Jump to content

RAF confirms Saudi pilots train at Ronaldsway Airport


gettafa
 Share

Recommended Posts

Selling them the aircraft as a package deal along with training may have some bearing on the issue?

The MOD has been doing this for many decades now and I recall HMG selling the Saudis Lightning fighters ages ago and then I think Tornadoes and then the Hawk trainer and training time on all of them.

The MOD has long had a big presence in Saudi as part of these package deals. Down on my manor many Marconi staff were in the past seconded to Saudi. Likewise many RAF personnel have for years left the RAF and been taken up by the Saudi government as engineers, instructors, etc.

Harlow (new town) in Essex has a Raytheon industries plant where they make the systems for the bombs dropped by Saudi under SAS direction.

As regards Ronaldsway well the UK is the sovereign power and anything else is under their delegation. You are not independent.

The UK can fly in and over anytime and that goes for land and sea forces also

I can recall some years ago a military exercise to do with Libya where Hercules transports landed at Jurby. There were French paratroops skulking around Kirk Michael. Nothing got reported officially.

The RAF Tornado force used to use Ronaldsway as a sort of target for notional bombs and photography. I lived in Laxey and the Tornadoes would fly low down the valley and out over Laxey harbour. The birds would sense it and take off long before the jets arrived. At Ronaldsway and at Laxey the planes were so low you could almost reach out and touch the pilots.

The UK owns you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget the NATO bombing range targets off Jurby too. Used to sit on the cliffs there and watch sometimes. Sometimes they used to fly up the coast below the level of the sand cliffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

Don't forget the NATO bombing range targets off Jurby too. Used to sit on the cliffs there and watch sometimes. Sometimes they used to fly up the coast below the level of the sand cliffs.

Thats stopped tough hasn't it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MrPB said:

Its a shame we don’t have Eddie Lowery in there now to have another good rant about ragheads

He actually referred to having a towel* on his head.

The (Isle of Man version of)  Hansard managed to have the reference dropped, but it was picked up by Manxforums on the day with a prediction that good ol' Manx Hansard would drop Eddie's speech. And of course it did.

Which was denied by all and sundry. "Prove it" they said, with a nod and a wink to Manx Radio (who would have their own recording) to stfu. 

But Eddie's speech was referenced by a later speaker. And so the edited/censored Hansard had to revert to . . . the truth. 

 

*Rog corrected the matter. It is not a towel, but a little sheet. And they are not towel heads, they are little sheet heads.

 

35 minutes ago, finlo said:

Though, only about 30 years ago!

At lest 40 I would think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Chris C said:

So the UK threaten to out the beneficial fat cat owners of companies based here purely to avoid paying tax and within hours the Treasury Minister and Chief Minister publicly declare a constitutional emergency.

However the UK use our airport to train foreign pilots to kill thousands of innocent civilians and the Chief Minister refuses to publicly comment and privately says there's nothing we can do because of our constitutional relationship with the UK.

 

I have no idea what exactly our constitutional relationship with the UK is exactly, but I think we could do with having a look at its priorities fairly handy!

Well the constitutional relationship is officially kept deliberately vague. However, you can work it out by watching it in action over many years. It is as follows: The UK tells us how it's going to be and we say righto.

Now, this obviously explains the stance over the Saudi pilot training. You have to be a little more creative to grasp how it also explains the constitutional crisis over beneficial ownership, but it does so nonetheless.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

Don't forget the NATO bombing range targets off Jurby too. Used to sit on the cliffs there and watch sometimes. Sometimes they used to fly up the coast below the level of the sand cliffs.

Now that would have been low..Calm down fella...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

Actually only about 25 (finishing in 1993) according to Wiki.

Thanks Roger. I'm happy to accept that. 

(Not doubting, but would point out that Wiki is little more accurate than a man down the pub with an internet connection and a wiki account, or indeed Manx Forums.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, The Old Git said:

It’s the Crown actually. 

She also just happens to own the U.K.

The Crown does not mean the Queen personally it means that nebulous concept known as the State. It is what you make it mean or want it to mean when the occasion arises. The Queen personifies the Head of State and thus we see prosecutions as R or Regina v etc... or other way round but it is not personal. The overall constitutional set up is the Crown..The Queen speaks for it on behalf of the collective concept hence the Royal WE...there was once a time when the Monarch was known regarding the IOM as Lord Proprietor later cut down to Lord of Mann but once again the Lord of Mann did not own the territory so much as the Ceremonials. Same applies to the UK counties which are referred to as Ceremonial counties. The Queen has private property like Sandringham and Balmoral etc but the benefits of the actual Crown Estate were surrendered to Parliament as it were about 1760 and to this day the Royals receive a Sovereign grant out of the proceeds but the main proceeds go to the Treasury.. The Queen could not sell a piece of the IOM unless it was owned privately. It is all done in her Name that is all....In other words a legal fiction and it is what they say in Cabinet in Number 10 that counts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...