BBC snub Bomber Command Memorial

[ArthurR]

What a suprise, makes you wonder who pays their wages.

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: BBC snubs our bomber boys (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/327109/BBC-snubs-our-bomber-boys)


as I see, no change from the BBC.:mad:

[Courtney Mil]

The midday service is being filmed for later inclusion in a special programme Bomber Command: A Tribute on BBC2 at 5pm.

That sounds good to me. Maybe more viewers than at midday?

[Chugalug2]

No doubt you could say the same of the Trooping of the Colour, but that was carried live as always with a later recorded edited version transmitted. BTW I was pleased to note a more respectful (to those on parade) coverage this year. Better prepared and scripted facts, less ad libbing (which always reveal the true lack of knowledge) and less stating the blindingly obvious, but rather commenting in an informative way.
So credit where it's due, but now this! The Beeb has form re BC and in particular with Harris. I suspect that this arrangement is as a result of BBC internal politics versus its duty as the national broadcaster to cover national events live. So live coverage restricted to smooth the ruffled feathers of the usual suspects. We can be sure also that the commentary will make repeated references to the "controversy surrounding the Campaign" but point out magnanimously that we may still commemorate those aircrew who gave their lives in it. Such a nuance will have little effect on those who condemn the Memorial outright I fear.
I am glad that Robin Gibb's crucial part in getting the memorial to happen at all is highlighted in the link. The nation, and in particular the Royal Air Force, should honour his memory in some way.

[OvertHawk]

Chug

Seems reasonable to me. A full tribute in the evening with live coverage on the BBC News channel, since it is, in fact.... News. BBC news is available to all digital watchers and that's everyone now.

I'm a huge BC supporter and aficionado, but let's stay focussed and not jump down the daily mail trail of outrage for the sake of it.

As for the "controversy surrounding the campaign"- To ignore that would be naive and simplistic. And yes - you can commemorate the sacrifice of those involved whilst still acknowledging the true horror of war.

As for "such nuances having little effect on those who condemn the memorial"... do you really think anything will have any effect on those people? I certainly don't think that a revision of the BBC coverage is likely to start them skipping off down the Mall humming the Dambusters March do you?

I think we should save the outrage for where it's really warranted.

OH

[A and C]

After the coverage of the events on the river a week or so back perhaps the BBC Managment feel they are unable to cover an event of this gravity due to the third rate talking heads that they employ.

I would rather they did not cover the event than disrespect the crews of bomber command with an hour or so of uninformed drivel from so called celebraties.

[ArthurR]

never thought of it that way A and C, could be you are correct.

[JOE-FBS]

So the BBC is going to cover the event in what appears to be an extensive and expensive way on prime time. The BBC has also in the past couple of years made (or commissioned or bought, whichever it is) features such as First Light, Wellington Bomber and the two McGregor fronted aviation films. Yet a nasty headline from the nasty pornographer owned Express gets the right-wing attack dogs going on here.

[Chugalug2]

Overhawk:
I'm a huge BC supporter and aficionado, but let's stay focussed and not jump down the daily mail trail of outrage for the sake of it.
The Daily Mail is such a useful whipping boy these days it seems that it now has to take the flak generated by its rivals! The link was to a Daily Express story. As to outrage, I'm way past that these days where the BBC is concerned. Its editorial stance is so predictable as to generate in me mere weary resignation, hence the pleasant surprise of the Trooping. You get to anticipate the fading out of the Massed Bands as Huw or Clare warm to more bon mots re heat, rain, the Royal Colonels, the non Royal Colonels, or horses's hands. I suggest that the reason that they didn't do that this time to the usual extent was as a direct result of the Thames outcry, but the Beeb is already returning to default attitudes it would appear.
A lack of gravitas would hence be seen as a plus rather than a minus, allowing of "inclusiveness" and "empowerment" for all viewers. I was amused at a comment on another thread that what the Beeb lacked for the Thames coverage was a Dimbleby. Unless they meant Dimbleby senior, who did indeed have gravitas, then I would have to respectfully disagree. Indeed respect, or rather the lack of it, is at the crux of the matter. There were many thousand participants in the Thames Royal event, many many thousands of spectators, and an enormous amount of organisation and effort into arranging it. The lack of any such effort by the BBC showed a lack of respect to all those people and all their effort.
So it is with the Bomber Command Memorial. I disagree that it is mere news, for anything can be so dismissed. It is almost 70 years late mainly because of the very attitudes that I ascribe to the BBC. That is the newsworthy side of it; that the survivors have had to wait for their memorial to the point where there are now so very few left, because of the moral outrage of the chattering classes that stood in its way for so long! This unveiling should be covered live on the terrestrial channels by a BBC keen to make amends for such opposition and to pay tribute to the 50% of BC aircrew that made the ultimate sacrifice for this nation, for freedom from tyranny, and for peace. But they won't of course, will they?

[JOE-FBS]

Not to forget that the Express' pornographer owner also owns Channel 5 i.e. a rival of the BBC and therefore is hardly an objective commentator.

[Rosevidney1]

I echo the thoughts of Chugalug2. The crassness of the Bolshevik Broadcasting Commissars has been plumbing ever greater depths for some years now.

[Riskman]

Chugalug2:
You get to anticipate the fading out of the Massed Bands as Huw or Clare warm to more bon mots re heat, rain, the Royal Colonels, the non Royal Colonels, or horses's hands. I suggest that the reason that they didn't do that this time......

They did manage to state that this was the 60th time HM The Queen had attended Trooping the Colour :ugh:

R

[Wensleydale]

The BBC are too busy selecting hopefuls with sob-stories who will compete on live TV for the honour of taking part in next year's Trooping the Colour in a new series called "Walk With The Flag". They will be whittled down in a series of live programmes, hosted by drill expert Claudia Winkleman, until the winner is chosen by the public following extensive training from the two Johns - (Nichol and Barrowman) who are the obvious experts. The departing contestants will say goodbye on each show by "going over the top" while wearing a military greatcoat and a poppy.

In this flagship programme, the winner will be allowed to wave the flag in front of all those marching soldiers in a new routine coreographed by Barrowman (after all, the old WW2 type marching was getting so old fashioned), together with £1,000,000 of taxpayers money and a Diamond Jubilee Medal that will be presented by the Duchess of Cambridge during the parade. Contestants are being chosen from many ethnic and sexual orientation backgrounds to demonstrate Modern Britain. The BBC state that the winner will display the Highest Possible Standard (except when it gets really heavy). By leading this new parade he, she or it will be the envy of the World".

Meanwhile, Nichol will identify all of the hardware on parade (although he may be somewhat rusty on any AAA that may appear) including the bayonet and a webbing belt. Viewers can win tickets to next years event by identifying the deliberate mistake in each week's programme.

With all this in train, it proved really difficult to fit in the unveiling of the BC Memorial. A BBC programmer said that the unveiling was "not suitable for a younger audience and it had proved too difficult to dumb down init".

[Courtney Mil]

Yeah. All the above. Why not just watch the special at 5 p.m? I can't be at the event, sadly, but am looking forward to seeing it on the BBC.

[Tankertrashnav]

That sounds good to me. Maybe more viewers than at midday?


Quite so, Courtney Mil, including most of the under 16 population who will be in school. Not saying that they are all going to rush home to watch it at 5pm, but at least they'll have the opportunity, which they wont have at midday. Storm in a teacup here, I reckon.

Oh and I quite liked the Trooping of the Colour coverage - huge improvement on the Diamond Jubilee Celebrations.

[A and C]

Perhaps I was a little hard on the BBC in my first comments, reflecting apron the issue I would think that after the appalling coverage of the river pageant the BBC management Know without doubt they don't have the quality of staff to cover the event live. Realising that thay can't afford another fiasco the best option is to cover the events later in the day with a recorded program that they have the chance to edit out all the mistakes.

This is probably the best option as at least the program has a fighting chance of being free of celebrity induced inaccurate mouth noise.

I find it very sad that the BBC has lost its direction and continues to compleatly miss the events of national importance, Sky News Realising the importance of the Airbus A380 project to the industrial base of the UK covered the first flight live, the BBC breakfast news meanwhile was covering woman's golf and failed to give any coverage at all to A380 first flight. This is just the most glaring example of BBC lack of focus with an aviation theam that I can think of, I'm sure others can recall other and more recent examples of the BBC loosing the plot when it comes to issues of national importance.

[AGS Man]

A & C
I don't remember the year but I do know it was a monday. I always arrived home from Saudi Arabia on a monday and usually bad things happened that day!
On the BBC evening news the headline story was another government minister with his finger in the till. The lead story on the ITV news was a nerve gas attack on the Tokyo Subway! nuff said!

[teeteringhead]

.... no "of" in Trooping the Colour ...

[Chugalug2]

A&C if this were but a case of self recognition by the Beeb of its inability to present live an event of national importance then I for one would welcome this first uncertain step towards Damascus. A beguiling notion but upon reflection I would have to sternly chide myself to "dream on". The Corporation is and has been in the thrall of those with an agenda concerning the Monarchy, the Armed Forces and, in particular for the purposes of this thread, the WWII RAF Bombing Campaign. Most of its output on the subject has pursued the party line, as discussed here in previous threads. It represents the very forces that have effectively prevented the creation of a proper National Bomber Command Memorial until now. Such a cruel rebuff to the survivors who have now dwindled to but a few is a measure of the lofty contempt for duty and service held by such "liberally minded" aficionados. If it be a choice between them and a deceased pop star and:
the Express' pornographer owner
I'll gladly take the latter two any day thank you.
Again I call for proper recognition of the debt that both this Nation and the RAF owe to Robin Gibb, without whom the forces of darkness of whom I speak would have continued to prevail.

[Tankertrashnav]

.... no "of" in Trooping the Colour ...


What idiot wrote that, I thought. Oh no, it was me :uhoh: I consider my wrist duly smacked!

Cheers T-T ;)

[Basil]

Couple of Qs:
1. Timing - Is the unveiling at 1200?
2. Where's a good position for uninvited guests to stand? (Is there an online observer layout plan?)

Now found the info I wanted.

[Wensleydale]

Where's a good position for uninvited guests to stand? (Is there an online observer layout plan?)


Not sure about uninvited guests, but I understand that there will be a space reserved for demonstrators under the Red/Green TIs.

[pontifex]

Basil

The local authority has seen fit to restrict the number of people allowed into Green Park for the unveiling. (Westminster council I umderstand). Only those with tickets for the event will get into the park. Even then the numbers who will get to to see the actual thing will be even more restricted. The majority will be coralled into a "saluting area" where they can watch it on a "big screen TV". I suspect many of those in the "Memorial area" will be politicians or diplomats. Of course the royal entourage will be there but that's fair enough. I suspect that those having to organise things have been harassed from all sides and have done their best to square the circle. They do have my sympathies but then so do all the "good old boys" who feel miffed at being kept from the centre of the action. So the answer to your question is watch it on telly like most of the veterans.

[Viola]

BBC Regional News in our area had quite a lot about the Bomber Command Memorial today.

[Basil]

pontifex,
Thank you for that info. I hadn't realised that, other than the memorial and salute areas, Green Park was restricted.

[Mikey 393]

Basil & others. I have an insight to this via my father who is a veteran of Bomber Command & was looking forward to attending the ceremony with my mother & 3 family members. He was unlucky in the ballot for tickets to the Memorial area & ended up in the Salute area which looking at the seating layout is a long way away from the front with trees obscuring the view as well. There is no cover so if it rains on the day all will get soaked even with umbrellas & waterproofs. The organisers have done a sterling job but couldn't cope with the huge worldwide demand for tickets. Our Government has given them No support with helping to organise & are shamed by other Governments including Australia & Canada who have paid for their veterans to attend along with carers. Shame on our Government for not suporting this long overdue recognition for those who gave their lives for their country.
He had booked overnight accommodation at the Union Jack Club, Waterloo so he could be there early for the momentous day but has now reluctantly cancelled & will watch on tv at home instead. Let's hope the BBC's coverage of the event is knowlegeable & dignified.

[langleybaston]

" .... no "of" in Trooping the Colour ... "

A genuine pedant would have noted that the ceremony is properly referred to [by those who know] as The Queen's [or Sovereign's] Birthday Parade, in that a great deal more than the Troop happens.

[Wander00]

Nothing on last night's 10pm news about it - lots of bl@@dy football

[TMK1]

The statement on the website puts the ticketing in a little more perspective.

Home - Bomber Command Memorial Appeal (http://www.bombercommand.com/)

[Samuel]

Oh to be a fly on the wall with this lot!

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e33/Shadblat/7146312_600x400.jpg

[Samuel]

Whenuapai this morning. Have a safe trip guys.:D You're bound to recognise them if you see them, and if you do, don't forget to say "G'day mate".

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e33/Shadblat/DSC_0212.jpg

[jindabyne]

Well done NZ!!

[Ray Dahvectac]

Well done NZ!!

Well said! Excellent that so many Kiwi veterans will be there. BZ RNZAF! :D

[Chugalug2]

Thank you Samuel. No better indication of dedication and sense of duty, so characteristic of your country and its veterans, could better that than as shown in your pictures. May their journey be pleasant and their reception be a fitting one in London.
Aotearoa - Land of the Long White Cloud.

[Halcyon Days]

Top marks N.Z.
You came a long way then for us and you do it again now-my respect and admiration knows no bounds.

[Samuel]

It occurred to me while posting that group photo that for a good number of those men, the last time they flew over England it was in a Lancaster on the way to Germany!

[Heathrow Harry]

to be pedantic - the last time they flew over England was on their way BACK from Germany

sadly all too many of them only made a one way trip........

[HTB]

I listened to a Radio 4 programme earlier in the week that is closely related to the topic - "Things we forgot to remember". A description of the programme content is below, and it was (for a change on the BBC) sympathetic to bomber command. The interview excerpts with the BC veteran (a highly experienced nav leader) were both informative of attitudes at the time and...well it was probably a touch of hay fever or dust in the air...very moving. The technical bits are fascinating, and the sheer good luck of being gifted the Luftwaffe equipment almost beyond belief.


Through the story of a German night fighter captured in Suffolk, Michael Portillo remembers the crucial electronic war waged between the Axis and the Allies.
In July 1944 the crew of a Junkers JU88 night fighter, lost and without fuel, emergency landed their plane on an RAF airfield in Suffolk. This gift from the skies provided British Air Intelligence with the latest German radar secrets. Throughout the war a technological see-saw had been underway with each side trying to gain the the advantage in radar detection and evasion equipment. The radar technology in this particular night fighter explained why large numbers of British bombers were being shot down from the rear and the RAF aircraft were quickly modified as a result.
Alongside distinguished historians and veterans of RAF Bomber Command Michael pieces together the story of that fateful night. He also explores how it illuminates the vital - yet lesser known - battle front of electronic warfare.

Just type into your favourite search engine "Things, etc, as above" to go straight to the Beeb link.

Mister B

[Hugh Spencer]

Live coverage of the unveiling on Sky News and BBC News from just before 12 noon BST.

[Tankertrashnav]

Watched the BBC coverage of the unveiling on the BBC News Channel - excellent coverage, and makes the title of this thread seem redundant. The Beeb certainly hasn't "snubbed" the occasion at all.

[Pontius Navigator]

They still managed to number the German casualties and state that the polcy was controversial; all in the quest for balance. Like their even handed reporting of the Libyan uprising and the atrocities.

[air pig]

Sky played a blinder, their commentator calling the RAF March the Dambusters march, I do despair sometimes

[Tankertrashnav]

P-N - have to take issue with you on that one. I dont see that the numbering of German casualties was at all inappropriate, indeed I think a record of them has been incorporated into the memorial itself. In fact British civilian casualties were also numbered in the commentary. As for describing the Bomber Command offensive as "controversial" - well it would be naive to say otherwise. You and I and most contributors to this thread may have no problems with the bomber offensive as it happened, but no-one could seriously assert that our views are, or have been, held universally.

[Chugalug2]

I agree that the BBC News Channel was excellent, both technically and in the extent of coverage, for it was broadcast without interruption. The execution of the ceremony by all those involved, both at the Memorial and in the Fly Past, was impeccable and I congratulate them all. This was a stirring and fitting dedication to the memory of those who fought and died in the WWII Bombing Campaign of RAF Bomber Command.
So no quibbles? I'm afraid that there will always be those where the Beeb's need to "balance" kicks in, as Pontius says. In the ever necessary speech over required of all OBs where the event cannot simply be allowed to speak for itself, we were informed that "many of the survivors now feel guilt" at their actions. Even when this was challenged to the extent that some had been made to feel that way since, the point was not taken but merely passed over. The BBC default verdict had been made, yet again!

[Phil_R]

Speaking from the perspective of someone who's been behind a camera on this sort of event:

- Yes you will get better coverage by waiting. A large part of the problem with the Jubilee is that it's just a bunch of boats floating down a river, and guess what, it isn't interesting for six hours. This forces people to ad-lib and fill in desperately, which is extremely difficult to do well if it isn't your specialist subject. Edited down you can create a worthwhile and informative precis of the topic which is much better use of airtime. Unfortunately, most of the major news broadcasters have people whose specific job it is to make a note of when their competitors get a story on air; this leads to ridiculous second-by-second counting and champagne all round if we do it faster than the other guys for a week, regardless of the quality of coverage. It's pathetic.

- The presenters (and the crews, and the individual directors) are either not culpable or not that culpable. Most television these days is produced at the dictat of a fairly rarefied band of upper-middle-class yes-men with very little life experience and degrees in sycophancy. These people target television at a sort of imaginary audience of stupid people which probably doesn't exist and would be the end of invention if it did.

As a result we have a media that is specifically designed to snub logic and critical thinking at its roots; a sort of analgesic lozenge for the brain that does its level best to turn us all into good little consumers.

Which is why I don't shoot news anymore.

You may be able to tell I'm not having a very good day.

[500N]

"This forces people to ad-lib and fill in desperately, which is extremely difficult to do well if it isn't your specialist subject."

And they call themselves professional ?

What ever happened to research, preparation etc or the six P's.

[WHBM]

Speaking from the perspective of someone who's been behind a camera on this sort of event.......This forces people to ad-lib and fill in desperately, which is extremely difficult to do well .....
So how did Raymond Baxter manage it then ?

[Phil_R]

So how did Raymond Baxter manage it then ?

I don't know, I haven't seen much of his work, but I suspect by doing things that would not be tolerated by modern television directors.

And they call themselves professional ?

Inasmuch as it's possible to be a professional commentator on something that's never been done in living memory, I suppose so.

But really my purpose is not to try to excuse the behaviour of the on-screen talent, which I'll agree could have been better, but to elucidate why it was shambolic. The decision to try and make a five or six hour flotilla into a five or six hour piece of television is a bad one, because no matter how well prepared you are it simply isn't interesting for that long. None of this is anything to do with the talent, the crews, or the individual link directors. It's a mistake to assume that the people in front of the camera have much if any sway - it's a rather similar mistake to assuming that everyone in the RAF is a pilot, or that Bomber Command crews had any choice what they bombed.

P

[WHBM]

I don't know, I haven't seen much of his work, but I suspect by doing things that would not be tolerated by modern television directors.
I quite agree with you. For a start he knew what he was talking about.

In fairness today's performance was way better than the Jubilee events.

[Chugalug2]

Phil R, I'm quite sure that your professional take on the shambles that was the Thames Jubilee event is shared by one and all. I'm not sure that it was doomed from the start though, simply because:
it's just a bunch of boats floating down a river, and guess what, it isn't interesting for six hours.
I rather suspect that was the Beebs take on it and why they treated it so off handedly. Any one of the old school, Richard Dimbleby, Raymond Baxter, and a host of others would have wedded their own deep knowledge of our Nation's history, with an emphasis on Naval and Maritime events, with the scene being played out before them. They would have researched each and every vessel involved; why it was involved, where it had been, and what it had done, who were on board it and why, and how that all related to this great flotilla.
In short they would have done their job to the best of their ability.
The modern Beebs men and women did neither, mainly I suspect because they are too ignorant and uninformed too even know how to start out on such a challenge. I'm afraid I take issue with your portraying such people as being not culpable for it is their very words that always create the complaints aired here. I have no issue with the technical competence of the crews for they usually, as today, produce a superb product. It is the "voices over", alternately uttering inanities (ie borne of ignorance) or the Corporation "take" (ie propoganda). Fortunately today we were spared the "special salute" drivel of the Trooping and the commentator made sure he knew who everyone was and why they were there. We weren't spared the latter though, and it interesting that some here think that this occasion was one in which the tired old clichés should once more be trotted out. Why?
The Beeb is the British Broadcasting Corporation, not Parliament, not The Archbishop of Canterbury, or any other body we might expect to continually pronounce on what it perceives to be rights and wrongs. It is merely a broadcaster, yet we have grown so used to its editorial pronouncements, be it in OBs, documentaries, studio interviews and discussions that it has become the norm. Why?
It may well accord with some who find themselves in agreement with its pronouncements, but they should perhaps ask themselves how they would feel if they were not. Still obliged, under threat of a Criminal Record if they demure, to pay for it by direct taxation, and yet continually aggrieved by its pronouncements. If one bunch of people can take control of it, then any bunch can. It is the national broadcaster and should simply satisfy itself with being just that, to the best of its ability, and stop trying to get us all thinking in the same way as the "Chattering Classes".

[500N]

Phil

I disagree. Chugalug summed it up well.

"They would have researched each and every vessel involved; why it was involved, where it had been, and what it had done, who were on board it and why, and how that all related to this great flotilla.
In short they would have done their job to the best of their ability.
The modern Beebs men and women did neither, mainly I suspect because they are too ignorant and uninformed too even know how to start out on such a challenge."


The depth and breadth of boats from around the world lent itself a great commentary, sadly which was lacking.

Here is a quick example of an opportunity lost.
At 0.50, the presenter says "this is a dutch barge that is twice as wide as a narrow boat" yet doesn't explain what a narrow boat is so how can you compare.
River Pageant River Thames London (BBC's car crash coverage) - YouTube

And what about all the Dunkirk boats ? That opens up a whole wealth of historical information and photos that could have been shown.

And the boats from Commonwealth countries, that also presents an opportunity to expand on the boat, country, people etc.

Anyway, I just don't think they care and so it won't change.

[XV490]

Did anyone see Who Betrayed the Bomber Boys? on the Yesterday Channel last night? It was narrated by Stephen Fry who, given the script, would not have taken the job if he didn't agree with its sentiments. No doubt his (probably very thorough) research on 617 Sqn has influenced his views.

Great contributions, too, from Robin Gibb and Jonathan Dimbleby. The programme's title says it all. Doubtless it will be repeated...

... at 1pm today (Friday)

[Tankertrashnav]

Whilst I agree that this memorial is long overdue, and that Bomber Command was sidelined in many ways after the war, there is one oft-repeated assertion that needs to be clarified.

Once again during yesterday's commentary it was stated that "Bomber Command was denied a campaign medal". This needs to be clarified, as many have understood this to mean that Bomber Command aircrew were uniquely denied campaign medals, a misunderstanding that one look at the chests of those attending yesterday should have dispelled.

The simple fact is that Sir Arthur Harris felt that in addition to the campaign stars awarded to his crews (Aircrew Europe or France & Germany Star), a medal should be struck which would only be awarded to Bomber Command crews. This was refused on the grounds that all the stars were theatre awards and no other formation in the armed forces had been awarded a special medal and to create a precedent would open up demands from many other deserving cases. Thus there was never an official Bomber Command Medal, but neither was there a Submarine Service Medal, a Commando Medal, or many others you might think of.

[kevmusic]

I saw 'Who Betrayed the Bomber Boys' and I thought it was excellent. It said everything that needed to be said...........about 60 years too late!

[WHBM]

I am reminded (by the image a couple of posts up of the gormless 1980s has-been "personality" Anneka Rice getting a part in the Jubilee programme) of how the BBC (and other broadcasters) work nowadays.

The programme is approved, and it becomes known that there is a budget of say £300k for it. There are myriad personalities, all represented by an equally myriad labyrinth of agents, who all say on learning of any budget "that's mine", and launch into an overwhelming, not to say murky, lobbying routine of the relevant production staff. The agents have no interest in whether their client has any ability for the programme, they just want the job for their person, and their percentage. If they can stick one over on the production team, so be it. Their person shows up, they get the money. If they're useless, pocket the money and on to the next person they represent.

Anyone who understands aviation, the military involved, etc (getting back to subject) probably doesn't have an agent and so gets nowhere near any of this. There are also BBC staff who just won't consider anybody contributing who doesn't have an Equity card.

[Phil_R]

The modern Beebs men and women did neither, mainly I suspect because they are too ignorant and uninformed too even know how to start out on such a challenge.

That may or may not be true, but that's not really the point. The issue is not what could be done, but what is desired to be done by the people who design this sort of broadcasting. Of course they could get people with the requisite knowledge if they wanted to, and most of the presenters they used are more than capable of doing the research - there's just no desire to produce that sort of programming, at least at the executive level.

I am of course building something of a straw man here, but I suspect that proposals to produce a broadcast along the lines of what's being discussed in this thread - involving a factual review of the history of the vessels involved - would be received, after the laughter had died down, of being far too much of a lecture, far too dictatorial in tone and inappropriate for something that was supposed to be a celebration (and I might agree, to some extent). In a wider sense, due to "the unique way in which it is funded", the BBC is often terribly self-conscious about its public service remit (much more so than the other PS broadcasters in the UK) and has a terrible tendency to overdo things like audience participation, even when that participation involves monosyllabic responses to a presenter's questions from a clearly-uncomfortable member of the public. At risk of sounding like Richard Littlejohn, there would very likely have been a review process (that's a "debrief", mil types) after the event at which some chortling exective producers would have given themselves a slap on the back every time a member of a visible minority appeared in shot. I have been in meetings like this. It is very horrible.

To be clear, I'm not supporting this state of affairs, much as the citizenry of this board doesn't necessarily support the fact that Typhoon is many times over budget and ten years late; nevertheless, this is the situation, and it is not the fault of the presenters. In general it's worth giving TV presenters the benefit of the doubt, as in many cases they're paid talking machines. They bear a much-reduced responsibility for what they're saying than, say, a politician.

What's much more interesting is to discuss what the correct solution would have been, and this is a matter of opinion. I get the feeling that my audience here is mainly retired and serving RAF officers, their friends and families, and associated people, a largely male, upper-middle-class group likely to be the most tolerant of a four-hour lecture on the small boats of Britain. Nevertheless, I suspect if you'd seen it, you would probably have complained that it was a bit dull and failed to make the most of the situation, and you'd have been right.

I'd wholeheartedly agree that the BBC's choice to go completely to the other end of the spectrum, for the imaginary audience of stupid people I mentioned above, was just as much a mistake. The best approach, as so often, would seem to be somewhere inbetween.

P

[Wensleydale]

This was refused on the grounds that all the stars were theatre awards and no other formation in the armed forces had been awarded a special medal and to create a precedent would open up demands from many other deserving cases.


But a bar for a theatre medal or star with the legend "Bomber Command" would have gone some way to mitigate the fact that no unique medal was awarded.

[Tankertrashnav]

But a bar for a theatre medal or star with the legend "Bomber Command" would have gone some way to mitigate the fact that no unique medal was awarded.


Certainly a clasp for the 1939-45 Star for the pilots, observers and air gunners who flew operationally in the Battle of Britain had already been authorised and this distinguished the very small number of aircrew who took part in that campaign (as you might define it) from the very large number from all three services who received the 1939-45 Star. In the case of the Aircrew Europe Star, the majority of the recipients of this star were from Bomber Command, making a clasp 'Bomber Command' somewhat redundant. What was regrettable, however, was the decision to make D Day the cut-off date for the award of the Aircrew Europe Star, and thereafter award the France and Germany Star in its place.

My point remains. Once you make a special case for one formation, however deserving, you invite it from others, and there is no end to it. If you dont agree, look at the thread on the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal, with all the whingeing from those who feel they have been denied a medal!

[MaximumPete]

I've just finished reading "No Moon Tonight" by Don Charlwood.

This book should be compulsory reading for all of the objectors to the Bomber Command Memorial. It gives a real insight into what young men were called upon to do for their country.

I was very fortunate to have been trained by some ex Bomber Command pilots during my time with Cambrian Airways, the best training I ever experienced in 35 years of civil aviation.

They wore their medal ribbons with pride.

MP

[Albert Driver]

What's much more interesting is to discuss what the correct solution would have been, and this is a matter of opinion. I get the feeling that my audience here is mainly retired and serving RAF officers, their friends and families, and associated people, a largely male, upper-middle-class group likely to be the most tolerant of a four-hour lecture on the small boats of Britain. Nevertheless, I suspect if you'd seen it, you would probably have complained that it was a bit dull and failed to make the most of the situation, and you'd have been right.

Each and every one of those Dunkirk boats had a story to make your hair stand on end if it were told properly. Dull they are not. The fact is the presenters couldn't be bothered to read the histories of the boats and make something of them. Raymond Baxter would have been in his element with something like this and his enthusiasm would have captured the most ordinarily disinterested viewer. That is what a professional presenter is supposed to do.

And that is what is missing in the culture of the current generation of BBC presenters.

[Chugalug2]

PhilR:
In general it's worth giving TV presenters the benefit of the doubt, as in many cases they're paid talking machines. They bear a much-reduced responsibility for what they're saying than, say, a politician.
I don't think that I could have written a more damning verdict on the Beeb and its benighted presenters than you have. You paint a picture of a bureaucratic agenda bound monster that had failed before it even began the River Pageant OB. There is a well worn cliche regarding RAF Officers' Annual Assessments that goes:
"This officer sets himself abysmally low standards and consistently fails to attain them"
That is where we seem to be with BBC OBs, where "Celebrity" presenters who know little and say even less that is worthwhile are forever being cut to, and hence away from the subject of the broadcast, to stick a microphone under someone's nose and ask them what they think of it so far. The Beeb, like most other institutions that were named "British" something or other, is too big and too remote from the real world. Cocooned in a safe assured state of guaranteed survival they have lost their way. The need to be shown it, ie the way out. It is no longer the colossus it was, rather it is a shambling muttering old has been. Time to remove the life support!

[Hueymeister]

I finally got to see the footage yesterday, thought it was absolutely fine.:ok:

[John Botwood]

Just an aside.
I hope the NZ and Australian contingents landed at Military airfields, to save them the embarassment of passing through the Aliens' entry at Heathrow.

[BlueSky1000]

Is the BBC any worse than the Royal Air Force?

The vast majority of the veterans and those who gave their lives on operations all those years ago are snubbed by the Royal Air Force Club in Piccadilly, which will not allow them to step inside the front door.

It's worth bearing in mind that there would be no RAF Club if the aforementioned brave souls had failed to carry out their duty all those years ago.

How many air marshals and other senior ranks have campaigned for the injustice to be rectified?

ALL who have served in the Royal Air Force are members of the larger Royal Air Force Club.

It is disgraceful that the snobbish minority snub the decent majority.

Hypocrisy!

[Phil_R]

...a bureaucratic agenda bound monster... no longer the colossus it was, rather it is a shambling muttering old has been...

Tragic, isn't it.

Read this board for ten minutes, though, and you'd say the same about the RAF.

[Wander00]

...a bureaucratic agenda bound monster... no longer the colossus it was, rather it is a shambling muttering old has been...

Have you been talking to Mrs W - rather how she describes me...............

[Chugalug2]

Phil R:
Read this board for ten minutes, though, and you'd say the same about the RAF.
Not sure what you're saying here, old chap. If it is that I, for example, am:
a shambling muttering old has been...
point taken and I stand fearlessly four square with Wander00 in stating "guilty as charged".
So what? The subject of this thread is the BBC and I sincerely believe it is past its sell by date. It has kicked the bucket, passed over, shuffled off its mortal coil, joined the choir invisible, rung down the final curtain and is an ex-Aunty. Having designed, built and settled into a brand new purpose built HQ it has gone through all the identifiable stages of corporate decay. The decent thing now is to put it, and us, out of misery.

If on the other hand it is that the post war RAF has shown a disgraceful distancing of itself from the defence of the WWII RAF Bombing Campaign and the 67 year campaign to properly pay tribute to those who gave their lives in it, again point taken. Churchill's betrayal was unforgivable but par for the course from a politician. In contrast, the acts of commission and omission by succeeding Air Boards are utterly beneath contempt.

[Phil_R]

I was thinking more of the service itself - read a few posts on this board and you'd believe that all we had left was a couple of Cessnas.

About TV, though: veering wildly offtopic here, the problem with the BBC seems to be that its metric of success is simply audience numbers, which is of course exactly the same way that all broadcasters judge themselves. Because of this, the BBC ends up just doing the same thing as everyone else, which defeats the object of their special status. The entire purpose of funding the BBC in the way that it is funded, at least these days now there are commercial broadcasters, is to ensure there's a broadcaster who does not have to chase the whim of the audience, that is not required to be populist to survive. I think the dissatisfaction that's felt is because they are failing to take advantage of this privileged position.

It is a very good idea in principle and for a very long time it ensured that the UK produced the best television in the world. This is no longer a title on which we have a firm grip, and because the BBC is now effectively indistinguishable from the commercial broadcasters, I agree that the purpose of the current BBC, as it exists today, is unclear (my opinion is that Channel 4 now do a rather better job of some things, notwithstanding their tendency toward voyeurism).

As to putting it out to pasture, I would much rather the BBC clean up its act and start using its unique position for the common good, as opposed to joining the headlong rush downmarket that's characterised the world of TV ever since digital television and the internet changed the way things work. Disestablishing the BBC would not solve the problem of there being no good public service broascaster. I just wish they'd do a bit more to justify why they deserve their special status.

I'm sure I could bore you to death with my opinion on current TV but, as always, I'm very much aware of being a guest on this forum and I don't want to bore everyone to death with my offtopic ramblings.

P

[baffman]

No offence, but why do I get the impression that some of the still-spluttering critics of the BBC's coverage didn't bother to watch it?

[Chugalug2]

As a still splutterer, Baffman, may I point out that:

1. at Post #43 I made it clear that I had watched the live coverage on the Digital BBC News channel and commended it, with the proviso that the Talk Over comment that "Many of the Veterans now feel guilty about what they did" was intrusive and unwarranted, though of course par for the course.

2. The OP point that the BBC snubbed the BC Memorial unveiling by not covering it live on BBC 1 or 2 still pertains.

3. Phil R saw fit to act as Devil's Advocate for the Beeb (Apologies PR, a bit of Editorial Spin there. See what I mean?) and discussion moved onto the Thames Pageant fiasco and why it happened.

4. All the above tells me that the Beeb is quite capable of putting out a quality product (vis Trooping, Cenotaph and the BC Memorial) but often feels compelled to put its spin into the commentary. My point is that it should be devoid of spin and cover national events as a National Broadcaster, letting us perceive them as we wish and not as the Beeb decrees.

5. Having been around long enough to see it descend from the Olympian heights which it attained in WWII to the levels that draw so much adverse comment here for example, the words Leopard and Spots come to mind. The BBC is set on a one way journey that will end in its extinction, sooner rather than later hopefully so that we can move on into sunny uplands.

6. I asked you elsewhere what BAFF is doing on behalf of soldiers being made redundant days before they qualify for full pension rights. Now that we have your attention could you please answer on the appropriate thread?
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/488286-soldiers-sacked-days-before-pension-date.html

[JOE-FBS]

The episode of Things We Forgot to Remember about Bomber Command is now available as a podcast.

BBC - Podcasts - Things We Forgot to Remember (http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/twftr)

[Chugalug2]

From my MP:
Dear Chug,
Thank you for contacting me about the Bomber Command Memorial.
I welcomed Her Majesty the Queen's unveiling of this Memorial. It is a fitting tribute dedicated, as you note in your email, to the tens of thousands of brave airmen who died in the Second World War.
I understand from Treasury officials that the Government spent over £1.5 million on the event, including a Ministry of Defence contribution of resources at a cost of £375,000 to commemorate the 55,573 aircrew of RAF Bomber Command who paid the ultimate sacrifice during the Second World War.
After months of planning and support to the Bomber Command Association, six RAF aircraft and some 200 RAF personnel were involved on the day. This is in addition to the £1 million contribution to cover VAT and the £200,000 cash support promised by the Government towards the additional costs of the unveiling ceremony.
I believe it is right and proper that we recognise the unique contribution and sacrifice that the men of Bomber Command made to protect Great Britain during the Second World War and ensure democratic freedom.
As a final point, I would like to add my congratulations to those of the Secretary of State for Defence, who praised the volunteers that made this memorial a reality.
I am grateful for your taking the time to contact me and please never hesitate to get back in touch if I can be of any further assistance on this issue or any other.

My reply:
Thank you for your prompt reply to my request that ALL the VAT charged for the Bomber Command Memorial and ALL the security costs involved in the Dedication ceremony, attended by HM The Queen, should be met by HMG. It is all very well for HM Treasury to quote large sums of public money they contend have already been expended to date, their inference seems to be that the Veterans should pay the very considerable difference.
Would the present government have had the same attitude had it been in power 1939-45? Would they have told these same men, then extremely young, that it had already expended a great amount on the munitions being dropped nightly on the Reich, and it was now up to the crews to pay up as well? I do not think that the contrast is so extreme, for both expenditures are the moral responsibility of HMG on behalf of this Nation, then fighting for survival, and now presumably grateful for having survived thanks to those who did not survive. HM Treasury may not have a sense of moral obligation, HMG I think should, for it governs in our name. It should refund ALL the VAT and pay for ALL the Security Costs of the Unveiling and Dedication of the Bomber Command Memorial now!
Yours sincerely,
Chug
Contact your MP now at WriteToThem - Email or fax your Councillor, MP, MEP, MSP or Welsh, NI, London Assembly Member for free (http://www.writetothem.com/)
Make a fuss now and so save these courageous gentlemen needless worry.

[1.3VStall]

BS1000. I surmise you must be Australian as you clearly have a chip on both shoulders!

And, by the way, membership of the RAF Club has absolutely nothing at all to do with what I consider to be (very belatedly) a fitting tribute in Green Park to the exceedingly brave members of Bomber Command, of all ranks - my father and father-in-law included.