I’m not sure what point – if any – you’re trying to make here, to be honest.

The market will decide, as always.

Share prices can’t lie.

I agree; level playing field for all (see my Loose Women rant). 😉

The difference being, I suppose, that Messrs Gray and Keys’ remarks were made about specific identifiable individuals, whereas the programme you mention indulges in non-specific ranting about men in general.

None. But, presumably, if the threat was both credible and judged to be imminent, the presence of an accompanying fighter could mean the determination of where and when the aircraft was destroyed.

Indeed, Kev. And that’s the elephant in the room, if you like.

In situations like this, the role of fighter aircraft is not to ‘guide, to ‘deter’ or to ‘protect’. These are simplistic tabloid fantasies.

They scramble to ensure that, should the worst case scenario transpire, the authorities can choose the least worst from a small number of grim options – as you outlined so clearly.

….and that, boys and girls, is how Mutually Assured Destruction works. :diablo:

Referee to male linesman: “Will this posting get Deano a yellow card for posting sexist material?” :diablo:

Don’t think it hasn’t crossed my mind…… 😎

Two wrongs don’t make a right.