JonathanFShould that read ARCo Firefly?
You’re quite right, of course. Let that be a warning to any of you posting in the early hours…
JonathanFPanel = TFC Firefly?
JonathanFThe decision to use ”Shoot to kill to protect” rules of engagement must have been Tony Blair’s. Let’s hope he takes responsibility for his decision.
I don’t agree. As I said it was a failure of intelligence, specifically the way in which the surveillance of the chap’s residence was handled. I don’t personally see how anyone can rationally argue against the ‘shoot to kill’ policy in the current climate *provided* intelligence is adequate and adequately communicated. Many people don’t seem to understand that the only change in policy here is the target – centre of mass versus head, the reasoning being that shots to the head are less likely to result in the triggering of a device.
That armed police, where present, should withhold fire where an identified, assessed suspect is believed to be armed and threatening the life of a member of the public, is the worst kind of laissez-faire imaginable. Some people, especially journalists, seem to think that prior to aiming for the head, shooting someone in the chest until they stop moving is not ‘shoot to kill’. In case you were wondering, the latter was the previous and is still the default policy where suicide bombing and/or body armour is not suspected.
There are only two policies as far as the public are concerned (assuming you believe any type of armed policement is a necessary evil), and those are; the current policy of shoot to kill, or simply not to open fire unless first fired upon. One should only ever fire a weapon to kill, anything else risks the lives of the firer and the public. Better not to have any armed police than to have some wildy ineffective ‘shoot the shoulder or legs’ policy. This isn’t “Speed” and armed police aren’t Keanu Reeves…
Some are equating this policy with that of the security forces in NI, who allegedly had a ‘shoot to kill’ policy whereby known PIRA ‘players’ would be killed primarily because they were *known* to be so, not because of a direct threat to a member of the public.
The policy and the deployment of armed units is essential, but the botching of surveillance in this way (if indeed it is as it appeared, ie following the wrong guy, letting him board a bus etc etc)) is to be condemned.
JonathanFThe decision to use ”Shoot to kill to protect” rules of engagement must have been Tony Blair’s. Let’s hope he takes responsibility for his decision.
I don’t agree. As I said it was a failure of intelligence, specifically the way in which the surveillance of the chap’s residence was handled. I don’t personally see how anyone can rationally argue against the ‘shoot to kill’ policy in the current climate *provided* intelligence is adequate and adequately communicated. Many people don’t seem to understand that the only change in policy here is the target – centre of mass versus head, the reasoning being that shots to the head are less likely to result in the triggering of a device.
That armed police, where present, should withhold fire where an identified, assessed suspect is believed to be armed and threatening the life of a member of the public, is the worst kind of laissez-faire imaginable. Some people, especially journalists, seem to think that prior to aiming for the head, shooting someone in the chest until they stop moving is not ‘shoot to kill’. In case you were wondering, the latter was the previous and is still the default policy where suicide bombing and/or body armour is not suspected.
There are only two policies as far as the public are concerned (assuming you believe any type of armed policement is a necessary evil), and those are; the current policy of shoot to kill, or simply not to open fire unless first fired upon. One should only ever fire a weapon to kill, anything else risks the lives of the firer and the public. Better not to have any armed police than to have some wildy ineffective ‘shoot the shoulder or legs’ policy. This isn’t “Speed” and armed police aren’t Keanu Reeves…
Some are equating this policy with that of the security forces in NI, who allegedly had a ‘shoot to kill’ policy whereby known PIRA ‘players’ would be killed primarily because they were *known* to be so, not because of a direct threat to a member of the public.
The policy and the deployment of armed units is essential, but the botching of surveillance in this way (if indeed it is as it appeared, ie following the wrong guy, letting him board a bus etc etc)) is to be condemned.
JonathanFIt seems clear to me that the failure is that of the police, but not the officer(s) that took the man down. Given the parameters they were operating within, they were left with no choice but to open fire, and therefore, to make sure the threat was eliminated ie kill the man. It’s the intelligence from the surveillance and elsewhere that’s clearly, unequivocally suspect here, and its there that the blame needs to be sought.
By effectively reinforcing the public perception that the killing was inevitable (which it was at the time of the killing) the government does not have to face the other more damaging outcry vis a vis the flawed intelligence and botched running of the operation. The policemen in the firing line effectively get the blame, but without loss of their job, livelihood or reputations, and those elsewhere in the police force, intelligence community and government, get to deflect public and media attention long enough to survive the inevitable enquiry. The outcome of which will be very interesting but won’t make a blip on the media radar by the time it comes out.
Whenever an innocent person dies (and an expired visa plus panic is reason enough to run whatever the ‘hawks’ say), someone must be held accountable, but I don’t believe in this case that it’s the firearms officers.
JonathanFIt seems clear to me that the failure is that of the police, but not the officer(s) that took the man down. Given the parameters they were operating within, they were left with no choice but to open fire, and therefore, to make sure the threat was eliminated ie kill the man. It’s the intelligence from the surveillance and elsewhere that’s clearly, unequivocally suspect here, and its there that the blame needs to be sought.
By effectively reinforcing the public perception that the killing was inevitable (which it was at the time of the killing) the government does not have to face the other more damaging outcry vis a vis the flawed intelligence and botched running of the operation. The policemen in the firing line effectively get the blame, but without loss of their job, livelihood or reputations, and those elsewhere in the police force, intelligence community and government, get to deflect public and media attention long enough to survive the inevitable enquiry. The outcome of which will be very interesting but won’t make a blip on the media radar by the time it comes out.
Whenever an innocent person dies (and an expired visa plus panic is reason enough to run whatever the ‘hawks’ say), someone must be held accountable, but I don’t believe in this case that it’s the firearms officers.
JonathanFI thought it was the P40, because of what looks like a prominent radiator. (Hmm, radiator. I wonder how long it’ll be before we get a comment from Snapper about me and radiators… 😉 )
Anyway, all joking aside, I’ll hazard a guess at the identities of the aeroplanes you can see in that shot. From left to right:
Distant three
Spitfire MkV, EP120
Spitfire Mk?, SM845
Spitfire MkXIX?, PS890 (the contraprop one)Near three
Hurricane MkIV, KZ321
Hawk 75
Hurricane (the RAC one from Breighton)Distant four
Spitfire MkIX, MT928
Spitfire unknown (4 blade)
Spitfire unknown (5 blade)
Spitfire MkIX, MH434Still a few blanks in there to fill in, but I’m sure there’ll be someone along in a minute who knows what they’re talking about… 🙂
That man is already here 🙂 see above (albeit with a crafty edit…)
JonathanFSome of those wittering on were obviously filmed at Duxford however.
Yep, Tony Harper in his old GR.3, that Dr Who lookalike journalist, and the ubiquitous Bruce Dickinson were all filmed at DX.
JonathanFWas this programme made in the States by any chance?
Made by a Canadian company, hence the Hornet rather than the Eagle or Falcon, and why they had a RCAF Spit pilot rather than a British one. I’m surprised they didn’t squeeze a CF-100 in there somewhere.
JonathanFA bloody big well done to the BBMF – dead on target! And also to everybody in all the other aircraft – tight formations and dead on the line – fantastic. I’ve just finished watching Sky’s coverage, which was pretty poor in many ways (apparently there were 2 Catalinas, ‘Douglas D3 Dakotas’, and they missed the actual poppy release) but at least gave me an idea of what happened.
There were two Catalinas booked originally weren’t there? I would expect presenters to be reading from sheets rather than actively recognising aircraft, which explains two of those criticisms (the other being a typo).
JonathanFDoes it have to have a point? It’s just a statement !
Yes, otherwise there’s no conversation, just cryptic postings that do nothing but prevent Avro from doing a Michael Douglas on his way in to work.
It’s not always the most cost effective way of extending a building of that type to retain existing structure. Many would argue that your better off to scrap and start with totally new build which simplifies the project.
See, that’s a point, and well put. Q.E.D.
JonathanFIts still a bl00dy building site!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your point being?
JonathanF…and the Firefly was also ex-Skyfame before the IWM acquired it, so the main thanks for its preservation should go to Peter Thomas.
Sad to think it flew to the UK from Sweden, but was grounded, still, nice to see it out & about and in a good scheme.
Not a correction at all James, but IWM still own the Firefly.
JonathanFNot yet at any rate. I think it would blow away in this wind.
JonathanFPink Lady’s just rolled up too.
Sign In
