bridge too far Posted 14 January, 2009 Share Posted 14 January, 2009 Surely only the operators at Heathrow, maybe a few airlines and possibly the local hoteliers WOULD have an agenda on this. Why does everyone with differing opinions around here get accused of having an agenda? Of course, I meant POLITICAL agenda - since I'm often accused of using said agenda to colour my views on everything. Which I don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 14 January, 2009 Share Posted 14 January, 2009 Why would anyone's political agenda be a factor even? What, only a rabid right-winger could possibly see the benefit in a 3rd runway? Only someone who cared deeply enough about the planet to waste their vote on a virtually non-entitive Green party would oppose it? Only a Socialist would perceive it as a threat? There is no political agenda which covers this scenario, of that I'm certain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 14 January, 2009 Share Posted 14 January, 2009 Surely only the operators at Heathrow, maybe a few airlines and possibly the local hoteliers WOULD have an agenda on this. Why does everyone with differing opinions around here get accused of having an agenda? Is it because it sounds clevererer to say someone has an 'agenda'. Which reminds me, I didn't get one for tomorrow's meeting. Should I be happy or annoyed about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 14 January, 2009 Share Posted 14 January, 2009 Is it because it sounds clevererer to say someone has an 'agenda'. Which reminds me, I didn't get one for tomorrow's meeting. Should I be happy or annoyed about that? I often get a copy of the agenda after the meeting's taken place. Helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 14 January, 2009 Share Posted 14 January, 2009 I often get a copy of the agenda after the meeting's taken place. Helpful. Is it to remind you what you missed while you were snoozing :smt102 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 14 January, 2009 Share Posted 14 January, 2009 Is it to remind you what you missed while you were snoozing :smt102 That actually makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 14 January, 2009 Share Posted 14 January, 2009 I like having the agenda in advance, it helps me decide whether to bother turning up or not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 14 January, 2009 Share Posted 14 January, 2009 Why would anyone's political agenda be a factor even? What, only a rabid right-winger could possibly see the benefit in a 3rd runway? Only someone who cared deeply enough about the planet to waste their vote on a virtually non-entitive Green party would oppose it? Only a Socialist would perceive it as a threat? There is no political agenda which covers this scenario, of that I'm certain. I beg to differ. It's my view that politics colour everyones' judgements, even if they don't think of it that way. Every time anyone makes a conscious decision or adopts a particular stance about a situation, s/he is making a political decision (with a small p). You could also call it a moral decision, a religious decision etc. There are many issues not covered by Political agendae that could be considered to be covered by political agendae. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 14 January, 2009 Share Posted 14 January, 2009 Erm, arsebiscuits BTF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 14 January, 2009 Share Posted 14 January, 2009 Erm, arsebiscuits BTF. I've not tried them. Please tell me what they taste like - I'm sure you've eaten a few in your time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 14 January, 2009 Share Posted 14 January, 2009 They're as hard to swallow as that post of yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jillyanne Posted 14 January, 2009 Share Posted 14 January, 2009 I beg to differ. It's my view that politics colour everyones' judgements, even if they don't think of it that way. Every time anyone makes a conscious decision or adopts a particular stance about a situation, s/he is making a political decision (with a small p). You could also call it a moral decision, a religious decision etc. There are many issues not covered by Political agendae that could be considered to be covered by political agendae. I beg to differ my dear on this, I don't give a toss about politics or religion and any decision I make is based purely on if I think it is the right decision for me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 14 January, 2009 Share Posted 14 January, 2009 Selfish. Shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jillyanne Posted 14 January, 2009 Share Posted 14 January, 2009 Selfish. Shame. Not shame, sensible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 14 January, 2009 Share Posted 14 January, 2009 They're as hard to swallow as that post of yours. I've just realised - 'Ponty' isn't short for 'Pontefract' at all, is it? pontificate verb 1. administer a pontifical office 2. talk in a dogmatic and pompous manner; e.g. "The new professor always pontificates" :D but in a friendly way, of course, and recognising the pot, kettle, black irony too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 14 January, 2009 Share Posted 14 January, 2009 I beg to differ my dear on this, I don't give a toss about politics or religion and any decision I make is based purely on if I think it is the right decision for me! Then it's political, Jill, but not Political. How do you decide what's 'right'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jillyanne Posted 14 January, 2009 Share Posted 14 January, 2009 Then it's political, Jill, but not Political. How do you decide what's 'right'? I ask my cat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 14 January, 2009 Share Posted 14 January, 2009 I ask my cat. Yep - sensible thing to do :smt045 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 14 January, 2009 Share Posted 14 January, 2009 Good set of Heathrow expansion graphics. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7722164.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian H. Cope Posted 14 January, 2009 Share Posted 14 January, 2009 When are they going to start building those flying cars? Tomorrows World were quite certain that every home would have one by now. As for a 3rd runway,why not.I'm a pilot. f*ck the economic and environmental impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvin Posted 15 January, 2009 Share Posted 15 January, 2009 Lets spend billions of pounds of a runway. shall we! Throwing money away is lovely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 15 January, 2009 Share Posted 15 January, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7829676.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OLYMPIC Posted 15 January, 2009 Share Posted 15 January, 2009 Can't believe because of planning laws construction would not start till 2015 and new runway would open 2019 but if the Tories win the next election they have now said they would scrap the project. I also see that the airport says it can now service around 20% less cities than its rivals because of the lack of expansion i was surprised it was that high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warsash saint Posted 15 January, 2009 Share Posted 15 January, 2009 Boris' idea of scrapping Heathrow & building a new airport in the Thames estuary sounds the most logical. Flights can come in straight in over the sea meaning less disruption, noise & polution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff leopard Posted 15 January, 2009 Share Posted 15 January, 2009 I've said it before and its still the case, for a Govt that claimed to be leading the world in tackling climate change, agreeing to the third runway is a back-down, neigh, betrayal, of seismic proportions. We deserve to be the laughing stock of the planet (and quite a few moons/deathstars). We've just surrendered all our moral high-ground, the next time we ask India and China to comply to emmission targets I hope they tell us to go phuq ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scummer Posted 15 January, 2009 Share Posted 15 January, 2009 Can't believe because of planning laws construction would not start till 2015 and new runway would open 2019 but if the Tories win the next election they have now said they would scrap the project. I was about to comment on the likelihood of this actually happening. If, as appears likely, the Conservatives win the next election, they'll just cancel it anyway. So a lot of fuss about nothing really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 15 January, 2009 Share Posted 15 January, 2009 Boris' idea of scrapping Heathrow & building a new airport in the Thames estuary sounds the most logical. Flights can come in straight in over the sea meaning less disruption, noise & polution. The problem with the Thames Estuary site, as far as I can tell, is that a) you'd only be able to take off and land at the east end of the runway as the west end would then get in the way of flight paths from the other London airports, and b) the environmental issues in terms of endangered species etc are far greater in that location than they are on the proposed site of T6/R3 at Heathrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 15 January, 2009 Share Posted 15 January, 2009 Oh, and here's a rather amusing article which sums up the hypocrisy of the likes of Emma Thompson and Alastair McGowan pleading "green" issues... http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1507&Itemid=59 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 15 January, 2009 Share Posted 15 January, 2009 Oh, and here's a rather amusing article which sums up the hypocrisy of the likes of Emma Thompson and Alastair McGowan pleading "green" issues... http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1507&Itemid=59 I found this on a link from that link: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/sport-headlines/someone-apparently-taking-portsmouth-seriously-200901051485/ It did make me LOL and I was about to post it on the Defoe thread when I saw that it had been closed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 15 January, 2009 Share Posted 15 January, 2009 Anybody who thought for a second that this wouln't be passed is retarded. The contracts had already been awarded and it was a done deal way before the project was bought into the public domain. And more plus points..... they are going to open the hard shoulders on the M3 and M4 because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 15 January, 2009 Share Posted 15 January, 2009 Boris' idea of scrapping Heathrow & building a new airport in the Thames estuary sounds the most logical. Flights can come in straight in over the sea meaning less disruption, noise & polution. Not really. That completely ignores the planning considerations of Thames Estuary which will be more complex than a third runway because of added enviro issues such as areas of SSI and wading birds etc. Also far more costly to develop suitable foundations and then build a whole new infrastructure. And would require significant extra ATM issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 15 January, 2009 Share Posted 15 January, 2009 (edited) I was about to comment on the likelihood of this actually happening. If, as appears likely, the Conservatives win the next election, they'll just cancel it anyway. So a lot of fuss about nothing really. If planning is underway it's difficult to halt it on party political reasons as that step has already been. Open to all sorts of legal challenges. Not sure Cameron and Boris have understood that. Also you have to question some of the emotive comments being made in the press such as the following on the BBC: 'Greenpeace director John Sauven said: "If Gordon Brown thinks this is a green runway then he must be colour-blind. This package is designed to patch up a cabinet split and will do very little to reduce the huge environmental impact of an expanded Heathrow, which will now become the single biggest emitter of carbon-dioxide in the country." ' I'm pretty sure that Drax power station will remain in number one position as biggest emitter, given it burns 10,000 tonnes of coal each day!!! Edited 15 January, 2009 by TopGun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wheels Posted 15 January, 2009 Share Posted 15 January, 2009 Boris' idea of scrapping Heathrow & building a new airport in the Thames estuary sounds the most logical. Flights can come in straight in over the sea meaning less disruption, noise & polution. But who would want to fly to London(Manston)? It's as farcical as London(Stansted). In terms of distance, it is the same as Manchester (Liverpool) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dark Sotonic Mills Posted 15 January, 2009 Share Posted 15 January, 2009 But who would want to fly to London(Manston)? It's as farcical as London(Stansted). In terms of distance, it is the same as Manchester (Liverpool) Don't joke. Lydd is now calling itself London (Ashford) International Airport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wheels Posted 15 January, 2009 Share Posted 15 January, 2009 Don't joke. Lydd is now calling itself London (Ashford) International Airport. I know, unbelievable really. How about Southampton (Bournemouth) Airport? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CabbageFace Posted 15 January, 2009 Share Posted 15 January, 2009 We need to build that **** and ruin this ****ed up planet some more, its a **** tip and should be destroyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamster Posted 15 January, 2009 Share Posted 15 January, 2009 I know, unbelievable really. How about Southampton (Bournemouth) Airport? SIAL - Eastleigh (Southampton) Airport !!! Sounds much better IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 15 January, 2009 Share Posted 15 January, 2009 Plane crashes into Hudson River in the US. No reported deaths, but will provide good ammo for the tree huggers against the 3rd runway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 15 January, 2009 Share Posted 15 January, 2009 i glad this is happening...for no other reason than cause bungle is against it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 15 January, 2009 Share Posted 15 January, 2009 Don't joke. Lydd is now calling itself London (Ashford) International Airport. There was a previous thread on this a while ago, but when we flew in to Frankfurt for the world cup, there were a fair few in our Hotel that had chosen the other Frankfurt airport.............located 130 miles outside Frankfurt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 15 January, 2009 Share Posted 15 January, 2009 Plane crashes into Hudson River in the US. No reported deaths, but will provide good ammo for the tree huggers against the 3rd runway Surely the only thing the NY crash proves is that rivers make pretty crap runways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungle Posted 16 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 16 January, 2009 Plane crashes into Hudson River in the US. No reported deaths, but will provide good ammo for the tree huggers against the 3rd runway Erm, I don't think anyone is against excessive air travel on the basis that planes crash sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dark Sotonic Mills Posted 16 January, 2009 Share Posted 16 January, 2009 Surely the only thing the NY crash proves is that rivers make pretty crap runways. So that's put paid to the Green Party's idea of using the Thames as the third runway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 16 January, 2009 Share Posted 16 January, 2009 lol listening to the radio and they are talking about this.. 'fanatics' now called planes Climate Change Monsters and should never exists... lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 16 January, 2009 Share Posted 16 January, 2009 lol listening to the radio and they are talking about this.. 'fanatics' now called planes Climate Change Monsters and should never exists... lol These people are mental. Part of me admires them for having such strong beliefs on anything, as I really haven't got that in me, but then again if you are going to be totally stupid about it then maybe it's not so good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Durleyfos Posted 16 January, 2009 Share Posted 16 January, 2009 Some protesters smashed windows at the Dept. of Transport offices (or some other Government building) Way to go, that'll help your cause. To$$ers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Posted 16 January, 2009 Share Posted 16 January, 2009 Some protesters smashed windows at the Dept. of Transport offices (or some other Government building) Way to go, that'll help your cause. To$$ers. That kind of thing really pees me off... confrontational action like this only serves to discredit any organisation behind it, and also, unfairly, gives an impression that all protesters or others who oppose the expansion are violent morons unable to argue their point in a constructive way. It will also serve to widen any divide between sides and prevent discussion, and reinforce supporters views about the subject, because they think mroe poorly of the protesters' actions, and their (poorly communicated in this case) message becomes secondary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now