As for the first comment you are entitled to your opinion. Cleary hundreds of thousands of people are excited by the Vulcan as they were by Concorde, for example. As for your other comments your perception of the saga is probably about right.
What a coincidence! I am tre-reading First Light after a very long interval and have just reached Geoff Wellum’s final cross country exercise when he missed Netheravon in poor visibility and landed at Upavon. As it turned out most APOs made the same mistake in training!
That’s intriguing and just so that I understand your good news. Under certain circumstances the tax payer ( that’s nearly all of us ) pays a percentage of compensation to a bankrupt’s creditors?
That’s intriguing and just so that I understand your good news. Under certain circumstances the tax payer ( that’s nearly all of us ) pays a percentage of compensation to a bankrupt’s creditors?
The key difference being, of course, that in a country where people melt at the image of a bent puppy, the method works. It does not at the thought of a big tin triangle being grounded.
No, Kev and others are right. The methods are wrong and counter-productive, but no one seems to have the solution, other than to hope another big benefactor will be moved to save the day – yet again.
I don’t think it was on the mudflats was it? I think it made a “gentle” crash landing on the grassy marshes and remained well exposed despite some slight sinkage into the marshy grass. If it had crashed on the mudflats it would have been swallowed into the mud and then been covered by the incoming tide, leaving little for immediate recovery.
Fair enough – I take your point.
Maybe, but it certainly won’t stop the debate which has been raging for decades…………;) And in any case they were, together with the Hurricane, the three aircraft involved in fighting each other during the Summer of 1940. So, different or not, they were tasked to fight each other so comparisons are inevitable.
But that’s a debate that goes round and round and round. In any case he was drawing conclusions from a number of 1st hand sources, not they form an objective assessment of the pros and cons – only how the pilots recall what happened to them.
Isn’t the problem that unlike many other charities the Vulcan needs periodic large shots in the arm to avoid cessation. Other charities continue to support whom or whatever it is with greater or lesser funding.
Unless you genuinely do not want to see her fly anymore it seems sad to withhold your cash because you disagree with the methods. Although it is, of course, your right to choose. I too have shelled out rather a lot but will continue to help, in a smaller way than before as funds are tighter these days, in the hope she might make it through at least another season or two. But I am not optimistic, I have to say.
Whilst agreeing with you about the RBL I would disagree fundamentally about the RSPCA. Over the years many of their ads have been aggressive and designed to engender guilt.
I wouldn’t disagree with that – not dissimilar to the “hard sell” in normal trading. One instinctively turns away from that approach.
It links with this old thread rather neatly…………
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=95156&highlight=graveney+marshes
TwinOtter –
IMHO the fairest assessment would be to say that some charities raise some income from donations!
Very fair, indeed.:)
It is none of the three. It is about choosing what we all do with our money and how we judger the value of how we spend it.