A slight drift to the thread but what I would love to see is a policy by the RAFM that is a big more creative and would also ‘solve’ the space issue and that is the idea of loaning out significant aircraft. The national railway museum loans out many extremely significant steam locos to smaller collections.

I wonder if the appetite exists for this to be done with one of national aviation collections?

The Wellington is due to be finished in the not too distant future. Imagine it at East Kirkby for example or the Yorkshire Air Museum. They’ve done it with the Typhoon but it would be great to do this more. Maybe it is not practical but it could be exciting. Perhaps even international exchanges.

Having watched “The Dam Busters” the other night, I couldn’t understand what all the Hoo Ha was regarding Gibsons dogs name. IF it is SO un P.C. to mention the animals name, then why the hell, wasn’t it edited out?.
Seems like the Worlds gone mad. Would it have bothered me, if Gibson was a man of colour, and he names his dog “Whitie” as that’s what they call us, but no, I wouldn’t give a flying F………………………………………………………………………………..15.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

Jim,

If you can’t grasp the difference between that word and ‘whitie’ and the damage that word has done and the hate it has represented (particularly in the US but beyond too) then really you should open your eyes. Your comment is staggeringly ignorant. Think of the number of people who were told to use a seperate toilet, to use a segregated part of a bus or were restricted from a job whilst having that word thrown at them. Think of the Tuskegee airmen who probably at some point in their lives had that thrown at then even after serving during the war. If you think it’s some overreaction you should look beyond your own narrow horizons and think about what other people have faced.

The problem is this topic comes up again and again and we here the same people saying the same old things about ‘PC’ gone mad. This isnt a case of PC. This is a case of people having some sensitivity or a lack of it.

It’s so funny to hear people justifying the use of the word because it is in films such as those of Tarantino or in rap culture. Tarantino and various rap artists don’t represent the views of black people worldwide! Many people find the inclusion of the word in that scenario offensive too. Some do not.

It is a derogatory word, no two ways about it and that is why anyone with the tiniest capacity for empathy and understanding should be aware of why it is not appropriate except when to show historical context. In the dam busters original film I think it should be left unedited as it stands. If they want to put a title card at the beginning with a note on the context they could. With the new Dam Busters film I think they should ditch it because actually you don’t need to mention the dogs name.

Whenever the dog runs up to Gibson he can shout ‘boy’, when the code word comes in they can say ‘they’ve done it sir’ and when he is run over the breaking of the news can be done via suggestion, ie the phone rings and you see Gibsons expression followed by him collecting the collar in a seperate scene.

No need for a substitute name or the name itself which would distract unfamiliar viewers who would be distracted to hear a dog called that.

If only a tiny fraction of Baders Wikipedia entry is to believed (not always the most reliable source) and the many other accounts of his behaviour then maybe he doesn’t deserve another gloss over.

When you actually read up on some of these people (Don Bennett for example) both in their own and others words it really is an eye opener!

I wonder how some of the people on here would feel if they took on a new job and were slated before they’d even had a chance to prove if they could do the job. Add to that a few pretty nasty jibes and it’s actually a poor do. Her tenure at the RAFM may not be wise, it also may be inspired but she deserves a fair go at doing the job and to make her mark.

Fair play?

I agree entirely with your post apart from the last paragraph.

It isn’t a tiny mental leap. I have trespassed before (and I bet you have too in your lifetime) but I have never made the ‘tiny’ mental leap to vandalise that property.

I’m not disagreeing with you for the same of it. I agree with most if your last post but it’s not a straightforward mental leap to justify vandalism. Everyone is different. Someone who trespasses frequently and gets up to no good is just as much a trespasser than an aviation enthusiast wandering that extra few yards into a peri track of a disused airfield but they are very different people.

Call urban explorers trespassers (some actually do get permission which muddies things further) but vandals reserve for those who do.

Best to you.

They may be vandals but they may not. I doubt there are many on this forum who have never trespassed be it a quick walk in an abandoned airfield or whatever. Doesn’t mean you are a vandal
If you have. It just means you are a trespasser!

Here we go 🙂

I do feel for a lot of you. It is a dreadful world we live in what with the…The youth of today, people with left wing views, museum ‘professionals’ and computer touch screen displays!! Throw in poor old Jeremy Clarkson and it’s just terrible.

This forum has proved itself to be kind and generous In the past and I wonder if you all might have a whip round and purchase that airfield in the countryside where sensible people could go and act like was still 1955 – a time when everything was just as it should be.

🙂

David. I’m very glad to see that your 100% record of selective reading and never giving an inch continues 🙂 You’ve also managed to do your selective quoting trick. Ah well.

So we now have your version of what you would have done in the same situation. If BA had said no still and they still wanted to pull out what would you have done. Kept them and paid for their upkeep or keep the cream and ditch the rest!