Jonathon – Not for one minute would I suggest they deviate from best practice ! However if it’s a supersonic airliner and the wings are too wide to move it……………

So because you see one area in which you perceive the museum to failing to meet best practice, you criticise an attempt to do elsewhere.

Doesn’t really follow, does it?

Jonathon -The War Rooms are pretty much fixed as is IWM Lambeth. I do wonder though if her long term health moored on the Thames justifies the visitor numbers.

Funnily enough, I wasn’t suggesting that the other two sites be transported brick-by-brick to Basingstoke or somesuch. Just suggesting that keeping Belfast where it is (dense population centre with massive tourist traffic plus two other IWM sites) might maintain visitor numbers. Not to mention the outlay involved in getting the ship moved and stablilised in dry-dock conditions. This is admittedly regardless of the conservation issues of metal hulls part-submersed in water (which I acknowledge), and is also mere speculation.

Curlyboy – Our last true battleship was H.M.S Vanguard and she was scrapped probably late 1950’s. Personally I don’t see why they keep H.M.S Belfast on the Thames – I would much rather see her in dry dock at somewhere like Chatham.

Perhaps because it makes sense in terms of visitor numbers for IWM to keep her where she is, along with the Churchill Museum/CWR and IWM London.

Unless theres some rule on using the Phantom one – after all what use is a simulater that doesnt work, as an exhibit?

What use is any museum exhibit you can’t use, get in, or operate? Which would be the majority of them, because they’re supposed to survive in one piece for future generations and with their originality as intact as possible. Assuming the sim is part of their permanent collection, they have an obligation not to let it deteriorate.

There’s a good argument for acquiring objects like this expressly for letting people into, but the dreaded H&S may rear its head.

Well, a whois check shows that the site is registered to a “Hunter Mercer”, and that they have set the site up as a “non-trading individual”, despite selling a product via the site.

No google results for a company or organisation of that name.

Why do you ask?

Edited to add: the website states something about Scottish law applying to transactions, and interestingly enough, the only site linking to pilot-notes.co.uk is http://www.skylarkaviation.co.uk – who are based in Scotland and are also hosted by http://www.names.co.uk. They may be the people you’re looking for, or they may not.

No friendly aircraft were known to be in the area at the time and the possibility cannot, therefore, be excluded that these aircraft were Spitfires being flown by the enemy.

Interesting, but that’s implying a false dichotomy. Considering the way the intercepted aircraft behaved when faced with attacking Spitfires, is it not more likely that they were indeed Allied Spitfires? I would think Secret Squirrel Nazi Spitfires (TM) would react a little more evasively in that situation.

It’s bewildering that he freely admits to having no evidence, and yet still expects people to take him at his word. That’s just not how it works – you can’t just claim anything and expect people to believe you. You especially can’t throw abuse at people when they don’t believe you. If you say something occurred, yet you cannot provide any evidence of this, as far as history is concerned, it may as well never have happened. Otherwise I could claim that I had travelled back in time and tried to assassinate Hitler, but failed, and all evidence of my attempt has vanished. Anyone is free to make any claim they like, but they must be able to support it.

There’s a saying; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I realise he’s had a hard time of it, but he brings it upon himself. Williams needs to put up, or shut up until he can put up!