LHR Night Flights ?????
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greystation
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those '8' people you mention were just representatives for the same group that lobbied against Terminal 5 and the new proposed runway at LHR. They are a meddling group wanting 'clear skies' above London. None of these groups seem to understand the economic implications for all, excluding aviation, ie. all those affected by the non-appearence of tourists because the 'cheap flights' don't exist anymore. All they are complaining about is the 16 flights permitted to land between 4am and 6:30am, however the knock-on effect is huge. But obviously our economy is booming from within right now... 
The news says that the ban may spread further away; I'd like to see charter outfits out of Manch, Gatwick, Standsted, Luton, Newcastle, Liverpool, Birmingham, and the freight from Cov and EMA survive from this. I love it when people don't think past their own front door, which they bought at a price set accordingly to all outside influences
The news says that the ban may spread further away; I'd like to see charter outfits out of Manch, Gatwick, Standsted, Luton, Newcastle, Liverpool, Birmingham, and the freight from Cov and EMA survive from this. I love it when people don't think past their own front door, which they bought at a price set accordingly to all outside influences
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: En-route
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I am sorry to disagree with most of you guys (and gals). LHR is totally congested, to such a degree that night flying has become a necessity (for some). Apparently only 16 flights will be affected by this (Big Deal !!!). Perhaps it is now time to kiss Terminal 5 goodbye and consider the other airports around London such as Luton and Stansted. It's bad enough having to fly (as crew) between 2330 hrs and 0600 hrs. Why would passengers wish to fly at that time ? The only flights which will be seriously affected are long-haul flights from the Far East which arrive first thing (before 6 am). They will now all come in at 6am sharp and make ATC earn their keep. Most passengers are happy to fly between 0600 and 2300. Only greedy f**kers like Easyjet will need to operate at 'stupid o'clock' to make their silly 'pauper scheme' pay.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bahrain
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps it's time the industry started to use the law to it's advantage.
We all know that BA & BAA have lots of very expensive lawyers in their pockets. Why don't they start earning their money by suing the individuals concerned for attempted restriction of trade or something. I am not lawyer but surely they can come up with something. If you threaten to tie these people up in very expensive litigation that would see them lose their house, then I am sure they will not be so keen to proceed with these actions. The major flaw in their argument is that they moved to the area knowing that LHR was there. Presumably got their houses cheaper as a result. A good lawyer (yeah, I know it's an oxymoron) should be able to do something with that!!
We all know that BA & BAA have lots of very expensive lawyers in their pockets. Why don't they start earning their money by suing the individuals concerned for attempted restriction of trade or something. I am not lawyer but surely they can come up with something. If you threaten to tie these people up in very expensive litigation that would see them lose their house, then I am sure they will not be so keen to proceed with these actions. The major flaw in their argument is that they moved to the area knowing that LHR was there. Presumably got their houses cheaper as a result. A good lawyer (yeah, I know it's an oxymoron) should be able to do something with that!!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok I wrote in, here was the response:
Dear All,
My apologies for not writing to you individually, but, as we have had about 20 emails criticising our stance, it is easier to do this one response. Obviously each of you have made slightly different points, but there are common themes running through your emails and it is these I will try and deal with in this letter.
1. The most common point is that we bought our homes knowing we were under a flight path. That is true of most people in South West London. Long-standing residents of South West London will argue that , though they knew they were under the flight path when they bought their homes, they had no idea that the number of planes (day and night) would reach the level they are at today. But those of us living further from the airport moved into our homes when aircraft noise was not a problem. The reason for this is that, over the last few years, extended flight paths have been used during the day to accommodate the increased number of flights (and, of course, a few years ago night flight routes were changed on an 'experimental' basis'). The real anger comes from people who feel "the aircraft noise moved to them".
The other point that nobody mentioned in their emails was the position of low-income households. I don't particularly mean those people living around the airport who would have known the score when they moved in. I am more thinking about the low income areas, such as Brixton, Camberwell and Peckham, which are new to the aircraft noise. Low-income communities, often with no realistic prospect of moving away, can feel trapped by noise. This was borne out by a report I produced in 1997 called Poor Show which looked at the impact of transport policies on low-income communities in the London Borough of Greenwich. It found that a fifth of all council tenants in the borough rated traffic noise as big a problem as crime (in the mid-1990s, when the research was carried out, aircraft noise was not a problem in the borough).
2. A lot of your emails don't see noise as a real problem, implying that it is no more than an irritant. Of noise can be no more than that. But when an individual experiences a real noise problem - whatever the source of the noise: aircraft, traffic, loud music etc - it can become the dominant thing in your life. It invades your home. For many of us, though by no means all, in HACAN ClearSkies aircraft noise is causing us that sort of problem. It is what motivates us to give up hours of our free time (none of us is paid) to campaign against this intrusive noise. It is why we do not want to send our noise problem to another area: we believe nobody should be required to suffer this level of debilitating noise. It is why so many of us end up, if we can, moving away.
3. The third area many of you raised was the question of the economic importance of the aviation industry and, in particular, the question of jobs. HACAN ClearSkies have never taken an "anti-aviation" stance. What we are arguing is that the aviation industry must adopt a responsible attitude; that it should adopt the "polluter pays" principle - ie, that it pays the costs of the social and environmental problems it causes. At present it does not. When I was invited to speak to a major aviation industry conference in Paris last year, the question of how much the aviation industry should pay was raised. My view then and now is that, for too long, the aviation industry has expanded while trying to ignore the social and environmental costs of what it has been doing. Inevitably local residents groups - as well as environmental groups - were going to say "enough is enough". If, over the past twenty years, the industry had spent much more of its research and development budget on producing cleaner and quieter planes (they have got cleaner and quieter, but not by enough to match the huge increase in the number of aircraft), then expansion could take place without residents like those I represent going to the courts. I would argue that the blame for any job losses that result from the industry now having to take a more responsible attitude must be firmly laid at the industry's own door because of the cavalier attitude it has adopted in the past.
Of course I realise that doesn't make it any easier for people who might lose their jobs. Outwith the work that I do for HACAN ClearSkies, I sit on the Executive of the Socialist Environment & Resources Association (SERA), an orgainsation affiliated to the Labour Party. As its name would suggest, one of it main aims is to put pressure on governments to tackle related questions of employment and environment in a way that is beneficial to both. SERA, in its work, works closely with the trade union movement.
I hope this helps to make our overall position a little clearer.
Yours sincerely,
John Stewart
Chair HACAN ClearSkies
Dear All,
My apologies for not writing to you individually, but, as we have had about 20 emails criticising our stance, it is easier to do this one response. Obviously each of you have made slightly different points, but there are common themes running through your emails and it is these I will try and deal with in this letter.
1. The most common point is that we bought our homes knowing we were under a flight path. That is true of most people in South West London. Long-standing residents of South West London will argue that , though they knew they were under the flight path when they bought their homes, they had no idea that the number of planes (day and night) would reach the level they are at today. But those of us living further from the airport moved into our homes when aircraft noise was not a problem. The reason for this is that, over the last few years, extended flight paths have been used during the day to accommodate the increased number of flights (and, of course, a few years ago night flight routes were changed on an 'experimental' basis'). The real anger comes from people who feel "the aircraft noise moved to them".
The other point that nobody mentioned in their emails was the position of low-income households. I don't particularly mean those people living around the airport who would have known the score when they moved in. I am more thinking about the low income areas, such as Brixton, Camberwell and Peckham, which are new to the aircraft noise. Low-income communities, often with no realistic prospect of moving away, can feel trapped by noise. This was borne out by a report I produced in 1997 called Poor Show which looked at the impact of transport policies on low-income communities in the London Borough of Greenwich. It found that a fifth of all council tenants in the borough rated traffic noise as big a problem as crime (in the mid-1990s, when the research was carried out, aircraft noise was not a problem in the borough).
2. A lot of your emails don't see noise as a real problem, implying that it is no more than an irritant. Of noise can be no more than that. But when an individual experiences a real noise problem - whatever the source of the noise: aircraft, traffic, loud music etc - it can become the dominant thing in your life. It invades your home. For many of us, though by no means all, in HACAN ClearSkies aircraft noise is causing us that sort of problem. It is what motivates us to give up hours of our free time (none of us is paid) to campaign against this intrusive noise. It is why we do not want to send our noise problem to another area: we believe nobody should be required to suffer this level of debilitating noise. It is why so many of us end up, if we can, moving away.
3. The third area many of you raised was the question of the economic importance of the aviation industry and, in particular, the question of jobs. HACAN ClearSkies have never taken an "anti-aviation" stance. What we are arguing is that the aviation industry must adopt a responsible attitude; that it should adopt the "polluter pays" principle - ie, that it pays the costs of the social and environmental problems it causes. At present it does not. When I was invited to speak to a major aviation industry conference in Paris last year, the question of how much the aviation industry should pay was raised. My view then and now is that, for too long, the aviation industry has expanded while trying to ignore the social and environmental costs of what it has been doing. Inevitably local residents groups - as well as environmental groups - were going to say "enough is enough". If, over the past twenty years, the industry had spent much more of its research and development budget on producing cleaner and quieter planes (they have got cleaner and quieter, but not by enough to match the huge increase in the number of aircraft), then expansion could take place without residents like those I represent going to the courts. I would argue that the blame for any job losses that result from the industry now having to take a more responsible attitude must be firmly laid at the industry's own door because of the cavalier attitude it has adopted in the past.
Of course I realise that doesn't make it any easier for people who might lose their jobs. Outwith the work that I do for HACAN ClearSkies, I sit on the Executive of the Socialist Environment & Resources Association (SERA), an orgainsation affiliated to the Labour Party. As its name would suggest, one of it main aims is to put pressure on governments to tackle related questions of employment and environment in a way that is beneficial to both. SERA, in its work, works closely with the trade union movement.
I hope this helps to make our overall position a little clearer.
Yours sincerely,
John Stewart
Chair HACAN ClearSkies
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..oh yeah.. another thing, ONLY 20 emails of critisism?!? Out of 35000+ ppruners only 20 so far, come on we can do better than that..
..Ps, I have just started a lawsuit at the human rights court wanting to ban people driving down the high street in my town after the shops close.infringing on my right to a quite meal..hrmph.
..Ps, I have just started a lawsuit at the human rights court wanting to ban people driving down the high street in my town after the shops close.infringing on my right to a quite meal..hrmph.
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope that Danny will forgive me if I go all Scouse for a moment and shout "calm down, calm down" (Danny: I'm not doing the curly wig and 'tache bit as well, honest).
I agree that the claimants should have chosen to live elsewhere, and at first blush the decision appears offensive to common sense.
My point is that the decision may not have anything like the adverse effect which posters above and newspaper coverage might suggest.
Some lawyer stuff: first, as mentioned above, this has nothing to do with the EU. Second, the decision is at htt p://hudoc.echr.coe.int/hudoc/ViewRoot.asp?Item=0&Action=Html&X=1003100548&Notice=0&Notice mode=&RelatedMode=1
Scroll to para 95 and read to para 107 for the nitty gritty.
Basically, the UK was found to have failed to strike a sufficient balance between the privacy right on one side and the common good promoted by airport activity on the other (Art 8, like other bits of the ECHR, is all about balancing the rights of individuals against the needs of society), as it had not done the economic analysis needed to show that the inteference with Mrs Miggins' sleepy-bye byes is necessary in the interests of the economic well being of the UK.
A detailed study making the powerful economic case for night ops ought to be enough to resist any long term changes in the operating scheme or the general law about aircraft noise.
EDIT: the link above seems dodgy, so if it doesn't work, go to http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Judgments.htm click on recent judgments, then on Hatton v UK
[ 03 October 2001: Message edited by: FNG ]
I agree that the claimants should have chosen to live elsewhere, and at first blush the decision appears offensive to common sense.
My point is that the decision may not have anything like the adverse effect which posters above and newspaper coverage might suggest.
Some lawyer stuff: first, as mentioned above, this has nothing to do with the EU. Second, the decision is at htt p://hudoc.echr.coe.int/hudoc/ViewRoot.asp?Item=0&Action=Html&X=1003100548&Notice=0&Notice mode=&RelatedMode=1
Scroll to para 95 and read to para 107 for the nitty gritty.
Basically, the UK was found to have failed to strike a sufficient balance between the privacy right on one side and the common good promoted by airport activity on the other (Art 8, like other bits of the ECHR, is all about balancing the rights of individuals against the needs of society), as it had not done the economic analysis needed to show that the inteference with Mrs Miggins' sleepy-bye byes is necessary in the interests of the economic well being of the UK.
A detailed study making the powerful economic case for night ops ought to be enough to resist any long term changes in the operating scheme or the general law about aircraft noise.
EDIT: the link above seems dodgy, so if it doesn't work, go to http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Judgments.htm click on recent judgments, then on Hatton v UK
[ 03 October 2001: Message edited by: FNG ]
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charterguy,
"They will now come in at 6am and make ATC earn their keep"
Errrm, not wishing to blow our own trumpet, so to speak, but are you implying that we don't earn our keep already?
These 16 flights that arrive before 0600 are mainly BA T4, and after disembarkation most of them are towed off T4 to remote parking stands, to allow those flights landing after 0600 to have a free stand. So now can we expect a/c to hold for up to an hour awaiting a free gate? And what of those 16 flights going around in the stacks waiting for 0600, added to those from AAL, and UAL and all the others that have to wait for 0600. This will mean that by 0601 there'll be maybe 30mins to an hours inbound delay.
Gonzo.
"They will now come in at 6am and make ATC earn their keep"
Errrm, not wishing to blow our own trumpet, so to speak, but are you implying that we don't earn our keep already?
These 16 flights that arrive before 0600 are mainly BA T4, and after disembarkation most of them are towed off T4 to remote parking stands, to allow those flights landing after 0600 to have a free stand. So now can we expect a/c to hold for up to an hour awaiting a free gate? And what of those 16 flights going around in the stacks waiting for 0600, added to those from AAL, and UAL and all the others that have to wait for 0600. This will mean that by 0601 there'll be maybe 30mins to an hours inbound delay.
Gonzo.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just fired off a reply to the standard handout reply to my first email.
That makes 21!!
The chairman is a professional agitator employed by the Labour party for research on behalf of the "Socialist environmental..." etc etc.
That makes 21!!
The chairman is a professional agitator employed by the Labour party for research on behalf of the "Socialist environmental..." etc etc.
Guest
Posts: n/a
From today's Telegraph:
Air fares could rise after ruling over night flights
By Paul Marston, transport correspondent (Filed: 02/10/2001)
CONSUMERS were warned yesterday that they could face higher air fares and later mail deliveries if the Government outlaws night flights to comply with a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights.
The court upheld a claim by eight residents of the Heathrow area that the sleep disruption resulting from night-time operations violated their right to "respect for private and family life" under the European Convention.
Environmental campaigners hailed the decision, suggesting that it could lead to a ban on flights between 11.30pm and 6am at all British airports. The judgment stopped short of advocating a ban, even at Heathrow.
It found that in setting the rules for night flights in 1993, the Government had "failed to strike a fair balance" between the economic value of the flights and their impact on local inhabitants.
Ministers, who are considering an appeal, will also explore whether palliative measures - such as trimming the number of night flights or paying compensation to the worst-affected residents - would satisfy the court. However, if a blanket ban was to be the outcome, it would have far-reaching implications for long-haul airlines at Heathrow, and charter operators elsewhere.
Night-flying is far more prevalent at Gatwick and Manchester, where holiday airlines need the flexibility of late arrivals and early departures to achieve the almost round-the-clock utilisation of aircraft which underpins low fares.
At Heathrow, there are on average 16 arrivals per night, almost all between 4.30am and 6am from Far East destinations such as Hong Kong and Bangkok. British Airways, which operates half these flights, said that because of international time differences and slot congestion at Heathrow, they would be difficult to reschedule.
The airline - already facing a crisis after the US terrorist attacks - estimated that dropping such flights would cost it £700 million a year in revenue, and undermine Heathrow's position as a worldwide hub. First-class mail and parcels could also be hit, as Consignia relies on 40 flights a night from a network of airports to ensure long-distance next-day deliveries.
The British Air Transport Association said: "The impact of a ban would be very severe. Airlines do not fly at night to annoy residents. They do so because there is not enough terminal and runway capacity to meet demand during the day."
The judgment said that while night flights made a contribution to the national economy, the Government should have conducted more research into their effect on sleep patterns before implementing the 1993 rules at Heathrow, which led to an overall increase in aircraft noise.
Among the residents who brought the case was Ruth Hatton, of East Sheen, south-west London, who said noise levels after 1993 were intolerable. She had been unable to sleep without ear plugs, and her children were frequently woken before 6am.
Peter Thake, who lives in Hounslow, west London, said nights were particularly difficult in the summer, because if he opened his windows the noise was worse, and if he did not, it was too hot to sleep.
The residents, who were each awarded £4,000 compensation, were supported by the Hacan ClearSkies anti-noise campaign group. John Stewart, the chairman, said a ban at Heathrow would happen within 18 months.
"This ruling has opened the way for residents' groups across Britain and Europe to challenge night flying."
By Paul Marston, transport correspondent (Filed: 02/10/2001)
CONSUMERS were warned yesterday that they could face higher air fares and later mail deliveries if the Government outlaws night flights to comply with a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights.
The court upheld a claim by eight residents of the Heathrow area that the sleep disruption resulting from night-time operations violated their right to "respect for private and family life" under the European Convention.
Environmental campaigners hailed the decision, suggesting that it could lead to a ban on flights between 11.30pm and 6am at all British airports. The judgment stopped short of advocating a ban, even at Heathrow.
It found that in setting the rules for night flights in 1993, the Government had "failed to strike a fair balance" between the economic value of the flights and their impact on local inhabitants.
Ministers, who are considering an appeal, will also explore whether palliative measures - such as trimming the number of night flights or paying compensation to the worst-affected residents - would satisfy the court. However, if a blanket ban was to be the outcome, it would have far-reaching implications for long-haul airlines at Heathrow, and charter operators elsewhere.
Night-flying is far more prevalent at Gatwick and Manchester, where holiday airlines need the flexibility of late arrivals and early departures to achieve the almost round-the-clock utilisation of aircraft which underpins low fares.
At Heathrow, there are on average 16 arrivals per night, almost all between 4.30am and 6am from Far East destinations such as Hong Kong and Bangkok. British Airways, which operates half these flights, said that because of international time differences and slot congestion at Heathrow, they would be difficult to reschedule.
The airline - already facing a crisis after the US terrorist attacks - estimated that dropping such flights would cost it £700 million a year in revenue, and undermine Heathrow's position as a worldwide hub. First-class mail and parcels could also be hit, as Consignia relies on 40 flights a night from a network of airports to ensure long-distance next-day deliveries.
The British Air Transport Association said: "The impact of a ban would be very severe. Airlines do not fly at night to annoy residents. They do so because there is not enough terminal and runway capacity to meet demand during the day."
The judgment said that while night flights made a contribution to the national economy, the Government should have conducted more research into their effect on sleep patterns before implementing the 1993 rules at Heathrow, which led to an overall increase in aircraft noise.
Among the residents who brought the case was Ruth Hatton, of East Sheen, south-west London, who said noise levels after 1993 were intolerable. She had been unable to sleep without ear plugs, and her children were frequently woken before 6am.
Peter Thake, who lives in Hounslow, west London, said nights were particularly difficult in the summer, because if he opened his windows the noise was worse, and if he did not, it was too hot to sleep.
The residents, who were each awarded £4,000 compensation, were supported by the Hacan ClearSkies anti-noise campaign group. John Stewart, the chairman, said a ban at Heathrow would happen within 18 months.
"This ruling has opened the way for residents' groups across Britain and Europe to challenge night flying."
In response to LR Driver. No one from Hacan canvassed or requested my view on this matter before the Court. I am not against the freedom of movement in the air traffic at LHR. Why were my individual views not expressed at the hearing, do I not have human rights. You are well aware that no significant aircraft noise is heard within the inner London Boro's mentioned, and I have relatives in those boro's as well. In fact they welcome the beauty of a plane in the sky, to brighten some of their duller moments, something for the children to aspire to in the future
Paxing All Over The World
Just to say, a couple of other 'earlies' are VS . I have often come in from HKG or JNB and landed early before 06:00 if we have had good winds/routing.
LR driver, sincere apologies, anger overtook in reading the reply from Hacan, now off to the Hacan site, they rely on the service I provide and if I removed they would lose more than a nights sleep 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Stansted
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's what we need to do to 'em - part of the re-opening of Washington National is to abandon the previous noise-abatement approach profiles as they pointed aircraft at the Pentagon and White House.....now it's straight in,over built-up areas for reasons of National Security! We could add a couple of escort fighter jets just in case!!!!! 
check out the full story on:- http://www.airliners.net/news/redirect.main?id=24101
check out the full story on:- http://www.airliners.net/news/redirect.main?id=24101
LR Driver
As I am sure you are aware, but have chosen to ignore, the far east flights arriving early into LHR have departed at around 2300 - midnight local time. Presumably you don't care that if your judgement is implemented the residents of Singapore, Bangkok etc will be awakened at around 0100 - 0200 local by departing aircraft. If this isn't a case of NIMBY then please illuminate us all.
As I am sure you are aware, but have chosen to ignore, the far east flights arriving early into LHR have departed at around 2300 - midnight local time. Presumably you don't care that if your judgement is implemented the residents of Singapore, Bangkok etc will be awakened at around 0100 - 0200 local by departing aircraft. If this isn't a case of NIMBY then please illuminate us all.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To Birdstrike (and anyone else who might make the same mistake)
LR Driver is NOT supporting the protesters
He sent them an email telling them what he thought of them, and has posted THEIR response!
It's worth looking at the protesters website, address posted earlier. Check out 'What you can do to help' It gives a list of the people to write to. We can do the same.
So much in the UK is changed just to please a small minority of noisy activists. (eg Where does 'political correctness come from?)
We can learn from them, and use their methods against them.
LR Driver is NOT supporting the protesters
He sent them an email telling them what he thought of them, and has posted THEIR response!
It's worth looking at the protesters website, address posted earlier. Check out 'What you can do to help' It gives a list of the people to write to. We can do the same.
So much in the UK is changed just to please a small minority of noisy activists. (eg Where does 'political correctness come from?)
We can learn from them, and use their methods against them.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: here to eternity
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If these protesters had their award based on their "right" to be able to sleep at night when they chose to move close to an airport, perhaps anyone who has moved close to, say, Sellafield should be able to close it on the basis of their right to have kids with only one head...
Next reductio ad absurdum point concerns people who live close to an airport but work night shifts... do they not have the right to a good day's sleep? Even more difficult for them. Perhaps the ECHR should make a ruling on their rights as well - perhaps the government should do something about all that noise during the daytime?
Finally, I assume that these protesters have never taken a holiday charter during the hours of darkness? A bit hypocritical if they have.
Next reductio ad absurdum point concerns people who live close to an airport but work night shifts... do they not have the right to a good day's sleep? Even more difficult for them. Perhaps the ECHR should make a ruling on their rights as well - perhaps the government should do something about all that noise during the daytime?
Finally, I assume that these protesters have never taken a holiday charter during the hours of darkness? A bit hypocritical if they have.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Manchester,uk
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact that this HACAN outfit chairman sits on the socialist environment bull**** resource woolly hat brigade, as he so proudly points out in his email says it all.
These people are implacably opposed to the aviation industry in all its forms. They are the ones calling for huge taxes on fuel and fares and will quite happily see us all out of a job in pursuit of their view of a perfect world where we all live in teepees and hug trees.
HACAN are a middle class front for all the dreadlocked tunnel diggers, stone throwers and general spoilt brat squad and should be treated with the utter contempt they deserve.
We are a large group of professional,educated people. They are a small unrepresentative rabble who see an opportunity to put the boot in whilst the industry is down. If we cannot put our case forward in a convincing way, then we get what we deserve. A response of 20 emails is pathetic.Lets try 200000 and shut their server down.We also need to make sure our MP's know our feelings.
These people are implacably opposed to the aviation industry in all its forms. They are the ones calling for huge taxes on fuel and fares and will quite happily see us all out of a job in pursuit of their view of a perfect world where we all live in teepees and hug trees.
HACAN are a middle class front for all the dreadlocked tunnel diggers, stone throwers and general spoilt brat squad and should be treated with the utter contempt they deserve.
We are a large group of professional,educated people. They are a small unrepresentative rabble who see an opportunity to put the boot in whilst the industry is down. If we cannot put our case forward in a convincing way, then we get what we deserve. A response of 20 emails is pathetic.Lets try 200000 and shut their server down.We also need to make sure our MP's know our feelings.
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only hope for Europe, the Continent, is that the British people will, one day soon, have the good sense to withdraw from the EU, the corrupt political entity. Without our funding, the whole politically correct, interfering, undemocratic house of cards will collapse. Then we can rid ourselves of the Convention of Human Rights, which is inferior to Magna Carta and our own Bill of Rights.
Pray God that this should happen before Ted Heath dies. I want to see his face.
Pray God that this should happen before Ted Heath dies. I want to see his face.