''You'd think they'd be able to get women easily as a virtue of being a millionaire.''
That's the curse of being a rich person though.....is it me or the money?
Do a lot of them really care? I think the likes of Bernie Ecclestone know full well women wouldn't be checking for them if they didn't earn the millions, but I think they just want a hot woman.
To be honest, regarding Bernie Ecclestone I'm surprised that they check for him even with the billions.
Robin Cook was the most bewildering though - he wasn't even rich, as SFS was hardly powerful, and we can be fairly sure it wasn't his dazzling good looks or remarkable quality of personality and intellect that attracted the ladies. So WHAT WAS IT?
He was formidably intelligent. And great on the spoons.
A lot of blokes of all shapes and sizes end up having affairs with their female PAs. It's the proximity, I guess; and there must be some kind of power angle.
Not quite convinced by the first claim. Must admit I don't know what the second one means. Is it some kind of euphemism?
I think he means some blokes get some kind of power trip over having sex with someone in a technically subordinate position.
Well, that definitely sounds like some kind of euphemism - but it was the spoons I was puzzled by.
I assume @SouthamObserver meant that Cook was literally good with spoons - maybe as musical instruments!
''You'd think they'd be able to get women easily as a virtue of being a millionaire.''
That's the curse of being a rich person though.....is it me or the money?
Do a lot of them really care? I think the likes of Bernie Ecclestone know full well women wouldn't be checking for them if they didn't earn the millions, but I think they just want a hot woman.
To be honest, regarding Bernie Ecclestone I'm surprised that they check for him even with the billions.
Robin Cook was the most bewildering though - he wasn't even rich, as SFS was hardly powerful, and we can be fairly sure it wasn't his dazzling good looks or remarkable quality of personality and intellect that attracted the ladies. So WHAT WAS IT?
He was formidably intelligent. And great on the spoons.
A lot of blokes of all shapes and sizes end up having affairs with their female PAs. It's the proximity, I guess; and there must be some kind of power angle.
Not quite convinced by the first claim. Must admit I don't know what the second one means. Is it some kind of euphemism?
I think he means some blokes get some kind of power trip over having sex with someone in a technically subordinate position.
Well, that definitely sounds like some kind of euphemism - but it was the spoons I was puzzled by.
Oh dear - it was a throwaway line about him being good at playing the spoons and so being attractive to women. Not meant to be taken seriously.
''You'd think they'd be able to get women easily as a virtue of being a millionaire.''
That's the curse of being a rich person though.....is it me or the money?
Do a lot of them really care? I think the likes of Bernie Ecclestone know full well women wouldn't be checking for them if they didn't earn the millions, but I think they just want a hot woman.
To be honest, regarding Bernie Ecclestone I'm surprised that they check for him even with the billions.
Robin Cook was the most bewildering though - he wasn't even rich, as SFS was hardly powerful, and we can be fairly sure it wasn't his dazzling good looks or remarkable quality of personality and intellect that attracted the ladies. So WHAT WAS IT?
He was formidably intelligent. And great on the spoons.
A lot of blokes of all shapes and sizes end up having affairs with their female PAs. It's the proximity, I guess; and there must be some kind of power angle.
Not quite convinced by the first claim. Must admit I don't know what the second one means. Is it some kind of euphemism?
I think he means some blokes get some kind of power trip over having sex with someone in a technically subordinate position.
Well, that definitely sounds like some kind of euphemism - but it was the spoons I was puzzled by.
I assume @SouthamObserver meant that Cook was literally good with spoons - maybe as musical instruments!
The big issue he has is Heathrow, particularly if the Government decides - as it surely must - before May 2016 that Heathrow expansion is the only tenable game in town.
Either Heathrow expansion or The Boris Island are sensible answers. Adding another runway at Gatwick is not. And the Boris Island is too expensive, which leaves Heathrow as the only logical answer. With Cross Rail finished, and the whole airport hanging off the M25, it makes perfect sense.
The issue is that there are marginal Conservative constituencies in South West London. And I think that makes it an overtly political, rather than economic, decision.
As a Londoner, I sincerely hope we get Heathrow Expansion, but I fear that the can will be kicked down the road, to the detriment of all.
Either Gatwick expansion or The Boris Island are sensible answers. Adding another runway at Heathrow is not. And the Boris Island is too expensive, which leaves Gatwick as the only logical answer. With the whole airport hanging off the M23, it makes perfect sense.
Same level of logical reasoning and supporting evidence.
Works perfectly for people living in Barnes (less airport noise and easy access to the expanded airport).
Other people, living elsewhere. Meh.
I think the difference in journey difficulty from, say, Kensington High Street to Gatwick as against Heathrow is pretty damn marginal. Surely it just a case of changing trains at a different station (Victoria rather than Gloucester Road). Granted driving is a more straightforward but given how many times the A4 fouls up, not necessarily that much quicker.
Gatwick's a nightmare.
In the morning I can get from my flat to Heathrow in 30 mins down the Great West Road, or during the day I take the tube to Paddington and get the Express.
The Gatwick Express is slow and painful, and Victoria's probably 25 minutes journey on the dinky toy train
Gatwick from anywhere north and west of London is much more of a pain than Heathrow; especially if the M25 is playing up, as it has been known to do.
It's ALWAYS playing up, and the M23 between the M25 and Gatwick is even worse with no way to get off if there's an accident.
They need new runways at LHR and LGW, and need to have them both under construction tomorrow. If people in the way need paying off then pay them off - rather than spend the money and time on lawyers and process.
''You'd think they'd be able to get women easily as a virtue of being a millionaire.''
That's the curse of being a rich person though.....is it me or the money?
Do a lot of them really care? I think the likes of Bernie Ecclestone know full well women wouldn't be checking for them if they didn't earn the millions, but I think they just want a hot woman.
To be honest, regarding Bernie Ecclestone I'm surprised that they check for him even with the billions.
Robin Cook was the most bewildering though - he wasn't even rich, as SFS was hardly powerful, and we can be fairly sure it wasn't his dazzling good looks or remarkable quality of personality and intellect that attracted the ladies. So WHAT WAS IT?
He was formidably intelligent. And great on the spoons.
A lot of blokes of all shapes and sizes end up having affairs with their female PAs. It's the proximity, I guess; and there must be some kind of power angle.
Not quite convinced by the first claim. Must admit I don't know what the second one means. Is it some kind of euphemism?
I think he means some blokes get some kind of power trip over having sex with someone in a technically subordinate position.
Well, that definitely sounds like some kind of euphemism - but it was the spoons I was puzzled by.
Oh dear - it was a throwaway line about him being good at playing the spoons and so being attractive to women. Not meant to be taken seriously.
Shame - it would have been a great euphemism for something. As for the business about power angles and technically subordinate positions...
The big issue he has is Heathrow, particularly if the Government decides - as it surely must - before May 2016 that Heathrow expansion is the only tenable game in town.
Either Heathrow expansion or The Boris Island are sensible answers. Adding another runway at Gatwick is not. And the Boris Island is too expensive, which leaves Heathrow as the only logical answer. With Cross Rail finished, and the whole airport hanging off the M25, it makes perfect sense.
Either Gatwick expansion or The Boris Island are sensible answers. Adding another runway at Heathrow is not. And the Boris Island is too expensive, which leaves Gatwick as the only logical answer. With the whole airport hanging off the M23, it makes perfect sense.
Same level of logical reasoning and supporting evidence.
Works perfectly for people living in Barnes (less airport noise and easy access to the expanded airport).
Other people, living elsewhere. Meh.
I think the difference in journey difficulty from, say, Kensington High Street to Gatwick as against Heathrow is pretty damn marginal. Surely it just a case of changing trains at a different station (Victoria rather than Gloucester Road). Granted driving is a more straightforward but given how many times the A4 fouls up, not necessarily that much quicker.
Gatwick's a nightmare.
In the morning I can get from my flat to Heathrow in 30 mins down the Great West Road, or during the day I take the tube to Paddington and get the Express.
The Gatwick Express is slow and painful, and Victoria's probably 25 minutes journey on the dinky toy train
Gatwick from anywhere north and west of London is much more of a pain than Heathrow; especially if the M25 is playing up, as it has been known to do.
From Barnes, Heathrow is 44 minutes by tube according to Google maps. Gatwick is 69 minutes by tube and train including waiting times.
The Davies report included the time benefits to travellers in the cost benefit analysis. But surprisingly it left out the noise and pollution disbenefits to all non-flying Londoners.
Another flaw was it does not include the impact of the cost of the schemes, paid for by the private sector which means passed on to passengers, on demand. Extraordinary. The Heathrow scheme is much more expensive than Gatwick so passengers pay more and presumably demand is correspondingly less. But this is not in the model.
Heathrow suffers from major externality issues to locals, and has aircraft climb out and finish descent over one of the largest conurbations in the world (due to the prevailing East-West winds). Against that, transport infrastructure is good and it's on the right side of London for the majority of non-Londoners.
Gatwick is on the wrong side of London and not at capacity.
Boris Island, as well as being extremely expensive, is really only on the right side of London for fish in the North Sea. And has the same issues on climb-out/final descent.
From maps, a location near King's Langley looks good (just outside the M25) - minimises noise issues at lowest levels (there are inevitably some people affected, but it looks like the minimum plausible number for a near-London location, climb out etc is north of the capital, it's on the side of London best for most of the population (those further round are well served by Stansted to the north-east and Gatwick to the south), close to transport infrastructure (can even have an HS2 stop) for rail and motorways - and existing Heathrow workers could probably commute.
There would be some infrastructure builds and re-routing necessary, but you wouldn't actually have to build the dry land beneath. The Chilterns could be an issue, but height and distance-wise I think it'd be okay, especially if radio beacons are put up there.
Could all be shot down by something I haven't considered, of course, but on the face of it, looks like the best location to me.
Kings Langley? It's not very flat around there. And there are a lot of expensive homes in that area - plenty of well heeled local resistance.
It's underneath the Bovington Stack, one of the 4 serving Heathrow. Not sure how an airfield here would affect climb out / in bound aircraft to Stansted.
It's flat enough - it'd need an order of magnitude less earth-moving than would Boris Island. We'll get well-heeled local resistance anywhere in the London area, especially on the right side of it (closest to the main routes to the west and north). The Bovingdon Stack could be rerouted. Stansted airport traffic shouldn't be affected; looking at flightradar, the relevant area seems pretty clear of Stansted traffic.
In essence: - East/West of London while still near to it is a bad idea (you do not want climb-out and descent over a heavily built-up area if you can avoid it). - South-east, east and north-east of London is a bad location for anyone not from the local region. For those from the local regions, Gatwick and Stansted satisfy the need. So south-west and north-west of London are the best locations. - South-west is pretty close to Gatwick already; north-west is closer to more people. - Existing transport routes are ideal to the north-west
The big issue he has is Heathrow, particularly if the Government decides - as it surely must - before May 2016 that Heathrow expansion is the only tenable game in town.
Either Heathrow expansion or The Boris Island are sensible answers. Adding another runway at Gatwick is not. And the Boris Island is too expensive, which leaves Heathrow as the only logical answer. With Cross Rail finished, and the whole airport hanging off the M25, it makes perfect sense.
Either Gatwick expansion or The Boris Island are sensible answers. Adding another runway at Heathrow is not. And the Boris Island is too expensive, which leaves Gatwick as the only logical answer. With the whole airport hanging off the M23, it makes perfect sense.
Same level of logical reasoning and supporting evidence.
Works perfectly for people living in Barnes (less airport noise and easy access to the expanded airport).
Other people, living elsewhere. Meh.
I think the difference in journey difficulty from, say, Kensington High Street to Gatwick as against Heathrow is pretty damn marginal. Surely it just a case of changing trains at a different station (Victoria rather than Gloucester Road). Granted driving is a more straightforward but given how many times the A4 fouls up, not necessarily that much quicker.
Gatwick's a nightmare.
In the morning I can get from my flat to Heathrow in 30 mins down the Great West Road, or during the day I take the tube to Paddington and get the Express.
The Gatwick Express is slow and painful, and Victoria's probably 25 minutes journey on the dinky toy train
Gatwick from anywhere north and west of London is much more of a pain than Heathrow; especially if the M25 is playing up, as it has been known to do.
From Barnes, Heathrow is 44 minutes by tube according to Google maps. Gatwick is 69 minutes by tube and train including waiting times.
The Davies report included the time benefits to travellers in the cost benefit analysis. But surprisingly it left out the noise and pollution disbenefits to all non-flying Londoners.
Another flaw was it does not include the impact of the cost of the schemes, paid for by the private sector which means passed on to passengers, on demand. Extraordinary. The Heathrow scheme is much more expensive than Gatwick so passengers pay more and presumably demand is correspondingly less. But this is not in the model.
Ena was the frightening looking one in the hairnet in Corrie, Mrs Slocombe is the one with far too much make-up and colourful hair in Are You Being Served - famous for endless references to her pussy.
Completely off topic - I'm usually the first to criticise the BBC but this is quite fantastic. Radio 1 plays the Proms, with classical musicians recreating modern dance records.
Completely off topic - I'm usually the first to criticise the BBC but this is quite fantastic. Radio 1 plays the Proms, with classical musicians recreating modern dance records.
Ena was the frightening looking one in the hairnet in Corrie, Mrs Slocombe is the one with far too much make-up and colourful hair in Are You Being Served - famous for endless references to her pussy.
Ena was the frightening looking one in the hairnet in Corrie, Mrs Slocombe is the one with far too much make-up and colourful hair in Are You Being Served - famous for endless references to her pussy.
References to her pussy - if that was on during the day I hope she meant her cat!
Ena was the frightening looking one in the hairnet in Corrie, Mrs Slocombe is the one with far too much make-up and colourful hair in Are You Being Served - famous for endless references to her pussy.
References to her pussy - if that was on during the day I hope she meant her cat!
Ena was the frightening looking one in the hairnet in Corrie, Mrs Slocombe is the one with far too much make-up and colourful hair in Are You Being Served - famous for endless references to her pussy.
References to her pussy - if that was on during the day I hope she meant her cat!
It was a much-repeated euphemism.
Yet again despite being a year older that TA, I feel about forty...
Ena was the frightening looking one in the hairnet in Corrie, Mrs Slocombe is the one with far too much make-up and colourful hair in Are You Being Served - famous for endless references to her pussy.
References to her pussy - if that was on during the day I hope she meant her cat!
Officially, to her cat - but it was always said so that it could be read in a different way e.g. 'He would start at the sight of my pussy'.
Ena was the frightening looking one in the hairnet in Corrie, Mrs Slocombe is the one with far too much make-up and colourful hair in Are You Being Served - famous for endless references to her pussy.
References to her pussy - if that was on during the day I hope she meant her cat!
It was a much-repeated euphemism.
Yet again despite being a year older that TA, I feel about forty...
Ena was the frightening looking one in the hairnet in Corrie, Mrs Slocombe is the one with far too much make-up and colourful hair in Are You Being Served - famous for endless references to her pussy.
References to her pussy - if that was on during the day I hope she meant her cat!
And if you compare Miss Brahms with Pauline Fowler of EastEnders fame - its horrific viewing for us aging females who once enjoyed the attentions of Mr Lucas...
Ena was the frightening looking one in the hairnet in Corrie, Mrs Slocombe is the one with far too much make-up and colourful hair in Are You Being Served - famous for endless references to her pussy.
References to her pussy - if that was on during the day I hope she meant her cat!
Ena was the frightening looking one in the hairnet in Corrie, Mrs Slocombe is the one with far too much make-up and colourful hair in Are You Being Served - famous for endless references to her pussy.
References to her pussy - if that was on during the day I hope she meant her cat!
It was a much-repeated euphemism.
Yet again despite being a year older that TA, I feel about forty...
Heathrow suffers from major externality issues to locals, and has aircraft climb out and finish descent over one of the largest conurbations in the world (due to the prevailing East-West winds). Against that, transport infrastructure is good and it's on the right side of London for the majority of non-Londoners.
Gatwick is on the wrong side of London and not at capacity.
There would be some infrastructure builds and re-routing necessary, but you wouldn't actually have to build the dry land beneath. The Chilterns could be an issue, but height and distance-wise I think it'd be okay, especially if radio beacons are put up there.
Could all be shot down by something I haven't considered, of course, but on the face of it, looks like the best location to me.
Kings Langley? It's not very flat around there. And there are a lot of expensive homes in that area - plenty of well heeled local resistance.
It's underneath the Bovington Stack, one of the 4 serving Heathrow. Not sure how an airfield here would affect climb out / in bound aircraft to Stansted.
It's flat enough - it'd need an order of magnitude less earth-moving than would Boris Island. We'll get well-heeled local resistance anywhere in the London area, especially on the right side of it (closest to the main routes to the west and north). The Bovingdon Stack could be rerouted. Stansted airport traffic shouldn't be affected; looking at flightradar, the relevant area seems pretty clear of Stansted traffic.
In essence: - East/West of London while still near to it is a bad idea (you do not want climb-out and descent over a heavily built-up area if you can avoid it). - South-east, east and north-east of London is a bad location for anyone not from the local region. For those from the local regions, Gatwick and Stansted satisfy the need. So south-west and north-west of London are the best locations. - South-west is pretty close to Gatwick already; north-west is closer to more people. - Existing transport routes are ideal to the north-west
I'd be amenable to flattening St Albans
St Albans is one of the best places for a night out in Hertfordshire. I did suggest on here a few years ago a new airport that would have involved flattening Borehamwood. A much better solution imho.
Ena was the frightening looking one in the hairnet in Corrie, Mrs Slocombe is the one with far too much make-up and colourful hair in Are You Being Served - famous for endless references to her pussy.
References to her pussy - if that was on during the day I hope she meant her cat!
Officially, to her cat - but it was always said so that it could be read in a different way e.g. 'He would start at the sight of my pussy'.
The man who led us into the EU accused of paedophilia while hundreds of migrants from war torn Africa pile through the channel tunnel illegally
Have the odds on a NO vote shortened?
I imagine the first will have no impact on the vote, while the second probably will.
Not at all clear how leaving the EU would help the situation in Calais either.
I would think that from outside the EU we could unequivocally deport economic migrants entering from France back to France, and terrorists from wherever back to their home country without regard to their 'right to a family life' here?
What if France refused to accept them?
And the 'right to family life' that was quoted has nothing to do with the EU. Thats the ECHR. The issue is not to do with the EU, its that these migrants should be registered in their country of first arrival and then the rules should be followed. It's a serious issue and we should do our best to help solve it but that needs to be thousands of miles away not in Calais..
Ena was the frightening looking one in the hairnet in Corrie, Mrs Slocombe is the one with far too much make-up and colourful hair in Are You Being Served - famous for endless references to her pussy.
References to her pussy - if that was on during the day I hope she meant her cat!
It was a much-repeated euphemism.
Yet again despite being a year older that TA, I feel about forty...
Is the author (anon) @PeterthePunter - he used the arkle gmail IRIC
Good to see the issue get more prominence, most of the pro gamblers now end up either at the shops or using proxies. The alternative of course is that the punters now just lay on Betfair while the old fashioned high street bookie milks the crowd for what they can get.
For anyone wondering who has made the cut for the first GOP nomination debate, this is not the official final list, but it is looking pretty likely that the ten are Trump, Walker, Bush, Cruz, Huckabee, Carson, Rubio, Paul, Christie and Kasich.
Recent news reports have noted that Rubio is losing a number of his donors. I think that means that the top two from a betting perspective should now be Walker and Bush, with money on Kasich as the outsider. I think the Trump polling will turn out to be little more than a mirage, The Wigasm.
Ena was the frightening looking one in the hairnet in Corrie, Mrs Slocombe is the one with far too much make-up and colourful hair in Are You Being Served - famous for endless references to her pussy.
References to her pussy - if that was on during the day I hope she meant her cat!
It was a much-repeated euphemism.
Yet again despite being a year older that TA, I feel about forty...
I turn 40 in little over three months
:depressed face:
Its better than not turning 40! The alternative is being on the ghost train.
Is the author (anon) @PeterthePunter - he used the arkle gmail IRIC
Good to see the issue get more prominence, most of the pro gamblers now end up either at the shops or using proxies. The alternative of course is that the punters now just lay on Betfair while the old fashioned high street bookie milks the crowd for what they can get.
Old fashioned high street bookies only exist to house FOBTs
Is the author (anon) @PeterthePunter - he used the arkle gmail IRIC
Good to see the issue get more prominence, most of the pro gamblers now end up either at the shops or using proxies. The alternative of course is that the punters now just lay on Betfair while the old fashioned high street bookie milks the crowd for what they can get.
Old fashioned high street bookies only exist to house FOBTs
For anyone wondering who has made the cut for the first GOP nomination debate, this is not the official final list, but it is looking pretty likely that the ten are Trump, Walker, Bush, Cruz, Huckabee, Carson, Rubio, Paul, Christie and Kasich.
Recent news reports have noted that Rubio is losing a number of his donors. I think that means that the top two from a betting perspective should now be Walker and Bush, with money on Kasich as the outsider. I think the Trump polling will turn out to be little more than a mirage, The Wigasm.
Is the author (anon) @PeterthePunter - he used the arkle gmail IRIC
Good to see the issue get more prominence, most of the pro gamblers now end up either at the shops or using proxies. The alternative of course is that the punters now just lay on Betfair while the old fashioned high street bookie milks the crowd for what they can get.
Old fashioned high street bookies only exist to house FOBTs
I wouldn't touch a FOBT with a ten foot barge pole, but I do use high street bookies. In fact since I retired I only ever bet in cash with a bookmaker or small charity bets with friends and PB regulars. Its not as convenient and can sometimes be difficult to get a bet on but it is very safe when one is on a fixed income.
Is the author (anon) @PeterthePunter - he used the arkle gmail IRIC
Good to see the issue get more prominence, most of the pro gamblers now end up either at the shops or using proxies. The alternative of course is that the punters now just lay on Betfair while the old fashioned high street bookie milks the crowd for what they can get.
Old fashioned high street bookies only exist to house FOBTs
Interesting idea from your friend. If he can get himself a few gigs in football clubs it could be pretty lucrative for him.
The other article is so true, we all know the friends with the phone app who think it's worth a bet in the pub as the match kicks off. Let's have a pint on the advertised double of a final score and first scorer at 20/1 - without realising that the real odds are 50/1.
Will the Lib Dems still be worshipping Ted Heath if the allegations against him prove dutroux?
Do LDs worship Ted Heath? He was very much a Tory!
Haven't you checked the back of your LibDem membership card? On the back it says "The holder shall never speak ill of St Ted Heath, and must erect a small shrine to the blessed one in a prominent part of the home. Preferably next to the statue of Our Lady of Guadelopue."
An interim solution to the LHR/LGW debate would be establishing a couple of Northern hubs - e.g. Manchester and GLA/EDI. This would reduce the number of regional feeder flights into LHR/LGW, thereby freeing up capacity for more long haul flights into London. In addition more long haul flights flying directly into the Northern hubs would also free up more capacity.
Jesus Christ - apparently the whole M20 is completely at a standstill. The EU really need to find a collective solution to this migrant crisis.
There is an obvious answer to much of the trouble at Calais.
Boris's three water cannon.
Stick them on a Eurotunnel freight train, first stop the burning tyre barricades. Next, where are those pesky migrants?
I have to say it's something I feel uncomfortable about...
But it may be the only way to deal with the problem, sadly.
The best way to deal with the problem is to make Britain less welcoming to illegal immigrants when they get here.
Our current strategy is to have a shop with sweeties in the window, and a sign that says "shop lifters and burglars will not be prosecuted!" and then wonder why all the security in the world does not stop people breaking in to steal from us.
An interim solution to the LHR/LGW debate would be establishing a couple of Northern hubs - e.g. Manchester and GLA/EDI. This would reduce the number of regional feeder flights into LHR/LGW, thereby freeing up capacity for more long haul flights into London. In addition more long haul flights flying directly into the Northern hubs would also free up more capacity.
Which is why LHR is not competing with LGW and STN, but with AMS and DXB. People want to fly either direct to their destination, or to a hub for a single transfer. Until BA can put 777s on the MAN and GLA flights then they're better off with their existing strategy until Heathrow expands.
An interim solution to the LHR/LGW debate would be establishing a couple of Northern hubs - e.g. Manchester and GLA/EDI. This would reduce the number of regional feeder flights into LHR/LGW, thereby freeing up capacity for more long haul flights into London. In addition more long haul flights flying directly into the Northern hubs would also free up more capacity.
The problem is that airlines don't want to use those airports much, except for short-haul. They like to keep the maintenance for 747s and 777 at Heathrow and Gatwick because its cheaper that way. And it means they can have a smaller number of long-haul pilots that are 'on standby' in the case of illness or other issues.
This is the most outlandish statement I've heard about Heath - from someone I don't find credible (an eccentric lawyer and self-professed intelligence expert obsessed by 'ze Germans'), but nevertheless he seems very sure of himself. If it were true, it would surely be about the biggest political scandal of all time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9ABUEu4XlU
Jesus Christ - apparently the whole M20 is completely at a standstill. The EU really need to find a collective solution to this migrant crisis.
There is an obvious answer to much of the trouble at Calais.
Boris's three water cannon.
Stick them on a Eurotunnel freight train, first stop the burning tyre barricades. Next, where are those pesky migrants?
I have to say it's something I feel uncomfortable about...
But it may be the only way to deal with the problem, sadly.
The best way to deal with the problem is to make Britain less welcoming to illegal immigrants when they get here.
Our current strategy is to have a shop with sweeties in the window, and a sign that says "shop lifters and burglars will not be prosecuted!" and then wonder why all the security in the world does not stop people breaking in to steal from us.
Pretty much my view too. It is ridiculous that we spend so much effort keeping people out, but then hire them a taxi to their hotel once they get a toe on our soil. It is like some mad game of British Bulldog!
Jesus Christ - apparently the whole M20 is completely at a standstill. The EU really need to find a collective solution to this migrant crisis.
There is an obvious answer to much of the trouble at Calais.
Boris's three water cannon.
Stick them on a Eurotunnel freight train, first stop the burning tyre barricades. Next, where are those pesky migrants?
I have to say it's something I feel uncomfortable about...
But it may be the only way to deal with the problem, sadly.
The best way to deal with the problem is to make Britain less welcoming to illegal immigrants when they get here.
Our current strategy is to have a shop with sweeties in the window, and a sign that says "shop lifters and burglars will not be prosecuted!" and then wonder why all the security in the world does not stop people breaking in to steal from us.
Don't we have to do both: make it very much harder for them to get here as well as less welcoming?
When you have large groups of people trying to storm a major piece of transport infrastructure (with all the security risks that that implies and the threat to law-abiding users), then very tough riot control measures are needed. And arrests. The "Jungle" camp should be closed down. Etc.
On what we do over here, we need to make it extremely unattractive for those who destroy their papers: locking up may be the only way. Effective enforcement of laws against employment in the black economy etc and no benefits/accommodation etc. I just wonder whether there is really the political will to do any of this and stick to it, even after this stops being front page news. Greg Clark, the hapless Minister on R4 this morning, seemed clueless.
An interim solution to the LHR/LGW debate would be establishing a couple of Northern hubs - e.g. Manchester and GLA/EDI. This would reduce the number of regional feeder flights into LHR/LGW, thereby freeing up capacity for more long haul flights into London. In addition more long haul flights flying directly into the Northern hubs would also free up more capacity.
The problem is that airlines don't want to use those airports much, except for short-haul. They like to keep the maintenance for 747s and 777 at Heathrow and Gatwick because its cheaper that way. And it means they can have a smaller number of long-haul pilots that are 'on standby' in the case of illness or other issues.
A good point about crewing, BA at LHR can have a couple of 777 or 747 flight and cabin crews extra turn up every day to smooth any issues, it's much more difficult to cover for a sick crew member at a satellite hub or downroute. Edit: Most of BA heavy maintenance is I thnk still at at CWL/Cardiff.
An interim solution to the LHR/LGW debate would be establishing a couple of Northern hubs - e.g. Manchester and GLA/EDI. This would reduce the number of regional feeder flights into LHR/LGW, thereby freeing up capacity for more long haul flights into London. In addition more long haul flights flying directly into the Northern hubs would also free up more capacity.
The problem is that airlines don't want to use those airports much, except for short-haul. They like to keep the maintenance for 747s and 777 at Heathrow and Gatwick because its cheaper that way. And it means they can have a smaller number of long-haul pilots that are 'on standby' in the case of illness or other issues.
Because of capacity issues, didn't BA move its main maintenance facilities from Heathrow to Cardiff some years ago?
Jesus Christ - apparently the whole M20 is completely at a standstill. The EU really need to find a collective solution to this migrant crisis.
There is an obvious answer to much of the trouble at Calais.
Boris's three water cannon.
Stick them on a Eurotunnel freight train, first stop the burning tyre barricades. Next, where are those pesky migrants?
I have to say it's something I feel uncomfortable about...
But it may be the only way to deal with the problem, sadly.
The best way to deal with the problem is to make Britain less welcoming to illegal immigrants when they get here.
Our current strategy is to have a shop with sweeties in the window, and a sign that says "shop lifters and burglars will not be prosecuted!" and then wonder why all the security in the world does not stop people breaking in to steal from us.
True. I think that's why the government are reducing/getting rid of benefits for migrants and asylum seekers. What I don't get is why they all want to come here. There are many other countries which offer democracy and opportunities for a good life.
Jesus Christ - apparently the whole M20 is completely at a standstill. The EU really need to find a collective solution to this migrant crisis.
There is an obvious answer to much of the trouble at Calais.
Boris's three water cannon.
Stick them on a Eurotunnel freight train, first stop the burning tyre barricades. Next, where are those pesky migrants?
I have to say it's something I feel uncomfortable about...
But it may be the only way to deal with the problem, sadly.
The best way to deal with the problem is to make Britain less welcoming to illegal immigrants when they get here.
Our current strategy is to have a shop with sweeties in the window, and a sign that says "shop lifters and burglars will not be prosecuted!" and then wonder why all the security in the world does not stop people breaking in to steal from us.
That solution has been tried in the past and each time in whatever flavour it has been struck down by the courts. It would seem that the present arrangements of three squares a day in a nice hotel if nowhere else is available plus spending money is the minimum HMG can get away with.
An interim solution to the LHR/LGW debate would be establishing a couple of Northern hubs - e.g. Manchester and GLA/EDI. This would reduce the number of regional feeder flights into LHR/LGW, thereby freeing up capacity for more long haul flights into London. In addition more long haul flights flying directly into the Northern hubs would also free up more capacity.
The problem is that airlines don't want to use those airports much, except for short-haul. They like to keep the maintenance for 747s and 777 at Heathrow and Gatwick because its cheaper that way. And it means they can have a smaller number of long-haul pilots that are 'on standby' in the case of illness or other issues.
Robert, However it means it is a pain in the butt for us. Lots of business goes elsewhere now, ie Schipol. Going via London is a pain in the butt and really lengthens journey.
Jesus Christ - apparently the whole M20 is completely at a standstill. The EU really need to find a collective solution to this migrant crisis.
There is an obvious answer to much of the trouble at Calais.
Boris's three water cannon.
Stick them on a Eurotunnel freight train, first stop the burning tyre barricades. Next, where are those pesky migrants?
I have to say it's something I feel uncomfortable about...
But it may be the only way to deal with the problem, sadly.
The best way to deal with the problem is to make Britain less welcoming to illegal immigrants when they get here.
Our current strategy is to have a shop with sweeties in the window, and a sign that says "shop lifters and burglars will not be prosecuted!" and then wonder why all the security in the world does not stop people breaking in to steal from us.
Don't we have to do both: make it very much harder for them to get here as well as less welcoming?
When you have large groups of people trying to storm a major piece of transport infrastructure (with all the security risks that that implies and the threat to law-abiding users), then very tough riot control measures are needed. And arrests. The "Jungle" camp should be closed down. Etc.
On what we do over here, we need to make it extremely unattractive for those who destroy their papers: locking up may be the only way. Effective enforcement of laws against employment in the black economy etc and no benefits/accommodation etc. I just wonder whether there is really the political will to do any of this and stick to it, even after this stops being front page news. Greg Clark, the hapless Minister on R4 this morning, seemed clueless.
I have no problem beefing up security, but I contend that the biggest reason that people want to come to the UK rather than going to countries with zero unemployment such as Switzerland or Norway (neither of which have border controls) is because it's incredibly easy to get a job on the black market.
Security is treating the symptom; making Britain a less attractive destination is treating the cause.
This is the most outlandish statement I've heard about Heath - from someone I don't find credible (an eccentric lawyer and self-professed intelligence expert obsessed by 'ze Germans'), but nevertheless he seems very sure of himself. If it were true, it would surely be about the biggest political scandal of all time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9ABUEu4XlU
He's a barrister, so is quite used to creating convincing stories. Sounds like he hits the port and brandy a lot too.
Where are the washed up bodies? Where is the matching of Morning Cloud sailing logs with kids missing from the home in Jersey? and so on ...
Jesus Christ - apparently the whole M20 is completely at a standstill. The EU really need to find a collective solution to this migrant crisis.
There is an obvious answer to much of the trouble at Calais.
Boris's three water cannon.
Stick them on a Eurotunnel freight train, first stop the burning tyre barricades. Next, where are those pesky migrants?
I have to say it's something I feel uncomfortable about...
But it may be the only way to deal with the problem, sadly.
The best way to deal with the problem is to make Britain less welcoming to illegal immigrants when they get here.
Our current strategy is to have a shop with sweeties in the window, and a sign that says "shop lifters and burglars will not be prosecuted!" and then wonder why all the security in the world does not stop people breaking in to steal from us.
Don't we have to do both: make it very much harder for them to get here as well as less welcoming?
When you have large groups of people trying to storm a major piece of transport infrastructure (with all the security risks that that implies and the threat to law-abiding users), then very tough riot control measures are needed. And arrests. The "Jungle" camp should be closed down. Etc.
On what we do over here, we need to make it extremely unattractive for those who destroy their papers: locking up may be the only way. Effective enforcement of laws against employment in the black economy etc and no benefits/accommodation etc. I just wonder whether there is really the political will to do any of this and stick to it, even after this stops being front page news. Greg Clark, the hapless Minister on R4 this morning, seemed clueless.
I have no problem beefing up security, but I contend that the biggest reason that people want to come to the UK rather than going to countries with zero unemployment such as Switzerland or Norway (neither of which have border controls) is because it's incredibly easy to get a job on the black market.
Security is treating the symptom; making Britain a less attractive destination is treating the cause.
The prospective French Mayor of Calais says we need to change our rules and introduce ID cards. Meanwhile the French continue to allow them to cross France after they have breached Schengen.
Jesus Christ - apparently the whole M20 is completely at a standstill. The EU really need to find a collective solution to this migrant crisis.
There is an obvious answer to much of the trouble at Calais.
Boris's three water cannon.
Stick them on a Eurotunnel freight train, first stop the burning tyre barricades. Next, where are those pesky migrants?
I have to say it's something I feel uncomfortable about...
But it may be the only way to deal with the problem, sadly.
The best way to deal with the problem is to make Britain less welcoming to illegal immigrants when they get here.
Our current strategy is to have a shop with sweeties in the window, and a sign that says "shop lifters and burglars will not be prosecuted!" and then wonder why all the security in the world does not stop people breaking in to steal from us.
Don't we have to do both: make it very much harder for them to get here as well as less welcoming?
When you have large groups of people trying to storm a major piece of transport infrastructure (with all the security risks that that implies and the threat to law-abiding users), then very tough riot control measures are needed. And arrests. The "Jungle" camp should be closed down. Etc.
On what we do over here, we need to make it extremely unattractive for those who destroy their papers: locking up may be the only way. Effective enforcement of laws against employment in the black economy etc and no benefits/accommodation etc. I just wonder whether there is really the political will to do any of this and stick to it, even after this stops being front page news. Greg Clark, the hapless Minister on R4 this morning, seemed clueless.
It seems that we are very polite to these people by their own standards - they want to know why they are not dodging live ammunition, tear gas and water cannon at the border. Outside Europe this is normal and expected.
We need to lock up anyone hiring illegals, and we need to host 'asylum seekers' in a military facility as we process their applications. They can be free to leave to any country that will accept them. Anyone arriving at Dover should need to prove why they are seeking asylum from France.
This is the most outlandish statement I've heard about Heath - from someone I don't find credible (an eccentric lawyer and self-professed intelligence expert obsessed by 'ze Germans'), but nevertheless he seems very sure of himself. If it were true, it would surely be about the biggest political scandal of all time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9ABUEu4XlU
He's a barrister, so is quite used to creating convincing stories. Sounds like he hits the port and brandy a lot too.
Where are the washed up bodies? Where is the matching of Morning Cloud sailing logs with kids missing from the home in Jersey? and so on ...
As you say, hardly credible without more.
Yes, I agree. And the rest of the interview is a ramble about spy rings and how beastly the Germans are, the uploaders have snipped those bits. The part that does at least trigger a question though is how indeed could Heath's victims (if indeed he was guilty of such crimes) have been allowed to live on?
Jesus Christ - apparently the whole M20 is completely at a standstill. The EU really need to find a collective solution to this migrant crisis.
There is an obvious answer to much of the trouble at Calais.
Boris's three water cannon.
Stick them on a Eurotunnel freight train, first stop the burning tyre barricades. Next, where are those pesky migrants?
I have to say it's something I feel uncomfortable about...
But it may be the only way to deal with the problem, sadly.
The best way to deal with the problem is to make Britain less welcoming to illegal immigrants when they get here.
Our current strategy is to have a shop with sweeties in the window, and a sign that says "shop lifters and burglars will not be prosecuted!" and then wonder why all the security in the world does not stop people breaking in to steal from us.
That solution has been tried in the past and each time in whatever flavour it has been struck down by the courts. It would seem that the present arrangements of three squares a day in a nice hotel if nowhere else is available plus spending money is the minimum HMG can get away with.
Illegal immigrants come here to work on the black market. They don't come here for £37/week.
Countries like Switzerland, France, Germany and Italy have severe penalities for employing people illegally: including jail time, exclusion from public sector contracts, confiscation of assets, and fines of up to €500,000.
We fine you £20,000. Occasionally. And have virtually no enforcement.
In Italy, those illegal immigrants who denounce their employer get residence. That's a real incentive for people to grass. Unsurprisingly, very few Italian companies employ illegal labour any more.
There are two countries that have managed to deal sensibly with illegal immigration: Switzerland and Australia. Both have done it by reducing the incentive: either processing people off-shore (so they can't work in the black economy), or making the penalities for employing illegal workers so severe that they simply can't get jobs in the black economy.
@Apocalpyse- it's a bit of a Daily Mail/Theresa May myth that they all want to come here. We take in far fewer than Germany or Sweden. It is just that Calais provides a focal point, much like Ventimiglia in Northern Italy that borders France where you can see similar scenes.
Go to the shanti immigrani towns around Rome or Naples. Go to the beaches of Sicily. I was at the hospital today near Florence supporting my in laws, and I was overwhelmed by the numbers of migrants eaking out an existence around the parking. There were maybe about thirty or forty that approached me. I'm OK, I'm OK about dealing with them- but I felt kind of sorry for the Italian elderlies who are there visiting relatives, and who you can see are overwhelmed and scared at being approached by a large group of ethnic young males.
Jesus Christ - apparently the whole M20 is completely at a standstill. The EU really need to find a collective solution to this migrant crisis.
There is an obvious answer to much of the trouble at Calais.
Boris's three water cannon.
Stick them on a Eurotunnel freight train, first stop the burning tyre barricades. Next, where are those pesky migrants?
I have to say it's something I feel uncomfortable about...
But it may be the only way to deal with the problem, sadly.
The best way to deal with the problem is to make Britain less welcoming to illegal immigrants when they get here.
Our current strategy is to have a shop with sweeties in the window, and a sign that says "shop lifters and burglars will not be prosecuted!" and then wonder why all the security in the world does not stop people breaking in to steal from us.
True. I think that's why the government are reducing/getting rid of benefits for migrants and asylum seekers. What I don't get is why they all want to come here. There are many other countries which offer democracy and opportunities for a good life.
'I cant imagine the man who conned us into joining the EEC in the first place being found (if it is found) to be a paedo would help the IN side much'.
Come off it. Heath was aided and abetted by a legion of other politicians who gradually gave up sovereignty without consultation. Heath couldn't have predicted they would do that.
Heath was a great man and pulled off an achievement that no other leader in modern times has managed. He led is party to a workable overall majority replacing LAB which also had a workable overall majority. Neither Maggie nor Tony Blair did that.
Heath was an utter scumbag who knew exactly what he was doing when he took us onto the EU and knew exactly what that meant for the country. He repeatedly lied about what EU membership meant for the UK and I am glad about anything that further destroys his memory and his legacy.
The fact that the only positive thing you can say say about him is he managed to win an election shows just how bankrupt his legacy is.
For anyone wondering who has made the cut for the first GOP nomination debate, this is not the official final list, but it is looking pretty likely that the ten are Trump, Walker, Bush, Cruz, Huckabee, Carson, Rubio, Paul, Christie and Kasich.
Recent news reports have noted that Rubio is losing a number of his donors. I think that means that the top two from a betting perspective should now be Walker and Bush, with money on Kasich as the outsider. I think the Trump polling will turn out to be little more than a mirage, The Wigasm.
@rcs- Italian employment law makes it damned difficult to employ anyone as far as I can see.
OK- in the absence of being able to become invisible in the black economy, in Italy there are tens of thousands of migrants working the streets- the beaches, any car park, Ikea- you get besieged, supermarkets, walking down the street, outside bars, prostituting openly on the thoroughfares, day or night.
Making it illegal for them not to get black market work only makes them have to become more visible and much more problematic for the population at large.
Which would you prefer?
Illegal immigrants come here to work on the black market. They don't come here for £37/week.
Countries like Switzerland, France, Germany and Italy have severe penalities for employing people illegally: including jail time, exclusion from public sector contracts, confiscation of assets, and fines of up to €500,000.
We fine you £20,000. Occasionally. And have virtually no enforcement.
In Italy, those illegal immigrants who denounce their employer get residence. That's a real incentive for people to grass. Unsurprisingly, very few Italian companies employ illegal labour any more.
There are two countries that have managed to deal sensibly with illegal immigration: Switzerland and Australia. Both have done it by reducing the incentive: either processing people off-shore (so they can't work in the black economy), or making the penalities for employing illegal workers so severe that they simply can't get jobs in the black economy.
The prospective French Mayor of Calais says we need to change our rules and introduce ID cards. Meanwhile the French continue to allow them to cross France after they have breached Schengen.
Id cards could, providing various other measures were put in place and enforced, go a long way to solving the problem. However, the UK public won't stand for them and no government is going to have another attempt at introducing them.
It might well be that changing how NI numbers are issued could produce many of the same benefits at a much lower cost, but the political to enforce the other measures would have to exist. At present there is no sign of that. Oh, to be sure HMG is very good at enforcing the rules against people who won't cause a fuss (if I recall the wife of Mr. Charles, gent of this parish, has "no recourse to public funds" stamped in her passport as a condition of residence). However, a 25 year old-Eritrean male with a human rights lawyer working for him is not likely to receive such drastic treatment.
For anyone wondering who has made the cut for the first GOP nomination debate, this is not the official final list, but it is looking pretty likely that the ten are Trump, Walker, Bush, Cruz, Huckabee, Carson, Rubio, Paul, Christie and Kasich.
Recent news reports have noted that Rubio is losing a number of his donors. I think that means that the top two from a betting perspective should now be Walker and Bush, with money on Kasich as the outsider. I think the Trump polling will turn out to be little more than a mirage, The Wigasm.
This is the most outlandish statement I've heard about Heath - from someone I don't find credible (an eccentric lawyer and self-professed intelligence expert obsessed by 'ze Germans'), but nevertheless he seems very sure of himself. If it were true, it would surely be about the biggest political scandal of all time.
"statement" is a strong word.
It's an allegation without a shred of evidence provided
This is the most outlandish statement I've heard about Heath - from someone I don't find credible (an eccentric lawyer and self-professed intelligence expert obsessed by 'ze Germans'), but nevertheless he seems very sure of himself. If it were true, it would surely be about the biggest political scandal of all time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9ABUEu4XlU
He's a barrister, so is quite used to creating convincing stories. Sounds like he hits the port and brandy a lot too.
Where are the washed up bodies? Where is the matching of Morning Cloud sailing logs with kids missing from the home in Jersey? and so on ...
This is the most outlandish statement I've heard about Heath - from someone I don't find credible (an eccentric lawyer and self-professed intelligence expert obsessed by 'ze Germans'), but nevertheless he seems very sure of himself. If it were true, it would surely be about the biggest political scandal of all time.
"statement" is a strong word.
It's an allegation without a shred of evidence provided
I don't disagree, but in the apparent absence of a proper enquiry conducted in public, it's hardly surprising that improper theories abound.
The man who led us into the EU accused of paedophilia while hundreds of migrants from war torn Africa pile through the channel tunnel illegally
Have the odds on a NO vote shortened?
I imagine the first will have no impact on the vote, while the second probably will.
Not at all clear how leaving the EU would help the situation in Calais either.
I would think that from outside the EU we could unequivocally deport economic migrants entering from France back to France, and terrorists from wherever back to their home country without regard to their 'right to a family life' here?
A barrister who made a high-level hoax call saying a nuclear bomb was poised to blow up the Queen at the London 2012 Olympics has been jailed.
Michael Shrimpton, 57, of Jusons Glebe, Wendover, was found guilty last year and today he was sentenced to 12 months at Southwark Crown Court.
On April 19 2012, Shrimpton contacted the office of the Defence Secretary Philip Dunne, and David Lidington MP claiming a nuclear warhead had been placed in London, possibly near to a hospital to be detonated at the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games.
He claimed that intelligence had been blocked from being passed through official channels because the Germans had infiltrated MI5, MI6 and GCHQ.
...
Shrimpton had come to the attention of various police forces over the years and following the London terrorist attacks in July 2005, he earned himself the official label of ‘an intelligence nuisance’.
He was described by the prosecution counsel as an “unrelenting networker, desperate to associate himself with persons in real power and influence, and using any even marginal association with such people to bolster his credibility with other such people”.
Credible stuff, then. Anyone with an endorsement from David Icke has got to be onto something. Or on something, at least.
This is the most outlandish statement I've heard about Heath - from someone I don't find credible (an eccentric lawyer and self-professed intelligence expert obsessed by 'ze Germans'), but nevertheless he seems very sure of himself. If it were true, it would surely be about the biggest political scandal of all time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9ABUEu4XlU
What I find interesting is that none of the lefties on Twitter talk about the fact that a Socialist government in France is so unpopular with the migrants at Calais. They're not interested in talking about that, for some reason.
For anyone wondering who has made the cut for the first GOP nomination debate, this is not the official final list, but it is looking pretty likely that the ten are Trump, Walker, Bush, Cruz, Huckabee, Carson, Rubio, Paul, Christie and Kasich.
Recent news reports have noted that Rubio is losing a number of his donors. I think that means that the top two from a betting perspective should now be Walker and Bush, with money on Kasich as the outsider. I think the Trump polling will turn out to be little more than a mirage, The Wigasm.
Charles, given that US law ultimately derives from British common law, it is pretty apparent that natural born includes all who are born (regardless of location) with the right to US citizenship and hence do not need to be naturalized. Cruz has that through his US mother.
I don't think that there is any serious doubt amongst legal scholars in the US that that is the correct legal interpretation. If any doubt exists, it is simply the product of ignorance or people trying for other reasons to create an issue where one does not exist. Of course, all doubt would be removed if the Supreme Court made a ruling, but that will not happen unless a State or candidate challenges Cruz' eligibility.
FInally, practice is also on Cruz' side. McCain (Panama Canal Zone), Goldwater (Arizona before it was a state) and Romney (George - Mexico) were all candidates who were born outside of the US and whose candidacies were not effectively challenged on the basis of geography of birth.
Comments
They need new runways at LHR and LGW, and need to have them both under construction tomorrow. If people in the way need paying off then pay them off - rather than spend the money and time on lawyers and process.
The Davies report included the time benefits to travellers in the cost benefit analysis. But surprisingly it left out the noise and pollution disbenefits to all non-flying Londoners.
Another flaw was it does not include the impact of the cost of the schemes, paid for by the private sector which means passed on to passengers, on demand. Extraordinary. The Heathrow scheme is much more expensive than Gatwick so passengers pay more and presumably demand is correspondingly less. But this is not in the model.
Boris's three water cannon.
Stick them on a Eurotunnel freight train, first stop the burning tyre barricades. Next, where are those pesky migrants?
The Spurs squad for tomorrows game vs Real Madrid is terrifying for the season.
.... 3 keepers, 9 defenders, 10 midfield, 1 striker
If Harry comes a cropper there
http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/news/audi-cup-squad-030815/
We'll get well-heeled local resistance anywhere in the London area, especially on the right side of it (closest to the main routes to the west and north).
The Bovingdon Stack could be rerouted. Stansted airport traffic shouldn't be affected; looking at flightradar, the relevant area seems pretty clear of Stansted traffic.
In essence:
- East/West of London while still near to it is a bad idea (you do not want climb-out and descent over a heavily built-up area if you can avoid it).
- South-east, east and north-east of London is a bad location for anyone not from the local region. For those from the local regions, Gatwick and Stansted satisfy the need. So south-west and north-west of London are the best locations.
- South-west is pretty close to Gatwick already; north-west is closer to more people.
- Existing transport routes are ideal to the north-west
I'd be amenable to flattening St Albans
http://www.theguardian.com/global/2015/aug/02/betting-horses-gambling-bookmakers-accounts-closed
http://www.bbc.co.uk/events/egm4fx#b063s4gx
Yet again despite being a year older that TA, I feel about forty...
I'm not a fan generally but if ever there was an occasion outside NI...
If it makes you feel any better - I saw them all before they were repeats....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRJlItzalJY
Is the author (anon) @PeterthePunter - he used the arkle gmail IRIC
But it may be the only way to deal with the problem, sadly.
Would be interesting to see which countries complained about it if we did.. we could send them there!
I did suggest on here a few years ago a new airport that would have involved flattening Borehamwood.
A much better solution imho.
:depressed face:
He also gets on w Lads and 365... referencing Salmond too!
I think it could be, good spot!
(Did he tip Sire de Grugy and Pineau de Rue on here? If so its him!)
Recent news reports have noted that Rubio is losing a number of his donors. I think that means that the top two from a betting perspective should now be Walker and Bush, with money on Kasich as the outsider. I think the Trump polling will turn out to be little more than a mirage, The Wigasm.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/03/donald-trump-plows-ahead-in-a-new-poll-but-the-best-news-belongs-to-john-kasich/
Could well be the long lost PtP!
http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/luis-louis-ladbrokes-life.html
A mate of mine has just started out a new venture as a betting guidance counsellor for the young!!
http://www.abetterperspective.co.uk
The fact that Curley has difficulty placing a bet isn't really representative of the problems facing a less extraordinary punter.
https://twitter.com/paul1kirby/status/627923652986687488
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/five-arrests-as-armed-police-swoop-on-van-in-dramatic-raid-in-north-london-10436063.html
The other article is so true, we all know the friends with the phone app who think it's worth a bet in the pub as the match kicks off. Let's have a pint on the advertised double of a final score and first scorer at 20/1 - without realising that the real odds are 50/1.
Our current strategy is to have a shop with sweeties in the window, and a sign that says "shop lifters and burglars will not be prosecuted!" and then wonder why all the security in the world does not stop people breaking in to steal from us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9ABUEu4XlU
When you have large groups of people trying to storm a major piece of transport infrastructure (with all the security risks that that implies and the threat to law-abiding users), then very tough riot control measures are needed. And arrests. The "Jungle" camp should be closed down. Etc.
On what we do over here, we need to make it extremely unattractive for those who destroy their papers: locking up may be the only way. Effective enforcement of laws against employment in the black economy etc and no benefits/accommodation etc. I just wonder whether there is really the political will to do any of this and stick to it, even after this stops being front page news. Greg Clark, the hapless Minister on R4 this morning, seemed clueless.
Edit: Most of BA heavy maintenance is I thnk still at at CWL/Cardiff.
Security is treating the symptom; making Britain a less attractive destination is treating the cause.
Where are the washed up bodies? Where is the matching of Morning Cloud sailing logs with kids missing from the home in Jersey? and so on ...
As you say, hardly credible without more.
But I'm not sure anything shocks me anymore.
We need to lock up anyone hiring illegals, and we need to host 'asylum seekers' in a military facility as we process their applications. They can be free to leave to any country that will accept them. Anyone arriving at Dover should need to prove why they are seeking asylum from France.
Countries like Switzerland, France, Germany and Italy have severe penalities for employing people illegally: including jail time, exclusion from public sector contracts, confiscation of assets, and fines of up to €500,000.
We fine you £20,000. Occasionally. And have virtually no enforcement.
In Italy, those illegal immigrants who denounce their employer get residence. That's a real incentive for people to grass. Unsurprisingly, very few Italian companies employ illegal labour any more.
There are two countries that have managed to deal sensibly with illegal immigration: Switzerland and Australia. Both have done it by reducing the incentive: either processing people off-shore (so they can't work in the black economy), or making the penalities for employing illegal workers so severe that they simply can't get jobs in the black economy.
Go to the shanti immigrani towns around Rome or Naples. Go to the beaches of Sicily. I was at the hospital today near Florence supporting my in laws, and I was overwhelmed by the numbers of migrants eaking out an existence around the parking. There were maybe about thirty or forty that approached me. I'm OK, I'm OK about dealing with them- but I felt kind of sorry for the Italian elderlies who are there visiting relatives, and who you can see are overwhelmed and scared at being approached by a large group of ethnic young males.
:that-is-all:
The fact that the only positive thing you can say say about him is he managed to win an election shows just how bankrupt his legacy is.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/aug/20/ted-cruz-born-canada-eligible-run-president/
OK- in the absence of being able to become invisible in the black economy, in Italy there are tens of thousands of migrants working the streets- the beaches, any car park, Ikea- you get besieged, supermarkets, walking down the street, outside bars, prostituting openly on the thoroughfares, day or night.
Making it illegal for them not to get black market work only makes them have to become more visible and much more problematic for the population at large.
Which would you prefer?
Illegal immigrants come here to work on the black market. They don't come here for £37/week.
Countries like Switzerland, France, Germany and Italy have severe penalities for employing people illegally: including jail time, exclusion from public sector contracts, confiscation of assets, and fines of up to €500,000.
We fine you £20,000. Occasionally. And have virtually no enforcement.
In Italy, those illegal immigrants who denounce their employer get residence. That's a real incentive for people to grass. Unsurprisingly, very few Italian companies employ illegal labour any more.
There are two countries that have managed to deal sensibly with illegal immigration: Switzerland and Australia. Both have done it by reducing the incentive: either processing people off-shore (so they can't work in the black economy), or making the penalities for employing illegal workers so severe that they simply can't get jobs in the black economy.
https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/628263898928562177
It might well be that changing how NI numbers are issued could produce many of the same benefits at a much lower cost, but the political to enforce the other measures would have to exist. At present there is no sign of that. Oh, to be sure HMG is very good at enforcing the rules against people who won't cause a fuss (if I recall the wife of Mr. Charles, gent of this parish, has "no recourse to public funds" stamped in her passport as a condition of residence). However, a 25 year old-Eritrean male with a human rights lawyer working for him is not likely to receive such drastic treatment.
http://www.bloomberg.com/energy
It's an allegation without a shred of evidence provided
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUSjgNf1gWg
I don't think that there is any serious doubt amongst legal scholars in the US that that is the correct legal interpretation. If any doubt exists, it is simply the product of ignorance or people trying for other reasons to create an issue where one does not exist. Of course, all doubt would be removed if the Supreme Court made a ruling, but that will not happen unless a State or candidate challenges Cruz' eligibility.
FInally, practice is also on Cruz' side. McCain (Panama Canal Zone), Goldwater (Arizona before it was a state) and Romney (George - Mexico) were all candidates who were born outside of the US and whose candidacies were not effectively challenged on the basis of geography of birth.