Campaigners get legal aid to fight Southend Airport plan (From Echo)

These action groups make me mad!! Unless they are very old people who lived there before any airport existed in Southend, they have no right to complain. If you buy a property near an airport, what do you expect?? Southend does need this investment and jobs need to be created.

cherylB wrote:
These action groups make me mad!! Unless they are very old people who lived there before any airport existed in Southend, they have no right to complain. If you buy a property near an airport, what do you expect?? Southend does need this investment and jobs need to be created.

I totally agree. However some NIMBY'S might point out that CherylB lives in Basildon and is not affected by the airport. Whereas I live under the flight path and knew so when I bought my house. The airport needs to expand to bring more jobs to the area.

Plus think of the advantage if they can get more flights to the holiday destinations people go to. Where would you rather fly from, your local airport or would you prefer to carry on trudging round to Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted?

If the airport is made to be a working concern, Southend will be forced to depend on the tawdry sights of the sea front. These will soon be exhausted, while commerce, through Eddie Stobarts excellent business sense, will still be here when the palm trees have died.

Only in England do we have to pay to shoot ourselves in the foot!!!

I thought the runway and road would have been built by now.

I am hoping I can fly from Southend within 2 years?

No wonder this country is skint, dickheads that buy a house near an airport must expect noise. These people are self centered worms that couldnt give a sh*t about the rest of southend.
These numbnuts will also be the first to compain when the council tax goes up or they cant get a job.

wotsit wrote:
No wonder this country is skint, dickheads that buy a house near an airport must expect noise. These people are self centered worms that couldnt give a sh*t about the rest of southend. These numbnuts will also be the first to compain when the council tax goes up or they cant get a job.

most of em don t want a job, that way they hang around the airport and priory cresent all day and night.

If there were enough people in SAEN truly committed to fighting the airport, they should surely have the resources to pool their money and pay for their own legal representation? This just means that whoever wins the court case, public mone ywill have been wasted.

I like the new control tower...
i bet you can see for miles in all directions from the top of that !!!!!!!

Why is it in this country of ours that a few people, and it is a very few in this instance, are able to obtain taxpayers' money to launch this sort of action? Perhaps SAEN could tell us the exact number of paid-up members they have - no? I thought not.
If the SAEN membership feels strongly enough it should be funding this legal action out of its own pockets. They are obviously just clutching at straws hoping to find some legal loophole by which to succeed at the taxpayers expense. Deep down they know that the vast majority of local residents either support the expansion or have no particular view one way or the other, yet they try to claim the opposite.
Let them simply answer this question: if so many people are against this expansion why is it proving any difficulty at all to raise the cash needed for this legal action without the need to resort to legal aid?

Dear Mr Walker and your claiment .Please move away from this town and take your other petty wingers with you.Just let the rest of the residents of this area develop the town in the way the majority want.If we have got it wrong you can have a good laugh at our expense from your green house somewhere as far away from here as is possible.Please let it drop ................

I totally agree Cheryl. In fact when my Dad used to take us to Southend Airport in the late 1960's there was far more activity then than now. I'll even go further and say that I would like to see two runways the size of Heathrow built there and knock down all those houses of the people for protesting. They knew there was an airport there and where my Nan lived in Leigh there were noisy propliners taking off with regularity in the 1960's and 70's. Bring it all back I say, I can't wait.

I notice not one comment has so far supported this protest against the airport expansion. "Shrimpers Not Blues" thanks for pointing out the Basildon link. I actually moved out of that area some years ago, and never bothered to change it on this website. I too live near Southend and love seeing and hearing the planes going over. One went over so low on Sunday we had glasses rattling!!! But are we bothered? NO. Its better than living were we used to live.

I normally just read all the comments, but felt enraged to add a comment of my own to this story. As many other people have pointed out in this time of cuts, and money being in such short supply how on earth can legal aid be granted in this case. If the runway extension had been granted by a parish council somewhere i could maybe understand it, however for a planning application that has had public consultations and voted on by SBC, and not only that to have been called in by the secretary of state to ensure everything was carried out legally, yet despite all that a tiny group of people can be given our tax money to try and make a case for themselves. It is not only annoying, it is a scandal and lets hope this case is thrown out and the people of Southend see the crazy lengths this small group is going to in order to keep themselves busy! Let common sense and the will of the town prevail with the extension being built as soon as possible!

Needless to say, I agree with all of you. I'm sick and tired of these protest groups trying to hold Southend back. So much so, I've made a facebook group to show it. Feel free to join!

http://www.facebook.
com/#!/group.php?gid
=142184519136843

I've called it "Support SKIPP? You must be INSAEN!" I look forward to seeing you all there :)

We still live in a democracy, and people are entitled to exercise their democratic rights to have poor decisions and poor judgements by local authorities legally reviewed.

As to the costs involved the legal aid is a miniscule amount compared to the tens of millions of pounds wasted by the council on the airport over its history. I also point out they are spending our money on defending their dodgy airport decisions! Now that is a clear misuse of money and power.

People on here make outrageous claims of prosperity for this development that are completely unsupported with facts. 200 to 300 local jobs should have been created during the construction of the rail station phase but none materialised. 7,000 jobs to follow that, but I expect there will be good excuses why those apparently evaporate into thin air for the local unemployed!

I find it shocking that the little vocal group of airport supporters should show such indignation here in a public forum for a democratic process. Whilst they really acknowledge the flaws in the infrastructure of the airport on pro-aviation websites and suggesting ways to put a positive spin on them! Very undemocratic!

I don’t think anyone who knows these true views of the supporters owes you any answers; because its the small band of plane crazy devotees that have made up their minds that they will do all they can to inflict this unnecessary development onto the town.

So please stop squealing about the injustice to misguided self interest when someone exercises their democratic right to challenge this poor decision within the laws of our land.

Pompous, hypercritical monuments to egotistical public servants and councillors, like this airport are a thing of the past and should not be part of this town’s future..

200 to 300 local jobs should have been created during the construction of the rail station phase but none materialised.

Could you point me to the link for that please. very interesting. Though I doubt many people would believe building a small station would provide 300 jobs ? I imagine some local firms and staff have benefited from this small scale construction and more will benefit when the terminal and runway and road are built but 300.
looking forward to the link, thanks.

Demanding answers already eh? Sorry I didn't realise this was a kangaroo court with you as the judge J-W? I wonder what you look like in a wig!

And if you can't research your own camps previous claims I don't think I have to do that for you.

How are things on the aviation website these days? Not a lot to talk about is there except the inadequate taxiways?

Here is a nice pdf which explains the "7000" jobs that SAEN keep claiming will work at the airport, looks like the airport have stated these jobs would be what they expect to see region wide once they get near 2 million passengers, so in around ten years time and not all employed by the airport but by other companies that will benefit regionally.

http://www.southenda
irport.com/PDFs/Sout
hend%20Airport%20REx
%20ES%20NTS%20v03.pd
f

you made a claim sealherder, I want you to back it up if you can, just to be fair. as an ex prospective local councillor you know how important facts are.

I have no connection to the airport, I don't fly or own a plane or hold any sort of pilots license, I am just a local resident who lives very near the airport and am looking forward to it becoming a viable enterprise.

sorry that i do not fit in any of your boxes.

Sealherder.
You said it in your own words we live in a democracy and to that end our elected representatives voted in favour of the airport runway extention.so if you and your kind do not agree with this system then may I suggest you dip in your own pockets to mount a challenge instead of trying to use public funds. why do you call the councils decisions dodgey because in not of your way of thinking?
You witter on about undemocratic ways whats , SAEN is the most undemocratic truth twisting group I have ever encountered and I hope your request for legal aid is refused.

Sealherder.
You said it in your own words we live in a democracy and to that end our elected representatives voted in favour of the airport runway extention.so if you and your kind do not agree with this system then may I suggest you dip in your own pockets to mount a challenge instead of trying to use public funds. why do you call the councils decisions dodgey because in not of your way of thinking?
You witter on about undemocratic ways whats , SAEN is the most undemocratic truth twisting group I have ever encountered and I hope your request for legal aid is refused.

Sealherder.
You said it in your own words we live in a democracy and to that end our elected representatives voted in favour of the airport runway extention.so if you and your kind do not agree with this system then may I suggest you dip in your own pockets to mount a challenge instead of trying to use public funds. why do you call the councils decisions dodgey because in not of your way of thinking?
You witter on about undemocratic ways whats , SAEN is the most undemocratic truth twisting group I have ever encountered and I hope your request for legal aid is refused.

Sealherder.
You said it in your own words we live in a democracy and to that end our elected representatives voted in favour of the airport runway extention.so if you and your kind do not agree with this system then may I suggest you dip in your own pockets to mount a challenge instead of trying to use public funds. why do you call the councils decisions dodgey because in not of your way of thinking?
You witter on about undemocratic ways whats , SAEN is the most undemocratic truth twisting group I have ever encountered and I hope your request for legal aid is refused.

Sealherder.
You said it in your own words we live in a democracy and to that end our elected representatives voted in favour of the airport runway extention.so if you and your kind do not agree with this system then may I suggest you dip in your own pockets to mount a challenge instead of trying to use public funds. why do you call the councils decisions dodgey because in not of your way of thinking?
You witter on about undemocratic ways whats , SAEN is the most undemocratic truth twisting group I have ever encountered and I hope your request for legal aid is refused.

Sorry about the multiple entrys the computer gliched......
As we are on the subject of untruths etc.SAEN claimed that the airport runway extention would BRING DOWN HOUSE PRICES in the local area.Since it has now been a few months since the extention approval has been given , whats happened has there been a mass increase in houses for sale in the local area as people flee the area NO.
Has there been a drop in values NO. The market has followed the national trend. Yet again another SAEN myth busted.

Sealherder wrote:
We still live in a democracy, and people are entitled to exercise their democratic rights to have poor decisions and poor judgements by local authorities legally reviewed.

As to the costs involved the legal aid is a miniscule amount compared to the tens of millions of pounds wasted by the council on the airport over its history. I also point out they are spending our money on defending their dodgy airport decisions! Now that is a clear misuse of money and power.

People on here make outrageous claims of prosperity for this development that are completely unsupported with facts. 200 to 300 local jobs should have been created during the construction of the rail station phase but none materialised. 7,000 jobs to follow that, but I expect there will be good excuses why those apparently evaporate into thin air for the local unemployed!

I find it shocking that the little vocal group of airport supporters should show such indignation here in a public forum for a democratic process. Whilst they really acknowledge the flaws in the infrastructure of the airport on pro-aviation websites and suggesting ways to put a positive spin on them! Very undemocratic!

I don’t think anyone who knows these true views of the supporters owes you any answers; because its the small band of plane crazy devotees that have made up their minds that they will do all they can to inflict this unnecessary development onto the town.

So please stop squealing about the injustice to misguided self interest when someone exercises their democratic right to challenge this poor decision within the laws of our land.

Pompous, hypercritical monuments to egotistical public servants and councillors, like this airport are a thing of the past and should not be part of this town’s future..

I would be very interested to see this aviation website you mention, and the comments posted on it by the pro-expansion lobby. Do you have a link?

Sealherder wrote:
As to the costs involved the legal aid is a miniscule amount compared to the tens of millions of pounds wasted by the council on the airport over its history. I also point out they are spending our money on defending their dodgy airport decisions! Now that is a clear misuse of money and power.

Now maybe I'm missing something here but surely the only reason the council is having to spend money defending their actions is becasue of this purely vexacious action from SAEN?

One at a time please!

J-W if we are talking about "region wide" affects on employment now? Then you need to read Airport Jobs, "False Hopes Cruel Hoax", can you find it on your own from that lead, because you seem very good at finding things on the internet about me.

As you know very well from our last exchange the comment on jobs is in the Thames Gateway Strategic Report by ECC and other contributors. But if these claims are questionable now why were they claimed as accurate then? You see all these claims of regeneration seem to evaporate, don’t they?

Oh, yes and there was a comment on the aviation website worth sharing by a pro-airport supporter saying that:

Residents complaining about being overlooked by the new Control Tower were not in danger of being spied on because "they weren't lookers” in that part of Rochford. That’s a pretty immature reply to a genuine concern and sums up the whole mentality of these “plane crazy” people in my view. They don’t care about the affects on people here do they.

And Keith, people are putting their hands in their own pockets and making a contribution to costs.

Sealherder has been asked some very pertinent questions as a result of his first post on this story and has failed to answer any of them. I too would like to know where I can find these 'facts'.
What I don't like about the SAEN position is that they are hiding behind some anonymous frontman or frontwoman who is the 'claimant' in this attempt at legal action and they refuse to name them.
They also decline to explain the exact grounds on which their claim is being made. Yet, they expect taxpayers to foot the bill for their little game via Legal Aid.
They have also become a limited company in the past week so they themselves would only be liable for £100 in total if everything goes wrong. Frankly, I think their position stinks of self-interest, self-preservation, self-righteousness, self-importance and, hopefully, ultimately self-destruction. How about changing that limited company name to SELF Ltd?

No Sir Henry, to get to this point the council was approached in a less formal but equally legal fashion where they could have resolved the issue.

If we have reached this point now its because the Council wants it that way!

Sorry Levelfield, unless I am mistaken you are not the judge, not the jury and certainly no "executioner", you need to get a grip!

Resolve what issue? Planning permission has been granted. It was subsequently called in and the decision ratified. While I am not disputing your right to object, at some point you need to just pack your toys back in to the pram and live with the decision. In what way was the council approached in a 'less formal but equally legal fashion' and why should they overturn a legally made decision?

Well that's for the court to decide now isn't it your highness?

Sealherder - Are you actually able to substantiate anything you have said in any of your posts? You are quick to pick people up for suppositions and generalisation, however, your own levels of evasiveness rival that of LBS in a previous thread. If you think you are right, stick your head above the parapet and give us some facts and hard information not just the woolly scaremongering speeches we are accustomed to reading from SAEN.
1. Who is the claimant?
2. Why has legal aid been requested when SAEN has set up a fighting fund via its website?
3. Has legal aid been awarded?
4. Why did SAEN incorporate immediately prior to lodging the action?
5. In what way do you consider that you know better than both SBC and Denham?
6.What effect has there been on house prices since approval was granted and how does that compare with regional trends?

Hahahaha, do remind me Sir Humphrey, you're not a High Court judge are you? No, didn't think so..

So you and the others will just have to keep buying the Echo to find out, what's going on because you are no more important than any other reader meantime, Sayonara

No more than I expected there. Evasiveness followed by the gratuitous putdown to avoid actually answering a direct question.

It'd seem Mr Sealherder has run out of answers for this . As he says, the court will decide, so perhaps SAEN could do with finding some answers by then?

I'm very sorry Sealherder, but your response to my genuine request for information, and I'm not one of your airport employee 'nutters' by the way, is rather pathetic. I don't think it's me that needs to "get a grip".
Is this the way you really expect middle of the road people like me to be persuaded to your cause? I expect the pro-airport brigade are rubbing their hands at your diatribes and gagging for more.
Perhaps I didn't put it as clearly as Sir Henry did, so how about answering his points? You're very good at sneering at others who hold equally democratic yet opposed views to your own, but you're all bluster and no substance. Do I understand you were an unsuccessful candidate at the recent local elections? I wonder why.

Levelfield wrote:
I'm very sorry Sealherder, but your response to my genuine request for information, and I'm not one of your airport employee 'nutters' by the way, is rather pathetic. I don't think it's me that needs to "get a grip". Is this the way you really expect middle of the road people like me to be persuaded to your cause? I expect the pro-airport brigade are rubbing their hands at your diatribes and gagging for more. Perhaps I didn't put it as clearly as Sir Henry did, so how about answering his points? You're very good at sneering at others who hold equally democratic yet opposed views to your own, but you're all bluster and no substance. Do I understand you were an unsuccessful candidate at the recent local elections? I wonder why.

come along sealherder answer those quite simple questions.Theres people watching! If you want the public support go public tell us what you have to say.

So, a faceless individual gets legal aid just to ask a judge if it's OK to run the ruler over the process all over again. Now then, how much did the PM say we were overdrawn by and what did we have to stop doing? Oh yes, frivilous spending. Which is what this chunk of legal aid amounts to me thinks.


Whats up Sealherder - touch of negative equity ol' boy?

anon anon wrote:
I like the new control tower... i bet you can see for miles in all directions from the top of that !!!!!!!

ATC to pilot - I can see the pub from here. Glass of Amber Nectar anyone?

SAEN Ltd...

What a joke only to portect themselfs from a hefty bill if they loose its all self self self with that lot.

Anyone seen the lies on the new posters.

After breaking copyright law by use=ing the Stobart name on the poster they alsi have the tag "Unlimited Night Flights"

Lets hope the jude see's the lies and throws out the case with the order they pay all costs.

Sadly the sheep that follow saen will help pay the costs.

Once the papers are lodged the courts should name the person on the papers.

Max Impact wrote:
SAEN Ltd... What a joke only to portect themselfs from a hefty bill if they loose its all self self self with that lot. Anyone seen the lies on the new posters. After breaking copyright law by use=ing the Stobart name on the poster they alsi have the tag "Unlimited Night Flights" Lets hope the jude see's the lies and throws out the case with the order they pay all costs. Sadly the sheep that follow saen will help pay the costs. Once the papers are lodged the courts should name the person on the papers.

Hey if half the drug dealers, low lifes and the crays hill bunch can soak the taxpayer with untold millions in legal aid, i see no problem with SAEN getting it.

Good to see all the Mr Pooters on the rampage...

cherylB wrote:
These action groups make me mad!! Unless they are very old people who lived there before any airport existed in Southend, they have no right to complain. If you buy a property near an airport, what do you expect?? Southend does need this investment and jobs need to be created.

i agree with you 100%, we should be thankful that the airport is been expanded in this time where unemployment is high because it will create loads of new jobs :)
all these campainers must lead very sad and shallow lives to not see the advantages of southend airport!!

gitreal wrote:

Max Impact wrote: SAEN Ltd... What a joke only to portect themselfs from a hefty bill if they loose its all self self self with that lot. Anyone seen the lies on the new posters. After breaking copyright law by use=ing the Stobart name on the poster they alsi have the tag "Unlimited Night Flights" Lets hope the jude see's the lies and throws out the case with the order they pay all costs. Sadly the sheep that follow saen will help pay the costs. Once the papers are lodged the courts should name the person on the papers.

Hey if half the drug dealers, low lifes and the crays hill bunch can soak the taxpayer with untold millions in legal aid, i see no problem with SAEN getting it.

At least they are not trying to destroy employment in Southend and the surrounding area.

The Legal Aid system is a joke it should NOT be used by protest groups or members of protest groups, people with criminal records, those without a fix abode, those who are illegally living on land not designated for building on and it should also be means tested.

Put a limit on how much can be paid and watch the cost of it tumble.

Well said Mr Duddridge. About time an MP stood for common sense. As his colleague, Mr Amess, is in support of this latest farce I hope Mr Duddridge has the b**ls to challenge him with these comments also.

r6keith wrote:

Levelfield wrote: I'm very sorry Sealherder, but your response to my genuine request for information, and I'm not one of your airport employee 'nutters' by the way, is rather pathetic. I don't think it's me that needs to "get a grip". Is this the way you really expect middle of the road people like me to be persuaded to your cause? I expect the pro-airport brigade are rubbing their hands at your diatribes and gagging for more. Perhaps I didn't put it as clearly as Sir Henry did, so how about answering his points? You're very good at sneering at others who hold equally democratic yet opposed views to your own, but you're all bluster and no substance. Do I understand you were an unsuccessful candidate at the recent local elections? I wonder why.

come along sealherder answer those quite simple questions.Theres people watching! If you want the public support go public tell us what you have to say.

Sealherder I know your out there .Come on answer the questions. Or have you got nothing to hide behind ?

When theres all this talk about democracy and you have the local Southend west MP Mr A mess starting a petition to complain to the European parliment about the airports expansion. Has he asked on his petition if you support his action or that you would like the airport expansion to go ahead NO! Has he sent a copy of his one sided petition to every household in his constituency,so that he will measure the true picture of the feelings on this matter of the people he is supposed to represent NO!
Just who and how many is he campaining for? Not me thats for sure.
I would like him to get the legal aid refused for the objection to the airports planning permisson .how many people need to request you to do this to make it happen Mr Amess?

Max Impact wrote:

gitreal wrote:

Max Impact wrote: SAEN Ltd... What a joke only to portect themselfs from a hefty bill if they loose its all self self self with that lot. Anyone seen the lies on the new posters. After breaking copyright law by use=ing the Stobart name on the poster they alsi have the tag "Unlimited Night Flights" Lets hope the jude see's the lies and throws out the case with the order they pay all costs. Sadly the sheep that follow saen will help pay the costs. Once the papers are lodged the courts should name the person on the papers.

Hey if half the drug dealers, low lifes and the crays hill bunch can soak the taxpayer with untold millions in legal aid, i see no problem with SAEN getting it.

At least they are not trying to destroy employment in Southend and the surrounding area. The Legal Aid system is a joke it should NOT be used by protest groups or members of protest groups, people with criminal records, those without a fix abode, those who are illegally living on land not designated for building on and it should also be means tested. Put a limit on how much can be paid and watch the cost of it tumble.

Legal aid seems to be readily available for the ones you mention above.

I have no problem with SAEN getting legal aid....why not? Rather them then the feckless and lowlifes. At least SAEN has a cause whether you like it or not.

You don't like them and find any excuse to slag them off and make your comments which are usuallly rude, and bordering on slander. AND anyone who defends them gets the same treatment. Live and let live and wait for the outcome.

Employment for the airport...okay any ads or employment agencies carrying any of these'jobs' thus far? I'm just curious as they say there will be jobs, so where are they?

And do you honestly think that locals will take these (so-called )jobs and give up their cushy benefits to work for 6 or 7 quid an hour?

Nahhhhh, if there will be jobs, the ones that will want them will be eastern europeans and the economic migrants that get trashed on the Echo forums time after time.

So that will give you more vitriol. All those jobs taken by non locals. I cna see it all.

gitreal wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

gitreal wrote:

Max Impact wrote: SAEN Ltd... What a joke only to portect themselfs from a hefty bill if they loose its all self self self with that lot. Anyone seen the lies on the new posters. After breaking copyright law by use=ing the Stobart name on the poster they alsi have the tag "Unlimited Night Flights" Lets hope the jude see's the lies and throws out the case with the order they pay all costs. Sadly the sheep that follow saen will help pay the costs. Once the papers are lodged the courts should name the person on the papers.

Hey if half the drug dealers, low lifes and the crays hill bunch can soak the taxpayer with untold millions in legal aid, i see no problem with SAEN getting it.

At least they are not trying to destroy employment in Southend and the surrounding area. The Legal Aid system is a joke it should NOT be used by protest groups or members of protest groups, people with criminal records, those without a fix abode, those who are illegally living on land not designated for building on and it should also be means tested. Put a limit on how much can be paid and watch the cost of it tumble.

Legal aid seems to be readily available for the ones you mention above. I have no problem with SAEN getting legal aid....why not? Rather them then the feckless and lowlifes. At least SAEN has a cause whether you like it or not. You don't like them and find any excuse to slag them off and make your comments which are usuallly rude, and bordering on slander. AND anyone who defends them gets the same treatment. Live and let live and wait for the outcome. Employment for the airport...okay any ads or employment agencies carrying any of these'jobs' thus far? I'm just curious as they say there will be jobs, so where are they? And do you honestly think that locals will take these (so-called )jobs and give up their cushy benefits to work for 6 or 7 quid an hour? Nahhhhh, if there will be jobs, the ones that will want them will be eastern europeans and the economic migrants that get trashed on the Echo forums time after time. So that will give you more vitriol. All those jobs taken by non locals. I cna see it all.

You don't advertise for jobs before something is built and the companies it is designed to attract move in, think about it.

When Lakeside was built, were job agencies full of ads before all the shop lettings were agreed? NO. You will have to be patient. And to suggest that ALL the jobs will be taken by eastern europeans is also ridiculous - if local people are willing to go for the jobs then they have as good a chance as anyone.

if local people are willing to go for the jobs then they have as good a chance as anyone.

Well there have been 50 local jobs on the books in Southend for over a year now. Any locals applying for them? NOPE.

Too many locals are lazy, too many locals on benefits and won't get out of bed to work if they can stay at home and do nothing, and get paid for it.

OK - I'm sure there are valid arguments both for and against the expansion, but what really gets me are people like 'CherylB' the offensive 'Wotsit' and the like, who always bang on about an airport always being there. So what?
You have a road in front of your house / flat / whatever, don't you? Now wouldn't you be upset if someone decided to add a few more lanes and call it a motorway? Try seeing things from someone else's perspective.

What about if you move in knowing that there is a possibility of the road being increased in size, then set up a limited company and then get legal aid to fight the road expansion even though most of your neighbours believe the road will bring benefits or aren't bothered either way?

gitreal wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

gitreal wrote:

Max Impact wrote: SAEN Ltd... What a joke only to portect themselfs from a hefty bill if they loose its all self self self with that lot. Anyone seen the lies on the new posters. After breaking copyright law by use=ing the Stobart name on the poster they alsi have the tag "Unlimited Night Flights" Lets hope the jude see's the lies and throws out the case with the order they pay all costs. Sadly the sheep that follow saen will help pay the costs. Once the papers are lodged the courts should name the person on the papers.

Hey if half the drug dealers, low lifes and the crays hill bunch can soak the taxpayer with untold millions in legal aid, i see no problem with SAEN getting it.

At least they are not trying to destroy employment in Southend and the surrounding area. The Legal Aid system is a joke it should NOT be used by protest groups or members of protest groups, people with criminal records, those without a fix abode, those who are illegally living on land not designated for building on and it should also be means tested. Put a limit on how much can be paid and watch the cost of it tumble.

Legal aid seems to be readily available for the ones you mention above. I have no problem with SAEN getting legal aid....why not? Rather them then the feckless and lowlifes. At least SAEN has a cause whether you like it or not. You don't like them and find any excuse to slag them off and make your comments which are usuallly rude, and bordering on slander. AND anyone who defends them gets the same treatment. Live and let live and wait for the outcome. Employment for the airport...okay any ads or employment agencies carrying any of these'jobs' thus far? I'm just curious as they say there will be jobs, so where are they? And do you honestly think that locals will take these (so-called )jobs and give up their cushy benefits to work for 6 or 7 quid an hour? Nahhhhh, if there will be jobs, the ones that will want them will be eastern europeans and the economic migrants that get trashed on the Echo forums time after time. So that will give you more vitriol. All those jobs taken by non locals. I cna see it all.

Everyone is permitted to air their own views as long as the slander/deformation line is not crossed then its fine and hunky dory.

The way most of the comments on here descend into **** at each other is ridicules.

The problem with these type of comment forums is that you can sign up as many different names as you like, so you could have one person log in under five, six, seven or an an-unlimited number of different names.

As for the airport I want it to expand it’s all private money going into the project and in the long term of things it will create jobs.

Let’s face facts most of us like a holiday what could be better then jumping in a cab to Southend rather than driving to Stansted.

j-w wrote:
What about if you move in knowing that there is a possibility of the road being increased in size, then set up a limited company and then get legal aid to fight the road expansion even though most of your neighbours believe the road will bring benefits or aren't bothered either way?

Then I would have to believe, I had moved to an area were the local asylum was lodging its released inmates or most of the local population already had terminal lung cancer.

The problem with these type of comment forums is that you can sign up as many different names as you like, so you could have one person log in under five, six, seven or an an-unlimited number of different names. I think his rumbled you Max, you shouldn’t have sent one of your aliases on holiday, silly move.

Well at least you would fit in well, vanilla. How are the trees at cuckoo corner, oh no wait, they have all gone to make way for Stobarts lorry park!

Lol

j-w wrote:
Well at least you would fit in well, vanilla. How are the trees at cuckoo corner, oh no wait, they have all gone to make way for Stobarts lorry park!

Lol

Well at least hopefully you haven’t good lung cancer, but even though I’m not a doctor, I do think you should have the strength of your happy pills increased you really don’t want to drew attention to yourself and stop laughing out loud as you look for trees that aren’t there, and before you start looking the bird variety of the cuckoo that went long ago, but there have been reports of a bedraggled somewhat demented individual hugging lorries with the Stobart livery in a most perverse way, a spokesperson for the haulage company stated that they do try to stop the lunatic fringe of their followers from this sort of reaction to their vehicles, they have tried giving away balloons and umbrellas printed with the Stobart logo in the problem areas to placate them but it been met with only limited success, the actions in the southend area are proving to be more difficult to stop. It has been found that some degree of success has been archived by putting a tight fitting cork in the exhaust pipe on the occasions when the Lorries are parked up, and that we are hopeful of coming up with a permanent solution before one of them get anywhere near one of our aircraft, (it could be messy ).

Vanilla you do make me laugh with your ramblings.
I am still on holiday, but have a poor signal. Thought I would catch up on events while I had a brief moment if madness.
What will be will be. SAEN will be shown as s huge waste of public money, and the Airport will be the regional airport it should be. Not the Goliath SAEN would have you believe.
I'll be back next week, but having read the antis comments they seem to be doing a great job of negative PR on themselves.
I'm off to enjoy the rest of my UK holiday. You don't have to fly abroad every year to be a supporter of progress and jobs in Southend ;)

Doolaly wrote:
OK - I'm sure there are valid arguments both for and against the expansion, but what really gets me are people like 'CherylB' the offensive 'Wotsit' and the like, who always bang on about an airport always being there. So what?
You have a road in front of your house / flat / whatever, don't you? Now wouldn't you be upset if someone decided to add a few more lanes and call it a motorway? Try seeing things from someone else's perspective.

Not quite the same argument - if they were going to add a few lanes to a road outside your home, then a majority of the time they would need to bulldoze your house.

PJR wrote:

Doolaly wrote: OK - I'm sure there are valid arguments both for and against the expansion, but what really gets me are people like 'CherylB' the offensive 'Wotsit' and the like, who always bang on about an airport always being there. So what? You have a road in front of your house / flat / whatever, don't you? Now wouldn't you be upset if someone decided to add a few more lanes and call it a motorway? Try seeing things from someone else's perspective.

Not quite the same argument - if they were going to add a few lanes to a road outside your home, then a majority of the time they would need to bulldoze your house.

PJR
I think your missing the point , we already have a functioning airport, the extention will allow it to be used by QUIETER planes than the ones using it at the moment.Stobart has not spent all that money on the station for nothing he needs passengers , he will put them on slower noisey prop type planes if the runway is not extended, or quieter quicker higher jets if we do extend . Its just the sensible way to use something that is already there and I now you dont like it but has been for a long time..and lets hope for many years to come.....

r6keith - I hope you're right. But perhaps I'm just older and more cynical than you. The actual claim was something along the lines of "A longer runway will enable newer quieter aircraft to use the airport" Nowhere did it state that "ONLY newer, quieter aircraft will use the airport" I'm sure that Stobart would prefer to use newer aircraft, as they're probably more economical to run (and let's face it, he's certainly no fool), but let's not forget that he is not the only user of the airport. I'm sure the airport will bring both good and bad things to Southend, but it remains to be seen if the benefits will outweigh the disadvantages.

Doolaly . Your comment about "only newer aircraft" is very fair and I accept that as a constructive comment. But the style of aircraft and the destinations they would like to reach from here do lean strongly towards aircraft like the A320.

i like the airport and im not affaired of change

Baker_Boy wrote:
i like the airport and im not affaired of change

I'm not affaired of change either, but I am afraid of it.

lets crack on with the airport work before these time wasters can interfere any more!!

Nice job for a local interested in planes here: http://www.stobartgr
oup.co.uk/Careers/Al
l-Vacancies/JobVacan
cy/Air-Traffic-Contr
ol-Assistant/