Amateurish "New" RAF News

[N Joe]

Anyone else think the new RAF News looks cheap and tacky? As to the content, a centre spread dedicated to "some aircrew drive a car" and a review of "My Name is Earl" do nothing to remedy the situation.

And the nail in the coffin.... I didn't know anyone pictured!

N Joe

[Climebear]

a centre spread dedicated to "some aircrew drive a car"

It depends on whose car it is apparently!

F3 mates do it in style thread (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=303867)

[Kitbag]

And yet another pointless post by AIDU.:mad:

As far as the RAF News is concerned the latest edition was pretty awful, not only looking cheap and tatty but clearly having missed out a proof reader who can spell. I guess the move to High Wycombe has a lot to do with the problems, but the editorial/production team have got to make a lot of progress very quickly because on present form no-one will be prepared to pay 70p for such a poor publication.

[Boldface]

What's new about it if it looks cheap and tacky?:E

[Epimetheus]

Kitbag,

I suggest it's less to do with the move to HW, but more to do with a new team. Names like Adrian Rondel and Andrew Wise became synonymous with RAF News but alas no more with the move to HW. The new team will take understandable time to get up to speed, learn the nuances of reporting on/within the RAF and they need everyone's support to make it a success.

What irks is the fact that all the RAF News has said openly is "new team in place" with not so much as a brilliant well done or thank you for the previous team's earnest, sincere and professional eforts over several years. Gone ... and forgotten, just like that.

[Kitbag]

Gone ... and forgotten, just like that


'Twas ever thus. (Which doesn't make it right)

[sprucemoose]

I'd just like to second Epimetheus's comments re the previous team on RAF News; good guys who did a good job. I too thought the new issue was pretty poor, but it will be a naturally steep learning curve for the new team, who I'm sure will bed down quickly enough. I quite agree on lack of merit of the TV review column though!

As a journalist, I'd encourage N Joe and others to contact the team at RAF News to offer their constructive criticism or suggest news items for future issues; moaning about it here won't make for a better product! And yes, I will be continuing to subscribe.

[SaddamsLoveChild]

So we have a military drinking culture that is going to be stepped on by senior officers...............have they all turned tee total, are we never to see a Sqn Cdr on the lash with his troops, Are dining in nights to be staid affairs where people cannot let their hair down within the military confines, and are the mess bill police going to start appearing. Not really the sort of thing that should be reported especially with some un-named airman telling how he got lashed up on ops.

Own goal we could do without:ugh:

Not impressed with the paper either, not very absobent and looks like a shady tabloid. Do we need the RAF News, why not let it go.

[sitigeltfel]

In my time some mug bought one and everyone scrounged a read of it.

The circulation versus readership ratio must have been sky high. Is it still the same?

[seafuryfan]

I don't mind reading articles about the latest stuff (Reaper on-line etc), but it does get 'samey' after a while. You can only do so many articles about the same topics, with different people, and the obligatory 'new CO handshake' pic - I end up flicking through it pretty quickly.

War articles and all that goes with them, however, deserve the full treatment. Respect to all who feature in them.

I hope the new team take a look at Soldier magazine to get some fresh ideas.

[N Joe]

Hear hear, Epimetheus.

Sprucemoose - accept your sentiment but providing constructive advice is much harder than posting a quick online whinge.

N Joe

[LOTA]

Gone and forgotten just like that....wouldn't the service line management of the previous staff expressed their apppreciation- or is that just alittle old-fashioned? :rolleyes:

Had some dealings with former RAF News staff members Terry Palin and Steve Moore - gentlemen both.

[In Tor Wot]

With the RAF's strength currently hovering around the 41000 mark and the Air Cadet strength at 46000, shouldn't we change the name to Air Cadet News and have an RAF page in it? :p

[Sentry Agitator]

I managed to take a look at a copy today and it reminded me of that other 'new' paper of the 90's which died pretty quickly 'The Today'. That too made too much use of fancy colour photo's that were out of focus or too glossy looking. I don't mind the modernistic approach but like some have said it just doesn't feel right.

I also agree that the layout does seem a tad amateurish and that some of the articles are not what we are used to. However, as the saying goes now - 'if you don't like the journey get off the train' and my train stops at the shelf just above the one where the RAF news is placed in my local newsagent.

SaddamsLC I agree entirely - an own goal that we could really do without, particularly as it comes in the same issue that reports the unfortunate incident prior to the Timberlake concert and the potential for a CM as well! or perhaps that was the big plan? Drink too much and you are screwed. I would have thought an internal briefing note or one of those nice little glossy, and no doubt expensive, pamphlets that I'm getting so many of would have got the message across better?


SA

[minigundiplomat]

I find that RAF Active magazine far more annoying. Packed full of articles on 'sailing in the caribbean' 'snowboarding in the Rockies' 'Kayakking around Hawaii' etc etc. Just what you need as you deploy to the sandpit for the second/third/fourth time in a year.

For some reason, all the participants seem to be officers in staff jobs, with a token SAC thrown in to provide balance/drive the wheels (delete as applicable.

[minigundiplomat]

This is a thread for people who can read Sanchez!

You look at pictures on EGOAT. Where is the latest copy of active though?

[snapper41]

I find that RAF Active magazine far more annoying. Packed full of articles on 'sailing in the caribbean' 'snowboarding in the Rockies' 'Kayakking around Hawaii' etc etc.

:hmm:Which is exactly what the magazine is for - sports and adventurous training.

[talk_shy_tall_knight]

I'll start by stating I have no experience of publishing. However, I am currently at a location which for some reason appears to be on the dist list for just about every publication printed by the RAF (inc Stn mags, RAFA, Aux, etc). I am continually puzzled as to how these high quality (paper and ink, not journalism) glossies can possibly be financially viable. I accept there is a degree of advertising revenue, indeed many mags contain little more. Taking RAF Active as an example. Given the small percentage of the 41,000 that have real access to the the less hostile forms of military camping portrayed therein, it hardly justifies such a grand publication surley.

[spectre150]

Thread creep I know, but as far as Active is concerned I think it is a good mag. If I found the content annoying, personally I would not pick it up - there are more important things to be annoyed about. I have never understood the negative attitude of some people towards adventurous trg. When I am on ops, I cant do AT simple as that and good luck to those that have to oportunity to do it. When i am NOT on ops I try and make it happen - if my job allows then fine, if it doesnt, too bad try again another time. It all smacks of this attitude of 'if you are not on ops you are slacking' - an insulting generalisation in my view.

Rant immediate action drills complete.

[talk_shy_tall_knight]

Spectre

If that was for me.

My point was (though undoubtedly badly made) that given the relatively low potential readership I question the commercial viability of such mags. I used 'Active' as an example, but there's hundreds of glossies every month.

As an aside, the previously mentioned Soldier magazine is undoubtedly one of the best of them.

[spectre150]

TSTK - my post was not aimed at you. I agree with what you had posted earlier. I have seen piles of 'glossies' from all sorts of organisations and have wondered about just how broad their appeal is. I have wondered in the past where the funding comes from, particularly those with no advertising content. There is a place, I think, for Commanders bulletins and other material that informs the masses. There is a place for welfare stuff too. But you sometimes wonder about the quality of these things that are produced - you see large piles of unread magazines on tables in crewrooms and teabars the will not be picked up until someone dumps them in the bin. Now THAT is annoying!

[LOTA]

Skipping rapidly past AIDU's latest mature contribution to the debate.....

Just to say that I understand that the mandate to the management of RAF News is to produce the paper every fortnight at no cost to the public purse, balancing staff, production costs etc with money from advertising and sales. I also understand that Soldier, for example,receives a hefty subsidy from the Army - and sells advertising,merchandise etc.

The 'new-look' RAF News looks like the new, inexperienced team were trying to change too much, too quickly. One would hope content, lay-out and basic proof-reading will improve in time!

[Arbie]

I have to say that I agree with the majority in that the new layout and general style of the RAF News is amateurish at best. To my mind it's heading toward a US-style vision of gung-ho fighter jocks (the ridiculous sports car article), seemingly in an ill-starred attempt to make the RAF more modern and cool to those who we are seeking to recruit. Have those in charge forgotten that the RAF news is less a recruiting tool and more an in-house publication? The layout has more in common with the cobbled-together student newspaper my school used to push out once a term, put together using an ageing Acorn A3000; and even the fonts are tough on the eyes. Even those insidious full page 'advertising features' sneakily masquerading as real stories are present. Sort it out chaps...

[spanners123]

Cards on the table...... when did you last buy a copy of the RAF News, me about 12 years ago, but I read it quite often!

[Variable Trim]

Read it yesterday in Main Building - thought it was awful - what is the significance of the feature on "My Name is Earl "? Nice to see aircrew charging around in freeby cars - good advertising for the car company but does it really warrant a centre page spread when the RAF is doing so much around the world at present ? Thought the article on drinking was pretty pointless in its approach and rather an own goal - in particular the comments about guys travelling from Kabul to Kandahar and a list of the illegal drinks they were carrying.

Given that this is a representative publication that is available for the public to read, I thought it was amateurish, poorly produced and not very professional.

I've seen Squadron newsletters with more incisive and appropriate (and better spelt) input :eek:.

Waiting out.

[Riskman]

Finally managed to buy the latest issue today. Page 3 was something to drool over, particularly as IV(AC) have such a nice fin this year, and the centre spread was outstanding (and interesting). Well done the VOC.

The placing of the schools adverts pp 5,7 & 8 could have been planned better; buried in the midst of them is a small article about our folk in Kandahar helping the locals. That should have had far greater prominence in my view; that is the kind of pr that can save lives of our guys as well as enhance the corporate image. Was the new editorial team's last posting on the Guarniad perhaps?

And finally,

In the reunions bit at the back there's a chap called Derek Stevens wants to know if ex-members fancy a reunion. Of what isn't mentioned. If he means the RAF, how big a venue would it have to be?;)

[ProfessionalStudent]

Well, since we've started to include other glossies in the thread, what about "Spirit of the Air". A bigger load of self-serving irrelevant bilge I've yet to see. I

f the powers that be are trying to enforce "ethos" upon our membership, why is it full of articles of (largely) no interest or relevance to us? It does nothing for me and I would be very surprised if it holds the interest of a 20 year old SAC(T) in the teabar.

As far as I can see, it's full of articles by Gp Capts and Wg Cdrs trying to raise their profiles eg. "The Importance of Logisitics in Today's Expeditionary RAF" by Wg Cdr I M Blunt BA MIPD MRAeS RAF - SO1 B&S(Pol) DLO. I'm surprised you can get people out of the crewrooms for wanting to read stuff like that...

Tripe

And annuver fing...

RAF News - "Prince William is to complete the RAF's six month flying training course in just 4 months.

6 MONTHS? What a bunch of muppets! Why can't they get even a simple fact like the length of flying training correct? If they'd said "...the course which is up to 3 years long in just 4 months" they would have been more accurate. (Bearing mind he is sampling EFT, BFJT and RWAFT...)

And since when have 18 Sqn operated all 40 of the RAF's Chinooks. Bloody amateurs... and so are the editing team of the RAF News....:E

[minigundiplomat]

I welcome Prof's comments, as if anyone sits in the crewroom reading the glossy's, it's professional student.
See ya Monday!

[ProfessionalStudent]

Come on MGD, you know I can't read.

[minigundiplomat]

Come on MGD, you know I can't read


Ask the angry silverback if you get stuck with any smallish words....

[Al R]

Talk Shy said:
My point was (though undoubtedly badly made) that given the relatively low potential readership I question the commercial viability of such mags. I used 'Active' as an example, but there's hundreds of glossies every month. As an aside, the previously mentioned Soldier magazine is undoubtedly one of the best of them.

The readership is high (its the circulation thats low), and they hang around for ages too. Most copies end up in crewrooms where an ad will be seen scores of time, so the 'cost per thousand' (views) ratio for the advertisers is low. The ads are seen by the right people too - a high income and employment ratio, young and with money to spend and fit and healthy. You won't get a much more definable and affluent target audience - its why single marque titles like the official approved ones you see in BMW showrooms do so well and make so much money.

The RAF News relies very little on the likes of Smiths and Tesco, so distribution costs are zilch. The stock that its printed on is crap and cheap, and production costs are low (can you imagine how much it would cost a 'real' title to get decent air to air shots?). Ad sales are subbed out to Mongoose Media (or were until the relaunch - not sure about now - and their rate card is obscene: http://www.rafnews.co.uk/default.asp?channel_id=131&editorial_id=4237 ).

There would be a great case for producing an alternative mag, but market penetration has proved to be the issue in the past, not to mention getting the same measure of official support from the RAF as it gives the News (after all, it owns it).. although it'd be interesting to see if a new title publisher could take on the MoD demanding equal route to market status, under EU legislation.

Stn mags are good business. A bad issue on a quiet stn should still make about £500 profit net. All the eds copy is provided by career advancers so that costs nothing, there are no distribution costs and no returns. A so so issue for a good unit will make in the region of £2,000, and then its anything above that. If you have say, 12 of these contracts, the business model soon starts making sense. Low costs + great demographic = £.

[LOTA]

Sorry Al R, just a couple of points: RAF News relies very heavily on WH Smith's wholesale newspaper distribution - so costs in that area are high (not zilch!). More than half of its sales are through Smiths and other 'High Street' newsagents.
And Mongoose Media's rates are vey much what the market will stand, and are usually the opening point for negotiation. Very few adveristsers pay 'rate card' for any publication these days.

[Al R]

Hi Lota,

Sure, I understand the basis of rate card, but its still a good rate. Negotiate, say, 60% and you're still talking about £1400 a page for display advertising, dropping to maybe, £700 for late space.. and thats twice a month don't forget. I'm not knocking them, it makes good business. Work out the ad/ed ratio, take into account the stock used, the minimal overhead (unless they pay rent at HW now) and its a good model.

As the publishing factors, Mongoose should net at least £22,000 (+vat) an issue - they'll do all the invoicing too and give maybe 33% to the RAF. In fact, they should be contracted to give at least 33% to the RAF for a contracted minimum period if anyone at the RAF knows their stuff, so the RAF bean counters won't care if circulation is soft. Thats £16,000 a month heading to the MoD. Eds staff costs certainly won't cost the earth, I know what Smiths charge to get onto High Street and Travel (I accept your point though) and it'll still more than (barf) wash its own face. Its a nice earner.

[Beagle-eye]

Just picked up the latest issue. Front page stories related to (1) an episode of Coronation Street and (2) the opening of a multi-faith prayer room at RAF Linton-on-Ouse :*

I couldn't bring myself to open it and read further. I don't think that I will be renewing my subscription :sad:

[Epimetheus]

Why can the front page not be a constant reminder of current ops??!!!:ugh:

[Tim McLelland]

Oh well, it's hardly surprising that RAF News has gone the same way as everything else. As lots of you Ppruners know, I spent over a year persuading the RAF's PR people to produce a really good book to celebrate this year's anniversary and it was like banging my head against a brick wall. When I finally did get the go-ahead it was with a sort of grudging acceptance that was as if they were doing me a favour - not vice versa. Then after another year, the guy overseeing the project just pulls the plug and hasn't even got the common decency to explain why. When I even ask CAS, he tries to avoid giving a straight answer. Now they've persuaded the publisher to do a book based on what the RAF man wanted - rather than the guy who pushed for the idea for a year - and use another guy's photographs... but steal my book title. Classy eh?! Glad I still got paid but it kinda somes up what these muppets are like to work with.

Needless to say, I exchanged more than a few words with them, and pointed-out that they'd presided over the God-awful RAF partwork collection (eugh!) which failed miserably, then the hopeless "RAF Magazine", and to crown their achievements, they were now presiding over the legendary "Spirit of Misadvanture". I congratulated them on adding the anniversary book to their list of disasters funded by the taxpayer, but I should have known they'd be back for more. Now they seems to have even destroyed RAF News. Gawd bless 'em. The sooner these folks join the dole queue, the better for the men and women of the RAF who do a real job, rather than just sitting in an office contemplating their perceived self-importance.

[Al R]

Tim,

Were you to have a professional interest in publishing it, or was your involvement limited to the concept?

[SammySu]

Glad 'm not the only person to have appreciated that the second edition of the "new" RAF News is such a massive improvement over the comic that masquerade as the first. Oh no hang on.................................RAF News please take a look at every single page of Navy News and sort your lives out.

[Tim McLelland]

No professional interest as such - I simply went to a publisher, spent ages convincing them it would be a good idea, and then spent a year trying to convince RAF PR that it was a good idea. The PR man had already decided to do a book but evidently it was going to be another dull "RAF Book" like all the other ones that have come along. I whined and bitched for ages, trying to convince them that they could do something really good for a change but they just kept saying it was too difficult to do, and couldn't I just put something together using stock RAF images. It really was like bashing my head against a brick wall.

Finally, they grudgingly agreed that they'd give the book support if it was only done within normal day-to-day activities and that nothing was arranged specifically for me. Even then it had to be with the provisio that it was an "official" book with their silly new corporate logo on it, and that they'd have the right to edit or re-write the final text and images. Then it all had to be tied-up in a contract but after a whole year they were still incapable of getting one ready to sign!

So after that, I was simply commissioned by the publisher to deliver the goods and get on with it. I was left to contact all the bases and squadrons myself, and try to get things moving, which is hard work. The only help from the PR guys was the occasional emails sent out to try and hurry people along, but it was a ludicrous situation, being forced to deal with Media Officers who couldn't be ar*ed to help, but had to be "kept in the communications loop" otherwise they complained! Okay, some of these people were really helpful but lots of them just couldn't be less interested.

Then, after plugging away on the job for a year, the PR man announces that he's becoming increasingly dissatisfied with my attitude during visits to stations. I asked what this meant, as everywhere I'd been, the people were all very helpful and friendly, as they always are. He wouldn't explain what he meant, so I said I needed to know who had said what, as it was obviously gossip from someone who perhaps didn't like me for some reason. The reply I got was that I was "accusing (him) of telling lies" and therefore he would "pull the plug" on the whole project. No explanation or anything, he just picks up his ball and runs home.

The guys on the squadrons were gobsmacked, and couldn't beleive what he'd done, but guessed he was obviously some pen-pushing prima donna who's butt I was perhaps meant to kiss a little harder. But that was the end of it - or so I thought. I then found that he'd gone back to the publsiher and persuaded them to produce the book (with my title) but using another photographer's pictures and words, based on his own ideas - ie, use someone who would produce the book he wanted, rather than the one I had in mind.

The whole business was ludicrous, and I told both him and CAS what I thought. He was responsible for the hopeless partwork magazine (which I saw weeks before launch and said to people at the time that it was rubbish). Then he managed to get involved in the RAF Magazine, with a publisher that hadn't got a clue about the RAF or aviation, but still insisted on exercising so much control over the magazine's content that the publisher gave up. And then he goes for his hat trick by ruining what would have been the best book on the RAF that they'd ever had - although I'm sure they'll insist that whatever finally appears in April is of course marvellous!

So it's hardly surprising that that the poison has now spread to RAF News too. I guess they'll just keep going until there's nothing left to destroy. Hope some of you folks write to CAS and suggest that this idiot gets a posting to something more appropriate - maybe Cadet Liaison Officer at RAF Mount Pleasant?

[off centre]

I simply went to a publisher, spent ages convincing them it would be a good idea, and then spent a year trying to convince RAF PR that it was a good idea.

I whined and bitched for ages

Finally, they grudgingly agreed that they'd give the book support if it was only done within normal day-to-day activities and that nothing was arranged specifically for me. Even then it had to be with the provisio that it was an "official" book with their silly new corporate logo on it, and that they'd have the right to edit or re-write the final text and images.

I was left to contact all the bases and squadrons myself, and try to get things moving, which is hard work.

The only help from the PR guys was the occasional emails sent out to try and hurry people along, but it was a ludicrous situation, being forced to deal with Media Officers who couldn't be ar*ed to help, but had to be "kept in the communications loop" otherwise they complained!

Then, after plugging away on the job for a year, the PR man announces that he's becoming increasingly dissatisfied with my attitude during visits to stations.

The guys on the squadrons were gobsmacked, and couldn't beleive what he'd done, but guessed he was obviously some pen-pushing prima donna who's butt I was perhaps meant to kiss a little harder.

The whole business was ludicrous, and I told both him and CAS what I thought.

Hope some of you folks write to CAS and suggest that this idiot gets a posting to something more appropriate - maybe Cadet Liaison Officer at RAF Mount Pleasant?

A letter is in order, but with a decidely different subject.

[Tim McLelland]

Oh dear, there's always one...

Well rest assured, all the comments you've so carefully quoted have all been expressed directly to the people concerned, but whatever makes you happy I guess...

Take it you haven't actually got anything of interest to say other than post sarcastic comments about someone who has? Oh well:rolleyes:

[Jackonicko]

I don't know who bumped you off the RAF book, Tim, or why, but you're obviously riled about it sufficiently to want to wash the dirty laundry here, and you have my sympathies, for what little that's worth.

But I would have some confidence that the bloke who took it on after you will have done a pretty good job. Better than you or I would have done in some areas, I'd venture, perhaps not in others.

I don't think that slinging mud at previous 'sponsored' books (like Dibbsy's, for example) is all that helpful or fair - since none of them deserve the kind of criticism being levelled at the most recent issue of RAFN, which I really must look out for......

[Tim McLelland]

Riled is perhaps the wrong choice of words but I did find the saga quite ludicrous. I don't think explaining what happened is "washing dirty linen" though - I think it's important to tell a wider audience just what sort of nonsense goes on.

I'm sure Jamie Hunter will have done a good job on whatever sort of book they've finally produced but that slightly misses the point. It's pretty shabby to spend over a year insisting that a really ambitious and worthwhile book can't be done, only to find that after you've pushed long and hard enough, they suddenly accept that it could have been done all along. Then to simply abandon the project because someone evidently has some sort of personal issue with me is hardly the way to run the PR of the RAF, at least not in my opinion. Then it just becomes even more ludicrous when you find out that they've gone behind your back to steal your original idea, adapt it to suit the tastes of one person (the same one that was responsible for the other publications) and use your suggested title too without even having the common decency to tell you why any of this has been done. It's the kind of action you'd expect from a third-rate company but certainly not what I'd expect from the Royal Air Force.

As for John Dibb's older book, I don't think it was "sponsored" as such, in fact as I understand things, the book I was doing was the first one to have fallen victim to the new regime of corporate branding and complete editorial control, etc. From everything I managed to find-out about the sad saga of the RAF Magazine, it seems it was a similar situation which prevailed there and ultimately led to the magazine's closure (some would say not a moment too soon!). Likewise, the sorry aspect of the partwork publication is that it effectively discourages any other publisher from even thinking about producing something similar (and hopefully much better). I mean, if you were a publisher and you'd seen what a failure the partwork was, would you be inclined to throw money at another one, especially when the RAF PR men will want to wrap you up in ridiculous editorial control, branding and copyright nonsense and so on?

I just don't know what these people are playing at. They're supposed to be promoting the RAF and yet they simply lurch from one self-induced disaster to another, and now they've evidently turned their attention to RAF News too. I'm not the only person to think this way but I guess I'm the only one that is sufficiently saddened by it to say so, or perhaps it's because I have no agenda which requires me to say appropriately politically-correct things to the right people!

It's tragic that a respected fighting force like the RAF should be left at the mercy of people who claim to be "PR-ing" the RAF but consistently manage to look like a bunch of amateurs. For heaven's sake, have we really reached a point where the best that can be done in terms of public presentation is the Spirit of Misadventure while they can still manage to devote their attention to producing sneakers (gawd help us) and seeking license fees from model kit manufacturers to print RAF roundels?! It never used to be like this and yet the sorry tale of RAF News suggests that the situation isn't getting any better!

[LOTA]

Tim Mc

It's a sad and sorry tale you relate. However,it is my certain understanding that RAF News - 'old and new' is not part of the RAF PR or corporate comms (or whatever it's called these days!). It comes under RAF welfare(or whatever that's called these days!:))

[Tim McLelland]

Maybe so, but it seems unlikely that the PR people wouldn't have had their finger in that particular pie too at some stage! Wonder if there are any folks on here who have any experience of the ways in which our American cousins handle such publications etc.? Might be interesting to know how they handle things these days?

[N Joe]

The second issue doesn't seem to have improved in quality but at least there's a tribute to the previous team, Adrian Rondel and Andrew Wise et al.

If you're interested in reading the tribute, it's tucked away in the bottom right-hand corner of page 3!

N Joe

[Regie Mental]

Tim

You still banging on about this? I've heard both sides of the story and am pleased that the person you continue to harangue does not lower himself to your level by slagging you off on a public forum. Or perhaps that's the point, you know he won't do so? From your comments he is easily identifiable and as such I consider your comments amount to slander - moderators take note.

Fact is you had a fantastic opportunity which many journos would have given their right arms for and you blew it. Fast jet rides are hard to come but by plastering the images taken from sorties on spotter web sites instead of keeping them for the book showed a lack of understanding of the privileges you were receiving.

Also the change in personnel at RAF News came about when they moved from Innsworth to Wycombe. Whilst this thread is a convenient hook for you to air your grievances, you really do need to get over it mate. Perhaps you should consider putting your efforts into updating your previous opus 'The Virgin Gay Guide'?

Reg