Mike Smith,
Thanks for the reply, I wasn't expecting to be able to debate with the horse's mouth, but I appreciate you have a professional reputation to defend. Sorry everyone, this is going to be a long one.
Firstly, you are right, you have never mentioned the disbandment of the RAF Regt. Checking on the DT website, this was mentioned on 11 Jul in a story by Patrick Henessey and Sean Rayment, as "Under the shake-up, almost the entire RAF Regiment, which is responsible for security at bases, will be disbanded."
As a defence story in the DT my recollection was that it carried your byline, which it clearly didn't - my apologies. It is worth noting nevertheless that: a) subsequent events have shown that it was incorrect (the RAF Regt will loose around 10% of its strength as a result of the White Paper); b) the report was presented as fact with no 'health warnings', ie that it was a planning option, an unconfirmed report etc etc; and c) Henessey and Rayment also reported the loss of the Harrier fleet, 'the remaining' 2 sqns of Jaguars and the Puma fleet.
The other criticisms I levelled at you in my post break down as follows.
- On 19 Jul you reported the closure of Cranwell, without caveats.
- On 2 Apr you wrote on the "scrapping of all the RAF's 62 ground-attack Jaguars, all its 79 ground-attack GR7 Harriers and all its 39 Puma helicopters."
- On 14 May, an editorial piece again mentioned "...the RAF losing all its Harriers and Jaguars...". Fair enough, not your byeline.
- On 19 Jul: "...most of the 62 Jaguar ground attack aircraft, and [the RAF's] 39 Puma helicopters."
None of these stories are presented as anything other than fact. The DT's internet archive of your Apr 2nd story does not include any reference to opposition by the service chiefs. It may be an abridged version of your story, but if so this is not mentioned on the site.
I therefore believe that my statement in an earlier post that you had "spent the last few weeks confidently predicting the loss of the Harrier and Puma fleets as well as the Jags, the entire Regt and Cranwell", with the clear inference that this was inaccurate, has a considerable amount going for it. OK, so the bit about the dartboard may have been unfair, but hey - it's called banter
Now, it
may be the case that the Harriers, Pumas and Cranwell are part of a follow on package of cuts (damn, I meant 'restructuring') yet to be announced. However, it ain't happened yet. I received a personal brief from a very senior RAF officer on the ramifications of the White Paper, and he did not intimate a word of it. If there were further cuts coming on that scale I belive he would have done so, however opaquely. Of course that doesn't prove it won't happen (incidentally, no criticism meant of the officer in question, in case anyone knows who I am talking about - he deserves only credit for what he did/said, and gained the upmost respect of his audience). The sentiment expressed in my post, that you had repeatedly overstated the extent of the cuts, stands correct until proven otherwise.
I obviously have no idea about the nature of the relationship between you and your source. He could be passing on information he believes to be correct in good faith, he could be deliberately releasing 'worst case' information in order to make us think we've got off lightly when the actual cuts come, his information may have gone out of date... or it could be completely accurate, and although I don't think this is the case, enough of that for now. I certainly have no intention whatsoever of branding him/her/them a liar, I just think the information has limits. In your point about my 'evidence' remember: I am expressing my opinions on an internet 'rumour' forum for a target audience of fellow RAF professionals, you are writing in a respected broadsheet newspaper. My standard of 'proof' doesn't have to be the same!
I'm sorry that you feel the DT is treated badly on this forum. I honestly wouldn't take it to heart. You deserve much credit for the way you try to keep defence stories in the public eye. Your coverage is certainly sympathetic to us - for exmaple your editorial on the White Paper yesterday was excellent - and you are generally well respected. However, I believe it is because we expect high standards of the Telegraph we feel let down when you get things wrong. We couldn't really care less what the Sun writes about us, hence less 'having a go' in their direction. And as I said earlier, we aren't a bunch of particularly sensitive souls in this line of work, so you have to expect a bit of rough-and-tumble from time to time.
OK, so to round off a pretty long post for a Friday evening, I don't feel like starting some kind of long running argument over this so I suggest settling it like honourable men. IF, by let's say 31 Dec, there has been an announcement of the loss of the Harrier and Puma fleets, and Cranwell, I'll either:
a) start a 'Grovelling Apology to the Daily Telegraph' thread, or
b) send you a bottle of bubbly (I guess 'Michael Smith, c/o Daily Telegraph, big pointy tower, London, would get through?)
Your choice. Of course, if the cuts haven't come, you'll return the favour a la Jacks Down!
Feel free to PM
, otherwise, good night!
JD
[edited for typos]