He was told not to employ him in the first place. He didn’t find out about Coulson after he was employed, he knew before – and employed him anyway. That is where the error of judgement was. Correcting that decision by firing him when he “found out” was a bit late.

SH, show me evidence that Cameron isn’t an arrogant, upper class twit and I’ll retract that statement. 🙂

Some stunning hypocrisy from our disastrous ex-Prime Minister today. Something along the lines of “They did it to me, but what about all the little people?” (Pause here for crocodile tears)

That man knows no shame, why doesn’t he just crawl back under a rock somewhere?

Moggy

Unlike our current disastrous Prime Minister who seems to have crawled under his own rock. Where is he? Cameron made an stupendous error of judgement by employing Coulson and he isn’t even man enough to stand up and answer his critics. Many advised him against employing Andy Coulson but, being the arrogant, public school twit that he is, he went ahead anyway. Well that decision has come back to bite him again and again, hopefully this time he’ll do something about it. Resign ideally.:mad:

That issue aside, the bigger NI scandal goes across political boundaries. Politicians and others ran scared of what NI would do if they didn’t get their way. Those that have put their heads above the parapet in the past generally paid with their careers.
Fortunately there are rather more scrupulous journalists that broke the story in the first place.

Before you get all steamed up about the Muslim (Halal) way of killing animals, you might want to familiarize yourself with the Kosher way as well.

Is it not a million hours since 1979? Is that not the milestone?

Incidentally, the Germans reached this milestone in 2005.

Hmm…. How much reduction in thrust would it need to compensate for the airbrakes – not a lot I suspect – they are pretty weedy affairs (not as weedy as Nimrod ones though)

I come from a background that says aeroplanes should make as little noise and burn as little fuel as possible.

I beg to differ…. The only way an airline is profitable is by having multiple aircraft looked after by a small team of engineers. If the likes of BA had 5 licenced engineers per aircraft, they’d have gone bankrupt long ago…

There is rather more to being profitable than that I think but I take your point. What I’m trying to get at is how much does actually cost to operate the Vulcan – taking out what might be called “overheads” in a commercial environment.

One solution then would be to have the Vulcan operated by someone already operating aircraft and who already employ engineers.:)

It begs the question though. If costs, fuel burn and engine life considerations are a premium, why do the spiral climb with airbrakes open, wouldn’t reducing the thrust be far more beneficial?

With reference to the US operations – how would it actually get there? Does it have the range at 15000ft?

Do a swap for the B29!!

Now that I would support!

But does anyone know the actual numbers? How do they compare? How much more complex are they? Twice as much, three times, ten times? It might give us an idea of how much is really required.

Yes but the facts are they don’t get any subsidies so it’s all a bit of a moot point really.

Like Peter says, (and has been repeated here many times before) at the end of the day you can donate or not. There’s no-one taking your money by force or through any kind of Vulcan tax, so I often wonder why people get so worked up about it. 🙂

I don’t think anyone is getting worked up about it. We’re discussing some interesting aspects of the project. That isn’t a problem is it?