MANIPULATING the news behind closed doors was always the prerogative of armed service chiefs and politicians, especially in wartime. Even some metro borough councils have adopted the idea recently -- intent on keeping the rank and file in the dark.

It was in June, 1940, and I was a young airman in Singapore. 'The Straits Times' was a local broadsheet and they announced what could have been "the greatest military defeat in our history" -- (BEN reporting on June 7, 2000, on 'How the BEN reported the Dunkirk evacuation on June 4, 1940'.) What I read 60 years ago was a single line in small print at the bottom of a page which said -- "The British Expeditionary Force evacuated Dunkirk yesterday". In eye-catching banner headlines on the front page was a report on a football match I had played in for my RAF Station at Tengah on the island. It read -- "Tengah Rafs trounce Chinese XI'. As my unit consisted of two 'Blenheim' squadrons and SHQ, it was hardly a newsworthy event!

Speaking to Capt Peter Elphick, the military historian the other day, I mentioned this anomaly. He tells me that, with hindsight, the powers-that-be now realise that it is better, and would have been better, to be less covert newswise whenever it was appropriate to do so. In other words, the chiefs should tell the indians what to expect.

Peter went on to say that Churchill used to take the wraps off and tell it as it was. This helped to make him a great and universally respected war leader, despite his obvious gaffes -- especially in the Far East in World War Two. He was a giant of his time. Compared to him, our present leaders are pygmies. What was Mr Blair doing when he should have been at Dunkirk in early June this year? He was on parental leave! The mind boggles!

Hardly HIS 'finest hour'. But, then again, history is not his forte.

Trevor T Mellows

Hughes Avenue, Horwich