Nimrod Information
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please interpret as you see fit........
OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT, 1989
SECTION 5
Information resulting from unauthorised disclosures or entrusted in confidence
(1) Subsection (2) below applies where—
(a) any information, document or other article protected against disclosure by the foregoing provisions of this Act has come into a person’s possession as a result of having been—
(i) disclosed (whether to him or another) by a Crown servant or government contractor without lawful authority; or
(ii) entrusted to him by a Crown servant or government contractor on terms requiring it to be held in confidence or in circumstances in which the Crown servant or government contractor could reasonably expect that it would be so held; or
(iii) disclosed (whether to him or another) without lawful authority by a person to whom it was entrusted as mentioned in sub-paragraph (ii) above; and
(b) the disclosure without lawful authority of the information, document or article by the person into whose possession it has come is not an offence under any of those provisions.
(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4) below, the person into whose possession the information, document or article has come is guilty of an offence if he discloses it without lawful authority knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that it is protected against disclosure by the foregoing provisions of this Act and that it has come into his possession as mentioned in subsection (1) above.
(3) In the case of information or a document or article protected against disclosure by sections 1 to 3 above, a person does not commit an offence under subsection (2) above unless—
(a) the disclosure by him is damaging; and
(b) he makes it knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that it would be damaging;
and the question whether a disclosure is damaging shall be determined for the purposes of this subsection as it would be in relation to a disclosure of that information, document or article by a Crown servant in contravention of section 1(3), 2(1) or 3(1) above.
(4) A person does not commit an offence under subsection (2) above in respect of information or a document or other article which has come into his possession as a result of having been disclosed—
(a) as mentioned in subsection (1)(a)(i) above by a government contractor; or
(b) as mentioned in subsection (1)(a)(iii) above,
unless that disclosure was by a British citizen or took place in the United Kingdom, in any of the Channel Islands or in the Isle of Man or a colony.
(5) For the purposes of this section information or a document or article is protected against disclosure by the foregoing provisions of this Act if—
(a) it relates to security or intelligence, defence or international relations within the meaning of section 1, 2 or 3 above or is such as is mentioned in section 3(1)(b) above; or
(b) it is information or a document or article to which section 4 above applies;
and information or a document or article is protected against disclosure by sections 1 to 3 above if it falls within paragraph (a) above.
(6) A person is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he discloses any information, document or other article which he knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, to have come into his possession as a result of a contravention of section 1 of the [1911 c. 28.] Official Secrets Act 1911.
What do you believe is 'damaging' and what would an English court see as 'damaging'? Disclosure to those, outside of the MoD, of difficulties with the UK's MPA fleet?
You decide.
OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT, 1989
SECTION 5
Information resulting from unauthorised disclosures or entrusted in confidence
(1) Subsection (2) below applies where—
(a) any information, document or other article protected against disclosure by the foregoing provisions of this Act has come into a person’s possession as a result of having been—
(i) disclosed (whether to him or another) by a Crown servant or government contractor without lawful authority; or
(ii) entrusted to him by a Crown servant or government contractor on terms requiring it to be held in confidence or in circumstances in which the Crown servant or government contractor could reasonably expect that it would be so held; or
(iii) disclosed (whether to him or another) without lawful authority by a person to whom it was entrusted as mentioned in sub-paragraph (ii) above; and
(b) the disclosure without lawful authority of the information, document or article by the person into whose possession it has come is not an offence under any of those provisions.
(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4) below, the person into whose possession the information, document or article has come is guilty of an offence if he discloses it without lawful authority knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that it is protected against disclosure by the foregoing provisions of this Act and that it has come into his possession as mentioned in subsection (1) above.
(3) In the case of information or a document or article protected against disclosure by sections 1 to 3 above, a person does not commit an offence under subsection (2) above unless—
(a) the disclosure by him is damaging; and
(b) he makes it knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that it would be damaging;
and the question whether a disclosure is damaging shall be determined for the purposes of this subsection as it would be in relation to a disclosure of that information, document or article by a Crown servant in contravention of section 1(3), 2(1) or 3(1) above.
(4) A person does not commit an offence under subsection (2) above in respect of information or a document or other article which has come into his possession as a result of having been disclosed—
(a) as mentioned in subsection (1)(a)(i) above by a government contractor; or
(b) as mentioned in subsection (1)(a)(iii) above,
unless that disclosure was by a British citizen or took place in the United Kingdom, in any of the Channel Islands or in the Isle of Man or a colony.
(5) For the purposes of this section information or a document or article is protected against disclosure by the foregoing provisions of this Act if—
(a) it relates to security or intelligence, defence or international relations within the meaning of section 1, 2 or 3 above or is such as is mentioned in section 3(1)(b) above; or
(b) it is information or a document or article to which section 4 above applies;
and information or a document or article is protected against disclosure by sections 1 to 3 above if it falls within paragraph (a) above.
(6) A person is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he discloses any information, document or other article which he knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, to have come into his possession as a result of a contravention of section 1 of the [1911 c. 28.] Official Secrets Act 1911.
What do you believe is 'damaging' and what would an English court see as 'damaging'? Disclosure to those, outside of the MoD, of difficulties with the UK's MPA fleet?
You decide.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3485072.stm
GCHQ translator cleared over leak
A GCHQ translator sacked for revealing a secret e-mail has been cleared of a charge under the Official Secrets Act.
Katharine Gun, 29, from Cheltenham, claimed the e-mail was from US spies asking British officers to tap phones of nations voting on war against Iraq.
She walked free on Wednesday when the prosecution offered no evidence.
Ms Gun had always said she had acted in an effort to prevent the war, and outside court said: "I have no regrets and I would do it again."
The leaking of the e-mail to the Observer newspaper generated a row and saw Ms Gun's case become a cause celebre in the US, with civil rights activist Jesse Jackson and actor Sean Penn lending their support.
Human rights group Liberty, which supported Ms Gun throughout her trial, said it was possible the prosecution's decision followed political intervention.
There has been speculation the government was worried about the disclosure of secret documents during the trial, particularly the advice by Attorney General Lord Goldsmith about the legality of war.
Under the Official Secrets Act, the attorney general has the final decision on whether or not to prosecute.
This needed to get out, the public deserved to know what was going on at the time
But the attorney general's office told the BBC the decision to drop the charge had nothing to do with Lord Goldsmith's advice.
Ms Gun's legal team served documents on the government on Tuesday demanding to see any advice given to ministers about the legality of the war.
But BBC political correspondent Guto Harri said a government spokesperson insisted the decision to drop the case was taken before the demand for documents was made.
The same spokesperson suggested the case might have been dropped as Ms Gun planned to argue she leaked the e-mail to save lives from being lost in a war, something that could persuade a jury and would lead to the reputation of the Official Secrets Act being damaged.
Our correspondent said this suggested the government had made a political calculation that a random selection of a dozen jurors would be likely to be so instinctively anti-war than an acquittal would be likely.
Ms Gun, who was sacked from GCHQ in June and charged on 13 November, thanked her family and friends for helping her through the case.
She told a news conference: "Obviously I'm not prone to leak secrets left, right and centre... but this needed to get out, the public deserved to know what was going on at the time.
"I was pretty horrified and I felt that the British intelligence services were being asked to do something that would undermine the whole UN democratic processes."
Ms Gun revealed she was strongly anti-war but said she had not been looking for a piece of information to leak and embarrass the government.
"I'm just baffled in the 21st century we as human beings are still dropping bombs on each other as a means to resolve issues."
The memo, from January last year, reportedly said the National Security Agency had begun a "surge" in eavesdropping on UN Security Council countries crucial to the vote on a second resolution for action in Iraq.
Officials from Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria, Guinea and Pakistan all had their phones tapped in what the Observer described as a "dirty tricks" operation.
BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said managers within the intelligence service might now be thinking about talking to members of staff about their concerns to prevent future whistle-blowing.
Shami Chakrabarti, of Liberty, said the decision to charge Mrs Gun in the first place had been political.
"One wonders whether disclosure in this criminal trial might have been a little too embarrassing," she said.
The Liberal Democrats' foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said: "It is possible the attorney general's legal advice might have been published at last. This is a government retreat.''
Ms Gun pleaded not guilty on Wednesday, after which the prosecution announced it would not be going ahead with its case.
Mark Ellison, for the prosecution, said: "There is no longer sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction.
"It would not be appropriate to go into the reasons for this decision."
The judge, the Recorder of London Michael Hyam, recorded a formal verdict of not guilty.
The defence inquired why it took until Wednesday for the case to be dropped, but the prosecution offered no explanation.
They also want to know why news of the charges being dropped was apparently leaked to the Guardian newspaper last week.
All that is needed for a successful prosecution under the Official Secrets Act is for the prosecution to demonstrate the accused is covered by it, which Ms Gun was, and they have revealed information covered by it, which she also admitted.
Her solicitor James Welch described the prosecution's excuse as "rather lame".
Former spy David Shayler, jailed for revealing secrets, said a blanket of secrecy was used to protect intelligence matters that did not affect national security.
"If the intelligence services are going to do things that are illegal they have to expect people to whistle-blow."
A GCHQ translator sacked for revealing a secret e-mail has been cleared of a charge under the Official Secrets Act.
Katharine Gun, 29, from Cheltenham, claimed the e-mail was from US spies asking British officers to tap phones of nations voting on war against Iraq.
She walked free on Wednesday when the prosecution offered no evidence.
Ms Gun had always said she had acted in an effort to prevent the war, and outside court said: "I have no regrets and I would do it again."
The leaking of the e-mail to the Observer newspaper generated a row and saw Ms Gun's case become a cause celebre in the US, with civil rights activist Jesse Jackson and actor Sean Penn lending their support.
Human rights group Liberty, which supported Ms Gun throughout her trial, said it was possible the prosecution's decision followed political intervention.
There has been speculation the government was worried about the disclosure of secret documents during the trial, particularly the advice by Attorney General Lord Goldsmith about the legality of war.
Under the Official Secrets Act, the attorney general has the final decision on whether or not to prosecute.
This needed to get out, the public deserved to know what was going on at the time
But the attorney general's office told the BBC the decision to drop the charge had nothing to do with Lord Goldsmith's advice.
Ms Gun's legal team served documents on the government on Tuesday demanding to see any advice given to ministers about the legality of the war.
But BBC political correspondent Guto Harri said a government spokesperson insisted the decision to drop the case was taken before the demand for documents was made.
The same spokesperson suggested the case might have been dropped as Ms Gun planned to argue she leaked the e-mail to save lives from being lost in a war, something that could persuade a jury and would lead to the reputation of the Official Secrets Act being damaged.
Our correspondent said this suggested the government had made a political calculation that a random selection of a dozen jurors would be likely to be so instinctively anti-war than an acquittal would be likely.
Ms Gun, who was sacked from GCHQ in June and charged on 13 November, thanked her family and friends for helping her through the case.
She told a news conference: "Obviously I'm not prone to leak secrets left, right and centre... but this needed to get out, the public deserved to know what was going on at the time.
"I was pretty horrified and I felt that the British intelligence services were being asked to do something that would undermine the whole UN democratic processes."
Ms Gun revealed she was strongly anti-war but said she had not been looking for a piece of information to leak and embarrass the government.
"I'm just baffled in the 21st century we as human beings are still dropping bombs on each other as a means to resolve issues."
The memo, from January last year, reportedly said the National Security Agency had begun a "surge" in eavesdropping on UN Security Council countries crucial to the vote on a second resolution for action in Iraq.
Officials from Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria, Guinea and Pakistan all had their phones tapped in what the Observer described as a "dirty tricks" operation.
BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said managers within the intelligence service might now be thinking about talking to members of staff about their concerns to prevent future whistle-blowing.
Shami Chakrabarti, of Liberty, said the decision to charge Mrs Gun in the first place had been political.
"One wonders whether disclosure in this criminal trial might have been a little too embarrassing," she said.
The Liberal Democrats' foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said: "It is possible the attorney general's legal advice might have been published at last. This is a government retreat.''
Ms Gun pleaded not guilty on Wednesday, after which the prosecution announced it would not be going ahead with its case.
Mark Ellison, for the prosecution, said: "There is no longer sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction.
"It would not be appropriate to go into the reasons for this decision."
The judge, the Recorder of London Michael Hyam, recorded a formal verdict of not guilty.
The defence inquired why it took until Wednesday for the case to be dropped, but the prosecution offered no explanation.
They also want to know why news of the charges being dropped was apparently leaked to the Guardian newspaper last week.
All that is needed for a successful prosecution under the Official Secrets Act is for the prosecution to demonstrate the accused is covered by it, which Ms Gun was, and they have revealed information covered by it, which she also admitted.
Her solicitor James Welch described the prosecution's excuse as "rather lame".
Former spy David Shayler, jailed for revealing secrets, said a blanket of secrecy was used to protect intelligence matters that did not affect national security.
"If the intelligence services are going to do things that are illegal they have to expect people to whistle-blow."
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nr.EGHI, UK
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Just down the road from ISK
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have you guys seen the Northern Scot front page?
DV
DV
ks!Wasn't going to post again but guys, really!! If any aircrew had refused to fly then this would be THE topic of conversation here at ISK! It's not!
Flew twice this last 3 days in the old girl - nobody bats an eyelid. More media sh
ite I'm afraid. 
Believe me, I and several others would like to say a lot, lot more. People have not disappeared from the thread for any other reason than there is nothing new - so, until there is why doesn't everyone stop speculating and help us all to do our jobs without wives/friends/families asking us all the time about the integrity of the aircraft.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vage Rot: My statement was not speculation. I simply made reference to an article in a local paper.
Clearly someone called the Northern Scot with the story, and from what I know about the paper they are unlikely to run with small talk.
For all I know, you could be the Stn Cmdr, trying to play things down.
DV
Clearly someone called the Northern Scot with the story, and from what I know about the paper they are unlikely to run with small talk.
For all I know, you could be the Stn Cmdr, trying to play things down.
DV
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Over the sea and far away
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For all I know, you could be the Stn Cmdr, trying to play things down.
There are quite a few people with concerns about the aircraft. Vage is playing things down a touch, and others are hamming it up. Somewhere in the middle is the real feeling at ISK (in my opinion).
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: N/A
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He's not the Stn Cdr. I was keeping a close eye on the Stn Cdr tonight to make sure he didn't sneak off in the middle of a dining-in night to post under the pseudonym of Vage Rot, and I can exclusively reveal that he didn't.
However, I've never seen AOC 2Gp in the flesh while Vage Rot has been posting messages
However, I've never seen AOC 2Gp in the flesh while Vage Rot has been posting messages
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vage,
Are you seriously telling us that the author of this report has got it completely wrong, and that NO aircrew at ISK are scared to fly the jet?
I know that to be wrong, as I have a lot of friends still on the fleet, still flying and the vast majority of them telling me that they are 'scared' to a greater or lesser degree.
These are experienced aviators who all have several thousand flying hours under their belts, and so have seen quite a lot and have a lot of experience, but they are still worried.
The jet may be safe under normal everyday CT conditions, however, if there is an AAR slot within the flight, then worries and concerns are very much a reality. None of them have ever refused to fly, and I suspect that personal pride will not allow it in most of them, but that does not negate their concerns and genuine worries about the aircraft.
'why doesn't everyone stop speculating and help us all to do our jobs without wives/friends/families asking us all the time about the integrity of the aircraft'
.......sadly, there was nothing speculative about XV230 or indeed XV235 more recently, and whatever you say, those tragic facts remain, and still haunt many of us. To suggest that current Nimrod aircraft don't feel the same I would suggest is naaive to say the least.
As for AOC 2Gp, I think he has joined AC Ovee (could have been the same guy maybe?) and all the others who would appear to be being proved wrong in their claims and statements.
Are you seriously telling us that the author of this report has got it completely wrong, and that NO aircrew at ISK are scared to fly the jet?
I know that to be wrong, as I have a lot of friends still on the fleet, still flying and the vast majority of them telling me that they are 'scared' to a greater or lesser degree.
These are experienced aviators who all have several thousand flying hours under their belts, and so have seen quite a lot and have a lot of experience, but they are still worried.
The jet may be safe under normal everyday CT conditions, however, if there is an AAR slot within the flight, then worries and concerns are very much a reality. None of them have ever refused to fly, and I suspect that personal pride will not allow it in most of them, but that does not negate their concerns and genuine worries about the aircraft.
'why doesn't everyone stop speculating and help us all to do our jobs without wives/friends/families asking us all the time about the integrity of the aircraft'
.......sadly, there was nothing speculative about XV230 or indeed XV235 more recently, and whatever you say, those tragic facts remain, and still haunt many of us. To suggest that current Nimrod aircraft don't feel the same I would suggest is naaive to say the least.
As for AOC 2Gp, I think he has joined AC Ovee (could have been the same guy maybe?) and all the others who would appear to be being proved wrong in their claims and statements.
Winco
This would suggest you would know exactly the true causes of, firstly, a tragic accident and secondly a well-handled in flight emergency.
Care to let the rest of us know so we can put this thread to bed, or at least be able to focus on the exact causes rather than blame everyone and anything?
And as everyone seems to be trying to identify users you wouldn't also be walter kennedy from the Chinook thread would you
sadly, there was nothing speculative about XV230 or indeed XV235 more recently
Care to let the rest of us know so we can put this thread to bed, or at least be able to focus on the exact causes rather than blame everyone and anything?
And as everyone seems to be trying to identify users you wouldn't also be walter kennedy from the Chinook thread would you
Wrathmonk
I don't think Wincos comments suggest he knows the true causes of the two incidents.
The way it reads to me, and I'm sure to most people with a neutral viewpoint, is that in the midst of all this speculation, conjecture, etc, two facts nobody can dispute is that XV230 (and tragically 14 people) is no longer here and XV235 suffered a fuel leak during AAR........
I don't think Wincos comments suggest he knows the true causes of the two incidents.
The way it reads to me, and I'm sure to most people with a neutral viewpoint, is that in the midst of all this speculation, conjecture, etc, two facts nobody can dispute is that XV230 (and tragically 14 people) is no longer here and XV235 suffered a fuel leak during AAR........
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrathmonk
I wish I understood what you mean??
I do NOT know what happened on 230 other than what I have read on here and heard first hand from some Nimrod colleagues who were in theatre at the time. Likewise, I have read the IR on 235, so what more can I say?
I was merely stating that the loss of 230 was NOT speculative, as was the incident with 235. They really did happen. I suspect the same goes for the other incidents regarding Nimrod fuel leaks and AAR, or perhaps you do not agree?
If so, then I bow to your more recent experience of NimOps, but do tell us.
Where on earth you get the idea that I know what EXACTLY and TRUELY caused the loss of 230 and the other incidents is beyone me I'm afraid. Maybe it's a bit early in the morning?
Oh, and by the way, I have no idea who Walter Kennedy is either.
I wish I understood what you mean??
I do NOT know what happened on 230 other than what I have read on here and heard first hand from some Nimrod colleagues who were in theatre at the time. Likewise, I have read the IR on 235, so what more can I say?
I was merely stating that the loss of 230 was NOT speculative, as was the incident with 235. They really did happen. I suspect the same goes for the other incidents regarding Nimrod fuel leaks and AAR, or perhaps you do not agree?
If so, then I bow to your more recent experience of NimOps, but do tell us.
Where on earth you get the idea that I know what EXACTLY and TRUELY caused the loss of 230 and the other incidents is beyone me I'm afraid. Maybe it's a bit early in the morning?
Oh, and by the way, I have no idea who Walter Kennedy is either.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly, there was nothing speculative about XV230. or indeed XV235 more recently
DV
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Just down the road from ISK
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Winco
The jet may be safe under normal everyday CT conditions,
Originally Posted by Winco
however, if there is an AAR slot within the flight, then worries and concerns are very much a reality
(Sarcasm - just in case anyone has completely lost their sense of humour!)So, seing as we don't, lets stop speculating and wait for the BOI.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Up North (for now)
Age: 62
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do NOT know what happened on 230 other than what I have read on here and heard first hand from some Nimrod colleagues who were in theatre at the time.
er or not.I'm with VR at the moment, in that I'm not seeing any great fear of flying the jet. With regard AAR then it is definitely true to say that a lot of people would have an issue with doing that. The Stn Cdr has canvassed the views of some of guys on the Sqns about this, so nobody would be able to claim that he is adopting the 'Ivory Tower' approach. Unfortunately, he and a select few have an advantage over the rest of us in that they have had sight of the BOI. At present I am waiting to see this for myself so that I can make my own fully informed decisions without being influenced by the latest sensationalist headlines in the local rag.
However, at the end of the day flying is, and always will be, a risky occupation. Hopefully most people realised that when they signed on the dotted line. Yes I would hope that the risk is reduced to as low as humanly possible, but inevitably there is only so much money to go round, so it may be that we have to accept that things we would like done to the jet can't be afforded. Do we all drive around in the safest car there is, or do some of us decide we can't afford it and thus take some risk?
There have been a few individuals that have declared themselves unwilling to fly in the aftermath of 230. They have been removed from the frontline, and to my mind they should also be removed from the Service. Just imagine frontline troops being unwilling to go on Patrol because they might get shot at. I thought that the latest incident might be the final straw for a couple of others, but I have heard no evidence of this. Personally I feel that if they are going to be flying without being totally focussed on the job, because they are 'worried', then I would prefer they weren't there; effectively that means that once the BOI is published it's put up or shut up time.
Despite all the above though I do think that the Nimrod fleet is in a place it shouldn't be at present. AAR was rushed in as a UOR, but I can see no evidence that anyone ever thought to go back and have a good look at things afterwards. If they had, I would have hoped that the 'issues' with AAR that have come to light since 230 would have come to light a lot sooner. Whether that would have changed the outcome for 230 I do not know, but I have my own strong suspicion.
As for STFs on frontline ac conducting Ops, don't get me started!
Last edited by zedder; 17th Nov 2007 at 18:26.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well if it matters any , the report in the Northern Scot was from a pilot recently tied to a desk job.
Not so long ago we had a pilot out in the sandy regions that refused to fly cause he did not belive in the erm war, anyway last we heard he got quietly removed and have not heard any more.
Could this anon report have been leaked from the guy who does not believe in the war and just uses the Nimrods high profile publicity at the moment to make it all better for him refusing to do his job !!
Maybe somebody else will shed some light !! Or maybe im looking too deep
and Zedder nice words, spot on indeed
Not so long ago we had a pilot out in the sandy regions that refused to fly cause he did not belive in the erm war, anyway last we heard he got quietly removed and have not heard any more.
Could this anon report have been leaked from the guy who does not believe in the war and just uses the Nimrods high profile publicity at the moment to make it all better for him refusing to do his job !!
Maybe somebody else will shed some light !! Or maybe im looking too deep
and Zedder nice words, spot on indeed
Guest
Posts: n/a
Enginesuck says "As current nimrod groundcrew I think it might be unwise to post anything technical on here as many of us have done previously because this is now very high profile and it doesnt take colombo to work out who we are. Not entirely clear on what we are allowed to say anyway. Not that I have anything major to say 
"
Well said m8, i think this thread now has become the talk of the squadron all the way up the chain. The majority of our lot have seen how certain info has been jiggled around and warped to make things look bad and has no reflection on the way things are, it would just make matters worse by giving any info/details only for it to be used to slander our superb fleet in next weeks Sun newspaper. We probably will talk about other things like manpower,cuts,lean and all that . Saying that we are too busy lately doing what we do best and thats keeping the worlds premier survelliance platform airborne to the best we can.
Im making an exception as its Saturday and the football game is on very shortly , some more Magners then off to pub on a non working weekend
"Well said m8, i think this thread now has become the talk of the squadron all the way up the chain. The majority of our lot have seen how certain info has been jiggled around and warped to make things look bad and has no reflection on the way things are, it would just make matters worse by giving any info/details only for it to be used to slander our superb fleet in next weeks Sun newspaper. We probably will talk about other things like manpower,cuts,lean and all that
. Saying that we are too busy lately doing what we do best and thats keeping the worlds premier survelliance platform airborne to the best we can.Im making an exception as its Saturday and the football game is on very shortly , some more Magners then off to pub on a non working weekend