Chinook - Hit Back Here
Guest
Posts: n/a
In reading the excellent news that there is to be a fresh Lords Inquiry, I was struck by something Lord Mayhew (Patrick Mayhew, Sec of State NI at the time)said during the Lords debate:
"I knew most of those who perished in the Chinook. I met their families.
"I went to a religious service in connection with one of the pilots. I stood at the airport for a very long time while the bodies of those who perished were brought back to Northern Ireland.
"And I have always felt that there should be something more done than has, as yet, been done to explore the conclusion that was reached by the board of inquiry.
"A grievous wrong was done to the passengers. On one view, a grievous wrong may have been done to the pilots."
Now a few of us had an emotional involvement in the crash, myself included. Only the sheer bureaucracy of HQ NI and the heavy-handed secrecy surrounding the whole affair denied me the opportunity of standing at the
graveside as two of my former colleagues amongst the passengers were laid to rest.
The passengers on board were the highest terrorist targets in NI at the time, what exactly did Lord Mayhew mean when he said:
"A grievous wrong was done to the passengers".? He should be asked to explain fully what he means.
For the sceptics amongst you, disregard this as just another conspiracy theory at your own peril. The fight for justice will still go on.
PS: It appears that my MP has declared me Persona Non Grata, and refuses to ask MOD any more questions I raise on matters surrounding the Chinook crash.
"I knew most of those who perished in the Chinook. I met their families.
"I went to a religious service in connection with one of the pilots. I stood at the airport for a very long time while the bodies of those who perished were brought back to Northern Ireland.
"And I have always felt that there should be something more done than has, as yet, been done to explore the conclusion that was reached by the board of inquiry.
"A grievous wrong was done to the passengers. On one view, a grievous wrong may have been done to the pilots."
Now a few of us had an emotional involvement in the crash, myself included. Only the sheer bureaucracy of HQ NI and the heavy-handed secrecy surrounding the whole affair denied me the opportunity of standing at the
graveside as two of my former colleagues amongst the passengers were laid to rest.
The passengers on board were the highest terrorist targets in NI at the time, what exactly did Lord Mayhew mean when he said:
"A grievous wrong was done to the passengers".? He should be asked to explain fully what he means.
For the sceptics amongst you, disregard this as just another conspiracy theory at your own peril. The fight for justice will still go on.
PS: It appears that my MP has declared me Persona Non Grata, and refuses to ask MOD any more questions I raise on matters surrounding the Chinook crash.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just a small note of caution in our euphoria - don't forget that it is the liason committee which appoints the select committee. This is the liason committee that went out of its way to try to scupper any further investigation. Be in no doubt, the MOD & the Govt are going out of their way to ensure that this goes no further.
Rumour has it that AM Day has said he will resign if the Lords find against him & Wratten. This is heavy stuff, as Liam Halligan said on CH4 last night, powerful forces are at work and much arm twising is going on.
For us, this is still about 2 men being found guilty of manslaughter with no evidence. For others it has become a constitutional issue.
Watch this space.
Rumour has it that AM Day has said he will resign if the Lords find against him & Wratten. This is heavy stuff, as Liam Halligan said on CH4 last night, powerful forces are at work and much arm twising is going on.
For us, this is still about 2 men being found guilty of manslaughter with no evidence. For others it has become a constitutional issue.
Watch this space.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I too would like to add my congratulations to those who have achieved a small victory in the bigger war. I knew several of the passengers and may well have been flown by the pilots. The rest of the Armed Forces ask a lot of our helicopter pilots in flying what, we think, are routine tasks. We expect them to arrive on time, at the right place (!) and in all weathers. We should not castigate two men who would not have flown recklessly rather we need to find out how to prevent a similar accident happening in the future. There is a duty of care that the MOD should accept to the crews and passengers who continue to fly in similar ac.
Guest
Posts: n/a
For those interested, the transcript of yesterday's debate in the House of Lords can be found at:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery...10430-03_head1
Updates as and when
Regards (and thanks) as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
http://www.parliament.the-stationery...10430-03_head1
Updates as and when
Regards (and thanks) as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
Shy,
apologies. Yes I did get your e-mail, and I replied the following day. Send me another if mine didn't get through, and I'll try again.
I thought I was getting on top of this computer malarkey!!!
Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
apologies. Yes I did get your e-mail, and I replied the following day. Send me another if mine didn't get through, and I'll try again.
I thought I was getting on top of this computer malarkey!!!
Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
JN
Your note of caution is well-placed. However, Day presumably only put it about that he will resign if their Lordships have the temerity to find that he was wrong in attributing 'Gross negligence beyond any doubt whatsoever' on the assumption that this will inlfuence their Lordships' finding. This strikes me as just the kind of unwarrantable arrogance that the PAC observed.
I suspect that his Airship would find no shortage of volunteers to help him to pack.
Your note of caution is well-placed. However, Day presumably only put it about that he will resign if their Lordships have the temerity to find that he was wrong in attributing 'Gross negligence beyond any doubt whatsoever' on the assumption that this will inlfuence their Lordships' finding. This strikes me as just the kind of unwarrantable arrogance that the PAC observed.
I suspect that his Airship would find no shortage of volunteers to help him to pack.
Guest
Posts: n/a
mr.p
Unwarrantable arrogance indeed, and childish foot stamping.
If Day and Wratten are sure of their case, they will welcome the chance to prove it once again, and see this sorry affair laid to rest. In any case they should, if they are/were worthy of the uniform they wear/wore, be interested only in justice and truth, and not their fragile egos.
It would appear that they are confident that their earlier arrogance, and camouflage will be put right, and hence the bluster and bluff.
If Day can't live with the truth coming out, then I'll not only offer to help him pack, I'll donate a trunk!
Unwarrantable arrogance indeed, and childish foot stamping.
If Day and Wratten are sure of their case, they will welcome the chance to prove it once again, and see this sorry affair laid to rest. In any case they should, if they are/were worthy of the uniform they wear/wore, be interested only in justice and truth, and not their fragile egos.
It would appear that they are confident that their earlier arrogance, and camouflage will be put right, and hence the bluster and bluff.
If Day can't live with the truth coming out, then I'll not only offer to help him pack, I'll donate a trunk!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Interesting isn't it, how the MOD, and the two senior officers who made the finding of gross negligence against the two pilots seem so keen to avoid having their 'opinion' scrutinised in public.
Contrast this with the observation that those on the receiving end of those allegations weren't even afforded 'representation' during the discredited process that'found' against them.
And they call that justice!
May hell freeze over before they get away with this.
Contrast this with the observation that those on the receiving end of those allegations weren't even afforded 'representation' during the discredited process that'found' against them.
And they call that justice!
May hell freeze over before they get away with this.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tandem, to be fair to the AMs, I understand the are "looking forward" to giving their side of the story and that they are already rehearsing their arguments.
As I have said before, I've seen Day's brief and it is very, very convincing. Witness all of the ministers he has managed to convince. It's not until you see the other side's case that you begin to understand the major flaws in the MOD's case. One example of the MOD's dodgy line, "we used the TANS as a basic ADR to reconstruct the final seconds of flight".
But be under no illusion, the Lords are going to have an interesting, perhaps difficult, time making the call.
As an interesting aside, I dont think that the 2 AMs actually BELIEVE that the two pilots were grossly negligent. Maybe it was their best guess, but I think that they perhaps thought that, for whatever reason, finding that the pilots were the only cause of this accident was the quickest way to put it to bed.
Big, fat, ugly, hairy mistake. They picked on the two worst people to make an example of. They simply didn't understand their fathers. And it is Mike Tapper & John Cook that have forced this forward from the start. Yes, they have had varying degrees of help, support & advice, but without them there would be no case to answer. I think that those currently serving want to ruminate about this - The people who passed judgement were arrogant enough to think their verdict would go unchallenged. Indeed, a BOI verdict had never been challenged before.
This, perhaps, is the real cause for concern now. It's also what's got the Lords up in arms. Baroness Symonns and others said that the reason not to have a select committee was simply that questioning the verdict of 2 senior officers would undermine service discipline. In other words, an Air Marshall simply cannot be wrong by virtue of the fact he is a senior officer. In simple terms Day and Wratten are above the law.
Some people might be a bit worried by that notion. The Lords were.
As I have said before, I've seen Day's brief and it is very, very convincing. Witness all of the ministers he has managed to convince. It's not until you see the other side's case that you begin to understand the major flaws in the MOD's case. One example of the MOD's dodgy line, "we used the TANS as a basic ADR to reconstruct the final seconds of flight".
But be under no illusion, the Lords are going to have an interesting, perhaps difficult, time making the call.
As an interesting aside, I dont think that the 2 AMs actually BELIEVE that the two pilots were grossly negligent. Maybe it was their best guess, but I think that they perhaps thought that, for whatever reason, finding that the pilots were the only cause of this accident was the quickest way to put it to bed.
Big, fat, ugly, hairy mistake. They picked on the two worst people to make an example of. They simply didn't understand their fathers. And it is Mike Tapper & John Cook that have forced this forward from the start. Yes, they have had varying degrees of help, support & advice, but without them there would be no case to answer. I think that those currently serving want to ruminate about this - The people who passed judgement were arrogant enough to think their verdict would go unchallenged. Indeed, a BOI verdict had never been challenged before.
This, perhaps, is the real cause for concern now. It's also what's got the Lords up in arms. Baroness Symonns and others said that the reason not to have a select committee was simply that questioning the verdict of 2 senior officers would undermine service discipline. In other words, an Air Marshall simply cannot be wrong by virtue of the fact he is a senior officer. In simple terms Day and Wratten are above the law.
Some people might be a bit worried by that notion. The Lords were.
Guest
Posts: n/a
This thread is all things that a forced shift in a political agenda can be, and many cngratuilaions to all contributors over time. It has been a plasure to feel that free spech is alive and well, for it may be that it is more open than the mother of Parliaments in many ways.
I do wonder: Day and Wratten are by most analysis no fools, and would have been VERY aware of the precedent of overuling the BoI President.
Indeed, all their GD training would have tended to them being against it - no matter who the pax were.
Theye are loyal officers and would be very unlikely to go public about anything to further their own interests - unlike their various political masters.
Given this and other arguments, one is led to conclude there might be an outside agency and a separate agenda affecting the actions of these gentlemen.
So WHO *instructed* the AM's to take this action - and on behalf of whom? in other words, were the AM's themselves simply fall guys acting under orders.
THAT is the question....
Whether the HoL will be able to unearth the answers rather depends upon the political clout of the unknown party eg the Mayfair funny mob et al
I do wonder: Day and Wratten are by most analysis no fools, and would have been VERY aware of the precedent of overuling the BoI President.
Indeed, all their GD training would have tended to them being against it - no matter who the pax were.
Theye are loyal officers and would be very unlikely to go public about anything to further their own interests - unlike their various political masters.
Given this and other arguments, one is led to conclude there might be an outside agency and a separate agenda affecting the actions of these gentlemen.
So WHO *instructed* the AM's to take this action - and on behalf of whom? in other words, were the AM's themselves simply fall guys acting under orders.
THAT is the question....
Whether the HoL will be able to unearth the answers rather depends upon the political clout of the unknown party eg the Mayfair funny mob et al
Guest
Posts: n/a
Reheat,
Methinks you are on the wrong track with 'conspiracy theories'. On the basis of the evidence, this particular 'one' is certainly not led to conclude that their Airships were following anyone else's agenda, just their own. As for "theye (sic) are loyal officers" and "unlikely to go public about anything to further their own interests", you may care to question some of those who've worked for them in the past before reaching such conclusions. Remember, loyalty used to work down as well as up, at least until this event.
Methinks you are on the wrong track with 'conspiracy theories'. On the basis of the evidence, this particular 'one' is certainly not led to conclude that their Airships were following anyone else's agenda, just their own. As for "theye (sic) are loyal officers" and "unlikely to go public about anything to further their own interests", you may care to question some of those who've worked for them in the past before reaching such conclusions. Remember, loyalty used to work down as well as up, at least until this event.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Point taken T & B; patently those close r to the Airships and their actions will have a closer undertsnading.
The fact remains however that at that level in the decision chain, Airships generally will be vunerable to outside 'persuasion', be it on the record or off. They do, like the grunts, have masters too.
There are many major interests here, as witness by the confessions of a certain Education Minister across the water, and it may just be possible to conclude that the loss of this aircraft in some bizarre way accelerated the political receptivity toward a peace process. Clutching at straws here, but trying to see a greater purpose for good in a tragic incident.
Or maybe they (their airships) were just nervous of taking a hooge rap.
The fact remains however that at that level in the decision chain, Airships generally will be vunerable to outside 'persuasion', be it on the record or off. They do, like the grunts, have masters too.
There are many major interests here, as witness by the confessions of a certain Education Minister across the water, and it may just be possible to conclude that the loss of this aircraft in some bizarre way accelerated the political receptivity toward a peace process. Clutching at straws here, but trying to see a greater purpose for good in a tragic incident.
Or maybe they (their airships) were just nervous of taking a hooge rap.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Reheat,
I don't reckon there's a conspiracy here, just two blokes who felt that the importance of the pax necessitated a robust finding, regardless of the evidence, and who thought they'd get away with it.
Interestingly, in the reply to my first (of many) letters to my MP he wrote:
'I understand that the finding of gross negligence came about because of the tragic consequences....'
Such bizarre logic seems prevalent in politics.
Baroness Symmons's assertion that questioning the AMs' judgement will have a negative affect on service morale is frightening, and 180 degrees out. Rightly their Lordships disagree with her too.
BTW where is K52??
[This message has been edited by Arkroyal (edited 10 May 2001).]
I don't reckon there's a conspiracy here, just two blokes who felt that the importance of the pax necessitated a robust finding, regardless of the evidence, and who thought they'd get away with it.
Interestingly, in the reply to my first (of many) letters to my MP he wrote:
'I understand that the finding of gross negligence came about because of the tragic consequences....'
Such bizarre logic seems prevalent in politics.
Baroness Symmons's assertion that questioning the AMs' judgement will have a negative affect on service morale is frightening, and 180 degrees out. Rightly their Lordships disagree with her too.
BTW where is K52??
[This message has been edited by Arkroyal (edited 10 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Can anyone confim that the actions [proposed] of the HoL have NOT been affected by the impending election - I have heard it mooted that the loss of executive through dissolution has meant that is on hold until after the election. Has to be said the source was making a 'best understanding guestimate.'
One assumes that the HoL will use that familiar bite that means it will not let go until justice is done.
One assumes that the HoL will use that familiar bite that means it will not let go until justice is done.