Jenbel

People do, when there are genuinely no other options. However, the more valuable the ducks are (actually, the conservation value of the site), the greater the requirement to protect them - hence the international treaties. What do you suggest we do about those?

The problem is that what you tend to find is that lots of developers are quite happy to make grandiose claims about how there are no other options, this is the only site possible and actually there are, but they are more difficult to build and design or not as profitable. That's not sufficient I'm afraid. We are meant to protect our environment, and the designations on the Thames estuary are the highest possible in the UK - recognising it's national and international importance. We don't just protect this site for the UK, we protect it on behalf of all of the other countries that the birds using it come from.

So as a result of the capacity for developers to claim 'it can only be here', the test of 'over-riding public interest' is actually pretty stiff because it has to be, to ensure that things are not being done out of preference/cost/expediency rather than genuinely 'there is no other option'. The proposals are not the only option for provision of aviation in the south-east of England, and indeed, the results of the work done by the previous government would actually provide any interested bodies with lots of opportunities for judicial review since they clearly established there are preferential options to new build in the Thames estuary.

The problem with protecting the environment is that you actually have to protect it - not just guard it until you get a better, more profitable development coming along to wreck it. And your most valuable habitat - and this is one of the five most important wetland complexes in the UK - have to be protected against all but the most imperative developments (or those which have little effect).

A vanity project, carried out to protect a political party's votes, is not an imperative development. And the problem with CBA when applied to environmental issues, is how do you value a success ecosystem supporting hundreds of thousands of birds? The difficulty of that (though there is a new methodology which is just starting to be picked up but in reality is still being developed) means that environmental benefits are nearly always undervalued, and so CBA is not an appropriate tool when making an assessment of over-riding interest.

The issue for the Thames is that the habitat cannot be recreated. We cannot go and build a massive new estuary complex. So we mess around with this, and we know from the Cardiff Bay research, we lose some of the populations supported by the Thames and which would be most affected. How do you value that? You cannot. But, as SERAS pointed out, this is not the only option available.

Dick Turpin

If the government decided to try to close Heathrow surely it would have the following problems on its hands:

A. Its a privately owned company/business so massive compensation would have to be paid.
B. Its unfair on the privately owned business to exclude them from any discussion on how to improve the south easts airport space. Sure I have seen somewhere if the government excluded Heathrow from expansion plans its possibly opening itself up to legal action?
C. The current airlines operating from Heathrow would expect to move to said new airport and hold the same amount of slots as they currently do at Heathrow. Then any additional slots would be put out for bidding/sale/auction or whatever the chosen method of selling them is?

Paralytic

+1. Had the OP's most recent post, where he described his problems with BA, been the first post on this thread, rather than the rant that was posted, I think this thread would be completely different.

dark_horse

I heard a suggestion a few years ago that there should be a minimum age of 35-40 years for politicians, because it seems rather disingenuous that people who are supposed to serve as MPs might do so having had no experience of the world. I heard that proposal when I was in my 20s and thought it eminently sensible. I still do.

^ Summed up perfectly. What you say is only half the issue; the other half is how you say it.

bealine

There is also a school of thought that says that its far easier to send your young people into war when you're an old buzzard wihout many years left in front of you.

It's far harder to urge your countrymen onwards to die in blood-soaked misery of hell and destruction, or to order the release of thousands of megatons of nuclear destructive power if you're young and your belly is all afire with optimism and ambition! Personally, for all of their faults that a miserable old git like me will nitpick over, I think today's young people are, generally, much more sensitive to their fellow human beings, much more tolerant and appreciate life more than our generation ever did! ..............and it tends to be the youngsters that are keeping Rememberance Day alive to give thanks to all those poor souls who weren't allowed to enjoy their young lives properly!

From Mike Harding's "Bombers' Moon"

"Old Men Sending Young Men Out To Die.
Young Men Dying For A Politician's Lies.

Old Men Sending Young Men Out To Kill.
If We Don't Stop Them, Then They Never Will!"

oscietra

To suggest this country's future economic success should be held ransom to a few rats with wings is nonsensical.

dark_horse

Fair point, though the last British PM to send his countrymen to a full-on war was 49 at the time.

Jenbel

But the economic success is not being held to ransom. There are other options to a dubious proposal such as this - so if you are saying the birds are holding the country to ransom, then clearly, the same charge can be made against Dave and his cronies since they are the ones who cancelled the third runway? Why do they want the UK to fail

itsmeitisss

It's hardly just pigeons so your view is very simplistic. Boris' Island is just about the least practical site for n airport. From South West Wales (Swansea area) I'd rather drive to Manchester than Boris ISland via the world's largest standstill roundabout

meester69

I am quite mystified that this ridiculous troll thread is still open, when complaints from people with specific issues on their flights have been closed down in fairly short order.....

LTN Phobia

For a simple reason that discussions are not particularly "uncivilised" at the moment. It is at risk of closure any time should it deteriorate though.

The complaint thread that I closed today was not closed because of the complaint in the opening post. It was closed because of some of the subsequent posts - I think the reason for closure was explained in the closing post, and I apologise it was not clear enough.

LTN Phobia
Moderator: BA Forum

OxonCantab

roundabouts are terrifying enough on their own(learned to drive on right side of road, never really got used to driving on left), to go all the way to boris island means I'd rather take the train to Birmingham

mkjr

we recently had some very young persons elected into the CDN house of commons. in some respects, i welcome views that are not set in any particular way. i find a young mind more open than a middle aged one and in some respects, the old ones are the most resistant to any change at all.

Phil the Flyer

... all the check-in staff, security staff and shop assistants would talk with a Brummy accent. Reason enough not to go within 50 miles of the place.

dark_horse

...they charge Ł1 for plastic security bags if you want to take liquids through!