TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

On Tue, 27 May 2008 19:09:56 +0100, Charles Ellson
wrote:

Lu'on 34.7

LOROL!

Reminds me of an occasion a few years ago when my Hatters entertained
those southern nickname-stealers[*] at Edgeley Park... after a fair
portion of the game of the visiting fans chanting "Come on Lu'on" (and
not much else), we retaliated with "one T in Luton; I'm sure there's
one T in Luton"! :-)
[*] Who are, since Monday, a division below the original Hatters :-D

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

On Wed, 28 May 2008 07:37:40 +0100, Martin Edwards
wrote:

wrote:
On 27 May, 19:09, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2008 15:18:55 +0100, James Farrar



wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2008 06:47:09 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:
On 25 May, 07:53, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 07:46:19 on Sun, 25
May 2008, Martin Edwards remarked:
Also it is debatable whether Luton or Stanstead are actually in the
London area. The names are a product of London's self-obsession and
the international obsession with it.
Luton qualifies under your description (even though it's as well
connected to London as Gatwick and arguably better than Stansted) but
Stansted is the official "third London Airport".
Surely Luton isn't closer to London than Stansted is? I'd have thought
they were about equi-distant.
Luton looks to be about 5 miles closer than Stansted.
According to DirectGov journey planner:-
To Charing Cross from -
Stansted 40.8 miles
Lu'on 34.7
Gatwick 29.4
Thiefrow 17.4
Northolt 14.1
London City 8.6

Fair enough. But I still think it's difficult to argue that 35 miles
away in Bedfordshire is London, while 41 miles away in Essex isn't...


None of it is London, precisely the point I am making. As a native of
Watford, on the very rim of Greater London, I have an axe to grind.

I agree.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that LHR is only "in London" because
it's there.

(Or, in other words, if Heathrow hadn't been built, the site it's on
probably would be outside the GLA area.)

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

In article ,
(James Farrar) wrote:

On Wed, 28 May 2008 07:37:40 +0100, Martin Edwards
wrote:

wrote:
On 27 May, 19:09, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2008 15:18:55 +0100, James Farrar
wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2008 06:47:09 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:
On 25 May, 07:53, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 07:46:19 on
Sun, 25 May 2008, Martin Edwards
remarked:
Also it is debatable whether Luton or Stanstead are actually
in the London area. The names are a product of London's
self-obsession and the international obsession with it.
Luton qualifies under your description (even though it's as well
connected to London as Gatwick and arguably better than
Stansted)
but Stansted is the official "third London Airport".
Surely Luton isn't closer to London than Stansted is? I'd have
thought they were about equi-distant.
Luton looks to be about 5 miles closer than Stansted.
According to DirectGov journey planner:-
To Charing Cross from -
Stansted 40.8 miles
Lu'on 34.7
Gatwick 29.4
Thiefrow 17.4
Northolt 14.1
London City 8.6

Fair enough. But I still think it's difficult to argue that 35 miles
away in Bedfordshire is London, while 41 miles away in Essex
isn't...

None of it is London, precisely the point I am making. As a native of

Watford, on the very rim of Greater London, I have an axe to grind.

I agree.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that LHR is only "in London"
because it's there.

(Or, in other words, if Heathrow hadn't been built, the site it's on
probably would be outside the GLA area.)

It straddled the Greater London boundary until a review some years ago.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

In message , at 07:37:40 on Wed, 28
May 2008, Martin Edwards remarked:
I still think it's difficult to argue that 35 miles
away in Bedfordshire is London, while 41 miles away in Essex isn't...

None of it is London, precisely the point I am making. As a native of
Watford, on the very rim of Greater London, I have an axe to grind.

But you can't get away from the fact that Stansted is London's official
"Third Airport". The discussion about Luton's distance merely shows that
as it's closer to London than Stansted, it also deserves a "London"
name.

They are "Airports for London", not "Airports in London".
--
Roland Perry

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

In message
Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 07:37:40 on Wed, 28
May 2008, Martin Edwards remarked:
I still think it's difficult to argue that 35 miles
away in Bedfordshire is London, while 41 miles away in Essex isn't...

None of it is London, precisely the point I am making. As a native of
Watford, on the very rim of Greater London, I have an axe to grind.

But you can't get away from the fact that Stansted is London's official
"Third Airport".

Which official?


--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at 07:37:40 on
Wed, 28 May 2008, Martin Edwards remarked:
I still think it's difficult to argue that 35 miles
away in Bedfordshire is London, while 41 miles away in Essex
isn't...

None of it is London, precisely the point I am making. As a native of

Watford, on the very rim of Greater London, I have an axe to grind.

But you can't get away from the fact that Stansted is London's
official "Third Airport". The discussion about Luton's distance
merely shows that as it's closer to London than Stansted, it also
deserves a "London" name.

They are "Airports for London", not "Airports in London".

Stansted is only London's third airport because it is owned by BAA, like
the so-called first and second airports. BAA is a quasi-monopoly provider,
whereas Luton is or was owned by its local authority.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

On 28 May, 13:59, Graeme Wall wrote:

In message
Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 07:37:40 on Wed, 28
May 2008, Martin Edwards remarked:
I still think it's difficult to argue that 35 miles
away in Bedfordshire is London, while 41 miles away in Essex isn't...

None of it is London, precisely the point I am making. As a native of
Watford, on the very rim of Greater London, I have an axe to grind.

But you can't get away from the fact that Stansted is London's official
"Third Airport".

Which official?


President of the Board of Trade Douglas Jay, in 1967 when speaking to
the House of Commons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/4295827.stm

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

In message
Mizter T wrote:


On 28 May, 13:59, Graeme Wall wrote:

In message
Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 07:37:40 on Wed, 28
May 2008, Martin Edwards remarked:
I still think it's difficult to argue that 35 miles
away in Bedfordshire is London, while 41 miles away in Essex isn't...

None of it is London, precisely the point I am making. As a native of
Watford, on the very rim of Greater London, I have an axe to grind.

But you can't get away from the fact that Stansted is London's official
"Third Airport".

Which official?


President of the Board of Trade Douglas Jay, in 1967 when speaking to
the House of Commons.


The perils of nepotism.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

In message .uk, at
14:52:00 on Wed, 28 May 2008, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:
Stansted is only London's third airport because it is owned by BAA, like
the so-called first and second airports.

It's the Third Airport because the government held several enquiries
into where it should be, including a "near miss" for Maplin (the sands
not the electronics store named after the airport proposal).

BAA is a quasi-monopoly provider,

Privatised, now owned by the Spanish.

whereas Luton is or was owned by its local authority.

Sold to Barclays Bank, and now owned by a different bunch of Spaniards
who also operate Cardiff and Belfast Airports (and Orlando).
--
Roland Perry

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

On May 26, 5:38*am, "Recliner" wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message







In message , at 11:49:36 on
Sun, 25 May 2008, Recliner remarked:

I also had 'unlimited' visas in the old days, but it turns out they
weren't.

They weren't unlimited, the were "indefinite", which doesn't mean
"lasts for ever" but actually means "we can't tell when they will
end". And one day they simply decided to end them all!

My 10-year UK passport was extended (because of a strike in the UK
passport office), but when I next went to the US, the immigration
officer cancelled my visa as it was over ten years old. Apparently
'unlimited' visas actually lasted ten years. I don't know if they
still do that.

I think you are conflating your experience with the fact that having
decided to end all the "indefinite" Visas (ie come to a definite
decision on when they would end, once the VWP had proven itself), they
cancelled them in your passport the next time you went to the USA.

Ah, I must have misunderstood. *I was a bit put out at having my
queued-for, apparently valuable visa cancelled in such a cavalier
manner, so perhaps I didn't take proper note of the reason why. But
you're right, it was soon after the VWP had come in. Thereafter, I had
to remember to complete the green instead of the white I-94 form, and
also to answer (in the negative) all the silly questions on the back.

USCIS is not know for its "User Freindliness". :-)