BBC snub Bomber Command Memorial
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 87
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just an aside.
I hope the NZ and Australian contingents landed at Military airfields, to save them the embarassment of passing through the Aliens' entry at Heathrow.
I hope the NZ and Australian contingents landed at Military airfields, to save them the embarassment of passing through the Aliens' entry at Heathrow.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the BBC any worse than the Royal Air Force?
The vast majority of the veterans and those who gave their lives on operations all those years ago are snubbed by the Royal Air Force Club in Piccadilly, which will not allow them to step inside the front door.
It's worth bearing in mind that there would be no RAF Club if the aforementioned brave souls had failed to carry out their duty all those years ago.
How many air marshals and other senior ranks have campaigned for the injustice to be rectified?
ALL who have served in the Royal Air Force are members of the larger Royal Air Force Club.
It is disgraceful that the snobbish minority snub the decent majority.
Hypocrisy!
The vast majority of the veterans and those who gave their lives on operations all those years ago are snubbed by the Royal Air Force Club in Piccadilly, which will not allow them to step inside the front door.
It's worth bearing in mind that there would be no RAF Club if the aforementioned brave souls had failed to carry out their duty all those years ago.
How many air marshals and other senior ranks have campaigned for the injustice to be rectified?
ALL who have served in the Royal Air Force are members of the larger Royal Air Force Club.
It is disgraceful that the snobbish minority snub the decent majority.
Hypocrisy!
...a bureaucratic agenda bound monster... no longer the colossus it was, rather it is a shambling muttering old has been...
Read this board for ten minutes, though, and you'd say the same about the RAF.
...a bureaucratic agenda bound monster... no longer the colossus it was, rather it is a shambling muttering old has been...
Have you been talking to Mrs W - rather how she describes me...............
Have you been talking to Mrs W - rather how she describes me...............
Phil R:
Not sure what you're saying here, old chap. If it is that I, for example, am:
point taken and I stand fearlessly four square with Wander00 in stating "guilty as charged".
So what? The subject of this thread is the BBC and I sincerely believe it is past its sell by date. It has kicked the bucket, passed over, shuffled off its mortal coil, joined the choir invisible, rung down the final curtain and is an ex-Aunty. Having designed, built and settled into a brand new purpose built HQ it has gone through all the identifiable stages of corporate decay. The decent thing now is to put it, and us, out of misery.
If on the other hand it is that the post war RAF has shown a disgraceful distancing of itself from the defence of the WWII RAF Bombing Campaign and the 67 year campaign to properly pay tribute to those who gave their lives in it, again point taken. Churchill's betrayal was unforgivable but par for the course from a politician. In contrast, the acts of commission and omission by succeeding Air Boards are utterly beneath contempt.
Read this board for ten minutes, though, and you'd say the same about the RAF.
a shambling muttering old has been...
So what? The subject of this thread is the BBC and I sincerely believe it is past its sell by date. It has kicked the bucket, passed over, shuffled off its mortal coil, joined the choir invisible, rung down the final curtain and is an ex-Aunty. Having designed, built and settled into a brand new purpose built HQ it has gone through all the identifiable stages of corporate decay. The decent thing now is to put it, and us, out of misery.
If on the other hand it is that the post war RAF has shown a disgraceful distancing of itself from the defence of the WWII RAF Bombing Campaign and the 67 year campaign to properly pay tribute to those who gave their lives in it, again point taken. Churchill's betrayal was unforgivable but par for the course from a politician. In contrast, the acts of commission and omission by succeeding Air Boards are utterly beneath contempt.
Last edited by Chugalug2; 30th Jun 2012 at 12:59.
I was thinking more of the service itself - read a few posts on this board and you'd believe that all we had left was a couple of Cessnas.
About TV, though: veering wildly offtopic here, the problem with the BBC seems to be that its metric of success is simply audience numbers, which is of course exactly the same way that all broadcasters judge themselves. Because of this, the BBC ends up just doing the same thing as everyone else, which defeats the object of their special status. The entire purpose of funding the BBC in the way that it is funded, at least these days now there are commercial broadcasters, is to ensure there's a broadcaster who does not have to chase the whim of the audience, that is not required to be populist to survive. I think the dissatisfaction that's felt is because they are failing to take advantage of this privileged position.
It is a very good idea in principle and for a very long time it ensured that the UK produced the best television in the world. This is no longer a title on which we have a firm grip, and because the BBC is now effectively indistinguishable from the commercial broadcasters, I agree that the purpose of the current BBC, as it exists today, is unclear (my opinion is that Channel 4 now do a rather better job of some things, notwithstanding their tendency toward voyeurism).
As to putting it out to pasture, I would much rather the BBC clean up its act and start using its unique position for the common good, as opposed to joining the headlong rush downmarket that's characterised the world of TV ever since digital television and the internet changed the way things work. Disestablishing the BBC would not solve the problem of there being no good public service broascaster. I just wish they'd do a bit more to justify why they deserve their special status.
I'm sure I could bore you to death with my opinion on current TV but, as always, I'm very much aware of being a guest on this forum and I don't want to bore everyone to death with my offtopic ramblings.
P
About TV, though: veering wildly offtopic here, the problem with the BBC seems to be that its metric of success is simply audience numbers, which is of course exactly the same way that all broadcasters judge themselves. Because of this, the BBC ends up just doing the same thing as everyone else, which defeats the object of their special status. The entire purpose of funding the BBC in the way that it is funded, at least these days now there are commercial broadcasters, is to ensure there's a broadcaster who does not have to chase the whim of the audience, that is not required to be populist to survive. I think the dissatisfaction that's felt is because they are failing to take advantage of this privileged position.
It is a very good idea in principle and for a very long time it ensured that the UK produced the best television in the world. This is no longer a title on which we have a firm grip, and because the BBC is now effectively indistinguishable from the commercial broadcasters, I agree that the purpose of the current BBC, as it exists today, is unclear (my opinion is that Channel 4 now do a rather better job of some things, notwithstanding their tendency toward voyeurism).
As to putting it out to pasture, I would much rather the BBC clean up its act and start using its unique position for the common good, as opposed to joining the headlong rush downmarket that's characterised the world of TV ever since digital television and the internet changed the way things work. Disestablishing the BBC would not solve the problem of there being no good public service broascaster. I just wish they'd do a bit more to justify why they deserve their special status.
I'm sure I could bore you to death with my opinion on current TV but, as always, I'm very much aware of being a guest on this forum and I don't want to bore everyone to death with my offtopic ramblings.
P
Last edited by Phil_R; 30th Jun 2012 at 14:11.
As a still splutterer, Baffman, may I point out that:
1. at Post #43 I made it clear that I had watched the live coverage on the Digital BBC News channel and commended it, with the proviso that the Talk Over comment that "Many of the Veterans now feel guilty about what they did" was intrusive and unwarranted, though of course par for the course.
2. The OP point that the BBC snubbed the BC Memorial unveiling by not covering it live on BBC 1 or 2 still pertains.
3. Phil R saw fit to act as Devil's Advocate for the Beeb (Apologies PR, a bit of Editorial Spin there. See what I mean?) and discussion moved onto the Thames Pageant fiasco and why it happened.
4. All the above tells me that the Beeb is quite capable of putting out a quality product (vis Trooping, Cenotaph and the BC Memorial) but often feels compelled to put its spin into the commentary. My point is that it should be devoid of spin and cover national events as a National Broadcaster, letting us perceive them as we wish and not as the Beeb decrees.
5. Having been around long enough to see it descend from the Olympian heights which it attained in WWII to the levels that draw so much adverse comment here for example, the words Leopard and Spots come to mind. The BBC is set on a one way journey that will end in its extinction, sooner rather than later hopefully so that we can move on into sunny uplands.
6. I asked you elsewhere what BAFF is doing on behalf of soldiers being made redundant days before they qualify for full pension rights. Now that we have your attention could you please answer on the appropriate thread?
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...sion-date.html
1. at Post #43 I made it clear that I had watched the live coverage on the Digital BBC News channel and commended it, with the proviso that the Talk Over comment that "Many of the Veterans now feel guilty about what they did" was intrusive and unwarranted, though of course par for the course.
2. The OP point that the BBC snubbed the BC Memorial unveiling by not covering it live on BBC 1 or 2 still pertains.
3. Phil R saw fit to act as Devil's Advocate for the Beeb (Apologies PR, a bit of Editorial Spin there. See what I mean?) and discussion moved onto the Thames Pageant fiasco and why it happened.
4. All the above tells me that the Beeb is quite capable of putting out a quality product (vis Trooping, Cenotaph and the BC Memorial) but often feels compelled to put its spin into the commentary. My point is that it should be devoid of spin and cover national events as a National Broadcaster, letting us perceive them as we wish and not as the Beeb decrees.
5. Having been around long enough to see it descend from the Olympian heights which it attained in WWII to the levels that draw so much adverse comment here for example, the words Leopard and Spots come to mind. The BBC is set on a one way journey that will end in its extinction, sooner rather than later hopefully so that we can move on into sunny uplands.
6. I asked you elsewhere what BAFF is doing on behalf of soldiers being made redundant days before they qualify for full pension rights. Now that we have your attention could you please answer on the appropriate thread?
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...sion-date.html
The episode of Things We Forgot to Remember about Bomber Command is now available as a podcast.
BBC - Podcasts - Things We Forgot to Remember
BBC - Podcasts - Things We Forgot to Remember
Last edited by JOE-FBS; 6th Jul 2012 at 17:20.
From my MP:
My reply:
Contact your MP now at WriteToThem - Email or fax your Councillor, MP, MEP, MSP or Welsh, NI, London Assembly Member for free
Make a fuss now and so save these courageous gentlemen needless worry.
Dear Chug,
Thank you for contacting me about the Bomber Command Memorial.
I welcomed Her Majesty the Queen's unveiling of this Memorial. It is a fitting tribute dedicated, as you note in your email, to the tens of thousands of brave airmen who died in the Second World War.
I understand from Treasury officials that the Government spent over £1.5 million on the event, including a Ministry of Defence contribution of resources at a cost of £375,000 to commemorate the 55,573 aircrew of RAF Bomber Command who paid the ultimate sacrifice during the Second World War.
After months of planning and support to the Bomber Command Association, six RAF aircraft and some 200 RAF personnel were involved on the day. This is in addition to the £1 million contribution to cover VAT and the £200,000 cash support promised by the Government towards the additional costs of the unveiling ceremony.
I believe it is right and proper that we recognise the unique contribution and sacrifice that the men of Bomber Command made to protect Great Britain during the Second World War and ensure democratic freedom.
As a final point, I would like to add my congratulations to those of the Secretary of State for Defence, who praised the volunteers that made this memorial a reality.
I am grateful for your taking the time to contact me and please never hesitate to get back in touch if I can be of any further assistance on this issue or any other.
Thank you for contacting me about the Bomber Command Memorial.
I welcomed Her Majesty the Queen's unveiling of this Memorial. It is a fitting tribute dedicated, as you note in your email, to the tens of thousands of brave airmen who died in the Second World War.
I understand from Treasury officials that the Government spent over £1.5 million on the event, including a Ministry of Defence contribution of resources at a cost of £375,000 to commemorate the 55,573 aircrew of RAF Bomber Command who paid the ultimate sacrifice during the Second World War.
After months of planning and support to the Bomber Command Association, six RAF aircraft and some 200 RAF personnel were involved on the day. This is in addition to the £1 million contribution to cover VAT and the £200,000 cash support promised by the Government towards the additional costs of the unveiling ceremony.
I believe it is right and proper that we recognise the unique contribution and sacrifice that the men of Bomber Command made to protect Great Britain during the Second World War and ensure democratic freedom.
As a final point, I would like to add my congratulations to those of the Secretary of State for Defence, who praised the volunteers that made this memorial a reality.
I am grateful for your taking the time to contact me and please never hesitate to get back in touch if I can be of any further assistance on this issue or any other.
Thank you for your prompt reply to my request that ALL the VAT charged for the Bomber Command Memorial and ALL the security costs involved in the Dedication ceremony, attended by HM The Queen, should be met by HMG. It is all very well for HM Treasury to quote large sums of public money they contend have already been expended to date, their inference seems to be that the Veterans should pay the very considerable difference.
Would the present government have had the same attitude had it been in power 1939-45? Would they have told these same men, then extremely young, that it had already expended a great amount on the munitions being dropped nightly on the Reich, and it was now up to the crews to pay up as well? I do not think that the contrast is so extreme, for both expenditures are the moral responsibility of HMG on behalf of this Nation, then fighting for survival, and now presumably grateful for having survived thanks to those who did not survive. HM Treasury may not have a sense of moral obligation, HMG I think should, for it governs in our name. It should refund ALL the VAT and pay for ALL the Security Costs of the Unveiling and Dedication of the Bomber Command Memorial now!
Yours sincerely,
Chug
Would the present government have had the same attitude had it been in power 1939-45? Would they have told these same men, then extremely young, that it had already expended a great amount on the munitions being dropped nightly on the Reich, and it was now up to the crews to pay up as well? I do not think that the contrast is so extreme, for both expenditures are the moral responsibility of HMG on behalf of this Nation, then fighting for survival, and now presumably grateful for having survived thanks to those who did not survive. HM Treasury may not have a sense of moral obligation, HMG I think should, for it governs in our name. It should refund ALL the VAT and pay for ALL the Security Costs of the Unveiling and Dedication of the Bomber Command Memorial now!
Yours sincerely,
Chug
Make a fuss now and so save these courageous gentlemen needless worry.
BS1000. I surmise you must be Australian as you clearly have a chip on both shoulders!
And, by the way, membership of the RAF Club has absolutely nothing at all to do with what I consider to be (very belatedly) a fitting tribute in Green Park to the exceedingly brave members of Bomber Command, of all ranks - my father and father-in-law included.
And, by the way, membership of the RAF Club has absolutely nothing at all to do with what I consider to be (very belatedly) a fitting tribute in Green Park to the exceedingly brave members of Bomber Command, of all ranks - my father and father-in-law included.
