Foxache,
When you're a bit more open about who you are, then, and only then, should you be making comments about my expertise, or otherwise. Even then, with just seven posts to your credit, and seven months behind you, you might consider whether you've been here long enough to learn the etiquette of the forum. Most here can at least dress up the abuse in what passes for banter.
Moreover, this particular issue is all about history (and not about current or recent ops), and the interpretation of the arcane rules and regs lying behind the concept of squadron seniority. I do have some limited expertise in this particular area.
Finally, while I don't have any frontline experience, and have never pretended to any (and I am completely open as to what I am on here and in my profile, unlike you) I am at least an amatuer pilot, and admit to having a licence of some description. I do speak regularly to many people who are 'at the coalface' including some who have put in more time there than most people here, and have done so for more than 20 years.
But rather than hurling silly personal abuse, and rather than playing another rivetting round of 'kick the journo' why not acquaint yourself with these facts:
Fact: 206 has greater accumulated service than 120, giving it seniority.
Fact: 206 served throughout WWII. 120 missed the first 22 months.
Fact: 206 saw active service in the Great War, 120 did not.
Archimedes pointed out that: "206 was senior to 120 in 1973 (from when the last open documentation on this comes) and remains so." Thus 206 should not be the unit disappearing. This isn't rocket science.
Also please permit me to counter the ridiculous and offensive assertions suggesting that 120's Wartime achievements were somehow greater or more valuable than 206's - even if such assertions are being made by current Kipper mates. I know several wartime 206 blokes, and have interviewed blokes who flew Libs from Nutts Corner, Ballykelly and Reykjavik with a number of units, including 120. I think that people who actually flew Libs with Coastal know more about wartime ops than those who merely fly in the same role today. I will react angrily to any suggestion that 206's wartime aircrew were any 'lesser' than 120's.
You say: "If you knew anything about telic ops you'd realise how stupid your comment about detcoms was." I merely said that "206's postwar record has been exemplary - and the Squadron has led the way in recent ops" - a bit cheeky, a bit of a stretch, a bit silly even, but hardly a terribly outlandish or offensive claim in the context of arguing for 206's survival. I suggest you re-read what I said, and especially the comment: "that the claim that 206 led the way is forgivable, even if it's slightly misleading."
Those who suggest that 206's recent record has somehow been such that they "were always the obvious choice to go" should perhaps substantiate their insinuations, back up and detail their assertions, or apologise and then shut up.
Save the Squid!