Another Red Arrows petition - Olympics

[moleamol]

Apparently they can't fly at the Olympics because they are too British. Not sure how true this is but I'm sure someone on PH will know more than me. Anyway, if that's true it's bobbins.

Here is the link: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/RedArrows2012/#detail

[Blue Meanie]

Erm.. Why is that a bad thing?

[moleamol]

Blue Meanie said:

Erm.. Why is that a bad thing?

Well I wouldn't necessarily expect the Red Arrows to fly for the Olympics, but to ban them because they are 'too British' is a tad ridiculous. It's not like the Olympics are normally low key and you'd never know where the event was being held.

[Blue Meanie]

moleamol said:

Blue Meanie said:

Erm.. Why is that a bad thing?

Well I wouldn't necessarily expect the Red Arrows to fly for the Olympics, but to ban them because they are 'too British' is a tad ridiculous. It's not like the Olympics are normally low key and you'd never know where the event was being held.

I meant why is them being British a bad thing. I agree with you. It is the London Olympics, is it not? You are supposed to do a bit of showing off I believe!!

[moleamol]

Blue Meanie said:

moleamol said:

Blue Meanie said:

Erm.. Why is that a bad thing?

Well I wouldn't necessarily expect the Red Arrows to fly for the Olympics, but to ban them because they are 'too British' is a tad ridiculous. It's not like the Olympics are normally low key and you'd never know where the event was being held.

I meant why is them being British a bad thing. I agree with you. It is the London Olympics, is it not? You are supposed to do a bit of showing off I believe!!

Sorry.

I thought you meant why is it a bad thing that they were banned. It may not be true yet, if it is though it's ridiculous, it would be great exposure for them, and as you say, a bit of showing off is what you're meant to do at these events.

[RobDickinson]

Isnt part of holding the Olypics showing off your nation?

[Hedders]

Maybe if the red arrows recruited a couple of lesbians and maybe a few Immigrants they would be more represantiative of 'new britain' and be allowed to fly.

The red arrows are after all, a bunch of White middle class males and we can't be having that.

[Frik]

I suspect it's got less to do with being seen to do the right thing and more to do with cash.

How much is the overspend so far?

[Marki]

Frik said:

I suspect it's got less to do with being seen to do the right thing and more to do with cash.

How much is the overspend so far?

The new commitee is working on a figure

[anonymous-user]

Isn't it still a few years away?

[Hedders]

If they are not having a fly-by because of financial restraints, the whole event sounds even more dubious.

[Kinky]

That's a local politically correct decision as opposed to the IOC saying no.

I would suspect the IOC would fully support the Red Arrows.

Another nail in the identity coffin.

K

[Nuggs]

For 's sake - the lack of national pride is what's wrong with the country. Boils my piss.

[r5gttgaz]

Perhaps the pattern is full.

[Imran-vx]

I am not a big fan of the military spending money on activities that are not front line ( we had that debate on the Red Arrows/Household Cavalry, White Helmets, Field Gun Teams etc some months ago).

However, surely part of having the Olympics is to share your history and culture with the world? Would you go to Athens and see a games without temples and ancient Greeks featuring, or Sydney and not see Koalas and Kangeroos, or China and not see ancient imagery being used to promote the country during the games?

The Olympics are a great chance to remind the world just how Great Britain can be, and when you have something good you should flaunt it. I would be mortally wounded if I thought the tourist agencies were not going to splash castles, bearskins, regattas, landscape, pomp, music, fashion, ceremony, history, royalty, engineering and creativity all over the games. Without it we have, well Belgium.

[Nuggs]

Imran-vx said:

I am not a big fan of the military spending money on activities that are not front line

They could arm the Red Arrows for the display...

[Kermit power]

Imran-vx said:

I am not a big fan of the military spending money on activities that are not front line ( we had that debate on the Red Arrows/Household Cavalry, White Helmets, Field Gun Teams etc some months ago).

I didn't see that debate, but if you look at all the people over the years who've joined the forces partly because of childhood memories of seeing the Red Arrows and the other military display and ceremonial units, I expect you'll find they've paid for themselves? I wonder how many people would actually join up - especially now when they are struggling to get the numbers as it is - if the only face of the forces the general public encountered was stories of young men dying in Iraq and Afghanistan?

[ewenm]

Has anyone seen any actual statement from the gov department about this? Or is it like the "classic cars being banned from various cities" petitions that come round every so often?

[Nick_F]

Ceremonial duties, parades and displays serve many purposes that are entirely internal to the military units performing them - not everything you see is done for the exclusive benefit of the viewing public.

Presumably Ken has an alternative in mind - formation bendy-bus burning, perhaps.

[ewenm]

FFS! Even The Sun report here says that the decision hasn't been made yet: www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007421005,00.html

Untwist those knickers everyone