Tonights Ross Kemp on Afghanistan...
Discussion
Mojocvh said:
Eric Mc said:
And didn't John Simpson find himself right in the middle of a Friendly Fire incident when a US Navy F-14 bombed the journalist's convoy rather than the correct target?
No.The specials who they were traveling with spotted an active MBT, sent the grid co-ordinates to air, BUT they (the civs) made the error of grouping by a disabled MBT to watch the strike going in..................
Incredible program,really brave news team and I loved the way he used the platform to raise issues that need to be aired.
I was stunned that the rules of engagement mean if the enemy put down their weapons our lads can't fire at them. Extraordinary discipline of our troops to just watch the two insurgents standing on the roof after a fire fight and then let then drive away in a cab.
Does make you wonder how our lads are expected to make any progress.
I was stunned that the rules of engagement mean if the enemy put down their weapons our lads can't fire at them. Extraordinary discipline of our troops to just watch the two insurgents standing on the roof after a fire fight and then let then drive away in a cab.
Does make you wonder how our lads are expected to make any progress.
SimonV8ster said:
Eric Mc said:
And didn't John Simpson find himself right in the middle of a Friendly Fire incident when a US Navy F-14 bombed the journalist's convoy rather than the correct target?
I believe so. Believe he was hit by some flying debris too, remember seeing him lying on the floor holding his stomach. Wasn't he with a convey and one of the other trucks was completely destroyed ?
pokethepope said:
Is the cameraman a regular soldier or also a civvy? If the latter they deserve as much credit as RK IMO.
One 'funny' part of the program last night was seeing RK sprinting past the cameraman, as rounds came in overhead, then fall arse over tit downhill on a very rocky path. The camaerman got it all on film. Then a Marine picks up the cmaera from the cameraman (who is obviosuly prostrate on the ground in fear) and both head off after RK, shouting all awhile 'Ross - stick to the path - STICK TO THE PATH' in panic the RK was going to be splattered by an IED.....They eventually caught up with Ross at the bottom of the hill. I think they all needed to change their pants....
Im watching an episode on the youtube link that was posted above. I presume it would have happened in the first series if it did, but was Kemp trained to use an SA80 in case the s
t really hit the fan? There was a BBC docu a few months back where a journo went out on patrol with an armoured regiment and he went through training to operate the vehicle mounted 50 cal, even though he later went on to say there was some convention that said journalists couldn't fire a weapon in combat.
t really hit the fan? There was a BBC docu a few months back where a journo went out on patrol with an armoured regiment and he went through training to operate the vehicle mounted 50 cal, even though he later went on to say there was some convention that said journalists couldn't fire a weapon in combat. I watched the first series, and whilst I was impressed with the programme as a whole and the guys out there doing the job, I wasn't massively keen on Ross Kemp. War correspondents have been putting themselves in more dangerous situations since the time of the first newspapers. Difference being that RK is getting primetime slots on Sky One.
I'm more convinced he did the programme for his career than to highlight the situation our soldiers are facing (though I don't think he's completely selfish) and that if he'd said no, there would have been a queue of people willing to take his place. Thats my take anyhow.
Doesn't detract much from the programme and the issues it highlights though.
I'm more convinced he did the programme for his career than to highlight the situation our soldiers are facing (though I don't think he's completely selfish) and that if he'd said no, there would have been a queue of people willing to take his place. Thats my take anyhow.
Doesn't detract much from the programme and the issues it highlights though.
pokethepope said:
Im watching an episode on the youtube link that was posted above. I presume it would have happened in the first series if it did, but was Kemp trained to use an SA80 in case the st really hit the fan? There was a BBC docu a few months back where a journo went out on patrol with an armoured regiment and he went through training to operate the vehicle mounted 50 cal, even though he later went on to say there was some convention that said journalists couldn't fire a weapon in combat.
Yes, he was, but he made it pretty clear that he wouldn't be issued a weapon. The training was because should it all go tits up and there were no soldiers near him, or they were taken out, he would be "entitled" to pick up a weapon to protect himself.t really hit the fan? There was a BBC docu a few months back where a journo went out on patrol with an armoured regiment and he went through training to operate the vehicle mounted 50 cal, even though he later went on to say there was some convention that said journalists couldn't fire a weapon in combat. Edited by Famous Graham on Monday 2nd March 17:11
tenohfive said:
I watched the first series, and whilst I was impressed with the programme as a whole and the guys out there doing the job, I wasn't massively keen on Ross Kemp. War correspondents have been putting themselves in more dangerous situations since the time of the first newspapers. Difference being that RK is getting primetime slots on Sky One.
I'm more convinced he did the programme for his career than to highlight the situation our soldiers are facing (though I don't think he's completely selfish) and that if he'd said no, there would have been a queue of people willing to take his place. Thats my take anyhow.
Doesn't detract much from the programme and the issues it highlights though.
Regardless of his original decision to be involved in thsi programme [career or not? I don't know, so that would be summation] give the guy credit, he is placing himself in harms way and nobody in that situation can surely be thinking I'm close to death here, thatll get me a bafta! I feel that he has invested himself emotionally in the situation the forces are facing out there and all credit to him. Fantastic programme and yet no amount of money would make me do it.I'm more convinced he did the programme for his career than to highlight the situation our soldiers are facing (though I don't think he's completely selfish) and that if he'd said no, there would have been a queue of people willing to take his place. Thats my take anyhow.
Doesn't detract much from the programme and the issues it highlights though.
Zebra
SeeFive said:
Question: If you were ever on holiday abroad and bumped into Kate Aidie, would you pack up and go home? 
Yes... I'll hazard a guess you know why ;-)For those who don't: in the Forces she was considered an albatros, or more accurately, a s
t magnet. In GW1, every unit she was attached too experienced problems. In Bosnia, she came down to visit the not-so-rapid reaction force in Ploce. That afternoon, a helicopter crashed in the harbour, killing some of the occupants.I'd move bloody house if she came within a mile of where I live.
zebra said:
tenohfive said:
I watched the first series, and whilst I was impressed with the programme as a whole and the guys out there doing the job, I wasn't massively keen on Ross Kemp. War correspondents have been putting themselves in more dangerous situations since the time of the first newspapers. Difference being that RK is getting primetime slots on Sky One.
I'm more convinced he did the programme for his career than to highlight the situation our soldiers are facing (though I don't think he's completely selfish) and that if he'd said no, there would have been a queue of people willing to take his place. Thats my take anyhow.
Doesn't detract much from the programme and the issues it highlights though.
Regardless of his original decision to be involved in thsi programme [career or not? I don't know, so that would be summation] give the guy credit, he is placing himself in harms way and nobody in that situation can surely be thinking I'm close to death here, thatll get me a bafta! I feel that he has invested himself emotionally in the situation the forces are facing out there and all credit to him. Fantastic programme and yet no amount of money would make me do it.I'm more convinced he did the programme for his career than to highlight the situation our soldiers are facing (though I don't think he's completely selfish) and that if he'd said no, there would have been a queue of people willing to take his place. Thats my take anyhow.
Doesn't detract much from the programme and the issues it highlights though.
Zebra
tenohfive said:
I'd do it for free, just for the experience. The risks our troops are put in are very real, but he is always in the safest place on any patrol - and he's getting paid a hell of a lot more for the experience than the squaddies in front and behind him. Not that its a criticism of him, fair play to him for doing it. I just don't think the risks against him are as real as he portrays, but thats not necessarily down to him - presumably the producer wants it to appear as high risk as possible without there being much actual risk of him getting killed - risky documentaries get bums on seats.
Safe place? That would be in a studio commenting on footage brought back. Yes, he's in a slightly safer position than a point man or similar, but last night a sniper bullet came past him and as has already been mentioned he could have been blown up by an IED. As for him getting highly paid _ no problem. That however cannot be compared to the soldiers _ they are way underpaid for what they do for this country. I'd like to think I could go out there and do what he does, but no, I'll stay here and watch it as a documentary.Zebra.
Well, I caught up with this programme yesterday. The segment on Headley park was eye opening, and I can only applaud all soldiers currently serving in our forces for a pittance. To see the enthusiasm of these guys in recuperation who are multiple amputees is inspiring.
Also very sobering to see in real time what happened to the unlucky soldier who lost his life at the end of the programme, at the time he was the 139th UK soldier to pay the ultimate price since the conflict began. The figure now stands at 149, and they were all listed at the end of the programme.
I actually made a point of reading all their names as they scrolled up the screen.
Also very sobering to see in real time what happened to the unlucky soldier who lost his life at the end of the programme, at the time he was the 139th UK soldier to pay the ultimate price since the conflict began. The figure now stands at 149, and they were all listed at the end of the programme.
I actually made a point of reading all their names as they scrolled up the screen.
zebra said:
tenohfive said:
I'd do it for free, just for the experience. The risks our troops are put in are very real, but he is always in the safest place on any patrol - and he's getting paid a hell of a lot more for the experience than the squaddies in front and behind him. Not that its a criticism of him, fair play to him for doing it. I just don't think the risks against him are as real as he portrays, but thats not necessarily down to him - presumably the producer wants it to appear as high risk as possible without there being much actual risk of him getting killed - risky documentaries get bums on seats.
Safe place? That would be in a studio commenting on footage brought back. Yes, he's in a slightly safer position than a point man or similar, but last night a sniper bullet came past him and as has already been mentioned he could have been blown up by an IED. As for him getting highly paid _ no problem. That however cannot be compared to the soldiers _ they are way underpaid for what they do for this country. I'd like to think I could go out there and do what he does, but no, I'll stay here and watch it as a documentary.Zebra.
tenohfive said:
I'd do it for free, just for the experience. The risks our troops are put in are very real, but he is always in the safest place on any patrol - and he's getting paid a hell of a lot more for the experience than the squaddies in front and behind him. Not that its a criticism of him, fair play to him for doing it. I just don't think the risks against him are as real as he portrays, but thats not necessarily down to him - presumably the producer wants it to appear as high risk as possible without there being much actual risk of him getting killed - risky documentaries get bums on seats.
Best get yourself down to the AFCO then 
Of course he isn't going to be in the thick of it, it wouldn't be tactically sound to send an unarmed civvie and a camera crew out in the thick of it. Still, the crew are taking rounds and a stray round can take your head off just the same as an aimed one. Before he started doing the Afghan thing, I thought RK was a bit of a knob, what with all the Grant Mitchell and Ultimate Farce ste. These days opinion of RK throughout the Forces is pretty high and he's done a great deal in raising awareness as to what the lads go through both on the front line and back home. Me? Well, I enjoyed watching the whole thing in my nice air conditioned mess on the widescreen. Must try and get surround sound out of the welfare fund for the next tour though 
Gassing Station | Music | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff