BBC Presenter Disrepects the Dambusters...

[MikeKozlowski]

https://www.gbnews.com/celebrity/bbc-ap ... dambusters

Can any of our Cousins give us some more detail on this?

Mike

PS: I worked with the Dambusters' heirs, the current 617 Squadron and their Tornado GR.1s at RED FLAG. Those guys were respected enough that you had Marine Air Wing guys from VMF-214 going up and shaking their hands. I can only imagine the fury unleashed upon this chick because she couldn't get her vocabulary straight.

[Nightwatch2]

https://www.gbnews.com/celebrity/bbc-ap ... dambusters

Can any of our Cousins give us some more detail on this?

Mike

PS: I worked with the Dambusters' heirs, the current 617 Squadron and their Tornado GR.1s at RED FLAG. Those guys were respected enough that you had Marine Air Wing guys from VMF-214 going up and shaking their hands. I can only imagine the fury unleashed upon this chick because she couldn't get her vocabulary straight.

“Infamous”?!!!!

I hope that was just an accidental comment but as much utter crap that comes from the left wing media like the BBC I suspect it was a very revealing comment on the abhorrent mindset of the “reporter”

fired yet?

[Pdf27]

Can any of our Cousins give us some more detail on this?

Mike

PS: I worked with the Dambusters' heirs, the current 617 Squadron and their Tornado GR.1s at RED FLAG. Those guys were respected enough that you had Marine Air Wing guys from VMF-214 going up and shaking their hands. I can only imagine the fury unleashed upon this chick because she couldn't get her vocabulary straight.

Hadn't heard of it. No great surprise that GB News are making a big thing of it though - they've got a bit of a vendetta with the BBC. It's accepted that newsreaders screw up occasionally - most famously with the current Chancellor being described as "Jeremy C*nt" on the flagship radio news programme a few years ago.
Dambusters aren't a big thing for the public these days - it's a long time ago and the government are currently trying to convert their former base into a housing centre for illegal immigrants. That's going to be Portakabins on the runway, and will scupper plans to keep it as an active airfield.

[kdahm]

https://www.gbnews.com/celebrity/bbc-ap ... dambusters

Can any of our Cousins give us some more detail on this?

Mike

PS: I worked with the Dambusters' heirs, the current 617 Squadron and their Tornado GR.1s at RED FLAG. Those guys were respected enough that you had Marine Air Wing guys from VMF-214 going up and shaking their hands. I can only imagine the fury unleashed upon this chick because she couldn't get her vocabulary straight.

It's a good thing it's so long past the events of WWII, or there would be a line of people waiting to test if she was "flammable" or "inflammable".

[jemhouston]

https://www.gbnews.com/celebrity/bbc-ap ... dambusters

Can any of our Cousins give us some more detail on this?

Mike

PS: I worked with the Dambusters' heirs, the current 617 Squadron and their Tornado GR.1s at RED FLAG. Those guys were respected enough that you had Marine Air Wing guys from VMF-214 going up and shaking their hands. I can only imagine the fury unleashed upon this chick because she couldn't get her vocabulary straight.

It's a good thing it's so long past the events of WWII, or there would be a line of people waiting to test if she was "flammable" or "inflammable".

I prefer tar and feathers myself.

[Craiglxviii]

What PDF27 said. It was either a slip of the tongue or a Freudian slip- either on the presenter’s part or whoever programmed her autocue.

Ref. the Jeremy C**t incident, I was listening to that live on my way into work, I think 2012. Veteran presenter Jim Naughtie (pronounced “Nochty” just to keep you colonials on your toes, because it’s Scottish) introduced Jeremy Hunt. “The Culture Secretary, Jeremy C**t….”<dead air>

Is it on YouTube? Yes. Yes it is.



As regards the plan for RAF Scampton, it’s endemic of trying to fix a really complex problem with a simple solution. There’s a simpler solution yet (patrol the Channel), but that one’s unpalatable to Whitehall.

[Pdf27]

As regards the plan for RAF Scampton, it’s endemic of trying to fix a really complex problem with a simple solution. There’s a simpler solution yet (patrol the Channel), but that one’s unpalatable to Whitehall.

I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure it isn't all that simple. Under international law (SOLAS Article V) any patrol vessels in the channel are obliged to rescue persons in distress at sea: this pretty much defines the state of all the boats they use, and will encourage the people-smugglers to use more dangerous boats. Once you have them on board, you're forced to land them in the UK - France has no reason to accept them and out of the EU we can't force them to.

[Nathan45]

Regarding "Infamous"

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3GufF8jux ... bWlnb3M%3D

I can't be the only guy to remember this..

[Simon Darkshade]

Point of information re: International Law and obligations therein.

The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) doesn’t have an Article V obligation of the nature characterised.
There is Article V (a), which states
“For the purpose of evacuating persons in order to avoid a threat to the security of their lives a Contracting Government may permit the carriage of a larger number of persons in its ships than is otherwise permissible under the present Convention.”

That is something a tad different from a legal obligation to “rescue persons in distress at sea.” However, pending a deeper dive into SOLAS which I’m not prepared to commit my Saturday night off to at this point, I’ll refrain from commenting further on that aspect.

There might be some confusion between SOLAS and UNCLOS, where Article 98 obliges masters of ships to rescue vessels in distress. When we are talking about UNCLOS, it is also worth considering Article 25, which does allow states to prevent passage in their territorial waters of vessels for a variety of reasons, including the prevention of crime (including, amongst other things, smuggling).

Return of ships to French waters does require their consent if done in the Dover Straits; if done in wider international seas, that issue becomes of less immediate effect. The optimum solution would involve an agreement with France, which is not utterly impossible, but rather a matter of political will (see below).

Further, once any rescue has taken place, then Britain would not be without its rights to turn back boats, even new, safe and secure ones, certainly within her territorial seas (and the particular area of the Dover Strait is nothing but that and that of the French), and quite possibly beyond that. Protection of putative refugees from refoulement isn’t a risk here. From my understanding, there is no reason that any people are forced to be landed in Britain, and there are legal means for turn back operations with the requisite political will.

As that last factor is completely absent from both sides of British politics on the matter, it is rendered an academic question at best. However, this reality does not extend to a slam dunk legality in the fashion characterised.

[Pdf27]

Point of information re: International Law and obligations therein.

The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) doesn’t have an Article V obligation of the nature characterised.
There is Article V (a), which states
“For the purpose of evacuating persons in order to avoid a threat to the security of their lives a Contracting Government may permit the carriage of a larger number of persons in its ships than is otherwise permissible under the present Convention.”

That is something a tad different from a legal obligation to “rescue persons in distress at sea.” However, pending a deeper dive into SOLAS which I’m not prepared to commit my Saturday night off to at this point, I’ll refrain from commenting further on that aspect.

Regulation 7 looks like it to me, but I'm not a lawyer of any type.

[Simon Darkshade]

Which regulation? Chapter VII, which is on The Carriage of Dangerous Goods? SOLAS isn’t the best authority, being more directed at merchant vessels; as said, UNCLOS covers the issues involved more directly.

I can have a look when my Law of the Sea textbook arrives.

[Pdf27]

Chapter V Regulation 7:

REGULATION 7 - Search and rescue services
1 Each Contracting Government undertakes to ensure that necessary arrangements are made for distress communication and co-ordination in their
area of responsibility and for the rescue of persons in distress at sea around its coasts. These arrangements shall include the establishment, operation
and maintenance of such search and rescue facilities as are deemed practicable and necessary, having regard to the density of the seagoing
traffic and the navigational dangers and shall, so far as possible, provide adequate means of locating and rescuing such persons.*
2 Each Contracting Government undertakes to make available information to the Organization concerning its existing search and rescue facilities and the plans for changes therein, if any.
3 Passenger ships to which chapter I applies shall have on board a plan for cooperation with appropriate search and rescue services in event of an
emergency. The plan shall be developed in co-operation between the ship, the company, as defined in regulation IX/1 and the search and rescue
services. The plan shall include provisions for periodic exercises to be undertaken to test its effectiveness. The plan shall be developed based on
the guidelines developed by the Organization.

Like I said, I'm not a lawyer - I've just been taught that if you can rescue someone in need of assistance at sea, you do.

[Simon Darkshade]

That regulation doesn’t correspond to a legal treaty requirement, but rather sets out the infrastructure requirements to put in place. This isn’t the same thing as what was originally said, claiming the backing of international law for a much wider proposition.

There are different regulations within SOLAS, but it is more for private/commercial vessels per se. What you are talking about is in UNCLOS:
“Article 98 Duty to render assistance
1. Every State shall require the master of a ship flying its flag, in so far as he can do so without serious danger to the ship, the crew or the passengers: (a) to render assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being lost;
(b) to proceed with all possible speed to the rescue of persons in
distress, if informed of their need of assistance, in so far as such
action may reasonably be expected of him;
(c) after a collision, to render assistance to the other ship, its crew and its passengers and, where possible, to inform the other ship of the name of his own ship, its port of registry and the nearest port at which it will call.
2. Every coastal State shall promote the establishment, operation and maintenance of an adequate and effective search and rescue service regarding safety on and over the sea and, where circumstances so require, by way of mutual regional arrangements cooperate with neighbouring States for this purpose.”

That carries the general gist of your statement, but with the presence of a heckload of context and caveats.

[Craiglxviii]

I also think, but again admit to being entirely wrong, that both SOLAS & UNCLOS are there to provide for the safety of life at sea, the implicit assumption that some calamity, accident, collision, or otherwise unforeseen eventuality have placed those lives at risk.

The big issue here is that the people involved here have willingly placed their own lives at risk on the strength of the nations involved rescuing them. So the moral question is, if someone has deliberately placed his or her life in danger because he/ she wants you to rescue them and then, potentially, pay to feed, clothe, house and care for them for an indefinite period, do they fall under the same category as “distressed mariners”?

I’m sure I heard a debate on this matter around the RAN deploying to stop similarly strategised illegal immigrants coming from Indonesia, and tackling them successfully by using the same argument i.e. “if you expect us to rescue you after making your raft sink and sending an SOS, think again”.

[Pdf27]

I’m sure I heard a debate on this matter around the RAN deploying to stop similarly strategised illegal immigrants coming from Indonesia, and tackling them successfully by using the same argument i.e. “if you expect us to rescue you after making your raft sink and sending an SOS, think again”.

You can make that work in the long run, but there are plenty of amoral people with a vested interest in seeing that the traffic keeps going (people smugglers, etc.). I don't think the government could sustain that policy once the bodies of drowned children start washing up on shore - purely as a matter of politics, not legalities - and that's why I don't think even Suella de Vil was willing to sign off on it.

[Craiglxviii]

I’m sure I heard a debate on this matter around the RAN deploying to stop similarly strategised illegal immigrants coming from Indonesia, and tackling them successfully by using the same argument i.e. “if you expect us to rescue you after making your raft sink and sending an SOS, think again”.

You can make that work in the long run, but there are plenty of amoral people with a vested interest in seeing that the traffic keeps going (people smugglers, etc.). I don't think the government could sustain that policy once the bodies of drowned children start washing up on shore - purely as a matter of politics, not legalities - and that's why I don't think even Suella de Vil was willing to sign off on it.

Yes, spot on target as always.

[Zen9]

https://www.gbnews.com/celebrity/bbc-ap ... dambusters

Can any of our Cousins give us some more detail on this?

Mike

PS: I worked with the Dambusters' heirs, the current 617 Squadron and their Tornado GR.1s at RED FLAG. Those guys were respected enough that you had Marine Air Wing guys from VMF-214 going up and shaking their hands. I can only imagine the fury unleashed upon this chick because she couldn't get her vocabulary straight.

So there be two sides at least to this one.
Firstly we have what is considered OK within the circles of the BBC being used in broadcast in the obvious hope of twisting perceptions about what used to be a celebrated occasion.

One that was taken as read, normal and part of the general patriotic view of country (Union). So naturally the metropolitan/graduate hatred of said, disgust at those who feel such attachments and it is ultimately the sense of roots, attachment to past, local and nation that elicit their disgust. Only encourages their need to debase this at all times.

Secondly those who still watch the BBC, who include a lot of elderly, would naturally take offence at this and if various rival broadcasters can utilise the outrage....it's all for the ratings.

For the Baby boomers WWII is essentially their founding myth being bornafter it. So events like the Dambusters Raid are quote important. Mythic like Nelson at Trafalgar or say Agincourt.

For the Woke, the Empire Windrush arrival is increasingly theirs. Events before being decried as in the dark barbarous days before sacred immigrants arrived.

Obviously the Woke being Vanguardists believing they will lead the proletariat to utopia with their superior understanding. Have little problem with National Socialism, save for who should be sent to the gas chambres.