My post was, of course, slightly tongue in cheek, but the underlying point is valid.
Had this happened 50, 40 or 30 years ago, the public reaction would most likely have been along the lines of: 'What a fantastic sight! Highly trained professionals going about their job. I'm sure they know what they're doing'.
These days there is a very vocal minority opposing military flying (and numerous other issues) whose opinions are often amplified by the media. Additionally lay persons are more comfortable expressing opinion on subject outside their expertise. Couple that with our modern risk-averse blame-culture, where any opportunity for litigation and compensation is exploited, and we have a problem on our hands.
A few people who, in their maybe well-meaning but ultimately uninformed opinion, consider an overflight to be dangerous, are given credibilty by the media, and before you know it you have a tabloid campaign, a knee-jerk appeasement from MoD and another red dot on the avoids chart, which slowly but surely is expanding into one large UK-shaped avoid.
A recent example would be the Heather Bell / horse / Chinook incident, which resulted in restrictions imposed on RW low flying, which do little to enhance safety, but go some way to temporarily appeasing the objectors, all at the expense of training value. Likewise the recent tabloid outrage over the inclusion of an 'unairworthy' Nimrod in the London flypast.
The answer should be to try to educate the public, to eliminate attitudes like 'That said there does seem to be a general attitude of "bugger the rules"', although as the Heather Bell saga demonstrated, in many cases the public do not wish to be educated. Should the RAF change its ways to accommodate such a state of affairs?
Perhaps Powerless could explain why exactly some people thought the overflight was dangerous.
Oh yes, and in answer to the original question, I have no idea what the FJs were doing near Silverstone yesterday.