Chinook - Hit Back Here
Guest
Posts: n/a
It's not very often that I find myself admiring MPs (of any persuasion), but the Public Accounts Committee used two words that I have used on this thread in the past: intransigent and arrogant.
These words neatly encapsulate the Wratten/Day position, which has been consistently maintained by the MOD and has now been adopted by Hoon.
I fervently hope that the PAC report will provide enough fresh momentum to catapult this sorry affair back into the public spotlight. Let's all stir as much as possible and keep the pot boiling.
These words neatly encapsulate the Wratten/Day position, which has been consistently maintained by the MOD and has now been adopted by Hoon.
I fervently hope that the PAC report will provide enough fresh momentum to catapult this sorry affair back into the public spotlight. Let's all stir as much as possible and keep the pot boiling.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Listening to the 5am news this morning, I went to work full of hope that this sorry saga of injustice was about to reach a satisfying conclusion.
Just come home and heard the news that that imbicile Hoon has thrown out a considered report by eminent politicians, calling it ‘superficial’. There is no new evidence therefore no reopening of the inquiry.
Nr Fairy says it all. It needs no new evidence to find that the original finding cannot be upheld. There was no evidence of gross negligence WHY CAN’T THESE PEOPLE SEE THAT OBVIOUS FACT.
Honestly, I am seething with anger at the arrogance and intransigence (so apt 1.3v) of supposedly trained minds who cannot get the simple point that you cannot find dead pilots guilty of negligence unless you can prove it beyond ‘all doubt whatsoever’(QRRAF).
Blair promised to look into this personally. He has decided to back Hoon. The man is too busy steamrollering his legalisation of juvenile buggery to worry about the injustice heaped on two men whose service to their country puts his own to shame.
I am also incensed at the use of the words ‘pilot error’ in many of these reports. That is not what we are fighting. These spineless jerks have found Jon and Rick guilty of gross negligence, not error.
I guess I’d better stop and cool down!
Welcome pulse 1. I am sure you won’t be the only new voice added to the clamour.
Time to change up a gear. Everyone write to your own MP and to Hoon and Blair.
We WILL win this.
Just come home and heard the news that that imbicile Hoon has thrown out a considered report by eminent politicians, calling it ‘superficial’. There is no new evidence therefore no reopening of the inquiry.
Nr Fairy says it all. It needs no new evidence to find that the original finding cannot be upheld. There was no evidence of gross negligence WHY CAN’T THESE PEOPLE SEE THAT OBVIOUS FACT.
Honestly, I am seething with anger at the arrogance and intransigence (so apt 1.3v) of supposedly trained minds who cannot get the simple point that you cannot find dead pilots guilty of negligence unless you can prove it beyond ‘all doubt whatsoever’(QRRAF).
Blair promised to look into this personally. He has decided to back Hoon. The man is too busy steamrollering his legalisation of juvenile buggery to worry about the injustice heaped on two men whose service to their country puts his own to shame.
I am also incensed at the use of the words ‘pilot error’ in many of these reports. That is not what we are fighting. These spineless jerks have found Jon and Rick guilty of gross negligence, not error.
I guess I’d better stop and cool down!
Welcome pulse 1. I am sure you won’t be the only new voice added to the clamour.
Time to change up a gear. Everyone write to your own MP and to Hoon and Blair.
We WILL win this.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Letters to MP, Hoon and BBC Today duly written.
Main Argument
Original "properly constituted BOI" (Hoon;s words not mine) found insufficient evidence for any conclusions
No new evidence presented.
RAF Regulations rule against negligence without irrefutable evidence.
New conclusion - no case for negligence.
Hoon is being arrogant and is distorting the truth - he should resign.
I am the last person to entertain conspiracy theories but I cannot help but see a major cover up taking place here. It could be the senior officers protecting their backs, as has already been suggested here but, in the light of the nature of the passengers, is it just possible they are trying to hide something more sinister?
------------------
"If you keep doing what you've always done, you will keep getting what you've always got"
Main Argument
Original "properly constituted BOI" (Hoon;s words not mine) found insufficient evidence for any conclusions
No new evidence presented.
RAF Regulations rule against negligence without irrefutable evidence.
New conclusion - no case for negligence.
Hoon is being arrogant and is distorting the truth - he should resign.
I am the last person to entertain conspiracy theories but I cannot help but see a major cover up taking place here. It could be the senior officers protecting their backs, as has already been suggested here but, in the light of the nature of the passengers, is it just possible they are trying to hide something more sinister?
------------------
"If you keep doing what you've always done, you will keep getting what you've always got"
Guest
Posts: n/a
It makes you want to spit doesn't it? It is a supreme example of the idiots you have to deal with in the government. This quote from Buff Hoon today:
"The reality is that this was a properly constituted board of inquiry that looked very carefully indeed at the facts. The only circumstances in which that judgment should be disturbed is if there is new evidence that challenges the basis of that inquiry."
What the pratt fails to realise is that the board was good enough to to look "VERY carefully indeed at the facts" and they did NOT come to a conclusion of negligence. It must be that Hoon has only read Wrotten's conclusion - no way could he claim to having read the original B of I. Hoon is not telling the truth.
No one wishes to disturb the judgement of the B of I, its the opinion of a single person that is being challenged......and rightly so. You don't need "new evidence" to challenge this.
"The reality is that this was a properly constituted board of inquiry that looked very carefully indeed at the facts. The only circumstances in which that judgment should be disturbed is if there is new evidence that challenges the basis of that inquiry."
What the pratt fails to realise is that the board was good enough to to look "VERY carefully indeed at the facts" and they did NOT come to a conclusion of negligence. It must be that Hoon has only read Wrotten's conclusion - no way could he claim to having read the original B of I. Hoon is not telling the truth.
No one wishes to disturb the judgement of the B of I, its the opinion of a single person that is being challenged......and rightly so. You don't need "new evidence" to challenge this.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Right, here goes....
The link for the PAC Report is as follows:
<A HREF="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmpubacc/975/97502.htm" TARGET="_blank">www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmpubacc/975/97502.htm</A>
Its a lot of paper so warm the printer up. I'll hold off on my comments as I haven't had chance to read and digest yet. However, it would appear that Hoon has read a different report to that which we will.
It doesn't matter how long he stands there with his eyes closed and his fingers in his ears, I will still be there when he takes them out!!
More from me when I have got my head around it all. Enjoy the report folks. Perhaps send it to your MP!!!!!!! If anyoone is near Hoon's constituency, you could maybe pop in and say Hi.
Regards all.
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
The link for the PAC Report is as follows:
<A HREF="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmpubacc/975/97502.htm" TARGET="_blank">www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmpubacc/975/97502.htm</A>
Its a lot of paper so warm the printer up. I'll hold off on my comments as I haven't had chance to read and digest yet. However, it would appear that Hoon has read a different report to that which we will.
It doesn't matter how long he stands there with his eyes closed and his fingers in his ears, I will still be there when he takes them out!!
More from me when I have got my head around it all. Enjoy the report folks. Perhaps send it to your MP!!!!!!! If anyoone is near Hoon's constituency, you could maybe pop in and say Hi.
Regards all.
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
Pulse 1,
Excellent post and well done with the letters. Got half way through mine to Blair and had to stop because I couldn't keep it polite. Try again later.
Mr Bernoulli,
Spitting so hard I can hardly see my screen. Why is it that we on this forum can see what is so plain, yet these trained legal minds cannot. I too hesitate to yell 'conspiracy, but the miscarriage of justice is so bloody obvious, something must be going on. Reading the 4th report by the defence committee in to the accident, they refused to consider the BOI reprt as seperate from the reviewing officer's remarks. This is why Buff tries to say that the BOI found the gross negligence verdict, and not that the reviewers overturned the BOI, which is what actually happened.
Brian says
"It doesn't matter how long he stands there with his eyes closed and his fingers in his ears, I will still be there when he takes them out!!"
What a lovely picture! You may be trampled in the crush.
At least this sorry day (Rick's poor father has just been on TV News how I feel for the families- of all on board)has re-ignited public debate and enrgised this forum.
We WILL win in the end.
Excellent post and well done with the letters. Got half way through mine to Blair and had to stop because I couldn't keep it polite. Try again later.
Mr Bernoulli,
Spitting so hard I can hardly see my screen. Why is it that we on this forum can see what is so plain, yet these trained legal minds cannot. I too hesitate to yell 'conspiracy, but the miscarriage of justice is so bloody obvious, something must be going on. Reading the 4th report by the defence committee in to the accident, they refused to consider the BOI reprt as seperate from the reviewing officer's remarks. This is why Buff tries to say that the BOI found the gross negligence verdict, and not that the reviewers overturned the BOI, which is what actually happened.
Brian says
"It doesn't matter how long he stands there with his eyes closed and his fingers in his ears, I will still be there when he takes them out!!"
What a lovely picture! You may be trampled in the crush.
At least this sorry day (Rick's poor father has just been on TV News how I feel for the families- of all on board)has re-ignited public debate and enrgised this forum.
We WILL win in the end.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sent tonight
To MP:
... I have never been moved to write to an MP before but you will see from the text of the letter to the SofS for Defence below that I feel very strongly about his and his Department's behaviour on the issue of the unjustified verdict of Gross Negligence against Flt Lts John Tapper and Rick Cook.
The nub of the argument is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Air Marshals Wratten and Day were major players in the hurried introduction of an airframe about which people had safety concerns. They flouted RAF Board of Enquiry (BofI) Regulations requiring "No Doubt Whatsoever" before overturning the original BofI finding which, like Sir Stephen Young's FAI, could not find conclusively the cause of the accident.
The MoD regularly bleats lamely that "lessons have been learned", and "this can't happen again" after it is slated by the PAC and other parliamentary committees. They then go on to make the same mistakes again and again. This case is personal and very different to the routinely wasted millions of pounds: It concerns the reputations of 2 professional pilots, the feelings of their families and the confidence of future Servicemen in their leaders.
I write to ask that you lend your support in ensuring that the MOD do not get away with flouting the authority of a senior committee of the House, and that they are forced to overturn this outrageous injustice.
Yours aye
To the Goon:
Dear Mr Hoon
I have never been moved to write to an MP before, but I was outraged to see you add wilful ignorance (to use Sir Wm Wratten's words) to the arrogance which the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) rightly accused your Department of.
The original RAF Board of Inquiry, Sir Stephen Young's Fatal Accident Enquiry and numerous lay and expert outsiders have failed to find conclusive evidence of what caused the chinook to crash. To justify a finding of gross negligence, Air Marshals Wratten and Day required the highest standard of proof: No doubt whatsoever.
It is surely not up to the PAC or anyone else to provide you with "new" evidence to set aside this grave injustice. The whole point of the argument is that there was insufficient evidence to justify Wratten and Day's arrogant overturning of the original RAF enquiry's findings.
Your performance in interviews this morning showed what little grasp of this issue you have. I am only glad that I am no longer serving. I can not see how those currently serving can have confidence in your stewardship of their interests and suggest you consider your position.
Yours aye
</rant>
Calming down again!
[This message has been edited by misterploppy (edited 30 November 2000).]
To MP:
... I have never been moved to write to an MP before but you will see from the text of the letter to the SofS for Defence below that I feel very strongly about his and his Department's behaviour on the issue of the unjustified verdict of Gross Negligence against Flt Lts John Tapper and Rick Cook.
The nub of the argument is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Air Marshals Wratten and Day were major players in the hurried introduction of an airframe about which people had safety concerns. They flouted RAF Board of Enquiry (BofI) Regulations requiring "No Doubt Whatsoever" before overturning the original BofI finding which, like Sir Stephen Young's FAI, could not find conclusively the cause of the accident.
The MoD regularly bleats lamely that "lessons have been learned", and "this can't happen again" after it is slated by the PAC and other parliamentary committees. They then go on to make the same mistakes again and again. This case is personal and very different to the routinely wasted millions of pounds: It concerns the reputations of 2 professional pilots, the feelings of their families and the confidence of future Servicemen in their leaders.
I write to ask that you lend your support in ensuring that the MOD do not get away with flouting the authority of a senior committee of the House, and that they are forced to overturn this outrageous injustice.
Yours aye
To the Goon:
Dear Mr Hoon
I have never been moved to write to an MP before, but I was outraged to see you add wilful ignorance (to use Sir Wm Wratten's words) to the arrogance which the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) rightly accused your Department of.
The original RAF Board of Inquiry, Sir Stephen Young's Fatal Accident Enquiry and numerous lay and expert outsiders have failed to find conclusive evidence of what caused the chinook to crash. To justify a finding of gross negligence, Air Marshals Wratten and Day required the highest standard of proof: No doubt whatsoever.
It is surely not up to the PAC or anyone else to provide you with "new" evidence to set aside this grave injustice. The whole point of the argument is that there was insufficient evidence to justify Wratten and Day's arrogant overturning of the original RAF enquiry's findings.
Your performance in interviews this morning showed what little grasp of this issue you have. I am only glad that I am no longer serving. I can not see how those currently serving can have confidence in your stewardship of their interests and suggest you consider your position.
Yours aye
</rant>
Calming down again!
[This message has been edited by misterploppy (edited 30 November 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well there is absolutely no doubt about Channel 4's stance on this. Well done Channel 4 News!
It was a pleasure to see the defence minister squirm (as well he should).
The point that the RAF BOI did NOT find the pilots blameworthy, but were later over-ruled with senior officers with their careers on the line came over at last.
Support is growing, let's keep at it.
It was a pleasure to see the defence minister squirm (as well he should).
The point that the RAF BOI did NOT find the pilots blameworthy, but were later over-ruled with senior officers with their careers on the line came over at last.
Support is growing, let's keep at it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
That's it - I have HAD it. I've just watched Channel 4 news with that lying little toad from MoD John Spellar. (Heartfelt thanks to the Channel 4 newsman).
I have stayed out of this debate so far because my technical knowledge of the Chinook was not sufficient to comment on mechanical merits or otherwise of that particular aircraft.
However, I have been stationed on 3 bases where Chinooks were part of my everyday life - Odiham, Gutersloh and Aldergrove. I have always been on the periphery of the both the Mull crash and the Falklands crash in '87. I have comforted enough grieving friends to last me a lifetime.
I have had personal dealings with John Spellar on other matters. I know Andy Pulford from Gutersloh, indeed I have babysat for him and visited his family several times. I know who I believe.
If Brian Dixon would like any practical help with preparation of letters, leaflets, delivery, lobbying - anything - please contact: [email protected]
Justice does indeed have no expiry date. Keep up the good work Brian.
I have stayed out of this debate so far because my technical knowledge of the Chinook was not sufficient to comment on mechanical merits or otherwise of that particular aircraft.
However, I have been stationed on 3 bases where Chinooks were part of my everyday life - Odiham, Gutersloh and Aldergrove. I have always been on the periphery of the both the Mull crash and the Falklands crash in '87. I have comforted enough grieving friends to last me a lifetime.
I have had personal dealings with John Spellar on other matters. I know Andy Pulford from Gutersloh, indeed I have babysat for him and visited his family several times. I know who I believe.
If Brian Dixon would like any practical help with preparation of letters, leaflets, delivery, lobbying - anything - please contact: [email protected]
Justice does indeed have no expiry date. Keep up the good work Brian.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Also just watched Channel 4 tonight. I don't think 'squirm' does justice to how John Spellar was doing. Jon Snow had him by the b@ll@ocks and it was good to watch.
Some good stuff for those new to the thread at: http//www.channel4news.co.uk/sr/sr.pages/sr2.chinook/sr2.menu.htm
Some good stuff for those new to the thread at: http//www.channel4news.co.uk/sr/sr.pages/sr2.chinook/sr2.menu.htm
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm genuinely overwhelmed.
Thank you everybody for your support.
Please do not send anything off in the heat of the moment. Considered and accurate correspondence will always win over knee-jerk ill-informed replies from ill-prepared people.
I have e-mailed Hoon with the link to the report, pointing out that he has been subject to a cruel joke by being supplied with a spoof report. I have hopefully pointed him in the direction of the real one. (Bet he doesn't say thanks)
Strange how the media has not looked for a response from Wratten and Day isn't it. Come on you media guys and gals......get reporting!! They had enought to say at the time didn't they? What do they have to say now?
Let's keep this thing rolling.
Many, many thanks to each and every one of you.
Ark, I insist that I be allowed at the front of the queue with fingers in ears!! I'm not listening la la la la.
Best wishes all
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
[This message has been edited by Brian Dixon (edited 30 November 2000).]
Thank you everybody for your support.
Please do not send anything off in the heat of the moment. Considered and accurate correspondence will always win over knee-jerk ill-informed replies from ill-prepared people.
I have e-mailed Hoon with the link to the report, pointing out that he has been subject to a cruel joke by being supplied with a spoof report. I have hopefully pointed him in the direction of the real one. (Bet he doesn't say thanks)
Strange how the media has not looked for a response from Wratten and Day isn't it. Come on you media guys and gals......get reporting!! They had enought to say at the time didn't they? What do they have to say now?
Let's keep this thing rolling.
Many, many thanks to each and every one of you.
Ark, I insist that I be allowed at the front of the queue with fingers in ears!! I'm not listening la la la la.
Best wishes all
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
[This message has been edited by Brian Dixon (edited 30 November 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Brian Dixon, following on from your:
"It doesn't matter how long he stands there with his eyes closed and his fingers in his ears, I will still be there when he takes them out!!"
....and I will be right there with you to break his fingers off and stick them where the sun don't shine! He has about as much presence of an ameoba with halitosis.
"It doesn't matter how long he stands there with his eyes closed and his fingers in his ears, I will still be there when he takes them out!!"
....and I will be right there with you to break his fingers off and stick them where the sun don't shine! He has about as much presence of an ameoba with halitosis.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Like many I thought there was some good news at last when I heard the news this morning. Having listened to our Minister of Defence I am at a loss for words. Our government is NOT listening. They did not get my vote the first time round and they most definiatly will not get it next time.
I too will be writing to my MP and to Mr Hoon. Brian, please keep going, you have a great deal of support both within the RAF and further afield. Justice will be done.
Tonks
I too will be writing to my MP and to Mr Hoon. Brian, please keep going, you have a great deal of support both within the RAF and further afield. Justice will be done.
Tonks
Guest
Posts: n/a
Watching Newsnight as we speak! Pprune even got a mention. Tall bloke even gets his gloves on and spars with the top brass. Crack on! Seems to be moving on a little some what eh?
1-0 to Jezza, Wratten seems to be on the ropes!
[This message has been edited by Helmut Visorcover (edited 30 November 2000).]
1-0 to Jezza, Wratten seems to be on the ropes!
[This message has been edited by Helmut Visorcover (edited 30 November 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Go for it Paxman. Not usually a fan, but he is giving Wrotten a hard time. What an arrogant man the ACM is. If he really beleives that the Board of Enquiry officers where junior and inexperienced then why where they allowed to run it. His argument was poor and arrogant beyond belief!!!
[This message has been edited by NoFaultFound (edited 30 November 2000).]
[This message has been edited by NoFaultFound (edited 30 November 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
So who saw Newsnight?
Paxman's usual arrogance and indifference towards his interviewees usually leaves me a little cold but on this occasion it was SO good to see Wratten on the recieving end of what he has so professionally displayed himself for so long- Breath taking arrogance.
The difference is Mr Newsnight is only playing a role in the interests of the general public, and not those of himself and his "colleagues".
Jeremy, we salute you!
Paxman's usual arrogance and indifference towards his interviewees usually leaves me a little cold but on this occasion it was SO good to see Wratten on the recieving end of what he has so professionally displayed himself for so long- Breath taking arrogance.
The difference is Mr Newsnight is only playing a role in the interests of the general public, and not those of himself and his "colleagues".
Jeremy, we salute you!