I’m not really sure how it is possible to distinguish the two on the internet but I have read it on several different sites. I think the film only hints at the amount of assistance given to POWs by organisations such as MI9 for example and portrays ‘X’ as an organisation working in isolation within the POW’s numbers.

I’ve still got a bit of reading to do, particularly the book ‘Lie in the Dark and Listen’ by Flight Lieutenant Ken ‘Shag’ Rees.

We already have a live thread about Northern Ireland, chaps.

I know, but I have no wish to become embroiled in that thread. I just wanted to point out why Karl Winn probably has his attitude towards ex-service personnel.

So our armed forces are fighting for what again? Democracy? Freedom of speech? Except in this guy’s case obviously.

No, I agree, he has his right to free speech but should he be able to openly discriminate based on his partisan views?

A similar thing happened with a Harrier where the pilot ejected and the aircraft carried on flying but the RAF sent a Lightning to shoot it down…

Do you have any details of this incident?

This is the press release on this idiots company website.

http://www.webeurope.co.uk/press-release.php

12th March 2010 – Statement by Mark Thompson Director of Relatives for Justice on British state violence in Ireland and of the support received by Webeurope in terms of addressing the awful legacy of hurt and pain.

“Throughout the conflict in Ireland the British army and the RUC acted with impunity regarding its actions. In particular the provision of impunity surrounded virtually all of the 367 direct killings by the State – most of these perpetrated by the British army. These were predominantly, yet not exclusively, perpetrated against the nationalist/republican and Catholic community. The vast majority of those targeted and killed were uninvolved civilians – men, women and children.”

“Of those non-state combatants killed many were killed in pre-planned premeditated circumstances in which safe and effective arrests were possible yet political and military decisions were taken to act outside of the rule of law and to kill people rather than to act and adhere to international and domestic legal requirements.”

Would these ‘non-state combatants’ that Karl Winn believes deserved ‘safe and effective arrests’ perhaps have belonged to an organisation that acted ‘outside the rule of law’ to ‘safely and effectively’ plant a bomb in a Warrington street that killed three year old Jonathan Ball and twelve year old Tim Parry on a Saturday shopping trip in 1993?

…and did one of the guards really supply a camera and other items for the escapees?

Yes, I think that is absolutely true. Try getting hold of the book by Paul Brickhill who was inside the camp at the time of the escape; it makes for very interesting reading.

‘Wine’ was made with raisins and sugar, when these could be spared; food was always short with prisoners losing a lot of weight during captivity.

The things that the prisoners managed to ‘persuade’ the guards to do for them is incredible, for example, one guard sent letters home to his wife to be typed-up (bearing in mind that these were ‘official’ documents clearly intended to be used as identification during an escape attempt). I wonder how much expert psychological pressure the prisoners were able to exert on their captors.

The film is a strange mix of absolute fact and ‘Hollywood’ bull**** and one of the strange things is that when the film was being made the real prisoners advising the script writers refused to divulge some of the most effective ways around the guards as at the time there were ‘allied’ POWs in captivity (Vietnam) and they didn’t want the ‘secrets’ that could help them given away!

…so nature will take its course slowly and they will find their way to the sea.

Yes, I understood that was the case too.

A question; do we think that their bodies should be returned to the UK before that happens?

Ha! I didn’t see that photograph first time I looked at your link; looks ‘made to fit’…

…and with a silver nose…..hence the apparent colour changes. All clear now!

Maybe. How do you explain the ‘black’ area of fuselage below the canopy (but not the nose); is that part of the aircraft painted a different colour? I took it to be a tarpaulin draped over the fuselage but with light showing through where it is supported by the windscreen frame. I could be wrong.