Head of Royal Navy threatens resignation over push to scrap Harriers
Indeed 'tis very strange... I'd have thought you were more likely to be mistaken for members of the RAC with that uniform 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MGD -
That uniform is for the oiks (
), but yes - they never get confused for any other service in that rig.
It may seem like a silly rig, but it's because the RN has real history and tradition
The bell bottoms were designed to make it easier to roll up the trouser legs when swabbing down the decks, the tea towl was to stop the main uniform getting soiled by the tar used to tie back a sailors hair, the cap - I admit, who knows, but it's no worse than the RAF thunderbirds hat
That uniform is for the oiks (
), but yes - they never get confused for any other service in that rig.It may seem like a silly rig, but it's because the RN has real history and tradition
The bell bottoms were designed to make it easier to roll up the trouser legs when swabbing down the decks, the tea towl was to stop the main uniform getting soiled by the tar used to tie back a sailors hair, the cap - I admit, who knows, but it's no worse than the RAF thunderbirds hat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Soddim
I will show you mine if you show me yours......
Get me the RAF statistics for pilot error or negligence (outside wartime to make it fair on you) for the last 90 yrs, plus approx cost per airframe and I will get the figures for the same period for warships lost or damaged. I will even assume that all warship accidents are human error rather than mechnical failure.
I will lay a £50 wager to charity of your choice that the RAF has cost more through avoidable accidents.
I would even make a gentlemans wager that the FAA has cost more than the surface fleet.
Care to take the wager?
I will show you mine if you show me yours......
Get me the RAF statistics for pilot error or negligence (outside wartime to make it fair on you) for the last 90 yrs, plus approx cost per airframe and I will get the figures for the same period for warships lost or damaged. I will even assume that all warship accidents are human error rather than mechnical failure.
I will lay a £50 wager to charity of your choice that the RAF has cost more through avoidable accidents.
I would even make a gentlemans wager that the FAA has cost more than the surface fleet.
Care to take the wager?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you deny that the RAF managed to kill off our big carriers previously by moving Australia?
Let's start by accepting the simplistic view that it was an either/or between carriers and a long-range land-based strike force, which by then was going to be the F-111K. The view that the carriers were cancelled because RAF lied about theoretical land-based air coverage of the Indian Ocean conveniently ignores the fact that the Wilson Government decided to withdraw from East of Suez, so any touted capabilities in that area were irrelevant. Moreover, despite the F-111K's continued relevance to a NATO-area only policy, it was still cancelled on cost grounds a year or so later. I cannot see any way that CVA-01 would have survived the withdrawal from East of Suez, even if the F-111 had been cancelled first.
The RAF lost it's hold on the strategic role when Skybolt was cancelled and the UK ordered Polaris. The air marshals of the 1960's had been brought up as practitioners of strategic bombing and the loss of this role together with the demise of TSR2 must have been a bitter blow for them. Would anyone really have expected them not to fight for the F-111? If the Royal Navy really want to look for people to blame over this issue they should perhaps look at their own staff officers who clearly hadn't done enough work on the F-111 "threat". Blaming the opposition for winning an argument seems to be somewhat immature.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist - you were the person who posted the assurance - how could you make such a statement if you had no access to the figures?
I am certainly not going to even try to bail you out of the position you are now in - come on, give us the facts that led to you posting your assurance.
I have not argued with your point - you might be right - but I want to see the figures from which you were prepared to assure everybody that you were right.
You did not make a wager - you assured everybody, so put up or shut up.
I am certainly not going to even try to bail you out of the position you are now in - come on, give us the facts that led to you posting your assurance.
I have not argued with your point - you might be right - but I want to see the figures from which you were prepared to assure everybody that you were right.
You did not make a wager - you assured everybody, so put up or shut up.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Soddim
Just think of the fun you can have if I am wrong...
There are many things in this world that I know to be true without having the figures to hand, and would willingly stake my life on them.
I assure you that I cannot jump as high as the worst pro basketball player, even though I have never measured my jump, nor know how high they jump.
I assure you that the average helicopter pilot spends more time in the hover than a harrier pilot, but I don't know the figures.
Do you honestly believe that it is necessary for me to prove either statement for them to be reasonable?
You should either accept that my original assurance re RAF costs due to pilot error/negligence is a reasonable statement, or zip up your man suit and take the wager............
.............wet pants
Just think of the fun you can have if I am wrong...
There are many things in this world that I know to be true without having the figures to hand, and would willingly stake my life on them.
I assure you that I cannot jump as high as the worst pro basketball player, even though I have never measured my jump, nor know how high they jump.
I assure you that the average helicopter pilot spends more time in the hover than a harrier pilot, but I don't know the figures.
Do you honestly believe that it is necessary for me to prove either statement for them to be reasonable?
You should either accept that my original assurance re RAF costs due to pilot error/negligence is a reasonable statement, or zip up your man suit and take the wager............
.............wet pants
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brain Potter
"Would anyone really have expected them not to fight for the F-111? If the Royal Navy really want to look for people to blame over this issue they should perhaps look at their own staff officers who clearly hadn't done enough work on the F-111 "threat". Blaming the opposition for winning an argument seems to be somewhat immature."
I am almost speechless.
You seem to consider lying to the government about military capability solely to win an argument against the RN a perfectly acceptable action. As far as I am concerned, bickering between services is perfectly justified as long as you truly believe that your service can offer the best results. To knowingly mislead about abilities, and thus lose a capability to operate in an area is tantamount to treason in my eyes.
I will gladly remain immature and honourable, and hope our staff officers never start doing "enough work"
"Would anyone really have expected them not to fight for the F-111? If the Royal Navy really want to look for people to blame over this issue they should perhaps look at their own staff officers who clearly hadn't done enough work on the F-111 "threat". Blaming the opposition for winning an argument seems to be somewhat immature."
I am almost speechless.
You seem to consider lying to the government about military capability solely to win an argument against the RN a perfectly acceptable action. As far as I am concerned, bickering between services is perfectly justified as long as you truly believe that your service can offer the best results. To knowingly mislead about abilities, and thus lose a capability to operate in an area is tantamount to treason in my eyes.
I will gladly remain immature and honourable, and hope our staff officers never start doing "enough work"
Wow,
all this fom an innocent jibe about Norfolk Island and the RN. In the spirit of New Year, why don't you both take the moral high ground and just agree to disagree?
all this fom an innocent jibe about Norfolk Island and the RN. In the spirit of New Year, why don't you both take the moral high ground and just agree to disagree?
Wow,
all this fom an innocent jibe about Norfolk Island and the RN. In the spirit of New Year, why don't you both take the moral high ground and just agree to disagree?
all this fom an innocent jibe about Norfolk Island and the RN. In the spirit of New Year, why don't you both take the moral high ground and just agree to disagree?
Oh, and by the way, a Happy & Prosperous New Year to all Ppruners
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's no argument from me - I simply want Tourist to justify his 'assurance'.
A man of integrity would not post an assurance he was unable to substantiate.
The point he makes might be right but without producing the figures he appears to be unable to give his assurance.
A man of integrity would not post an assurance he was unable to substantiate.
The point he makes might be right but without producing the figures he appears to be unable to give his assurance.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist,
Every military equipment project, indeed probably every government project, involves a certain amount of manipulation of facts to suit a particular viewpoint. If you are so naive that a revelation of such "staffing" techniques leaves you speechless then it is fortuitous that you don't work in procurement because you would be mute.
Moving Australia was a fairly underhand tactic, but you seem determined to focus on that particular "outrage" in the face of all the other reasons that the RN carriers were cancelled. Primarily, the UK was almost broke and the Govt had decided to withdraw from the post-colonial responsibilities East of Suez to concentrate on the very real threat from the Soviet Union in NW Europe and the North Atlantic. In the years preceding that particular White Paper the Navy, in the shape of Mountbatten, made strong assertions about minimum ship size and numbers in pursuit of a replacement carrier fleet. In effect they priced themselves out of the market with their own ambitions, which in-turn encouraged a poverty-stricken HMG to seek other solutions until finally facing facts and deciding to withdraw from a global role. Once that decision was made HMG knew that bases such as Gan would disappear, and arguments about theoretical air coverage of the region were irrelevant.
You say:
but you are missing the fundamental point. The government made a conscious decision to cease operating in that area. That saved them the expense of maintaining bases, personnel and equipment (including carriers) required for such operations. Withdrawal from East of Suez did not take place because of an inability to provide air cover, it was a political decision mainly motivated by financial constraints. The RAF also lost a tremendous amount of capability as a consequence, including about half the transport fleet.
All three services exist to execute whatever policies the government decides to pursue. From the late-sixties through to the end of the cold war UK forces were deliberately configured to fight in the NATO area. The surface Navy's role became ASW in the G-I-UK gap and thus a strike carrier force was not needed. History seems to suggest that the primacy of the small-ship rankles within certain circles in the Navy who regard it as less prestigious. It seems to suit those with such a viewpoint to perpetuate the myth that the RAF engineered the demise of the carrier force, rather than to accept that the nation's defence posture as laid down by the government did not require such vessels.
Still, it is easier to maintain a sense of outrage at "The RAF" than at the dead or forgotten politicians of the Wilson government.
Every military equipment project, indeed probably every government project, involves a certain amount of manipulation of facts to suit a particular viewpoint. If you are so naive that a revelation of such "staffing" techniques leaves you speechless then it is fortuitous that you don't work in procurement because you would be mute.
Moving Australia was a fairly underhand tactic, but you seem determined to focus on that particular "outrage" in the face of all the other reasons that the RN carriers were cancelled. Primarily, the UK was almost broke and the Govt had decided to withdraw from the post-colonial responsibilities East of Suez to concentrate on the very real threat from the Soviet Union in NW Europe and the North Atlantic. In the years preceding that particular White Paper the Navy, in the shape of Mountbatten, made strong assertions about minimum ship size and numbers in pursuit of a replacement carrier fleet. In effect they priced themselves out of the market with their own ambitions, which in-turn encouraged a poverty-stricken HMG to seek other solutions until finally facing facts and deciding to withdraw from a global role. Once that decision was made HMG knew that bases such as Gan would disappear, and arguments about theoretical air coverage of the region were irrelevant.
You say:
To knowingly mislead about abilities, and thus lose a capability to operate in an area is tantamount to treason in my eyes.
All three services exist to execute whatever policies the government decides to pursue. From the late-sixties through to the end of the cold war UK forces were deliberately configured to fight in the NATO area. The surface Navy's role became ASW in the G-I-UK gap and thus a strike carrier force was not needed. History seems to suggest that the primacy of the small-ship rankles within certain circles in the Navy who regard it as less prestigious. It seems to suit those with such a viewpoint to perpetuate the myth that the RAF engineered the demise of the carrier force, rather than to accept that the nation's defence posture as laid down by the government did not require such vessels.
Still, it is easier to maintain a sense of outrage at "The RAF" than at the dead or forgotten politicians of the Wilson government.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kandahar Runway
What a load of rubbish about Kandahar runway being too short - too short for what?
In the mid 90s we used to regularly fly both a G-III & a G-IV into Kandahar taking Gulf state VIPs there to hunt houbara.
At cruise height and approaching the Pakistan airspace boundary we called Kandahar ATC on HF. The sole ATC person immediately replied on a car battery driven HF set ... "cleared to land".
Some 20-30 minutes or so later having descended we scouted the area for the resident Migs - do it yourself ATC - then landed on the 6,000 feet or longer runway. (Memory fades and no Jeppeson to hand.)
The Afghani English speaking ATC chap was always very helpful and operated from the semi derelict tower close to the sometime beautiful air terminal. The arching building had perhaps 90% of the windows broken or missing and no passenger traffic.
Occasionally the resident Mig pilots came to see our aircraft and showed great interest in the G-IV glass cockpit. Plenty of common aviation gesticulations were observed and made but language was a major problem. Coffee and a few cakes & sandwiches from our hosties ensured that all were happy!
The Afghan Migs regularly flew in and out OK and enjoyed flying low over our parked aircraft. There were battle wrecked Russian 4 jets all over the airfield, some within yards of the taxiways, but the airfield was quite useable.
However, on one departure we saw several men who had been painting the white centre line markings move off the runway as they heard and saw us taxying. On the take off roll at 120 kts or so we came across paint buckets and planks left on the runway in the ready to paint positions ... a little shift to the left half width of the runway and we were on our way to Quetta to pick up fuel and some pax. (A 'pairs' take-off without the other aircraft.)
PS 2008 - Google now lists and shows runway as 05/23 10,500' x 148' asphalt and at 3,317' amsl
In the mid 90s we used to regularly fly both a G-III & a G-IV into Kandahar taking Gulf state VIPs there to hunt houbara.
At cruise height and approaching the Pakistan airspace boundary we called Kandahar ATC on HF. The sole ATC person immediately replied on a car battery driven HF set ... "cleared to land".
Some 20-30 minutes or so later having descended we scouted the area for the resident Migs - do it yourself ATC - then landed on the 6,000 feet or longer runway. (Memory fades and no Jeppeson to hand.)
The Afghani English speaking ATC chap was always very helpful and operated from the semi derelict tower close to the sometime beautiful air terminal. The arching building had perhaps 90% of the windows broken or missing and no passenger traffic.
Occasionally the resident Mig pilots came to see our aircraft and showed great interest in the G-IV glass cockpit. Plenty of common aviation gesticulations were observed and made but language was a major problem. Coffee and a few cakes & sandwiches from our hosties ensured that all were happy!
The Afghan Migs regularly flew in and out OK and enjoyed flying low over our parked aircraft. There were battle wrecked Russian 4 jets all over the airfield, some within yards of the taxiways, but the airfield was quite useable.
However, on one departure we saw several men who had been painting the white centre line markings move off the runway as they heard and saw us taxying. On the take off roll at 120 kts or so we came across paint buckets and planks left on the runway in the ready to paint positions ... a little shift to the left half width of the runway and we were on our way to Quetta to pick up fuel and some pax. (A 'pairs' take-off without the other aircraft.)
PS 2008 - Google now lists and shows runway as 05/23 10,500' x 148' asphalt and at 3,317' amsl
Last edited by curvedsky; 5th Jan 2009 at 16:57. Reason: added a missing 'nought' to 6,000 foot runway
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At last, Brain Potter finally brings some intelligence to what is possibly the most puerile thread I’ve ever read. I don’t know what is sadder. The hoop that is being posted here or the fact that some grown men had nothing better to do on Christmas Day than to add to it! Unbelievable.
Tourist, Bismark and Gullwings in particular have demonstrated quite breathtaking levels of hypocrisy by posting biased, factually incorrect and historically inaccurate information; the very failings they so vociferously accused other posters of. Indeed, I’m beginning to suspect that one of you is Lewis Page!
May I suggest that you at least have the courtesy to research your subjects correctly prior to posting. If you cannot remain objective in a debate, you add nothing to it.
BP has hit the nail on the head with his post regarding the usual ‘the nasty Crabs moved Australia/Diego Garcia/Gan* 50/100/200* miles to undermine CVA-01’ claim.
To further his comments, this urban myth has been subjected to a fair degree of academic scrutiny of which I believe at least one contributor to PPRUNE has been privy to. As with the Hansard verbatim records of contemporary official debates, the CVA-01 saga was well documented and is available for public scrutiny. Interestingly, nowhere in the official documentation of the period is there recorded any suggestion that the RAF moved land masses to undermine CVA-01. Nor, to my knowledge have any of the RN personnel involved in the debate at the time ever made similar claims.
In fairness, I suspect that TSR2/F-111K* performance data for the aircraft was manipulated by both sides to add weight to their arguments. I suspect that therein lays the genesis to this particular conspiracy theory as factors such as ambient temp, payload, cruise speed and sortie profiles can easily impact upon stated range figures by hundreds of miles.
What has been acknowledged by numerous sources (including Baron Healey’s autobiography) however is that there were other factors in the demise of CVA-01 which far overshadowed any nefarious intentions my own Service may have had. Moreover, I would suggest that the RN itself was the chief (naval?) architect regarding the demise of CVA-01.
As intimated by BP, the Wilson Government had correctly identified that the UK was unable to support its existing overseas commitments. Accordingly they sought to withdraw ‘East of Suez’ and focus upon NATO. Whilst carrier based air power was (and in my opinion remains) not at variance to such a Eurocentric policy, the RN showed little flexibility in negotiations regarding CVA-01 (and the associated Type 82 DDG) requirements. This intransigence alienated Healey as well as the Treasury. The Senior Service’s position was further weakened by poor staffing resulting in unconvincing and flawed arguments for fixed wing carriers.
During a similar period, the RN was manoeuvring to assume the nuclear deterrent in the form of Polaris. As with Trident and SSBN(F), this procurement involved enormous cost and inevitably eroded the wider capabilities of the RN, notably any hope of retaining an expansive fixed wing carrier fleet. Indeed, I would suggest that the procurement of Polaris was utterly disastrous for the Senior Service in the long term and was arguably the most significant reason for the demise of CVA-01.
Whilst I would certainly agree that the RAF and RN were engaged in mutually and exceptionally damaging inter-service politics during the 1960s let’s cut all the propaganda that it was one sided. Mountbatten (as CDS) and the RN argued vociferously against several major RAF projects at the time, notably TSR2 and HS681. Indeed, the then CDS personally intervened with an RAAF delegation to kill off Australia’s consideration of an export order for the former. This stance was ultimately crippling for the UK aerospace industry and it has never recovered.
Worryingly, when you look at the CVA-01 v F-111K tombstones, it is easy to see parallels with today. CVA-01/CVF. T82/T45. Polaris/Trident replacement. F-35/P1154RN and RAF. It all seems rather familiar. In addition, having heard several flag officers state that ‘I don’t care who flies the aircraft, as long as we get CVF’, I sometimes wonder if the wider RN care one jot for the FAA beyond it being a leverage to obtain some big carriers.
I sincerely hope that the Treasury do not succeed in the ‘divide and conquer’ tactics again. Regrettably, the bias of some posters on this thread only garners ammunition for the civil servants.
For my part, I hope that we do not adopt the Israeli practice where AF aircrew operate all manned aircraft, whether it be from land or sea.
XT668
I have my own thoughts and opinions on each of my sister services. However, I would never lower myself to publicly referring to one as a ‘farce’ and you would do well to remember the conditions which all 3 services are operating under at this time. Conditions which you will be unable to appreciate just as I am unable to appreciate the conditions you served under several decades ago. Posts such as yours are disrespectful to those members of my Service who have died on current operations and those who continue to place our lives on the line. Frankly, such comments do a disservice to your own former Service, many of whom operate alongside the RAF on current ops with mutual respect.
As a former Wessex aviator, you may be interested in viewing this and this link covering the evacuation of a mortally wounded soldier in Afghanistan by an RAF Chinook crew. If you still consider the RAF a farce after having viewed it then that is your prerogative. However, please have the good manners to keep such sentiments to yourself.
Google is your friend curvedsky. You may find that there has been a minor conflict which directly affected Afghanistan and Khandahar airfield between 1998 and 2005 when the GR7s first deployed.
Regards and best wishes for a safe 2009 to all.
MM
* Proponents of CVA-01 conspiracy theories should delete as appropriate and insert their favoured option.
Tourist, Bismark and Gullwings in particular have demonstrated quite breathtaking levels of hypocrisy by posting biased, factually incorrect and historically inaccurate information; the very failings they so vociferously accused other posters of. Indeed, I’m beginning to suspect that one of you is Lewis Page!
May I suggest that you at least have the courtesy to research your subjects correctly prior to posting. If you cannot remain objective in a debate, you add nothing to it.
Do you deny that the RAF managed to kill off our big carriers previously by moving Australia?
To further his comments, this urban myth has been subjected to a fair degree of academic scrutiny of which I believe at least one contributor to PPRUNE has been privy to. As with the Hansard verbatim records of contemporary official debates, the CVA-01 saga was well documented and is available for public scrutiny. Interestingly, nowhere in the official documentation of the period is there recorded any suggestion that the RAF moved land masses to undermine CVA-01. Nor, to my knowledge have any of the RN personnel involved in the debate at the time ever made similar claims.
In fairness, I suspect that TSR2/F-111K* performance data for the aircraft was manipulated by both sides to add weight to their arguments. I suspect that therein lays the genesis to this particular conspiracy theory as factors such as ambient temp, payload, cruise speed and sortie profiles can easily impact upon stated range figures by hundreds of miles.
What has been acknowledged by numerous sources (including Baron Healey’s autobiography) however is that there were other factors in the demise of CVA-01 which far overshadowed any nefarious intentions my own Service may have had. Moreover, I would suggest that the RN itself was the chief (naval?) architect regarding the demise of CVA-01.
As intimated by BP, the Wilson Government had correctly identified that the UK was unable to support its existing overseas commitments. Accordingly they sought to withdraw ‘East of Suez’ and focus upon NATO. Whilst carrier based air power was (and in my opinion remains) not at variance to such a Eurocentric policy, the RN showed little flexibility in negotiations regarding CVA-01 (and the associated Type 82 DDG) requirements. This intransigence alienated Healey as well as the Treasury. The Senior Service’s position was further weakened by poor staffing resulting in unconvincing and flawed arguments for fixed wing carriers.
During a similar period, the RN was manoeuvring to assume the nuclear deterrent in the form of Polaris. As with Trident and SSBN(F), this procurement involved enormous cost and inevitably eroded the wider capabilities of the RN, notably any hope of retaining an expansive fixed wing carrier fleet. Indeed, I would suggest that the procurement of Polaris was utterly disastrous for the Senior Service in the long term and was arguably the most significant reason for the demise of CVA-01.
Whilst I would certainly agree that the RAF and RN were engaged in mutually and exceptionally damaging inter-service politics during the 1960s let’s cut all the propaganda that it was one sided. Mountbatten (as CDS) and the RN argued vociferously against several major RAF projects at the time, notably TSR2 and HS681. Indeed, the then CDS personally intervened with an RAAF delegation to kill off Australia’s consideration of an export order for the former. This stance was ultimately crippling for the UK aerospace industry and it has never recovered.
Worryingly, when you look at the CVA-01 v F-111K tombstones, it is easy to see parallels with today. CVA-01/CVF. T82/T45. Polaris/Trident replacement. F-35/P1154RN and RAF. It all seems rather familiar. In addition, having heard several flag officers state that ‘I don’t care who flies the aircraft, as long as we get CVF’, I sometimes wonder if the wider RN care one jot for the FAA beyond it being a leverage to obtain some big carriers.
I sincerely hope that the Treasury do not succeed in the ‘divide and conquer’ tactics again. Regrettably, the bias of some posters on this thread only garners ammunition for the civil servants.
For my part, I hope that we do not adopt the Israeli practice where AF aircrew operate all manned aircraft, whether it be from land or sea.
XT668
I have my own thoughts and opinions on each of my sister services. However, I would never lower myself to publicly referring to one as a ‘farce’ and you would do well to remember the conditions which all 3 services are operating under at this time. Conditions which you will be unable to appreciate just as I am unable to appreciate the conditions you served under several decades ago. Posts such as yours are disrespectful to those members of my Service who have died on current operations and those who continue to place our lives on the line. Frankly, such comments do a disservice to your own former Service, many of whom operate alongside the RAF on current ops with mutual respect.
As a former Wessex aviator, you may be interested in viewing this and this link covering the evacuation of a mortally wounded soldier in Afghanistan by an RAF Chinook crew. If you still consider the RAF a farce after having viewed it then that is your prerogative. However, please have the good manners to keep such sentiments to yourself.
What a load of rubbish about Kandahar runway being too short - too short for what?
Regards and best wishes for a safe 2009 to all.
MM
* Proponents of CVA-01 conspiracy theories should delete as appropriate and insert their favoured option.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Magic Mushroom
Which of all of my comments have apparently demonstrated such breathtaking levels of hypocrisy, are biased, factually incorrect and historically inaccurate?
The only reason why I started replying in this thread was simply because of the obvious need to counter some of the very RAF biased and ridiculously unfair statements that were being made about the other UK Forces by some people in this thread. It is important to highlight the other side of an argument in threads such as this one and I have tried to do that honestly based on personal experience and observations.
All of the services have important roles and it is very sad when some people try to put the RN/FAA and Army/AAC levels of training, capabilities, experience and roles down unfairly.
Which of all of my comments have apparently demonstrated such breathtaking levels of hypocrisy, are biased, factually incorrect and historically inaccurate?
The only reason why I started replying in this thread was simply because of the obvious need to counter some of the very RAF biased and ridiculously unfair statements that were being made about the other UK Forces by some people in this thread. It is important to highlight the other side of an argument in threads such as this one and I have tried to do that honestly based on personal experience and observations.
All of the services have important roles and it is very sad when some people try to put the RN/FAA and Army/AAC levels of training, capabilities, experience and roles down unfairly.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: EU Region 9 - apparently
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hansard
MM,
Unfortunately Hansard is not verbatim. The exact words can be changed by the recorders / editors in conjunction with the person who said what is being recorded.
http://education.niassembly.gov.uk/i...ial_Report.pdf has an explanation of how it works.
As with the Hansard verbatim records of contemporary official debates,
http://education.niassembly.gov.uk/i...ial_Report.pdf has an explanation of how it works.
Last edited by L1A2 discharged; 3rd Jan 2009 at 11:08. Reason: spilling
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: London
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Magic Mushroom - For what it's worth, Ray Lygo gives a clear account of his discovery that Australia had been moved 200 miles to the west in his autobiography. Not saying it's right or wrong, only that he makes the claim ...