"Grunff" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

You must be picking up usenet when you are abroad then - hardly a day
goes by when you haven't contributed something positive to this
newsgroup!


Can you tell me which day this was?

OMG!!

It would be pretty hilarious for anyone to question the positive
contribution Andy makes to the group, but coming from you it's a real gem.

Well tell me the day this happened and I'll Google it.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 21:48:35 +0000, Julian Fowler
wrote:



There is a difference between London -- and particularly Heathrow --
and the rest of the country. London and its major airport are, IMO,
vile: a friend of mine (visiting from the US) described London as
having " a pervasive smell of rotting Big Macs" :-( London's all
round unpleasantness is matched only by the baffling belief of its
inhabitants that they live in a "world class" city.

This country does seem intent to make its major airports follow the
traditional path of its main railway stations: i.e., to immediately
confront the arriving passenger with the worst the country has to
offer. I have wondered in the past how first-time visitors to the UK
react if they have an early-morning arrival into LHR T3 and have to
transit to another terminal, given that the conditions in both the T3
waiting area and the transfer buses would be illegal if the passengers
were farm animals ...

Airports anywhere are not great places and especially when extended
piecemeal as LHR has been. All of the terminals in the central area
are appalling bad in terms of the arrivals waiting areas partly
because too many people show up when one or two would do, not to
mention some of the ridiculous arrangements for arriving and departing
passenger segregation.

Even the airports that were built from scratch don't hold their
glitter for very long. For example Franz Josef Strauss in Munich was
so clean at one time that it could be mistaken for a hospital it was
so sterile. Now it's starting to look distinctly shabby.
Lower traffic airports like Oslo Gardermoen have superb wooden floors
etc. and have managed to maintain a good appearance, but have a tiny
fraction of LHR's traffic.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 21:12:03 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:05:56 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:34:38 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

[snip]

Britain is filthy. Travel around western Europe,: France: Germany,
Holland,
etc.

I do. Extensively.

Britain is strewn with litter and fly tipping.

So are the other countries that you mention,

In the case of Germany and Holland, that is patently NOT the case!

And all of Scandinavia and very rare in France.

I frequently visit Sweden, Norway and Denmark. All of these
countries have problems with litter, dog sh*t on the pavements,
graffiti etc. especially in the capital cities. Away from these,
it's less of an issue, but only because the population density drops
markedly.

France is not remarkably different either. One can visit different
arrondissements in Paris and find that some are exemplary and others
are appalling. Fly tipping happens in rural parts of France just as
it does here.

I have been in every part of France and spend a hell of a lot of time there.
Flt tipping is rare indeed. Compared to London, Paris is immaculately
clean.

It isn't supportable to say that the UK has a singularly bad problem
with respect to litter and similar social maladies.

It is. The place is filthy, especially after the Wicked Witch came to power.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 20:37:33 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:05:56 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:34:38 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

[snip]

Britain is filthy. Travel around western Europe,: France: Germany,
Holland,
etc.

I do. Extensively.

Britain is strewn with litter and fly tipping.

So are the other countries that you mention,

In the case of Germany and Holland, that is patently NOT the case!

I'm sorry, but it is. It depends on where you look.

There are parts of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, Frankfurt, Munich,
cities of the Ruhrgebiet .... which have serious litter problems,
among others.

In the UK it is everywhere. Rural Scotland is strewn with fly tipped
garbage, as is England to a lesser extent. Towns and cities in the UK are
just plane dirty.

Countries that are held on a pedestal of apparent neatness and
civilisation have among the worst problems but sometimes manifest in
other ways. For example, Bern, the federal capital of Switzerland
has one of the highest incidences of hard drugs use in the western
world. The public park next to the parliament building is
permanently littered with used syringes and needles such that people
can't use it safely. Yet everybody believes that this is the epitome
of a well run society.

In Switzerland the problems are just in one place. They are not generally
scattered.

How
you can possibly suggest that those two countries have the same litter
problem as Britain, beats me!

I didn't say that it was necessarily as bad in other countries, (i.e.
I haven't counted the number of sweetie papers on the ground to three
decimal places), but the issue is there, nonetheless.

When I have spent a week in Germany,
then return to the UK, as soon as I emerge from the barriers at
Heathrow I notice how everything you look at looks tacky, cheap,
inferior, worn, badly maintained.

Around Heathrow that is arguably true, but is not representative of
all of the country. The immediate environs of airports like any
other port anywhere are not representative of the rest of a country.

Everywhere. You. Look. The buses,
the Tube, the restaurants, the streets, the dress-sense, the
grubbiness of the place is quite impressive. Take a GOOD look next
time you travel, okay?!!

On all of the things that you list, there are examples of better and
worse in every country. The grass always does look greener.
I travel to somewhere most weeks, often to multiple countries and I
see a great deal. There is no glamour in it, believe me. I talk
to a lot of people, both in business and socially and the same issues
are raised.

I would suggest that you take a look next time you travel. Things
are not what they seem.



.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 21:48:35 +0000, Julian Fowler
wrote:

There is a difference between London -- and particularly Heathrow --
and the rest of the country. London and its major airport are, IMO,
vile: a friend of mine (visiting from the US) described London as
having " a pervasive smell of rotting Big Macs" :-( London's all
round unpleasantness is matched only by the baffling belief of its
inhabitants that they live in a "world class" city.

This country does seem intent to make its major airports follow the
traditional path of its main railway stations: i.e., to immediately
confront the arriving passenger with the worst the country has to
offer. I have wondered in the past how first-time visitors to the UK
react if they have an early-morning arrival into LHR T3 and have to
transit to another terminal, given that the conditions in both the T3
waiting area and the transfer buses would be illegal if the passengers
were farm animals ...

Airports anywhere are not great places
and especially when extended
piecemeal as LHR has been. All of the
terminals in the central area are appalling
bad in terms of the arrivals waiting areas partly
because too many people show up when
one or two would do, not to
mention some of the ridiculous arrangements
for arriving and departing
passenger segregation.

Heathrow is 100% better than it was 20-25 years ago. I used to arrive from
Middle Eastern airports, such as Riyadh, which has fountains and large
marble Busy Barclay staircases spiralling around them, then arrive in
Heathrow, which had cheap polyurathane varbished wooden doors with
reinforced glass in them, like they use in cheap school buildings.
Everything was tatty, cheap and nasty, with very low ceilings. Look at the
height of the ceilings in Terminal 2, my flat is about the same. The
contrast was amazing, and Heathrow was the busiest international airport in
the world, in a rich country. Liverpool John Lennon is better than any
terminal at Heathrow.

I recall landing at Heathrow with a French lady, she didn't say anything
bad, but it was T4. When we got on the tube (before Paddington link) she
was shocked.

Even the airports that were built from scratch don't hold their
glitter for very long. For example Franz Josef Strauss in Munich was
so clean at one time that it could be mistaken for a hospital it was
so sterile. Now it's starting to look distinctly shabby.
Lower traffic airports like Oslo Gardermoen have superb wooden floors
etc. and have managed to maintain a good appearance, but have a tiny
fraction of LHR's traffic.

Look at Chicago then. I would not call O'Hare shabby at all.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 22:14:37 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




I have been in every part of France and spend a hell of a lot of time there.
Flt tipping is rare indeed. Compared to London, Paris is immaculately
clean.

If you look in the areas surrounding the main railway stations,
especially Gare du Nord, Gard de l'Est and Montparnasse they are as
seedy and filthy as those around the London termini.

You can find relatively clean areas in both cities as well - for
example La Defense and the financial district of Docklands. They may
be clean, but walking through either of them on a winter morning when
the wind is blowing is not pleasurable.



It isn't supportable to say that the UK has a singularly bad problem
with respect to litter and similar social maladies.

It is. The place is filthy, especially after the Wicked Witch came to power.

It doesn't seem to have become noticably worse since 1997, I would
say, so I am not sure how you can say that.




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 22:18:14 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




In the UK it is everywhere. Rural Scotland is strewn with fly tipped
garbage, as is England to a lesser extent. Towns and cities in the UK are
just plane dirty.

That varies quite considerably.



Countries that are held on a pedestal of apparent neatness and
civilisation have among the worst problems but sometimes manifest in
other ways. For example, Bern, the federal capital of Switzerland
has one of the highest incidences of hard drugs use in the western
world. The public park next to the parliament building is
permanently littered with used syringes and needles such that people
can't use it safely. Yet everybody believes that this is the epitome
of a well run society.

In Switzerland the problems are just in one place. They are not generally
scattered.

There are similar problems in Zurich, Basel and Geneva.





..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 22:31:45 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




Heathrow is 100% better than it was 20-25 years ago.

It's also carrying a lot more traffic. The departure areas in the
central area terminals have improved quite a bit, although I seldom
spend any time in them. The arrivals areas are all bad.

I used to arrive from
Middle Eastern airports, such as Riyadh, which has fountains and large
marble Busy Barclay staircases spiralling around them, then arrive in
Heathrow, which had cheap polyurathane varbished wooden doors with
reinforced glass in them, like they use in cheap school buildings.
Everything was tatty, cheap and nasty, with very low ceilings. Look at the
height of the ceilings in Terminal 2, my flat is about the same.
T2 is a disgrace and I try to avoid airlines that use it if I can,
certainly for departures because security screening takes ages.


The
contrast was amazing, and Heathrow was the busiest international airport in
the world, in a rich country. Liverpool John Lennon is better than any
terminal at Heathrow.

Quite possibly.


I recall landing at Heathrow with a French lady, she didn't say anything
bad, but it was T4. When we got on the tube (before Paddington link) she
was shocked.

I don't see why. Parts of the Paris Metro have the same air of
trains running through public toilets that the London Underground
does.



Even the airports that were built from scratch don't hold their
glitter for very long. For example Franz Josef Strauss in Munich was
so clean at one time that it could be mistaken for a hospital it was
so sterile. Now it's starting to look distinctly shabby.
Lower traffic airports like Oslo Gardermoen have superb wooden floors
etc. and have managed to maintain a good appearance, but have a tiny
fraction of LHR's traffic.

Look at Chicago then. I would not call O'Hare shabby at all.

I went through there not long ago. The memory was not enjoyable
because there was a four hour layover and nowhere left to sit apart
from the floor


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 22:14:37 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

I have been in every part of France and spend a hell of a lot of time
there.
Flt tipping is rare indeed. Compared to London, Paris is immaculately
clean.

If you look in the areas surrounding the main railway stations,
especially Gare du Nord, Gard de l'Est and Montparnasse they are as
seedy and filthy as those around the London termini.

Yet it is all contained in a few areas, while London is plain filthy,
although Ken is making a good job swimming against the tide.

You can find relatively clean areas in both cities as well - for
example La Defense and the financial district of Docklands.

Docklands? Please.

They may
be clean, but walking through either of them on a winter morning when
the wind is blowing is not pleasurable.

It isn't supportable to say that the UK has a singularly bad problem
with respect to litter and similar social maladies.

It is. The place is filthy, especially after the Wicked Witch came to
power.

It doesn't seem to have become noticably worse since 1997, I would
say, so I am not sure how you can say that.

New Lab has made some impact to clean the place up.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 22:18:14 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




In the UK it is everywhere. Rural Scotland is strewn with fly tipped
garbage, as is England to a lesser extent. Towns and cities in the UK
are
just plane dirty.

That varies quite considerably.

Countries that are held on a pedestal of apparent neatness and
civilisation have among the worst problems but sometimes manifest in
other ways. For example, Bern, the federal capital of Switzerland
has one of the highest incidences of hard drugs use in the western
world. The public park next to the parliament building is
permanently littered with used syringes and needles such that people
can't use it safely. Yet everybody believes that this is the epitome
of a well run society.

In Switzerland the problems are just in one place. They are not
generally
scattered.

There are similar problems in Zurich, Basel and Geneva.

But only in one place in each, and it is contained.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 22:31:45 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




Heathrow is 100% better than it was 20-25 years ago.

It's also carrying a lot more traffic. The departure areas in the
central area terminals have improved quite a bit, although I seldom
spend any time in them. The arrivals areas are all bad.

I used to arrive from
Middle Eastern airports, such as Riyadh, which has fountains and large
marble Busy Barclay staircases spiralling around them, then arrive in
Heathrow, which had cheap polyurathane varbished wooden doors with
reinforced glass in them, like they use in cheap school buildings.
Everything was tatty, cheap and nasty, with very low ceilings. Look at
the
height of the ceilings in Terminal 2, my flat is about the same.
T2 is a disgrace and I try to avoid airlines that use it if I can,
certainly for departures because security screening takes ages.


The
contrast was amazing, and Heathrow was the busiest international airport
in
the world, in a rich country. Liverpool John Lennon is better than any
terminal at Heathrow.

Quite possibly.


I recall landing at Heathrow with a French lady, she didn't say anything
bad, but it was T4. When we got on the tube (before Paddington link) she
was shocked.

I don't see why. Parts of the Paris Metro have the same air of
trains running through public toilets that the London Underground
does.

The metro is clean,very clean, and compared to London immaculate.

Even the airports that were built from scratch don't hold their
glitter for very long. For example Franz Josef Strauss in Munich was
so clean at one time that it could be mistaken for a hospital it was
so sterile. Now it's starting to look distinctly shabby.
Lower traffic airports like Oslo Gardermoen have superb wooden floors
etc. and have managed to maintain a good appearance, but have a tiny
fraction of LHR's traffic.

Look at Chicago then. I would not call O'Hare shabby at all.

I went through there not long ago. The memory was not enjoyable
because there was a four hour layover and nowhere left to sit apart
from the floor


.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Look at Chicago then. I would not call O'Hare shabby at all.

I used to use it regularly and hated the place. Dirty, nowhere to sit, rude
staff and musak blaring out from "food" (deliberate inverted commas) outlets
right opposite the gates. IMO, the only decent airport in North America is
Toronto. As for Europe, I'd rate Charles de Gaulle tops, though many UK
flights are now in that dreadful new glass bit. It's clean but terrible
glare on a bright sunlit day.

"G&M" wrote in message
...


Look at Chicago then. I would not call O'Hare shabby at all.

I used to use it regularly and hated the place. Dirty, nowhere to sit,
rude
staff and musak blaring out from "food" (deliberate inverted commas)
outlets
right opposite the gates. IMO, the only decent airport in North America
is
Toronto. As for Europe, I'd rate Charles de Gaulle tops, though many UK
flights are now in that dreadful new glass bit. It's clean but terrible
glare on a bright sunlit day.

I used it regularly and it was 3 up on Heathrow.

Andy Hall wrote in message ...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:47:19 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
. ..

We are now seeing the results of "Thatcher's
children". She said "there is no such thing as
society" and promoted it in a big way, me, me, me.
snip babble.
I always enjoy seeing history rewritten, generally from the left. The
decline in the UK society began at least in the 60's, when parents decided
that they would prevent the schools system from imposing any discipline on
their children and the governments of the day became obsessed with
educational good ideas. It was actually Jim Callahan who decided that the
schools needed to go back to the HMI system of the 50's, but his proposals
were deemed unacceptable to the labour party( trade unions) so nothing was
done. The trade unions also got involved in decreasing discipline in the
society and avoiding all responsibility for their actions., Thatcher took up
the challenge, but unfortunately, in education, whitehall got in the way, so
what we got was the US, test 'em until they drop system imposed upon all of
our schools.( An English friend writes curriculum programmes for a US school
and was amazed to find that all we had done was to copy the US documents( at
enormous cost) and system (which doesn't work anyway).) and no discipline.
When you decide that the problem is not in the control of the children, but
in the teachers inadequacy, surprise, surprise, the old and good teachers
leave and the young ones give up within 3 years. This of course is followed
by degrading the standards of examinations( GCSE= general certificate of
substandard education), because no one must fail. You cannot reverse 40
years of decay without drastic action, this we don't get. Furthermore, when
competition becomes a dirty word in schools, you don't get football at
playtime, or sports day, because someone will get to feel inadequate ! How
the rest of the world must be laughing.

The problem with our society is that it is motivated by envy(are you, IMM?)
and unwilling to accept that it might itself be to blame.
Our politicians are so far detached from the people, that
depressingly, I cannot see any worthwhile future for the people the UK. We
desperately need a new political approach and the Labour party bringing back
communism and avoiding the real problems, because they don't want to lose
power, is not going to provide it.

I also see that many Scots are now being selected as Labour candidates for
English constituencies, how many Scottish constituencies have English
candidates? ( I know the Welsh have had PHain inflicted upon them.)

Regards
Capitol

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:06:59 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


I recall landing at Heathrow with a French lady, she didn't say anything
bad, but it was T4. When we got on the tube (before Paddington link) she
was shocked.

I don't see why. Parts of the Paris Metro have the same air of
trains running through public toilets that the London Underground
does.

The metro is clean,very clean, and compared to London immaculate.

Try taking line 8 from Balard to Concorde.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Julian Fowler wrote in message ...
.. I have wondered in the past how first-time visitors to the UK
react if they have an early-morning arrival into LHR T3 and have to
transit to another terminal, given that the conditions in both the T3
waiting area and the transfer buses would be illegal if the passengers
were farm animals ...
I greatly agree, I think ( lives dangerously) IMM has a few valid points
here. However, years of his beloved Tony have done nothing that I can see,
apart from allowing it to become worse. I travel a fair amount in the US,
and in the majority of towns that I pass through, the levels of general
filth are much lower than in the UK. Their building routine maintenance can
be much worse however, but they tear them down regularly.

Regards
Capitol

"Capitol" wrote in message
...

snip disjointed babble totally off the mark on the root cause of the big
problem; which is land and housing

The problem with our society is that it is motivated by envy(are you,
IMM?)

Why would I? I am not exactly poor. I certainly dislike seeing a tier of
out society making sure all the dominos fall in their favour. And boy don't
then do well. Our society is not motivated by envy. We have a deferential
society that looks up to a ruling class that rips them off mercilessly. That
is a problem in forcing in change.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:11:34 -0000, "G&M" wrote:



Look at Chicago then. I would not call O'Hare shabby at all.

I used to use it regularly and hated the place. Dirty, nowhere to sit, rude
staff and musak blaring out from "food" (deliberate inverted commas) outlets
right opposite the gates. IMO, the only decent airport in North America is
Toronto. As for Europe, I'd rate Charles de Gaulle tops, though many UK
flights are now in that dreadful new glass bit. It's clean but terrible
glare on a bright sunlit day.



Hmmm..... CDG reminds me of an early James Bond film, how living in
the future was meant to be in the 60s.

I always nearly fall over on those bouncy rubber sloping travelators
in the transparent tubes.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:06:59 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


I recall landing at Heathrow with a French lady, she didn't say
anything
bad, but it was T4. When we got on the tube (before Paddington link)
she
was shocked.

I don't see why. Parts of the Paris Metro have the same air of
trains running through public toilets that the London Underground
does.

The metro is clean,very clean, and compared to London immaculate.

Try taking line 8 from Balard to Concorde.

Which is abut the same as taking any London tube.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:11:34 -0000, "G&M" wrote:



Look at Chicago then. I would not call O'Hare shabby at all.

I used to use it regularly and hated the place. Dirty, nowhere to sit,
rude
staff and musak blaring out from "food" (deliberate inverted commas)
outlets
right opposite the gates. IMO, the only decent airport in North America
is
Toronto. As for Europe, I'd rate Charles de Gaulle tops, though many UK
flights are now in that dreadful new glass bit. It's clean but terrible
glare on a bright sunlit day.



Hmmm..... CDG reminds me of an early James Bond film, how living in
the future was meant to be in the 60s.

I always nearly fall over on those bouncy rubber sloping travelators
in the transparent tubes.

I never. Lose weight.

IMM wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
I always nearly fall over on those bouncy rubber sloping travelators
in the transparent tubes.


I never. Lose weight.

That's because you've only ever seen them on TV - you just *imagine*
you've been to these places/done these things. Remember, we talked about
this before. Just because you can imagine going somewhere or doing
something, it doesn't mean you actually have.

Like all the plumbing? Reading the leaflets that Marley put out is *not*
the same as actually doing some plumbing.

--
Grunff

"Capitol" wrote in message
...

Julian Fowler wrote in message ...
. I have wondered in the past how first-time visitors to the UK
react if they have an early-morning arrival into LHR T3 and have to
transit to another terminal, given that the conditions in both the T3
waiting area and the transfer buses would be illegal if the passengers
were farm animals ...
I greatly agree, I think ( lives dangerously) IMM has a few valid points
here. However, years of his beloved Tony have done nothing that I can see,
apart from allowing it to become worse.

Tone has made matters better, even Andy said that,. He has a mountain to
climb after the mess left by the Wicked Witch.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:39:08 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Capitol" wrote in message
...

snip disjointed babble totally off the mark on the root cause of the big
problem; which is land and housing

The problem with our society is that it is motivated by envy(are you,
IMM?)

Why would I? I am not exactly poor. I certainly dislike seeing a tier of
out society making sure all the dominos fall in their favour.

Would you make that comment regarding *any* section of society or just
one particular one that you happen not to care for?

And boy don't
then do well. Our society is not motivated by envy. We have a deferential
society that looks up to a ruling class that rips them off mercilessly. That
is a problem in forcing in change.

History shows that "forcing in change" has a habit of not working very
well at all.

Societies always have a "ruling class". It may vary in style, form
and background, but there always is one.
There have always been the haves and have nots, the leaders and
followers and there will always be these and real and apparent
injustice.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:40:20 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:06:59 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


I recall landing at Heathrow with a French lady, she didn't say
anything
bad, but it was T4. When we got on the tube (before Paddington link)
she
was shocked.

I don't see why. Parts of the Paris Metro have the same air of
trains running through public toilets that the London Underground
does.

The metro is clean,very clean, and compared to London immaculate.

Try taking line 8 from Balard to Concorde.

Which is abut the same as taking any London tube.

One of the worst ones.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:41:08 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:11:34 -0000, "G&M" wrote:



Look at Chicago then. I would not call O'Hare shabby at all.

I used to use it regularly and hated the place. Dirty, nowhere to sit,
rude
staff and musak blaring out from "food" (deliberate inverted commas)
outlets
right opposite the gates. IMO, the only decent airport in North America
is
Toronto. As for Europe, I'd rate Charles de Gaulle tops, though many UK
flights are now in that dreadful new glass bit. It's clean but terrible
glare on a bright sunlit day.



Hmmm..... CDG reminds me of an early James Bond film, how living in
the future was meant to be in the 60s.

I always nearly fall over on those bouncy rubber sloping travelators
in the transparent tubes.

I never. Lose weight.

That's not the issue. The rollers underneath are not round.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Simon Gardner [dot]co[dot]uk wrote in message ...
Over a decade of Thatcherism and its subsequent continuation by other
means.


Wishful thinking? Remember the Labour governments of the 70's?

When the politicians of both governing parties get caught out in telling
lies don't resign and refuse to legislate in the best interests of the
people they are supposed to represent, then society recognises that there is
no right or wrong. We jail a man for killing a burglar on his property, then
reduce the very short sentence of an asylum seeker, driving without
insurance or license, who has killed someone. We imprison more motorists
than burglars, use speed cameras, traffic wardens as tax gatherers and
expect the people to be law abiding. Justice,you must be joking!
We have now introduced the courts into IR legislation, inflicted so
many conditions and regulations upon our businesses that many are operating
outside the law! The rest are heading offshore as fast as possible.

No wonder the society is not law abiding, only the lawyers can see a good
future!

Regards
Capitol

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
I always nearly fall over on those bouncy rubber sloping travelators
in the transparent tubes.


I never. Lose weight.

That's because you've only ever seen
them on TV

I used them a hell of a lot, although with the London-Paris run yoiu did not
use them too much.

snip total drivel

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:39:08 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Capitol" wrote in message
...

snip disjointed babble totally off the mark on the root cause of the
big
problem; which is land and housing

The problem with our society is that it is motivated by envy(are you,
IMM?)

Why would I? I am not exactly poor. I certainly dislike seeing a tier of
out society making sure all the dominos fall in their favour.

Would you make that comment regarding *any* section of society or just
one particular one that you happen not to care for?

Of course I would. We need a meritocracy, not a medieval set up.

And boy don't
then do well. Our society is not motivated by envy. We have a deferential
society that looks up to a ruling class that rips them off mercilessly.
That
is a problem in forcing in change.

History shows that "forcing in change" has a habit of not working very
well at all.

We are well overdue. The French revolution was a 180 degree change and that
has worked exceptionally well.

Societies always have a "ruling class".

Not all.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:40:20 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:06:59 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


I recall landing at Heathrow with a French lady, she didn't say
anything
bad, but it was T4. When we got on the tube (before Paddington
link)
she
was shocked.

I don't see why. Parts of the Paris Metro have the same air of
trains running through public toilets that the London Underground
does.

The metro is clean,very clean, and compared to London immaculate.

Try taking line 8 from Balard to Concorde.

Which is abut the same as taking any London tube.

One of the worst ones.

Which is most of London

On 13 Feb 2004 23:32:07 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Andy Hall writes:

I don't see why. Parts of the Paris Metro have the same air of
trains running through public toilets that the London Underground
does.

Do they still let the clochards sleep in them at night in the winter? That
always added to the olfactory dimension of a late night Metro journey.


They've tried to discourage sleeping on the benches by replacing them
in a lot of places with individual plastic seats. However, you
wouldn't want to sit on one because there is usually food and
mysterious substances squashed on them.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:41:08 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:11:34 -0000, "G&M" wrote:



Look at Chicago then. I would not call O'Hare shabby at all.

I used to use it regularly and hated the place. Dirty, nowhere to
sit,
rude
staff and musak blaring out from "food" (deliberate inverted commas)
outlets
right opposite the gates. IMO, the only decent airport in North
America
is
Toronto. As for Europe, I'd rate Charles de Gaulle tops, though many
UK
flights are now in that dreadful new glass bit. It's clean but
terrible
glare on a bright sunlit day.



Hmmm..... CDG reminds me of an early James Bond film, how living in
the future was meant to be in the 60s.

I always nearly fall over on those bouncy rubber sloping travelators
in the transparent tubes.

I never. Lose weight.

That's not the issue. The rollers underneath are not round.

Normal people keep their balance, its all that top weight you have.

"Capitol" wrote in message
...

Simon Gardner [dot]co[dot]uk wrote in message ...
Over a decade of Thatcherism and its subsequent continuation by other
means.


Wishful thinking? Remember the Labour governments of the 70's?

Fabulous!

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:57:49 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:39:08 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Capitol" wrote in message
...

snip disjointed babble totally off the mark on the root cause of the
big
problem; which is land and housing

The problem with our society is that it is motivated by envy(are you,
IMM?)

Why would I? I am not exactly poor. I certainly dislike seeing a tier of
out society making sure all the dominos fall in their favour.

Would you make that comment regarding *any* section of society or just
one particular one that you happen not to care for?

Of course I would. We need a meritocracy, not a medieval set up.

Hmmm..... The question then becomes the definition of what "merit"
is. That will be different for different people.



And boy don't
then do well. Our society is not motivated by envy. We have a deferential
society that looks up to a ruling class that rips them off mercilessly.
That
is a problem in forcing in change.

History shows that "forcing in change" has a habit of not working very
well at all.

We are well overdue. The French revolution was a 180 degree change and that
has worked exceptionally well.

Most French people that I know are not hugely enamoured by what has
become a huge centralised bureaucracy.


Societies always have a "ruling class".

Not all.


I can't think of any off hand, can you?


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:49:58 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Capitol" wrote in message
...

Julian Fowler wrote in message ...
. I have wondered in the past how first-time visitors to the UK
react if they have an early-morning arrival into LHR T3 and have to
transit to another terminal, given that the conditions in both the T3
waiting area and the transfer buses would be illegal if the passengers
were farm animals ...
I greatly agree, I think ( lives dangerously) IMM has a few valid points
here. However, years of his beloved Tony have done nothing that I can see,
apart from allowing it to become worse.

Tone has made matters better, even Andy said that,. He has a mountain to
climb after the mess left by the Wicked Witch.

He should ask her to clear up the kitchen after dinner then.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:57:49 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:39:08 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Capitol" wrote in message
...

snip disjointed babble totally off the mark on the root cause of the
big
problem; which is land and housing

The problem with our society is that it is motivated by envy(are
you,
IMM?)

Why would I? I am not exactly poor. I certainly dislike seeing a tier
of
out society making sure all the dominos fall in their favour.

Would you make that comment regarding *any* section of society or just
one particular one that you happen not to care for?

Of course I would. We need a meritocracy, not a medieval set up.

Hmmm..... The question then becomes the definition of what "merit"
is. That will be different for different people.

It certainly is not the Eton/Harrow/Oxbridge/Guards crap that we have.

We are well overdue. The French revolution was a 180 degree change and
that
has worked exceptionally well.

Most French people that I know are not hugely enamoured by what has
become a huge centralised bureaucracy.

All of them since 1789? I was there when they celebrated the 200th
anniversary. All were delighted with the results. When is ours?

Societies always have a "ruling class".

Not all.


I can't think of any off hand, can you?

That figures.

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 00:01:26 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




Normal people keep their balance, its all that top weight you have.

You try standing on a bouncy moving belt sloping upwards at probably
at least 30 degrees. I saw a couple of quite slight teenagers come
to grief on one this week and somebody needed to hit the emergency
stop causing two other people to fall. What would happen in the
case of a fire, I have no idea.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 22:53:23 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

Look at Chicago then. I would not call O'Hare shabby at all.

I went through there not long ago. The memory was not enjoyable
because there was a four hour layover and nowhere left to sit apart
from the floor

I did a changeover at O'Hare about 10 years ago, and similarly had a 4
hour enforced stopover.

Nice airport, but my recollection is the same as yours. Only plastic
seats to rest your weary bum, and absolutely nowhere where you could
comfortably crash out.

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't
guaranteed to reach me.

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 00:12:21 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


Would you make that comment regarding *any* section of society or just
one particular one that you happen not to care for?

Of course I would. We need a meritocracy, not a medieval set up.

Hmmm..... The question then becomes the definition of what "merit"
is. That will be different for different people.

It certainly is not the Eton/Harrow/Oxbridge/Guards crap that we have.

So what would you say that it is?


We are well overdue. The French revolution was a 180 degree change and
that
has worked exceptionally well.

Most French people that I know are not hugely enamoured by what has
become a huge centralised bureaucracy.

All of them since 1789?

At least one would know the aristocrats were. But the faceless
bureaucrats? Are they any more accountable?

I was there when they celebrated the 200th
anniversary. All were delighted with the results.

Of having a day off and excuse for a party?

They are eating cake now at least... :-)




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article , Mike Mitchell
writes
Quite right. In fact the Liberals have, so-called more left policies than
New Lab.

Which is why I am going to vote Lib Dem next time (as I did last time,
but not in 1997, when I voted Labour and rue it to this day).

MM
Then you really don't deserve to have the vote - A vote for the Lib Dems
is a vote for Labour - think about it (hint: splitting the opposition
vote)
--
Andrew

In article , IMM
writes
Why would I? I am not exactly poor.

After another term of 'New' Labour you will be, while on the other hand
the ruling elite [1] will be millionaires and Phoney's non-dom friends
will still be enjoying their totally tax-free status, while English tax
payers will be propping up loony left policies in Scotland and Wales

[1] Phoney Liars legal friends who have turned themselves into
millionaires from - legal aid for 'asylum' seekers, endless 'public'
enquiries (where the outcome was decided at the outset), the 'human'
rights act (where is the human obligations act), etc
- Oh nearly forgot the chief execs of the new regional 'talking hot air
and ******** shops' assemblies - on £300K plus fully indexed final
salary pensions.
--
Andrew