence science and technology budget? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56d1a86349e2001acdcf68 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The Defence Committee—Third Report "Defence Equipment 2009" cites an article from the Financial Times website stating that the Chief of Defence Materiel, General Sir Kevin O’Donoghue, had instructed staff within Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) through an internal memorandum to reprioritize the approvals process to focus on supporting current operations over the next three years; deterrence related programmes; those that reflect defence obligations both contractual or international; and those where production contracts are already signed. The report also cites concerns over potential cuts in the defence science and technology research budget; implications of inappropriate estimation of Defence Inflation within budgetary processes; underfunding in the Equipment Programme; and a general concern over striking the appropriate balance over a short-term focus (Current Operations) and long-term consequences of failure to invest in the delivery of future UK defence capabilities on future combatants and campaigns. The then Secretary of State for Defence, Bob Ainsworth MP, reinforced this reprioritisation of focus on current operations and had not ruled out "major shifts" in defence spending. In the same article the First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, Royal Navy, acknowledged that there was not enough money within the defence budget and it is preparing itself for tough decisions and the potential for cutbacks. According to figures published by the London Evening Standard the defence budget for 2009 is "more than 10% overspent" (figures cannot be verified) and the paper states that this had caused Gordon Brown to say that the defence spending must be cut. The MoD has been investing in IT to cut costs and improve services for its personnel. | What has the Equipment Programme done with its budget in 2009 according to an internal memo? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56d1a86349e2001acdcf69 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The Defence Committee—Third Report "Defence Equipment 2009" cites an article from the Financial Times website stating that the Chief of Defence Materiel, General Sir Kevin O’Donoghue, had instructed staff within Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) through an internal memorandum to reprioritize the approvals process to focus on supporting current operations over the next three years; deterrence related programmes; those that reflect defence obligations both contractual or international; and those where production contracts are already signed. The report also cites concerns over potential cuts in the defence science and technology research budget; implications of inappropriate estimation of Defence Inflation within budgetary processes; underfunding in the Equipment Programme; and a general concern over striking the appropriate balance over a short-term focus (Current Operations) and long-term consequences of failure to invest in the delivery of future UK defence capabilities on future combatants and campaigns. The then Secretary of State for Defence, Bob Ainsworth MP, reinforced this reprioritisation of focus on current operations and had not ruled out "major shifts" in defence spending. In the same article the First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, Royal Navy, acknowledged that there was not enough money within the defence budget and it is preparing itself for tough decisions and the potential for cutbacks. According to figures published by the London Evening Standard the defence budget for 2009 is "more than 10% overspent" (figures cannot be verified) and the paper states that this had caused Gordon Brown to say that the defence spending must be cut. The MoD has been investing in IT to cut costs and improve services for its personnel. | What has the Equipment Programme been investing in to cut costs and improve personnel services? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56d1a86349e2001acdcf6a | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The Defence Committee—Third Report "Defence Equipment 2009" cites an article from the Financial Times website stating that the Chief of Defence Materiel, General Sir Kevin O’Donoghue, had instructed staff within Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) through an internal memorandum to reprioritize the approvals process to focus on supporting current operations over the next three years; deterrence related programmes; those that reflect defence obligations both contractual or international; and those where production contracts are already signed. The report also cites concerns over potential cuts in the defence science and technology research budget; implications of inappropriate estimation of Defence Inflation within budgetary processes; underfunding in the Equipment Programme; and a general concern over striking the appropriate balance over a short-term focus (Current Operations) and long-term consequences of failure to invest in the delivery of future UK defence capabilities on future combatants and campaigns. The then Secretary of State for Defence, Bob Ainsworth MP, reinforced this reprioritisation of focus on current operations and had not ruled out "major shifts" in defence spending. In the same article the First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, Royal Navy, acknowledged that there was not enough money within the defence budget and it is preparing itself for tough decisions and the potential for cutbacks. According to figures published by the London Evening Standard the defence budget for 2009 is "more than 10% overspent" (figures cannot be verified) and the paper states that this had caused Gordon Brown to say that the defence spending must be cut. The MoD has been investing in IT to cut costs and improve services for its personnel. | What did former Secretary of State for Defence Mark Stanhope not rule out for spending on personnel? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
56f97f629b226e1400dd14cb | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The Ministry of Defence is one of the United Kingdom's largest landowners, owning 227,300 hectares of land and foreshore (either freehold or leasehold) at April 2014, which was valued at "about £20 billion". The MoD also has "rights of access" to a further 222,000 hectares. In total, this is about 1.8% of the UK land mass. The total annual cost to support the defence estate is "in excess of £3.3 billion". | How much land is owned by the MoD? | {
"answer_start": [
82
],
"text": [
"227,300 hectares"
]
} |
56f97f629b226e1400dd14cc | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The Ministry of Defence is one of the United Kingdom's largest landowners, owning 227,300 hectares of land and foreshore (either freehold or leasehold) at April 2014, which was valued at "about £20 billion". The MoD also has "rights of access" to a further 222,000 hectares. In total, this is about 1.8% of the UK land mass. The total annual cost to support the defence estate is "in excess of £3.3 billion". | How much is the land owned by the MoD worth? | {
"answer_start": [
194
],
"text": [
"£20 billion"
]
} |
56f97f629b226e1400dd14cd | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The Ministry of Defence is one of the United Kingdom's largest landowners, owning 227,300 hectares of land and foreshore (either freehold or leasehold) at April 2014, which was valued at "about £20 billion". The MoD also has "rights of access" to a further 222,000 hectares. In total, this is about 1.8% of the UK land mass. The total annual cost to support the defence estate is "in excess of £3.3 billion". | The MoD owns or has rights of access to what percentage of the UK's total land? | {
"answer_start": [
299
],
"text": [
"1.8%"
]
} |
56f97f629b226e1400dd14ce | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The Ministry of Defence is one of the United Kingdom's largest landowners, owning 227,300 hectares of land and foreshore (either freehold or leasehold) at April 2014, which was valued at "about £20 billion". The MoD also has "rights of access" to a further 222,000 hectares. In total, this is about 1.8% of the UK land mass. The total annual cost to support the defence estate is "in excess of £3.3 billion". | How much is the annual cost to support the defence estate? | {
"answer_start": [
381
],
"text": [
"in excess of £3.3 billion"
]
} |
56f97f629b226e1400dd14cf | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The Ministry of Defence is one of the United Kingdom's largest landowners, owning 227,300 hectares of land and foreshore (either freehold or leasehold) at April 2014, which was valued at "about £20 billion". The MoD also has "rights of access" to a further 222,000 hectares. In total, this is about 1.8% of the UK land mass. The total annual cost to support the defence estate is "in excess of £3.3 billion". | Who is one of the largest landowners in the UK? | {
"answer_start": [
0
],
"text": [
"The Ministry of Defence"
]
} |
5a56d3866349e2001acdcf70 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The Ministry of Defence is one of the United Kingdom's largest landowners, owning 227,300 hectares of land and foreshore (either freehold or leasehold) at April 2014, which was valued at "about £20 billion". The MoD also has "rights of access" to a further 222,000 hectares. In total, this is about 1.8% of the UK land mass. The total annual cost to support the defence estate is "in excess of £3.3 billion". | Who is one of the UK's largest owners of debt? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56d3866349e2001acdcf71 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The Ministry of Defence is one of the United Kingdom's largest landowners, owning 227,300 hectares of land and foreshore (either freehold or leasehold) at April 2014, which was valued at "about £20 billion". The MoD also has "rights of access" to a further 222,000 hectares. In total, this is about 1.8% of the UK land mass. The total annual cost to support the defence estate is "in excess of £3.3 billion". | How much debt does the Ministry of Defence own? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56d3866349e2001acdcf72 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The Ministry of Defence is one of the United Kingdom's largest landowners, owning 227,300 hectares of land and foreshore (either freehold or leasehold) at April 2014, which was valued at "about £20 billion". The MoD also has "rights of access" to a further 222,000 hectares. In total, this is about 1.8% of the UK land mass. The total annual cost to support the defence estate is "in excess of £3.3 billion". | What is the annual cost to support rights of access for UK citizens? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56d3866349e2001acdcf73 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The Ministry of Defence is one of the United Kingdom's largest landowners, owning 227,300 hectares of land and foreshore (either freehold or leasehold) at April 2014, which was valued at "about £20 billion". The MoD also has "rights of access" to a further 222,000 hectares. In total, this is about 1.8% of the UK land mass. The total annual cost to support the defence estate is "in excess of £3.3 billion". | How much of the population of the UK has rights of access? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56d3866349e2001acdcf74 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The Ministry of Defence is one of the United Kingdom's largest landowners, owning 227,300 hectares of land and foreshore (either freehold or leasehold) at April 2014, which was valued at "about £20 billion". The MoD also has "rights of access" to a further 222,000 hectares. In total, this is about 1.8% of the UK land mass. The total annual cost to support the defence estate is "in excess of £3.3 billion". | What is the total cost of supporting UK citizens rights to own land? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
56f980059e9bad19000a09d9 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The defence estate is divided as training areas & ranges (84.0%), research & development (5.4%), airfields (3.4%), barracks & camps (2.5%), storage & supply depots (1.6%), and other (3.0%). These are largely managed by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation. | What percentage of the defence estate makes up training areas and ranges? | {
"answer_start": [
58
],
"text": [
"84.0%"
]
} |
56f980059e9bad19000a09da | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The defence estate is divided as training areas & ranges (84.0%), research & development (5.4%), airfields (3.4%), barracks & camps (2.5%), storage & supply depots (1.6%), and other (3.0%). These are largely managed by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation. | What makes up the smallest portion of the defence estate? | {
"answer_start": [
140
],
"text": [
"storage & supply depots"
]
} |
56f980059e9bad19000a09db | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The defence estate is divided as training areas & ranges (84.0%), research & development (5.4%), airfields (3.4%), barracks & camps (2.5%), storage & supply depots (1.6%), and other (3.0%). These are largely managed by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation. | What percentage of the defence estate is taken up by airfields? | {
"answer_start": [
107
],
"text": [
"(3.4%"
]
} |
56f980059e9bad19000a09dc | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The defence estate is divided as training areas & ranges (84.0%), research & development (5.4%), airfields (3.4%), barracks & camps (2.5%), storage & supply depots (1.6%), and other (3.0%). These are largely managed by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation. | Who manages the defence estate? | {
"answer_start": [
223
],
"text": [
"Defence Infrastructure Organisation"
]
} |
56f980059e9bad19000a09dd | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The defence estate is divided as training areas & ranges (84.0%), research & development (5.4%), airfields (3.4%), barracks & camps (2.5%), storage & supply depots (1.6%), and other (3.0%). These are largely managed by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation. | Barracks and camps are what percentage of the defence estate? | {
"answer_start": [
132
],
"text": [
"(2.5%"
]
} |
5a56d5296349e2001acdcf7a | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The defence estate is divided as training areas & ranges (84.0%), research & development (5.4%), airfields (3.4%), barracks & camps (2.5%), storage & supply depots (1.6%), and other (3.0%). These are largely managed by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation. | What organization do airfields manage? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56d5296349e2001acdcf7b | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The defence estate is divided as training areas & ranges (84.0%), research & development (5.4%), airfields (3.4%), barracks & camps (2.5%), storage & supply depots (1.6%), and other (3.0%). These are largely managed by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation. | What percentage of storage and supply depots are part of airfields as the largest percentage? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56d5296349e2001acdcf7c | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The defence estate is divided as training areas & ranges (84.0%), research & development (5.4%), airfields (3.4%), barracks & camps (2.5%), storage & supply depots (1.6%), and other (3.0%). These are largely managed by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation. | What percentage of airfields are managed by training areas and ranges? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56d5296349e2001acdcf7d | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The defence estate is divided as training areas & ranges (84.0%), research & development (5.4%), airfields (3.4%), barracks & camps (2.5%), storage & supply depots (1.6%), and other (3.0%). These are largely managed by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation. | What percentage of barracks & camps are managed by airfields? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56d5296349e2001acdcf7e | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The defence estate is divided as training areas & ranges (84.0%), research & development (5.4%), airfields (3.4%), barracks & camps (2.5%), storage & supply depots (1.6%), and other (3.0%). These are largely managed by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation. | What percentage of research and development is managed by airfields? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
56f981b79b226e1400dd14df | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The headquarters of the MoD are in Whitehall and are now known as Main Building. This structure is neoclassical in style and was originally built between 1938 and 1959 to designs by Vincent Harris to house the Air Ministry and the Board of Trade. The northern entrance in Horse Guards Avenue is flanked by two monumental statues, Earth and Water, by Charles Wheeler. Opposite stands the Gurkha Monument, sculpted by Philip Jackson and unveiled in 1997 by Queen Elizabeth II. Within it is the Victoria Cross and George Cross Memorial, and nearby are memorials to the Fleet Air Arm and RAF (to its east, facing the riverside). A major refurbishment of the building was completed under a PFI contract by Skanska in 2004. | In what city are the headquarters of the MoD? | {
"answer_start": [
35
],
"text": [
"Whitehall"
]
} |
56f981b79b226e1400dd14e0 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The headquarters of the MoD are in Whitehall and are now known as Main Building. This structure is neoclassical in style and was originally built between 1938 and 1959 to designs by Vincent Harris to house the Air Ministry and the Board of Trade. The northern entrance in Horse Guards Avenue is flanked by two monumental statues, Earth and Water, by Charles Wheeler. Opposite stands the Gurkha Monument, sculpted by Philip Jackson and unveiled in 1997 by Queen Elizabeth II. Within it is the Victoria Cross and George Cross Memorial, and nearby are memorials to the Fleet Air Arm and RAF (to its east, facing the riverside). A major refurbishment of the building was completed under a PFI contract by Skanska in 2004. | Who designed the headquarters of the MoD? | {
"answer_start": [
182
],
"text": [
"Vincent Harris"
]
} |
56f981b79b226e1400dd14e1 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The headquarters of the MoD are in Whitehall and are now known as Main Building. This structure is neoclassical in style and was originally built between 1938 and 1959 to designs by Vincent Harris to house the Air Ministry and the Board of Trade. The northern entrance in Horse Guards Avenue is flanked by two monumental statues, Earth and Water, by Charles Wheeler. Opposite stands the Gurkha Monument, sculpted by Philip Jackson and unveiled in 1997 by Queen Elizabeth II. Within it is the Victoria Cross and George Cross Memorial, and nearby are memorials to the Fleet Air Arm and RAF (to its east, facing the riverside). A major refurbishment of the building was completed under a PFI contract by Skanska in 2004. | Who designed the statues that are on either side of the northern entrance to the MoD headquarters? | {
"answer_start": [
350
],
"text": [
"Charles Wheeler"
]
} |
56f981b79b226e1400dd14e2 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The headquarters of the MoD are in Whitehall and are now known as Main Building. This structure is neoclassical in style and was originally built between 1938 and 1959 to designs by Vincent Harris to house the Air Ministry and the Board of Trade. The northern entrance in Horse Guards Avenue is flanked by two monumental statues, Earth and Water, by Charles Wheeler. Opposite stands the Gurkha Monument, sculpted by Philip Jackson and unveiled in 1997 by Queen Elizabeth II. Within it is the Victoria Cross and George Cross Memorial, and nearby are memorials to the Fleet Air Arm and RAF (to its east, facing the riverside). A major refurbishment of the building was completed under a PFI contract by Skanska in 2004. | What is the headquarters of the MoD called? | {
"answer_start": [
66
],
"text": [
"Main Building"
]
} |
56f981b79b226e1400dd14e3 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The headquarters of the MoD are in Whitehall and are now known as Main Building. This structure is neoclassical in style and was originally built between 1938 and 1959 to designs by Vincent Harris to house the Air Ministry and the Board of Trade. The northern entrance in Horse Guards Avenue is flanked by two monumental statues, Earth and Water, by Charles Wheeler. Opposite stands the Gurkha Monument, sculpted by Philip Jackson and unveiled in 1997 by Queen Elizabeth II. Within it is the Victoria Cross and George Cross Memorial, and nearby are memorials to the Fleet Air Arm and RAF (to its east, facing the riverside). A major refurbishment of the building was completed under a PFI contract by Skanska in 2004. | Who made the Gurkha Monument? | {
"answer_start": [
416
],
"text": [
"Philip Jackson"
]
} |
5a56d6886349e2001acdcf84 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The headquarters of the MoD are in Whitehall and are now known as Main Building. This structure is neoclassical in style and was originally built between 1938 and 1959 to designs by Vincent Harris to house the Air Ministry and the Board of Trade. The northern entrance in Horse Guards Avenue is flanked by two monumental statues, Earth and Water, by Charles Wheeler. Opposite stands the Gurkha Monument, sculpted by Philip Jackson and unveiled in 1997 by Queen Elizabeth II. Within it is the Victoria Cross and George Cross Memorial, and nearby are memorials to the Fleet Air Arm and RAF (to its east, facing the riverside). A major refurbishment of the building was completed under a PFI contract by Skanska in 2004. | What did Vincent Harris originally build in 2004? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56d6886349e2001acdcf85 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The headquarters of the MoD are in Whitehall and are now known as Main Building. This structure is neoclassical in style and was originally built between 1938 and 1959 to designs by Vincent Harris to house the Air Ministry and the Board of Trade. The northern entrance in Horse Guards Avenue is flanked by two monumental statues, Earth and Water, by Charles Wheeler. Opposite stands the Gurkha Monument, sculpted by Philip Jackson and unveiled in 1997 by Queen Elizabeth II. Within it is the Victoria Cross and George Cross Memorial, and nearby are memorials to the Fleet Air Arm and RAF (to its east, facing the riverside). A major refurbishment of the building was completed under a PFI contract by Skanska in 2004. | When was the Gurkha Monument refurbished? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56d6886349e2001acdcf86 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The headquarters of the MoD are in Whitehall and are now known as Main Building. This structure is neoclassical in style and was originally built between 1938 and 1959 to designs by Vincent Harris to house the Air Ministry and the Board of Trade. The northern entrance in Horse Guards Avenue is flanked by two monumental statues, Earth and Water, by Charles Wheeler. Opposite stands the Gurkha Monument, sculpted by Philip Jackson and unveiled in 1997 by Queen Elizabeth II. Within it is the Victoria Cross and George Cross Memorial, and nearby are memorials to the Fleet Air Arm and RAF (to its east, facing the riverside). A major refurbishment of the building was completed under a PFI contract by Skanska in 2004. | What group refurbished the Gurkha Monument in 2004? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56d6886349e2001acdcf87 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The headquarters of the MoD are in Whitehall and are now known as Main Building. This structure is neoclassical in style and was originally built between 1938 and 1959 to designs by Vincent Harris to house the Air Ministry and the Board of Trade. The northern entrance in Horse Guards Avenue is flanked by two monumental statues, Earth and Water, by Charles Wheeler. Opposite stands the Gurkha Monument, sculpted by Philip Jackson and unveiled in 1997 by Queen Elizabeth II. Within it is the Victoria Cross and George Cross Memorial, and nearby are memorials to the Fleet Air Arm and RAF (to its east, facing the riverside). A major refurbishment of the building was completed under a PFI contract by Skanska in 2004. | When was Horse Guards Avenue unveiled by Queen Elizabeth II? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56d6886349e2001acdcf88 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The headquarters of the MoD are in Whitehall and are now known as Main Building. This structure is neoclassical in style and was originally built between 1938 and 1959 to designs by Vincent Harris to house the Air Ministry and the Board of Trade. The northern entrance in Horse Guards Avenue is flanked by two monumental statues, Earth and Water, by Charles Wheeler. Opposite stands the Gurkha Monument, sculpted by Philip Jackson and unveiled in 1997 by Queen Elizabeth II. Within it is the Victoria Cross and George Cross Memorial, and nearby are memorials to the Fleet Air Arm and RAF (to its east, facing the riverside). A major refurbishment of the building was completed under a PFI contract by Skanska in 2004. | What did Vincent Harris create near the northern entrance of the MoD Headquarters? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
56f982569e9bad19000a09ed | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | Henry VIII's wine cellar at the Palace of Whitehall, built in 1514–1516 for Cardinal Wolsey, is in the basement of Main Building, and is used for entertainment. The entire vaulted brick structure of the cellar was encased in steel and concrete and relocated nine feet to the west and nearly 19 feet (5.8 m) deeper in 1949, when construction was resumed at the site after World War II. This was carried out without any significant damage to the structure. | Who had a wine cellar at the Palace of Whitehall? | {
"answer_start": [
0
],
"text": [
"Henry VIII"
]
} |
56f982569e9bad19000a09ee | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | Henry VIII's wine cellar at the Palace of Whitehall, built in 1514–1516 for Cardinal Wolsey, is in the basement of Main Building, and is used for entertainment. The entire vaulted brick structure of the cellar was encased in steel and concrete and relocated nine feet to the west and nearly 19 feet (5.8 m) deeper in 1949, when construction was resumed at the site after World War II. This was carried out without any significant damage to the structure. | Where is Henry VIII's wine cellar? | {
"answer_start": [
99
],
"text": [
"the basement of Main Building"
]
} |
56f982569e9bad19000a09ef | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | Henry VIII's wine cellar at the Palace of Whitehall, built in 1514–1516 for Cardinal Wolsey, is in the basement of Main Building, and is used for entertainment. The entire vaulted brick structure of the cellar was encased in steel and concrete and relocated nine feet to the west and nearly 19 feet (5.8 m) deeper in 1949, when construction was resumed at the site after World War II. This was carried out without any significant damage to the structure. | When was the cellar in the basement of Main Building built? | {
"answer_start": [
62
],
"text": [
"1514–1516"
]
} |
56f982569e9bad19000a09f0 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | Henry VIII's wine cellar at the Palace of Whitehall, built in 1514–1516 for Cardinal Wolsey, is in the basement of Main Building, and is used for entertainment. The entire vaulted brick structure of the cellar was encased in steel and concrete and relocated nine feet to the west and nearly 19 feet (5.8 m) deeper in 1949, when construction was resumed at the site after World War II. This was carried out without any significant damage to the structure. | What is the main material used to build the cellar in the basement of Main Building? | {
"answer_start": [
180
],
"text": [
"brick"
]
} |
56f982569e9bad19000a09f1 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | Henry VIII's wine cellar at the Palace of Whitehall, built in 1514–1516 for Cardinal Wolsey, is in the basement of Main Building, and is used for entertainment. The entire vaulted brick structure of the cellar was encased in steel and concrete and relocated nine feet to the west and nearly 19 feet (5.8 m) deeper in 1949, when construction was resumed at the site after World War II. This was carried out without any significant damage to the structure. | When was the cellar relocated? | {
"answer_start": [
317
],
"text": [
"1949"
]
} |
5a56d7bd6349e2001acdcf8e | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | Henry VIII's wine cellar at the Palace of Whitehall, built in 1514–1516 for Cardinal Wolsey, is in the basement of Main Building, and is used for entertainment. The entire vaulted brick structure of the cellar was encased in steel and concrete and relocated nine feet to the west and nearly 19 feet (5.8 m) deeper in 1949, when construction was resumed at the site after World War II. This was carried out without any significant damage to the structure. | Where is Cardinal Wolsey buried? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56d7bd6349e2001acdcf8f | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | Henry VIII's wine cellar at the Palace of Whitehall, built in 1514–1516 for Cardinal Wolsey, is in the basement of Main Building, and is used for entertainment. The entire vaulted brick structure of the cellar was encased in steel and concrete and relocated nine feet to the west and nearly 19 feet (5.8 m) deeper in 1949, when construction was resumed at the site after World War II. This was carried out without any significant damage to the structure. | When was Henry VIII's reign? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56d7bd6349e2001acdcf90 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | Henry VIII's wine cellar at the Palace of Whitehall, built in 1514–1516 for Cardinal Wolsey, is in the basement of Main Building, and is used for entertainment. The entire vaulted brick structure of the cellar was encased in steel and concrete and relocated nine feet to the west and nearly 19 feet (5.8 m) deeper in 1949, when construction was resumed at the site after World War II. This was carried out without any significant damage to the structure. | Who did Cardinal Wolsey build the wine cellar for? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56d7bd6349e2001acdcf91 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | Henry VIII's wine cellar at the Palace of Whitehall, built in 1514–1516 for Cardinal Wolsey, is in the basement of Main Building, and is used for entertainment. The entire vaulted brick structure of the cellar was encased in steel and concrete and relocated nine feet to the west and nearly 19 feet (5.8 m) deeper in 1949, when construction was resumed at the site after World War II. This was carried out without any significant damage to the structure. | When was the Palace of Whitehall relocated? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56d7bd6349e2001acdcf92 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | Henry VIII's wine cellar at the Palace of Whitehall, built in 1514–1516 for Cardinal Wolsey, is in the basement of Main Building, and is used for entertainment. The entire vaulted brick structure of the cellar was encased in steel and concrete and relocated nine feet to the west and nearly 19 feet (5.8 m) deeper in 1949, when construction was resumed at the site after World War II. This was carried out without any significant damage to the structure. | What was the Palace of Whitehall built with in 1949? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
56f9851f9b226e1400dd14fc | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The most notable fraud conviction was that of Gordon Foxley, head of defence procurement at the Ministry of Defence from 1981 to 1984. Police claimed he received at least £3.5m in total in corrupt payments, such as substantial bribes from overseas arms contractors aiming to influence the allocation of contracts. | Who in the MoD was convicted of fraud? | {
"answer_start": [
46
],
"text": [
"Gordon Foxley"
]
} |
56f9851f9b226e1400dd14fd | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The most notable fraud conviction was that of Gordon Foxley, head of defence procurement at the Ministry of Defence from 1981 to 1984. Police claimed he received at least £3.5m in total in corrupt payments, such as substantial bribes from overseas arms contractors aiming to influence the allocation of contracts. | What position was held by Foxley? | {
"answer_start": [
61
],
"text": [
"head of defence procurement"
]
} |
56f9851f9b226e1400dd14fe | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The most notable fraud conviction was that of Gordon Foxley, head of defence procurement at the Ministry of Defence from 1981 to 1984. Police claimed he received at least £3.5m in total in corrupt payments, such as substantial bribes from overseas arms contractors aiming to influence the allocation of contracts. | What years was Foxley employed by the MoD? | {
"answer_start": [
121
],
"text": [
"1981 to 1984"
]
} |
56f9851f9b226e1400dd14ff | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The most notable fraud conviction was that of Gordon Foxley, head of defence procurement at the Ministry of Defence from 1981 to 1984. Police claimed he received at least £3.5m in total in corrupt payments, such as substantial bribes from overseas arms contractors aiming to influence the allocation of contracts. | How much money was Foxley accused of taking? | {
"answer_start": [
162
],
"text": [
"at least £3.5m"
]
} |
56f9851f9b226e1400dd1500 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The most notable fraud conviction was that of Gordon Foxley, head of defence procurement at the Ministry of Defence from 1981 to 1984. Police claimed he received at least £3.5m in total in corrupt payments, such as substantial bribes from overseas arms contractors aiming to influence the allocation of contracts. | What do the police believe the bribes were intended to do? | {
"answer_start": [
275
],
"text": [
"influence the allocation of contracts"
]
} |
5a56d93f6349e2001acdcf98 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The most notable fraud conviction was that of Gordon Foxley, head of defence procurement at the Ministry of Defence from 1981 to 1984. Police claimed he received at least £3.5m in total in corrupt payments, such as substantial bribes from overseas arms contractors aiming to influence the allocation of contracts. | What were overseas arms contractors convicted of? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56d93f6349e2001acdcf99 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The most notable fraud conviction was that of Gordon Foxley, head of defence procurement at the Ministry of Defence from 1981 to 1984. Police claimed he received at least £3.5m in total in corrupt payments, such as substantial bribes from overseas arms contractors aiming to influence the allocation of contracts. | How much was stolen by overseas arms contractors? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56d93f6349e2001acdcf9a | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The most notable fraud conviction was that of Gordon Foxley, head of defence procurement at the Ministry of Defence from 1981 to 1984. Police claimed he received at least £3.5m in total in corrupt payments, such as substantial bribes from overseas arms contractors aiming to influence the allocation of contracts. | What did police want to influence? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56d93f6349e2001acdcf9b | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The most notable fraud conviction was that of Gordon Foxley, head of defence procurement at the Ministry of Defence from 1981 to 1984. Police claimed he received at least £3.5m in total in corrupt payments, such as substantial bribes from overseas arms contractors aiming to influence the allocation of contracts. | When were police found to be making bribes? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56d93f6349e2001acdcf9c | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The most notable fraud conviction was that of Gordon Foxley, head of defence procurement at the Ministry of Defence from 1981 to 1984. Police claimed he received at least £3.5m in total in corrupt payments, such as substantial bribes from overseas arms contractors aiming to influence the allocation of contracts. | What ministry was influencing how police investigated fraud? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
56f98a3f9e9bad19000a0a6f | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | A government report covered by the Guardian in 2002 indicates that between 1940 and 1979, the Ministry of Defence "turned large parts of the country into a giant laboratory to conduct a series of secret germ warfare tests on the public" and many of these tests "involved releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population without the public being told." The Ministry of Defence claims that these trials were to simulate germ warfare and that the tests were harmless. Still, families who have been in the area of many of the tests are experiencing children with birth defects and physical and mental handicaps and many are asking for a public inquiry. According to the report these tests affected estimated millions of people including one period between 1961 and 1968 where "more than a million people along the south coast of England, from Torquay to the New Forest, were exposed to bacteria including e.coli and bacillus globigii, which mimics anthrax." Two scientists commissioned by the Ministry of Defence stated that these trials posed no risk to the public. This was confirmed by Sue Ellison, a representative of Porton Down who said that the results from these trials "will save lives, should the country or our forces face an attack by chemical and biological weapons." Asked whether such tests are still being carried out, she said: "It is not our policy to discuss ongoing research." It is unknown whether or not the harmlessness of the trials was known at the time of their occurrence. | What publication released a report about the Ministry of Defence in 2002? | {
"answer_start": [
31
],
"text": [
"the Guardian"
]
} |
56f98a3f9e9bad19000a0a70 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | A government report covered by the Guardian in 2002 indicates that between 1940 and 1979, the Ministry of Defence "turned large parts of the country into a giant laboratory to conduct a series of secret germ warfare tests on the public" and many of these tests "involved releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population without the public being told." The Ministry of Defence claims that these trials were to simulate germ warfare and that the tests were harmless. Still, families who have been in the area of many of the tests are experiencing children with birth defects and physical and mental handicaps and many are asking for a public inquiry. According to the report these tests affected estimated millions of people including one period between 1961 and 1968 where "more than a million people along the south coast of England, from Torquay to the New Forest, were exposed to bacteria including e.coli and bacillus globigii, which mimics anthrax." Two scientists commissioned by the Ministry of Defence stated that these trials posed no risk to the public. This was confirmed by Sue Ellison, a representative of Porton Down who said that the results from these trials "will save lives, should the country or our forces face an attack by chemical and biological weapons." Asked whether such tests are still being carried out, she said: "It is not our policy to discuss ongoing research." It is unknown whether or not the harmlessness of the trials was known at the time of their occurrence. | What was the MoD accused of doing to the public? | {
"answer_start": [
196
],
"text": [
"secret germ warfare tests"
]
} |
56f98a3f9e9bad19000a0a71 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | A government report covered by the Guardian in 2002 indicates that between 1940 and 1979, the Ministry of Defence "turned large parts of the country into a giant laboratory to conduct a series of secret germ warfare tests on the public" and many of these tests "involved releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population without the public being told." The Ministry of Defence claims that these trials were to simulate germ warfare and that the tests were harmless. Still, families who have been in the area of many of the tests are experiencing children with birth defects and physical and mental handicaps and many are asking for a public inquiry. According to the report these tests affected estimated millions of people including one period between 1961 and 1968 where "more than a million people along the south coast of England, from Torquay to the New Forest, were exposed to bacteria including e.coli and bacillus globigii, which mimics anthrax." Two scientists commissioned by the Ministry of Defence stated that these trials posed no risk to the public. This was confirmed by Sue Ellison, a representative of Porton Down who said that the results from these trials "will save lives, should the country or our forces face an attack by chemical and biological weapons." Asked whether such tests are still being carried out, she said: "It is not our policy to discuss ongoing research." It is unknown whether or not the harmlessness of the trials was known at the time of their occurrence. | What are the children of some families in the area of the testing experiencing? | {
"answer_start": [
593
],
"text": [
"children with birth defects and physical and mental handicaps"
]
} |
56f98a3f9e9bad19000a0a72 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | A government report covered by the Guardian in 2002 indicates that between 1940 and 1979, the Ministry of Defence "turned large parts of the country into a giant laboratory to conduct a series of secret germ warfare tests on the public" and many of these tests "involved releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population without the public being told." The Ministry of Defence claims that these trials were to simulate germ warfare and that the tests were harmless. Still, families who have been in the area of many of the tests are experiencing children with birth defects and physical and mental handicaps and many are asking for a public inquiry. According to the report these tests affected estimated millions of people including one period between 1961 and 1968 where "more than a million people along the south coast of England, from Torquay to the New Forest, were exposed to bacteria including e.coli and bacillus globigii, which mimics anthrax." Two scientists commissioned by the Ministry of Defence stated that these trials posed no risk to the public. This was confirmed by Sue Ellison, a representative of Porton Down who said that the results from these trials "will save lives, should the country or our forces face an attack by chemical and biological weapons." Asked whether such tests are still being carried out, she said: "It is not our policy to discuss ongoing research." It is unknown whether or not the harmlessness of the trials was known at the time of their occurrence. | When was the supposed germ warfare testing taking place? | {
"answer_start": [
67
],
"text": [
"between 1940 and 1979"
]
} |
56f98a3f9e9bad19000a0a73 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | A government report covered by the Guardian in 2002 indicates that between 1940 and 1979, the Ministry of Defence "turned large parts of the country into a giant laboratory to conduct a series of secret germ warfare tests on the public" and many of these tests "involved releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population without the public being told." The Ministry of Defence claims that these trials were to simulate germ warfare and that the tests were harmless. Still, families who have been in the area of many of the tests are experiencing children with birth defects and physical and mental handicaps and many are asking for a public inquiry. According to the report these tests affected estimated millions of people including one period between 1961 and 1968 where "more than a million people along the south coast of England, from Torquay to the New Forest, were exposed to bacteria including e.coli and bacillus globigii, which mimics anthrax." Two scientists commissioned by the Ministry of Defence stated that these trials posed no risk to the public. This was confirmed by Sue Ellison, a representative of Porton Down who said that the results from these trials "will save lives, should the country or our forces face an attack by chemical and biological weapons." Asked whether such tests are still being carried out, she said: "It is not our policy to discuss ongoing research." It is unknown whether or not the harmlessness of the trials was known at the time of their occurrence. | When were millions of people supposedly exposed to e. coli and an anthrax-like bacteria? | {
"answer_start": [
792
],
"text": [
"between 1961 and 1968"
]
} |
5a56dafb6349e2001acdcfa2 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | A government report covered by the Guardian in 2002 indicates that between 1940 and 1979, the Ministry of Defence "turned large parts of the country into a giant laboratory to conduct a series of secret germ warfare tests on the public" and many of these tests "involved releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population without the public being told." The Ministry of Defence claims that these trials were to simulate germ warfare and that the tests were harmless. Still, families who have been in the area of many of the tests are experiencing children with birth defects and physical and mental handicaps and many are asking for a public inquiry. According to the report these tests affected estimated millions of people including one period between 1961 and 1968 where "more than a million people along the south coast of England, from Torquay to the New Forest, were exposed to bacteria including e.coli and bacillus globigii, which mimics anthrax." Two scientists commissioned by the Ministry of Defence stated that these trials posed no risk to the public. This was confirmed by Sue Ellison, a representative of Porton Down who said that the results from these trials "will save lives, should the country or our forces face an attack by chemical and biological weapons." Asked whether such tests are still being carried out, she said: "It is not our policy to discuss ongoing research." It is unknown whether or not the harmlessness of the trials was known at the time of their occurrence. | What was released by Porton Down in 2002? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56dafb6349e2001acdcfa3 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | A government report covered by the Guardian in 2002 indicates that between 1940 and 1979, the Ministry of Defence "turned large parts of the country into a giant laboratory to conduct a series of secret germ warfare tests on the public" and many of these tests "involved releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population without the public being told." The Ministry of Defence claims that these trials were to simulate germ warfare and that the tests were harmless. Still, families who have been in the area of many of the tests are experiencing children with birth defects and physical and mental handicaps and many are asking for a public inquiry. According to the report these tests affected estimated millions of people including one period between 1961 and 1968 where "more than a million people along the south coast of England, from Torquay to the New Forest, were exposed to bacteria including e.coli and bacillus globigii, which mimics anthrax." Two scientists commissioned by the Ministry of Defence stated that these trials posed no risk to the public. This was confirmed by Sue Ellison, a representative of Porton Down who said that the results from these trials "will save lives, should the country or our forces face an attack by chemical and biological weapons." Asked whether such tests are still being carried out, she said: "It is not our policy to discuss ongoing research." It is unknown whether or not the harmlessness of the trials was known at the time of their occurrence. | What did Porton Down do between 1940 and 1979? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56dafb6349e2001acdcfa4 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | A government report covered by the Guardian in 2002 indicates that between 1940 and 1979, the Ministry of Defence "turned large parts of the country into a giant laboratory to conduct a series of secret germ warfare tests on the public" and many of these tests "involved releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population without the public being told." The Ministry of Defence claims that these trials were to simulate germ warfare and that the tests were harmless. Still, families who have been in the area of many of the tests are experiencing children with birth defects and physical and mental handicaps and many are asking for a public inquiry. According to the report these tests affected estimated millions of people including one period between 1961 and 1968 where "more than a million people along the south coast of England, from Torquay to the New Forest, were exposed to bacteria including e.coli and bacillus globigii, which mimics anthrax." Two scientists commissioned by the Ministry of Defence stated that these trials posed no risk to the public. This was confirmed by Sue Ellison, a representative of Porton Down who said that the results from these trials "will save lives, should the country or our forces face an attack by chemical and biological weapons." Asked whether such tests are still being carried out, she said: "It is not our policy to discuss ongoing research." It is unknown whether or not the harmlessness of the trials was known at the time of their occurrence. | What was the purpose of Porton Down releasing germs on the public unknowingly? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56dafb6349e2001acdcfa5 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | A government report covered by the Guardian in 2002 indicates that between 1940 and 1979, the Ministry of Defence "turned large parts of the country into a giant laboratory to conduct a series of secret germ warfare tests on the public" and many of these tests "involved releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population without the public being told." The Ministry of Defence claims that these trials were to simulate germ warfare and that the tests were harmless. Still, families who have been in the area of many of the tests are experiencing children with birth defects and physical and mental handicaps and many are asking for a public inquiry. According to the report these tests affected estimated millions of people including one period between 1961 and 1968 where "more than a million people along the south coast of England, from Torquay to the New Forest, were exposed to bacteria including e.coli and bacillus globigii, which mimics anthrax." Two scientists commissioned by the Ministry of Defence stated that these trials posed no risk to the public. This was confirmed by Sue Ellison, a representative of Porton Down who said that the results from these trials "will save lives, should the country or our forces face an attack by chemical and biological weapons." Asked whether such tests are still being carried out, she said: "It is not our policy to discuss ongoing research." It is unknown whether or not the harmlessness of the trials was known at the time of their occurrence. | What does Torquay say about the secret germ warfare tests? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56dafb6349e2001acdcfa6 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | A government report covered by the Guardian in 2002 indicates that between 1940 and 1979, the Ministry of Defence "turned large parts of the country into a giant laboratory to conduct a series of secret germ warfare tests on the public" and many of these tests "involved releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population without the public being told." The Ministry of Defence claims that these trials were to simulate germ warfare and that the tests were harmless. Still, families who have been in the area of many of the tests are experiencing children with birth defects and physical and mental handicaps and many are asking for a public inquiry. According to the report these tests affected estimated millions of people including one period between 1961 and 1968 where "more than a million people along the south coast of England, from Torquay to the New Forest, were exposed to bacteria including e.coli and bacillus globigii, which mimics anthrax." Two scientists commissioned by the Ministry of Defence stated that these trials posed no risk to the public. This was confirmed by Sue Ellison, a representative of Porton Down who said that the results from these trials "will save lives, should the country or our forces face an attack by chemical and biological weapons." Asked whether such tests are still being carried out, she said: "It is not our policy to discuss ongoing research." It is unknown whether or not the harmlessness of the trials was known at the time of their occurrence. | What is the Guardian asking for regarding the secret tests? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
56f98fca9b226e1400dd1582 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The MoD has been criticised for an ongoing fiasco, having spent £240m on eight Chinook HC3 helicopters which only started to enter service in 2010, years after they were ordered in 1995 and delivered in 2001. A National Audit Office report reveals that the helicopters have been stored in air conditioned hangars in Britain since their 2001[why?] delivery, while troops in Afghanistan have been forced to rely on helicopters which are flying with safety faults. By the time the Chinooks are airworthy, the total cost of the project could be as much as £500m. | How much did the MoD spend on Chinook helicopters? | {
"answer_start": [
64
],
"text": [
"£240m"
]
} |
56f98fca9b226e1400dd1583 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The MoD has been criticised for an ongoing fiasco, having spent £240m on eight Chinook HC3 helicopters which only started to enter service in 2010, years after they were ordered in 1995 and delivered in 2001. A National Audit Office report reveals that the helicopters have been stored in air conditioned hangars in Britain since their 2001[why?] delivery, while troops in Afghanistan have been forced to rely on helicopters which are flying with safety faults. By the time the Chinooks are airworthy, the total cost of the project could be as much as £500m. | When were the helicopters ordered? | {
"answer_start": [
181
],
"text": [
"1995"
]
} |
56f98fca9b226e1400dd1584 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The MoD has been criticised for an ongoing fiasco, having spent £240m on eight Chinook HC3 helicopters which only started to enter service in 2010, years after they were ordered in 1995 and delivered in 2001. A National Audit Office report reveals that the helicopters have been stored in air conditioned hangars in Britain since their 2001[why?] delivery, while troops in Afghanistan have been forced to rely on helicopters which are flying with safety faults. By the time the Chinooks are airworthy, the total cost of the project could be as much as £500m. | Which office reported that the helicopters were being stored, rather than used? | {
"answer_start": [
211
],
"text": [
"National Audit Office"
]
} |
56f98fca9b226e1400dd1585 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The MoD has been criticised for an ongoing fiasco, having spent £240m on eight Chinook HC3 helicopters which only started to enter service in 2010, years after they were ordered in 1995 and delivered in 2001. A National Audit Office report reveals that the helicopters have been stored in air conditioned hangars in Britain since their 2001[why?] delivery, while troops in Afghanistan have been forced to rely on helicopters which are flying with safety faults. By the time the Chinooks are airworthy, the total cost of the project could be as much as £500m. | In what year were the helicopters brought into service? | {
"answer_start": [
142
],
"text": [
"2010"
]
} |
56f98fca9b226e1400dd1586 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The MoD has been criticised for an ongoing fiasco, having spent £240m on eight Chinook HC3 helicopters which only started to enter service in 2010, years after they were ordered in 1995 and delivered in 2001. A National Audit Office report reveals that the helicopters have been stored in air conditioned hangars in Britain since their 2001[why?] delivery, while troops in Afghanistan have been forced to rely on helicopters which are flying with safety faults. By the time the Chinooks are airworthy, the total cost of the project could be as much as £500m. | What is the estimated total cost of the Chinook helicopter project? | {
"answer_start": [
552
],
"text": [
"£500m"
]
} |
5a56dc506349e2001acdcfac | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The MoD has been criticised for an ongoing fiasco, having spent £240m on eight Chinook HC3 helicopters which only started to enter service in 2010, years after they were ordered in 1995 and delivered in 2001. A National Audit Office report reveals that the helicopters have been stored in air conditioned hangars in Britain since their 2001[why?] delivery, while troops in Afghanistan have been forced to rely on helicopters which are flying with safety faults. By the time the Chinooks are airworthy, the total cost of the project could be as much as £500m. | In 1995 what did the National Audit Office order? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56dc506349e2001acdcfad | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The MoD has been criticised for an ongoing fiasco, having spent £240m on eight Chinook HC3 helicopters which only started to enter service in 2010, years after they were ordered in 1995 and delivered in 2001. A National Audit Office report reveals that the helicopters have been stored in air conditioned hangars in Britain since their 2001[why?] delivery, while troops in Afghanistan have been forced to rely on helicopters which are flying with safety faults. By the time the Chinooks are airworthy, the total cost of the project could be as much as £500m. | When were the helicopters with safety faults ordered by the Audit Office? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56dc506349e2001acdcfae | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The MoD has been criticised for an ongoing fiasco, having spent £240m on eight Chinook HC3 helicopters which only started to enter service in 2010, years after they were ordered in 1995 and delivered in 2001. A National Audit Office report reveals that the helicopters have been stored in air conditioned hangars in Britain since their 2001[why?] delivery, while troops in Afghanistan have been forced to rely on helicopters which are flying with safety faults. By the time the Chinooks are airworthy, the total cost of the project could be as much as £500m. | Since what year have the helicopters with safety faults been stored? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56dc506349e2001acdcfaf | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The MoD has been criticised for an ongoing fiasco, having spent £240m on eight Chinook HC3 helicopters which only started to enter service in 2010, years after they were ordered in 1995 and delivered in 2001. A National Audit Office report reveals that the helicopters have been stored in air conditioned hangars in Britain since their 2001[why?] delivery, while troops in Afghanistan have been forced to rely on helicopters which are flying with safety faults. By the time the Chinooks are airworthy, the total cost of the project could be as much as £500m. | How much did the helicopters with safety faults cost when ordered in 2010? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56dc506349e2001acdcfb0 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | The MoD has been criticised for an ongoing fiasco, having spent £240m on eight Chinook HC3 helicopters which only started to enter service in 2010, years after they were ordered in 1995 and delivered in 2001. A National Audit Office report reveals that the helicopters have been stored in air conditioned hangars in Britain since their 2001[why?] delivery, while troops in Afghanistan have been forced to rely on helicopters which are flying with safety faults. By the time the Chinooks are airworthy, the total cost of the project could be as much as £500m. | When were the helicopters flown with safety faults in Afghanistan put in service? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
56f990289b226e1400dd158c | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | In April 2008, a £90m contract was signed with Boeing for a "quick fix" solution, so they can fly by 2010: QinetiQ will downgrade the Chinooks—stripping out some of their more advanced equipment. | Which aircraft manufacturer got a contract with the MoD? | {
"answer_start": [
47
],
"text": [
"Boeing"
]
} |
56f990289b226e1400dd158d | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | In April 2008, a £90m contract was signed with Boeing for a "quick fix" solution, so they can fly by 2010: QinetiQ will downgrade the Chinooks—stripping out some of their more advanced equipment. | When was the Boeing contract signed? | {
"answer_start": [
3
],
"text": [
"April 2008"
]
} |
56f990289b226e1400dd158e | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | In April 2008, a £90m contract was signed with Boeing for a "quick fix" solution, so they can fly by 2010: QinetiQ will downgrade the Chinooks—stripping out some of their more advanced equipment. | Who is downgrading the Chinook helicopters? | {
"answer_start": [
107
],
"text": [
"QinetiQ"
]
} |
56f990289b226e1400dd158f | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | In April 2008, a £90m contract was signed with Boeing for a "quick fix" solution, so they can fly by 2010: QinetiQ will downgrade the Chinooks—stripping out some of their more advanced equipment. | How much was the Boeing contract worth? | {
"answer_start": [
17
],
"text": [
"£90m"
]
} |
56f990289b226e1400dd1590 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | In April 2008, a £90m contract was signed with Boeing for a "quick fix" solution, so they can fly by 2010: QinetiQ will downgrade the Chinooks—stripping out some of their more advanced equipment. | What was removed from the Chinook helicopters? | {
"answer_start": [
171
],
"text": [
"more advanced equipment"
]
} |
5a56dd956349e2001acdcfb6 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | In April 2008, a £90m contract was signed with Boeing for a "quick fix" solution, so they can fly by 2010: QinetiQ will downgrade the Chinooks—stripping out some of their more advanced equipment. | What did Chinook sign in April 2008? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56dd956349e2001acdcfb7 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | In April 2008, a £90m contract was signed with Boeing for a "quick fix" solution, so they can fly by 2010: QinetiQ will downgrade the Chinooks—stripping out some of their more advanced equipment. | What will Boeing downgrade? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56dd956349e2001acdcfb8 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | In April 2008, a £90m contract was signed with Boeing for a "quick fix" solution, so they can fly by 2010: QinetiQ will downgrade the Chinooks—stripping out some of their more advanced equipment. | What will Boeing remove from the Chinooks? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56dd956349e2001acdcfb9 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | In April 2008, a £90m contract was signed with Boeing for a "quick fix" solution, so they can fly by 2010: QinetiQ will downgrade the Chinooks—stripping out some of their more advanced equipment. | When was a contract signed for more advanced equipment? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56dd956349e2001acdcfba | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | In April 2008, a £90m contract was signed with Boeing for a "quick fix" solution, so they can fly by 2010: QinetiQ will downgrade the Chinooks—stripping out some of their more advanced equipment. | What was Chinook looking for when signing the contract? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
56f990bd9b226e1400dd15a2 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | In October 2009, the MoD was heavily criticized for withdrawing the bi-annual non-operational training £20m budget for the volunteer Territorial Army (TA), ending all non-operational training for 6 months until April 2010. The government eventually backed down and restored the funding. The TA provides a small percentage of the UK's operational troops. Its members train on weekly evenings and monthly weekends, as well as two-week exercises generally annually and occasionally bi-annually for troops doing other courses. The cuts would have meant a significant loss of personnel and would have had adverse effects on recruitment. | When was the TA budget withdrawn? | {
"answer_start": [
3
],
"text": [
"October 2009"
]
} |
56f990bd9b226e1400dd15a3 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | In October 2009, the MoD was heavily criticized for withdrawing the bi-annual non-operational training £20m budget for the volunteer Territorial Army (TA), ending all non-operational training for 6 months until April 2010. The government eventually backed down and restored the funding. The TA provides a small percentage of the UK's operational troops. Its members train on weekly evenings and monthly weekends, as well as two-week exercises generally annually and occasionally bi-annually for troops doing other courses. The cuts would have meant a significant loss of personnel and would have had adverse effects on recruitment. | How much money was allocated to the volunteer Territorial Army? | {
"answer_start": [
103
],
"text": [
"£20m"
]
} |
56f990bd9b226e1400dd15a4 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | In October 2009, the MoD was heavily criticized for withdrawing the bi-annual non-operational training £20m budget for the volunteer Territorial Army (TA), ending all non-operational training for 6 months until April 2010. The government eventually backed down and restored the funding. The TA provides a small percentage of the UK's operational troops. Its members train on weekly evenings and monthly weekends, as well as two-week exercises generally annually and occasionally bi-annually for troops doing other courses. The cuts would have meant a significant loss of personnel and would have had adverse effects on recruitment. | When was the training for the TA supposed to resume? | {
"answer_start": [
211
],
"text": [
"April 2010"
]
} |
56f990bd9b226e1400dd15a5 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | In October 2009, the MoD was heavily criticized for withdrawing the bi-annual non-operational training £20m budget for the volunteer Territorial Army (TA), ending all non-operational training for 6 months until April 2010. The government eventually backed down and restored the funding. The TA provides a small percentage of the UK's operational troops. Its members train on weekly evenings and monthly weekends, as well as two-week exercises generally annually and occasionally bi-annually for troops doing other courses. The cuts would have meant a significant loss of personnel and would have had adverse effects on recruitment. | How much of the UK's troops are provided by the TA? | {
"answer_start": [
303
],
"text": [
"a small percentage"
]
} |
56f990bd9b226e1400dd15a6 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | In October 2009, the MoD was heavily criticized for withdrawing the bi-annual non-operational training £20m budget for the volunteer Territorial Army (TA), ending all non-operational training for 6 months until April 2010. The government eventually backed down and restored the funding. The TA provides a small percentage of the UK's operational troops. Its members train on weekly evenings and monthly weekends, as well as two-week exercises generally annually and occasionally bi-annually for troops doing other courses. The cuts would have meant a significant loss of personnel and would have had adverse effects on recruitment. | How often do the TA troops regularly train? | {
"answer_start": [
375
],
"text": [
"weekly evenings and monthly weekends"
]
} |
5a56dfd96349e2001acdcfc0 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | In October 2009, the MoD was heavily criticized for withdrawing the bi-annual non-operational training £20m budget for the volunteer Territorial Army (TA), ending all non-operational training for 6 months until April 2010. The government eventually backed down and restored the funding. The TA provides a small percentage of the UK's operational troops. Its members train on weekly evenings and monthly weekends, as well as two-week exercises generally annually and occasionally bi-annually for troops doing other courses. The cuts would have meant a significant loss of personnel and would have had adverse effects on recruitment. | What was the Territorial Army criticized for removing from the MoD? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56dfd96349e2001acdcfc1 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | In October 2009, the MoD was heavily criticized for withdrawing the bi-annual non-operational training £20m budget for the volunteer Territorial Army (TA), ending all non-operational training for 6 months until April 2010. The government eventually backed down and restored the funding. The TA provides a small percentage of the UK's operational troops. Its members train on weekly evenings and monthly weekends, as well as two-week exercises generally annually and occasionally bi-annually for troops doing other courses. The cuts would have meant a significant loss of personnel and would have had adverse effects on recruitment. | What did the Territorial Army removing the MoD budget end up causing? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
5a56dfd96349e2001acdcfc2 | Ministry_of_Defence_(United_Kingdom) | In October 2009, the MoD was heavily criticized for withdrawing the bi-annual non-operational training £20m budget for the volunteer Territorial Army (TA), ending all non-operational training for 6 months until April 2010. The government eventually backed down and restored the funding. The TA provides a small percentage of the UK's operational troops. Its members train on weekly evenings and monthly weekends, as well as two-week exercises generally annually and occasionally bi-annually for troops doing other courses. The cuts would have meant a significant loss of personnel and would have had adverse effects on recruitment. | What was eventually restored by the TA? | {
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.