Updated: Southend Airport protestors bailed after security breach (From Echo)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting ECHONEWS to 80360, or email us »
Updated: Southend Airport protestors bailed after security breach
10:04am Saturday 29th October 2011 in News
Protesters arrested after getting into Southend Airport
FIFTEEN protesters arrested on suspicion of a security breach at Southend Airport have been bailed.
Police have now confirmed that it was five men and 10 ten women who were arrested at about 9am on Saturday. They have now been bailed until November 30.
The group includes a 20-year-old man and a 19-year-old woman from Norwich and a 43 year-old man from Whistable in Kent. The remainder are from various areas of London.
Protest organisation Plane Stupid has claimed responsibility for five of the protestors who they say managed to get on the runway at 9am today to try and install solar panels.
They were dressed as pilots and cabin crew.
They say an extra five were from another group called Climate Rush.'
Police were called to the scene just after 9am.
The group remain in police custody.
A spokeswoman for the protestors said: "What we need is solar power not plane power." A spokeswoman for Southend Airport said: "Earlier this morning Essex Police were called to London Southend airport following a report of suspicious activity at the airport perimeter. "Police swiftly dealt with a breach in the airport perimeter and a number of people were arrested. "The runway was closed for a short period whilst the police responded. "No flights were impacted by this event."
The Stop Airport Extension Now (SAEN) group has denied any involvement, but a spokesman said: "it's understandable why they are feeling so frustrated."
FOR FULL REPORT READ MONDAY'S ECHO
Comments(122)
carnacation
says...
10:07am Sat 29 Oct 11
policritician
says...
10:15am Sat 29 Oct 11
Sweet P
says...
10:33am Sat 29 Oct 11
geezer, innit
says...
10:42am Sat 29 Oct 11
Sweet P wrote:because the plane wouldn't tow their caravans on a flight to Ireland, perhaps....
What were they protesting against?
PJR
says...
11:15am Sat 29 Oct 11
Sweet P wrote:Airport expansion, and adding a campaign in favour of renewable energies. They planned to lay solar panels on the runway and dance around them apparently, and one spokesperson said "the airpot claims it will create jobs, but a renewable energy business will create more, we need climate change, not plane change"
What were they protesting against?
Taken from the BBC News website, which has more detail than a local news site, again...
Rochford Ron
says...
11:20am Sat 29 Oct 11
tophatdt
says...
11:25am Sat 29 Oct 11
Max Impact
says...
11:29am Sat 29 Oct 11
Rochford Ron wrote:WRONG
Direct Action is often the only way to draw attention to unpleasant truths...... And certainly when big, big vested interests are involved, backed up by Local councils desperate for extra tax income - difficult position to be in I'm sure, but nevertheless, that's what is happening. And of course, all these jobs announced this week, happen to be on a planned industrial estate which happens to be near the airport, not really because of it - we could create the jobs without the runway, without the extra noise, & without the extra fumes from the engines - so growth/jobs with no extra noise/smells - sounds like a win/win to me - what's wrong with that?
The funding for the new industrial estates is mostly comming from the airport so no extention ni new jobs.
When it come to airport security it MUST be Shoot first ask question later.
Wait for jayman and the other one to read this story!
Aint it just the truth
says...
11:35am Sat 29 Oct 11
Rochford Ron
says...
11:45am Sat 29 Oct 11
To suggest that the Airport is going to somehow 'pay/subsidise' the industrial estate betrays quite a naive understanding on this issue - i don't mean to be rude to you (too much of that on these posts already) - i just mean that your comments do not seem to be founded on any real fact, only opinions, and means that people might be mislead if they rely purely on your thoughts.... I would be interested in any facts that you might have at your disposal to further this discussion?
ADucksQuack
says...
11:50am Sat 29 Oct 11
Brunning999 wrote:Better to be someone unafraid to stand up for what they believe in than a mindless sheople.
Yet again an anarchist group of losers trying to hijack the overwhelming majority.
Max Impact
says...
12:02pm Sat 29 Oct 11
Max Impact
says...
12:05pm Sat 29 Oct 11
Rochford Ron wrote:So why is it Stobarts signed an agreement assosiated to the works.
Hi there Max Impact, I'm afraid i am not wrong on this - i have direct knowledge of the arrangements. To suggest that the Airport is going to somehow 'pay/subsidise' the industrial estate betrays quite a naive understanding on this issue - i don't mean to be rude to you (too much of that on these posts already) - i just mean that your comments do not seem to be founded on any real fact, only opinions, and means that people might be mislead if they rely purely on your thoughts.... I would be interested in any facts that you might have at your disposal to further this discussion?
And why not tell us of your direct knowledge an insider are you or are you funding it?
carnacation
says...
12:10pm Sat 29 Oct 11
Aint it just the truth wrote:He's right, just wait and see what is coming, seen them cutting the tree down at the Exford Avenue area, to accom; the out going jets.
Give it a year or two and there will be a lot more people upset about the airport expansion, what with extra flights, extra pollution, roads gridlocked even more than they are now, increased noise nuisance for thousands of people, broken promises (any bets?) the list is endless. This always was a stupid place to have a major airport - it should have been in the MIDDLE of the area it serves, not the edge, so passengers travel less but all some of you care about is your annual hols or the chance to make a few quid. Incredibly myopic.
Double glazing sales will Soar there !!
Though at least in Rayleigh, it will be "All quiet, on the Western Front
carnacation
says...
12:14pm Sat 29 Oct 11
Max Impact wrote:Politically incorrect postings will be removed, and your IP addresses logged.
What happened to the postings?
jayman
says...
12:28pm Sat 29 Oct 11
Discouraged
says...
12:41pm Sat 29 Oct 11
one or more of the above
Denis Walker
says...
12:44pm Sat 29 Oct 11
http://www.saen.org.
uk/2011/10/saen-grat
eful-to-plane-stupid
-protesters/
jayman
says...
1:06pm Sat 29 Oct 11
Max Impact
says...
1:13pm Sat 29 Oct 11
Denis Walker wrote:So saen support law breaking, trespass and the endangerment of an aircraft.
SAEN grateful to Plane Stupid protesters: http://www.saen.org. uk/2011/10/saen-grat eful-to-plane-stupid -protesters/
These nutters should be charged under the terrorism act as they unlawfully went on to the airport with the intention of closing it to operations.
Would they have moved if an emergency aircraft was comming in?
Protesters so little to give so much to take. (from the state)
BASILBRUSH
says...
1:18pm Sat 29 Oct 11
At least it highlights need to do something with the footpath for security and safety reasons alone.
Ain't it just the truth, the housing built up around the Airport which is only ever going to be a small regional Airport, not a major Airport.
There are Airports with far denser populated areas around them than Southends.
Aint it just the truth
says...
1:32pm Sat 29 Oct 11
carnacation wrote:Blimey, an endorsement from Carnacation. Thanks mate.
Aint it just the truth wrote: Give it a year or two and there will be a lot more people upset about the airport expansion, what with extra flights, extra pollution, roads gridlocked even more than they are now, increased noise nuisance for thousands of people, broken promises (any bets?) the list is endless. This always was a stupid place to have a major airport - it should have been in the MIDDLE of the area it serves, not the edge, so passengers travel less but all some of you care about is your annual hols or the chance to make a few quid. Incredibly myopic.He's right, just wait and see what is coming, seen them cutting the tree down at the Exford Avenue area, to accom; the out going jets. Double glazing sales will Soar there !! Though at least in Rayleigh, it will be "All quiet, on the Western Front
Brunning999
says...
1:50pm Sat 29 Oct 11
Rochford Ron wrote:What an idiot your way of thinking certainly does nothing to create wealth in fact it is your way of thinking that has actually created all the problems with the need for Councils to create ideas and new properties to collect the taxes to actually pay for the Socialist philosophy of believing we can pay people benefits to stay at home doing nothing all their natural working life.
Direct Action is often the only way to draw attention to unpleasant truths...... And certainly when big, big vested interests are involved, backed up by Local councils desperate for extra tax income - difficult position to be in I'm sure, but nevertheless, that's what is happening. And of course, all these jobs announced this week, happen to be on a planned industrial estate which happens to be near the airport, not really because of it - we could create the jobs without the runway, without the extra noise, & without the extra fumes from the engines - so growth/jobs with no extra noise/smells - sounds like a win/win to me - what's wrong with that?
What is even worse is you supporting the anarchists who are mainly some of the worst benefit scroungers as seen at Dale Farm and St Pauls Cathedral.
As for suggesting there is something wrong with big business becoming involved WHY NOT after all they pay the biggest slice of the necessary taxes to
pay the anarchist's to do nothing.
I for one believe in the right to protest BUT THAT RIGHT MUST EXTEND TO THE MAJORITY HAVING THE SAME RIGHTS TO VOICE OUR OPOSITION TO THESE IDIOTS.
And the BBC should also be forced to reduce the coverage of these idiots on our TV's a coverage probably agreed by anarchists from within the Socialists
within the BBC.
myhumbleopinion
says...
2:01pm Sat 29 Oct 11
The points the protesters make about climate change are all completely rubbish, since the easyJet aircraft are not in addition, rather being moved from Stansted. Flying into Southend there will be far less holding and shorter flight times, so surely that will be good for the environment.
By supporting this action, Denis and SAEN are simply proving that they are also an extremist bunch of perennial campaigners. I wish that Denis was joining the protesters since he has endorsed them, then he to would be spending a weekend in the cells!
Andycal 172D
says...
2:09pm Sat 29 Oct 11
AspergerKidJoe
says...
2:44pm Sat 29 Oct 11
jayman
says...
2:51pm Sat 29 Oct 11
westborograss
says...
3:21pm Sat 29 Oct 11
The Stop Airport Extension Now (SAEN) group has ""demied"" any involvement, but a spokesman said: "it's understandable why they are feeling so frustrated."
Broadwaywatch
says...
3:59pm Sat 29 Oct 11
BASILBRUSH wrote:I believe that footpath was there long before the airport taxiway....that is what it crosses.....a hardly used taxiway. It is not and has never been a main runway. Put security gates on the taxway by all means but please leave the footpath alone. Many walkers enjoy that path and are sensible crossing the taxiway. For goodness sake leave some of old Eastwood intact. In fact where the protesters actualy on the main runway or where the footpath crosses the taxiway?
Bunch of idiots supported by SAEN. I hope they prosecute. At least it highlights need to do something with the footpath for security and safety reasons alone. Ain't it just the truth, the housing built up around the Airport which is only ever going to be a small regional Airport, not a major Airport. There are Airports with far denser populated areas around them than Southends.
carnacation
says...
4:24pm Sat 29 Oct 11
Aint it just the truth wrote:During times of adverse conditions, competitive battalions would act like brothers to cull a common cause, resulting in an unprecedented and never seen before, pact, in this case to get the truth across...
carnacation wrote:Blimey, an endorsement from Carnacation. Thanks mate.
Aint it just the truth wrote: Give it a year or two and there will be a lot more people upset about the airport expansion, what with extra flights, extra pollution, roads gridlocked even more than they are now, increased noise nuisance for thousands of people, broken promises (any bets?) the list is endless. This always was a stupid place to have a major airport - it should have been in the MIDDLE of the area it serves, not the edge, so passengers travel less but all some of you care about is your annual hols or the chance to make a few quid. Incredibly myopic.He's right, just wait and see what is coming, seen them cutting the tree down at the Exford Avenue area, to accom; the out going jets. Double glazing sales will Soar there !! Though at least in Rayleigh, it will be "All quiet, on the Western Front
carnacation
says...
4:29pm Sat 29 Oct 11
ADucksQuack
says...
4:42pm Sat 29 Oct 11
Brunning999 wrote:Dear 1% we fell asleep for a while, now we're awake again,
Rochford Ron wrote:What an idiot your way of thinking certainly does nothing to create wealth in fact it is your way of thinking that has actually created all the problems with the need for Councils to create ideas and new properties to collect the taxes to actually pay for the Socialist philosophy of believing we can pay people benefits to stay at home doing nothing all their natural working life.
Direct Action is often the only way to draw attention to unpleasant truths...... And certainly when big, big vested interests are involved, backed up by Local councils desperate for extra tax income - difficult position to be in I'm sure, but nevertheless, that's what is happening. And of course, all these jobs announced this week, happen to be on a planned industrial estate which happens to be near the airport, not really because of it - we could create the jobs without the runway, without the extra noise, & without the extra fumes from the engines - so growth/jobs with no extra noise/smells - sounds like a win/win to me - what's wrong with that?
What is even worse is you supporting the anarchists who are mainly some of the worst benefit scroungers as seen at Dale Farm and St Pauls Cathedral.
As for suggesting there is something wrong with big business becoming involved WHY NOT after all they pay the biggest slice of the necessary taxes to
pay the anarchist's to do nothing.
I for one believe in the right to protest BUT THAT RIGHT MUST EXTEND TO THE MAJORITY HAVING THE SAME RIGHTS TO VOICE OUR OPOSITION TO THESE IDIOTS.
And the BBC should also be forced to reduce the coverage of these idiots on our TV's a coverage probably agreed by anarchists from within the Socialists
within the BBC.
The 99%.
Aint it just the truth
says...
4:44pm Sat 29 Oct 11
::
Basilbrush ... "There are Airports with far denser populated areas around them than Southends"... ever heard the phrase two wrongs don't make a right?
tophatdt
says...
4:45pm Sat 29 Oct 11
6079 Smith W
says...
4:56pm Sat 29 Oct 11
tophatdt wrote:Only the undercover coppers...
I bet you all of the protesters get off with a free breakfast and a slap on the wrist!
carnacation
says...
5:03pm Sat 29 Oct 11
6079 Smith W wrote:make sure it's a Mcadee's under a fleece Lol
tophatdt wrote:Only the undercover coppers...
I bet you all of the protesters get off with a free breakfast and a slap on the wrist!
EthanEdwards
says...
5:07pm Sat 29 Oct 11
stonybrig
says...
5:34pm Sat 29 Oct 11
stonybrig
says...
5:35pm Sat 29 Oct 11
Mary Lou
says...
5:44pm Sat 29 Oct 11
.
ADucksQuack says... Better to be someone unafraid to stand up for what they believe in than a mindless sheople.”
.
So the values of the loony left are:.
1. Whatever your opinion is automatically becomes a fact and you have the moral high ground.
.
2. If you ardently believe in your opinion, then that entitles you to impact upon other peoples lives.
.
Ergo I do not believe youghurt knitting, tofu eating, tree hugging eco warriors have a right to impact on me. Does this then entitle me to direct action?
.
Apparently according to their own code I can spike their salads with mince, disrupt their meditation sessions with Jeremy Clarkson tapes and camp out in their lettuce patch !!!
.
Isn't human rights wonderful.
carnacation
says...
5:46pm Sat 29 Oct 11
pipeman
says...
5:46pm Sat 29 Oct 11
myhumbleopinion
says...
5:57pm Sat 29 Oct 11
Mary Lou wrote:Exceptionally well put Mary Lou, sums up these people entirely.
Rochford Ron says... Direct Action is often the only way to draw attention to unpleasant truths.
.
ADucksQuack says... Better to be someone unafraid to stand up for what they believe in than a mindless sheople.”
.
So the values of the loony left are:.
1. Whatever your opinion is automatically becomes a fact and you have the moral high ground.
.
2. If you ardently believe in your opinion, then that entitles you to impact upon other peoples lives.
.
Ergo I do not believe youghurt knitting, tofu eating, tree hugging eco warriors have a right to impact on me. Does this then entitle me to direct action?
.
Apparently according to their own code I can spike their salads with mince, disrupt their meditation sessions with Jeremy Clarkson tapes and camp out in their lettuce patch !!!
.
Isn't human rights wonderful.
They do it entirely for the publicity, quite similar to the antics of SAEN, constantly seeking publicity to preach their extremist views.
Discouraged
says...
6:08pm Sat 29 Oct 11
What is even worse is you supporting the anarchists who are mainly some of the worst benefit scroungers as seen at Dale Farm and St Pauls Cathedral.
As for suggesting there is something wrong with big business becoming involved WHY NOT after all they pay the biggest slice of the necessary taxes to
pay the anarchist's to do nothing.
I for one believe in the right to protest BUT THAT RIGHT MUST EXTEND TO THE MAJORITY HAVING THE SAME RIGHTS TO VOICE OUR OPOSITION TO THESE IDIOTS.
And the BBC should also be forced to reduce the coverage of these idiots on our TV's a coverage probably agreed by anarchists from within the Socialists
within the BBC.
This is el cabarello de la noche surerly?
ADucksQuack
says...
6:10pm Sat 29 Oct 11
Mary Lou wrote:So you oppose protest?
Rochford Ron says... Direct Action is often the only way to draw attention to unpleasant truths.
.
ADucksQuack says... Better to be someone unafraid to stand up for what they believe in than a mindless sheople.”
.
So the values of the loony left are:.
1. Whatever your opinion is automatically becomes a fact and you have the moral high ground.
.
2. If you ardently believe in your opinion, then that entitles you to impact upon other peoples lives.
.
Ergo I do not believe youghurt knitting, tofu eating, tree hugging eco warriors have a right to impact on me. Does this then entitle me to direct action?
.
Apparently according to their own code I can spike their salads with mince, disrupt their meditation sessions with Jeremy Clarkson tapes and camp out in their lettuce patch !!!
.
Isn't human rights wonderful.
Mary Lou
says...
6:14pm Sat 29 Oct 11
ADucksQuack
says...
6:18pm Sat 29 Oct 11
Mary Lou wrote:So you believe minority opinion should always be dismissed?
I oppose direct action. When the majority ignore the minority, the minority then believe that gives them the right to shove their opinions and beliefs onto the majority in any way they like.
ADucksQuack
says...
6:28pm Sat 29 Oct 11
Mary Lou wrote:I take it you're female and a voter…
I oppose direct action. When the majority ignore the minority, the minority then believe that gives them the right to shove their opinions and beliefs onto the majority in any way they like.
Where would you be without the direct action of the Suffragetes? What would your pay packet be like without the direct action of the Ford seamstresses in the 60s? What sort of equality would you have without the Human Rights Act?
Mary Lou
says...
6:41pm Sat 29 Oct 11
.
If I set up a minority view that sex with the under 12's ought to be norm does that give me the right to have a mass demo in primary schools. No that would be ridiculous as is your false logic.
j-w
says...
6:43pm Sat 29 Oct 11
ADucksQuack
says...
6:47pm Sat 29 Oct 11
Mary Lou wrote:No that would be a straw-man argument.
I repeat, I oppose direct action. Don't give me the suffagette story, I get that from the Potheads who quote them as a reason to legalise cannabis.
.
If I set up a minority view that sex with the under 12's ought to be norm does that give me the right to have a mass demo in primary schools. No that would be ridiculous as is your false logic.
The fact remains you owe your right to a vote and equal pay to the direct action of a minority of protestors.
From your reply it would appear you haven't got a clue who or what the Suffragettes were, or what they did for you. I suggest you Google Emmeline Pankhurst.
APR
says...
6:54pm Sat 29 Oct 11
They would have cried their eyes out if one of them had been injured.
Max Impact
says...
7:00pm Sat 29 Oct 11
1. If you were on holiday and fell sick or had an accident, your doctor said we will fly you home in your own private jet into Southend. Would you take them up on it or demanad to go by road?
2. You are anti-wealth so if you won the lottery would you keep it?
3. This direct action was against the law do you support THAT aspect of it?
4. Why is it that you hate private investment from a company that pays tax into the UK (unlike the protesters!)
5. What would you put on the airport site if it was to close.
southendshrimper
says...
7:15pm Sat 29 Oct 11
ADucksQuack
says...
7:27pm Sat 29 Oct 11
Max Impact wrote:1. I would be flown into Stanstead or Gatwick, or London Airport, or Heathrow, or Luton…
A few questions for the Anti's
1. If you were on holiday and fell sick or had an accident, your doctor said we will fly you home in your own private jet into Southend. Would you take them up on it or demanad to go by road?
2. You are anti-wealth so if you won the lottery would you keep it?
3. This direct action was against the law do you support THAT aspect of it?
4. Why is it that you hate private investment from a company that pays tax into the UK (unlike the protesters!)
5. What would you put on the airport site if it was to close.
2. The Lottery prize fund is raised through people voluntarily buying tickets, unlike the rapacious 1% who take from the poorest to give to the richest.
3. Sometimes direct action has to be against the law. See: The Suffragettes, the Civil Rights Movement in the US, the Arab Spring, etc.
4. How do you know the protestors do not work and pay taxes? The protest was held on a Saturday, not a weekday. That suggests to me these were working people avoiding being arrested on a workday.
5. The airport won't close. It was not in danger of closing before the runway was extended.
ADucksQuack
says...
7:28pm Sat 29 Oct 11
southendshrimper wrote:I don't. I holiday in the UK and contribute to the UK's economy rather than another country's economy.
What airport do you protesters fly from when you go on holiday ? What would you do if someone went onto your property? I bet you would call the police. Let's hope the airport expands with flights to Scotland so I can go see some of my family. Long live Southend Airport.
jolllyboy
says...
7:32pm Sat 29 Oct 11
The protesters were obviously wrong but I doubt this is last we have heard of protesters at the airport. next summer willbe interesting.......
jayman
says...
7:38pm Sat 29 Oct 11
1. the likelihood of being air flown back to Southend airport is minimal as Southend hospital has no specialist facilities. You would find in your scenario you would be either put on a large commercial jet back to a hub airport or if you have gold plated travel insurance, you would be Lear jetted back to the uk via London city and sent to a major london hospital..
2. I don't play the lottery.. its a poor man's tax.
3. no as i have stated above.
4. i don't agree with the development of this airport for all the reasons i have already stated. it has nothing to do with private investment in general.
5. on the slither of land that is green belt (the bits that don't have concrete on) sell to the highest bidder. Southend tax payers get money from the land sale and still generate tax from whatever is built there.. this is under the understanding that Southend council don't sell it to a (land bank) developer. additional money raised can be used to pay off Southend councils staggering (hundreds of millions of pounds) debt!!
myhumbleopinion
says...
7:40pm Sat 29 Oct 11
jolllyboy wrote:The footpath you mention is not the one which they used. That piece of footpath goes to Eastwoodbury Lane, so the new footpath on the new road is a direct replacement.
As far I understand it these protesters used a Public Footpath which Stobarts will now have diverted. Diverted as in closure as in Eastwoodbury Lane. The trees being cut down is just the start, I find it amazing that areas can be denied phone masts and trees must be cut yet all around the airport will be five storey hotels and industrial sites partly funded by us the residents of southend.
The protesters were obviously wrong but I doubt this is last we have heard of protesters at the airport. next summer willbe interesting.......
I believe the protesters gained access using another footpath, which goes of Aviation Way.
jayman
says...
7:41pm Sat 29 Oct 11
Aint it just the truth
says...
7:52pm Sat 29 Oct 11
Mary Lou wrote:Oho! Remember that next time you unlease your uneducated bile against the pro legalise cannabis lobby who now represent 60% to 70% of the public, depending on which survey you use. Aren't you missing Strictly dearie?
I oppose direct action. When the majority ignore the minority, the minority then believe that gives them the right to shove their opinions and beliefs onto the majority in any way they like.
::
Southendshrimper why wait to fly to Scotland, it's probably quicker to drive anyway, as we do most years.
::
I note the pro airport lobby conveniently continues to ignore the powerful argument that the most efficient place to situate a major airport is in the centre of the area it serves to minimise journeys to and from the airport. Southend airport is at the edge of the area it serves.
::
Just wait until it's up and running and the Council have broken a few more promises and assurances, the roads are gridlocked and thousands are suffering from the noise and I bet we'll see a lot more complaints.
mikkie4
says...
7:55pm Sat 29 Oct 11
Broadwaywatch
says...
8:14pm Sat 29 Oct 11
myhumbleopinion wrote:I ask again.....were these protesters actually on the main runway or on the taxiway at the point where it crosses public footpath number 36 and it is legal for the public to walk. I myself have walked across at this point on a ramble to rochford and have been approached by airport security. Very sad will be the day that another footpath is closed especially this one which is a delightful and intresting walk.
jolllyboy wrote: As far I understand it these protesters used a Public Footpath which Stobarts will now have diverted. Diverted as in closure as in Eastwoodbury Lane. The trees being cut down is just the start, I find it amazing that areas can be denied phone masts and trees must be cut yet all around the airport will be five storey hotels and industrial sites partly funded by us the residents of southend. The protesters were obviously wrong but I doubt this is last we have heard of protesters at the airport. next summer willbe interesting.......The footpath you mention is not the one which they used. That piece of footpath goes to Eastwoodbury Lane, so the new footpath on the new road is a direct replacement. I believe the protesters gained access using another footpath, which goes of Aviation Way.
Aint it just the truth
says...
8:25pm Sat 29 Oct 11
mikkie4 wrote:Idiots? Hypocrites? Public transport not very green? What planet are you living on? Public transport is far more "green" compared to air travel which is by far the most destructive to the environment. Please check your facts before posting.
how did these idiots get to southend,one came from kent,others from else other places,did they walk{very green}or did they drive or use public transport? {not very green}.ifyou want to protest,practice what you preach hypocrites!!!!!!!
6079 Smith W
says...
8:32pm Sat 29 Oct 11
Mary Lou wrote:Mary Lou. You are the total lunatic who once told us the fire service should be private and that those that don't pay, should see their homes burn (and if you try to deny this and make silly legal threats, I will respond exactly as I did last time, find your post, cut and paste your every word, and cite web address. It took me about 5 minutes last time!). You make the Ayatollah Khomeini seem like a voice of moderate reason. To have a go at others for being dogmatic is like Hitler moaning about racism. Please, go and get some help, before the men in white coats come and take you away.
Rochford Ron says... Direct Action is often the only way to draw attention to unpleasant truths.
.
ADucksQuack says... Better to be someone unafraid to stand up for what they believe in than a mindless sheople.”
.
So the values of the loony left are:.
1. Whatever your opinion is automatically becomes a fact and you have the moral high ground.
.
2. If you ardently believe in your opinion, then that entitles you to impact upon other peoples lives.
.
Ergo I do not believe youghurt knitting, tofu eating, tree hugging eco warriors have a right to impact on me. Does this then entitle me to direct action?
.
Apparently according to their own code I can spike their salads with mince, disrupt their meditation sessions with Jeremy Clarkson tapes and camp out in their lettuce patch !!!
.
Isn't human rights wonderful.
Max Impact
says...
8:35pm Sat 29 Oct 11
jayman wrote:Ref Q1: Actually Southend has been used a number of times this year to repatriate people home from over seas, they are met by an air ambulance as the hold time at other airports delays the landing the air ambulance (not essex) flys below airways traffic and can land directly at the hospital required. Also orbis has been in.
answers for max. 1. the likelihood of being air flown back to Southend airport is minimal as Southend hospital has no specialist facilities. You would find in your scenario you would be either put on a large commercial jet back to a hub airport or if you have gold plated travel insurance, you would be Lear jetted back to the uk via London city and sent to a major london hospital.. 2. I don't play the lottery.. its a poor man's tax. 3. no as i have stated above. 4. i don't agree with the development of this airport for all the reasons i have already stated. it has nothing to do with private investment in general. 5. on the slither of land that is green belt (the bits that don't have concrete on) sell to the highest bidder. Southend tax payers get money from the land sale and still generate tax from whatever is built there.. this is under the understanding that Southend council don't sell it to a (land bank) developer. additional money raised can be used to pay off Southend councils staggering (hundreds of millions of pounds) debt!!
So you wan to close the airport and build what houses? factorys prison what some how I think more traffic will be caused by a housing development over the airport.
jayman
says...
8:45pm Sat 29 Oct 11
Max Impact wrote:and what specific instances are there that you are using as reference.. if you are unconscious you will be flow to wherever is appropriate . if you are conscious you wouldn't get much of a say in the matter.. you would get stretchered on a bog standard commercial jet, the soonest flight out..
jayman wrote:Ref Q1: Actually Southend has been used a number of times this year to repatriate people home from over seas, they are met by an air ambulance as the hold time at other airports delays the landing the air ambulance (not essex) flys below airways traffic and can land directly at the hospital required. Also orbis has been in.
answers for max. 1. the likelihood of being air flown back to Southend airport is minimal as Southend hospital has no specialist facilities. You would find in your scenario you would be either put on a large commercial jet back to a hub airport or if you have gold plated travel insurance, you would be Lear jetted back to the uk via London city and sent to a major london hospital.. 2. I don't play the lottery.. its a poor man's tax. 3. no as i have stated above. 4. i don't agree with the development of this airport for all the reasons i have already stated. it has nothing to do with private investment in general. 5. on the slither of land that is green belt (the bits that don't have concrete on) sell to the highest bidder. Southend tax payers get money from the land sale and still generate tax from whatever is built there.. this is under the understanding that Southend council don't sell it to a (land bank) developer. additional money raised can be used to pay off Southend councils staggering (hundreds of millions of pounds) debt!!
So you wan to close the airport and build what houses? factorys prison what some how I think more traffic will be caused by a housing development over the airport.
oh hold on chaps could you file a flight plan to Southend.. its where my house is... no. please provide how many medical flights arrived at Southend in recent times so that I can verify you claim.
myhumbleopinion
says...
8:48pm Sat 29 Oct 11
Jayman - hospital flights do come to Southend frequently, often during the middle of the night. It is easier, faster and cheaper to then transfer them to hospitals in London than from Stansted.
Maybe you should do some research into basic economics and the positive multiplier effect that an d other benefits an expanded airport will have on Southend.
Mary Lou
says...
8:54pm Sat 29 Oct 11
6079 Smith W wrote:Are you related to Untruth?
Mary Lou wrote: Rochford Ron says... Direct Action is often the only way to draw attention to unpleasant truths. . ADucksQuack says... Better to be someone unafraid to stand up for what they believe in than a mindless sheople.” . So the values of the loony left are:. 1. Whatever your opinion is automatically becomes a fact and you have the moral high ground. . 2. If you ardently believe in your opinion, then that entitles you to impact upon other peoples lives. . Ergo I do not believe youghurt knitting, tofu eating, tree hugging eco warriors have a right to impact on me. Does this then entitle me to direct action? . Apparently according to their own code I can spike their salads with mince, disrupt their meditation sessions with Jeremy Clarkson tapes and camp out in their lettuce patch !!! . Isn't human rights wonderful.Mary Lou. You are the total lunatic who once told us the fire service should be private and that those that don't pay, should see their homes burn (and if you try to deny this and make silly legal threats, I will respond exactly as I did last time, find your post, cut and paste your every word, and cite web address. It took me about 5 minutes last time!). You make the Ayatollah Khomeini seem like a voice of moderate reason. To have a go at others for being dogmatic is like Hitler moaning about racism. Please, go and get some help, before the men in white coats come and take you away.
jayman
says...
9:01pm Sat 29 Oct 11
. If you were on holiday and fell sick or had an accident, your doctor said we will fly you home in your own private jet into Southend. Would you take them up on it or demanad to go by road?
he never follows his own argument.
medical flights are exempt from airport tax i believe.. so there is no difference in flight cost.. just distance. medical flights do come in but the point i was trying to get from max was that they are well established med flights from the channel islands.. few from anywhere else..
southendshrimper
says...
9:11pm Sat 29 Oct 11
ADucksQuack wrote:I holiday in the UK.
southendshrimper wrote: What airport do you protesters fly from when you go on holiday ? What would you do if someone went onto your property? I bet you would call the police. Let's hope the airport expands with flights to Scotland so I can go see some of my family. Long live Southend Airport.I don't. I holiday in the UK and contribute to the UK's economy rather than another country's economy.
southendshrimper
says...
9:30pm Sat 29 Oct 11
6079 Smith W
says...
9:30pm Sat 29 Oct 11
Mary Lou wrote:Well in the sense that I am related to seven billion other people on this planet the answer to that must be yes. But the more appropriate question is: Are you related to us?
6079 Smith W wrote:Are you related to Untruth?
Mary Lou wrote: Rochford Ron says... Direct Action is often the only way to draw attention to unpleasant truths. . ADucksQuack says... Better to be someone unafraid to stand up for what they believe in than a mindless sheople.” . So the values of the loony left are:. 1. Whatever your opinion is automatically becomes a fact and you have the moral high ground. . 2. If you ardently believe in your opinion, then that entitles you to impact upon other peoples lives. . Ergo I do not believe youghurt knitting, tofu eating, tree hugging eco warriors have a right to impact on me. Does this then entitle me to direct action? . Apparently according to their own code I can spike their salads with mince, disrupt their meditation sessions with Jeremy Clarkson tapes and camp out in their lettuce patch !!! . Isn't human rights wonderful.Mary Lou. You are the total lunatic who once told us the fire service should be private and that those that don't pay, should see their homes burn (and if you try to deny this and make silly legal threats, I will respond exactly as I did last time, find your post, cut and paste your every word, and cite web address. It took me about 5 minutes last time!). You make the Ayatollah Khomeini seem like a voice of moderate reason. To have a go at others for being dogmatic is like Hitler moaning about racism. Please, go and get some help, before the men in white coats come and take you away.
Aint it just the truth
says...
10:43pm Sat 29 Oct 11
6079 Smith W wrote:Well said Sir, she is unable to learn, ignores the truth in favour of her own misguided principles and is by far the loudest member of the hang 'em flog 'em brigade. Hold on, she's probably a failed Tory politician, that would explain everything!
Mary Lou wrote:Well in the sense that I am related to seven billion other people on this planet the answer to that must be yes. But the more appropriate question is: Are you related to us?6079 Smith W wrote:Are you related to Untruth?Mary Lou wrote: Rochford Ron says... Direct Action is often the only way to draw attention to unpleasant truths. . ADucksQuack says... Better to be someone unafraid to stand up for what they believe in than a mindless sheople.” . So the values of the loony left are:. 1. Whatever your opinion is automatically becomes a fact and you have the moral high ground. . 2. If you ardently believe in your opinion, then that entitles you to impact upon other peoples lives. . Ergo I do not believe youghurt knitting, tofu eating, tree hugging eco warriors have a right to impact on me. Does this then entitle me to direct action? . Apparently according to their own code I can spike their salads with mince, disrupt their meditation sessions with Jeremy Clarkson tapes and camp out in their lettuce patch !!! . Isn't human rights wonderful.Mary Lou. You are the total lunatic who once told us the fire service should be private and that those that don't pay, should see their homes burn (and if you try to deny this and make silly legal threats, I will respond exactly as I did last time, find your post, cut and paste your every word, and cite web address. It took me about 5 minutes last time!). You make the Ayatollah Khomeini seem like a voice of moderate reason. To have a go at others for being dogmatic is like Hitler moaning about racism. Please, go and get some help, before the men in white coats come and take you away.
Max Impact
says...
10:51pm Sat 29 Oct 11
southendshrimper wrote:The antis will want anything but an airport one even wanted a Green Energy Plant, solar panels and wind turbines, saying that it would create more jobs than the airport!....
To all those people against the airport. What would you rather have? An Airport = Jobs. A travellers site = trouble, mess, noise & Bennfit Cheats. Prison Category A= High Risk Criminals. Housing Estate = More cars. High Rise Flats = more cars & Bennfit chaest.
Brunning999
says...
11:10pm Sat 29 Oct 11
As long as they are free to protest and understand that they are totally in the minority and have broken the law and accept that law then good luck to them.
Max Impact
says...
11:32pm Sat 29 Oct 11
jayman wrote:Medical flights still have landing fee's and parking fee's to pay they are cheaper at SOuthend than Stansted, Luton, Gatwick & Heathrow so Southend takes more than you think.
the point that max is wrangling out of is that he used the initial argument . If you were on holiday and fell sick or had an accident, your doctor said we will fly you home in your own private jet into Southend. Would you take them up on it or demanad to go by road? he never follows his own argument. medical flights are exempt from airport tax i believe.. so there is no difference in flight cost.. just distance. medical flights do come in but the point i was trying to get from max was that they are well established med flights from the channel islands.. few from anywhere else..
As for the Channel Islands flights there are a few however more come from main land Europe.
Oh yes and the night flights issue, it was 915 night movements permitted per month this has been reduced to, 120 a month (1140 per year) night flight limits.
A few facts from other airports on night flights: (taken from: A book dated 2009 on world wide night time airport operations)
East Mids: No limits but operates a night contour area noise limits scheme.
Robin Hood: 3875 Summer and 2425 Winter.
Luton: No limits but noise restrictions are set up
Norwich: No Limits
Gatwick 11,200 in summer and 3,250 in winter) between 23:30 and 06:00
Heathrow 19820 Summer, 13740 winter
Stansted 14020 Summer, 7100 winter
Bristol: Night flying is restricted through the application of a night noise quota. The current annual quota
is 2160 points, with 1260 points for the summer season and 900
Still think the new limits are too high...
Steve H
says...
12:19am Sun 30 Oct 11
HI.GARY
says...
7:51am Sun 30 Oct 11
Rochford Ron
says...
8:46am Sun 30 Oct 11
..
Rochford Ron
says...
8:47am Sun 30 Oct 11
..
Aint it just the truth
says...
10:01am Sun 30 Oct 11
Brunning999
says...
10:47am Sun 30 Oct 11
Aint it just the truth wrote:Correct, I also like you would love to return to horse and carts as form of transport.
Too true Ron, and the main thing we've learnt is that most of the pro airport supporters have blinkered vision. As long as they can get to Spain easier for their annual hols they don't give a rat's f@rt about the environmental consequences.
But I ain't bloody stupid.
Discouraged
says...
11:45am Sun 30 Oct 11
ADucksQuack
says...
11:53am Sun 30 Oct 11
Brunning999 wrote:You're not? What do you think we'll be using when the oil runs out? (as it already is)
Aint it just the truth wrote:Correct, I also like you would love to return to horse and carts as form of transport.
Too true Ron, and the main thing we've learnt is that most of the pro airport supporters have blinkered vision. As long as they can get to Spain easier for their annual hols they don't give a rat's f@rt about the environmental consequences.
But I ain't bloody stupid.
Aint it just the truth
says...
12:11pm Sun 30 Oct 11
Brunning999 wrote:Er yes you are. Who says I want to return to the horse and cart? Certainly not me so don't base you arguments on assumption because that is stupid and you'll usually be wrong. I like my car and I have no objection to flying, but we should be flying less not more because of the damage it does to the atmosphere, not forgetting that the most efficient place to site a major airport is in the middle of the area it serves, not at the edge like Southend.
Aint it just the truth wrote: Too true Ron, and the main thing we've learnt is that most of the pro airport supporters have blinkered vision. As long as they can get to Spain easier for their annual hols they don't give a rat's f@rt about the environmental consequences.Correct, I also like you would love to return to horse and carts as form of transport. But I ain't bloody stupid.
::
Do you remember the Copenhagen meeting? They never came to agreement partly because we would have had to agree to 90% cuts in emmissions from energy production and land transport to offset the damage air travel does. Does that penetrate your brain? Just think about it, most of the atmosphere is less than twice the height that commercial jets fly at, about the thickness of tissue paper wrapped around a football, and jet engine pump their poisons out where it does most damage, high up in the atmosphere. Do you not have children and grandchildren? Don't you care about the mess we are leaving for them to cope with? The short sightedness of some people is breathtaking.
6079 Smith W
says...
12:49pm Sun 30 Oct 11
HI.GARY wrote:Hi Gary, thanks. As Boris forever reminds me, we have a much better class of contributor up here in the north of the county. For the real loons you need the Echo.
6079 Smith W , very little with what you say I agree with, but seeing your response to earlier articles on this thread did brighten a dull Sunday morning up, thank you.
stonybrig
says...
1:23pm Sun 30 Oct 11
carnacation wrote:we can all make errors carnacation dont let it get to you,,, i daresay it might happen to you one day!!!
it takes a real halfwit to post the same post twice
chill out man!!!
Max Impact
says...
2:53pm Sun 30 Oct 11
stonybrig wrote:Whilst I do not share the views of Rochford Ron on cutting air transport I will actually stick up for him on the dubble posting thing, its a quirk of the site, sometimes it will flash up an error message so you refresh the page only to find out the first one worked.
carnacation wrote: it takes a real halfwit to post the same post twicewe can all make errors carnacation dont let it get to you,,, i daresay it might happen to you one day!!! chill out man!!!
APR
says...
4:58pm Sun 30 Oct 11
"Internal Server Error"
Ignore it, and don't re-post
Rochford Ron
says...
6:00pm Sun 30 Oct 11
Max Impact wrote:Thank you Max Impact, your analysis of what happened is absolutely correct. However, the comment of Carnacation does tell us rather more about him/her than it does about me - jumping to conclusions, & making statements based on little evidence - hmm, where have i seen that before........? This what i was saying about people spouting off, thinking that they are clever, when really..............
stonybrig wrote:Whilst I do not share the views of Rochford Ron on cutting air transport I will actually stick up for him on the dubble posting thing, its a quirk of the site, sometimes it will flash up an error message so you refresh the page only to find out the first one worked.
carnacation wrote: it takes a real halfwit to post the same post twicewe can all make errors carnacation dont let it get to you,,, i daresay it might happen to you one day!!! chill out man!!!
.
Diannah
says...
9:36pm Sun 30 Oct 11
Just happen to be in the area (having just been moved on from Dale Farm) and wonder if you have a just cause for them to get involved in. Only payment being one free nights lodgings plus breakfast in local nick.
Boris
says...
10:07pm Sun 30 Oct 11
6079 Smith W wrote:Winston, we have a lot of horrible people up here in Colchester too. For example, the residents of Maximus Drive, featured in two separate stories this weekend.
HI.GARY wrote:Hi Gary, thanks. As Boris forever reminds me, we have a much better class of contributor up here in the north of the county. For the real loons you need the Echo.
6079 Smith W , very little with what you say I agree with, but seeing your response to earlier articles on this thread did brighten a dull Sunday morning up, thank you.
I hereby withdraw my criticisms of south Essex folk, except of course for the 3 or 4 vile specimens who wrote all that drivel attacking the good people of Dale Farm.
Aint it just the truth
says...
12:03pm Mon 31 Oct 11
Boris wrote:We have a few problem people in south east Essex but you have a lot more in-bred yokels in north Essex which might explain why you sympathise with those nice people from Dale Farm!
6079 Smith W wrote:Winston, we have a lot of horrible people up here in Colchester too. For example, the residents of Maximus Drive, featured in two separate stories this weekend. I hereby withdraw my criticisms of south Essex folk, except of course for the 3 or 4 vile specimens who wrote all that drivel attacking the good people of Dale Farm.HI.GARY wrote: 6079 Smith W , very little with what you say I agree with, but seeing your response to earlier articles on this thread did brighten a dull Sunday morning up, thank you.Hi Gary, thanks. As Boris forever reminds me, we have a much better class of contributor up here in the north of the county. For the real loons you need the Echo.
perini
says...
12:47pm Mon 31 Oct 11
AspergerKidJoe wrote:Trespass is a civil offense!
It's good to hear that the police took this form of tresspass seriously and have done a good job removing and arresting the protesters from the area. This is a warning to other morons who want to try to do this again, tresspass, you'll face the police. No stopping it now, Plane Stupid are criminals, what you've done is crminal and I would personally ban you for life from my airline (if I ever had one). Go cry to mummy elsewhere and get out of my town.
Max Impact
says...
2:16pm Mon 31 Oct 11
Boris wrote:Don't forget Boris that the people that were on Dale Farm were breaking the law by developing the site for living on.
6079 Smith W wrote:Winston, we have a lot of horrible people up here in Colchester too. For example, the residents of Maximus Drive, featured in two separate stories this weekend. I hereby withdraw my criticisms of south Essex folk, except of course for the 3 or 4 vile specimens who wrote all that drivel attacking the good people of Dale Farm.HI.GARY wrote: 6079 Smith W , very little with what you say I agree with, but seeing your response to earlier articles on this thread did brighten a dull Sunday morning up, thank you.Hi Gary, thanks. As Boris forever reminds me, we have a much better class of contributor up here in the north of the county. For the real loons you need the Echo.
BASILBRUSH
says...
4:17pm Mon 31 Oct 11
perini wrote:Trespass on certain land such as around railways, airports, ports and military land may be a criminal matter. In this case they were arrested on suspicion of 'Aggrevated trespass' and entering a restricted zone at an Airport.
AspergerKidJoe wrote:Trespass is a civil offense!
It's good to hear that the police took this form of tresspass seriously and have done a good job removing and arresting the protesters from the area. This is a warning to other morons who want to try to do this again, tresspass, you'll face the police. No stopping it now, Plane Stupid are criminals, what you've done is crminal and I would personally ban you for life from my airline (if I ever had one). Go cry to mummy elsewhere and get out of my town.
The moment they left the Public footpath they were Trespassing.
Section 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (CJA) defines the offence as follows:
A person commits aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land with the intention of disrupting, or intimidating those taking part in, lawful activity taking place on that or adjacent land.
I'm all for peaceful protest, but these people are idiots, they potentially endangered others and themselves.
Aint it just the truth
says...
5:02pm Mon 31 Oct 11
BASILBRUSH
says...
5:13pm Mon 31 Oct 11
Aint it just the truth wrote:In your opinion......
At least these youngsters are prepared to stand up for what they think is right and frankly their arguments have a lot more weight than those put forward by the airport supporters.
Aint it just the truth
says...
6:21pm Mon 31 Oct 11
BASILBRUSH wrote:The most efficient place to site a major airport is in the middle of the area it serves, not at the edge like Southend. And how about our roads, the A127 gets gridlocked now, what's it going to be like when the airport is up and running? Ludicrous.
Aint it just the truth wrote: At least these youngsters are prepared to stand up for what they think is right and frankly their arguments have a lot more weight than those put forward by the airport supporters.In your opinion......
::
Do you remember the Copenhagen meeting? One reason they never reached agreement is because we would have had to agree to 90% cuts in emmissions from energy production and land transport to offset the damage air travel does. Does that penetrate your brain?
::
Just think about it, most of the atmosphere is less than twice the height that commercial jets fly at, about the thickness of tissue paper wrapped around a football, and jet engines pump their poisons out where it does most damage, high up in the atmosphere. Do you not have children and grandchildren? Don't you care about the mess we are leaving for them to cope with? Obviously not, you are obviously more interested in lining your pockets or getting to Spain for your annual hols more easily. Truth is we should be flying LESS not more.
Max Impact
says...
7:06pm Mon 31 Oct 11
Aint it just the truth wrote:Same old posting again can't you please do something new instead of cut and paste.
BASILBRUSH wrote:The most efficient place to site a major airport is in the middle of the area it serves, not at the edge like Southend. And how about our roads, the A127 gets gridlocked now, what's it going to be like when the airport is up and running? Ludicrous. :: Do you remember the Copenhagen meeting? One reason they never reached agreement is because we would have had to agree to 90% cuts in emmissions from energy production and land transport to offset the damage air travel does. Does that penetrate your brain? :: Just think about it, most of the atmosphere is less than twice the height that commercial jets fly at, about the thickness of tissue paper wrapped around a football, and jet engines pump their poisons out where it does most damage, high up in the atmosphere. Do you not have children and grandchildren? Don't you care about the mess we are leaving for them to cope with? Obviously not, you are obviously more interested in lining your pockets or getting to Spain for your annual hols more easily. Truth is we should be flying LESS not more.Aint it just the truth wrote: At least these youngsters are prepared to stand up for what they think is right and frankly their arguments have a lot more weight than those put forward by the airport supporters.In your opinion......
They are looking at putting armed guards on ships they should also arm airport security, spot somebody where they should not be and BANG no warnings given.
Should make the numptys think twice about doing it again.
BASILBRUSH
says...
7:12pm Mon 31 Oct 11
I support the Airports expansion because it is and has been a major employer in the area, yet with expansion will still be 10 times smaller than Stansted. It has been underused in the recent past with passenger transport due to under investment and the constraints of the old runway with modern safety requirements.
That is changing, and personally I think that is a great thing for the area whether I personally use it or not.
SAEN's campaign, falsehoods and scaremongering have been proven flawed by the High Court and the then secretary of state for Communities.
The protestors have a right to protest, but their actions were illegal and potentially dangerous.
Aint it just the truth
says...
7:21pm Mon 31 Oct 11
Max Impact wrote:What? Waste energy on people whose brains are blinkered and seized up? No point. As for armed guards, that says MUCH more about you than the problem in hand. Nuff said.
Aint it just the truth wrote:Same old posting again can't you please do something new instead of cut and paste. They are looking at putting armed guards on ships they should also arm airport security, spot somebody where they should not be and BANG no warnings given. Should make the numptys think twice about doing it again.BASILBRUSH wrote:The most efficient place to site a major airport is in the middle of the area it serves, not at the edge like Southend. And how about our roads, the A127 gets gridlocked now, what's it going to be like when the airport is up and running? Ludicrous. :: Do you remember the Copenhagen meeting? One reason they never reached agreement is because we would have had to agree to 90% cuts in emmissions from energy production and land transport to offset the damage air travel does. Does that penetrate your brain? :: Just think about it, most of the atmosphere is less than twice the height that commercial jets fly at, about the thickness of tissue paper wrapped around a football, and jet engines pump their poisons out where it does most damage, high up in the atmosphere. Do you not have children and grandchildren? Don't you care about the mess we are leaving for them to cope with? Obviously not, you are obviously more interested in lining your pockets or getting to Spain for your annual hols more easily. Truth is we should be flying LESS not more.Aint it just the truth wrote: At least these youngsters are prepared to stand up for what they think is right and frankly their arguments have a lot more weight than those put forward by the airport supporters.In your opinion......
al coniston
says...
8:25am Tue 1 Nov 11
Aint it just the truth wrote:utter bull . . . there is a strict security code for non-permitted persons being 'airside' especially in the aftermath of 9/11. Anyone on an airfield without good reason and in breech of the aviation regulations should be seen as being a potential terrorist and dealt with accordingly . . . no ifs, no buts, they shouldn't be there. Play with fire and you will get burnt.
Max Impact wrote:What? Waste energy on people whose brains are blinkered and seized up? No point. As for armed guards, that says MUCH more about you than the problem in hand. Nuff said.Aint it just the truth wrote:Same old posting again can't you please do something new instead of cut and paste. They are looking at putting armed guards on ships they should also arm airport security, spot somebody where they should not be and BANG no warnings given. Should make the numptys think twice about doing it again.BASILBRUSH wrote:The most efficient place to site a major airport is in the middle of the area it serves, not at the edge like Southend. And how about our roads, the A127 gets gridlocked now, what's it going to be like when the airport is up and running? Ludicrous. :: Do you remember the Copenhagen meeting? One reason they never reached agreement is because we would have had to agree to 90% cuts in emmissions from energy production and land transport to offset the damage air travel does. Does that penetrate your brain? :: Just think about it, most of the atmosphere is less than twice the height that commercial jets fly at, about the thickness of tissue paper wrapped around a football, and jet engines pump their poisons out where it does most damage, high up in the atmosphere. Do you not have children and grandchildren? Don't you care about the mess we are leaving for them to cope with? Obviously not, you are obviously more interested in lining your pockets or getting to Spain for your annual hols more easily. Truth is we should be flying LESS not more.Aint it just the truth wrote: At least these youngsters are prepared to stand up for what they think is right and frankly their arguments have a lot more weight than those put forward by the airport supporters.In your opinion......
Aint it just the truth
says...
9:35am Tue 1 Nov 11
al coniston wrote:And how is that is relevant?
Aint it just the truth wrote:utter bull . . . there is a strict security code for non-permitted persons being 'airside' especially in the aftermath of 9/11. Anyone on an airfield without good reason and in breech of the aviation regulations should be seen as being a potential terrorist and dealt with accordingly . . . no ifs, no buts, they shouldn't be there. Play with fire and you will get burnt.Max Impact wrote:What? Waste energy on people whose brains are blinkered and seized up? No point. As for armed guards, that says MUCH more about you than the problem in hand. Nuff said.Aint it just the truth wrote:Same old posting again can't you please do something new instead of cut and paste. They are looking at putting armed guards on ships they should also arm airport security, spot somebody where they should not be and BANG no warnings given. Should make the numptys think twice about doing it again.BASILBRUSH wrote:The most efficient place to site a major airport is in the middle of the area it serves, not at the edge like Southend. And how about our roads, the A127 gets gridlocked now, what's it going to be like when the airport is up and running? Ludicrous. :: Do you remember the Copenhagen meeting? One reason they never reached agreement is because we would have had to agree to 90% cuts in emmissions from energy production and land transport to offset the damage air travel does. Does that penetrate your brain? :: Just think about it, most of the atmosphere is less than twice the height that commercial jets fly at, about the thickness of tissue paper wrapped around a football, and jet engines pump their poisons out where it does most damage, high up in the atmosphere. Do you not have children and grandchildren? Don't you care about the mess we are leaving for them to cope with? Obviously not, you are obviously more interested in lining your pockets or getting to Spain for your annual hols more easily. Truth is we should be flying LESS not more.Aint it just the truth wrote: At least these youngsters are prepared to stand up for what they think is right and frankly their arguments have a lot more weight than those put forward by the airport supporters.In your opinion......
APR
says...
9:55am Tue 1 Nov 11
Where will they find to protest next ?
Lucky that most have the bank of mummy and daddy to fund their bohemian way of life.
pipeman
says...
1:36pm Tue 1 Nov 11
Aint it just the truth
says...
3:44pm Tue 1 Nov 11
pipeman wrote:None so blind (or stupid) ... etc.
Went over the airport Saturday, must say the works are coming along very nicely, the new terminal looks very smart and the runway extention looks like it is nearly joined up, well done to all involved, we are certainly going to have a regional airport to be proud of, looking forward to next year when I can fly out.
pipeman
says...
5:19pm Tue 1 Nov 11
Aint it just the truth wrote:oh and I forgot to add that the new radar tower will soon be in operation, much more advanced system for the safe passage of all the new flights coming to Southend.
pipeman wrote:None so blind (or stupid) ... etc.
Went over the airport Saturday, must say the works are coming along very nicely, the new terminal looks very smart and the runway extention looks like it is nearly joined up, well done to all involved, we are certainly going to have a regional airport to be proud of, looking forward to next year when I can fly out.
Max Impact
says...
6:23pm Tue 1 Nov 11
Aint it just the truth wrote:How is this relevant you ask...
al coniston wrote:And how is that is relevant?Aint it just the truth wrote:utter bull . . . there is a strict security code for non-permitted persons being 'airside' especially in the aftermath of 9/11. Anyone on an airfield without good reason and in breech of the aviation regulations should be seen as being a potential terrorist and dealt with accordingly . . . no ifs, no buts, they shouldn't be there. Play with fire and you will get burnt.Max Impact wrote:What? Waste energy on people whose brains are blinkered and seized up? No point. As for armed guards, that says MUCH more about you than the problem in hand. Nuff said.Aint it just the truth wrote:Same old posting again can't you please do something new instead of cut and paste. They are looking at putting armed guards on ships they should also arm airport security, spot somebody where they should not be and BANG no warnings given. Should make the numptys think twice about doing it again.BASILBRUSH wrote:The most efficient place to site a major airport is in the middle of the area it serves, not at the edge like Southend. And how about our roads, the A127 gets gridlocked now, what's it going to be like when the airport is up and running? Ludicrous. :: Do you remember the Copenhagen meeting? One reason they never reached agreement is because we would have had to agree to 90% cuts in emmissions from energy production and land transport to offset the damage air travel does. Does that penetrate your brain? :: Just think about it, most of the atmosphere is less than twice the height that commercial jets fly at, about the thickness of tissue paper wrapped around a football, and jet engines pump their poisons out where it does most damage, high up in the atmosphere. Do you not have children and grandchildren? Don't you care about the mess we are leaving for them to cope with? Obviously not, you are obviously more interested in lining your pockets or getting to Spain for your annual hols more easily. Truth is we should be flying LESS not more.Aint it just the truth wrote: At least these youngsters are prepared to stand up for what they think is right and frankly their arguments have a lot more weight than those put forward by the airport supporters.In your opinion......
Whats more important the right to life or the right to protest?
I'm sure a protester/terrorist would think twice about running on to a runway if airports were permitted to have armed security with permission to shoot on sight.
Its about time that the law was changed to permit high security area were given such permission.
Aint it just the truth
says...
9:08pm Tue 1 Nov 11
Max Impact wrote:Of course, after all we have had so many terrorist incidents at Southend Airport haven't we? You should get a grip on reality.
Aint it just the truth wrote:How is this relevant you ask... Whats more important the right to life or the right to protest? I'm sure a protester/terrorist would think twice about running on to a runway if airports were permitted to have armed security with permission to shoot on sight. Its about time that the law was changed to permit high security area were given such permission.al coniston wrote:And how is that is relevant?Aint it just the truth wrote:utter bull . . . there is a strict security code for non-permitted persons being 'airside' especially in the aftermath of 9/11. Anyone on an airfield without good reason and in breech of the aviation regulations should be seen as being a potential terrorist and dealt with accordingly . . . no ifs, no buts, they shouldn't be there. Play with fire and you will get burnt.Max Impact wrote:What? Waste energy on people whose brains are blinkered and seized up? No point. As for armed guards, that says MUCH more about you than the problem in hand. Nuff said.Aint it just the truth wrote:Same old posting again can't you please do something new instead of cut and paste. They are looking at putting armed guards on ships they should also arm airport security, spot somebody where they should not be and BANG no warnings given. Should make the numptys think twice about doing it again.BASILBRUSH wrote:The most efficient place to site a major airport is in the middle of the area it serves, not at the edge like Southend. And how about our roads, the A127 gets gridlocked now, what's it going to be like when the airport is up and running? Ludicrous. :: Do you remember the Copenhagen meeting? One reason they never reached agreement is because we would have had to agree to 90% cuts in emmissions from energy production and land transport to offset the damage air travel does. Does that penetrate your brain? :: Just think about it, most of the atmosphere is less than twice the height that commercial jets fly at, about the thickness of tissue paper wrapped around a football, and jet engines pump their poisons out where it does most damage, high up in the atmosphere. Do you not have children and grandchildren? Don't you care about the mess we are leaving for them to cope with? Obviously not, you are obviously more interested in lining your pockets or getting to Spain for your annual hols more easily. Truth is we should be flying LESS not more.Aint it just the truth wrote: At least these youngsters are prepared to stand up for what they think is right and frankly their arguments have a lot more weight than those put forward by the airport supporters.In your opinion......
Max Impact
says...
11:17pm Tue 1 Nov 11
Aint it just the truth wrote:I do have a grip on reality, its the bleeding heart liberals that want to protect the law breakers that should get a grip on reality, why should people who break the law be protected by the law.
Max Impact wrote:Of course, after all we have had so many terrorist incidents at Southend Airport haven't we? You should get a grip on reality.Aint it just the truth wrote:How is this relevant you ask... Whats more important the right to life or the right to protest? I'm sure a protester/terrorist would think twice about running on to a runway if airports were permitted to have armed security with permission to shoot on sight. Its about time that the law was changed to permit high security area were given such permission.al coniston wrote:And how is that is relevant?Aint it just the truth wrote:utter bull . . . there is a strict security code for non-permitted persons being 'airside' especially in the aftermath of 9/11. Anyone on an airfield without good reason and in breech of the aviation regulations should be seen as being a potential terrorist and dealt with accordingly . . . no ifs, no buts, they shouldn't be there. Play with fire and you will get burnt.Max Impact wrote:What? Waste energy on people whose brains are blinkered and seized up? No point. As for armed guards, that says MUCH more about you than the problem in hand. Nuff said.Aint it just the truth wrote:Same old posting again can't you please do something new instead of cut and paste. They are looking at putting armed guards on ships they should also arm airport security, spot somebody where they should not be and BANG no warnings given. Should make the numptys think twice about doing it again.BASILBRUSH wrote:The most efficient place to site a major airport is in the middle of the area it serves, not at the edge like Southend. And how about our roads, the A127 gets gridlocked now, what's it going to be like when the airport is up and running? Ludicrous. :: Do you remember the Copenhagen meeting? One reason they never reached agreement is because we would have had to agree to 90% cuts in emmissions from energy production and land transport to offset the damage air travel does. Does that penetrate your brain? :: Just think about it, most of the atmosphere is less than twice the height that commercial jets fly at, about the thickness of tissue paper wrapped around a football, and jet engines pump their poisons out where it does most damage, high up in the atmosphere. Do you not have children and grandchildren? Don't you care about the mess we are leaving for them to cope with? Obviously not, you are obviously more interested in lining your pockets or getting to Spain for your annual hols more easily. Truth is we should be flying LESS not more.Aint it just the truth wrote: At least these youngsters are prepared to stand up for what they think is right and frankly their arguments have a lot more weight than those put forward by the airport supporters.In your opinion......
We should bring back the old term of the "outlaw".
Once you break the law you become an outlaw living outside the law of the land thus the laws of the land are nolonger there to protect you and the keepers of the law can use any force to bring you to justice be that in court or on the mortuary slab.
Mary Lou
says...
6:56am Wed 2 Nov 11
Of course, after all we have had so many terrorist incidents at Southend Airport haven't we? You should get a grip on reality.”
.
So according to your logic as there were no bombs put on buses before 7-7 there was no threat.Terrorists will always be looking for opportunities. If security at major airports is tight then they will consider other targets. Your analysis of the situation is flawed as usual.
Aint it just the truth
says...
8:30am Wed 2 Nov 11
::
As Smith W said about Mary Lou "you are the total lunatic who once told us the fire service should be private and that those that don't pay should see their homes burn. You make the Ayatollah Khomeini seem like a voice of moderate reason". Too true.
::
That could apply equally to both of you. Oh boy what a wonderful world this would be if muppets like you two were in charge so thank goodness you're not. Let me guess, you're both in your seventies or eighties, don't have any friends or family who love you and never held any positions of real power. Am I getting warm? So what went wrong to make you such lovely warm human beings? Bad experiences during childhood perhaps? Is that what made you hate the world so much or is it simply that your brains are slipping into dementia?
::
And you have the gall to suggest that my logic is flawed ML? Oh boy, you really are too far gone for any hope, you're not just living on a different planet, you come from a different universe.
Max Impact
says...
3:23pm Wed 2 Nov 11
Your making me out to be some kind of blood **** crazy, I NEVER once said supermarkets should armed guards I said all high security places should. Even you should be able to understand the security of an airport is more important than the rights of some nutter to run on to the runway.
You seem to be a belly rubbing bleeding heart liberal more concerned about looking after the rights of the law breaking minority than the law respecting law abiding majority.
Aint it just the truth
says...
3:35pm Wed 2 Nov 11
Max Impact wrote:I'm not making you out to be some kind of "blood *** crazy", you're doing a perfectly good job of doing that to yourself. Just to remind you, you said...
Aint it the truth: Your making me out to be some kind of blood **** crazy, I NEVER once said supermarkets should armed guards I said all high security places should. Even you should be able to understand the security of an airport is more important than the rights of some nutter to run on to the runway. You seem to be a belly rubbing bleeding heart liberal more concerned about looking after the rights of the law breaking minority than the law respecting law abiding majority.
"why should people who break the law be protected by the law. We should bring back the old term of outlaw. Once you break the law you become an outlaw living outside the law of the land thus the laws of the land are nolonger there to protect you and the keepers of the law can use any force to bring you to justice be that in court or on the mortuary slab.”
Go tell your ideas to the local Police Max, they might reward you with a short stay at her majesties pleasure. As I said before, you and ML make the Ayottolah Khomeni seem like the voice of reason.
Mary Lou
says...
5:36pm Wed 2 Nov 11
Algus
says...
6:48pm Wed 2 Nov 11
Hairy Spider
says...
7:24pm Wed 2 Nov 11
Algus wrote:Aaah its Algus, untruths other login who pops up every time he's getting a hard time!!!
Mary Lou you really are a bitter twisted old woman. You rant and rave about putting armed guards everywhere and making us pay for fire engines and then you fly off the handle when someone like AIJTT points out the error of your ways. I know which point of view I have more respect for and its not yours
Excitation
says...
8:26pm Wed 2 Nov 11
j-w
says...
10:14pm Wed 2 Nov 11
Brunning999 says...
10:07am Sat 29 Oct 11