Bit about HS2
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-500-000.html

Sounds a bit bollix to me. After all, we built a much bigger motorway
network without all this palaver.

harryagain scribbled...


Bit about HS2
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-500-000.html

Sounds a bit bollix to me. After all, we built a much bigger motorway
network without all this palaver.


We've already got an HS1 and that was built without a problem.

It's another daily heil ****storm about **** all. Give it a while and
they'll swap sides. Sooner that ****ing rag goes bust the better.

"Artic" wrote in message
ldhosting.com...
harryagain scribbled...


Bit about HS2
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-500-000.html

Sounds a bit bollix to me. After all, we built a much bigger motorway
network without all this palaver.


We've already got an HS1 and that was built without a problem.

No it wasn't.

It was originally planned to follow an entirely different route into London.
But people complained about the disruption

and even when they did compromise on the current route it has to be revised
to put more of it in tunnel because of all the new complaints.

tim

On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 19:47:50 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

Instead of building HS2, they should spend the dosh on other
infrastructure improvements.

Is this the story where the current 46 bn cost is likely to grow by
30 bn beacuse of the NIMBYs and Greens getting the route changed.
Well stuff 'em I say unless they are prepared to pay for the changes
they want.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Dave Liquorice scribbled...


On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 19:47:50 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

Instead of building HS2, they should spend the dosh on other
infrastructure improvements.

Is this the story where the current 46 bn cost is likely to grow by
30 bn beacuse of the NIMBYs and Greens getting the route changed.
Well stuff 'em I say unless they are prepared to pay for the changes
they want.


By the time it's finished, all the old nimbys will have kicked the
bucket. Too much of our infrastructure has been altered because the
likes of Prince Jug Ears of Wales stuck their noses into the planning.

On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 20:15:54 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 19:47:50 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

Instead of building HS2, they should spend the dosh on other
infrastructure improvements.

Is this the story where the current 46 bn cost is likely to grow by
30 bn beacuse of the NIMBYs and Greens getting the route changed.
Well stuff 'em I say unless they are prepared to pay for the changes
they want.

So you'd be happy for HS2 to go through your garden?
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 12:28:27 +0100, Mark wrote:

So you'd be happy for HS2 to go through your garden?

A good friend of mine was about to put his house on the market when the
route was announced. No choice but to sell, since he was emigrating. The
back garden ends 50ft from the top of the cutting.

He was _turned down_ for compensation.

Apparently, he hadn't tried hard enough to sell it for the pre-route-
announcement value... He did eventually manage to sell - for about half
that value.

On 19/08/13 12:28, Mark wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 20:15:54 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 19:47:50 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

Instead of building HS2, they should spend the dosh on other
infrastructure improvements.
Is this the story where the current 46 bn cost is likely to grow by
30 bn beacuse of the NIMBYs and Greens getting the route changed.
Well stuff 'em I say unless they are prepared to pay for the changes
they want.
So you'd be happy for HS2 to go through your garden?
only if it made me rich for life.

for £10m i'd agree.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 12:46:09 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 19/08/13 12:28, Mark wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 20:15:54 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 19:47:50 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

Instead of building HS2, they should spend the dosh on other
infrastructure improvements.
Is this the story where the current 46 bn cost is likely to grow by
30 bn beacuse of the NIMBYs and Greens getting the route changed.
Well stuff 'em I say unless they are prepared to pay for the changes
they want.
So you'd be happy for HS2 to go through your garden?
only if it made me rich for life.

for £10m i'd agree.

This was a question for Dave since he was complaining about NIMBYs.

However your response is raises an interesting point. I very much
doubt that anyone would be made rich for life or get anywhere near
£10m compensation for having a railway through their property. If you
(or I) would only be willing in this case why should anyone else have
to endure the railway without adequate compensation?

And I am firmly of the opinion that the people who shout "NIMBY" the
loudest are purely doing so because they are relieved that it's not
their backyard being ruined.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 12:28:27 +0100, Mark wrote:

Instead of building HS2, they should spend the dosh on other
infrastructure improvements.

Is this the story where the current 46 bn cost is likely to grow
by
30 bn beacuse of the NIMBYs and Greens getting the route changed.
Well stuff 'em I say unless they are prepared to pay for the
changes
they want.

So you'd be happy for HS2 to go through your garden?

No I wouldn't be happy and if I really didn't like it I'd move and
fight for every penny of compensation I could get.

Indeed I might just get the house valued now and occasionally over
the next few years to build up evidence of it's current value should
the mine that might appear a couple of valleys away does actually
happen.

--
Cheers
Dave.

In message o.uk, Dave
Liquorice writes
On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 12:28:27 +0100, Mark wrote:

Instead of building HS2, they should spend the dosh on other
infrastructure improvements.

Is this the story where the current 46 bn cost is likely to grow
by
30 bn beacuse of the NIMBYs and Greens getting the route changed.
Well stuff 'em I say unless they are prepared to pay for the
changes
they want.

So you'd be happy for HS2 to go through your garden?

No I wouldn't be happy and if I really didn't like it I'd move and
fight for every penny of compensation I could get.

Indeed I might just get the house valued now and occasionally over
the next few years to build up evidence of it's current value should
the mine that might appear a couple of valleys away does actually
happen.

Is this phosphate?

Farming grapevine says the Russians might be about to pull out of the
European cartel. Price might drop.


--
Tim Lamb

In article o.uk, Dave
Liquorice scribeth thus
On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 12:28:27 +0100, Mark wrote:

Instead of building HS2, they should spend the dosh on other
infrastructure improvements.

Is this the story where the current 46 bn cost is likely to grow
by
30 bn beacuse of the NIMBYs and Greens getting the route changed.
Well stuff 'em I say unless they are prepared to pay for the
changes
they want.

So you'd be happy for HS2 to go through your garden?

No I wouldn't be happy and if I really didn't like it I'd move and
fight for every penny of compensation I could get.

Indeed I might just get the house valued now and occasionally over
the next few years to build up evidence of it's current value should
the mine that might appear a couple of valleys away does actually
happen.


I somehow suspect Dave that on that mountain top you live on it'd be in
a tunnel if ever and therefore no compensation 4 U M8!....

Same as TNP;!...
--
Tony Sayer

On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 19:37:36 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 12:28:27 +0100, Mark wrote:

Instead of building HS2, they should spend the dosh on other
infrastructure improvements.

Is this the story where the current 46 bn cost is likely to grow
by
30 bn beacuse of the NIMBYs and Greens getting the route changed.
Well stuff 'em I say unless they are prepared to pay for the
changes
they want.

So you'd be happy for HS2 to go through your garden?

No I wouldn't be happy and if I really didn't like it I'd move and
fight for every penny of compensation I could get.

Do you believe you would actually get a reasonable amount of
compensation?

Indeed I might just get the house valued now and occasionally over
the next few years to build up evidence of it's current value should
the mine that might appear a couple of valleys away does actually
happen.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 21:44:05 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

Well what do you expect. The Frogs have twice the land area we have

True

, so
are in a position to run a railway line right across the country without
it upsetting anyone, 'cos where it goes is all fields.

Untrue. What makes you think the sort of people who live out in the
country are going to be any less upset by development than those who
live in the cities? I would expect them to be more upset, because
such development would be a more noticeable impact on the environment.
A motorway or railway in an urban area is just one more source of
noise and pollution amid many, whereas out in the country it is a
major encroachment and a significant reduction in the quality of life.

We can't do that
here. Supposedly the extra cost is due to more tunnelling.

Yes, very likely. The route area is quite densely populated.

But it's a good thing to bury such schemes. Wherever I drive now I
see electricity pylons. Like my mother before me, I can't help
wishing they'd buried the cables instead when they were first doing
the work half a century or more ago. The extra cost at the time would
seem as nothing to what would have to be done to clean up the eyesores
now.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On 19/08/2013 15:43, Java Jive wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 21:44:05 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

Well what do you expect. The Frogs have twice the land area we have

True

, so
are in a position to run a railway line right across the country without
it upsetting anyone, 'cos where it goes is all fields.

Untrue. What makes you think the sort of people who live out in the
country are going to be any less upset by development than those who
live in the cities? I would expect them to be more upset, because
such development would be a more noticeable impact on the environment.
A motorway or railway in an urban area is just one more source of
noise and pollution amid many, whereas out in the country it is a
major encroachment and a significant reduction in the quality of life.

I heard that when the TGV lines were being constructed, the French
people caused a lot of problems by buying up land on the proposed route
in 1m2 blocks, making it very expensive and time consuming to
compulsorarily purchase the land. I also heard that it was not the
people along the route that were doing it, but people from elsewhere
hoping that it would force a diversion *TO* their town!

SteveW

Interesting if true, but, as it would have been townies doing it, it
doesn't really alter the argument one way or the other.

On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 18:51:17 +0100, SteveW
wrote:

I heard that when the TGV lines were being constructed, the French
people caused a lot of problems by buying up land on the proposed route
in 1m2 blocks, making it very expensive and time consuming to
compulsorarily purchase the land. I also heard that it was not the
people along the route that were doing it, but people from elsewhere
hoping that it would force a diversion *TO* their town!
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

In article , Java Jive
scribeth thus
On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 21:44:05 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

Well what do you expect. The Frogs have twice the land area we have

True

, so
are in a position to run a railway line right across the country without
it upsetting anyone, 'cos where it goes is all fields.

Untrue. What makes you think the sort of people who live out in the
country are going to be any less upset by development than those who
live in the cities? I would expect them to be more upset, because
such development would be a more noticeable impact on the environment.
A motorway or railway in an urban area is just one more source of
noise and pollution amid many, whereas out in the country it is a
major encroachment and a significant reduction in the quality of life.

Well we're 1 Km from a main line but 2.2 Km from the motorway, and I'd
take the railway line "noise" anyday over the motorway thanks!...


We can't do that
here. Supposedly the extra cost is due to more tunnelling.

Yes, very likely. The route area is quite densely populated.

But it's a good thing to bury such schemes. Wherever I drive now I
see electricity pylons. Like my mother before me, I can't help
wishing they'd buried the cables instead when they were first doing
the work half a century or more ago.

IIRC the losses would be very high as would the cooling requirement.

I think thats one reason driving the uptake of HV DC lines these days ....


The extra cost at the time would
seem as nothing to what would have to be done to clean up the eyesores
now.


Dunno, much prefer them to Windy mills!...
--
Tony Sayer

On 19/08/2013 21:36, Tim Streater wrote:
....
And the cost, 10 times that of pylons. Anyone know the highest voltage
they put underground?


The National Grid provides design data for 400kV underground cables, so
presumably they have some of those.

Colin Bignell

On 19/08/13 21:36, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:

In article , Java Jive
scribeth thus
On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 21:44:05 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:
Well what do you expect. The Frogs have twice the land area we
have

True

, so are in a position to run a railway line right across the
country without it upsetting anyone, 'cos where it goes is all
fields.

Untrue. What makes you think the sort of people who live out in the
country are going to be any less upset by development than those who
live in the cities? I would expect them to be more upset, because
such development would be a more noticeable impact on the environment.
A motorway or railway in an urban area is just one more source of
noise and pollution amid many, whereas out in the country it is a
major encroachment and a significant reduction in the quality of life.

Well we're 1 Km from a main line but 2.2 Km from the motorway, and I'd
take the railway line "noise" anyday over the motorway thanks!...


We can't do that here. Supposedly the extra cost is due to more
tunnelling.

Yes, very likely. The route area is quite densely populated.

But it's a good thing to bury such schemes. Wherever I drive now I
see electricity pylons. Like my mother before me, I can't help
wishing they'd buried the cables instead when they were first doing
the work half a century or more ago.
IIRC the losses would be very high as would the cooling requirement.
I think thats one reason driving the uptake of HV DC lines these days
....

And the cost, 10 times that of pylons. Anyone know the highest voltage
they put underground?

I think they go all the way up to eleven...

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Tim Streater wrote:

And the cost, 10 times that of pylons. Anyone know the highest voltage
they put underground?

"Murphy is one of the UKs leading tunnelling
contractors with a wealth of experience in the design,
construction and fitting out of cable tunnels. We have
successfully delivered a number of high-profile
infrastructure power projects, including the Olympic
Park (132/400kV Cable Tunnels)"

http://www.murphygroup.co.uk/uploads/documents/Publications/Power%20Brochure/Power%20Brochure.html#/8/zoomed

Tim Streater scribbled...


In article
sting.com,
Artic wrote:

harryagain scribbled...

Bit about HS2
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...esearch-reveal
s-REAL-impact-HS2-link-affect-500-000.html

Sounds a bit bollix to me. After all, we built a much bigger motorway
network without all this palaver.

We've already got an HS1 and that was built without a problem.

I don't call £100 million per mile "without a problem".


"...M74 extension is about to open in Glasgow at a cost of £692m, which
works out at £138.4m per mile..."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13924687



Course, it's nice for me to be able to get from Ashford to St Panc in 38
minutes, but I'd have been happy with an hour.

Instead of building HS2, they should spend the dosh on other
infrastructure improvements.


Typical view of someone who lives in the south east and couldn't give a
flying **** about the rest of the country beyond Watford.

On 18/08/2013 20:50, Artic wrote:
Typical view of someone who lives in the south east and couldn't give a
flying **** about the rest of the country beyond Watford.

Have to say as someone who lives in the south east, I strongly suspect
that HS2 will worsen my transport options to the middle and north of the
country. That is one reason I am very wary of the claims made for it.

--
Rod

In article ,
polygonum wrote:
On 18/08/2013 20:50, Artic wrote:
Typical view of someone who lives in the south east and couldn't give a
flying **** about the rest of the country beyond Watford.

Have to say as someone who lives in the south east, I strongly suspect
that HS2 will worsen my transport options to the middle and north of the
country. That is one reason I am very wary of the claims made for it.

If it's anything like the TGV service from Paris to Barcelona (not quite
there yet) it will make a vast improvement.

It's being promoted wrongly. It's a London to Glasgow route being built in
stages. Not a London to Birmingham route which might get extended.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
polygonum wrote:
On 18/08/2013 20:50, Artic wrote:
Typical view of someone who lives in the south east and couldn't give a
flying **** about the rest of the country beyond Watford.

Have to say as someone who lives in the south east, I strongly suspect
that HS2 will worsen my transport options to the middle and north of the
country. That is one reason I am very wary of the claims made for it.

If it's anything like the TGV service from Paris to Barcelona (not quite
there yet) it will make a vast improvement.

but it wont be

in France/Spain, before they built the HS network "inter city" services were
very sparse (as few as one per day to some destinations).

This isn't the case here. All of the destinations that will be served by
HS2 phases 1 and 2 already get at least 2 trains per hour. Even the Phase 3
destinations (Scotland) get at leased one per hour.

tim

On 18/08/13 20:58, polygonum wrote:
On 18/08/2013 20:50, Artic wrote:
Typical view of someone who lives in the south east and couldn't give a
flying **** about the rest of the country beyond Watford.

Have to say as someone who lives in the south east, I strongly suspect
that HS2 will worsen my transport options to the middle and north of
the country. That is one reason I am very wary of the claims made for it.

the HS2 is a European railway designed to link European 'regions'
together by a high speed rail network that only Eurocrats will actually
ever use..
It has nothing to do with us, nimbys, or the government.

They just need our money to build it.

Its just another Zil lane.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 18/08/13 20:58, polygonum wrote:
On 18/08/2013 20:50, Artic wrote:
Typical view of someone who lives in the south east and couldn't give a
flying **** about the rest of the country beyond Watford.

Have to say as someone who lives in the south east, I strongly suspect
that HS2 will worsen my transport options to the middle and north of
the country. That is one reason I am very wary of the claims made for it.

the HS2 is a European railway designed to link European 'regions'
together by a high speed rail network that only Eurocrats will actually
ever use..
It has nothing to do with us, nimbys, or the government.


Just another EU conspiracy theory then.

what nonsense

(and no that isn't vote in favour of HS2, just a put down of your ridiculous
claim)

tim

"Artic" wrote in message
ldhosting.com...
Tim Streater scribbled...


In article
sting.com,
Artic wrote:

harryagain scribbled...

Bit about HS2
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...esearch-reveal
s-REAL-impact-HS2-link-affect-500-000.html

Sounds a bit bollix to me. After all, we built a much bigger
motorway
network without all this palaver.

We've already got an HS1 and that was built without a problem.

I don't call £100 million per mile "without a problem".


"...M74 extension is about to open


can I borrow your time machine please?

in Glasgow at a cost of £692m, which
works out at £138.4m per mile..."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13924687



Course, it's nice for me to be able to get from Ashford to St Panc in 38
minutes, but I'd have been happy with an hour.

Instead of building HS2, they should spend the dosh on other
infrastructure improvements.


Typical view of someone who lives in the south east and couldn't give a
flying **** about the rest of the country beyond Watford.

Eh

How on earth do you make that extrapolation

He could have easily been suggesting that those "other" improvements should
be in the North

tim

In message , tim.....
writes
Instead of building HS2, they should spend the dosh on other
infrastructure improvements.


Typical view of someone who lives in the south east and couldn't give a
flying **** about the rest of the country beyond Watford.

Eh

How on earth do you make that extrapolation

He could have easily been suggesting that those "other" improvements
should be in the North

Having trickled down the M1 from Northampton at an average 30mph on
Sunday evening, I could vote for that.

Why the obsession with transit speed over 70 anyway? Air transport has
voted itself out of the equation with the insistence on 2 hours
pre-departure and baggage claim delays.
--
Tim Lamb

On Sunday, 18 August 2013 20:50:48 UTC+1, Artic wrote:


Typical view of someone who lives in the south east and couldn't give a

flying **** about the rest of the country beyond Watford.

What's beyond watford then ?

On 20/08/2013 13:50, whisky-dave wrote:
On Sunday, 18 August 2013 20:50:48 UTC+1, Artic wrote:


Typical view of someone who lives in the south east and couldn't give a

flying **** about the rest of the country beyond Watford.

What's beyond watford then ?

'The NORTH', if I recall the road signs correctly.

Colin Bignell

On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:14:08 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article
osting.com,
Artic wrote:

Tim Streater scribbled...
Instead of building HS2, they should spend the dosh on other
infrastructure improvements.

Typical view of someone who lives in the south east and couldn't give a
flying **** about the rest of the country beyond Watford.

What a ****. Still, to address the point, the "country beyond Watford"
is just what could benefit from infrastructure improvements. Like
improving the Euston - Manchester line, which is fine up to Stoke, but
beyond there is rather slow, IME. Like doubling up the Welwyn Viaduct so
there is no pinch point there (four tracks get squeezed to two).

I should think there's any number of similar main line improvements
could be made for just a fraction of the cost of HS2.

+1

(And I don't live in the South East ;-)
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

In message , Tim
Streater writes
In article
osting.com,
Artic wrote:

Tim Streater scribbled...
Instead of building HS2, they should spend the dosh on other
infrastructure improvements.
Typical view of someone who lives in the south east and couldn't
give a flying **** about the rest of the country beyond Watford.

What a ****. Still, to address the point, the "country beyond Watford"
is just what could benefit from infrastructure improvements. Like
improving the Euston - Manchester line, which is fine up to Stoke, but
beyond there is rather slow, IME. Like doubling up the Welwyn Viaduct
so there is no pinch point there (four tracks get squeezed to two).

Hah! Try counting the wealthy nimbies at Digswell!

I should think there's any number of similar main line improvements
could be made for just a fraction of the cost of HS2.

Yes.


--
Tim Lamb

On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:14:08 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article
osting.com,
Artic wrote:

Tim Streater scribbled...
Instead of building HS2, they should spend the dosh on other
infrastructure improvements.

Typical view of someone who lives in the south east and couldn't give a
flying **** about the rest of the country beyond Watford.

What a ****. Still, to address the point, the "country beyond Watford"
is just what could benefit from infrastructure improvements. Like
improving the Euston - Manchester line, which is fine up to Stoke, but
beyond there is rather slow, IME. Like doubling up the Welwyn Viaduct so
there is no pinch point there (four tracks get squeezed to two).

I should think there's any number of similar main line improvements
could be made for just a fraction of the cost of HS2.

Well for a start they shouldn't have ****ed away half a billion on a landmark
ticket hall for Kings Cross when it woudl have bought a tram system relieving
congestion for a large city outside London.

--

On 18/08/13 19:47, Tim Streater wrote:
In article sting.com,
Artic wrote:

harryagain scribbled...

Bit about HS2

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...esearch-reveal
s-REAL-impact-HS2-link-affect-500-000.html
Sounds a bit bollix to me. After all, we built a much bigger
motorway network without all this palaver.

We've already got an HS1 and that was built without a problem.

I don't call £100 million per mile "without a problem".

Course, it's nice for me to be able to get from Ashford to St Panc in
38 minutes, but I'd have been happy with an hour.

Instead of building HS2, they should spend the dosh on other
infrastructure improvements.

hear hear.
like 30GW of nukes.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 18/08/2013 17:45, harryagain wrote:
Bit about HS2
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-500-000.html

Sounds a bit bollix to me. After all, we built a much bigger motorway
network without all this palaver.


Times change, Do you think that the Public Enquiry into the building of
Heathrow Airport would last just 45 minutes if it were done today?

Colin Bignell

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 18/08/2013 17:45, harryagain wrote:
Bit about HS2
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-500-000.html

Sounds a bit bollix to me. After all, we built a much bigger motorway
network without all this palaver.


Times change, Do you think that the Public Enquiry into the building of
Heathrow Airport would last just 45 minutes if it were done today?

Colin Bignell

Too many lawyers about today raking in the cash on these enquiries.

harryagain scribbled...


"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 18/08/2013 17:45, harryagain wrote:
Bit about HS2
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-500-000.html

Sounds a bit bollix to me. After all, we built a much bigger motorway
network without all this palaver.


Times change, Do you think that the Public Enquiry into the building of
Heathrow Airport would last just 45 minutes if it were done today?

Colin Bignell

Too many lawyers about today raking in the cash on these enquiries.


Dunno about today. They were raking in a fortune 35 years ago when the
M25 was being planned.

"harryagain" wrote in message
...
Bit about HS2
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-500-000.html

Sounds a bit bollix to me. After all, we built a much bigger motorway
network without all this palaver.


The real issue here, is that this is an EU directive (like about 80% of our
current leigislation) and it is being forced upon us and accepted by our
conniving politicians.

Nobody in their right mind would want to spend 50 billion pounds on a strip
or railway to connect London and Birmingham to save a few minutes travel.

Of course this is all part of the EU trans-nation European traven network
(TEN-T) where they are going to take control of all road, rail, sea and air
travel and then charge us all extra for using it. Once the Galileo satellite
system is functionary correctly, it'll be toll roads everywhere and anyone
who has bought a new car recently will already have a black box fitted.

The government has aready commissioned a report on having road tolls, and
guess who they asked to do it?

Put road tolls and Rothschilds into to Google to find out.

On 19/08/2013 06:16, Road_Hog wrote:
"harryagain" wrote in message
...
Bit about HS2
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-500-000.html

Sounds a bit bollix to me. After all, we built a much bigger motorway
network without all this palaver.


The real issue here, is that this is an EU directive (like about 80% of our
current leigislation) and it is being forced upon us and accepted by our
conniving politicians.

Nobody in their right mind would want to spend 50 billion pounds on a strip
or railway to connect London and Birmingham to save a few minutes travel.

Of course this is all part of the EU trans-nation European traven network
(TEN-T) where they are going to take control of all road, rail, sea and air
travel and then charge us all extra for using it. Once the Galileo satellite
system is functionary correctly, it'll be toll roads everywhere and anyone
who has bought a new car recently will already have a black box fitted.

The government has aready commissioned a report on having road tolls, and
guess who they asked to do it?

Put road tolls and Rothschilds into to Google to find out.

Conspiracy Theories R Us is that way.

Colin Bignell

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...

Conspiracy Theories R Us is that way.

Colin Bignell

Colin, don't be a dick all your life, there is no theory, just reality.

You can Google TEN-T if you want. You can see that the EU has ordered the UK
to build HS2, just like they did with HS1. You can Google road tolls and
Rothschilds if you need confirmation. You can Google about the Galileo GPS
system, about European wide road tolls. You can Google about the EU
controlling our roads, railways, air transport and seaways. It's all there,
but you are too lazy just like all the other brain dead X-Factor watching
idiots out there.