VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Wed, Jan 07 2004, 0:55:28 [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 13/06/04 14:07:19
Author: John Cooper
Subject: Re: Official correspondence from the RAF
In reply to: Adrian Balch 's message, "Re: Official correspondence from the RAF" on 12/06/04 22:28:45

I guess I should have posted my reply and the reply from the museum at Cosford in return, here it is!

Hi Clare

Thank you for your response and taking the time out for the request to be aired. I was not aware that we as young airmen worked in such a dangerous environment thus " There are also significant health and safety hazards in some older aircraft, including the radiation from aging luminous-painted markings, which in an enlightened and increasingly litigious age impede us". I therefore fully understand the reasoning for this, fortunately our small group were allowed access to TG528 at the Imperial War Museum Duxford, less than three years ago so we were able to refresh the events of March 1st 1960 at first hand, so all is not lost.

My reputation obviously goes before me as I don't recall mentioning my website to you in my original correspondence but since you have viewed it perhaps I can understand more fully why access was denied.

Thank you again for your attention

John Cooper


I can assure you that I have no link with any formal RAF authority that is involved in a cover up regarding TG679 (579) - it was purely my interest in your experience that lead me to check for references on ditched Hastings. Henry Hall's decision would have been the same no matter who you were or what your background. I believe they have refused requests from retired Air Marshals before now, for the same reasons outlined below. It does seem a harsh policy that denies access now to people who may have spent many hours flying that aircraft in the past for example due to Health and Safety legislation we are unable to allow access to the Liberator. Not even a volunteer here who served as a pilot in them during WW2 is allowed access. Please be assured it is simply Museum policy.

Sincerely,
Clare

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> Re: Official correspondence from the RAF -- Politically Correct, 16/06/04 10:59:17



What a load of BOLLOX!


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> Re: Official correspondence from the RAF -- Otto Bilder, 21/07/04 8:46:57

We have open our Hastings

http://www.alliiertenmuseum.de/en/4_3.php?year=2004&activity_id=66


[ Edit | View ]


[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT+0
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.