HMS Queen Elizabeth
Discussion
normalbloke said:
Cold said:
It looks like Thursday 9th is the day for the return of HMS QNLZ. (Subject to change etc)
Looking forward to it. I noticed they turned the POW last week to alleviate bed sores and budged her up a bit. It’s going to be quite a Christmas for most of the crew.ecsrobin said:
I see in the news a crew member has been arrested for leaking the video of the F35.
Unsurprising given the official secrets act. None of the crew should be releasing footage from an operating warship without authorisation.The MOD don't cover up aircraft losses, so the public interest is served by that information being made public. I've witnessed an air accident, and the loss and the cause (embarrassing pilot error) is public knowledge.
Edited by 98elise on Wednesday 8th December 16:26
98elise said:
The MOD don't cover up aircraft losses, so the public interest is served by that information being made public. I've witnessed an air accident and the loss and the cause (embarrassing pilot error) is public knowledge.
But the public interest certainly isn't served by revealing information that could have helped pinpoint the location of the aircraft before it was recovered.98elise said:
ecsrobin said:
I see in the news a crew member has been arrested for leaking the video of the F35.
Unsurprising given the official secrets act. None of the crew should be releasing footage from an operating warship without authorisation.aeropilot said:
98elise said:
ecsrobin said:
I see in the news a crew member has been arrested for leaking the video of the F35.
Unsurprising given the official secrets act. None of the crew should be releasing footage from an operating warship without authorisation.Obviously there is internal stuff you should not be photographing but out in the open I've never known of restrictions. I've photographed weapons firing, flying activities, and on one occasion a serious incident. Often the ships photographer would take official photos, and you could buy copies (crown copyrighted though).
As an interested outsider, I find the way that the Navy deals with disciplinary issues that find their way into the public domain often at odds with what would seem appropriate from similar incidents in Civilian life.
We’ve seen the COs of HM Ships Portland and QE lose their careers for incidents that would be dealt with by a slap on the wrist in most corporate environments. It would seem equally strange if someone who (allegedly) screwed up and caused the loss of a $100m aircraft gets a talking to but the person who took a video of it get a DD and a spell in the Glasshouse.
I guess if you take the Queen’s Shilling then you can’t complain when you break the Queen’s Rules !
We’ve seen the COs of HM Ships Portland and QE lose their careers for incidents that would be dealt with by a slap on the wrist in most corporate environments. It would seem equally strange if someone who (allegedly) screwed up and caused the loss of a $100m aircraft gets a talking to but the person who took a video of it get a DD and a spell in the Glasshouse.
I guess if you take the Queen’s Shilling then you can’t complain when you break the Queen’s Rules !
Seight_Returns said:
It would seem equally strange if someone who (allegedly) screwed up and caused the loss of a $100m aircraft gets a talking to but the person who took a video of it get a DD and a spell in the Glasshouse.
Very obviously one is a unintentional mistake and the other is a deliberate act. If it came to light the cover was left there intentionally to damage the aircraft then no doubt the punishment would be far more severe. Surely you can see the difference? 98elise said:
aeropilot said:
98elise said:
ecsrobin said:
I see in the news a crew member has been arrested for leaking the video of the F35.
Unsurprising given the official secrets act. None of the crew should be releasing footage from an operating warship without authorisation.Obviously there is internal stuff you should not be photographing but out in the open I've never known of restrictions.
aeropilot said:
98elise said:
aeropilot said:
98elise said:
ecsrobin said:
I see in the news a crew member has been arrested for leaking the video of the F35.
Unsurprising given the official secrets act. None of the crew should be releasing footage from an operating warship without authorisation.Obviously there is internal stuff you should not be photographing but out in the open I've never known of restrictions.
Edited to add...
Now watched it and that was outright stupidity by the person filming.
Edited by 98elise on Thursday 9th December 09:44
98elise said:
When I was serving they weren't bothered by you taking photos or video, but you were still bound by the official secrets act.
Obviously there is internal stuff you should not be photographing but out in the open I've never known of restrictions. I've photographed weapons firing, flying activities, and on one occasion a serious incident. Often the ships photographer would take official photos, and you could buy copies (crown copyrighted though).
Same. Obviously there is internal stuff you should not be photographing but out in the open I've never known of restrictions. I've photographed weapons firing, flying activities, and on one occasion a serious incident. Often the ships photographer would take official photos, and you could buy copies (crown copyrighted though).
Sailors then also were not stupid enough to consider posting that s
t online.Watching some of the recent TV documentaries and confirmed by shipmates still in, in a lot of ops they take your phones physically off you. WTAF?
What happened to doing the f
k you are told and if told to turn it off and leave it in your locker, you do so? Is it that common that sailors these days disobey that and keep phones on when ordered not to? Youth of today? social media influence that strong people disobey orders? Lower standard of sailors? Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff