The wholly Spanish-owned BAA and the airlines claim that they want the
third runway at Heathrow for short haul domestic flights thereby
relieving the main runways for long haul flights. However there are
some things that do not make sense (apart from the whole idea anyway).

1/ T5 will bring all operations (well most of them), of at least one
pro-expanionist airline under one roof, that is for both domestic and
longhaul flights. This will mean that crew, passengers and baggage
will not have to transit from say the Central Area to T4. T5 does
actually make real operational sense.

2/ However if they put the new T6 hypermarket on top of Sipson then
that will split the operation between T5 and T6, many MILES therebye
making the handling of transiting passengers and baggage far worse
than it is at present. And with millions of bags lost a year right now
imagine how worse this could get!! So T6 does not make sense - if the
third runway is only a short one for domestic flights.

3/ Meanwhile if the Government gets its act together to improve the
long distance railway services then short haul flights wont be
necessary anyway.

4/ So what is the REAL reason for a third runway then? I would opine
that it is for a FULL LENGTH runway from Harmondsworth, thro' Sipson
and Harlington, to Cranford Park. Why? Because the new super jumbo
A380s will require the use of the two present east-west runways, and
they will also require greater separation from smaller aircraft taking
off / landing due to the immense turbulence they will create. In which
case where would the present domestic AND long haul 747 flights have
to use? Right - the new LONG third runway serviced by a HUGE T6.

If anyone doubts this scenario think of all the lies that the BAA and
its airline cohorts have uttered over the decades. They got T4 and
said no more expansion. They got T5 and said no third runway. Now they
want a third 'short' runway, but will then want to lengthen it to a
long one.

5/ What about 747s and short haul aircraft needing to go to the
maintenance base at Hatton Cross? They could trundle along the new
third runway and then across the new taxiway at Sipson (the A4 Bath
Road would be underground by cut and cover by then), and then through
the Central Area - a very circuitous route!! But active runways are
not used for taxiing. But there IS a disused runway which runs
diagonally past the maintence base. It used to be for landing short
haul aircraft on when there was a cross wind. This could easily be
extended through to Cranford to meet the end of the new LONG third
runway in Cranford Park just about where the ancient Cranford Church
is.

I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
wasteland maing it illegal to live there.

SB.

In message 
           SB  wrote:

[snip]
> 
> 2/ However if they put the new T6 hypermarket on top of Sipson then
> that will split the operation between T5 and T6, many MILES therebye
> making the handling of transiting passengers and baggage far worse
> than it is at present. And with millions of bags lost a year right now
> imagine how worse this could get!! So T6 does not make sense - if the
> third runway is only a short one for domestic flights.

Doesn't stop BA operating domestic flights from T5, presumably the object is
to concentrate the /other/ domestic flights at T6, leaving the central
terminal complex to handle the non-BA long-haul flights.  In itself it makes
a certain amount of sense.  Actual distance between terminals makes minimal
difference to the baggage handling problems, 99.999% of which occur inside
the terminals.

> 
> 3/ Meanwhile if the Government gets its act together to improve the
> long distance railway services then short haul flights wont be
> necessary anyway.

Pigs might fly!

[snip]

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:

>I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
>so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
>the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
>between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
>wasteland maing it illegal to live there.

People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:

>I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
>so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
>the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
>between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
>wasteland maing it illegal to live there.

People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.

"Al Key"  wrote in message 
news:i462c3lbro7si409mu249np4sccgdmqf5e@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:
>
>>I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
>>so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
>>the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
>>between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
>>wasteland maing it illegal to live there.
>
> People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
> their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.

Many of the 'villages'  were there long before the airport.

tim

On 2007-08-14, tim.....  wrote:
>
> "Al Key"  wrote in message 
> news:i462c3lbro7si409mu249np4sccgdmqf5e@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:
>>
>>>I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
>>>so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
>>>the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
>>>between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
>>>wasteland maing it illegal to live there.
>>
>> People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
>> their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.
>
> Many of the 'villages'  were there long before the airport.

More fool people for moving into them, then. Those houses were cheap for a
reason.


-- 
                 "Religion poisons everything."
            [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

tim.....  wrote:

> Many of the 'villages'  were there long before the airport.

But most of the housing in the 'villages' has been built since long
after the construction of the airport, and I suspect there are few, if
any residents who predate the development of the airport. Indeed the
majority have moved in since the 1970s and at that time aircraft were
considerably noisier on takeoff than they are today.

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:

>I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
>so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
>the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
>between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
>wasteland maing it illegal to live there.

People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.

"Al Key"  wrote in message 
news:i462c3lbro7si409mu249np4sccgdmqf5e@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:
>
>>I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
>>so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
>>the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
>>between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
>>wasteland maing it illegal to live there.
>
> People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
> their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.

Many of the 'villages'  were there long before the airport.

tim

On 2007-08-14, tim.....  wrote:
>
> "Al Key"  wrote in message 
> news:i462c3lbro7si409mu249np4sccgdmqf5e@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:
>>
>>>I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
>>>so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
>>>the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
>>>between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
>>>wasteland maing it illegal to live there.
>>
>> People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
>> their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.
>
> Many of the 'villages'  were there long before the airport.

More fool people for moving into them, then. Those houses were cheap for a
reason.


-- 
                 "Religion poisons everything."
            [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

tim.....  wrote:

> Many of the 'villages'  were there long before the airport.

But most of the housing in the 'villages' has been built since long
after the construction of the airport, and I suspect there are few, if
any residents who predate the development of the airport. Indeed the
majority have moved in since the 1970s and at that time aircraft were
considerably noisier on takeoff than they are today.

Steve Firth wrote:
> tim.....  wrote:
>
>> Many of the 'villages'  were there long before the airport.
>
> But most of the housing in the 'villages' has been built since long
> after the construction of the airport, and I suspect there are few, if
> any residents who predate the development of the airport. Indeed the
> majority have moved in since the 1970s and at that time aircraft were
> considerably noisier on takeoff than they are today.

But Sipson is *north* of the airport, so they would not have suffered much 
from noise there, and with all the roads and buildings bordering the north 
of the airport, they might well have felt reasonably safe from expansion in 
that direction.
-- 
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On Aug 14, 3:53 am, Al Key  wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:
> >I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
> >so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
> >the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
> >between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
> >wasteland maing it illegal to live there.
>
> People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
> their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.

The BAA's policy - and some of the local airlines - is piecemeal
enchroachment of the green belt (whet's left of it). But the land at
Heathrow was acquired illegally anyway for the war effort and locals
always expected that after the war it would be returned to them. It
wasn't. How could anyone have anticipated such deliberate deceipt from
the Government of the day? SB.

"SB"  wrote in message 
news:1187096297.644900.105360@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 14, 3:53 am, Al Key  wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:
>> >I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
>> >so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
>> >the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
>> >between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
>> >wasteland maing it illegal to live there.
>>
>> People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
>> their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.
>
> The BAA's policy - and some of the local airlines - is piecemeal
> enchroachment of the green belt (whet's left of it). But the land at
> Heathrow was acquired illegally anyway for the war effort and locals
> always expected that after the war it would be returned to them. It
> wasn't. How could anyone have anticipated such deliberate deceipt from
> the Government of the day? SB.

That'll be the same government that issued open dated war
bonds (at some piddly interest rate) that it has steadfastly
refused to redeem.

tim

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:

>I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
>so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
>the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
>between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
>wasteland maing it illegal to live there.

People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.

"Al Key"  wrote in message 
news:i462c3lbro7si409mu249np4sccgdmqf5e@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:
>
>>I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
>>so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
>>the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
>>between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
>>wasteland maing it illegal to live there.
>
> People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
> their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.

Many of the 'villages'  were there long before the airport.

tim

On 2007-08-14, tim.....  wrote:
>
> "Al Key"  wrote in message 
> news:i462c3lbro7si409mu249np4sccgdmqf5e@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:
>>
>>>I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
>>>so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
>>>the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
>>>between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
>>>wasteland maing it illegal to live there.
>>
>> People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
>> their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.
>
> Many of the 'villages'  were there long before the airport.

More fool people for moving into them, then. Those houses were cheap for a
reason.


-- 
                 "Religion poisons everything."
            [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

tim.....  wrote:

> Many of the 'villages'  were there long before the airport.

But most of the housing in the 'villages' has been built since long
after the construction of the airport, and I suspect there are few, if
any residents who predate the development of the airport. Indeed the
majority have moved in since the 1970s and at that time aircraft were
considerably noisier on takeoff than they are today.

Steve Firth wrote:
> tim.....  wrote:
>
>> Many of the 'villages'  were there long before the airport.
>
> But most of the housing in the 'villages' has been built since long
> after the construction of the airport, and I suspect there are few, if
> any residents who predate the development of the airport. Indeed the
> majority have moved in since the 1970s and at that time aircraft were
> considerably noisier on takeoff than they are today.

But Sipson is *north* of the airport, so they would not have suffered much 
from noise there, and with all the roads and buildings bordering the north 
of the airport, they might well have felt reasonably safe from expansion in 
that direction.
-- 
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On Aug 14, 3:53 am, Al Key  wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:
> >I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
> >so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
> >the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
> >between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
> >wasteland maing it illegal to live there.
>
> People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
> their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.

The BAA's policy - and some of the local airlines - is piecemeal
enchroachment of the green belt (whet's left of it). But the land at
Heathrow was acquired illegally anyway for the war effort and locals
always expected that after the war it would be returned to them. It
wasn't. How could anyone have anticipated such deliberate deceipt from
the Government of the day? SB.

"SB"  wrote in message 
news:1187096297.644900.105360@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 14, 3:53 am, Al Key  wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:
>> >I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
>> >so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
>> >the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
>> >between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
>> >wasteland maing it illegal to live there.
>>
>> People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
>> their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.
>
> The BAA's policy - and some of the local airlines - is piecemeal
> enchroachment of the green belt (whet's left of it). But the land at
> Heathrow was acquired illegally anyway for the war effort and locals
> always expected that after the war it would be returned to them. It
> wasn't. How could anyone have anticipated such deliberate deceipt from
> the Government of the day? SB.

That'll be the same government that issued open dated war
bonds (at some piddly interest rate) that it has steadfastly
refused to redeem.

tim

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:

>I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
>so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
>the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
>between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
>wasteland maing it illegal to live there.

People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.

"Al Key"  wrote in message 
news:i462c3lbro7si409mu249np4sccgdmqf5e@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:
>
>>I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
>>so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
>>the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
>>between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
>>wasteland maing it illegal to live there.
>
> People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
> their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.

Many of the 'villages'  were there long before the airport.

tim

On 2007-08-14, tim.....  wrote:
>
> "Al Key"  wrote in message 
> news:i462c3lbro7si409mu249np4sccgdmqf5e@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:
>>
>>>I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
>>>so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
>>>the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
>>>between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
>>>wasteland maing it illegal to live there.
>>
>> People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
>> their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.
>
> Many of the 'villages'  were there long before the airport.

More fool people for moving into them, then. Those houses were cheap for a
reason.


-- 
                 "Religion poisons everything."
            [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

tim.....  wrote:

> Many of the 'villages'  were there long before the airport.

But most of the housing in the 'villages' has been built since long
after the construction of the airport, and I suspect there are few, if
any residents who predate the development of the airport. Indeed the
majority have moved in since the 1970s and at that time aircraft were
considerably noisier on takeoff than they are today.

Steve Firth wrote:
> tim.....  wrote:
>
>> Many of the 'villages'  were there long before the airport.
>
> But most of the housing in the 'villages' has been built since long
> after the construction of the airport, and I suspect there are few, if
> any residents who predate the development of the airport. Indeed the
> majority have moved in since the 1970s and at that time aircraft were
> considerably noisier on takeoff than they are today.

But Sipson is *north* of the airport, so they would not have suffered much 
from noise there, and with all the roads and buildings bordering the north 
of the airport, they might well have felt reasonably safe from expansion in 
that direction.
-- 
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On Aug 14, 3:53 am, Al Key  wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:
> >I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
> >so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
> >the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
> >between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
> >wasteland maing it illegal to live there.
>
> People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
> their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.

The BAA's policy - and some of the local airlines - is piecemeal
enchroachment of the green belt (whet's left of it). But the land at
Heathrow was acquired illegally anyway for the war effort and locals
always expected that after the war it would be returned to them. It
wasn't. How could anyone have anticipated such deliberate deceipt from
the Government of the day? SB.

"SB"  wrote in message 
news:1187096297.644900.105360@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 14, 3:53 am, Al Key  wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:
>> >I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
>> >so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
>> >the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
>> >between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
>> >wasteland maing it illegal to live there.
>>
>> People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
>> their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.
>
> The BAA's policy - and some of the local airlines - is piecemeal
> enchroachment of the green belt (whet's left of it). But the land at
> Heathrow was acquired illegally anyway for the war effort and locals
> always expected that after the war it would be returned to them. It
> wasn't. How could anyone have anticipated such deliberate deceipt from
> the Government of the day? SB.

That'll be the same government that issued open dated war
bonds (at some piddly interest rate) that it has steadfastly
refused to redeem.

tim

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:

>I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
>so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
>the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
>between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
>wasteland maing it illegal to live there.

People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.

"Al Key"  wrote in message 
news:i462c3lbro7si409mu249np4sccgdmqf5e@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:
>
>>I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
>>so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
>>the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
>>between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
>>wasteland maing it illegal to live there.
>
> People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
> their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.

Many of the 'villages'  were there long before the airport.

tim

On 2007-08-14, tim.....  wrote:
>
> "Al Key"  wrote in message 
> news:i462c3lbro7si409mu249np4sccgdmqf5e@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:
>>
>>>I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
>>>so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
>>>the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
>>>between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
>>>wasteland maing it illegal to live there.
>>
>> People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
>> their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.
>
> Many of the 'villages'  were there long before the airport.

More fool people for moving into them, then. Those houses were cheap for a
reason.


-- 
                 "Religion poisons everything."
            [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

tim.....  wrote:

> Many of the 'villages'  were there long before the airport.

But most of the housing in the 'villages' has been built since long
after the construction of the airport, and I suspect there are few, if
any residents who predate the development of the airport. Indeed the
majority have moved in since the 1970s and at that time aircraft were
considerably noisier on takeoff than they are today.

Steve Firth wrote:
> tim.....  wrote:
>
>> Many of the 'villages'  were there long before the airport.
>
> But most of the housing in the 'villages' has been built since long
> after the construction of the airport, and I suspect there are few, if
> any residents who predate the development of the airport. Indeed the
> majority have moved in since the 1970s and at that time aircraft were
> considerably noisier on takeoff than they are today.

But Sipson is *north* of the airport, so they would not have suffered much 
from noise there, and with all the roads and buildings bordering the north 
of the airport, they might well have felt reasonably safe from expansion in 
that direction.
-- 
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On Aug 14, 3:53 am, Al Key  wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:
> >I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
> >so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
> >the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
> >between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
> >wasteland maing it illegal to live there.
>
> People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
> their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.

The BAA's policy - and some of the local airlines - is piecemeal
enchroachment of the green belt (whet's left of it). But the land at
Heathrow was acquired illegally anyway for the war effort and locals
always expected that after the war it would be returned to them. It
wasn't. How could anyone have anticipated such deliberate deceipt from
the Government of the day? SB.

"SB"  wrote in message 
news:1187096297.644900.105360@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 14, 3:53 am, Al Key  wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:
>> >I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
>> >so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
>> >the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
>> >between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
>> >wasteland maing it illegal to live there.
>>
>> People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
>> their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.
>
> The BAA's policy - and some of the local airlines - is piecemeal
> enchroachment of the green belt (whet's left of it). But the land at
> Heathrow was acquired illegally anyway for the war effort and locals
> always expected that after the war it would be returned to them. It
> wasn't. How could anyone have anticipated such deliberate deceipt from
> the Government of the day? SB.

That'll be the same government that issued open dated war
bonds (at some piddly interest rate) that it has steadfastly
refused to redeem.

tim

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:

>I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
>so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
>the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
>between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
>wasteland maing it illegal to live there.

People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.

"Al Key"  wrote in message 
news:i462c3lbro7si409mu249np4sccgdmqf5e@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:
>
>>I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
>>so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
>>the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
>>between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
>>wasteland maing it illegal to live there.
>
> People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
> their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.

Many of the 'villages'  were there long before the airport.

tim

On 2007-08-14, tim.....  wrote:
>
> "Al Key"  wrote in message 
> news:i462c3lbro7si409mu249np4sccgdmqf5e@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:
>>
>>>I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
>>>so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
>>>the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
>>>between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
>>>wasteland maing it illegal to live there.
>>
>> People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
>> their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.
>
> Many of the 'villages'  were there long before the airport.

More fool people for moving into them, then. Those houses were cheap for a
reason.


-- 
                 "Religion poisons everything."
            [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

tim.....  wrote:

> Many of the 'villages'  were there long before the airport.

But most of the housing in the 'villages' has been built since long
after the construction of the airport, and I suspect there are few, if
any residents who predate the development of the airport. Indeed the
majority have moved in since the 1970s and at that time aircraft were
considerably noisier on takeoff than they are today.

Steve Firth wrote:
> tim.....  wrote:
>
>> Many of the 'villages'  were there long before the airport.
>
> But most of the housing in the 'villages' has been built since long
> after the construction of the airport, and I suspect there are few, if
> any residents who predate the development of the airport. Indeed the
> majority have moved in since the 1970s and at that time aircraft were
> considerably noisier on takeoff than they are today.

But Sipson is *north* of the airport, so they would not have suffered much 
from noise there, and with all the roads and buildings bordering the north 
of the airport, they might well have felt reasonably safe from expansion in 
that direction.
-- 
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On Aug 14, 3:53 am, Al Key  wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:
> >I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
> >so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
> >the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
> >between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
> >wasteland maing it illegal to live there.
>
> People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
> their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.

The BAA's policy - and some of the local airlines - is piecemeal
enchroachment of the green belt (whet's left of it). But the land at
Heathrow was acquired illegally anyway for the war effort and locals
always expected that after the war it would be returned to them. It
wasn't. How could anyone have anticipated such deliberate deceipt from
the Government of the day? SB.

"SB"  wrote in message 
news:1187096297.644900.105360@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 14, 3:53 am, Al Key  wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:
>> >I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
>> >so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
>> >the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
>> >between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
>> >wasteland maing it illegal to live there.
>>
>> People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
>> their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.
>
> The BAA's policy - and some of the local airlines - is piecemeal
> enchroachment of the green belt (whet's left of it). But the land at
> Heathrow was acquired illegally anyway for the war effort and locals
> always expected that after the war it would be returned to them. It
> wasn't. How could anyone have anticipated such deliberate deceipt from
> the Government of the day? SB.

That'll be the same government that issued open dated war
bonds (at some piddly interest rate) that it has steadfastly
refused to redeem.

tim

On 14 Aug, 13:58, SB  wrote:
> On Aug 14, 3:53 am, Al Key  wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:
> > >I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
> > >so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
> > >the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
> > >between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
> > >wasteland maing it illegal to live there.
>
> > People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
> > their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.
>
> The BAA's policy - and some of the local airlines - is piecemeal
> enchroachment of the green belt (whet's left of it). But the land at
> Heathrow was acquired illegally anyway for the war effort and locals
> always expected that after the war it would be returned to them. It
> wasn't. How could anyone have anticipated such deliberate deceipt from
> the Government of the day? SB.
>
Indeed, how could anyone at that time have anticipated the massive
growth in hypermobility generally, with perpetual roadbuilding and
airport expansions the order of the day?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Travel broadens the damage.

Doug wrote:
> On 14 Aug, 13:58, SB  wrote:
>> On Aug 14, 3:53 am, Al Key  wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB 
>>> wrote:
>>>> I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want.
>>>> And so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages.
>>>> Unfortunately the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the
>>>> fact that the land between the M4 and the GWR line will soon
>>>> become a polluted industrial wasteland maing it illegal to live
>>>> there.
>>
>>> People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
>>> their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.
>>
>> The BAA's policy - and some of the local airlines - is piecemeal
>> enchroachment of the green belt (whet's left of it). But the land at
>> Heathrow was acquired illegally anyway for the war effort and locals
>> always expected that after the war it would be returned to them. It
>> wasn't. How could anyone have anticipated such deliberate deceipt
>> from the Government of the day? SB.
>>
> Indeed, how could anyone at that time have anticipated the massive
> growth in hypermobility generally, with perpetual roadbuilding and
> airport expansions the order of the day?

Quite easily, since it had been happening throughout the history of man.

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:

>I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
>so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
>the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
>between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
>wasteland maing it illegal to live there.

People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.

"Al Key"  wrote in message 
news:i462c3lbro7si409mu249np4sccgdmqf5e@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:
>
>>I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
>>so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
>>the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
>>between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
>>wasteland maing it illegal to live there.
>
> People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
> their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.

Many of the 'villages'  were there long before the airport.

tim

On 2007-08-14, tim.....  wrote:
>
> "Al Key"  wrote in message 
> news:i462c3lbro7si409mu249np4sccgdmqf5e@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:
>>
>>>I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
>>>so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
>>>the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
>>>between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
>>>wasteland maing it illegal to live there.
>>
>> People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
>> their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.
>
> Many of the 'villages'  were there long before the airport.

More fool people for moving into them, then. Those houses were cheap for a
reason.


-- 
                 "Religion poisons everything."
            [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

tim.....  wrote:

> Many of the 'villages'  were there long before the airport.

But most of the housing in the 'villages' has been built since long
after the construction of the airport, and I suspect there are few, if
any residents who predate the development of the airport. Indeed the
majority have moved in since the 1970s and at that time aircraft were
considerably noisier on takeoff than they are today.

Steve Firth wrote:
> tim.....  wrote:
>
>> Many of the 'villages'  were there long before the airport.
>
> But most of the housing in the 'villages' has been built since long
> after the construction of the airport, and I suspect there are few, if
> any residents who predate the development of the airport. Indeed the
> majority have moved in since the 1970s and at that time aircraft were
> considerably noisier on takeoff than they are today.

But Sipson is *north* of the airport, so they would not have suffered much 
from noise there, and with all the roads and buildings bordering the north 
of the airport, they might well have felt reasonably safe from expansion in 
that direction.
-- 
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On Aug 14, 3:53 am, Al Key  wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:
> >I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
> >so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
> >the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
> >between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
> >wasteland maing it illegal to live there.
>
> People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
> their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.

The BAA's policy - and some of the local airlines - is piecemeal
enchroachment of the green belt (whet's left of it). But the land at
Heathrow was acquired illegally anyway for the war effort and locals
always expected that after the war it would be returned to them. It
wasn't. How could anyone have anticipated such deliberate deceipt from
the Government of the day? SB.

"SB"  wrote in message 
news:1187096297.644900.105360@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 14, 3:53 am, Al Key  wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:
>> >I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
>> >so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
>> >the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
>> >between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
>> >wasteland maing it illegal to live there.
>>
>> People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
>> their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.
>
> The BAA's policy - and some of the local airlines - is piecemeal
> enchroachment of the green belt (whet's left of it). But the land at
> Heathrow was acquired illegally anyway for the war effort and locals
> always expected that after the war it would be returned to them. It
> wasn't. How could anyone have anticipated such deliberate deceipt from
> the Government of the day? SB.

That'll be the same government that issued open dated war
bonds (at some piddly interest rate) that it has steadfastly
refused to redeem.

tim

On 14 Aug, 13:58, SB  wrote:
> On Aug 14, 3:53 am, Al Key  wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:
> > >I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
> > >so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
> > >the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
> > >between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
> > >wasteland maing it illegal to live there.
>
> > People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
> > their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.
>
> The BAA's policy - and some of the local airlines - is piecemeal
> enchroachment of the green belt (whet's left of it). But the land at
> Heathrow was acquired illegally anyway for the war effort and locals
> always expected that after the war it would be returned to them. It
> wasn't. How could anyone have anticipated such deliberate deceipt from
> the Government of the day? SB.
>
Indeed, how could anyone at that time have anticipated the massive
growth in hypermobility generally, with perpetual roadbuilding and
airport expansions the order of the day?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Travel broadens the damage.

Doug wrote:
> On 14 Aug, 13:58, SB  wrote:
>> On Aug 14, 3:53 am, Al Key  wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB 
>>> wrote:
>>>> I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want.
>>>> And so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages.
>>>> Unfortunately the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the
>>>> fact that the land between the M4 and the GWR line will soon
>>>> become a polluted industrial wasteland maing it illegal to live
>>>> there.
>>
>>> People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
>>> their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.
>>
>> The BAA's policy - and some of the local airlines - is piecemeal
>> enchroachment of the green belt (whet's left of it). But the land at
>> Heathrow was acquired illegally anyway for the war effort and locals
>> always expected that after the war it would be returned to them. It
>> wasn't. How could anyone have anticipated such deliberate deceipt
>> from the Government of the day? SB.
>>
> Indeed, how could anyone at that time have anticipated the massive
> growth in hypermobility generally, with perpetual roadbuilding and
> airport expansions the order of the day?

Quite easily, since it had been happening throughout the history of man.

On 15 Aug, 08:48, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 14 Aug, 13:58, SB  wrote:
> >> On Aug 14, 3:53 am, Al Key  wrote:
>
> >>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want.
> >>>> And so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages.
> >>>> Unfortunately the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the
> >>>> fact that the land between the M4 and the GWR line will soon
> >>>> become a polluted industrial wasteland maing it illegal to live
> >>>> there.
>
> >>> People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
> >>> their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.
>
> >> The BAA's policy - and some of the local airlines - is piecemeal
> >> enchroachment of the green belt (whet's left of it). But the land at
> >> Heathrow was acquired illegally anyway for the war effort and locals
> >> always expected that after the war it would be returned to them. It
> >> wasn't. How could anyone have anticipated such deliberate deceipt
> >> from the Government of the day? SB.
>
> > Indeed, how could anyone at that time have anticipated the massive
> > growth in hypermobility generally, with perpetual roadbuilding and
> > airport expansions the order of the day?
>
> Quite easily, since it had been happening throughout the history of man.

Never on the rapidly accelerating scale of today.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Travel broadens the damage.

Doug wrote:
> On 15 Aug, 08:48, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 14 Aug, 13:58, SB  wrote:
>>>> On Aug 14, 3:53 am, Al Key  wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want.
>>>>>> And so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages.
>>>>>> Unfortunately the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the
>>>>>> fact that the land between the M4 and the GWR line will soon
>>>>>> become a polluted industrial wasteland maing it illegal to live
>>>>>> there.
>>>>> People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
>>>>> their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.
>>>> The BAA's policy - and some of the local airlines - is piecemeal
>>>> enchroachment of the green belt (whet's left of it). But the land at
>>>> Heathrow was acquired illegally anyway for the war effort and locals
>>>> always expected that after the war it would be returned to them. It
>>>> wasn't. How could anyone have anticipated such deliberate deceipt
>>>> from the Government of the day? SB.
>>> Indeed, how could anyone at that time have anticipated the massive
>>> growth in hypermobility generally, with perpetual roadbuilding and
>>> airport expansions the order of the day?
>> Quite easily, since it had been happening throughout the history of man.
> 
> Never on the rapidly accelerating scale of today.
> 
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns
> www.zing.icom43.net
> Travel broadens the damage.
> 
What about the Romans then? They were building roads at a far faster 
rate and a far grander scale than we have done for the few decades. 
Indeed, we're still using many of the roads that they built.

Perhaps, what with their central heating as well, that was the start of 
global warming/climate change/environmental loonies.

-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

Doug wrote:
> On 15 Aug, 08:48, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 14 Aug, 13:58, SB  wrote:
>>>> On Aug 14, 3:53 am, Al Key  wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want.
>>>>>> And so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages.
>>>>>> Unfortunately the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the
>>>>>> fact that the land between the M4 and the GWR line will soon
>>>>>> become a polluted industrial wasteland maing it illegal to live
>>>>>> there.
>>
>>>>> People really should anticipate such things happening and not
>>>>> build their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing,
>>>>> you know.
>>
>>>> The BAA's policy - and some of the local airlines - is piecemeal
>>>> enchroachment of the green belt (whet's left of it). But the land
>>>> at Heathrow was acquired illegally anyway for the war effort and
>>>> locals always expected that after the war it would be returned to
>>>> them. It wasn't. How could anyone have anticipated such deliberate
>>>> deceipt from the Government of the day? SB.
>>
>>> Indeed, how could anyone at that time have anticipated the massive
>>> growth in hypermobility generally, with perpetual roadbuilding and
>>> airport expansions the order of the day?
>>
>> Quite easily, since it had been happening throughout the history of
>> man.
>
> Never on the rapidly accelerating scale of today.

That's because there are more people on the planet than there were in the 
past.

In article , Doug 
says...

> Never on the rapidly accelerating scale of today.
> 
So the road network in the USA just happened did it?


-- 
Conor

The United States, increasing quality by lowering standards since 1776.

Well... there's no point in having a runway that's not long enough - 
is there?

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:52:40 +0100, Conor 
wrote:

>In article , Doug 
>says...
>
>> Never on the rapidly accelerating scale of today.
>> 
>So the road network in the USA just happened did it?

No, the Interstate system was sponsored by the federal government but
is now under the jurisdiction of the particular states that it passes
through.

"The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense
Highways, commonly called the Interstate Highway System, is a network
of highways (also called freeways) in the United States that is named
for the president that was in office when the system was created. The
Interstate Highway System is a separate system within the larger
National Highway System. The entire system, as of 2004, had a total
length of 46,837 miles (75,376 km)"

And except in the Northeast US it a wonderful system too. You can
drive 2400 miles on I-10  from Jacksonville, Florida to  Santa Monica,
California and not see a traffic control light

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:

>I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
>so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
>the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
>between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
>wasteland maing it illegal to live there.

People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.

"Al Key"  wrote in message 
news:i462c3lbro7si409mu249np4sccgdmqf5e@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:
>
>>I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
>>so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
>>the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
>>between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
>>wasteland maing it illegal to live there.
>
> People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
> their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.

Many of the 'villages'  were there long before the airport.

tim

On 2007-08-14, tim.....  wrote:
>
> "Al Key"  wrote in message 
> news:i462c3lbro7si409mu249np4sccgdmqf5e@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:
>>
>>>I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
>>>so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
>>>the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
>>>between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
>>>wasteland maing it illegal to live there.
>>
>> People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
>> their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.
>
> Many of the 'villages'  were there long before the airport.

More fool people for moving into them, then. Those houses were cheap for a
reason.


-- 
                 "Religion poisons everything."
            [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

tim.....  wrote:

> Many of the 'villages'  were there long before the airport.

But most of the housing in the 'villages' has been built since long
after the construction of the airport, and I suspect there are few, if
any residents who predate the development of the airport. Indeed the
majority have moved in since the 1970s and at that time aircraft were
considerably noisier on takeoff than they are today.

Steve Firth wrote:
> tim.....  wrote:
>
>> Many of the 'villages'  were there long before the airport.
>
> But most of the housing in the 'villages' has been built since long
> after the construction of the airport, and I suspect there are few, if
> any residents who predate the development of the airport. Indeed the
> majority have moved in since the 1970s and at that time aircraft were
> considerably noisier on takeoff than they are today.

But Sipson is *north* of the airport, so they would not have suffered much 
from noise there, and with all the roads and buildings bordering the north 
of the airport, they might well have felt reasonably safe from expansion in 
that direction.
-- 
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On Aug 14, 3:53 am, Al Key  wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:
> >I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
> >so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
> >the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
> >between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
> >wasteland maing it illegal to live there.
>
> People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
> their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.

The BAA's policy - and some of the local airlines - is piecemeal
enchroachment of the green belt (whet's left of it). But the land at
Heathrow was acquired illegally anyway for the war effort and locals
always expected that after the war it would be returned to them. It
wasn't. How could anyone have anticipated such deliberate deceipt from
the Government of the day? SB.

"SB"  wrote in message 
news:1187096297.644900.105360@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 14, 3:53 am, Al Key  wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:
>> >I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
>> >so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
>> >the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
>> >between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
>> >wasteland maing it illegal to live there.
>>
>> People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
>> their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.
>
> The BAA's policy - and some of the local airlines - is piecemeal
> enchroachment of the green belt (whet's left of it). But the land at
> Heathrow was acquired illegally anyway for the war effort and locals
> always expected that after the war it would be returned to them. It
> wasn't. How could anyone have anticipated such deliberate deceipt from
> the Government of the day? SB.

That'll be the same government that issued open dated war
bonds (at some piddly interest rate) that it has steadfastly
refused to redeem.

tim

On 14 Aug, 13:58, SB  wrote:
> On Aug 14, 3:53 am, Al Key  wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:
> > >I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
> > >so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages. Unfortunately
> > >the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the fact that the land
> > >between the M4 and the GWR line will soon become a polluted industrial
> > >wasteland maing it illegal to live there.
>
> > People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
> > their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.
>
> The BAA's policy - and some of the local airlines - is piecemeal
> enchroachment of the green belt (whet's left of it). But the land at
> Heathrow was acquired illegally anyway for the war effort and locals
> always expected that after the war it would be returned to them. It
> wasn't. How could anyone have anticipated such deliberate deceipt from
> the Government of the day? SB.
>
Indeed, how could anyone at that time have anticipated the massive
growth in hypermobility generally, with perpetual roadbuilding and
airport expansions the order of the day?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Travel broadens the damage.

Doug wrote:
> On 14 Aug, 13:58, SB  wrote:
>> On Aug 14, 3:53 am, Al Key  wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB 
>>> wrote:
>>>> I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want.
>>>> And so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages.
>>>> Unfortunately the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the
>>>> fact that the land between the M4 and the GWR line will soon
>>>> become a polluted industrial wasteland maing it illegal to live
>>>> there.
>>
>>> People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
>>> their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.
>>
>> The BAA's policy - and some of the local airlines - is piecemeal
>> enchroachment of the green belt (whet's left of it). But the land at
>> Heathrow was acquired illegally anyway for the war effort and locals
>> always expected that after the war it would be returned to them. It
>> wasn't. How could anyone have anticipated such deliberate deceipt
>> from the Government of the day? SB.
>>
> Indeed, how could anyone at that time have anticipated the massive
> growth in hypermobility generally, with perpetual roadbuilding and
> airport expansions the order of the day?

Quite easily, since it had been happening throughout the history of man.

On 15 Aug, 08:48, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 14 Aug, 13:58, SB  wrote:
> >> On Aug 14, 3:53 am, Al Key  wrote:
>
> >>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want.
> >>>> And so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages.
> >>>> Unfortunately the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the
> >>>> fact that the land between the M4 and the GWR line will soon
> >>>> become a polluted industrial wasteland maing it illegal to live
> >>>> there.
>
> >>> People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
> >>> their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.
>
> >> The BAA's policy - and some of the local airlines - is piecemeal
> >> enchroachment of the green belt (whet's left of it). But the land at
> >> Heathrow was acquired illegally anyway for the war effort and locals
> >> always expected that after the war it would be returned to them. It
> >> wasn't. How could anyone have anticipated such deliberate deceipt
> >> from the Government of the day? SB.
>
> > Indeed, how could anyone at that time have anticipated the massive
> > growth in hypermobility generally, with perpetual roadbuilding and
> > airport expansions the order of the day?
>
> Quite easily, since it had been happening throughout the history of man.

Never on the rapidly accelerating scale of today.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Travel broadens the damage.

Doug wrote:
> On 15 Aug, 08:48, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 14 Aug, 13:58, SB  wrote:
>>>> On Aug 14, 3:53 am, Al Key  wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want.
>>>>>> And so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages.
>>>>>> Unfortunately the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the
>>>>>> fact that the land between the M4 and the GWR line will soon
>>>>>> become a polluted industrial wasteland maing it illegal to live
>>>>>> there.
>>>>> People really should anticipate such things happening and not build
>>>>> their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing, you know.
>>>> The BAA's policy - and some of the local airlines - is piecemeal
>>>> enchroachment of the green belt (whet's left of it). But the land at
>>>> Heathrow was acquired illegally anyway for the war effort and locals
>>>> always expected that after the war it would be returned to them. It
>>>> wasn't. How could anyone have anticipated such deliberate deceipt
>>>> from the Government of the day? SB.
>>> Indeed, how could anyone at that time have anticipated the massive
>>> growth in hypermobility generally, with perpetual roadbuilding and
>>> airport expansions the order of the day?
>> Quite easily, since it had been happening throughout the history of man.
> 
> Never on the rapidly accelerating scale of today.
> 
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns
> www.zing.icom43.net
> Travel broadens the damage.
> 
What about the Romans then? They were building roads at a far faster 
rate and a far grander scale than we have done for the few decades. 
Indeed, we're still using many of the roads that they built.

Perhaps, what with their central heating as well, that was the start of 
global warming/climate change/environmental loonies.

-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

Doug wrote:
> On 15 Aug, 08:48, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 14 Aug, 13:58, SB  wrote:
>>>> On Aug 14, 3:53 am, Al Key  wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want.
>>>>>> And so do most of the residents of the 5-Heathrow Villages.
>>>>>> Unfortunately the good folk of Hayes have yet to wake up to the
>>>>>> fact that the land between the M4 and the GWR line will soon
>>>>>> become a polluted industrial wasteland maing it illegal to live
>>>>>> there.
>>
>>>>> People really should anticipate such things happening and not
>>>>> build their homes near an airport. It's an encroachment thing,
>>>>> you know.
>>
>>>> The BAA's policy - and some of the local airlines - is piecemeal
>>>> enchroachment of the green belt (whet's left of it). But the land
>>>> at Heathrow was acquired illegally anyway for the war effort and
>>>> locals always expected that after the war it would be returned to
>>>> them. It wasn't. How could anyone have anticipated such deliberate
>>>> deceipt from the Government of the day? SB.
>>
>>> Indeed, how could anyone at that time have anticipated the massive
>>> growth in hypermobility generally, with perpetual roadbuilding and
>>> airport expansions the order of the day?
>>
>> Quite easily, since it had been happening throughout the history of
>> man.
>
> Never on the rapidly accelerating scale of today.

That's because there are more people on the planet than there were in the 
past.

In article , Doug 
says...

> Never on the rapidly accelerating scale of today.
> 
So the road network in the USA just happened did it?


-- 
Conor

The United States, increasing quality by lowering standards since 1776.

Well... there's no point in having a runway that's not long enough - 
is there?

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:52:40 +0100, Conor 
wrote:

>In article , Doug 
>says...
>
>> Never on the rapidly accelerating scale of today.
>> 
>So the road network in the USA just happened did it?

No, the Interstate system was sponsored by the federal government but
is now under the jurisdiction of the particular states that it passes
through.

"The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense
Highways, commonly called the Interstate Highway System, is a network
of highways (also called freeways) in the United States that is named
for the president that was in office when the system was created. The
Interstate Highway System is a separate system within the larger
National Highway System. The entire system, as of 2004, had a total
length of 46,837 miles (75,376 km)"

And except in the Northeast US it a wonderful system too. You can
drive 2400 miles on I-10  from Jacksonville, Florida to  Santa Monica,
California and not see a traffic control light

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:08:39 -0700, SB  wrote:

>I believe that this is what the BAA and the airlines REALLY want. And
>so do m