Red Arrows banned from olympics - British PC strikes again

[stevehaley]

The world-famous Red Arrows have been banned from appearing at the
2012 London Olympics because they are deemed "too British". Organisers
of the event say that the Arrows military background might be
"offensive" to other countries taking part in the Games. The display
team have performed at more than 4000 events worldwide, but the
Department of Culture, Media and Sport have deemed the display team
"too militaristically British". Red Arrows pilots were said to be
"outraged", as they had hoped to> put on a truly world class display
for the Games, something which had never> been seen before. Being axed
from a British-based event for being "too British" is an insult - the
Arrows are a symbol of Britain. The Red Arrows have been excellent
ambassadors for British overseas trade, as they display their British-
built Hawk aircraft all over the world. The Arrows performed a short
flypast in 2005 when the winning bid was announced, but their flypast
at the Games was to have been truly spectacular. It is to be hoped
that common sense prevails If you disagree with this decision, sign
the petition on the link below


http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/RedArrows2012/?ref=redArrows2012

[Dan G]

On Oct 2, 9:13 pm, stevehaley > wrote:
> The world-famous Red Arrows have been banned from appearing at the
> 2012 London Olympics

ARgh. This was a made up story in the Sun (a British tabloid) that has
somehow grown legs as people seem to believe everything they read
these days, and never check FACTS.

The Red Arrows have *not* been banned - that's the official statement:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2querr


Dan

[Cats]

On Oct 2, 9:13 pm, stevehaley > wrote:
> The world-famous Red Arrows have been banned from appearing at the
> 2012 London Olympics because they are deemed "too British". Organisers
> of the event say that the Arrows military background might be
> "offensive" to other countries taking part in the Games. The display
> team have performed at more than 4000 events worldwide, but the
> Department of Culture, Media and Sport have deemed the display team
> "too militaristically British". Red Arrows pilots were said to be
> "outraged", as they had hoped to> put on a truly world class display
> for the Games, something which had never> been seen before. Being axed
> from a British-based event for being "too British" is an insult - the
> Arrows are a symbol of Britain. The Red Arrows have been excellent
> ambassadors for British overseas trade, as they display their British-
> built Hawk aircraft all over the world. The Arrows performed a short
> flypast in 2005 when the winning bid was announced, but their flypast
> at the Games was to have been truly spectacular. It is to be hoped
> that common sense prevails If you disagree with this decision, sign
> the petition on the link below
>
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/RedArrows2012/?ref=redArrows2012

This did the rounds somewhere else and turns out to be a hoax, as
sadly to quite a lot of those on-line petitions.

[Michael Ash]

Cats > wrote:
>> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/RedArrows2012/?ref=redArrows2012
>
> This did the rounds somewhere else and turns out to be a hoax, as
> sadly to quite a lot of those on-line petitions.

Even when they're not hoaxes they're basically useless. Remember that if
it takes almost no effort to "sign" your name to one, then that means that
your name carries almost no weight on it.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Ian]

On 3 Oct, 08:47, Cats > wrote:

> This did the rounds somewhere else and turns out to be a hoax, as
> sadly to quite a lot of those on-line petitions.

I can't see why a display by military jets would be appropriate for
the Olympics anyway. We might as well have a Red-Square-parade-style
phalanx of missile launcers in the opening ceremony

Ian

[Phil Collin]

Ian wrote:
> On 3 Oct, 08:47, Cats > wrote:
>
>> This did the rounds somewhere else and turns out to be a hoax, as
>> sadly to quite a lot of those on-line petitions.
>
> I can't see why a display by military jets would be appropriate for
> the Olympics anyway. We might as well have a Red-Square-parade-style
> phalanx of missile launcers in the opening ceremony
>
> Ian
>
>
Did you think that through before you hit the send button?
The Red Arrows are British Ambassadors recognised the world round as a
demonstration of excellence in synchro flying. I think all the key words
needed are in that sentence...

[Ann O'Rack[_2_]]

Did you look at the title of the group before pressing
the send button?

For glider pilots who aren't Sun readers, plane spotters
or military fanatics the Red Arrows are a nuisance
who cause large parts of the country to be blocked
off by Notam on a regular basis.


At 08:54 04 October 2007, Phil Collin wrote:
>Ian wrote:
>> On 3 Oct, 08:47, Cats wrote:
>>
>>> This did the rounds somewhere else and turns out to
>>>be a hoax, as
>>> sadly to quite a lot of those on-line petitions.
>>
>> I can't see why a display by military jets would be
>>appropriate for
>> the Olympics anyway. We might as well have a Red-Square-parade-st
>>>yle
>> phalanx of missile launcers in the opening ceremony
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>Did you think that through before you hit the send
>button?
>The Red Arrows are British Ambassadors recognised the
>world round as a
>demonstration of excellence in synchro flying. I think
>all the key words
>needed are in that sentence...
>

[Bert Willing[_2_]]

Not quite so - I actually quite enjoy their shows like the one they
displayed in September in Switzerland.

But then, I don't fly where they train :-)

Bert

"Ann O'Rack" > wrote in message
...
> Did you look at the title of the group before pressing
> the send button?
>
> For glider pilots who aren't Sun readers, plane spotters
> or military fanatics the Red Arrows are a nuisance
> who cause large parts of the country to be blocked
> off by Notam on a regular basis.
>
>
> At 08:54 04 October 2007, Phil Collin wrote:
>>Ian wrote:
>>> On 3 Oct, 08:47, Cats wrote:
>>>
>>>> This did the rounds somewhere else and turns out to
>>>>be a hoax, as
>>>> sadly to quite a lot of those on-line petitions.
>>>
>>> I can't see why a display by military jets would be
>>>appropriate for
>>> the Olympics anyway. We might as well have a Red-Square-parade-st
>>>>yle
>>> phalanx of missile launcers in the opening ceremony
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>>
>>Did you think that through before you hit the send
>>button?
>>The Red Arrows are British Ambassadors recognised the
>>world round as a
>>demonstration of excellence in synchro flying. I think
>>all the key words
>>needed are in that sentence...
>>
>
>

[Phil Collin]

I see your bitch switch is set to full as usual

Ann O'Rack wrote:
> Did you look at the title of the group before pressing
> the send button?
>
> For glider pilots who aren't Sun readers, plane spotters
> or military fanatics the Red Arrows are a nuisance
> who cause large parts of the country to be blocked
> off by Notam on a regular basis.
>
>
> At 08:54 04 October 2007, Phil Collin wrote:
>> Ian wrote:
>>> On 3 Oct, 08:47, Cats wrote:
>>>
>>>> This did the rounds somewhere else and turns out to
>>>> be a hoax, as
>>>> sadly to quite a lot of those on-line petitions.
>>> I can't see why a display by military jets would be
>>> appropriate for
>>> the Olympics anyway. We might as well have a Red-Square-parade-st
>>>> yle
>>> phalanx of missile launcers in the opening ceremony
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>>
>> Did you think that through before you hit the send
>> button?
>> The Red Arrows are British Ambassadors recognised the
>> world round as a
>> demonstration of excellence in synchro flying. I think
>> all the key words
>> needed are in that sentence...
>>
>
>

[J a c k[_2_]]

Ann O'Rack wrote:

> Did you look at the title of the group before pressing
> the send button?
>
> For glider pilots who aren't Sun readers, plane spotters
> or military fanatics the Red Arrows are a nuisance
> who cause large parts of the country to be blocked
> off by Notam on a regular basis.


Ann,

You forgot: taxes to support them; air- and noise-pollution from those
nasty engines; crowded roads to and from the demonstrations; anxiety
caused to the local fauna; and the number one reason--those Arrow dudes
are way cooler than you could ever be, say all the local girls.


Jack

[Ann O'Rack[_2_]]

At 13:24 04 October 2007, Phil Collin wrote:
>I see your bitch switch is set to full as usual
>

Did you think that through before you hit the send
button? :-)



>Ann O'Rack wrote:
>> Did you look at the title of the group before pressing
>> the send button?
>>
>> For glider pilots who aren't Sun readers, plane spotters
>> or military fanatics the Red Arrows are a nuisance
>> who cause large parts of the country to be blocked
>> off by Notam on a regular basis.
>>
>>
>> At 08:54 04 October 2007, Phil Collin wrote:
>>> Ian wrote:
>>>> On 3 Oct, 08:47, Cats wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This did the rounds somewhere else and turns out to
>>>>> be a hoax, as
>>>>> sadly to quite a lot of those on-line petitions.
>>>> I can't see why a display by military jets would be
>>>> appropriate for
>>>> the Olympics anyway. We might as well have a Red-Square-parade-st
>>>>>
>>>>> yle
>>>> phalanx of missile launcers in the opening ceremony
>>>>
>>>> Ian
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Did you think that through before you hit the send
>>> button?
>>> The Red Arrows are British Ambassadors recognised
>>>the
>>> world round as a
>>> demonstration of excellence in synchro flying. I think
>>> all the key words
>>> needed are in that sentence...
>>>
>>
>>
>

[Ann O'Rack[_2_]]

At 13:24 04 October 2007, Phil Collin wrote:
>I see your bitch switch is set to full as usual
>

Did you think that through before you hit the send
button? :-)



>Ann O'Rack wrote:
>> Did you look at the title of the group before pressing
>> the send button?
>>
>> For glider pilots who aren't Sun readers, plane spotters
>> or military fanatics the Red Arrows are a nuisance
>> who cause large parts of the country to be blocked
>> off by Notam on a regular basis.
>>
>>
>> At 08:54 04 October 2007, Phil Collin wrote:
>>> Ian wrote:
>>>> On 3 Oct, 08:47, Cats wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This did the rounds somewhere else and turns out to
>>>>> be a hoax, as
>>>>> sadly to quite a lot of those on-line petitions.
>>>> I can't see why a display by military jets would be
>>>> appropriate for
>>>> the Olympics anyway. We might as well have a Red-Square-parade-st
>>>>>
>>>>> yle
>>>> phalanx of missile launcers in the opening ceremony
>>>>
>>>> Ian
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Did you think that through before you hit the send
>>> button?
>>> The Red Arrows are British Ambassadors recognised
>>>the
>>> world round as a
>>> demonstration of excellence in synchro flying. I think
>>> all the key words
>>> needed are in that sentence...
>>>
>>
>>
>

[Ann O'Rack[_2_]]

At 13:24 04 October 2007, Phil Collin wrote:
>I see your bitch switch is set to full as usual
>

Did you think that through before you hit the send
button? :-)



>Ann O'Rack wrote:
>> Did you look at the title of the group before pressing
>> the send button?
>>
>> For glider pilots who aren't Sun readers, plane spotters
>> or military fanatics the Red Arrows are a nuisance
>> who cause large parts of the country to be blocked
>> off by Notam on a regular basis.
>>
>>
>> At 08:54 04 October 2007, Phil Collin wrote:
>>> Ian wrote:
>>>> On 3 Oct, 08:47, Cats wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This did the rounds somewhere else and turns out to
>>>>> be a hoax, as
>>>>> sadly to quite a lot of those on-line petitions.
>>>> I can't see why a display by military jets would be
>>>> appropriate for
>>>> the Olympics anyway. We might as well have a Red-Square-parade-st
>>>>>
>>>>> yle
>>>> phalanx of missile launcers in the opening ceremony
>>>>
>>>> Ian
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Did you think that through before you hit the send
>>> button?
>>> The Red Arrows are British Ambassadors recognised
>>>the
>>> world round as a
>>> demonstration of excellence in synchro flying. I think
>>> all the key words
>>> needed are in that sentence...
>>>
>>
>>
>

[Jack[_4_]]

On Oct 4, 9:40 am, Ann O'Rack > wrote:
> At 13:24 04 October 2007, Phil Collin wrote:
>
> >I see your bitch switch is set to full as usual
>
> Did you think that through before you hit the send
> button? :-)
>
>
>
> >Ann O'Rack wrote:
> >> Did you look at the title of the group before pressing
> >> the send button?
>

Somehow, I can't help but think he DID think...

The other Jack