Wednesday:
Obviously, Great Britain needs an airport in the Thames Estuary like a hole in the wind farm, but you can't deny that it is a BIG IDEA. Stupid, yes, but BIG.
In its way, this is of a piece with the bicycle hire scheme and the new Routemaster buses. Mr Bojo may be CLOWN PRINCE of LONDON, but he's not interested in MANAGERIALISM. He wants to DO things, CREATE things. In the HORRID modern parlance, he's got his eye on the "LEGACY".
And this may be the key to his SUCCESS. Well, that and the "loveable" bumbling buffoon persona!
(Something he has in common with his arch-enemy Mr Livingstone: they're both very clever men who know that people don't VOTE for very clever men, so both have successfully concocted "personalities" to hide how much of a smarty-pants they are.)
The arguments for a new airport for London appear to be of the "you've got to build bypasses" variety that gets Arthur Dent's house knocked down in "The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy". And, in case you missed the point, then gets the EARTH demolished too.
(One of the OVERLOOKED arguments in favour of the new High Speed rail link being extended to Manchester and Leeds is that it would REDUCE the numbers of environmentally catastrophic short-haul flights around the UK, easing pressure at Heathrow as a lucky consequence.)
But in the middle of all this on-going global economic gloom, a "GRAND PUBLIC WORK", something magnificent and mad and ever-so-slightly-Victorian has the ability to GRAB the public imagination in exactly the way that a shiny new written constitution DIDN'T!
And we need something like that, something so that people will say "oh, THAT'S what the Lib Dems are about".
Would a new Federal Parliament (subject to Mr Salmon losing his referendum) be too much of an indulgence? Yes, I suspect it would… but we could hold a competition for which city would host it. Mr Graham Norton could host "How Do You Solve a Problem Like West Lothian?"
Or perhaps a more local approach, with a free gift to every council for a bit of CIVIC PRIDE, whether it's putting LOOS in all the high streets or refurbishing all the Victorian Spa Baths so everyone has a swimming pool or just BULLDOZING those IDENTIKIT high streets and rebuilding something with character.
Personally, of course, I'm in favour of a BRITISH SPACE PROGRAMME. We're so very keen to encourage our young people into SCIENCE and ENGINEERING and Mr Professor Brian Cox and his Wonders of the Universe and Stargazing Live, space is as popular as it's ever been. A Space Programme would be encouragement and training all in one, with new technology being developed with who-knows-what side benefits.
Plus, I'm sure that the prospect of sending Mr Professor Brian into space so he can "ooh" and "ahh" from orbit is one that would appeal to millions.
.
Showing posts with label Airports. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Airports. Show all posts
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Friday, January 16, 2009
Day 2938: New Runways
Friday:
New York: and HEROIC Captain Chesley Sullenberger proves that you don't need a third runway.
Meanwhile, London: and Mayor Boris the Clown swears to fight the third runway all the way…
…am I the only one who sees Runway Three rearing up, Mothra-like, and roaring at the City only for Godzilla-sized Bojo to come blundering into battle:
"I… I… I… blimey! Gosh, that's bit fierce! I… oops, crikey! I've squished Camden…"
Maybe not.
Anyway, Secretary of State for CATTLE CLASS, Mr "Buff" Hoon, announced that we will be having a third runway no matter what anyone else thinks because in spite of the economy grinding to a halt and in spite of London already having five airports there is still an urgent need for even more capacity so that bankers can flee the capital for the length of the financial downturn. Er…
Anyway, this, he told the House of Commoners, is vitally important to every single one of us in the country. Which is why Mr Frown has decided that he should make the decision entirely on his own and not let anyone else have a vote on it.
There will, however, be STRICT monitoring and controls so that we know that the environment is beingcompletely stuffed protected and that the Government are breaking their own rules again keeping their promises.
And everyone will be asked to HOLD THEIR BREATH while going through the airport so that the CO2 emissions don't go stratospheric!
You know, there's something DISTINCTLY ODD about these runway plans: you know, the way that Runway Three is only HALF the length of numbers One and Two… and yet the proposed extension to the Heathrow boundary has these STICKY-OUTY mysteriously runway-shaped bits at either end… almost like there's room to EXTEND runway three even further.
Goodness but no one who wants to extend an airport could ever tell fibs about their long term plans!
Mind you, have you noticed how they appear to be building over not just three inhabited villages but also two motorways? I wonder how the A380 Double Dumbo Jet is going to cope with the variable speed limit on the M25?!
.
New York: and HEROIC Captain Chesley Sullenberger proves that you don't need a third runway.
Meanwhile, London: and Mayor Boris the Clown swears to fight the third runway all the way…
…am I the only one who sees Runway Three rearing up, Mothra-like, and roaring at the City only for Godzilla-sized Bojo to come blundering into battle:
"I… I… I… blimey! Gosh, that's bit fierce! I… oops, crikey! I've squished Camden…"
Maybe not.
Anyway, Secretary of State for CATTLE CLASS, Mr "Buff" Hoon, announced that we will be having a third runway no matter what anyone else thinks because in spite of the economy grinding to a halt and in spite of London already having five airports there is still an urgent need for even more capacity so that bankers can flee the capital for the length of the financial downturn. Er…
Anyway, this, he told the House of Commoners, is vitally important to every single one of us in the country. Which is why Mr Frown has decided that he should make the decision entirely on his own and not let anyone else have a vote on it.
There will, however, be STRICT monitoring and controls so that we know that the environment is being
And everyone will be asked to HOLD THEIR BREATH while going through the airport so that the CO2 emissions don't go stratospheric!
You know, there's something DISTINCTLY ODD about these runway plans: you know, the way that Runway Three is only HALF the length of numbers One and Two… and yet the proposed extension to the Heathrow boundary has these STICKY-OUTY mysteriously runway-shaped bits at either end… almost like there's room to EXTEND runway three even further.
Goodness but no one who wants to extend an airport could ever tell fibs about their long term plans!
Mind you, have you noticed how they appear to be building over not just three inhabited villages but also two motorways? I wonder how the A380 Double Dumbo Jet is going to cope with the variable speed limit on the M25?!
.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Day 2643: Terminated
Thursday:
Heathrow, and CHAOS descends on the opening day of shiny new Terminal Five, with "technical glitches" leaving passengers unable to get to planes and baggage unable to get anywhere!
It's a RELIEF that they'd been told NOT to use the BIG-BROTHER fingerprint taking system or things might have gone from UNMANAGEABLE to completely ANARCHIC!
If this is what happens when they open a new terminal, I dread to think what they could achieve if they opened a new runway!
Of course, all the candidates for London Mayor have united against the third runway…
…giving me a DAYTIME TV link to the Mayoral campaign!
The Labour (and by extension their allies in this campaign, the Greens) actually SUPPORT a third runway. Mr Balloon and the Conservatories are against it one day and for it the next depending on whether it's a sunshine and quality of life day or an economic competence and big business day.
This leaves Mr Brian and the Liberal Democrats as the one Party not sending out MIXED MESSAGES.
The INTERESTING thing about the London Mayor election is that you get to vote TWICE, once for the candidate you like and once as a back-up.
I am indebted to Mr Julian of Orange By Name for going to the trouble of asking the other three parties to send him articles explaining why THEY deserve our second preferences. I think that not only is this the LIBERAL thing to do, it is also a GOOD IDEA for us not to become so PARTISAN that we become ISOLATED and disappear up our own thinking.
But it is also interesting to compare the three different STYLES that they use for their appeal.
First up were the Greens who, having already shot their own credibility dead by saying that their own supporters should vote for Mr Mayor Ken, were trying the INTERESTING tactic of begging OUR supporters to vote for them.
Telling the Liberal Party that the VERY Liberal Mr Brian isn't a Liberal is a bit of a DUMB STUNT anyway, even if your arguments don't all get totally shot to pieces by Citizen Alix!
In contrast, the Labour actually seem to have understood what the second preference vote MEANS, and make a pitch based on "why Mr Ken is like you". Although their clear aim is to build a London-wide coalition on the grounds of "Keep Bonkers Boris Out", they also try to make a positive case.
On the other fluffy foot, bringing up Iraq and the Environment just emphasises what a HYPOCRITE Mr Ken was to put returning to the Labour above his so-called principles. And suggesting that the Mayor who has treated the London Assembly with such contempt is an advocate for London Democracy… is probably just bunged in at the end as a joke.
Still, marks for trying.
The Conservatories though, really DON'T get this idea of reaching out to other people AT ALL, with an article steeped in typical Conservatory arrogance:
"We're going to win, so you'd better join us in giving the Labour a real kicking 'cos then you might stand a chance at the General Election of winning some seats off them to make up for the seats we're going to take off you. So ner!"
Quite apart from alienating people their supposed to be appealing to, casually dismissing the huge policy gulf between Bonkers Boris and reality (never mind the Liberal Democrats) and making no attempt to make a positive case for their own candidate seems to accept that Bozza is basically un-sellable.
Mr Brian himself, on Any Questionables, was pitched the "who would you vote for second" question and did VERY well explaining that people who tell him they WANT to vote Liberal Democrat but feel it will be a wasted vote CAN vote for the candidate that they want first because they have a second vote to fall back on for their arty loyalty. Top marks for an answer that could have been scripted by My Daddy Alex… in fact, it WAS!
Ah, countered the junior Mr Dimbledonkey thinking he sensed an ELEPHANT TRAP, but why won't YOU be using YOUR second vote?
Mr Brian recovered brilliantly: because for me, my conscience and my party loyalty coincide, he said smartly, and I'm not allowed to vote for myself twice.
Huge applause covered the sound of Dimbledonkey slinking away tail between legs.
I should also add that Mr Brian had a very good answer to the last question (bringing me back to where I started): if you were trapped at Terminal Five, how would you drown your sorrows?
Mr B said he couldn't drown his sorrows because he is in TRAINING for the London Marathon, though jogging around the Terminal might be good exercise. And he got in QUALITY name-checks for the three charities causes that he is supporting in his run: Downs Syndrome, Strokes and Mr Elton John's AIDS foundation.
Londoners, clearly if you want to fly, you want to fly Liberal Democrat!
Heathrow, and CHAOS descends on the opening day of shiny new Terminal Five, with "technical glitches" leaving passengers unable to get to planes and baggage unable to get anywhere!
It's a RELIEF that they'd been told NOT to use the BIG-BROTHER fingerprint taking system or things might have gone from UNMANAGEABLE to completely ANARCHIC!
If this is what happens when they open a new terminal, I dread to think what they could achieve if they opened a new runway!
Of course, all the candidates for London Mayor have united against the third runway…
…giving me a DAYTIME TV link to the Mayoral campaign!
The Labour (and by extension their allies in this campaign, the Greens) actually SUPPORT a third runway. Mr Balloon and the Conservatories are against it one day and for it the next depending on whether it's a sunshine and quality of life day or an economic competence and big business day.
This leaves Mr Brian and the Liberal Democrats as the one Party not sending out MIXED MESSAGES.
The INTERESTING thing about the London Mayor election is that you get to vote TWICE, once for the candidate you like and once as a back-up.
I am indebted to Mr Julian of Orange By Name for going to the trouble of asking the other three parties to send him articles explaining why THEY deserve our second preferences. I think that not only is this the LIBERAL thing to do, it is also a GOOD IDEA for us not to become so PARTISAN that we become ISOLATED and disappear up our own thinking.
But it is also interesting to compare the three different STYLES that they use for their appeal.
First up were the Greens who, having already shot their own credibility dead by saying that their own supporters should vote for Mr Mayor Ken, were trying the INTERESTING tactic of begging OUR supporters to vote for them.
Telling the Liberal Party that the VERY Liberal Mr Brian isn't a Liberal is a bit of a DUMB STUNT anyway, even if your arguments don't all get totally shot to pieces by Citizen Alix!
In contrast, the Labour actually seem to have understood what the second preference vote MEANS, and make a pitch based on "why Mr Ken is like you". Although their clear aim is to build a London-wide coalition on the grounds of "Keep Bonkers Boris Out", they also try to make a positive case.
On the other fluffy foot, bringing up Iraq and the Environment just emphasises what a HYPOCRITE Mr Ken was to put returning to the Labour above his so-called principles. And suggesting that the Mayor who has treated the London Assembly with such contempt is an advocate for London Democracy… is probably just bunged in at the end as a joke.
Still, marks for trying.
The Conservatories though, really DON'T get this idea of reaching out to other people AT ALL, with an article steeped in typical Conservatory arrogance:
"We're going to win, so you'd better join us in giving the Labour a real kicking 'cos then you might stand a chance at the General Election of winning some seats off them to make up for the seats we're going to take off you. So ner!"
Quite apart from alienating people their supposed to be appealing to, casually dismissing the huge policy gulf between Bonkers Boris and reality (never mind the Liberal Democrats) and making no attempt to make a positive case for their own candidate seems to accept that Bozza is basically un-sellable.
Mr Brian himself, on Any Questionables, was pitched the "who would you vote for second" question and did VERY well explaining that people who tell him they WANT to vote Liberal Democrat but feel it will be a wasted vote CAN vote for the candidate that they want first because they have a second vote to fall back on for their arty loyalty. Top marks for an answer that could have been scripted by My Daddy Alex… in fact, it WAS!
Ah, countered the junior Mr Dimbledonkey thinking he sensed an ELEPHANT TRAP, but why won't YOU be using YOUR second vote?
Mr Brian recovered brilliantly: because for me, my conscience and my party loyalty coincide, he said smartly, and I'm not allowed to vote for myself twice.
Huge applause covered the sound of Dimbledonkey slinking away tail between legs.
I should also add that Mr Brian had a very good answer to the last question (bringing me back to where I started): if you were trapped at Terminal Five, how would you drown your sorrows?
Mr B said he couldn't drown his sorrows because he is in TRAINING for the London Marathon, though jogging around the Terminal might be good exercise. And he got in QUALITY name-checks for the three charities causes that he is supporting in his run: Downs Syndrome, Strokes and Mr Elton John's AIDS foundation.
Londoners, clearly if you want to fly, you want to fly Liberal Democrat!
Friday, February 08, 2008
Day 2588: British Bare-ways
Saturday:
Oh, all right, they are German.
Why is it that NUDISM is so intrinsically HILARIOUS? And at the same time so FRIGHTENING that it is against the law!
Even so, there has got to be SOMETHING wrong with the phrase "flying as god intended".
Oh, all right, they are German.
Why is it that NUDISM is so intrinsically HILARIOUS? And at the same time so FRIGHTENING that it is against the law!
Even so, there has got to be SOMETHING wrong with the phrase "flying as god intended".
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Day 2516: Conservatory and Labour Show their True Colours… They have Red Faces Not Green Credentials
Wednesday:
Hilarity at the end of Prime Monster's Questionable Time as Conservatory Mr David Half-cocked Amoral demands a stop to windmills… like the one on Mr Balloon's roof.
But the SERIOUS damage is to be done by the Secretary of State for Ruining Everyone's Environment, Mr Ruth Kelly, who is going to give the go-ahead to a THIRD runway and a SIXTH terminal at Britain's Busiest Noise Polluter: Heathrow Airport.
"These plans could see the number of flights from Heathrow rise to 800,000 per year, making a mockery of any attempts to tackle climate change," said Ms Susan Kramer-vs-Kramer, Liberal Democrat Transport Spokesperson.
The Labour and Conservatories both back these proposals – involving the BULLDOZING of two local villages – leaving only the Liberal Democrats to stick up for local people and future generations.
The argument for ever-increasing air travel into Heathrow is surely very weak.
From a climate change point of view we NEED to be looking at keeping increases in air travel to a minimum. And there are two PERFECTLY LOGICAL alternatives available to us, neither of which need to impose more on a Heathrow already stretched to capacity.
Firstly, we need to look at reducing the number of INTERNAL air flights, and the answer to that is surely to make our RAILWAYS work properly. High speed rail links from the capital to the regions would be the environmentally friendly alternative, and would ease the overcrowding on those Heathrow runways.
Liberal Democrats already have plans to Get Britain Back on Track
and THAT is where we should be spending money, not on making things worse in West London.
Secondly, if more air-travel really IS necessary, we should be looking at using the available capacity in regional airports, like Manchester or Bristol or Glasgow. Instead of having EVERYTHING fly into Heathrow – in order to be packed onto lorries and driven round the motorways causing more congestion and pollution – and instead of having EVERYONE fly off out of Heathrow – packing themselves and their kids into cars to try and drive there on motorways already congested with lorries. We should be looking at SMARTER thinking about routes in and out of the country.
And we all know that one of the big PROBLEMS of the British economy is the INEQUALITY caused by most of the businesses and work being drawn to London while the regions are left behind. Expanding Heathrow at the expense of everywhere else is only going to EXACERBATE that!
Mr Kelly's promises that the development must meet strict NOISE POLLUTION tests do not carry much weight either when the Government is apparently trying to SIDELINE its own report into the PROBLEM of Airport Noise. What is the use of the Government insisting that airports do not exceed the limit of 57 decibels when their own experts are saying that noise becomes intrusive at an average of just 50 decibels?
We cannot just carry on agreeing to the endless expansion of Heathrow's concrete. We need a BETTER ANSWER!
Hilarity at the end of Prime Monster's Questionable Time as Conservatory Mr David Half-cocked Amoral demands a stop to windmills… like the one on Mr Balloon's roof.
But the SERIOUS damage is to be done by the Secretary of State for Ruining Everyone's Environment, Mr Ruth Kelly, who is going to give the go-ahead to a THIRD runway and a SIXTH terminal at Britain's Busiest Noise Polluter: Heathrow Airport.
"These plans could see the number of flights from Heathrow rise to 800,000 per year, making a mockery of any attempts to tackle climate change," said Ms Susan Kramer-vs-Kramer, Liberal Democrat Transport Spokesperson.
The Labour and Conservatories both back these proposals – involving the BULLDOZING of two local villages – leaving only the Liberal Democrats to stick up for local people and future generations.
The argument for ever-increasing air travel into Heathrow is surely very weak.
From a climate change point of view we NEED to be looking at keeping increases in air travel to a minimum. And there are two PERFECTLY LOGICAL alternatives available to us, neither of which need to impose more on a Heathrow already stretched to capacity.
Firstly, we need to look at reducing the number of INTERNAL air flights, and the answer to that is surely to make our RAILWAYS work properly. High speed rail links from the capital to the regions would be the environmentally friendly alternative, and would ease the overcrowding on those Heathrow runways.
Liberal Democrats already have plans to Get Britain Back on Track
and THAT is where we should be spending money, not on making things worse in West London.
Secondly, if more air-travel really IS necessary, we should be looking at using the available capacity in regional airports, like Manchester or Bristol or Glasgow. Instead of having EVERYTHING fly into Heathrow – in order to be packed onto lorries and driven round the motorways causing more congestion and pollution – and instead of having EVERYONE fly off out of Heathrow – packing themselves and their kids into cars to try and drive there on motorways already congested with lorries. We should be looking at SMARTER thinking about routes in and out of the country.
And we all know that one of the big PROBLEMS of the British economy is the INEQUALITY caused by most of the businesses and work being drawn to London while the regions are left behind. Expanding Heathrow at the expense of everywhere else is only going to EXACERBATE that!
Mr Kelly's promises that the development must meet strict NOISE POLLUTION tests do not carry much weight either when the Government is apparently trying to SIDELINE its own report into the PROBLEM of Airport Noise. What is the use of the Government insisting that airports do not exceed the limit of 57 decibels when their own experts are saying that noise becomes intrusive at an average of just 50 decibels?
We cannot just carry on agreeing to the endless expansion of Heathrow's concrete. We need a BETTER ANSWER!
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Day 2422: Joe and the Cat Monsters
Sunday:
Daddies' lunch guest on Sunday had to leave early because he was going back to feed Joe's pet cats. Joe could not feed his own cats because he was busy super-gluing himself to the front door of the Shouty Sheep People BAA.
The Camp for Climate Protest has gone off without too much of a fuss, Sunday's climax being a day of COLOURFUL PROTEST, in spite of the HYSTERICAL whinging from certain quarters that a collection of students, hippies, grannies and local residents might somehow bring about the END OF MODERN CIVILISATION. As though shutting down an airport is THAT important to civilisation. As though the Shouty Sheep People don't manage to shut THEIR OWN airports down with baggage handlers' strikes often enough.
There were SOME minor scuffles mostly involving policepeople on horses or in armour trying to batter their way into the camp, clearly intent on zealously pursuing someone for illegal flower picking or perhaps copyright infringement of one of Ms Joan Byes protest songs.
Police said "a number" (later described as "eight") of the protestors had been arrested. Using the words "a number" makes it seem much more THREATENING though – like it was worth them being there in force, outnumbering the actual protesters three-to-two.
Sombre announcements from the BBC that the protesters had "split into a number of disparate groups" (like they were slipping into their NINJA PYJAMAS ready to attack from all sides) ever so slightly overlooked the fact that they STARTED OUT as "a number of disparate groups".
Their OH-SO-CUNNING plan appeared to be to stage a SIT-IN (and other non-violent direct action) starting on SUNDAY, thus catching the policepeople and the Shouty Sheep People on the HOP. Oooh, better hope AL-FLIPPIN'-QAEDA don't get that idea.
One policeperson (name and address supplied) wrote in to the Metro to EXPLAIN the apparent OVER-THE-TOP behaviour of his or her colleagues. "What if," said the police person, "a TERRORIST had infiltrated the Peace Camp and got into a HIGHLY SENSITIVE AREA (i.e. the airport)…" (I'm not making this bit up!) "…then you'd be sorry!"
Well, I AM sorry, but I think that terrorists tend NOT to try and join up with a group of people who are not only highly colourful and very visible but are also surrounded by hundreds of police. Quite apart from avoiding bunches of people all with different politics and beliefs and agenda because they tend to STICK OUT like SORE THUMBS in that sort of environment.
Terrorists tend to prefer to keep a LOW PROFILE. In fact they would be better off sneaking into the airport another way while all the police people are looking at the Climate Camp going "ooh, look at them stinkin' 'ippies!"
Either that or to infiltrate a rigidly hierarchical organisation where it is easier to blend in AND gain greater access to secure areas. Like the police!
Before he had to go, we watched some of the news with our friend… and thought that we saw Joe! We texted him and he was fine. And so were the cats!
Daddies' lunch guest on Sunday had to leave early because he was going back to feed Joe's pet cats. Joe could not feed his own cats because he was busy super-gluing himself to the front door of the Shouty Sheep People BAA.
The Camp for Climate Protest has gone off without too much of a fuss, Sunday's climax being a day of COLOURFUL PROTEST, in spite of the HYSTERICAL whinging from certain quarters that a collection of students, hippies, grannies and local residents might somehow bring about the END OF MODERN CIVILISATION. As though shutting down an airport is THAT important to civilisation. As though the Shouty Sheep People don't manage to shut THEIR OWN airports down with baggage handlers' strikes often enough.
There were SOME minor scuffles mostly involving policepeople on horses or in armour trying to batter their way into the camp, clearly intent on zealously pursuing someone for illegal flower picking or perhaps copyright infringement of one of Ms Joan Byes protest songs.
Police said "a number" (later described as "eight") of the protestors had been arrested. Using the words "a number" makes it seem much more THREATENING though – like it was worth them being there in force, outnumbering the actual protesters three-to-two.
Sombre announcements from the BBC that the protesters had "split into a number of disparate groups" (like they were slipping into their NINJA PYJAMAS ready to attack from all sides) ever so slightly overlooked the fact that they STARTED OUT as "a number of disparate groups".
Their OH-SO-CUNNING plan appeared to be to stage a SIT-IN (and other non-violent direct action) starting on SUNDAY, thus catching the policepeople and the Shouty Sheep People on the HOP. Oooh, better hope AL-FLIPPIN'-QAEDA don't get that idea.
One policeperson (name and address supplied) wrote in to the Metro to EXPLAIN the apparent OVER-THE-TOP behaviour of his or her colleagues. "What if," said the police person, "a TERRORIST had infiltrated the Peace Camp and got into a HIGHLY SENSITIVE AREA (i.e. the airport)…" (I'm not making this bit up!) "…then you'd be sorry!"
Well, I AM sorry, but I think that terrorists tend NOT to try and join up with a group of people who are not only highly colourful and very visible but are also surrounded by hundreds of police. Quite apart from avoiding bunches of people all with different politics and beliefs and agenda because they tend to STICK OUT like SORE THUMBS in that sort of environment.
Terrorists tend to prefer to keep a LOW PROFILE. In fact they would be better off sneaking into the airport another way while all the police people are looking at the Climate Camp going "ooh, look at them stinkin' 'ippies!"
Either that or to infiltrate a rigidly hierarchical organisation where it is easier to blend in AND gain greater access to secure areas. Like the police!
Before he had to go, we watched some of the news with our friend… and thought that we saw Joe! We texted him and he was fine. And so were the cats!
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Day 2409: Camp Airport
Monday:
If you do not believe that Heathrow Airport is CAMP then you need to see the EXCITING [R: he's only six, he can't tell the difference] new DVD from the BBC of Dr Who's adventure on board the "Time-Flight"!
However the people who own and allegedly run the airport, BAA – who are either the former British Airports Authority or a SHOUTING SHEEP – are having trouble with an entirely other sort of camp, a bunch of harmless protestors who want to save the Earth by reminding people that flying is BAAD.
The Shouty Sheep People have apparently been granted an injunction to protect the airport.
Having attempted to take out a banning order against five-million members of the National Trust, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Our Own Dear Majesty Mrs the Queen, BAA announced that they had won a SIGNIFICANT VICTORY when the court granted their injunction… but limited its effect to five men from "Plane Stupid" and a dachshund called Graham.
Nevertheless, the BAA have drafted in 1,800 police people to protect them from the expected 1,800 harmless hippies.
This does actually leave me wondering where they've recruited these police people FROM… and whether the airport wouldn't be a jolly sight SAFER if they went back to whatever they were doing there rather than concentrating on a field outside of the actual airport's grounds!
A Downing Street spokesperson is reported as saying "any disruption to the airport would be "unacceptable"."
ANY disruption? What, like the disruption caused by, say, a JUMBO JET taking off every thirty seconds? Heathrow airport causes nothing BUT disruption to everyone around it – get a sense of PERSPECTIVE for goodness' sake!
If you do not believe that Heathrow Airport is CAMP then you need to see the EXCITING [R: he's only six, he can't tell the difference] new DVD from the BBC of Dr Who's adventure on board the "Time-Flight"!
However the people who own and allegedly run the airport, BAA – who are either the former British Airports Authority or a SHOUTING SHEEP – are having trouble with an entirely other sort of camp, a bunch of harmless protestors who want to save the Earth by reminding people that flying is BAAD.
The Shouty Sheep People have apparently been granted an injunction to protect the airport.
Having attempted to take out a banning order against five-million members of the National Trust, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Our Own Dear Majesty Mrs the Queen, BAA announced that they had won a SIGNIFICANT VICTORY when the court granted their injunction… but limited its effect to five men from "Plane Stupid" and a dachshund called Graham.
Nevertheless, the BAA have drafted in 1,800 police people to protect them from the expected 1,800 harmless hippies.
This does actually leave me wondering where they've recruited these police people FROM… and whether the airport wouldn't be a jolly sight SAFER if they went back to whatever they were doing there rather than concentrating on a field outside of the actual airport's grounds!
A Downing Street spokesperson is reported as saying "any disruption to the airport would be "unacceptable"."
ANY disruption? What, like the disruption caused by, say, a JUMBO JET taking off every thirty seconds? Heathrow airport causes nothing BUT disruption to everyone around it – get a sense of PERSPECTIVE for goodness' sake!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)