Blog powered by Typepad

« Our impartial BBC? You're having a laugh! | Main | I try to cheer them up but do I get a thank you . . . ? »

Friday, 25 November 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Bit near to Chequers, though?

P.S. An interesting article in the Tel.


Chicago has two major airports - O'Hare and Midway. Reportedly there was a study a number of years ago looking at airport congestion and such. They determined that Midway had the best configuration for take offs, and O'Hare for landings, and proposed the obvious solution - land them all at O'Hare and have them take off at Midway.

The study was never implemmted.

Thanks for the link, DM, but please don't tell me she's going to prove me wrong. Bloody wimmin!

Hank, you were obviously laughing so much you made a few spelling bloopers which I have corrected despite my laughter!


I looked at Earth Google.

Heathrow does not look good. A new runway would displace a lot of occupied structures, some of which seem to be owned by commercially significant companies. Plus hydrographic problems on a south side expansion, Gatwick would just absorb some farmlands.

Yes, Hank, but they are Tory farmlands!

The UK inland solutions involve upsetting a lot of English people. (Especially me, if Sussex is involved - this is definitely a non-starter!!)

The Thames solution involves upsetting Dutch people.

Why do we bother with a Prime Minister at all if he can't represent our interests?

He could use the ensuing row with the Flatlanders to engineer a withdrawal from the EU. Chris Huhne might object on the grounds that he has a few windmills in the Thames Estuary, but he might not be at liberty for much longer.

It's a wonderful life.

That's why I like you, 'W', you always find the up-side to everything, cheers me up enormously!

The comments to this entry are closed.