Jacks Down
Thanks for the post. There are a few journalistic realities here which mean that I will have to take some of your criticism on the chin. Sorry lads another long post but might be worth reading for an insight into the way newspapers work.
Re the RAF Regt.
Patrick Hennesey and Sean Rayment write for the Sunday Telegraph. This is another of those internet telegraph things. The Sunday Telegraph and the Daily Telegraph are two completely different and separate papers but they merge into one on the internet Telegraph. We have no control over what they write and they have no control over what we write.
Re the Harriers. There were two articles in the Daily Telegraph on 2 April. The first was the one that you referred to and was a front-page “write-off” of the second inside article on Page 10 which made it clear that these were proposals put forward by the “work strands” and with regard to the Harriers included the quote in my previous post. This is it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/
2004/04/02/ncuts102.xml[/url]
Re the Pumas. Fully accept it has been unequivocal throughout. Worth pointing out the quotes from the civil servant involved and the senior officer.
Re Cranwell, and this is the take it on the chin bit, I have gone back to my notes and the source was talking originally about an ongoing review of shore-based naval establishments, which was considering the possibility of closing Dartmouth and leasing out parts of Devonport to commercial companies. When I focused on Dartmouth, he said there were in fact proposals to move all RN and RAF officer training to Shrivenham.
Ah you say, proposals you say, but the Torygraph said Cranwell “will” close.
I’m going to plead guilty as charged here but with mitigation, using what might be called the MI6 defence.
Say a careful journalist, not me obviously, files a carefully caveated piece that might hypothetically say:
“THE MOD is trying to force the PPRUNE website to close down its military forum and to identify all the serving RAF officers who have posted comments on it.
“If the MoD has its way, the army’s ARRSE military forums will also be closed down…”
People above his pay grade might think, wrongly in my opinion: Well that’s not a bad story but it would read better if it said:
“THE PPRUNE website’s military forum faces closure with the identity of all the serving RAF officers who have posted comments on it handed over to the MoD.
“The army’s ARRSE military forums will also be closed down…”
There is an inference that both the PPRUNE and ARRSE military forums only “face” closure but the ordinary reader is entitled to read it as a done deal, certainly in the ARRSE case. I should emphasise this is only a hypothetical case. I’ve never written about the ARRSE military forums.
So, to recap:
RAF Regt: Not guilty (although I believe the prosecution has dropped charges).
Harriers: Not guilty. I said Jock Stirrup wasn’t going to let it happen. I’m not sure now why I was so confident but I was right.
Pumas and Cranwell: Guilty as charged. I was unequivocal and, despite my plea in mitigation on the second charge, I will take it on the chin if I am wrong.
The key word is “if”. As Front Seater says, estate rationalisation and helicopters are still to come, along with a whole range of other things. The cuts are already bad but they are only going to get worse and yes Front Seater we will keep on top of that.
As for Jacks Down’s challenge. No deal with the Harriers in it. But without them, game on.