What do umrats think about the issue? I instinctively incline to no
3rd runway but have heard some of the arguments for it. I think Susan
Kramer is a sensible person and probably has more information about it
than the average person and she is anti, as are some members of the
cabinet apparently.

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/climate/airplot/owners

Would umrats want to own a bit of that field and will it do any good?
It did once apparently but another time didn't help.

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009, badriya wrote
>What do umrats think about the issue? I instinctively incline to no
>3rd runway but have heard some of the arguments for it. I think Susan
>Kramer is a sensible person and probably has more information about it
>than the average person and she is anti, as are some members of the
>cabinet apparently.
>
>[..]
>
>Would umrats want to own a bit of that field and will it do any good?
>It did once apparently but another time didn't help.
>
George Monbiot had a characteristically inflammatory and very sharp
article in the Grauniad yesterday, I recommend it. The Ryanair
advertising statistics are very revealing.

[url down]
environmentalism-brendan-oneill

On Jan 14, 1:08 pm, Kate Brown <elv> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009, badriya wrote>What do umrats think about the issue?  I instinctively incline to no
>>
> George Monbiot had a characteristically inflammatory and very sharp
> article in the Grauniad yesterday, I recommend it. The Ryanair
> advertising statistics are very revealing.
>
> [..]...
> environmentalism-brendan-oneill

The line I found interesting from that article:
- "Ryanair knows who its main customers are: second-home owners and
people who take foreign holidays several times a year."
also explains Ryanair's baggage policy[1]. You're clearly expected to
have a clean set of clothes already at your destination.

[1] Any checked-in baggage is charged £8/€10 person/per one way flight
in addition to your seat price.

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 04:54:31 -0800 (PST), Ralph B
<google81> wrote:

>On Jan 14, 1:08 pm, Kate Brown <elv> wrote:
>
>The line I found interesting from that article:
>- "Ryanair knows who its main customers are: second-home owners and
>people who take foreign holidays several times a year."
>also explains Ryanair's baggage policy[1]. You're clearly expected to
>have a clean set of clothes already at your destination.
>
>[1] Any checked-in baggage is charged £8/€10 person/per one way flight
>in addition to your seat price.
They don't fly to Heathrow, do they? They are not currently flying
from Almeria to N London either. No flights except Gatwick, or N
London from Murcia, which is further away. They stopped for the
winter. So did Easyjet. We're crossing our fingers for them to
restart.

So that was a No vote by Monbiot for the third runway?

I think there will be fewer flights to the second homes rather than
expansion, because of the exchange rate. And several people have
abandonned their Spanish home and gone back to the UK.

badriya wrote:
> What do umrats think about the issue? I instinctively incline to no
> 3rd runway but have heard some of the arguments for it. I think Susan
> Kramer is a sensible person and probably has more information about it
> than the average person and she is anti, as are some members of the
> cabinet apparently.
>
> [..]
>
> Would umrats want to own a bit of that field and will it do any good?
> It did once apparently but another time didn't help.


I am happy for another runway, I would have rather they built another new
Airport out at Cliff in Kent.


I am not bothered by the noise or warming problems and if some large house
on the edge of the area after new runway built was going cheap because of
the noise I would be happy to move near the airport.


Ice core samples from Antarctica have been used as proof of how warming over
the centuries has been accompanied by raised CO2 levels.

BUT


But Professor Ian Clark, an expert in palaeoclimatology from the University
of Ottawa, claims that warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800
years before rises in carbon dioxide levels.

and

after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide
emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

both sides have good points and I have no doubt we dont help with cars ect
ect ... but more research needs to be done

too many green tree huggers say things as if its a 100% fact and its not

see here
http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm

Dave xxx wrote:
> badriya wrote:
>> I am happy for another runway, I would have rather they built another new
> Airport out at Cliff in Kent.
[...]
> after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide
> emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

Perhaps because of the huge amount of pollutants in the air over that
period. A side-effect of cleaning up our atmosphere is that more sun
gets through these days.
>
> both sides have good points and I have no doubt we dont help with cars ect
> ect ... but more research needs to be done
>
> too many green tree huggers say things as if its a 100% fact and its not
>
> see here
> [..]

Sorry, the ABD are some sort of authority on the scientific issues now
are they? I thought they were just a bunch of speeding apologists who
think drivers are being overtaxed.

Colin

In message <aiirm4luslnio21508vn1e6d38sfibghkt>, badriya
<badriya> writes:
>What do umrats think about the issue? I instinctively incline to no
[]
I think they should demolish the buildings they've built over the
original runways, then they wouldn't _need_ any more. If you look at old
maps, you'll see that Heathrow airport was a six-pointed star (I'm not
Jewish, I just like the design); OK, some of them are not in the _ideal_
directions, but modern technology should be able to live with that - we
don't get _very_ strong winds over west London most of the time.

>Would umrats want to own a bit of that field and will it do any good?
>It did once apparently but another time didn't help.
>
I would imagine that nowadays, any such delaying tactic would be
rendered fairly ineffective by some sort of compulsory purchase
legislation, which would almost certainly have a
time-limit-on-lack-of-contact clause.

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:08:06 +0000, Kate Brown
<elvira> wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Jan 2009, badriya wrote
>George Monbiot had a characteristically inflammatory and very sharp
>article in the Grauniad yesterday, I recommend it. The Ryanair
>advertising statistics are very revealing.
>
>[..]
>environmentalism-brendan-oneill

It's a pity that the sub-editors highlighted the ill-judged and
inaccurate remarks Monbiot made about Agas, not just in the headline
of the article but on the front page of the paper. Which Monbiot
should have seen coming. The first two paragraphs do nothing for his
arguments in the rest of the article, and only serve to weaken the
rest of his case. Monbiot's criticism of Spiked for accusing
environmentalists of being puritans sits poorly alongside his own
joyless carbon bean-counting.

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:13:55 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG> wrote:

>In message <aiirm4luslnio21508vn1e6d38sfibghkt>, badriya
><badriya> writes:
>>What do umrats think about the issue? I instinctively incline to no
>[]
>I think they should demolish the buildings they've built over the
>original runways, then they wouldn't _need_ any more. If you look at old
>maps, you'll see that Heathrow airport was a six-pointed star (I'm not
>Jewish, I just like the design); OK, some of them are not in the _ideal_
>directions, but modern technology should be able to live with that - we
>don't get _very_ strong winds over west London most of the time.

Are people living in those? We've had a couple living in their garage
for a year here because their house was demolished. They are elderly
too and no proper bathroom or heating. The compensation offered was a
4th floor flat and the man had a heart attack while they were knocking
his house down. Somehow the idea of taking people's homes now to put
runways back doesn't feel good. Might some be where the new runway is
supposed to go?
[..]

After a hard day on the farm, J. P. Gilliver (John) jumped off the
tractor to write:

>In message <aiirm4luslnio21508vn1e6d38sfibghkt>, badriya
><badriya> writes:
>[]
>I think they should demolish the buildings they've built over the
>original runways, then they wouldn't _need_ any more. If you look at old
>maps, you'll see that Heathrow airport was a six-pointed star (I'm not
>Jewish, I just like the design); OK, some of them are not in the _ideal_
>directions, but modern technology should be able to live with that - we
>don't get _very_ strong winds over west London most of the time.
>
>I would imagine that nowadays, any such delaying tactic would be
>rendered fairly ineffective by some sort of compulsory purchase
>legislation, which would almost certainly have a
>time-limit-on-lack-of-contact clause.

They should turn the field into a humanist burial ground. That should
slow things up a bit when they want to dig it up.

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:49:31 +0000, Al Menzies <al> wrote:

>They should turn the field into a humanist burial ground. That should
>slow things up a bit when they want to dig it up.

What a brilliant idea! You are clever! And when they do build it our bodies
could rise from our graves (though actually I'd rather be composted) and tangle
ourselves up in the aircrafts' engines. Hah! That will show them!

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:36:22 +0100, badriya <badriya> wrote:

> Somehow the idea of taking people's homes now to put
>runways back doesn't feel good. Might some be where the new runway is
>supposed to go?
>>
Yebbut, they're going to bulldoze whole villages to build the new runway,
anyway.

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:21:49 +0000, Stephen <stephenbowden> wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:08:06 +0000, Kate Brown
><elvira> wrote:
>>It's a pity that the sub-editors highlighted the ill-judged and
>inaccurate remarks Monbiot made about Agas, not just in the headline
>of the article but on the front page of the paper. Which Monbiot
>should have seen coming. The first two paragraphs do nothing for his
>arguments in the rest of the article, and only serve to weaken the
>rest of his case. Monbiot's criticism of Spiked for accusing
>environmentalists of being puritans sits poorly alongside his own
>joyless carbon bean-counting.

He seemed to be saying that the Spiked team were complete loonies. Calling
people puritans was the least of it.

The comment site was full of Agaites defending their stoves. Feelings obviously
run high. Perhaps I should cheer him up by mailing him that the Basel
authorities have just decided to ban patio heaters outside restaurants and cafés
(and been castigated as killjoys by the locals - since when did one expect to be
able to sit outside in an extremely cold January?)

In article <lnssm4dv3asmc1b14slsm0e9nm3dhu5pvf>,
jolonergan says...
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:49:31 +0000, Al Menzies <al> wrote:
>
> >They should turn the field into a humanist burial ground. That should
> >slow things up a bit when they want to dig it up.
>
> What a brilliant idea! You are clever! And when they do build it our bodies
> could rise from our graves (though actually I'd rather be composted) and tangle
> ourselves up in the aircrafts' engines. Hah! That will show them!
>Jo,

Make sure that you are the first to market a range of cofins with very
powerful springs built into the base.

It's your idea & it would be a shame to let someone else exploit it.

In message <t2qsm4pj2bjethrv6ngpcsrjlmimvh8n2p>, badriya
<badriya> writes:
>On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:13:55 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
><G6JPG> wrote:
>>Are people living in those? We've had a couple living in their garage
[]
>his house down. Somehow the idea of taking people's homes now to put
>runways back doesn't feel good. Might some be where the new runway is
>supposed to go?
[]
The buildings I'm talking (?) of are within the airport, so I presume
just airport buildings.