Where to start?
It used to be that the BBC was forever being slagged off by the government for being the opposite to those in power at the time. Then along came Blair: new Labour knew the value of good press and how to keep the paper barons on their side, and the broadcast media found themselves being flirted with by the governments backroom boys who had tidbits of juicy info fed to them on the promise that other things get ignored – although sometimes world news did its part too, if you remember the story about it being a good day to release bad government news around and about 11/9/2001…
But getting back to the Labour party conference.
Hands up all those who knew what Miliband’s policies were before the conference?
The Labour leader has been rather quiet since his selection and that has made anything he says newsworthy – not because he is spouting words of genius but (probably) to show that there is an opposition to the current ruling alliance. Whether it has been at the expense of other important news I am not sure: I’ve heard about the bigger slaughter in Pakistan as much as that in Kenya, but I listen to the radio more than newspapers and definitely more than TV, and the BBC more than Sky News (who supply quite a few of the independent stations). Whatever happened to ITN…?
And talking of Sky News, I believe it’s better than it was since Murdoch has separated it off from his other assets but it is still not the wonderfully independent opposition to the BBC, unless you are happy with its inherent right wing agenda (which is, admittedly, nothing like as bad as its US sister Fox News!). Apparently the staff still share stories with the newspapers and both are not above shafting local news media with claiming national exclusives despite the it appearing locally up to several days previously.
Please note: The Times and The Sun do share reporters on occasion; it’s the sub editors that cut down the syllables for the hard of thinking readers.

Well, at least that’s more plausible than the English leaving their info in Swedish.

It just seems a little clumsy. Ok, many Swedes might well speak and/or read English, but if the aircraft was made in Sweden to serve in Sweden then surely it would have made sense for anything to do with the ‘planes mechanical’s and safety to be readable by the standard Swede?
I mean, when the Tucano was issued to the RAF I doubt that there was anything aboard that would show its Brazilian origins, whether or not they were important to the machines safety, since the number of lineys who read Portuguese is bound to be small.

If that is/was the case then I am utterly astounded. (Um, unless the Tiger Moth was built from a supplied kit of parts…)

The Swedes would have left their info in English?

Kerosene … Simples 🙂

Argh. Me and engines…(sniff)

‘Would the Germans have won if they had the Me 262 in 1940?’

Hmm. Would they have been any more reliable with the might of German industry behind them, rather than the one that was frequently under attack day and night as it was later in the war? Would they have been able to supply fuel suitable for the early jet engines? Would they have done better with the more experienced pilots that they had in 1940 rather than the trainees of 1944/5? And would the Japanese have been slaughtered had the Americans had a modern aircraft carrier and accompanying jet fighter to defend Pearl Harbour in 1941? (I’m sure there was a Hollywood documentary about that a few years ago…)