Where is the relevence to Military Aviation, other than the tangential and circumstantial one that the RAF Regt's role is airfield defence? I don't see it, myself.
Scroggs,
It is my duty as aircrew but more as a SNCO to be aware of, sympathetic to and at least slightly interested in the roles played by those who have chosen a non-flying career but who's contribution is so vital to the success of those of us who do leave the ground.
Personally I feel showing a little mutual respect and listening to the often-ignored gripes of the ground trades is the least we can do to show our appreciation of the work they do, and as such I have no problem with Rocks writing to RAF News, nor with further comment appearing on any aviation website.
I agree with your sentiment regarding civil matters where the only link is an individual's occupation, but in the case of Rocks v Plods it's an issue that IS relevant to military flyers since it may eventually have a mild knock-on effect at an airfield when it starts to emerge that Police Flight and Regt Section aren't talking. Mild I grant you but ignore it at your peril. At an OOA base where Rocks and Plods work more closely, it could start to be a real problem.
If our FP chaps suddenly showed signs of being totally unmotivated and thoroughly pi$$ed off, I'd want to know why so having even a slight insight in to their world is no bad thing.
To dimiss the RAF Regt or any other ground trade as not worthy of comment based purely on the fact they never physically touch an aircraft is plain arrogance with a dash of ignorance.