PC MOD Ban Pin-Ups On RAF Jets - In Case They Offend Women

I can still see room for protest art. Imagine the image of a fully clothed person holding a sign that says, "the art work on this airplane does not intend to offend anyone."

two words my friend, two words

Daily Mail.

Enough said.

The most crazy, hard right, traditional conservative paper in the United Kingdom.

Plus, two of their editors are hardline feminists.

[edit on 10-6-2007 by infinite]

Originally posted by Odium
When a war is just - you don't need morale to be put into soldiers. When a war is for the "right cause" than you don't need morale to be put into soldiers. If they can't take pride in what they are doing for their country - surely what they are doing is at fault?

What would you know about morale in the military? Speaking from experience, Odium?

Morale is just as much of an issue during peace time as it is during war. It really sucks going from country to country on back to back deployments, exercises, etc... Sometimes it's nice to wind down. We used to play hours and hours of spades and dominos...I remeber one time on ship me and a few other Marines played for 12 hours straight

Is that a waste of taxpayer dollars, Odium?

Anyways back to the issue. I don't see anything wrong with airplane art, It's more tradition than anything and really boosts morale. It's the small things that all add up, imo.




[edit on 10/6/2007 by SportyMB]

Ok, Shots -------- we'll pretend then that you didn't swiftly edit out your initial screaming response (in response to my question) in approx. Sz. 24 Font, in BOLD, to 'READ THE ARTICLE !' etc. etc.

And maybe we should pretend to retranslate your OP too? The one below.
The one which specifies females in (and I quote) 'killer heels and little else'.

It doesn't appeare to contain any concerns about 'simple names' and 'cartoons'.

Originally posted by shots

PC MOD Ban Pin-Ups On RAF Jets - In Case They Offend Women

www.dailym ail.co.uk

In killer heels and little else, they have a definite deadly charm.

But the risque images of women that have decorated warplanes since the First World War have been scrubbed out.

The Ministry of Defence has decreed they could offend the RAF's female personnel.

Officials admitted they had no record of any complaints from the 5,400 women in the RAF

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.foxnews.com

Then there's your [second] post.

Again, it doesn't appear to contain any concerns regarding prohibition on 'simple names and cartoons'.

originally posted by Shots

Have the members of the MOD in the UK gone Bonkers? This is akin to the abolitionist movement of the early 20th century. One would think they would have far more important matters to attend too in life then a few pin ups painted on Aircraft.

What is next; do we ban all pictures of statues that have bare breasts etc., do we demand that all famous statues in churches that are nude be removed?

Cheque for yourself the issues to which you've referred:

'Bare breasts' -- 'Nude statues in churches' -- 'Risque images of women' --- and (images of females) ' In killer heels and little else' .

Not a word there about you objecting to the removal of the 'simple names' and 'cartoons' behind which you took refuge, mid-stream.

My initial post addressed your stated concerns/outrage/objections, i.e., removal of 'risque images of women' and prevention by MoD of similar being permitted to adorn aircraft in the future (if the OP is to be accepted as factual).

Therefore, my initial post stands. It was simple:

Originally posted by Dock6
Does anyone even remotely suspect it might be time for males to lift their brains out of their jocks ?

My question here is if this is an issue of boosting moral, why is it that women half clad looking glam are used? Isn't there anything else that can be used?

And as for the editors of the DM that are full on feminists... who labelled them as that? Did they come out and say that or has a man labelled them as feminists because they are in a position of authority?

The article is a bit misleading. They DON'T use half clad women anymore. They did that in WWII and for a little while afterwards. They're much stricter about it now than they were back then. Now it has to be non-offensive, and it's usually something much more innocent. They really cracked down on it since they started allowing it again.

In the couple of days since this article first went up I have googled for other sources. The only ones I have found are on the Daily Mail, Fox (originally linked to) various message boards like this one, the British Army Rumour service and Exposing Islam, notable by their absence are the BBC, CNN, The Independant, hell, even the Daily Mirror!!!

As I suspected, the story was no more than paranoia-inducing BS such as the reactionary rag called the Daily Mail specialises in.

[edit on 11-6-2007 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos


As I suspected, the story was no more than paranoia-inducing BS such as the reactionary rag called the Daily Mail specialises in.

Just because other media sources do not carry a story does not mean they are not true. Hell if we all thought like you do; many would scream the New York Times is all bunk. Or how about those Reuters photos that many claimed where real yet proven to be fakes. All media sources have a bias of one sort or another. You dislike the DM, I hate the times both are less then creditable at times yet that does not mean everything they print is false.

Here is another story being carried by the DM is it too false?

here is a hint the answer is no the very same was mentioned last year

Here



[edit on 6/11/2007 by shots]

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
I can still see room for protest art. Imagine the image of a fully clothed person holding a sign that says, "the art work on this airplane does not intend to offend anyone."

My idea of protest art included pictures of a donkey facing backwards with the words "Kiss My" next to it.

Also, billiard balls set up in a triangle ready to start a game of pool with the words "Nice Rack!"

A rooster, a bull, various barnyard animals provide great fodder for insinuation.

Pictures of various birds with names that match the slang for female anatomy.

The list is endless.

Just because other media sources do not carry a story does not mean they are not true.

Or, if only one media source carries a story it is quite likely they made it up, no?

Even on those very few sites that are carrying it, it is a word for word reproduction of the DM piece.

How about my comments on the 'quotes ' that you drew attention to shots? You seem to have glossed over my assertion that they are vague and non specific. Do you have any opinion on the the fact that it was 'an RAF spokesman' rather that a named commander, such as you get with every official statement?

Hell if we all thought like you do; many would scream the New York Times is all bunk

A bit extravagant to claim that you know how I think, isn't it? Unless you are referring to the chemical process.

I am not saying that 'everything' in the paper is rubbish, although like most tabloids a fair percentage of it is. However the DM has a well known agenda that it is always promoting, and this story smacks very much of that agenda, whether it eventually turns out to be true or not. If it is true I would very much expect to see it on the websites of at least ONE reputable news service, and yet it is not.

Regarding the Mail's stance, if I may digress for a moment, my wife and myself were watching a classic old b&w movie from the 1940's a couple of weeks ago and the fine upstanding Scotland Yard detective (as they all were in those old movies) commented about how the Daily Mail would be scaremongering over the case by morning, we both joked that it was a surprise they were known for it even then! Such is the Mails deeply entrenched position.

Or how about those Reuters photos that many claimed where real yet proven to be fakes.

Relevance?? I am not saying something fake is real, I am saying the Mail takes something with a grain of truth in it and magnifies it into something it is not. For example [speculation] they just learn that guidelines have been operating for several years concerning decency in nose art images and they twist it into a story where the good old british tommy is being oppressed as he valiantly fights to defend British values[/speculation]. Now that is an exaggerated illustration, but it is how this paper is known to operate, they are a standing joke. Except to the reactionary middle classes to whos sensibilities they relentlessy targe this sort of tripe at. The sort of people who latch onto any story like this so that they can be outraged by it, with no thought given to whether it is accurate or not.

all media sources have a bias of one sort or another.

Yes they do, it is human nature and every journalist has his own view of a given situation, when you accept this you can then start to question where a particular story is coming from, you get to learn to tell the bullshine from the truth, by and large.

You dislike the DM, I hate the times both are less then creditable at times yet that does not mean everything they print is false.

But I don't. I don't have any 'feeling' one way or the other, they are just another newspaper. I am just pointing oit that there is almost certainly much more (or even much less) to this story than is contained in the Daily Mail piece, there usually is.

Out of curiosity, why would you think that the DM is the only major outlet that carries this story (along with Fox - big hint). A lonely crusade for the truth?

Here is another story being carried by the DM is it too false?

Ha ha! Excellent shots. Thank you for illustrating my point for me!

Here again you see the Mail takes a true story and adds their own p[aranoid scaremongering spin to it. Where are the orders for all these patio heaters? Have all the pubs gone out and bought them? no. The Mail is spouting more of its usual 'what if this happens, aren't you scared?' spin.

[edit on 11-6-2007 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos

You seem to have glossed over my assertion that they are vague and non specific. Do you have any opinion on the the fact that it was 'an RAF spokesman' rather that a named commander, such as you get with every official statement?

I did not gloss over them as you assume. It is very common thee days for a spokesman to talk to the press with out mentioning any names, happens almost daily or at least it seems to.

But now that you brought up the unnamed spokesman how about the remarks made by MP of Davies" They quoted him, doesn't he count?

Davies? I already covered this, but here you are again;

Davies merely commented along the lines of 'Have the MoD nothing better to do?' which reads to me like a response given to a reporter who has just buttonholed him with the story, looking for a quote. He does not acknowledge the truth of the story or even that he himself knows anything about it.

Think about it, a reporter shouts across at you for your opinion on the MoD banning pin ups as nose art. Even if he had never heard of this at all the response still works, therefore it is inconclusive and certainly not proof that the claim is true.

It is very common thee days for a spokesman to talk to the press with out mentioning any names, happens almost daily or at least it seems to.

but if you look beneath the surface it always occurs where the story is an unsubstantiated rumour, there is NOTHING to suggest this 'spokesman' isn't just an erk with an axe to grind.

Furthermore the notion that these quotes in any way verify the story is entirely your own, look at what was actually said, then ask yourself, what question was asked? You ought to know how reporters work and about quoting out of context.

Let me explain, if the the RAF spokesman was asked

'do you think images of naked women on planes is offensive?'

he might reply "If you have women flying aircraft and working on them as engineers then these kinds of pictures are inappropriate," he said."

Which is in fact what was said. However does that response still work if the question is " Has the MoD banned pin ups on planes?" No, not really.

Where is the quote that says 'this is a ridiculous decision' or 'this decision is entirely justified'. There isn't one. Neither quote directly refers to the banning itself.

Look behind the headlines.

Despite all of the above I have found a reputable source, the Flight International website, however as a caveat, it does directly attribute what it is reporting to the Daily Mail and quotes no other sources for the story.



[edit on 11-6-2007 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos


Think about it, a reporter shouts across at you for your opinion on the MoD banning pin ups as nose art. Even if he had never heard of this at all the response still works, therefore it is inconclusive and certainly not proof that the claim is true.

Tsk Tsk you are assuming facts not in evidence. Can you prove the reporter shouted at Davies?

I can see your point where you would like to see more sources but at times that is not always possible. One small town paper might report a shooting/killing and it gets no mention anywhere else happens all the time,.

I also noted you did not respond to my question about the heaters on the patios in pubs being true that was published in the DM, is that perhaps because you know in that case it was true???


Just trying to make a point here to show that even the 'DM can and is right at times is all

I also noted you did not respond to my question about the heaters on the patios

But I did respond

Tsk Tsk you are assuming facts not in evidence. Can you prove the reporter shouted at Davies?

I am putting toy you a hypothetical scenario that is designed to illustrate that there is no way of knowing in what context the quote was given, I am not assuming anything, you, however, assumed it to be supportive of the Mail's claim, I was just showing you how it is not necessarily the case.

Just trying to make a point here to show that even the 'DM can and is right at times is all

Of course they can, I never claimed that the story was an out and out lie, only that the Mail has a particular sort of spin that it applies to certain stories, if I can refer you back to my original post in the thread;


"With their track record I expect that there will have been one incident where something was overpainted for a very specific reason but the Daily Mail sniffed a story and ran with it.
"

See

Oh how I've grown to hate those that are PC.

So what?

If there is a female fighter pilot let her put hunky dude all hulked out on hers...

I'd rather see, "if you can read this, you're about to die."

Originally posted by waynos



I am putting toy you a hypothetical scenario that is designed to illustrate that there is no way of knowing in what context the quote was given, I am not assuming anything, you, however, assumed it to be supportive of the Mail's claim, I was just showing you how it is not necessarily the case.

Well you can take your hypothetical bs and stuff it here is more on the issue and guess what no mention of your hated Daily Mail

Care to eat some crow

Say what you are still hungry no problemo eat some more Now you are ghoing to have to work on that link I am not about to give a link that contains nudity, but trust me it is there in todays issue. Hope you enjoy your meal


Kind of looks like the Daily Mail was right to



[edit on 6/11/2007 by shots]

I don't know why you are crowing like that shots, this is still hardly a definitive source. The Sun???

What I am after, if you were intelligent enough to pick it up, is not more retreads of the same story, but an actual *source*

Where has the decree come from? Is it the Defence Minister, a local commander, or someone in between? Still no word on any of that is there.

Do you have difficulty with English? How many times do I have to say that I believe there is truth in it, but it is not fully represented in those stories;

The story you posted was that the MoD was responsible. Can you show this to be case? This is the spin element.

For instance if this is an official decree then your original post was entirely valid, but we still don't know if that is the case or not, it is still just tabloid journalism for the moment.

I notice you descended into schoolboy gloating when you thought you had 'won'

Well you can take your hypothetical bs and stuff it

Well, I guess that'll teach me not to waste my time trying to have a reasoned debate with you, I try to explain where I'm coming from in an illustrative manner and this is the idiotic response it gets. Well shots, no more, whichever way the story unfolds. Maybe you could grow up a bit if you want to debate with adults?

[edit on 11-6-2007 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos
Maybe you could grow up a bit if you want to debate with adults?

Now that is a good one. Obviously you do not know how old I am do you? More they likely three times your age if not possibly 4 and you are telling me to grow up???? Yeah that is a good one.


You now have three sources that confirm the same story and just because you do not like them does not mean they are all lying. Sad you cannot stand up like a grown person and abmit you are wrong :shk:

[edit on 6/11/2007 by shots]

Obviously you do not know how old I am do you? More they likely three times your age if not possibly 4

What? You're 168? Wow, congratulations. However if you write like a 12 year old ("eat some crow"??? Oh please!) forgive me for making that wrong assumption.

You now have three sources that confirm the same story and just because you do not like them.........

Now.... this is where trying to converse with your good self is becoming a pain in the arse,

note

*I did not say the story was false, I merely advised caution based on the track record of that source* go on, have a look if you don't believe me

*I have said that there is most likely some truth in it, BUT we are not getting the whole story (go on, check!) and THIS IS STILL THE CASE! When I tried to explain *how* the report was inconclusive (not a lie!) I got the facile response I quoted in my previous post and THIS is why I am withdrawing from this thread, because you are simply ignoring the point of view I am putting across by repeatedly going "I'm right you're wrong blah blah" instead of actually answering the points, that is not debate.

For the record, It clearly looks like someone in the MoD/RAF is an over zealous PC warrior, but the question I was raising was how far up the tree are they? Govt, imposing it from on high upon the entire service, or merely a commander in the field imposing this on a single unit? This is where the Mail might be building the story up into more than it really is. This seems to have completely passed you by as you try to prove to me that the Daily Mail is a wondrous organ of truth.

Thats all, jesus wept, you would think you have shares in the Daily Mail the way you are going on.

Originally posted by waynos

For the record, It clearly looks like someone in the MoD/RAF is an over zealous PC warrior, but the question I was raising was how far up the tree are they?

Oh no the question has always been is the reported story true, you questioned the source remember or is your memory that short? But then given your stance from the start I guess one has to expect that kind of twist from your side.

But thanks for now admitting that the upper ranks of the
RAF are overzealous, I will take that as a concession thanks