'Defensive Missiles' on RAF BAe 146!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: OTA E
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Defensive Missiles' on RAF BAe 146!
A front page article in today's (9 Jan 05) 'Sunday Telegraph' under the headline "PM used Queen's Flight for Egyptian holiday 'freebie'" said:
"The Queen's Flight is equipped with defensive missiles and armour plating to protect against small arms fire"
I expect the correct version should have said that their aircraft have anti-missile defences, but it hasn't come out that way. Or are 32 Sqn's ac really equipped with 'defensive missiles'? Maybe the pax throw their stale bread rolls out the windows.
Journalistic standards? Bo!!ocks!
"The Queen's Flight is equipped with defensive missiles and armour plating to protect against small arms fire"
I expect the correct version should have said that their aircraft have anti-missile defences, but it hasn't come out that way. Or are 32 Sqn's ac really equipped with 'defensive missiles'? Maybe the pax throw their stale bread rolls out the windows.
Journalistic standards? Bo!!ocks!
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
That's definitely not true. All RAF stale sandwiches are sent to VGSs for weekend lunches, together with the undrinkable cordial and weird-flavour crisps.
The pax packed meals on Alberts have been sent to a VGS, kept the statutory four weeks (if not fed to seagulls by bored studes), and then forwarded to Lyneham's in fright catering unit.
Obviously there's no defence for sloppiness like this in our broadsheet newspapers.
Of course we should expect better.
But what is, or should be, at least partly defence/aviation story has been written by a non-specialist reporter and has not been 'run past' an aviation/defence literate journo or sub.
And that happens because aviation/defence are no longer perceived as being important enough to justify sufficient investment in suitably qualified people, meaning that even our broadsheets usually have only a single defence man.
In any event, I'm surprised that people on this forum seem to be more concerned with poking fun at a relatively unimportant error than with addressing the underlying issue - which was that a precious service resource has been tied up for weeks in service of Mr Blair's Christmas holiday, and that by scheduling a single piece of business Blair got exclusive use of a 146 (and its crew) while paying only the standard civil air fare for the privilege.
Of course we should expect better.
But what is, or should be, at least partly defence/aviation story has been written by a non-specialist reporter and has not been 'run past' an aviation/defence literate journo or sub.
And that happens because aviation/defence are no longer perceived as being important enough to justify sufficient investment in suitably qualified people, meaning that even our broadsheets usually have only a single defence man.
In any event, I'm surprised that people on this forum seem to be more concerned with poking fun at a relatively unimportant error than with addressing the underlying issue - which was that a precious service resource has been tied up for weeks in service of Mr Blair's Christmas holiday, and that by scheduling a single piece of business Blair got exclusive use of a 146 (and its crew) while paying only the standard civil air fare for the privilege.
Guest
Posts: n/a
2 points to make here.
ONE - Are you sure the journalists have made a mistake. Why shouldn't the Queens flight be protected by defensive missiles and armour plating?
TWO - Surely our great leader is entitled to use the governments property when he is using it to promote and create business for this country. I think Mr Blair has every right to use this aircraft, so get off his back and give him the support he so rightly deserves.
ONE - Are you sure the journalists have made a mistake. Why shouldn't the Queens flight be protected by defensive missiles and armour plating?
TWO - Surely our great leader is entitled to use the governments property when he is using it to promote and create business for this country. I think Mr Blair has every right to use this aircraft, so get off his back and give him the support he so rightly deserves.
Guest
Posts: n/a
He was discussing new plans for a de-salination plant along a famous river. A contract which would provide job security for nearly a thousand British workers and give a fresh impetus into the british de-salinisation industry.....
He also took the oportunity to discuss political relationships with his friends and political allies in Egypt as well as promoting UK defence industries.
Next..
He also took the oportunity to discuss political relationships with his friends and political allies in Egypt as well as promoting UK defence industries.
Next..
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 points to make here.
ONE - Are you sure the journalists have made a mistake. Why shouldn't the Queens flight be protected by defensive missiles and armour plating?
TWO - Surely our great leader is entitled to use the governments property when he is using it to promote and create business for this country. I think Mr Blair has every right to use this aircraft, so get off his back and give him the support he so rightly deserves.
ONE - Are you sure the journalists have made a mistake. Why shouldn't the Queens flight be protected by defensive missiles and armour plating?
TWO - Surely our great leader is entitled to use the governments property when he is using it to promote and create business for this country. I think Mr Blair has every right to use this aircraft, so get off his back and give him the support he so rightly deserves.
Two - Bliar is not the head of state, Her Majesty is. He has a department, with a budget, and is accountable like the rest of us who work for HM. He should not be screwing the system for the benefit of his brood in a manner that would get anyone in uniform in trouble.
He was discussing new plans for a de-salination plant along a famous river. A contract which would provide job security for nearly a thousand British workers and give a fresh impetus into the british de-salinisation industry.....
He also took the oportunity to discuss political relationships with his friends and political allies in Egypt as well as promoting UK defence industries.
Next..
He also took the oportunity to discuss political relationships with his friends and political allies in Egypt as well as promoting UK defence industries.
Next..
That was a genuine question, Mike - we were told 'business' only after criticism, and the nature of that business was hardly flagged up. On top of that, do you think that the possibility of securing a few jobs merited his staying on holiday in the aftermath of the biggest single-event loss of British life since WW2?
As JN says, the impression is that the business discussions were merely a mechanism to secure access to the flight. I have no problem with the notion that the PM needs to have secure transport in this day and age, but this isn't a one-off. It appears that 32(TR) are being used as a bit of a taxi service for the PM's jollies, rather than for official purposes thanks to a spot of line-blurring by No. 10. As they're so good at placing TB in such a favourable light, you'd have thought that they might have knocked this issue on the head by now, perhaps?
Yes, I may have swum neatly to your large grounding net, but there is a serious point to be made here!
[Edit to add - I think it's called a grounding net - I mean the big thing used to bring fish, bicycle wheels and scuba-diving Deputy Prime Ministers into the river bank]
As JN says, the impression is that the business discussions were merely a mechanism to secure access to the flight. I have no problem with the notion that the PM needs to have secure transport in this day and age, but this isn't a one-off. It appears that 32(TR) are being used as a bit of a taxi service for the PM's jollies, rather than for official purposes thanks to a spot of line-blurring by No. 10. As they're so good at placing TB in such a favourable light, you'd have thought that they might have knocked this issue on the head by now, perhaps?
Yes, I may have swum neatly to your large grounding net, but there is a serious point to be made here!
[Edit to add - I think it's called a grounding net - I mean the big thing used to bring fish, bicycle wheels and scuba-diving Deputy Prime Ministers into the river bank]
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Cynics, the lot of ya. I don't believe for one minute that Mr Blair would even consider using HM's finest for his own personal transport.
Mr Blair has once and for all rid this country of sleeze and lies. 3 Cheers for that."
Now I know you are being heavily ironic - a relief as I thought you were being serious for a moment.
Mr Blair has once and for all rid this country of sleeze and lies. 3 Cheers for that."
Now I know you are being heavily ironic - a relief as I thought you were being serious for a moment.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leaving TB alone (momentarily), I'd like to go back to a bit of Journo'-bashing.
This is the latest in a long line of defence/aviation related newspaper articles that have been riddled with arrant b0!!0ck$ that the likes of us can pick up on, but average joe on the street would quite understandably take at face value.
Point is, there are plenty of other topics that I for one know very little about (brain-surgery, macro-economics, reliable chat-up techniques etc) and would therefore be in the same boat as average joe in my ability to spot shoddy journalism in all the other stuff I read in the papers.
So just how much inaccuracy and plain fiction is there out there and should I stop taking the Times and the Telegraph and read the Sport instead?
And by the way JackoNicko, I'm sorry but I don't agree that not having time to consult a relevant expert is a good enough excuse, not when we are paying good money to buy their papers and keep them in a job - it's just not professional - "Sorry I flew straight through that CB and trashed my aircraft but I didn't have time to speak to the Met Man...........".
This is the latest in a long line of defence/aviation related newspaper articles that have been riddled with arrant b0!!0ck$ that the likes of us can pick up on, but average joe on the street would quite understandably take at face value.
Point is, there are plenty of other topics that I for one know very little about (brain-surgery, macro-economics, reliable chat-up techniques etc) and would therefore be in the same boat as average joe in my ability to spot shoddy journalism in all the other stuff I read in the papers.
So just how much inaccuracy and plain fiction is there out there and should I stop taking the Times and the Telegraph and read the Sport instead?
And by the way JackoNicko, I'm sorry but I don't agree that not having time to consult a relevant expert is a good enough excuse, not when we are paying good money to buy their papers and keep them in a job - it's just not professional - "Sorry I flew straight through that CB and trashed my aircraft but I didn't have time to speak to the Met Man...........".
Father Jack,
Don't get me wrong. I naturally think that the Telegraph should be employing more pro defence/aviation journos, and using others as consultants. I'd have happily corrected the more glaring errors had they had the wit and the cash to call me.
And it's not that they don't have time, it's that they don't want to spend the money.
And that's because the perception is that no-one gives a tuppeny bit, and they have that perception because readers don't write in or phone and complain when they do make a mess of defence stories.
Don't get me wrong. I naturally think that the Telegraph should be employing more pro defence/aviation journos, and using others as consultants. I'd have happily corrected the more glaring errors had they had the wit and the cash to call me.
And it's not that they don't have time, it's that they don't want to spend the money.
And that's because the perception is that no-one gives a tuppeny bit, and they have that perception because readers don't write in or phone and complain when they do make a mess of defence stories.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm no Blair fan, but it does seem rather preposterous that he should have to travel on a scheduled airline in the current climate. Purely for the sake of the other passengers; would anyone like to sit next one of Osama Bin Laden's most wanted targets on their holiday flight? No thank you.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: OTA E
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PM's use of 32 Sqn
I wondered how long it would take before the PM's use of RAF AT would be mentioned, but I personally don't give a monkey's. He is the Queen's First Minister, after all, and the Sqn belongs to the Royal Air Force. None of that Republican nonsense in my bunker!
My point was really just another journo bash, but they're such easy targets! Either the thing about 'defensive missiles' was made up, or the plonker who wrote it completely failed to understand his/her source/reference. It reminds me a little of a quote I heard the other day about a poet who 'tortured the English language for years but still failed to get it to reveal its meaning' - or something like that.
My point was really just another journo bash, but they're such easy targets! Either the thing about 'defensive missiles' was made up, or the plonker who wrote it completely failed to understand his/her source/reference. It reminds me a little of a quote I heard the other day about a poet who 'tortured the English language for years but still failed to get it to reveal its meaning' - or something like that.
Yes he's the Queen's First Minister, when he's at work. The on-duty Prime Minister should of course use the Royal Squadron's aircraft when necessary, and when justified, but the off duty Tony Blair, or the leader of the Labour Party, should not.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our aussie PM lives in Sydney and works (if you call it that) in Canberra and basically commutes between the two in his BBJ's like a taxi service, nobody over here really gives crap about it either..................it's only money!