Nimrod families angry at OBE
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why don't you guys write to Martin Cannard, or do you think he is pprune reader?
As an interested member of the public I like reading people's comments on this, it means I (and many others) can gain a better insight into these matters which is important to those who like to know what is going on in the armed forces. If people just sent letters, rather than posting their views on here then many people like me wouldn't hear the 'other side of the story' which by almost all accounts is that Martin Cannard is a great officer who deserved his OBE.
OK PPRuNe isn't the world, but its a lot better than the press.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Age: 71
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Feelings Running High
I was impressed by the strength of feeling engendered in this discussion that seems to have originated with the sad deaths of an RAF C130 crew. In fact two RAF multi-engined crews have died on operations in the all too recent past and I would hope that something can be done to prevent another in the future.
The RAF my be divided into fleets but the dangers are shared by all.
For those reading this thread with an interest in RAF aircraft safety in general and multi-engined or helicopter safety in particular may I invite you to view my own thread 'Overstretch & Budgets' and contribute what you can.
Thank you
The RAF my be divided into fleets but the dangers are shared by all.
For those reading this thread with an interest in RAF aircraft safety in general and multi-engined or helicopter safety in particular may I invite you to view my own thread 'Overstretch & Budgets' and contribute what you can.
Thank you
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: dOHA
Age: 53
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Congratulations Wg Cdr Cannard OBE
Thoroughly deserved sir.
You were an example to me of how to lead.
Mike Hargreaves
My thoughts are still with all the families
You were an example to me of how to lead.Mike Hargreaves
My thoughts are still with all the families
Last edited by Doha_lad; 6th Jan 2008 at 11:23.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Semantics I know but the award was a 'Consequence' of the accident, not a Result. Why would the families be consulted about the award? It is given by the Queen after consideration of the merits, or otherwise, of the award by the recipient's superiors who obviously approve of the actions of this officer. He was in no way responsible for the state of aircraft or the level of tasking or any other contributory factor (SFAIK). He had been in post for 2 weeks, people who knew him from earlier postings held him in high regard, he appears to have carried out his duties with more than due diligence and sensitivity. While the award may seem inappropriate, to those still grieving their losses, standing back and looking at the bigger picture most people would find it both appropriate and non-controversial.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South of Old Warden
Age: 87
Posts: 1,375
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Why don't you guys write to Martin Cannard,
It's good to know that the RAF still has officers of his calibre.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"It's public acknowledgement for a job well done."
It's nothing of the sort and fine well you know it
If TD had not been rightly/wrongly quoted in a newspaper article do you HONESTLY believe we would have had 5 pages of "Jolly well done sir" in this manner............how many other threads have been started extolling the virtues of the many who received such awards
We often denigrate the British press for their carrion like manner but I do think a few of the posters in this thread need to step back and consider whether the vitriolic nature of their post are REALLY appropriate when made toward someone who has suffered in the way TD so obviously has
It's nothing of the sort and fine well you know it
If TD had not been rightly/wrongly quoted in a newspaper article do you HONESTLY believe we would have had 5 pages of "Jolly well done sir" in this manner............how many other threads have been started extolling the virtues of the many who received such awards
We often denigrate the British press for their carrion like manner but I do think a few of the posters in this thread need to step back and consider whether the vitriolic nature of their post are REALLY appropriate when made toward someone who has suffered in the way TD so obviously has
Last edited by Seldomfitforpurpose; 6th Jan 2008 at 14:51.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thread is titled "Nimrod Families angy at OBE". Whether this is true or not, the matter has been aired in public, and people who know this officer are merely saying that they think that the award is not unreasonable. Who has a problem with that?
I see very little vitriol directed at TD, just a lot of disappointment and a fair degree of pretty gentle telling off, most of it from people who make their underlying sympathy for TD pretty clear.
Had a journo criticised OC CXX there really would have been feathers flying.
Had a journo criticised OC CXX there really would have been feathers flying.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We're still waiting to hear from Mr Knight as to whether or not he was misquoted/quoted out of context (as was the case with some others).
If we don't, then it is likely that most readers will assume that the quotes were a correct reporting of Mr Knights words.
If we don't, then it is likely that most readers will assume that the quotes were a correct reporting of Mr Knights words.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mileandahalf,
I am happy to respond to your question, although I am certain I will come in for further abuse, but not to worry.
I should say that I do NOT know Mr Knight, I have NOT read what he is alledged to have said, and I am certainly NOT his spokesman, however, like everyone on this thread, I have an immense amount of respect and sympathy for him. He has worked tirerlessly since the accident and has come up against many brick walls along the way. Despite this, his efforts will, IMHO, make the Nimrod fleet a safer place.
I believe that HIS perception of this award (and please note HIS perception, not mine or anyone elses) is that Wg Cdr Cannard has been given this award as a direct result of the loss of XV230. I don't know if that is the case, clearly many think that it is for other things also, however I understand the citation clearly states that it is for his handling of things since the crash. If that is correct, then perhaps the fault lies with the citation, because I doubt very much if Wg Cdr Cannard was recognised just for his efforts post XV230 alone.
Either way, it dosen't really matter - he has been awarded it, and I, along with just about everyone else, has offered congratulations to him. Those who know him have spoken extremely highly of him, and I have no reason to doubt his calibre at all, or what he has done, so well done again to him and everyone else on CXX and ISK, because this has been a team effort without doubt.
Nevertheless, it has clearly caused concern for Mr Knight, in that he see's someone as effectively 'profiting' from the crash and whilst I don't agree with him, I believe that is the way he views it. I can see where he is coming from, especially if the wording on the citation states (as is reported) that it for his work post crash. I cannot ever recall, a Sqn Cdr receiving an award as a result of an aircraft crash, let alone a one which has had so much controversy attached to it, can anyone else I wonder?
Now, perhaps as a gesture of goodwill to everyone, could I suggest that we all get back to the real crux of this posting, and give Mr Knight a break from all this 'bad blood' and let him ponder for a while about what he did or didn't say? We all say things in the heat of the moment, that are both wrong and inapropriate and maybe this was one of those unfortunate times for Mr Knight. This is but one chapter in a very sad and tragic event, and I would respectfully request that we now put it to bed.
The Winco
I am happy to respond to your question, although I am certain I will come in for further abuse, but not to worry.
I should say that I do NOT know Mr Knight, I have NOT read what he is alledged to have said, and I am certainly NOT his spokesman, however, like everyone on this thread, I have an immense amount of respect and sympathy for him. He has worked tirerlessly since the accident and has come up against many brick walls along the way. Despite this, his efforts will, IMHO, make the Nimrod fleet a safer place.
I believe that HIS perception of this award (and please note HIS perception, not mine or anyone elses) is that Wg Cdr Cannard has been given this award as a direct result of the loss of XV230. I don't know if that is the case, clearly many think that it is for other things also, however I understand the citation clearly states that it is for his handling of things since the crash. If that is correct, then perhaps the fault lies with the citation, because I doubt very much if Wg Cdr Cannard was recognised just for his efforts post XV230 alone.
Either way, it dosen't really matter - he has been awarded it, and I, along with just about everyone else, has offered congratulations to him. Those who know him have spoken extremely highly of him, and I have no reason to doubt his calibre at all, or what he has done, so well done again to him and everyone else on CXX and ISK, because this has been a team effort without doubt.
Nevertheless, it has clearly caused concern for Mr Knight, in that he see's someone as effectively 'profiting' from the crash and whilst I don't agree with him, I believe that is the way he views it. I can see where he is coming from, especially if the wording on the citation states (as is reported) that it for his work post crash. I cannot ever recall, a Sqn Cdr receiving an award as a result of an aircraft crash, let alone a one which has had so much controversy attached to it, can anyone else I wonder?
Now, perhaps as a gesture of goodwill to everyone, could I suggest that we all get back to the real crux of this posting, and give Mr Knight a break from all this 'bad blood' and let him ponder for a while about what he did or didn't say? We all say things in the heat of the moment, that are both wrong and inapropriate and maybe this was one of those unfortunate times for Mr Knight. This is but one chapter in a very sad and tragic event, and I would respectfully request that we now put it to bed.
The Winco
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Durham
Age: 49
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Throughout the months since this accident Mr Knight has always made very public statements in all forms of the media, on here, in the newspapers, radio and television, he has always put his opinion across. During that time several family members, myself included, came here to request that this media involvement be wound down to allow the other families their peace in their time of grief. It was made very clear that Mr Knight would continue to do as he saw fit and would continue to do what he wanted and when he wanted, disregarding the feelings of others involved.
And yet now there is no public response and this is speaking volumes to many.
The view of the other family members who have posted in this thread has been to congratulate Martin on his award and also a desire to see our VO's recognised in some manner, as we know exactly the lengths they have gone for us.
The majority of two articles spreading over two days was made up of statements by the Knights with personal attacks on a very fine officer. That would amount to a great deal of misquoting on the newspapers behalf.
I received a response by pm from Mr Knight to a request made by myself which was of interest to all families with regards to the inquest, however due to my views in this thread he has declined to show his support.
I can only form my own opinions on what this says to me.
And yet now there is no public response and this is speaking volumes to many.
The view of the other family members who have posted in this thread has been to congratulate Martin on his award and also a desire to see our VO's recognised in some manner, as we know exactly the lengths they have gone for us.
The majority of two articles spreading over two days was made up of statements by the Knights with personal attacks on a very fine officer. That would amount to a great deal of misquoting on the newspapers behalf.
I received a response by pm from Mr Knight to a request made by myself which was of interest to all families with regards to the inquest, however due to my views in this thread he has declined to show his support.
I can only form my own opinions on what this says to me.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Henley, Oxfordshire
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOGGIEE
TD said very early on that if anyone wanted to pm him he would explain the exact situation, which is not as clear-cut as regards to how the newspaper article came about as all too many on this thread seem very keen to assume.
TheSmiter and a number of others, including myself, suggested a long time back that the point about the award had been well made, so could we now stop the thread. I personally have nothing against the congratulations for the squadron commander continuing. I seconded TheSmiter when he offered such congratulations. (Although perhaps a new thread with a more positive title might be more appropriate.)
But the continued having a go at TD long since stopped being about making the point. It is already very well made, politely, firmly and sensibly by some but in a very nasty fashion by others.
When I first joined this forum a number of years ago I had to read some rules which said that whether you agree or disagree with someone you should feel free to say so but that in doing so you should treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself. Someone seems to have torn them up somewhere along the line.
[We're still waiting to hear from Mr Knight as to whether or not he was misquoted/quoted out of context (as was the case with some others).
If we don't, then it is likely that most readers will assume that the quotes were a correct reporting of Mr Knights words.
If we don't, then it is likely that most readers will assume that the quotes were a correct reporting of Mr Knights words.
TheSmiter and a number of others, including myself, suggested a long time back that the point about the award had been well made, so could we now stop the thread. I personally have nothing against the congratulations for the squadron commander continuing. I seconded TheSmiter when he offered such congratulations. (Although perhaps a new thread with a more positive title might be more appropriate.)
But the continued having a go at TD long since stopped being about making the point. It is already very well made, politely, firmly and sensibly by some but in a very nasty fashion by others.
When I first joined this forum a number of years ago I had to read some rules which said that whether you agree or disagree with someone you should feel free to say so but that in doing so you should treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself. Someone seems to have torn them up somewhere along the line.
I have a feeling someone in the MoD and/or Honours Committee is thinking “Oops”.
Having been forced into very publicly accepting liability in a statement to the House, Des Browne must be wondering why his team can’t put one and one together, have a quiet word with the Honours Committee and say “Not this time old chap, let’s wait and see the outcome”. And if the Honours Committee couldn’t see this one coming, what with their direct links to MoD and Nimrod (a 30 second Google if you’re wondering) and the first hand advice available to them, then surely the penny dropped when the QQ report was released. (Perhaps they, too, are cursing the timing). To me, this merely indicates again what an absolute howler of an own goal that was. Quite clearly, those in MoD who knew of the report didn’t imagine for one minute it would see the light of day. And they’re so disjointed in everything they do, they just couldn’t react quickly enough. Des must be apoplectic.
I understand the MoD’s typically facetious reply to the issue of timing was “Well, when better to make an award in the New Years Honours list than New Year?” I’ll tell you when – after the dust has settled and you’ve established the facts. It’s often said by recipients “This isn’t for me, it’s for the team”. Well, in my opinion, Tapper’s Dad has every right to feel let down by the “team”, by which I mean the MoD as a whole. That’s not just his or my opinion – it’s a simple fact acknowledged by the Secretary of State when he apologised. If you cannot see how provocative and upsetting this is to him, then I despair, yet hope you never find yourself in the same position. It is the effect on HIM that matters, no-one else.
Whatever the outcome of the QC’s review (and he still hasn’t answered correspondence on the subject), history will show that Tapper’s Dad did more for Military aviation safety than anyone would have thought possible. He had the balls to stand up to people whose attitude to safety and airworthiness has been, frankly, nothing short of criminal negligence. Some of you, or your children, may be glad of that one day.
I know what my first question to a certain retired 2* would be. “So ***, why did you rule airworthiness and safety were optional, and did that ruling apply to all the aircraft you were responsible for, including Nimrod?” I think this and other issues – read the QQ report - are a lot more important, don’t you? Make no mistake, there is more to come on this, that no award will be able to gloss over.
Having been forced into very publicly accepting liability in a statement to the House, Des Browne must be wondering why his team can’t put one and one together, have a quiet word with the Honours Committee and say “Not this time old chap, let’s wait and see the outcome”. And if the Honours Committee couldn’t see this one coming, what with their direct links to MoD and Nimrod (a 30 second Google if you’re wondering) and the first hand advice available to them, then surely the penny dropped when the QQ report was released. (Perhaps they, too, are cursing the timing). To me, this merely indicates again what an absolute howler of an own goal that was. Quite clearly, those in MoD who knew of the report didn’t imagine for one minute it would see the light of day. And they’re so disjointed in everything they do, they just couldn’t react quickly enough. Des must be apoplectic.
I understand the MoD’s typically facetious reply to the issue of timing was “Well, when better to make an award in the New Years Honours list than New Year?” I’ll tell you when – after the dust has settled and you’ve established the facts. It’s often said by recipients “This isn’t for me, it’s for the team”. Well, in my opinion, Tapper’s Dad has every right to feel let down by the “team”, by which I mean the MoD as a whole. That’s not just his or my opinion – it’s a simple fact acknowledged by the Secretary of State when he apologised. If you cannot see how provocative and upsetting this is to him, then I despair, yet hope you never find yourself in the same position. It is the effect on HIM that matters, no-one else.
Whatever the outcome of the QC’s review (and he still hasn’t answered correspondence on the subject), history will show that Tapper’s Dad did more for Military aviation safety than anyone would have thought possible. He had the balls to stand up to people whose attitude to safety and airworthiness has been, frankly, nothing short of criminal negligence. Some of you, or your children, may be glad of that one day.
I know what my first question to a certain retired 2* would be. “So ***, why did you rule airworthiness and safety were optional, and did that ruling apply to all the aircraft you were responsible for, including Nimrod?” I think this and other issues – read the QQ report - are a lot more important, don’t you? Make no mistake, there is more to come on this, that no award will be able to gloss over.
I have a feeling someone in the MoD and/or Honours Committee is thinking “Oops”.
Make no mistake, there is more to come on this, that no award will be able to gloss over.
The award is to an individual for his and, no doubt, his teams (Othe Bugg3rs Efforts) response to the crash, which in this case has been recognised by the relevant chain of command.Any "own goal" here has been scored by TD. His comments, misquoted or not, in the Daily Record have rightly lost him a lot of sympathy.