4 ms·

Hmm. Was the farmer compensated?

zabzonk 5y ago
No idea. I'm not sure he should have been, but he very probably was - but my Dad was risking his life to protect the farmer, so Dad would not have paid for it. And as far as I know people were compensated for RAF crashes on their property - they certainly are now today, though RAF pilots do everything they can (up to their own deaths) to avoid militraliry accidents.
- sealeck 5y ago
  How was he risking his life to protect the farmer?
  - zabzonk 5y ago
    - mechanical_bear 5y ago
      You could just answer the question. Obviously there are many readers here not intimately aware of RAF history.
      - SirYandi 5y ago
        I assume they were referring to the blitz in WW2, where the RAF defended Britain from Nazi bombing runs.
        wtallis 5y ago
        The plane in question doesn't seem to have entered service until shortly after the end of WW2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Vampire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Vampire
        zabzonk 5y ago
        The question is really not about a particular fighter, but about the RAF.
        mechanical_bear 5y ago
        So…rather than us guessing about which particular piece of information, you could just tell us and stop being so cryptic?
        hnbad 5y ago
        So if this wasn't during WW2, how exactly was he protecting the farmer other than in the same generic sense in which the farmer was feeding him? Most Western militaries spent most of their time after WW2 doing other things than defending their nations' citizens so the question seems valid. I'm not initimately familiar with the UK's 20th century military hijinks but the only two significant conflicts I can think of were the Falklands (which seems to have pretty much exclusively been fought overseas) and the Troubles (which fighter planes wouldn't have helped with).
        smcl 5y ago
        It's just a misunderstanding I think. It sounds like the OP's dad was in the RAF during the war, and "risking his life to protect the farmer" was a reference to that rather than the particular flight he was on when he had to make the emergency landing in the field. So I can sort-of understand why they are being defensive. In their eyes there are commenters denying their father's effort in the war. But the commenters were actually either trying to understand if there's an extra story or were puzzled what kind of life-saving flights could be conducted in the British mainland in the years following the war.
      - zabzonk 5y ago
        MerelyMortal 5y ago
        One person spending 1 minute to write a reply versus a dozen people spending 15 minutes trying to find the right answer.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        smcl 5y ago
        The issue is that it sounded like there was some intrigue, a potentially interesting side story that wasn't well known outside some RAF-adjacent people. And when people asked about this you didn't clarify and it seemed you were getting annoyed with them. But really they just wanted to know more about your dad's story :)
    - Dayshine 5y ago
      How was a post war RAF fighter crashing during training exercise protecting our country? Has the RAF been anything other than a deterrent in Europe since then?
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      For most of its history, RAF pilots haven't been fighting wars or risking their lives.
- ChuckNorris89 5y ago
  > I'm not sure he should have been, but he very probably was - but my Dad was risking his life to protect the farmer Why not? It's not your father who should compensate the farmer but the government. And if government property causes damages to a citizen's livelihood, then the government should compensate them. At least, in a civilized democracy.
  - zabzonk 5y ago
    And that's happens in the UK. Of course, the farmer has to put in a claim, and I mean't that I do not know if he did so. Hence: > but he very probably was
    - Sebb767 5y ago
      I think you're missing a comma: > I'm not sure he should have been To > I'm not sure, he should have been Otherwise it reads like you think he shouldn't have been compensated.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > my Dad was risking his life to protect the farmer The farmer is an equal citizen with equal rights, regardless - that is what the pilot was protecting.
scarier 5y ago
This is supposedly where the idiom "bought the farm" comes from.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  I don't think so. It came from the life insurance paying off the family farm (if I understand correctly).
- ILMostro7 5y ago
  Closer to "not in my backyard", until and unless it absolutely and directly benefits ME

No idea. I'm not sure he should have been, but he very probably was - but my Dad was risking his life to protect the farmer, so Dad would not have paid for it. And as far as I know people were compensated for RAF crashes on their property - they certainly are now today, though RAF pilots do everything they can (up to their own deaths) to avoid militraliry accidents.

sealeck 5y ago
How was he risking his life to protect the farmer?
- zabzonk 5y ago
  - mechanical_bear 5y ago
    You could just answer the question. Obviously there are many readers here not intimately aware of RAF history.
    - SirYandi 5y ago
      I assume they were referring to the blitz in WW2, where the RAF defended Britain from Nazi bombing runs.
      - wtallis 5y ago
        The plane in question doesn't seem to have entered service until shortly after the end of WW2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Vampire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Vampire
        zabzonk 5y ago
        The question is really not about a particular fighter, but about the RAF.
        mechanical_bear 5y ago
        So…rather than us guessing about which particular piece of information, you could just tell us and stop being so cryptic?
        hnbad 5y ago
        So if this wasn't during WW2, how exactly was he protecting the farmer other than in the same generic sense in which the farmer was feeding him? Most Western militaries spent most of their time after WW2 doing other things than defending their nations' citizens so the question seems valid. I'm not initimately familiar with the UK's 20th century military hijinks but the only two significant conflicts I can think of were the Falklands (which seems to have pretty much exclusively been fought overseas) and the Troubles (which fighter planes wouldn't have helped with).
        smcl 5y ago
        It's just a misunderstanding I think. It sounds like the OP's dad was in the RAF during the war, and "risking his life to protect the farmer" was a reference to that rather than the particular flight he was on when he had to make the emergency landing in the field. So I can sort-of understand why they are being defensive. In their eyes there are commenters denying their father's effort in the war. But the commenters were actually either trying to understand if there's an extra story or were puzzled what kind of life-saving flights could be conducted in the British mainland in the years following the war.
    - zabzonk 5y ago
      - MerelyMortal 5y ago
        One person spending 1 minute to write a reply versus a dozen people spending 15 minutes trying to find the right answer.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - smcl 5y ago
        The issue is that it sounded like there was some intrigue, a potentially interesting side story that wasn't well known outside some RAF-adjacent people. And when people asked about this you didn't clarify and it seemed you were getting annoyed with them. But really they just wanted to know more about your dad's story :)
  - Dayshine 5y ago
    How was a post war RAF fighter crashing during training exercise protecting our country? Has the RAF been anything other than a deterrent in Europe since then?
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    For most of its history, RAF pilots haven't been fighting wars or risking their lives.
ChuckNorris89 5y ago
> I'm not sure he should have been, but he very probably was - but my Dad was risking his life to protect the farmer Why not? It's not your father who should compensate the farmer but the government. And if government property causes damages to a citizen's livelihood, then the government should compensate them. At least, in a civilized democracy.
- zabzonk 5y ago
  And that's happens in the UK. Of course, the farmer has to put in a claim, and I mean't that I do not know if he did so. Hence: > but he very probably was
  - Sebb767 5y ago
    I think you're missing a comma: > I'm not sure he should have been To > I'm not sure, he should have been Otherwise it reads like you think he shouldn't have been compensated.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
wolverine876 5y ago
> my Dad was risking his life to protect the farmer The farmer is an equal citizen with equal rights, regardless - that is what the pilot was protecting.

scarier 5y ago

This is supposedly where the idiom "bought the farm" comes from.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
I don't think so. It came from the life insurance paying off the family farm (if I understand correctly).
ILMostro7 5y ago
Closer to "not in my backyard", until and unless it absolutely and directly benefits ME