'Defensive Missiles' on RAF BAe 146!

[Bunker Mentality]

A front page article in today's (9 Jan 05) 'Sunday Telegraph' under the headline "PM used Queen's Flight for Egyptian holiday 'freebie'" said:

"The Queen's Flight is equipped with defensive missiles and armour plating to protect against small arms fire"

I expect the correct version should have said that their aircraft have anti-missile defences, but it hasn't come out that way. Or are 32 Sqn's ac really equipped with 'defensive missiles'? Maybe the pax throw their stale bread rolls out the windows.

Journalistic standards? Bo!!ocks!

[ZH875]

As if the pax would have stale sarnies on Queenies kites, everyone knows they are reserved for Herc pax.

[ACW599]

That's definitely not true. All RAF stale sandwiches are sent to VGSs for weekend lunches, together with the undrinkable cordial and weird-flavour crisps.

John

[airborne_artist]

That's definitely not true. All RAF stale sandwiches are sent to VGSs for weekend lunches, together with the undrinkable cordial and weird-flavour crisps.

Wrong way round, mate.

The pax packed meals on Alberts have been sent to a VGS, kept the statutory four weeks (if not fed to seagulls by bored studes), and then forwarded to Lyneham's in fright catering unit.

[Jackonicko]

Obviously there's no defence for sloppiness like this in our broadsheet newspapers.
Of course we should expect better.
But what is, or should be, at least partly defence/aviation story has been written by a non-specialist reporter and has not been 'run past' an aviation/defence literate journo or sub.
And that happens because aviation/defence are no longer perceived as being important enough to justify sufficient investment in suitably qualified people, meaning that even our broadsheets usually have only a single defence man.

In any event, I'm surprised that people on this forum seem to be more concerned with poking fun at a relatively unimportant error than with addressing the underlying issue - which was that a precious service resource has been tied up for weeks in service of Mr Blair's Christmas holiday, and that by scheduling a single piece of business Blair got exclusive use of a 146 (and its crew) while paying only the standard civil air fare for the privilege.

[Mikehegland]

2 points to make here.


ONE - Are you sure the journalists have made a mistake. Why shouldn't the Queens flight be protected by defensive missiles and armour plating?

TWO - Surely our great leader is entitled to use the governments property when he is using it to promote and create business for this country. I think Mr Blair has every right to use this aircraft, so get off his back and give him the support he so rightly deserves.

[Archimedes]

Er... what business was he promoting in Egypt? Timeshares?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

A Pyramid scheme..........perhaps.

[Mikehegland]

He was discussing new plans for a de-salination plant along a famous river. A contract which would provide job security for nearly a thousand British workers and give a fresh impetus into the british de-salinisation industry.....
He also took the oportunity to discuss political relationships with his friends and political allies in Egypt as well as promoting UK defence industries.


Next..

[JessTheDog]

2 points to make here.

ONE - Are you sure the journalists have made a mistake. Why shouldn't the Queens flight be protected by defensive missiles and armour plating?

TWO - Surely our great leader is entitled to use the governments property when he is using it to promote and create business for this country. I think Mr Blair has every right to use this aircraft, so get off his back and give him the support he so rightly deserves.


One - the guys and gals on this thread should know.

Two - Bliar is not the head of state, Her Majesty is. He has a department, with a budget, and is accountable like the rest of us who work for HM. He should not be screwing the system for the benefit of his brood in a manner that would get anyone in uniform in trouble.

He was discussing new plans for a de-salination plant along a famous river. A contract which would provide job security for nearly a thousand British workers and give a fresh impetus into the british de-salinisation industry.....
He also took the oportunity to discuss political relationships with his friends and political allies in Egypt as well as promoting UK defence industries.


Next..

Let's see what the FOI has to say about his itinerary. :E

[Mikehegland]

Excellent. 26 Minutes. I won. Sorry Smudge, you were miles out. Better luck next time fella.

[Archimedes]

That was a genuine question, Mike - we were told 'business' only after criticism, and the nature of that business was hardly flagged up. On top of that, do you think that the possibility of securing a few jobs merited his staying on holiday in the aftermath of the biggest single-event loss of British life since WW2?

As JN says, the impression is that the business discussions were merely a mechanism to secure access to the flight. I have no problem with the notion that the PM needs to have secure transport in this day and age, but this isn't a one-off. It appears that 32(TR) are being used as a bit of a taxi service for the PM's jollies, rather than for official purposes thanks to a spot of line-blurring by No. 10. As they're so good at placing TB in such a favourable light, you'd have thought that they might have knocked this issue on the head by now, perhaps?

Yes, I may have swum neatly to your large grounding net, but there is a serious point to be made here!

[Edit to add - I think it's called a grounding net - I mean the big thing used to bring fish, bicycle wheels and scuba-diving Deputy Prime Ministers into the river bank]

[Mikehegland]

Cynics, the lot of ya. I don't believe for one minute that Mr Blair would even consider using HM's finest for his own personal transport.
Mr Blair has once and for all rid this country of sleeze and lies. 3 Cheers for that.

[Jimlad]

"Cynics, the lot of ya. I don't believe for one minute that Mr Blair would even consider using HM's finest for his own personal transport.
Mr Blair has once and for all rid this country of sleeze and lies. 3 Cheers for that."

Now I know you are being heavily ironic - a relief as I thought you were being serious for a moment.

[Father Jack Hackett]

Leaving TB alone (momentarily), I'd like to go back to a bit of Journo'-bashing.

This is the latest in a long line of defence/aviation related newspaper articles that have been riddled with arrant b0!!0ck$ that the likes of us can pick up on, but average joe on the street would quite understandably take at face value.

Point is, there are plenty of other topics that I for one know very little about (brain-surgery, macro-economics, reliable chat-up techniques etc) and would therefore be in the same boat as average joe in my ability to spot shoddy journalism in all the other stuff I read in the papers.

So just how much inaccuracy and plain fiction is there out there and should I stop taking the Times and the Telegraph and read the Sport instead?

And by the way JackoNicko, I'm sorry but I don't agree that not having time to consult a relevant expert is a good enough excuse, not when we are paying good money to buy their papers and keep them in a job - it's just not professional - "Sorry I flew straight through that CB and trashed my aircraft but I didn't have time to speak to the Met Man...........".

[Jackonicko]

Father Jack,

Don't get me wrong. I naturally think that the Telegraph should be employing more pro defence/aviation journos, and using others as consultants. I'd have happily corrected the more glaring errors had they had the wit and the cash to call me.

And it's not that they don't have time, it's that they don't want to spend the money.

And that's because the perception is that no-one gives a tuppeny bit, and they have that perception because readers don't write in or phone and complain when they do make a mess of defence stories.

[JessTheDog]

I'm no Blair fan, but it does seem rather preposterous that he should have to travel on a scheduled airline in the current climate. Purely for the sake of the other passengers; would anyone like to sit next one of Osama Bin Laden's most wanted targets on their holiday flight? No thank you.

Good point; would anyone like to sit next to the chav family from hell, with their burberry check luggage and cacophany of I-want I-want?!?

[Bunker Mentality]

I wondered how long it would take before the PM's use of RAF AT would be mentioned, but I personally don't give a monkey's. He is the Queen's First Minister, after all, and the Sqn belongs to the Royal Air Force. None of that Republican nonsense in my bunker!

My point was really just another journo bash, but they're such easy targets! Either the thing about 'defensive missiles' was made up, or the plonker who wrote it completely failed to understand his/her source/reference. It reminds me a little of a quote I heard the other day about a poet who 'tortured the English language for years but still failed to get it to reveal its meaning' - or something like that.

[Jackonicko]

Yes he's the Queen's First Minister, when he's at work. The on-duty Prime Minister should of course use the Royal Squadron's aircraft when necessary, and when justified, but the off duty Tony Blair, or the leader of the Labour Party, should not.

[victor two]

Our aussie PM lives in Sydney and works (if you call it that) in Canberra and basically commutes between the two in his BBJ's like a taxi service, nobody over here really gives crap about it either..................it's only money!

[Mikehegland]

Mr Blair off duty - NEVER. Like a good sailor, he is always on duty. He is always representing this country and consequently should be afforded to correct privaleges.


JUSTICE HAS NO EXPIRY DATE

[gedney]

Quote: "I wondered how long it would take before the PM's use of RAF AT would be mentioned, but I personally don't give a monkey's. He is the Queen's First Minister, after all, and the Sqn belongs to the Royal Air Force."

I agree, but in these days when Her Majesty's use of her own aircraft is strictly limited, and she has to pay for the vast majority of her travel from her own coffers, it seems a bit off-side that His Tonyness is swanning about on holiday in the 32 Sqn jets.

[Mikehegland]

swanning about on holiday in the 32 Sqn jets.


He was not swanning around and he was not on holiday. His family were on holiday but the Prime Minister is NEVER on holiday.

[teeteringhead]

He was not swanning around and he was not on holiday. His family were on holiday So he'll be paying for them then......

Or of course, I may have missed the spare seats being offered up for indulgence pax.....:rolleyes:

[Mikehegland]

No he won't be paying for them and nor should he. He is a representative of Her Majesty and as such is acting as her ambassador.

Im sure that if you lot were representing Her Majesty then you would all be the same.

Hang your heads in shame the lot of you. Mr Blair deserves our complete and unwarranted support.


Mr Blairs popularity soars to a new high (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1435162,00.html)

[Blacksheep]

I was on 32 in '74-'77. The rules on who is entitled to use the aircraft and when are given in a pretty clear list. For the purposes of using the aircraft, VIPs are defined by Ministerial Status, Field Rank or their being British or foreign ambassadors on diplomatic business. The PM is a Minister of State and, as Mikehegland pointed out, is on duty 24/7. Like it or not, by the big book of rules, he is permanently entitled.

What really p*ssed us off were the Snivel Servants of the N.I. Office. Despite them not being on the VIP list (apart from their Permanent Secretary on official business) these parasitic wretches commuted to work daily in 32's aircraft because it was 'too dangerous' for them to live over there near their job. It wasn't too dangerous for the lads in khaki or blue though, that's what made us so cross about it.

...meanwhile we had an early start and late finish every day, wheeling them out in time for security checks and polishing them up again at night in case a real VIP needed to use them next day. It didn't cost the taxpayer any money of course. The flights were classed as 'training' and ground crew aren't paid overtime. 60 hour weeks? - you can stuff 'em!

[steamchicken]

I certainly can't remember any rightwing people getting het up about Thatcher or Major travelling in RAF aircraft, and that was when their transport was drawn on the strategic AT fleet.....

[PPRuNe Radar]

Mr Blair has once and for all rid this country of sleeze and lies. 3 Cheers for that.

I thought political jokes were supposed to be aired in JetBlast ;)

[Mikehegland]

Good point.

So all this is because we have a glorious Labour Prime Minister is it? Should Mr Howard be voted in then it wouldn't matter would it..?

[WorkingHard]

Jess the Dog wrote "rest of us who work for HM". I hate to tell you mate but though you swear allegiance to the Queen you actually DO what is instructed by Parliament and are paid by the taxpayer, NOT HM. Bet you could not get her to pay your salary or pension etc. Get used to it 'cause that's a fact.

[Mikehegland]

Good point by working hard there. Remember that although Her Maj is the Head of State she doesn't rule this Country. She reigns over the country but she doesn't rule.



sorry about the spelling mstakes...... alcholol induced I'm afraid

[JessTheDog]

At the risk of encouraging trolls:

Jess the Dog wrote "rest of us who work for HM". I hate to tell you mate but though you swear allegiance to the Queen you actually DO what is instructed by Parliament and are paid by the taxpayer, NOT HM. Bet you could not get her to pay your salary or pension etc. Get used to it 'cause that's a fact.

I work for HM no longer, I left commissioned service quite recently. Also, Parliament work for the electorate. I recall a speech by Bliar in which he spoke about the new government being "servants of the people". Now it appears that the only "servants" are the various arms of government employed to pursue Dubya's illegal wars, fast-track nanny visas and and ferry the No 10 chav brood to their holiday destinations......oh and the taxpayers that shell out their money to be burnt!

One further thought - it would be most unlike this government to lie about a non existent security threat for presentational purposes! Wouldn't it?!?

[WorkingHard]

Jess - do we detect just a hint of cynicism in your last sentence? Hardly surprising given the state of politics the world over. We, the people, in theory elect our own government but in reality our choice is strictly limited to those candidates put up by the 3 main parties. Some choice eh? I would like to see a system whereby all voting papers have a final choice that is " none of the above" and when that is the majority vote cast then none of the above may stand again in that election. Comments anyone? Could that just conceivably get us a more responsive government?

[Jackonicko]

Working Hard,

You've put your finger on the problem of inadequate representation for many of us, but while I love your solution it's not the answer.

If we want a healthier democracy we do need a system with less rigidity, in which policy is decided on an issue by issue basis and not according to a strict party manifesto, produced by a Party's activists, large chunks of which might not enjoy the support of that party's voters, let alone the electorate as a whole. There may be a small number of dogmatic and doctrinaire folk who support every element within their party's manifesto, but I suspect that they're in a minority, and they're intellectual lightweights, almost by definition. What a pity that all of our MPs have to be (or pretend to be) that sort of person.

How could it be changed?

Ballot papers with candidate's names only - no party affiliation. That would encourage people to think about individual MPs and their policies rather than party lists, and would prevent the ignorant or uneducated simply 'Voting Tory' or 'voting Labour' or Lib Dem.
A political awareness test to be passed in order to vote?
Election material without a party prominently 'headlined'.
No 'whipping' in the House of Commons, with a free, secret ballot for MPs instead of the present system. This would enforce a much more consensual style.

That might produce something different, though whether it would be any better is open to doubt....

[JessTheDog]

Hopefully the post 2005 parliament will be more representative with less red, about the same blue and quite a bit more yellow.

Most of the problems over the last 7 years have arisen as the result of the large majority of the dominant party and a consequent sense of impunity.

[maxburner]

Could Tone have been viewing the site for his pyramid?

[JessTheDog]

Could Tone have been viewing the site for his pyramid?

The funniest thing I have read yet on this site!

The Great Pyramid of Tony, in burberry check!

His missus would make an excellent Sphinx!:E

[Lee Jung]

Given Blair is a most regular passenger with the RS then 'Defensive Missiles' are actually a distinct possibility under current doctrine.

You have to remember that the war on terror, and indeed arguably the invasion of Iraq was undertaken as a defensive measure, or "pro-active defence".

So the 146s could be armed up with Brimstone/StormShadow/Hellfire ready to pre-emptively defend against the next major threat to the government.

If I was Gordon Brown I would be very scared of aircraft noise.

Michael Howard's is probably quite safe though.