NIMBYs to blockade LHR ?
where does that refer to 11/9/02 (sic) or terrorism at all?
Mr McDonnell, should you be foolhardy enough to take on FL in the courts, please let me know the when and where. I don't normally spectate at blood sports but in your case I'll make an exception.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look what the guys have got in their hands, d*ckhead! 
And I'd bet my last cent you don't fly airplanes for a living. If you did, you'd understand why joking about terrorist methods just isn't funny in the post 9/11 climate.
I forgot, you didn't get the terrorist point. Sure, they might just have been going hunting.
Geddit?
Try reading your own signature line Steamchicken.
Was Barbara Castle that slushy romance writer in all the pink frills?
Anyways, her advice is good.
And I'd bet my last cent you don't fly airplanes for a living. If you did, you'd understand why joking about terrorist methods just isn't funny in the post 9/11 climate.
I forgot, you didn't get the terrorist point. Sure, they might just have been going hunting.
Geddit?
Try reading your own signature line Steamchicken.
Was Barbara Castle that slushy romance writer in all the pink frills?
Anyways, her advice is good.
Hysteria...
1. 11/9/01. Yes. Typo.
2. Do you recall the popular films "Men In Black" and "Men In Black II"? With the near-identical publicity posters? And absolutely no connection to the IRA or any other terrorist organisation?
2a. IRA "black suits"? Balaclavas and camo, surely?
3. She was Secretary of State for Transport, then Employment, then Social Services.
2. Do you recall the popular films "Men In Black" and "Men In Black II"? With the near-identical publicity posters? And absolutely no connection to the IRA or any other terrorist organisation?
2a. IRA "black suits"? Balaclavas and camo, surely?
3. She was Secretary of State for Transport, then Employment, then Social Services.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course we know the movies!!!!!!!!!
There were two of them. That's why the cartoon says MiB III.
It's the association of groups using guns, bombs, and airplanes to win what they want by force.
I'm hitting a language problem here.
There were two of them. That's why the cartoon says MiB III.
It's the association of groups using guns, bombs, and airplanes to win what they want by force.
I'm hitting a language problem here.
Having known Tudor since we both flew Chipmunks together at ULAS back when even I had hair (and the Flying Lawyer was allegedly slightly more sylph-like than he is now), I know that he has a brilliant sense of humour. So his comments on this thread indicate to me that he is b£oody angry about this stupid cartoon - and quite rightly so too!! He certainly has my support!!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Over The Hills And Far Away
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fully agree with the last couple of posts.
How anybody can associates the cartoon with terrorism is frankly unbelievable.
But I guess where there is a will there is a way.
How anybody can associates the cartoon with terrorism is frankly unbelievable.
But I guess where there is a will there is a way.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Valley Where the Thames Runs Softly
Age: 77
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ray Puddifoot, whose name is also on the poster, is the leader of Hillingdon's Conservatives. I know him, and he will laugh his socks off at this when he sees it.
Lighten up guys!
Lighten up guys!
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ummm, I'm not entirely sure how any poster with aircraft and men with guns and mentioning a battle against hostile forces could be dissociated from terrorism of some sort. Now most likely the cartoon was just thoughtless, and in any context not attacking the industry could be taken lightly. However since this comes in the middle of propoganda attacking the industry it just seems nasty.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: AMS
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't worry
Well guys don't worry about the poster and any terrorism..
If their will be any attack we will go to war, if their is a war at least we have a good, strong, believable leader !
If their will be any attack we will go to war, if their is a war at least we have a good, strong, believable leader !
I don't get it.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What does terrorism have to do with it?
Terrorists are people who try to impose their will on others by fear instead of by democratic process. It depends how you regard a picture which has campign leaders with weapons and aircraft flying in the background.
I'm 100% with FL.
In the current climate, post the 9/11 terrorist actions, so-called humour about achieving objectives by force is in very bad taste. And all the more so where aviation is concerned. An MP being party to it is totally irresponsible.
Terrorists are people who try to impose their will on others by fear instead of by democratic process. It depends how you regard a picture which has campign leaders with weapons and aircraft flying in the background.
I'm 100% with FL.
In the current climate, post the 9/11 terrorist actions, so-called humour about achieving objectives by force is in very bad taste. And all the more so where aviation is concerned. An MP being party to it is totally irresponsible.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe the guys who think turning the movie poster into a cartoon of protest-leaders armed to the teeth in support of their cause should read the "Heathrow target for al Qaeda" topic.
Passionate 'causes', guns and airplanes are a dangerous mix, and not a good subject for humor after recent events.
The cartoon sucks even tho these protesters wouldn't seriously use weapons to stop more flights into Heathrow.
We've got lotsa dumb politicians here, but I don't think the dumbest would have it on their websites.
Now I've finally gotten round to registering, its opened up a whole new world, like profiles and so on. Interesting demography here.
The guys who think the cartoon is okay aren't pro pilots, apart from one and he's not an airlines pilot. Steamchicken and Techman's posts on politics topics in Jetblast are usually on the 'liberal' side of centre. 'Left wing' (?) in the UK. Another one says his friend in the cartoon will laugh his socks off. So what?
And Cathar from your CAA thinks the Flyer Lawyer's got it all wrong. Well isn't that a suprise!
By the way guys, this is a fantastic site and a whole lot better than anything in the US. Hope I'm not causing offence by criticising a British politician.
Passionate 'causes', guns and airplanes are a dangerous mix, and not a good subject for humor after recent events.
The cartoon sucks even tho these protesters wouldn't seriously use weapons to stop more flights into Heathrow.
We've got lotsa dumb politicians here, but I don't think the dumbest would have it on their websites.
Now I've finally gotten round to registering, its opened up a whole new world, like profiles and so on. Interesting demography here.
The guys who think the cartoon is okay aren't pro pilots, apart from one and he's not an airlines pilot. Steamchicken and Techman's posts on politics topics in Jetblast are usually on the 'liberal' side of centre. 'Left wing' (?) in the UK. Another one says his friend in the cartoon will laugh his socks off. So what?
And Cathar from your CAA thinks the Flyer Lawyer's got it all wrong. Well isn't that a suprise!
By the way guys, this is a fantastic site and a whole lot better than anything in the US. Hope I'm not causing offence by criticising a British politician.
Last edited by Chuck K; 14th Nov 2002 at 11:32.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Not at all Chuck K, they deserve it and should expect it!
Maybe there is a degree of sensitivity here but rightly so.
It's obvious that this poster can be interpreted as suggested terrorism, which means the MP is either very stupid or very insensitive...
...both instances are worrying!
Maybe there is a degree of sensitivity here but rightly so.
It's obvious that this poster can be interpreted as suggested terrorism, which means the MP is either very stupid or very insensitive...
...both instances are worrying!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: staines,uk
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hoverman, 'if you rent/buy' nearby it's cheaper due to the large international airport!!. My house is approx 1 1/2 miles south of the southern runwayvery little noise and had gone up in value in the last 18 months 40%!! .
I'm off to buy Devon.
NJR.
'Depressed,no just give me a Bacardi and Coke'
.I'm off to buy Devon.
NJR.
'Depressed,no just give me a Bacardi and Coke'
njr makes a very interesting point about house prices, it also ties in with one of the main issues here. One of the major concerns is the fact that this new runway will affect people currently not significantly affected by pollution from LHR. They are facing potential compulsory purchase of their properties, or if not the very real potential of significant disturbance.
As usual with these issues we have the head in the sand attitude of 'don't live/buy near an airport if you don't like the noise' etc. Interestingly none of those correspondants are able or bother to define 'near'. Having worked on environmental issues you would be surprised just how far away 'near' is for some one affected by these issues. A large amount of the housing near the airport is still council owned, hence the income for some of those families may be well below the national average, (about £23k I believe), so how would some one, lets say single parent shop assistant, afford to move?, or an OAP, or someone unemployed, not quite so clear cut is it?. Just because these people don't work in our industry does not give us the right to blight their living conditions. The T5 enquiry was fairly robust in not requiring a third runway, less than a couple of years after, its now allegedly on the cards, so no big surprise about the local reaction.
The poster gives me no real problem, you have to remember that it is a tool being used by protestors with a very limited budget, it has to be instantly memorable, if its in questionable taste so much the better, you'll remember it then!, compare it to those Benetton ads a while ago if you like, and finally has to be easy to produce in large number for fly posting etc. It gets your attention which is its prime aim, don't get carried away with the 9/11 connection, because you're looking for something that isn't there.
The planned road blockage would be effective we all know that, but ironically would strengthen the case for STN, with its least worst option for expansion, I wonder if CASE have thought of that affect?, doubt it!.
Finally for all you 'move then' proponents, try looking through the other end of the telescope and try to imagine this:
In your local paper next week you read that there is to be a industrial waste incineration plant constructed 1 km down wind of your current house, that you've paid for and love, good schools, nice community, are you going to upsticks and move?, or are you going to be a NIMBY?
As usual with these issues we have the head in the sand attitude of 'don't live/buy near an airport if you don't like the noise' etc. Interestingly none of those correspondants are able or bother to define 'near'. Having worked on environmental issues you would be surprised just how far away 'near' is for some one affected by these issues. A large amount of the housing near the airport is still council owned, hence the income for some of those families may be well below the national average, (about £23k I believe), so how would some one, lets say single parent shop assistant, afford to move?, or an OAP, or someone unemployed, not quite so clear cut is it?. Just because these people don't work in our industry does not give us the right to blight their living conditions. The T5 enquiry was fairly robust in not requiring a third runway, less than a couple of years after, its now allegedly on the cards, so no big surprise about the local reaction.
The poster gives me no real problem, you have to remember that it is a tool being used by protestors with a very limited budget, it has to be instantly memorable, if its in questionable taste so much the better, you'll remember it then!, compare it to those Benetton ads a while ago if you like, and finally has to be easy to produce in large number for fly posting etc. It gets your attention which is its prime aim, don't get carried away with the 9/11 connection, because you're looking for something that isn't there.
The planned road blockage would be effective we all know that, but ironically would strengthen the case for STN, with its least worst option for expansion, I wonder if CASE have thought of that affect?, doubt it!.
Finally for all you 'move then' proponents, try looking through the other end of the telescope and try to imagine this:
In your local paper next week you read that there is to be a industrial waste incineration plant constructed 1 km down wind of your current house, that you've paid for and love, good schools, nice community, are you going to upsticks and move?, or are you going to be a NIMBY?