I think his general point is more or less accurate and it is applied to greater or lesser degrees in other parts of the military. We chopped some very good stick and rudder pilots when I was instructing on the Hawk for "trust" issues.
It's interesting.
In Top Gun we're kind of pumped to sympathise with Maverick and not Iceman. But, although Iceman is arrogant, Maverick is actually the high performer who has the trust problem.
Iceman is basically right about him, as he realises later in the film.
It's interesting how such films are viewed by different audiences.
From the moment I watched Topgun, in the context of the film Maverick is a crazy dangerous fool. Who may or may not become just dangerous in a different way at the end of the film.
Bit like A Few Good Men. The idea that some people might sympathise with the Colonel never occurred to me. He is a wack job egoist, who tolerates useless sycophants who screw up dealing with a sick kid, gives illegal orders and then tries to dump it on everyone else - including his only real friend.
It's a(nother) thing that Dom goes on about without appearing to understand.
One of his mantras is supposedly John Boyd's ‘People, ideas, machines — in that order.’ But the people he chooses, whether the weirdoes and misfits or Johnson and Gove, are the sort you would never put in an army. Not one you wanted to win, anyway.
Even if they're brilliant, the trust issues more than negate that. (Be honest. Would anyone who knows him trust Boris with their money or their wife?)
If you look at the some of the most effective military personal in history - there are quite a few you wouldn't trust with your malt or your maidservant.
Its is totally unfathomable that 6 months into this crisis, that a robust airport screening procedure isn't in place in every major Western country. £12bn spent on testing in the UK and still airport arrivals aren't screened, no enforcement, etc.
I work in the flights industry. I am truly shocked by what the government hasn't done in regards to flights. Just astounding.
The fact that Labour are on the side of fiscal sanity and the Tories aren't should be a huge wake up call to every single Tory in the land. All of the chortling about votes at a time when the nation is set to borrow £300bn in a single year is bullshit and shows how far the party has descended into partisan politics rather than looking out for the good of the nation.
At this point in time the Tory party led by Boris is a danger to the nation's future and Labour led by Starmer isn't. Let that sink in for every would patriot who votes Tory.
Do you really believe that if Labour was in power rather than trying to be heard they would be spending less? I don't. The question of whether anyone should be spending less in the current crisis (and, no mistake, that's exactly what it is) is not straightforward. The key, for all the flack he got for it, is what is a viable job?
In the next 5 years is working in a bar/nightclub that earns all its profits after midnight likely to be "viable"? Are football and sports clubs dependent upon gate money likely to be viable? Are airlines, exhibition centres, large shopping centres? It's seriously tricky. So much of our economy is dependent on other economic activity to generate business. There are massive systemic risks here. I am conventionally a bit of a fiscal hawk but the general thrust of government policy seems right to me, whatever quibbles there are about some of the details.
I do think, however, that we are running out of road. If things have not picked up substantially by March we will likely have reached the limits of what the government can do and it will be devil take the hindmost with any restrictions that impact on economic activity being lifted. We simply cannot go on like this.
I don't think they would, but the facts are plain to see, Starmer is proposing to suspend or scrap the triple lock and Boris is clinging onto it because it's popular with the Tory base. It's a measure that is going to cost the country tens of billions over the next decade, especially with 2-4% real terms rises for the next couple of years built in. The responsible thing to do is scrap it for at least 3 years and then decide what to do afterwards.
This is a major on going area of additional spending, it takes money out of the hands of the productive working age population and hands it to the unproductive older population who are wealthier on average. It's a policy that goes against everything the party is supposed to stand for in rewarding hard work and prudence. Boris is absolutely failing the test and Starmer is passing it. The Tory party is completely trashing a very hard won reputation for fiscal responsibility, not because of additional emergency virus spending, but because the PM won't face up to the consequences of it.
Does it have to be all or nothing? Can't just the 2.5% go or be put on hold?
It needs to go, it's completely unaffordable. It has been since it was introduced.
Bunkum. The UK pension is the lowest among major developed countries. 35% of over-65s have to live on £6,700 per year. Could you live on that? Silly question.
Pensioners should pay full NI; that way the rich ones do pay more. NI should also be charged in full on very high incomes, not at 2%.
Some on here obfuscate when I make this point and stress that on average pensioners are better-off. That's irrelevant. If 25% or more of pensioners are extremely well-off compared to under-65s, it makes no difference to the 35-40% living in poverty.
I know several people my age with final salary pensions of ~£35,000 per year, plus of course the state pension for a couple. Their mortgage is paid off so their only housing costs are occasional maintenance bills. They say that they're taxed too lightly, given how well-off they are.
I think his general point is more or less accurate and it is applied to greater or lesser degrees in other parts of the military. We chopped some very good stick and rudder pilots when I was instructing on the Hawk for "trust" issues.
It's interesting.
In Top Gun we're kind of pumped to sympathise with Maverick and not Iceman. But, although Iceman is arrogant, Maverick is actually the high performer who has the trust problem.
Iceman is basically right about him, as he realises later in the film.
I've never seen TG, only a few clips from it.
Tom Cruise is almost certainly too short to get posted to the F-14. The foot to knee measurement requirements were quite tight. If your lower legs were too short you couldn't get full rudder pedal movement, if they were too long you'd be ejecting from the jet without them if good times went bad.
Film directors like short men - all to do with the scope this allows for camera angles and the like. I'd be curious to know the percentage of Hollywood leading men who have been below average height over the years.
Many seem relatively short. Was watching that Tom Hollander drama on BBC1 and he is v small...google pause...5ft 6ins.
I think his general point is more or less accurate and it is applied to greater or lesser degrees in other parts of the military. We chopped some very good stick and rudder pilots when I was instructing on the Hawk for "trust" issues.
It's interesting.
In Top Gun we're kind of pumped to sympathise with Maverick and not Iceman. But, although Iceman is arrogant, Maverick is actually the high performer who has the trust problem.
Iceman is basically right about him, as he realises later in the film.
I've never seen TG, only a few clips from it.
Tom Cruise is almost certainly too short to get posted to the F-14. The foot to knee measurement requirements were quite tight. If your lower legs were too short you couldn't get full rudder pedal movement, if they were too long you'd be ejecting from the jet without them if good times went bad.
Film directors like short men - all to do with the scope this allows for camera angles and the like. I'd be curious to know the percentage of Hollywood leading men who have been below average height over the years.
Tenet seemed pretty unusual to me in that they in no way sought to disguise that the leading lady was considerably taller than the leading man. With Cruise films sometimes he's playing his height though usually not.
I think his general point is more or less accurate and it is applied to greater or lesser degrees in other parts of the military. We chopped some very good stick and rudder pilots when I was instructing on the Hawk for "trust" issues.
It's interesting.
In Top Gun we're kind of pumped to sympathise with Maverick and not Iceman. But, although Iceman is arrogant, Maverick is actually the high performer who has the trust problem.
Iceman is basically right about him, as he realises later in the film.
I've never seen TG, only a few clips from it.
Tom Cruise is almost certainly too short to get posted to the F-14. The foot to knee measurement requirements were quite tight. If your lower legs were too short you couldn't get full rudder pedal movement, if they were too long you'd be ejecting from the jet without them if good times went bad.
Film directors like short men - all to do with the scope this allows for camera angles and the like. I'd be curious to know the percentage of Hollywood leading men who have been below average height over the years.
Tenet seemed pretty unusual to me in that they in no way sought to disguise that the leading lady was considerably taller than the leading man. With Cruise films sometimes he's playing his height though usually not.
There was never really much sexual tension/romance between them though, if any.
I think his general point is more or less accurate and it is applied to greater or lesser degrees in other parts of the military. We chopped some very good stick and rudder pilots when I was instructing on the Hawk for "trust" issues.
It's interesting.
In Top Gun we're kind of pumped to sympathise with Maverick and not Iceman. But, although Iceman is arrogant, Maverick is actually the high performer who has the trust problem.
Iceman is basically right about him, as he realises later in the film.
It's interesting how such films are viewed by different audiences.
From the moment I watched Topgun, in the context of the film Maverick is a crazy dangerous fool. Who may or may not become just dangerous in a different way at the end of the film.
Bit like A Few Good Men. The idea that some people might sympathise with the Colonel never occurred to me. He is a wack job egoist, who tolerates useless sycophants who screw up dealing with a sick kid, gives illegal orders and then tries to dump it on everyone else - including his only real friend.
I thought that Nicholson's performance in that film was just magnificent. He created in Jessop an arrogant, delusional and ultimately selfish monster that was credible and coherent within his own terms of reference. Just a brilliant piece of acting. But sympathy, no, not really.
The fact that Labour are on the side of fiscal sanity and the Tories aren't should be a huge wake up call to every single Tory in the land. All of the chortling about votes at a time when the nation is set to borrow £300bn in a single year is bullshit and shows how far the party has descended into partisan politics rather than looking out for the good of the nation.
At this point in time the Tory party led by Boris is a danger to the nation's future and Labour led by Starmer isn't. Let that sink in for every would patriot who votes Tory.
Do you really believe that if Labour was in power rather than trying to be heard they would be spending less? I don't. The question of whether anyone should be spending less in the current crisis (and, no mistake, that's exactly what it is) is not straightforward. The key, for all the flack he got for it, is what is a viable job?
In the next 5 years is working in a bar/nightclub that earns all its profits after midnight likely to be "viable"? Are football and sports clubs dependent upon gate money likely to be viable? Are airlines, exhibition centres, large shopping centres? It's seriously tricky. So much of our economy is dependent on other economic activity to generate business. There are massive systemic risks here. I am conventionally a bit of a fiscal hawk but the general thrust of government policy seems right to me, whatever quibbles there are about some of the details.
I do think, however, that we are running out of road. If things have not picked up substantially by March we will likely have reached the limits of what the government can do and it will be devil take the hindmost with any restrictions that impact on economic activity being lifted. We simply cannot go on like this.
I don't think they would, but the facts are plain to see, Starmer is proposing to suspend or scrap the triple lock and Boris is clinging onto it because it's popular with the Tory base. It's a measure that is going to cost the country tens of billions over the next decade, especially with 2-4% real terms rises for the next couple of years built in. The responsible thing to do is scrap it for at least 3 years and then decide what to do afterwards.
This is a major on going area of additional spending, it takes money out of the hands of the productive working age population and hands it to the unproductive older population who are wealthier on average. It's a policy that goes against everything the party is supposed to stand for in rewarding hard work and prudence. Boris is absolutely failing the test and Starmer is passing it. The Tory party is completely trashing a very hard won reputation for fiscal responsibility, not because of additional emergency virus spending, but because the PM won't face up to the consequences of it.
I don't support the retention of the Triple lock. To be honest it was never a good policy. Good politics but lousy policy.
I think his general point is more or less accurate and it is applied to greater or lesser degrees in other parts of the military. We chopped some very good stick and rudder pilots when I was instructing on the Hawk for "trust" issues.
It's interesting.
In Top Gun we're kind of pumped to sympathise with Maverick and not Iceman. But, although Iceman is arrogant, Maverick is actually the high performer who has the trust problem.
Iceman is basically right about him, as he realises later in the film.
I've never seen TG, only a few clips from it.
Tom Cruise is almost certainly too short to get posted to the F-14. The foot to knee measurement requirements were quite tight. If your lower legs were too short you couldn't get full rudder pedal movement, if they were too long you'd be ejecting from the jet without them if good times went bad.
Film directors like short men - all to do with the scope this allows for camera angles and the like. I'd be curious to know the percentage of Hollywood leading men who have been below average height over the years.
Many seem relatively short. Was watching that Tom Hollander drama on BBC1 and he is v small...google pause...5ft 6ins.
I think his general point is more or less accurate and it is applied to greater or lesser degrees in other parts of the military. We chopped some very good stick and rudder pilots when I was instructing on the Hawk for "trust" issues.
It's interesting.
In Top Gun we're kind of pumped to sympathise with Maverick and not Iceman. But, although Iceman is arrogant, Maverick is actually the high performer who has the trust problem.
Iceman is basically right about him, as he realises later in the film.
I've never seen TG, only a few clips from it.
Tom Cruise is almost certainly too short to get posted to the F-14. The foot to knee measurement requirements were quite tight. If your lower legs were too short you couldn't get full rudder pedal movement, if they were too long you'd be ejecting from the jet without them if good times went bad.
Film directors like short men - all to do with the scope this allows for camera angles and the like. I'd be curious to know the percentage of Hollywood leading men who have been below average height over the years.
Tenet seemed pretty unusual to me in that they in no way sought to disguise that the leading lady was considerably taller than the leading man. With Cruise films sometimes he's playing his height though usually not.
There was never really much sexual tension/romance between them though, if any.
True, but simply that they were on screen together without hiding the height disparity seemed notable.
The fact that Labour are on the side of fiscal sanity and the Tories aren't should be a huge wake up call to every single Tory in the land. All of the chortling about votes at a time when the nation is set to borrow £300bn in a single year is bullshit and shows how far the party has descended into partisan politics rather than looking out for the good of the nation.
At this point in time the Tory party led by Boris is a danger to the nation's future and Labour led by Starmer isn't. Let that sink in for every would patriot who votes Tory.
Do you really believe that if Labour was in power rather than trying to be heard they would be spending less? I don't. The question of whether anyone should be spending less in the current crisis (and, no mistake, that's exactly what it is) is not straightforward. The key, for all the flack he got for it, is what is a viable job?
In the next 5 years is working in a bar/nightclub that earns all its profits after midnight likely to be "viable"? Are football and sports clubs dependent upon gate money likely to be viable? Are airlines, exhibition centres, large shopping centres? It's seriously tricky. So much of our economy is dependent on other economic activity to generate business. There are massive systemic risks here. I am conventionally a bit of a fiscal hawk but the general thrust of government policy seems right to me, whatever quibbles there are about some of the details.
I do think, however, that we are running out of road. If things have not picked up substantially by March we will likely have reached the limits of what the government can do and it will be devil take the hindmost with any restrictions that impact on economic activity being lifted. We simply cannot go on like this.
I don't think they would, but the facts are plain to see, Starmer is proposing to suspend or scrap the triple lock and Boris is clinging onto it because it's popular with the Tory base. It's a measure that is going to cost the country tens of billions over the next decade, especially with 2-4% real terms rises for the next couple of years built in. The responsible thing to do is scrap it for at least 3 years and then decide what to do afterwards.
This is a major on going area of additional spending, it takes money out of the hands of the productive working age population and hands it to the unproductive older population who are wealthier on average. It's a policy that goes against everything the party is supposed to stand for in rewarding hard work and prudence. Boris is absolutely failing the test and Starmer is passing it. The Tory party is completely trashing a very hard won reputation for fiscal responsibility, not because of additional emergency virus spending, but because the PM won't face up to the consequences of it.
I don't support the retention of the Triple lock. To be honest it was never a good policy. Good politics but lousy policy.
Isn't that the issue though, at a time when good policy is extremely important and the government have been given cover by the opposition to drop a bad policy that will cost the nation tens of billions to fund Boris has held onto it because it wins him votes.
I think his general point is more or less accurate and it is applied to greater or lesser degrees in other parts of the military. We chopped some very good stick and rudder pilots when I was instructing on the Hawk for "trust" issues.
It's interesting.
In Top Gun we're kind of pumped to sympathise with Maverick and not Iceman. But, although Iceman is arrogant, Maverick is actually the high performer who has the trust problem.
Iceman is basically right about him, as he realises later in the film.
It's interesting how such films are viewed by different audiences.
From the moment I watched Topgun, in the context of the film Maverick is a crazy dangerous fool. Who may or may not become just dangerous in a different way at the end of the film.
Bit like A Few Good Men. The idea that some people might sympathise with the Colonel never occurred to me. He is a wack job egoist, who tolerates useless sycophants who screw up dealing with a sick kid, gives illegal orders and then tries to dump it on everyone else - including his only real friend.
It's a(nother) thing that Dom goes on about without appearing to understand.
One of his mantras is supposedly John Boyd's ‘People, ideas, machines — in that order.’ But the people he chooses, whether the weirdoes and misfits or Johnson and Gove, are the sort you would never put in an army. Not one you wanted to win, anyway.
Even if they're brilliant, the trust issues more than negate that. (Be honest. Would anyone who knows him trust Boris with their money or their wife?)
If you look at the some of the most effective military personal in history - there are quite a few you wouldn't trust with your malt or your maidservant.
I think his general point is more or less accurate and it is applied to greater or lesser degrees in other parts of the military. We chopped some very good stick and rudder pilots when I was instructing on the Hawk for "trust" issues.
It's interesting.
In Top Gun we're kind of pumped to sympathise with Maverick and not Iceman. But, although Iceman is arrogant, Maverick is actually the high performer who has the trust problem.
Iceman is basically right about him, as he realises later in the film.
I've never seen TG, only a few clips from it.
Tom Cruise is almost certainly too short to get posted to the F-14. The foot to knee measurement requirements were quite tight. If your lower legs were too short you couldn't get full rudder pedal movement, if they were too long you'd be ejecting from the jet without them if good times went bad.
Film directors like short men - all to do with the scope this allows for camera angles and the like. I'd be curious to know the percentage of Hollywood leading men who have been below average height over the years.
Tenet seemed pretty unusual to me in that they in no way sought to disguise that the leading lady was considerably taller than the leading man. With Cruise films sometimes he's playing his height though usually not.
There was never really much sexual tension/romance between them though, if any.
I think his general point is more or less accurate and it is applied to greater or lesser degrees in other parts of the military. We chopped some very good stick and rudder pilots when I was instructing on the Hawk for "trust" issues.
It's interesting.
In Top Gun we're kind of pumped to sympathise with Maverick and not Iceman. But, although Iceman is arrogant, Maverick is actually the high performer who has the trust problem.
Iceman is basically right about him, as he realises later in the film.
I've never seen TG
Wot?
I never saw it when it first came out as I was on my exchange year at university in France. By the time I had the chance to see it, it was apparent how terrible it was so I never bothered.
Everybody in the F-14 community absolutely despised it so I don't feel like I missed anything.
The one thing Farage could do I think is let Starmer in - might be for the best if Boris is still leading the Tories though ! Reckon Sunak wins Farage or no Farage.
More Leavers would likely leave the Tories for Farage if Sunak rather than Boris was Tory leader, however would Sunak win back enough Remainers from Labour and the LDs to make up for that is the question?
You're obsessed with "leavers". Most "leavers" are just getting on with their lives and are not obsessed with Brexit still. Just like most "remainers".
It's just the frothers on both sides who are still obsessed.
68% of Leavers are now voting Tory, just 19% of Leavers are voting Labour.
By contrast 54% of Remainers are now voting Labour and just 19% of Remainers are voting Tory.
Comments
Pensioners should pay full NI; that way the rich ones do pay more. NI should also be charged in full on very high incomes, not at 2%.
Some on here obfuscate when I make this point and stress that on average pensioners are better-off. That's irrelevant. If 25% or more of pensioners are extremely well-off compared to under-65s, it makes no difference to the 35-40% living in poverty.
I know several people my age with final salary pensions of ~£35,000 per year, plus of course the state pension for a couple. Their mortgage is paid off so their only housing costs are occasional maintenance bills. They say that they're taxed too lightly, given how well-off they are.
NEW THREAD
Massive sexual tension.
Everybody in the F-14 community absolutely despised it so I don't feel like I missed anything.
Rejoining isn't an option, and there is no way that leaving will live up to the expectations of leave voters.