Parasites

[rej]

Please forgive me and let me have a small rant. I have chosen to start a new thread, as I do not want to show disrespect on the Herc Down thread.

Why oh why do the gutter press have to be so damn insensitive at times like this. I understand that the 'real media' have a job to do to keep us all informed of key events. But when, yesterday, I returned home to see alleged human beings crawling all over my next door neighbour's front garden in the hope of getting a 'quick exclusive story and photos’ of a grieving widow I consider that behaviour to be inexcusable.

How do they sleep at night?

It was a good job that I was wearing 'Auntie Betty's Blues' making it inappropriate to use anything other that polite...ish words to send them packing.

[Lafyar Cokov]

A friend of mine was walking down her home street in Buckinghamshire when she was approached by a man who asked where Mr ***** lived. She was a little suspicious so asked where this guy was from - turned out he was from the Mirror and the man he was looking for had the same name as one of the guys on the Herc. Just on the off chance, he was checking whether he could get any 'exclusive shots' of the curtains drawn etc.
The guy who lived there had nothing to do with the military - I'm amazed at the lengths to which these lizards will go to sell a few more papers.

Do they not know what rest in PEACE means?

[SirPeterHardingsLovechild]

I can't remember much after about 9pm last night, but I have a vague memory of someone telling me that a reptile was trying to get into the school playground in Lyneham village to get an exclusive from the schoolkids.

I offered to arrange a squad to go and break their toys (the reptiles), but as I was looking for a wink from the Staish, the moment was lost as a scottish navigator fell backwards onto the table and, with his flailing non drinking arm, swept the entire contents into the Staish's lap. He didn't spill his own drink though.

[soddim]

Unfortunately they do what they do to satisfy the appetites of the ghouls who demand pictures and interviews with the bereaved. I fear it is the great unwashed we have to blame and not the skivvy who is employed to satisfy that demand.

[LoeyDaFrog]

Rej,
They're not called the 'gutter press' for nothing.

[Eagle 270]

Do the great unwashed 'demand it'? Or are they just happy to read whatever is next to the t!ts on page 3, free scratch cards and the latest 'celeb going shopping' blah?

It makes my blood boil to read what these creatures have been doing at DL. It would be nice to employ the latest policy on people breaking and entering without concent on these bottom feeding maggots. Minimum force?

[crossbow]

However, those who are without sin.... The most popular newspaper in most Messes is the current bun (might be the nice ladies in there) and most crewrooms have a copy skulling around. So, the Officers and men are contributing to the sale of the paper.

[Jackonicko]

I have no defence for journos like these. There is no defence.

There is a demand for detail and 'human interest' aspects (that's the modern term for prurience), however, as Soddim suggests. People want to see and experience the grieving widow's tearful face. I don't understand it any more than you chaps do, but I can see that people do want to read this crap, and do want to participate, vicariously, in the tragedy.

The world has changed without our noticing it. The wailing crowds who watched Diana's funeral procession were exactly the kind of Sun/Mirror/Mail/Express reading morons who the editors are trying to satisfy with a crass picture of curtained windows, or a sobbed soundbite from a child, widow or neighbour. The demand is most certainly there. Unlike Soddim, I don't find that to be any excuse for people pursuing the 'victims', any more than job opportunities excused anyone from joining the SS.

But the answer isn't, as you know, to beat these people up. Get their identities (they should be willing to show a press card or other ID) and complain to their editors and to the Press Complaints Commission, and copy your complaints to DCC and Command PR. Get your unit CRO to feed stories of specific instances of unwarranted media intrusion to other papers. Post their names and employers on this thread. These hypocritical bastards love stories about other people's reporters being scum.

By doing so you'll inconvenience the editors. You'll cost them money, and you'll make it more difficult for them to do their jobs in future. Impose a real cost on the papers who use these people's material, and you'll make a difference.

And also realise that the RAF is becoming a less media savvy, and less media friendly organisation institutionally, as are many of its members. The organisation as a whole, and too many of you blokes, don't recognise that you have allies in the media (let alone friends) and that by tarring us all with the same brush, you lose the chance to influence what we do.

I found little to be relieved about in this terrible tragedy, but I was relieved that this was an aircraft and an incident where whether or not it carried particular elements of the DAS was not an issue. I raised the subject of the Hercules' DAS on another thread, and people leapt down my throat, for all the usual reasons. I'm glad I'm not now saying that had we raised the lack of particular equipment on particular parts of the fleet then politicians might have done something to remedy shortcomings and/or equipment shortages and that this might not have happened.....

[Pilgrim101]

Sir Peter Harding's L C

Wasn't the Scottish Nav who fell back on his hip flask, felt a crunch and wet liquid running down is leg and said "F:mad: k, I hope that's blood ! ?"

Jacko

You have a point, but my experience of Journos in Kuwait and Iraq is less than satisfactory and certainly not conducive to a friendly relationship on my part. We are always on our guard whenever the media is around. One look at the BBC and/or Sky and the naff 24 / 7 machinery in place to regurgitate endless speculation by ill informed and frankly ignorant "reporters" expressing their half arsed opinions instead of creative news presentation will tell you why.

Quote a few days ago from the hack outside MOD, "They are point blank refusing to speculate on why the Hercules came down !" F:mad: g right they were not speculating , but Sky was !

One look at the Sky news ad and that tw@t Chater on a donkey, and another heli borne bimbette reporter smirking and saying "From up here you can really see the scale of the disaster" and you can see how low the calibre of "reporter" has become.

[Yozzer]

I am fairly certain that "Wilf" the Sky TV "Defence (C130) Expert" is in fact a TA Int Corps Cpl!

Or at least he was a few years ago when I did a Joint Services course on which he was a course member.

His real job was as a salesman albeit aeroplanes.

[airborne_artist]

It's not just the red tops that get it very wrong.

The Telegraph on Monday ran on the front page a big piece saying "... The incident is believed to mark the single largest loss of SAS personnel since the start of the war" and another regurgitating the South Atlantic X-deck incident and the Kukes 130 crash.

If I only bought the papers that reported correctly my order would be limited to The Beano!

[teeteringhead]

Jacko many thanks for a considered view from a "sensible" journo. I agree with just about everything in your post - which is more than I often do.

I was at Aldergrove in '94 at the time of the Mull crash - and you would just not believe some of the tricks the "reptiles" got up to to try and get in and/or to get info or piccies - and at what one would have hoped was a more secure than average air base.

Your point about "lack of media savvy" is both true and well made. Some lines I remember from various "meeja" courses I've done seem to get forgotten at times:

"The press can be your best friend or your worst enemy"

"Tell them something, however little; tell them nothing and they'll make something up to fill the vacuum." (or of course get J%hn N*c%ll to pontificate....)

[TacLan]

Freedom of speech....blah blah. Public right to know....blah blah.

It gets worse.....
I'm sick and tired of journo's defending their occupation with the same tired old cliche's. Yes, we are doing what we do to protect our way of life and freedom of speech certainly features within that, but I would happily shut the sensationalist journo's up. They appear never happier than when making someone else's life a misery.

Public right to know...horses ar$e. Yes the public should be told about matters that directly effect them or they have paid for (public purse or otherwise). But to try and interview a grieving child.. I'm disgusted.

Think about this......a terrorist bomb goes off 20 miles from you. You may hear it, or you may not. The 24/7 media gets ahold of the story, and it's all you hear about for the next 2 or more days.
Terrorists/Journalists...they are doing the same job. I rank them down there with politicians and estate agents!

These people are endangering lives!

and no, I don't read news papers, their title tends to be misleading.

Spitting Image (remember that?) had the journo's spot on. Pigs in pubs.

[Pilgrim101]

Airborne Artist

""""If I only bought the papers that reported correctly my order would be limited to The Beano!""""

And then somebody from A Sqn to read it to you ?? :} :}

Yozzer

But wee Francis Tusa is a Star - great fun, and terribly exciteable in the right company !!:E

[John Farley]

Jacko many thanks for a considered view from a "sensible" journo. I agree with just about everything in your post - which is more than I often do.

Hear hear.

JF

[Regie Mental]

Jacko

I disagree that the RAF is becoming less media savy. To the contrary, there is a media training regime in place on all exercises from SLTs upward which provide tuition to those most likely to appear before the cameras and the media ops teams.

With regard to this incident, what more could the MoD have done? The line 'we don't know what happened and we won't speculate' was clearly appropriate and to have reacted to each and every incidence of speculation from the likes of Nicol and Janes Defence Weekly (name of the journo anyone?) would have simply played into their hands.

That said, the wolfpack of journos targetting the bereaved should have been anticipated and measures taken to protect them. However perhaps this should have been for the station to organise, not London. Anyway, the media cried foul for photographing a supermodel leaving rehab, claiming it would impinge on their ability to report in the public interest. Not only are their actions morally repugnant but the intrusion into the grief of the families is not in the public interest, and would certainly merit a complaint to the PCC.

RM

[Navaleye]

The day after Sheffield was sunk in 1982, the Sun sent a reporter to Pompey to interview relatives of those killed. I understand he spent several days in hospital.

[Snakecharmer]

Jacko,

Nice, considered, angle - thanks.

Remember a few years ago, the Sqn I was on lost a jet around lunchtime. Jet was 'missing' until quite late in the evening, once some wreckage and body parts were found in the sea. Not a day I'll ever forget.

The good side - the Sqn was sufficiently tight that Boss and XO managed to get round to see the families pretty much before anything was announced anywhere... there's the lesson.

The less good side... it's just as well that Boss / friends were able to be with the families, as they ended up fielding telephone calls from unscrupulous journos who'd already been told my the media hamdlers that there was no news yet. Worst of all... gutter press trying to get access to a little boy at school. Little lad was unaware that anything had happened much less that, later on, he would be told that his father's never coming home again. Whatever the media angle, that's just not on.

[scroggs]

An example of the inaccuracies that undermine and discredit even the 'serious' press is this passage from the Times Online (I assume it's in the paper version too): THE RAF Hercules crew killed in Iraq were one of the RAF’s most experienced teams of air dispatchers who pride themselves on being able to deliver anything, anywhere in the world, no matter how inhospitable or remote. The crews from 47 Air Despatch Squadron Royal Logistical Corps, based at RAF Lyneham in Wiltshire, would have been used to working with special forces, including the SAS. As well as dropping and extracting them from hostile territory, they would have been responsible for supplying them with arms and equipment.

47(AD) Sqn have nothing to do with this tragedy, and such 'reporting' seems calculated to alarm and distress people who are not involved. Despicable and pathetic.

Scroggs

[crossbow]

Scroggs - You have to be very careful of poetic licence. The article in the Times Doersn't say that 47(D) had anything to do with the accident. It states



The crews from 47 Air Despatch Squadron Royal Logistical Corps, based at RAF Lyneham in Wiltshire, would have been used to working with special forces, including the SAS. As well as dropping and extracting them from hostile territory, they would have been responsible for supplying them with arms and equipment.

It doesn't link them to the accident. Factually its a correct statement. I know that it is close to the wind and that it implys that 45(d) were there BUT actually it doesn't say that. Influenced and checked by Media Lawyers. Thats Journalistic licence for ya -Unfortunately.

[Stonecutter]

Most of us have been 'victims' of mis-reporting by the press. There is no point whinging here about it; the only solution is to boycott the subject papers.

[Jackonicko]

Regie,

I was interested by your disagreement with my assertion:

"And also realise that the RAF is becoming a less media savvy, and less media friendly organisation institutionally, as are many of its members."

Interested enough to think exactly what I mean, and to reconsider. You are absolutely right that a media training regime is in place and that this regime does provide excellent tuition in presentation to many personnel.

There is also the fact that many senior officers today are more accessible than they have ever been, and that they are more willing to talk, and seem much more at ease (and frankly more impressive) than their predecessors. CAS and AOC 1 Group, in particular, are highly regarded by many specialist Defence writers. It's a shame this has come so late, when so many papers (with a few honourable exceptions) have lost their really high calibre defence correspondents.

But the actual PR machine is increasingly risible, obstructive and inefficient, often seeming to use a strategy of delaying in the hope that deadlines will pass. There is also the real problem that the RAF's own PR machinery increasingly serves a Civil Service, Main Building boss, and which is increasingly used as a political (and even party political) tool - becoming uncomfortably close to being part of the spin machine. However professionally and smoothly people present spin, what working journos need are facts, insight, and help in understanding often complex issues.

In the case of the Hercules accident, the line:

"The cause of the loss will not be known until the BOI has reported, but possible explanations could include a technical problem, human factors, the weather, or enemy action. The experts will need time to assess the evidence and reach their conclusions."

would be better than a blank "no comment".

Moreover, as long as the "wrong to speculate" line is stressed, it would be entirely fair to underline the Hercules safety record, and the excellence of RAF aircrew and aircrew training.

I'd also point out that the MoD was ridiculously slow in confirming whether it was a J or a K, the fact that it came from 47 (even after the Aussie Nav's identity was revealed in Australia) and that it's slowness in releasing the names of the crew exacerbated the problems which you chaps have been suffering.

[Regie Mental]

Jacko

A typically reasoned, erudite and polite response with which I have to say I agree.

RM

[StopStart]

Jacko, confirming whether it was J or K may have immediately identified the sqn and crew concerned, to those in the know. They could say nothing until the kinforming was complete. It being a J or K was of no relevance to the general public in the first 24 - 48 hours after the incident occured.

[allan907]

There is, or at least, was, a media problem in the RAF. Sorry to hear that it seems to have got worse. Here in Oz corporals and airmen seem perfectly at home with media interviews and, presumably, this is encouraged by the 'wheels' and they also seem to be trained/prepared for it.

Having done the RAF PR course I can endorse what Jacko is saying. Give the reptiles something, anything, which will put you or your organisation in as good a light as possible. If they have got material then they will print it/put it to air - if they haven't then they will be searching for interviews from inappropriate sources or making it up. They might do that anyway but at least you have had your say.

Second problem is kinforming in an age of speed of light communications. The system needs looking at and speeded up. Everyone who has been through IOT will be familiar with the Office Simulator scenario of "Flt Lt Smith (deceased)". Yes, there is a problem with telling the wrong Mrs Smith but the system has to be improved.

During GW1 I had a problem with kinforming when the father of the lad that had dived into a half empty pool at Muharraq with a possible broken neck, rang me to complain why it was taking so long to let him know officially, especially as he had talked to his son minutes after arriving in hospital courtesy of his mate's mobile. Officially, we had to get confirmation from the medical staff (who were waiting for results from a CAT scan) which had to be routed through the detachment commander, through HQ STC and PMC and finally to us. It's got to be changed!

[Llademos]

Jacko,

I suspect that ...

"The cause of the loss will not be known until the BOI has reported, but possible explanations could include a technical problem, human factors, the weather, or enemy action. The experts will need time to assess the evidence and reach their conclusions."

... would result in the headline ...

'MOD confirm enemy action may be to blame'

or

'Were the pilots to blame? MOD refuse to rule out etc etc'

I agree, though, that 'no comment' is probably the worst of all worlds.

How about a law that specifically prohibits any more than the MOD statement in cases where people are killed in war zones?

Ll

[Captain Kirk]

Jacko,

As ever, an articulate and insightful post - I hope that your observations are noted.

However, with few exceptions I must confess to finding journalists pretty repulsive as a breed - most especially given the blatant application of double standards; we hear the cry 'it is in the public interest' all too often. Why then, did the media pool adopt a self-imposed ban upon reporting the kidnap of one of their own in Baghdad?

[Daily Telegrapg - 15 Aug 04: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/15/nbran15.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/08/15/ixportaltop.html]

Who decided that the public were not interested in that instance? Of course, that individual was released - because the terrorists did not get the publicity they craved. Kenneth Bigley was unfortunate enough to be outside of a self-serving, hypocritical club for the morally bankrupt: journalists were a party to his murder.

[adr]

Capt Kirk, your post reminded me of something from Prof Onora O'Neill's excellent Reith Lectures 2002 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2002/) . Essentially (and speaking of the Press's common culture, not honourable exceptions), she said in her final lecture (http://) (excerpt below) that the Press delights in holding everyone to account, and presenting everyone's errors and shortfalls to public scrutiny -- everyone except the press.

adr

Meanwhile, some powerful institutions and professions have managed to avoid not only the excessive but the sensible aspects of the revolutions in accountability and transparency. Most evidently, the media, in particular the print media-while deeply preoccupied with others' untrustworthiness-have escaped demands for accountability (that is, apart from the financial disciplines set by company law and accounting practices). This is less true of the terrestrial broadcasting media, which are subject to legislation and regulation. The BBC (I thought I had better mention that, given where I am!) also has its Charter, Agreement and Producers' Guidelines 2, and those include commitments to impartiality, accuracy, fairness, giving a full view, editorial independence, respect for privacy, standards of taste and decency - I am not claiming that compliance is perfect.

Newspaper editors and journalists are not held accountable in these ways. Outstanding reporting and accurate writing mingle with editing and reporting that smears, sneers and jeers, names, shames and blames. Some reporting 'covers' (or should I say 'uncovers'?) dementing amounts of trivia, some misrepresents, some denigrates, some teeters on the brink of defamation. In this curious world, commitments to trustworthy reporting are erratic: there is no shame in writing on matters beyond a reporter's competence, in coining misleading headlines, in omitting matters of public interest or importance, or in recirculating others' speculations as supposed 'news'. Above all there is no requirement to make evidence accessible to readers.

[air pig]

I was in Middle East country three years ago. The hotel group security was supplied by the Gurkha's and led by an ex British special forces person. Journo's were not encouraged on the property, and two who tried to take photo's from a boat of the beach found themselves arrested by the police, (They did not check six at any time), slung in jail and the paperwork was LOST for two weeks. This provided an object lesson to the press scum in area, that the local police take privacy very seriously.

Maybe the press should have a reality check in the UK. If only people would call the police and claim harrasment and trespass.

[Captain Kirk]

adr,

Thanks for the link - very interesting. Although the Professor said it rather better than me! I clearly lack her subtlety! Phasers to vaporise...

[SmilingKnifed]

Whilst I agree with the concensus that journalists are scum, I also question the moral mindset in this country that seeks to profit from others' misfortune. just look at the amount of pathetic 'reality TV.'

Why anyone feels a 'need' to see a grieving widow is beyond me.

[TacTrucker]

Having had some personal involvement with recent events, and with the knowledge that both local and national media did knock on grieving widows' front doors less than 24 hours after the Herc crash, I cannot see any defence for the practice. Even if you accept the "public interest" argument and if you believe the "No comment" line from MOD is a contributory factor, there can be no justification for cold calling for an interview with anybody less than 12 hours after they have been told their loved one is dead. Similarly, waiting outside the Junior and Infants School to interview children can hardly be viewed as morally sound.

Yes journalists have a job to do, but they are supposedly, and in my belief, still human beings. Presumably they are capable of considering the emotional state of others as well as doing their job. Does anybody really think they would be in a clear and lucid frame of mind less than 12 hours after losing their spouse and would be ready to talk to the press? I somehow don't think I could cope with an interview with a hack.

If the PCC is the answer, I'll recommend it to some of the folk involved in these recent tragic events. Thanks for taking this issue out from the Herc Down thread; a morally sound decision!

[Lafyar Cokov]

A couple of 2p worth (That'll be 4p then)

I am always amazed whenever I hear the subject I know most about (Mil aviation - although some may disagree with me!) is reported in the press, they always seem to get about 90% of the facts absolutely wrong. It makes you wonder - if thats the case in the one subject I do know about - how much of what the rest of the stuff reported is absolute baloney??? Makes you wonder..

Secondly - I think most humans do have a voyouristic (??) streak in them - as catered for by endless 'reality' shows. After a while they become imune to just seeing people live normal lives so the media have to provide more and more 'intimate' moments to share with the public - one of these must be the tears of a grieving widow. How long before 'celebrity bereavement' hits channel 5?? I'm not backing them, just trying to find a justification as to how these reptiles sleep at night.

That's 4p please (Plus Tax, National Insurance, earnings-gain tax and loss of child benefit/tax credits - total bill: £136.50)

LC

[Jackonicko]

"There is no shame in writing on matters beyond a reporter's competence."

Nor does there seem to be any recognition that there is any need for any specialist knowledge when reporting on defence or aviation - they're not important or complex subjects like motoring, gardening or cricket, after all. Why have someone who knows what they're talking about when you can have some vaguely decorative work experience bint to whom an A380 or a Hercules are both just 'big planes'. It's worse on TV and radio, but it's shockingly bad in the print media, too.

I do wish people would stop lumping all journalists together as 'scum', it's offensive, it's small minded and it's as silly and as misleading as lumping together all Forces personnel as 'ignorant squaddies'. Some of them may be, but the majority are not, except in certain high profile areas of the press.

It's also discourteous, as there are a number of respectable journos who frequent these boards - starting with John Farley, best known as a TP, but a ferociously good occasional contributor to Flight.

[opso]

I do wish people would stop lumping all journalists together as 'scum', Quite right Jacko. Like all trades, there are good and there are bad and sweeping generalisations here concerning the media are no better than the media behaviour that we detest.

Something just occured to me though. There are a great number of journalists who report from dangerous areas where they can be subject to harm. Witness the very long BBC programme that ran a tribute to all the reporters that had died in the second Iraq war. Now, whilst for the sake of their families I hope that all of them in harms way come back safely, it is realistic to assume that like the military personnel, frequent exposure to danger will inevitably lead to some casualties. Maybe the next time that a reporter is lost we should send 20-30 squaddies around instantly to their editor's home asking how he/she feels and trying to get photos for the stn/regt/ship magazine. After all, it's in the public interest catagory and would help we, the military, to better understand the losses that war brings on civilian population etc.

We have more decency than the gutter press and would leave the family alone, but we could hunt out the editors and publishers...

[soddim]

Jacko, I agree - we do tend to lump all journos together and it is remiss of us to do so; however, whilst there are those who bring your profession into disrepute, this will be the result.

If there is a solution it lies not with the Services and their media training but in regulation of the activities of the journalist in pursuit of the story. I am sure that your profession is responsive to the outcome of complaints upheld by the Press Complaints Commission but do the public refer complaints of the nature expressed in this forum?

I suspect not and until we have the energy and initiative to do so this problem will remain.

[lineslime]

Funny old thing, went to work today and now that the names of all involved have been released the media throng has just vanished from outside the main gates. Got what they wanted and then bogged off, crawling back under whatever rock from whence they came. Needless to say they will want their "public interest" footage/pictures when all are repatriated.

As for harrasing families, children & friends I just wish they would have a moment of humane thought (hard for them I know, if not impossible). LEAVE THEM ALONE!!!!! How would they feel if it were their families?

[Captain Kirk]

Lafyar - spot on. I am amazed at how readily otherwise intelligent people will believe most of what they read/see/hear in the media without questioning its provenance.

Jacko - fair point but the 'vaguely decorative work experience bint' is a bit un-PC for you!

[L J R]

Lafya has the same quandry that I have had for years - in that if the press constantly get what you know wrong, how much more is wrong with- say reporting of the safety of a recently built bridge. Jacko, it is for this reason that the 'main stream' press have little cred in my book. I'm not agreeing that 'all' journos are scum, but most of them are full of crXXp. Those who write specialist articles for specialist mags (like flight et al, ) normally get it right, but even they often get (minor) points of fact wrong.

[Lafyar Cokov]

Jacko

I don't believe all Journo's are to be tarred with the same brush (one of my best friends knows someone who cleaned the windows of a girl who's sister babysat for a Journo!!)

And there are some very good ones - however, just like we are all handlebarred-moustached, Right wing, dashing young prats called Ginger and Whizzo, there is a great temptation to lump you all in to the same boat - for this I apologise, as it is unfair and probably predjudiced.

However there are some (maybe a disproportionate few) who really blot your copy-book. To use a different example from the current debate I know of a current ITV anchorman who's name I can't mention (although it might apparently rhyme with Bark Bostin) who, during the Mozambique floods asked Puma crews to put locals into the trees so that he could film them being rescued by a Brit helcopter...

Maybe a few - but significant enough to make us have second thoughts..

[Itsrainingagain]

Most of us have been 'victims' of mis-reporting by the press. There is no point whinging here about it; the only solution is to boycott the subject papers.

So why don't we do something about it - every time there is inaccurate or misrepresentative cr*p in the press - why doesn't every mess, NAAFI and other military institution boycott those papers? - hit them where it hurts, in the wallet. Alternatively release the dogs on them and bite them where it hurts, in the:mad:

[Pilgrim101]

Keep going Jacko

Good points well scored, but we all do well to remember the highly sensitive emotions involved at this time.

You do your profession great credit and I confess you have made me think and temper my..., well, temper, on many occasions when too many of your colleagues have frayed us around the edges.

Like the delicious un pc bit too ! :ok:

[portwait]

Lets not forget it isn't only those from the papers at fault.

During the Kosovo "campaign" on board invincible had camera crew from Sky on board my aircraft taking film of SHAR launches.

Cameraman on comms sitting in back door.

"wouldn't it be great if one crashed off the ski ramp into the sea..... then I would get loads more money for my film"

Greated by silence followed by member of crew "accidently" knocking big black camera bag out of back door into the oggin.

course wings didn't find it amusing.

Never trusted them... never will.

[DK338]

Ploce Death Camp August 1995; it was the day of the Service to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the end of WWII.

I was attached to 24Bde and employed, with 2 other TG9 JNCO's in the Air Cell tasking the aircraft of 3 Regt AAC from the Bde HQ building. On this day the watchkeeper received a call from ATC informing him that there were reports of a Lynx crash in the Adriatic just off the coast. Fully loaded with 2 crew and 3 pax and no reported survivors so far. Sh!t hits the fan and off we all go to start piecing the sequence of events together; callsign, POB, Crew and pax names etc.

We were all very mindful that there were still a large number of journo's still kicking around after the mornings' church service and wished to keep all information in house until we were all better informed.

Sadly events like this are hard to keep a lid on in such close confines and although the press were requested to keep schtum until we had a clearer picture, a notable female war hungry reporter chose instead to opt for the scoop.

She was caught hidden amongst a collection of 4 tonners in the Bde HQ car park making a call to her editor back in the UK on her Sat phone. What she didn't realise was that the vehicles all belonged to the Sigs and they caught her before she did any damage - thank God.

Bitch!

[lineslime]

Nice to see the sun is offering more speculation regarding the herc crash. They can't even decide what model herc to use in their animation of what they think happened. If you haven't seen the pictures yet just try and imagine a shorty K with J wings, nothing like accurate reporting.
I wonder who they got the info from, crossbow or JN? Both highly skilled in talking from the hole in the region of the gluteus (for the reference of the afore mentioned that is your AR$E).