RIP Sir.
Before you all turn your ire on the Daily Mail, consider that another fatal accident involving the Reds was always going to attract intense media interest. The DM's business is selling papers, and no doubt some of those who are tub thumping right now have before praised the same paper for pro RAF government bashing. Also, if the DM had not got the scoop, it would have been another paper anyway.
This is especially so when the possibility remained that it may have been Flt Lt Stewart involved (dead female red = way bigger story) and that it was so soon after Bournemouth (2 stories for the price of one).
Don't get me wrong, I am as disappointed as the next man that his family had so short a period of grace before the inevitable media storm. However, the Reds are not a normal unit, their role is
PR so it is inevitable that when a bad news story comes along then are going to be under the spotlight.
My question(s) about the management of information would be aimed at the Red's media ops /
PR support / chain of command as (IMHO) it appears they are behind the story and possibly not equipped / trained to manage bad news. And whatever muppet has control of the Red's official website needs a foot in their backside too - nearly 24 hours post event and it's unchanged.
I think what I have written is distasteful, but it's a fact of 21st century life.