PDA

View Full Version : OT- PC brigade ban pin-ups on RAF jets



drose01
06-06-2007, 06:54 AM
PC brigade ban pin-ups on RAF jets - in case they offend women and Muslims (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=460054)

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.

But commanders are erring firmly on the side of caution and "nose art", as it is known, has been consigned to the history books.

Harrier jump jet bombers currently launching daily airstrikes against the Taliban in southern Afghanistan have been scrubbed clean to comply with the orders.

Critics said the MoD should be focusing on more important issues - such as the quality and quantity of equipment available to British forces sent off to war.

Nose art first appeared on warplanes during the First World War and enjoyed a golden age during the Second World War when thousands of American fighters and bombers were decorated with pictures of glamorous women.

Military commanders tolerated the practice as a morale booster.

Famous examples include the Memphis Belle, a U.S. Army Air Force B-17 bomber that was the subject of a 1990 Hollywood movie.

Many RAF units picked up the practice from the Americans.

During the Second World War it was common to see images of movie stars including Rita Hayworth and Jane Russell on British bombers heading for Germany.

Nose art enjoyed another surge in popularity during the 1991 and 2003 Gulf Wars, when risque images appeared on many British warplanes.

The decision to ban the images followed a visit by glamour models to southern Afghanistan before Christmas. During the trip they signed paintings of themselves on RAF aircraft.

Commanders decided the images were sexist and insisted there was no place for them in the modern armed forces.

There was also concern that they could cause offence in a muslim country where until 2001 all women were forced to wear the head-to-toe burkha in public.

Glamour model Lucy Pinder, 23, who visited the RAF detachment at Kandahar last November and signed a painting of herself on a Harrier jet, said such images were only "harmless fun".

"It's very flattering and it's nice that they get to do something that takes their minds off things for a while," she said from her home in Winchester, Hampshire.

Conservative MP Phillip Davies said: "Has the MoD really got nothing better to worry about at a time when there are serious concerns over equipment and resources available to our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan?"

An RAF spokesman defended the decision to remove images which he said "cut across" the service's culture of equal opportunities.

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

"That's why it's crossed the line and that's why they have been removed."

drose01
06-06-2007, 06:54 AM
PC brigade ban pin-ups on RAF jets - in case they offend women and Muslims (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=460054)

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.

But commanders are erring firmly on the side of caution and "nose art", as it is known, has been consigned to the history books.

Harrier jump jet bombers currently launching daily airstrikes against the Taliban in southern Afghanistan have been scrubbed clean to comply with the orders.

Critics said the MoD should be focusing on more important issues - such as the quality and quantity of equipment available to British forces sent off to war.

Nose art first appeared on warplanes during the First World War and enjoyed a golden age during the Second World War when thousands of American fighters and bombers were decorated with pictures of glamorous women.

Military commanders tolerated the practice as a morale booster.

Famous examples include the Memphis Belle, a U.S. Army Air Force B-17 bomber that was the subject of a 1990 Hollywood movie.

Many RAF units picked up the practice from the Americans.

During the Second World War it was common to see images of movie stars including Rita Hayworth and Jane Russell on British bombers heading for Germany.

Nose art enjoyed another surge in popularity during the 1991 and 2003 Gulf Wars, when risque images appeared on many British warplanes.

The decision to ban the images followed a visit by glamour models to southern Afghanistan before Christmas. During the trip they signed paintings of themselves on RAF aircraft.

Commanders decided the images were sexist and insisted there was no place for them in the modern armed forces.

There was also concern that they could cause offence in a muslim country where until 2001 all women were forced to wear the head-to-toe burkha in public.

Glamour model Lucy Pinder, 23, who visited the RAF detachment at Kandahar last November and signed a painting of herself on a Harrier jet, said such images were only "harmless fun".

"It's very flattering and it's nice that they get to do something that takes their minds off things for a while," she said from her home in Winchester, Hampshire.

Conservative MP Phillip Davies said: "Has the MoD really got nothing better to worry about at a time when there are serious concerns over equipment and resources available to our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan?"

An RAF spokesman defended the decision to remove images which he said "cut across" the service's culture of equal opportunities.

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

"That's why it's crossed the line and that's why they have been removed."

Ernst_Rohr
06-06-2007, 07:04 AM
Nothing like fighting for our freedoms only to have some back office twit someplace give them away in the name of political correctness.

God save us all from idiots.....

Daiichidoku
06-06-2007, 07:04 AM
need a female (or gay male) pilot to REALLY mess things up by having david hasselhoff or erik estrada nose art

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

pacificaces
06-06-2007, 07:22 AM
Maybe the MOD should check their own websites

Ahem one for the ladies from their site

http://www.raf.mod.uk/gulf/h_images/buster.jpg

DuxCorvan
06-06-2007, 08:17 AM
He he under the Memphis Belle photograph, they call it a "RAF plane". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

LEBillfish
06-06-2007, 08:47 AM
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/06_01/marshL0506_468x327.jpg
"Model Michelle Marsh signing a 'regulation' silhouetted image of herself on a Harrier plane during her Afghanistan trip"

(how it should be http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)



Well, that's just sad though I'm a little surprised the British were doing it as I never thought they did from WWI through today.

Contrary to most women, such things (attention to the gender as a whole) I always viewed as a good thing and a mark of admiration and respect. No matter the shape or size, we're lucky in that if we're approachable, and not so uptight ALL women get good attention from men. However, the norm is for most females to not encourage it yet go out of their way to state "on my terms and to do so will cut off ALL other access to all others so i'm the only option left".

Pretty sad really, most attention well meaning/admiring though sometimes clumsy, and only a small percentage rude, deliberately meant to offend or degrade. So for most women it's about cutting out the competition, and the guys that go along with it simply kissing those females backsides hoping to gain favor......as it's the rare person (though some) who really cares for honest reasons.

Lastly, as much as you hear us say we want things on equal terms, I believe that's not the case as it's funny how the second things are "equal" the gals either get bored or shift it to unfair for men..........In the end if a gal uses her head she might discover she had the power before, and as pin-ups show men are more then happy to give it to them.

Go go P.C. G.B.......milk toast.

SeaFireLIV
06-06-2007, 08:53 AM
The world continues on its mission to become more sterile and meaningless.

DuxCorvan
06-06-2007, 09:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
The world continues on its mission to become more sterile and meaningless. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed. There's a Spanish folk song that says:

"Now everything I like is a sin, it is forbidden, or fattens me up."

WWSensei
06-06-2007, 09:33 AM
"Political Correctness" -- Orwellian term for censorship while having pretentious posing of caring for your fellow man. Such posing can be dangerous as one runs the risk of dislocating a shoulder while patting oneself on the back or getting your head stuck as you kiss your own ***.

LStarosta
06-06-2007, 09:35 AM
One of my favorite halfassed displays of PC was attending a briefing from an unnamed female 1Lt who set the tone for her feminofascist rant by starting her presentation with the words "Airwomen and Airmen".

Ernst_Rohr
06-06-2007, 09:55 AM
Left to their own devices, the PC nutters are nothing more than a modern day of the NKVD, they just dont shoot people. They prefer lawyers and character assassination instead.

It never ceases to amaze me what kind of trivial inane **** they pick to get all twisted up about.

Offending muslims? Hell, the crazies are offended by EVERYTHING we do, screw nose art!

Offending female members of the service? 5000+ members in the RAF, and no complaints, yet they pull it anyway.

I for one think we should ship all the PC folks down to the Middle East. Let them show the rest of us poor unsophisticated triggerhappy neanderthals how their enlightened ways can fix everything overnight. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

bazzaah2
06-06-2007, 09:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ernst_Rohr:
Left to their own devices, the PC nutters are nothing more than a modern day of the NKVD, they just dont shoot people. They prefer lawyers and character assassination instead.

It never ceases to amaze me what kind of trivial inane **** they pick to get all twisted up about.

Offending muslims? Hell, the crazies are offended by EVERYTHING we do, screw nose art!

Offending female members of the service? 5000+ members in the RAF, and no complaints, yet they pull it anyway.

I for one think we should ship all the PC folks down to the Middle East. Let them show the rest of us poor unsophisticated triggerhappy neanderthals how their enlightened ways can fix everything overnight. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Airmail109
06-06-2007, 09:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/06_01/marshL0506_468x327.jpg
"Model Michelle Marsh signing a 'regulation' silhouetted image of herself on a Harrier plane during her Afghanistan trip"

(how it should be http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)



Well, that's just sad though I'm a little surprised the British were doing it as I never thought they did from WWI through today.

Contrary to most women, such things (attention to the gender as a whole) I always viewed as a good thing and a mark of admiration and respect. No matter the shape or size, we're lucky in that if we're approachable, and not so uptight ALL women get good attention from men. However, the norm is for most females to not encourage it yet go out of their way to state "on my terms and to do so will cut off ALL other access to all others so i'm the only option left".

Pretty sad really, most attention well meaning/admiring though sometimes clumsy, and only a small percentage rude, deliberately meant to offend or degrade. So for most women it's about cutting out the competition, and the guys that go along with it simply kissing those females backsides hoping to gain favor......as it's the rare person (though some) who really cares for honest reasons.

Lastly, as much as you hear us say we want things on equal terms, I believe that's not the case as it's funny how the second things are "equal" the gals either get bored or shift it to unfair for men..........In the end if a gal uses her head she might discover she had the power before, and as pin-ups show men are more then happy to give it to them.

Go go P.C. G.B.......milk toast. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OMG your the most amazing woman I have ever met in my life.

You give me hope

XyZspineZyX
06-06-2007, 10:09 AM
Being property of the Crown and all, aren't there very strict regulations on defacing these aircraft, in general?

T_O_A_D
06-06-2007, 10:12 AM
Stupid pencil pushing geek, can't get layed probably, so he has to rain on everyones parade. Worse of all, our fighting men's, jeeze just let them be. If it weren't for them, this twit would even have the right to try and take away thiers.

Let me at him, I sit on his chest and pull on his ears and stuff.

LStarosta
06-06-2007, 10:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by T_O_A_D:
Stupid pencil pushing geek, can't get layed probably, so he has to rain on everyones parade. Worse of all, our fighting men's, jeeze just let them be. If it weren't for them, this twit would even have the right to try and take away thiers.

Let me at him, I sit on his chest and pull on his ears and stuff. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shoe clerks is what they're called.

SeaNorris
06-06-2007, 10:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB462cid:
Being property of the Crown and all, aren't there very strict regulations on defacing these aircraft, in general? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's hardly defacing them though is it, this goes way back to WW2 when they had lots of nose art on the Lancasters and such, how can if offend anybody is beyond me, but then again, we live in a country where our own flag is considered offensive/racist.

luftluuver
06-06-2007, 10:18 AM
Just some ugle hags wishing they had the looks of the 'nose art'.

MEGILE
06-06-2007, 10:33 AM
http://www.starstore.com/acatalog/Michelle_Marsh_L.jpg


One of the ladies in question http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-06-2007, 10:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaNorris:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB462cid:
Being property of the Crown and all, aren't there very strict regulations on defacing these aircraft, in general? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's hardly defacing them though is it, this goes way back to WW2 when they had lots of nose art on the Lancasters and such, how can if offend anybody is beyond me, but then again, we live in a country where our own flag is considered offensive/racist. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually no, it was considered defacing King's Property in WWII, there were regulations against it, although the rules were loosened a bit over time

Bo_Nidle
06-06-2007, 10:44 AM
I cannot help but reminded of a line from "Apocalypse Now" when Col Kurtz (Marlon Brando) is reflecting on the ludicrous double standards of war, the military hierarchy and society in general:

"We train our young men to drop fire on people! But their commanders won't let them write the word "F**K" on their airplanes because its OBSCENE!?!!"

The war in Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan, reminds me more and more of the tragic insanity of that South East Asian conflict every day.

Just who are these creepy, faceless people in the shadows pushing us ever further into an Orwellian nightmare each day? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

marc_hawkins
06-06-2007, 10:56 AM
How does that apolcalypse now quote go again?

'We train young men to drop fire on people. But their commanders won't allow them to draw nude girlie's on their airplanes because it's obscene!'

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Crash_Moses
06-06-2007, 10:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB462cid:
Being property of the Crown and all, aren't there very strict regulations on defacing these aircraft, in general? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interestingly (probably only to me) Marine PBJ squadrons in the PTO weren't allowed nose art. It was considered defacing governement property. The only pictures I've been able to find of Marine PBJs with noseart were taken after VJ day.

I guess we Jarheads were ahead of the times...or behind the times...or something like that...http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y125/Crash_Moses/243.gif

marc_hawkins
06-06-2007, 11:08 AM
hey you beat me to it Bo-Nidle!

horseback
06-06-2007, 11:37 AM
"Politically correct" has always been seen as an active verb rather than as a passive verb in some quarters.

I prefer the old fashioned original terms, like "brain washing" and "mau-mauing".

cheers

horseback

Jediteo
06-06-2007, 04:53 PM
This PC thing sickens me. These guys fly into combat with the possibility of not coming back, they risk their lives for the service, and they are not able to uphold a aviation tradition?.

This PC thing is going too far IMO.

XyZspineZyX
06-06-2007, 04:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
"Politically correct" has always been seen as an active verb rather than as a passive verb in some quarters.

I prefer the old fashioned original terms, like "brain washing" and "mau-mauing".

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

or perhaps, "Mao-Maoing" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Divine-Wind
06-06-2007, 05:01 PM
As far as I know "Memphis Belle" was part of the United States Army Air Force, which was definitely NOT part of the RAF. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

I love it when the media screws something like that up. Especially since they do it all the time.

Daiichidoku
06-06-2007, 05:29 PM
THE DRAGON AND HIS TAIL B-24J-190-CO 44-40973
43rd Bomb Group

Nose art painted by S/Sgt Sarkis E. Bartigian
43rd Bomb Group
Ie Shima, South Pacific

wartime
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/dragon.jpg

the last liberator scrapped at kingman arizona (davis monathan?)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/Dragon2.jpg

wonder if she will ever make it to UK 50 yrs on, as diamond lil did...?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/dragon4.jpg

Viper2005_
06-06-2007, 05:59 PM
Presumably the tradition of writing on bombs will also be banned on the basis that it's fine to blast some poor blighter to atoms, but that demeaning him or his neighbours in writing on the bomb that does said blasting would somehow infringe upon his human rights...

IMO the trouble is that many policy-makers are so far from reality that they have lost all sense of perspective...

Stew278
06-06-2007, 06:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
IMO the trouble is that many policy-makers are so far from reality that they have lost all sense of perspective... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That and there are too many people that have nothing better to do than whine all day. For the policy-makers it's easier to just give in to the whiners so they go away than it is to tell them to just lighten up. The only problem is once the whiners are appeased, they have to find something new to b*tch about.

Divine-Wind
06-06-2007, 06:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
IMO the trouble is that many policy-makers are so far from reality that they have lost all sense of perspective... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Or they never had a sense of reality to begin with. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

TC_Stele
06-06-2007, 07:56 PM
I'm in accordance with everyone here. Noseart is a symbolic tradition and gives immense meaning to the crew and pilots who use them, no matter what the image is. They take that machine through hell and back, and if it was up to me I'd let them put what they want on it.

leitmotiv
06-06-2007, 08:38 PM
My favorite was a 1945 Lancaster named "Sky Floozy" with a nude on the nose---sky floozy, kills me. 'Course the most outrageous and coarse aero porn (let's call it what it is) was on the snouts of the 20th Air Force's B-29s. Their isolation from civilian females guaranteed the ultimate in salaciousness. Alas, one was flown back to the U.S for retirement. The pilot's girlfriend and mother were awaiting him at the base. They saw what was on the nose as he swung the 29 around to park, and their eyeballs were scorched. Mother wrote blistering letter to her Senator. All hell broke loose, LeMay received a blast from from Arnold in Washington. Bye-bye babes.

Copperhead310th
06-06-2007, 09:05 PM
i wonder if by nose art they aslo includ kill markings, mission markings, Ground crew names, pilot/copilot/backseater names, all of which could be considerd types of nose art.

Example. My Grandfathers B-24C-109 He was Flight Engenier on had 23 litttle Camels pianted on the sides. Each camel represnted a trip across the "Hump" and back.

So would the new rules prohibit those thigns as well or just the pianted laides. lol

WTE_Ibis
06-07-2007, 04:06 AM
Well I concur with all of the above with the exception that:
if you want to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people you could do worse than remove the offensive nose art.
Sure, offend your enemies to hell, but be a little diplomatic with your allies or you wont have them as allies for long. America never seems to learn this lesson.
That isn't a criticism so much as an observation.

cheers.

stansdds
06-07-2007, 04:08 AM
This happened during WW II as well, nothing new here. Seems to me that Allied aircraft stationed in North Africa became decorated with nose art of questionable morality. When the units were scheduled to be moved to Italy, orders were also issued to remove such artwork as the units would now be stationed where civilians would see them. The USAAF policy was very lax in the Pacific, as there were very few civilians on those island airbases. The USN and USMC had strict policies and very, very few planes were adorned with artwork of any kind. Naming planes and displaying kill marks was ok in all of the branches of service, but sometimes even the names were altered due to concerns over what the locals in populated areas might think.

K_Freddie
06-07-2007, 07:22 AM
Now don't go putting sheep on the nose, you'll have the kiwi and ozzy ladies green with jealousy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Cajun76
06-07-2007, 08:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Crash_Moses:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB462cid:
Being property of the Crown and all, aren't there very strict regulations on defacing these aircraft, in general? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interestingly (probably only to me) Marine PBJ squadrons in the PTO weren't allowed nose art. It was considered defacing governement property. The only pictures I've been able to find of Marine PBJs with noseart were taken after VJ day.

I guess we Jarheads were ahead of the times...or behind the times...or something like that...http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y125/Crash_Moses/243.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Marines are ahead of the times...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Camochopper01.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Camochopper02.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Camochopper03.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Camochopper04.jpg

WWSensei
06-07-2007, 08:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Ibis:
America never seems to learn this lesson.
That isn't a criticism so much as an observation. cheers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Umm, did you observe this is being done by the RAF and not America?

Whirlin_merlin
06-07-2007, 08:31 AM
It's political maddness gone correct!

GreyFox5
06-07-2007, 09:32 AM
If your going to server your country and possibly die for your country then put whatever nose art you want on your plane, jeep, whatever.

Nice camo find there Cajun76 Heh should camo my car like that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

waffen-79
06-07-2007, 09:53 AM
nice find Cajun

GIAP.Shura
06-07-2007, 10:12 AM
Lets put some perspective on this. The RAF is a professional armed force which has a mandate as an equal opportunities employer. The aim of an equal opportunities policy is to place the most effective candidate for a given position regardless of ethnic background or gender and to create a workplace which is non discriminatory. Matters of a sexual nature have no place in a professional environment (except for the sex industry of course). That is why we have industrial tribunals and why it is possible to sue an employer (or employee) for sexual harrassment.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Offending female members of the service? 5000+ members in the RAF, and no complaints, yet they pull it anyway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The fact that there has been no complaint so far means little. If you were a female member of the RAF concerned about your career, would you complain about this? I'm sure most female members of the RAF have harder stuff to deal with than this but that doesn't necessarily mean it is not a good move.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Offending muslims? Hell, the crazies are offended by EVERYTHING we do, screw nose art! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except that the armed forces of the US and the UK are currently performing peace keeping operations (remember "Mission accomplished") in two countries which are heavily Islamic. If you want to "win hearts and minds" ignoring cultural sensibilities is a pretty stupid move to make.

There is no "PC brigade" hunting down our freedoms. 99% of the time that we see headlines of the "political correctness gone mad" sort, what we are really talking about are efforts to make our working environments as professional as possible. Personal freedoms are in no way infringed. Members of the RAF are free to paint as many naked women on as much of their private property as they like. The term PC has become a straw man with which to dismiss any proposal without proper argument.

The argument that the MoD should be worrying about other things is nonsense. Does anyone really believe that this move took up some vast amount of man hours which would have otherwise been dedicated to issues of equipment quality?

Despite all that, I am sad to see this tradition closed down. Nose art certainly gives some romance and excitment to aircraft.

Daiichidoku
06-07-2007, 10:13 AM
damn, no scanner...

anyhow, i have pics of F100s in vietnam, at the time noseart was officially banned from USAF

the Hun drivers were crafty tho, they put the noseart inside the air intake http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

MEGILE
06-07-2007, 10:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GIAP.Shura:
Lets put some perspective on this. The RAF is a professional armed force which has a mandate as an equal opportunities employer. The aim of an equal opportunities policy is to place the most effective candidate for a given position regardless of ethnic background or gender and to create a workplace which is non discriminatory. Matters of a sexual nature have no place in a professional environment (except for the sex industry of course). That is why we have industrial tribunals and why it is possible to sue an employer (or employee) for sexual harrassment.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Offending female members of the service? 5000+ members in the RAF, and no complaints, yet they pull it anyway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The fact that there has been no complaint so far means little. If you were a female member of the RAF concerned about your career, would you complain about this? I'm sure most female members of the RAF have harder stuff to deal with than this but that doesn't necessarily mean it is not a good move.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Offending muslims? Hell, the crazies are offended by EVERYTHING we do, screw nose art! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except that the armed forces of the US and the UK are currently performing peace keeping operations (remember "Mission accomplished") in two countries which are heavily Islamic. If you want to "win hearts and minds" ignoring cultural sensibilities is a pretty stupid move to make.

There is no "PC brigade" hunting down our freedoms. 99% of the time that we see headlines of the "political correctness gone mad" sort, what we are really talking about are efforts to make our working environments as professional as possible. Personal freedoms are in no way infringed. Members of the RAF are free to paint as many naked women on as much of their private property as they like. The term PC has become a straw man with which to dismiss any proposal without proper argument.

The argument that the MoD should be worrying about other things is nonsense. Does anyone really believe that this move took up some vast amount of man hours which would have otherwise been dedicated to issues of equipment quality?

Despite all that, I am sad to see this tradition closed down. Nose art certainly gives some romance and excitment to aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good reply, and I agree.

Airmail109
06-07-2007, 10:50 AM
What I find stuffing annoying is that, in the work place....If I pinch a girls arse I'll get done for sexual harassment.....but when a girl does it to me in the workplace and pisses me off....OMFG HES GAY .......

Double Standards

Equal rights means equal rights, and If women want to get into the military they should all pass the exact same physical tests as men and shave their heads. They should be court martialled if they're in a highly responsible position where other lives depend on them, If they get pregnant and waste millions of pounds of tax payers money.

I think women should just live with things like pin up art, I mean cmon. What more do they want, they can *** rape us in divorce court and make up bull**** stories about abuse and get away with abuse themselves.

If I get into some relationship and I find out shes an emotionaly unstable spoiled nutf**k and she flips out and does something like attack me with a glass bottle and I defend myself....you can bet I'd get the freaking blame for it.

Im getting so annoyed with femenists whinging about gentlemen, saying they can stand on their own two feet and not need special treatment. Then on the other hand whinging about jerks who take no notice of them and treat them like they would a guy.

GIAP.Shura
06-07-2007, 11:07 AM
If a girl pinches your arse you can sue her for sexual harrassment. As simple as that.

Aimail, your sentences about getting *** raped in divorce court and defending yourself are just hysterical.

Airmail109
06-07-2007, 11:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GIAP.Shura:
If a girl pinches your arse you can sue her for sexual harrassment. As simple as that.

Aimail, your sentences about getting *** raped in divorce court and defending yourself are just hysterical. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Awesome http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Im a good person though really, tbh I dont really care.

I like the attention

GIAP.Shura
06-07-2007, 11:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GIAP.Shura:
If a girl pinches your arse you can sue her for sexual harrassment. As simple as that.

Aimail, your sentences about getting *** raped in divorce court and defending yourself are just hysterical. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Awesome http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Im a good person though really, tbh I dont really care.

I like the attention </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tart http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

NAFP_supah
06-07-2007, 12:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB462cid:
Being property of the Crown and all, aren't there very strict regulations on defacing these aircraft, in general? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Deface? I'd rather use the word "Enhance" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Ernst_Rohr
06-07-2007, 01:24 PM
The problem is this is another case of "I can force my viewpoint on you weather you like it or not" political correctness.

While I understand the arguments you make Shura, the whole point of the matter is that the freedoms that our various armed service members dont apply to those same service members.

If we are fighting for our freedoms, INCLUDING freedom of speech, then thats what we should stick with.

Freedom of speech DOES NOT mean "freedom of speech so long as no one is offended", it means I can say things EVEN IF it is offensive.

A free society tolerates these things, even when it upsets folks BECAUSE that is the price you pay for a free society. If we have gotten to the point where everything has to be censored, and approved, are restricted because some group might be offended, then we have ceased to live in a free society.

This whole issue is just another example of society being chipped away a piece at a time, until we wind up with everyone running around in identical neutral colored pajamas waving our little pink books of PC wisdom.

Stew278
06-07-2007, 03:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
What I find stuffing annoying is that, in the work place....If I pinch a girls arse I'll get done for sexual harassment.....but when a girl does it to me in the workplace and pisses me off....OMFG HES GAY .......

Double Standards

Equal rights means equal rights, and If women want to get into the military they should all pass the exact same physical tests as men and shave their heads. They should be court martialled if they're in a highly responsible position where other lives depend on them, If they get pregnant and waste millions of pounds of tax payers money.

I think women should just live with things like pin up art, I mean cmon. What more do they want, they can *** rape us in divorce court and make up bull**** stories about abuse and get away with abuse themselves.

If I get into some relationship and I find out shes an emotionaly unstable spoiled nutf**k and she flips out and does something like attack me with a glass bottle and I defend myself....you can bet I'd get the freaking blame for it.

Im getting so annoyed with femenists whinging about gentlemen, saying they can stand on their own two feet and not need special treatment. Then on the other hand whinging about jerks who take no notice of them and treat them like they would a guy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

ploughman
06-07-2007, 03:16 PM
You lot need locking in room with Germaine Greer for 48 hours. That'd make your eyes water. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

GIAP.Shura
06-07-2007, 03:17 PM
So let me get this right, you are saying that there is a problem here because the Armed Forces have regulations which don't apply to the general public?

Really when it comes down to it, the point of the matter is that these airplanes do not belong to the ground crew who work on them or the air crew that fly them or the squadron that they are assigned to. They belong to her Majesty's government and it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence to decide how to employ them in the defence of the realm. They are not tools for the air crew's freedom of expression.

When a member of the armed forces is on duty they are engaged in a professional activity. When we have signed a contract with an employer we do not have the same freedoms as a private citizen for the period that we are engaged in that contract. A lawyer can't call a judge a lard *** in court because he doesn't agree with a ruling. But he can in his spare time if he likes. Being a member of the armed forces is no different. The MoD requires that members wear uniforms and have certain hairstyles. Is this also a denial of their freedom of personal expression? They require them to not disclose certain confidential information. Is this an infringement of freedom of speech?

leitmotiv
06-07-2007, 04:36 PM
When some clever female pilot slaps a drawing of a guy on the side of her plane which looks like something from a Tom of Finland fantasy, the whole ediface is going to collapse. Of course, feminist psychologists assure us females haven't the same repulsive interest in pornography as men...

http://zurlocker.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/full_monty_photos.jpg

BaldieJr
06-07-2007, 06:35 PM
doesnt bother me in the least

if i were a pilot i'd have a picture of a juicy steak in/on my plane. thats where my loyalties really lie.

Airmail109
06-07-2007, 06:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaldieJr:
doesnt bother me in the least

if i were a pilot i'd have a picture of a juicy steak in/on my plane. thats where my loyalties really lie. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

horseback
06-07-2007, 07:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
THE DRAGON AND HIS TAIL B-24J-190-CO 44-40973
43rd Bomb Group

Nose art painted by S/Sgt Sarkis E. Bartigian
43rd Bomb Group
Ie Shima, South Pacific

wartime
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/dragon.jpg

the last liberator scrapped at kingman arizona (davis monathan?)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/Dragon2.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Davis-Monthan AFB is just south of Tucson. Kingman is a good 40+ miles south east on Interstate 8, actually closer to Tombstone.

cheers

horseback

leitmotiv
06-07-2007, 08:19 PM
Classic 20th AF B-29 girl:

http://www.ds-arts.com/RopeArt/nose_art_B29_luckylady.jpeg

Korolov1986
06-07-2007, 08:31 PM
One thing that's already been said: MoD equipment does not belong to the people who use them/work with them. The monies taxed from the population all collectively paid for the equipment. Therefore, crews pretty much have no right to paint up a piece of hardware.

Do I think it's fair? No, not really. But it's up to the MoD to decide what the crews can and can't do with equipment assigned to them. I won't go into how folks think of nose art; that's beside the point.

However, I believe Shura trying to compare the RAF, RN, etc. to a civilian job is silly (no offense, Shura). I don't know about the UK, but in the US it is not a "job"; it's a commitment. I honestly don't see how being trained to kill can be related to your run of the mill data entry job. In that context, one does have to ask - the reasons above aside - why it's fine to train someone on all the different ways to kill a human being with your bare hands, but then prohibit you from drawing a elaborate image on a bomb with offensive language all over it.

Let's not forget - you go to war to kill people. There's nothing worse than that. All that stuff about winning hearts and mind is hogwash; a simple sugar coating to make it taste better when we swallow the poison. The end result is the same whether or not you have a painting of a naked girl on your plane or not - the guy on the receiving end is going to be dead all the same.

Freelancer-1
06-07-2007, 11:13 PM
Killin's good

Girlie's bad

I think Kurtz was a prophetic genius http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

muchaclopiec
06-08-2007, 02:50 AM
The next time an innocent third world female is on the receiving end of one of HM`s bombs im sure shes gonna be really glad that the aircraft that killed her didnt have a nekkid lady on it.
Its a trivial issue folks...get over it.

GIAP.Shura
06-08-2007, 03:25 AM
Korolov, the reason I was making the comparison was because people were saying that members of the armed forces were having their freedoms restricted unlike members of the general public. This just simply isn't the case.

You are quite right though, it doesn't make any difference how the plane or bomb is painted to the result on the target. Until this point a blind eye was turned to this sort of thing precisely because it had no effect on operational efficiency. I don't think it has suddenly become a big issue but the fact is there is an increasing number of female personnel in our armed forces and it is likely that at the very least a minority of them would rather not have to deal with this.