The most junior Ministers are Parliamentary Under Secretaries of State
Yes. Under Secretaries of State are Ministers. They are part of the UK government, ergo Government Ministers.
At present (don't know about 1990) there are 5 defence ministers: The Secretary of State, 3 Ministers of State, 1 Under Secretary of State.
The current Under Secretary isn't
Minister for the Armed Forces like the Under Secretary of State was in 1990.
Former Under Secretary of State James Heappey retained that remit when promoted to Minister of State in July 2022.
The link you gave (civilservant.org
) is a website written by a single former civil servant, not an official publication.
Since their duties are representational
These are the current duties of the Under Secretary of State, Armed Forces from the UK Government's official website,
styled GOV.UK, accessed 30/03/23. Again, this role is currently performed by a Minister of State:
the press wouldn't stop inquiring about a UFO story that the MoD had commented on
The Daily Record never ran the story. Nor did anyone else.
We have an MoD minute which appears to inform the Under Secretary of State (Armed Forces) that the Daily Record might run the story, and a proposed response. There is no evidence that the Daily Record ever received the response.
trouble in Kuwait which the UK wasn't yet involved in
Wrong. Utterly, completely and verifiably wrong.
I'm sure you're a decent type Mendel, but I'm a bit angry at this.
I will debunk this assertion. Readers please note, this involves some discussion of real-world unpleasantness, scroll down to the unbroken line if you'd rather avoid this.
Iraq invaded Kuwait 1- 2 August 1990.
Two British soldiers, military advisers in Kuwait, were killed when their convoy, attempting to escape to the Saudi border, was fired on by Iraqi forces. Although some got to Saudi, a number of British REME soldiers- and their families- were captured. They don't talk about it. A response to a researcher asking about this on "Army Rumour Service" in 2005 (my highlight added):
The Army Rumour Service, "Were you in Kuwait?", post 19, 23 November 2005, accessed 31/03/23.
The Iraqis arrested hundreds of British expats, business people and tourists. "There were numerous cases of rape and attempted rape of expat women". Our lives as human shields
, Richard Brass, The Observer, Sunday 9th March 2003.
385 passengers and crew on British Airways flight 149 from London to Kuala Lumpur were forced off the jet and imprisoned when it made its first stopover at Kuwait International Airport. Some people- not necessarily your usual CT's- believe the flight was allowed to continue to Kuwait because there were British recce or int. troops on board (I'm rather sceptical of this).
"... some of the hostages themselves were subjected to forms of mental and physical abuse, which included instances of mock executions
" (one Iraqi was summarily executed after a cabin crewman, Clive Earthy, bravely expressed anger about the rape of his colleague, a British Airways stewardess).
"After ten days, the detainees were dispersed to various military-industrial sites. Women and children were given the opportunity to return home in late August, whereas those who remained were used as human shields
Wikipedia, "British Airways Flight 149", accessed 31/03/23.
So in the first two days
of "trouble in Kuwait which the UK wasn't yet involved in", we have two dead British soldiers, approximately 500 Britons, including a military training team, held hostage, and a number of British women raped.
From 12 August, male prisoners were moved to sites that the Iraqis thought might be attacked by Western forces.
On 24 August, Saddam Hussein paraded some of the hostage families on television, famously including a 5-year old British child, Stuart Lockwood. It is hard to overstate the concern, disgust and anger felt by many in the UK as a result.
(Image from The Shropshire Star, "30 years on: How Saddam Hussein used human shields from Shropshire", Mark Andrews, 1st August 2020, retrieved 31/03/23)
YouTube, "Courageous British Boy Stuart Lockwood with Saddam Hussein...", Сергей Иванов, accessed 31/03/23.
Similar footage, of better quality, was shown nationwide on UK television.
This was the best I could find. I've heard Stuart Lockwood talk about this as an adult; he doesn't want to be defined by this episode- I would guess Western media have acted on a take-down request.
And, as already posted,
This action commencing sometime between 7-26 August 1990.
Margaret Thatcher Foundation; George Bush (Sr) Library
Consider "...trouble in Kuwait which the UK wasn't yet involved in" debunked.
I'll leave it to other's common sense to decide if an Under-Secretary of State is routinely told about UFO sightings.
My intended meaning being "It's unlikely Under Secretaries of State are routinely told about UFO sightings". To which I get,
this is conspiracy-theoretical innuendo that papers over the lack of evidence or a solid argument. The MoD doesn't routinely comment on UFO sightings, but this time they did (probably because of the alleged Harriers in the pictures); therefore, they don't routinely tell the US(AF), but this time they did. (Seems like common sense to me.)
There is no "innuendo" whatsoever.
It's not a conspiracy theory to imply that Ministers are not routinely briefed about UFO reports.
(from the MoD minute),
and Mendel seems to agree, "The MoD doesn't routinely comment on UFO sightings...", continuing
"...this time they did (probably because of the alleged Harriers in the pictures)", which I agree with.
I don't think I've typed anything that contradicts this. Anywhere.
Quote, "(Seems like common sense to me.)" Me too.
Remember before you disappear down the rabbit hole, the MoD comment doesn't make the UFO special; it makes the Harriers special in that the MoD refused to acknowledge them, and thereby discredited the evidentiary value of the photograph and the accompanying story.
(1) The MoD didn't refuse to acknowledge Harriers in the photo. Quite the opposite. I'm not going to post those links again.
(2) Having identified the aircraft, the MoD stated that
"It has also been confirmed that there is no record of Harriers operating in the area at the time at which the photographs are alleged to have been taken".
I wholly agree that this casts doubt on (at least) the accuracy, and probably the veracity, of the photographer's claim.
I feel it is more in conspiracy theorist / rabbit-holer territory to assume that the RAF deliberately discredited an authentic photo.
IIRC, conventional (pre-digital) camera film can have a far higher resolution than the image files/ screens we are likely using.
That's not true with respect to the full scan of the recently discovered image posted on metabunk.
Are you referring to the 22MB 3103x 2480 TIF file here?
-That's still unlikely to be anywhere near the resolution of the original film photo.
Actually, we probably know this, because Andrew Robinson (Senior Lecturer in Photography, Sheffield Hallam University, the colleague of David Clarke who did the only professional photo-analysis we have access to) produced a daughter digital image of 138.5 MB, if I understand correctly. I might well have misunderstood, but Robinson's file sizes for his digitised image appear to be far larger than our 22MB TIF.
Andrew Robinson, Photographic Analysis, 02/08/22.
Robinson states "...the plane's silhouette is consistent with that of a Harrier jet."
-No, I suppose it's possible they employ someone with a copy of "The Observer's Book of Aircraft"
Quite right I suppose, I was being a bit cheeky. Mick West does advise against humour. But I did include a
Apologies if it annoyed you.
Conversely, I'm not at all annoyed at being labelled a conspiracy theorist, accused of papering over a lack of evidence [for what
?] or the implication that I lack common sense, I'm sure that was all "called for".
None of us, as far as I'm aware, are in a position to find out which RAF unit or personnel assessed the Calvine photos,
or what procedures were used. I think there is little point arguing about it unless more info is available.
We know (well, some of us are confident) that the RAF trains highly-regarded specialists to analyse images.
We do know that the RAF identified a Harrier, and another aircraft as probably a Harrier, in the original Calvine photos.
We know they were sufficiently confident of this identification to include it in a memo to a government minister.
I do not think we are in a position to make a presumption of incompetence on the part of those who identified the planes.
This might not rule out the use of model aircraft.
We can rule out privately-owned Harriers in 1990 UK unless they were operated by British Aerospace.
Duke's suggestion, that the RAF didn't consider flights by MoD agencies (A&AEE, ETPS, RAE) that might have operated Harriers outside of front-line units (RN Fleet Air Arm, RAF Germany, RAF Strike Command) is a possibility.
Well, I'm going to cool my jets, as it were.