Have we dont these idiots yet?

[Lifelongontractor]

Blame Labour, Maplin Sands could have been the new airport...

Less Labour, more the 1973 Oil Crisis

[vwdan]

I'd like to discuss your point, but you seem to lack the ability actually to make one.

Alright - how's about this. On September 11th, hijackers took over 4 packed airliners and slammed two of them into densely populated tower blocks situated in one of the most populated cities in the world. Then, in addition to that, two of the tallest towers in the world, collapsed uncontrollably creating huge amounts of death and destruction - something the terrorists could only have dreamed of.

Firstly, despite all this, 'only' 3000 people died - 7000 short of 10,000 and many short of "tens of thousands". So short, in fact, as to make an absolute nonsense of your numbers.

Secondly, planes very rarely fall directly out of the sky.

Finally, aviation still remains the single safest form of transportation both in terms of passenger numbers and miles travelled. If safety is your concern, then you'd have far better results campaigning for the removal of cars, motorbikes and motorcycles from central London.

[d000hg]

Agree - selfish twats. Same as the nobheads who "protest" on the streets about things like austerity.

Selfish implies they are doing it for their own benefit or self-interest. I assume most of these people will not be directly benefiting either way, and do believe in what they are protesting about (regardless how right or wrong they may be).

We all voted or had the chance to a few months ago. Yet some believe just because they believe something gives them the right to use force to get things changed.

I think the right to appropriate protest is part of our democratic system - clearly not violence but those austerity campaigners for example are entirely within their rights.

I wish they'd shut up and go home but that doesn't mean they have to.

[EternalOptimist]

Selfish implies they are doing it for their own benefit or self-interest. I assume most of these people will not be directly benefiting either way, and do believe in what they are protesting about (regardless how right or wrong they may be).

I think the right to appropriate protest is part of our democratic system - clearly not violence but those austerity campaigners for example are entirely within their rights.

I wish they'd shut up and go home but that doesn't mean they have to.

There is a third form of selfishness, which is taking the sanctimonious high ground and adopting a moral superiority then trying to force everyone else to agree with you.
People who believe they are saving the planet are very dangerous, they are capable of anything
and its an extreme form of self centred narcisisim

[d000hg]

There is a third form of selfishness, which is taking the sanctimonious high ground and adopting a moral superiority then trying to force everyone else to agree with you.

I'm still not sure that can be considered selfish, if you really believe you are helping. Deluded - probably, dangerous - possibly, but not selfish.

[Bacchus]

Alright - how's about this. On September 11th, hijackers took over 4 packed airliners and slammed two of them into densely populated tower blocks situated in one of the most populated cities in the world. Then, in addition to that, two of the tallest towers in the world, collapsed uncontrollably creating huge amounts of death and destruction - something the terrorists could only have dreamed of.

Firstly, despite all this, 'only' 3000 people died - 7000 short of 10,000 and many short of "tens of thousands". So short, in fact, as to make an absolute nonsense of your numbers.

Secondly, planes very rarely fall directly out of the sky.

Finally, aviation still remains the single safest form of transportation both in terms of passenger numbers and miles travelled. If safety is your concern, then you'd have far better results campaigning for the removal of cars, motorbikes and motorcycles from central London.

(c:

OK, I'll bite now.

"On September 11th, hijackers took over 4 packed airliners and slammed two of them into densely populated tower blocks situated in one of the most populated cities in the world" - This highlights the fact that this can happen. The fact that many more people could have died is totally irrelevant, three thousand families were torn apart, and many millions were affected. Personally I was one of a few hundred people who were locked in the vaults of the Bank of England with no idea of what was going on as part of a planned emergency procedure. The images of those towers going down and burning people jumping with no hope of survival will stay with me until I die, but hey ho, only three thousand right?

The debris from pan am 103 was spread over 845 square miles, over fifty percent of the area of greater London. One eyewitness said "It is just impossible to approach the town but at the time it went up there was a terrible explosion and the whole sky lit up. It was virtually raining fire - it was just liquid fire."

The fact that "only" (and I am stunned that anyone can say that, although to be fair you did put it in quotes) 3000 people died in New York in 2001 doesn't in any way impose a limit on what could happen.

I object to the existing levels of flying over London, and I think to increase it by an order of magnitude is sheer madness.

I agree that as transport medium is statistically safe, but planes do suffer mechanical failure (one of the links I posted originally was a crash caused by frozen fuel lines), they do run out of fuel (which could save lives I guess, but the people it belly flopped on might not be counting their blessings), they are targeted by terrorists, and then of course there is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malays...nes_Flight_370

and

Germanwings crash: Lufthansa knew of co-pilot depression - BBC News

The chances are slim, yes, but there is clearly a risk, and increasing traffic by an order of magnitude will increase the risk by an order of magnitude, this surely is inarguable?

Coupled with the fact that the expansion is estimated to cost the UK tax payers £5.7 Billion, and there is no consensus of economic benefit ( Airport expansion: What happens next? - BBC News ), but one thing you can be sure of is that the primary beneficiaries will be Ferrovial.

[saptastic]

I'm still not sure that can be considered selfish, if you really believe you are helping. Deluded - probably, dangerous - possibly, but not selfish.

Is selfish making hundreds of people & families that have their eagerly awaited holiday flights / business flights cancelled and heavily disrupted - so 12 people can get their point across ? Plus the financial cost to the industry - which ultimately costs travellers.

[original PM]

But even if you built it 100 miles from London (which is like Birmingham) there is nothing to stop a hijacker flying the plane into London - would take what 10 minutes to fly that distance?

So you are left with a larger number of planes taking off and landing at the airport which will increase the risk of an error during take off and landing which could cause a plane to land on a housing estate.

I sort of see the point in protesting against it - but the logic falls apart if you try and take a stance that it is more dangerous.

[Flashman]

It's only a matter of time till the greenies want us to go back to flying via hot-air balloons.
we could get 15 hot air balloon runways in at Heathrow , no problem

In the Green future Aircraft will be reserved for high ranking members of The Party, Comrade.

[SpontaneousOrder]

We all voted or had the chance to a few months ago.

Yet some believe just because they believe something gives them the right to use force to get things changed.

Can you see the glaring cognitive dissonance there?