TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

On May 22, 6:15 pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
wrote:
If poor airports are capable of wrecking an economy then the US is
screwed. In my experience any foreigner is made to feel entirely
unwelcome and treated with intense suspicion as you enter the country,
thanks to those nice chaps at the Department of Homeland Security. I
don't think it's dawned on the US government how much that's going to
put people off studying or working in the states, which over the
medium term is going to do some pretty nasty things to its economy

Chap I know is off to Boston or somewhere on business next week, and
reckons he was entirely unwelcome and treated with intense suspicion
just getting to the stage of the visa interview, never mind actually
going...

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Funnily enough, a chap I know went to Boston a couple of months ago,
for a six-month fellowship at Harvard. Couldn't get a visa appointment
in London within any reasonable time-scale so had to fly to Belfast
and stay overnight. The interview took about two minutes. So a total
waste of time, money and carbon emissions (this is a guy who cycles/
trains everywhere and doesn't have a car, so was annoyed by this) -
but at the end of the day, once he got through all the bureaucratic
obstructionism, he was welcomed with open arms. So, a bit of both.
They risk affecting their universities as well as the economy.
Tim

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

On 22 May, 19:33, 1506 wrote:
On May 22, 3:45*am, wrote:



On 21 May, 19:11, 1506 wrote:

On May 21, 10:19*am, The Real Doctor
wrote:

On 21 May, 17:05, 1506 wrote:

On May 21, 7:55 am, The Real Doctor wrote:
Nope. People with a financial interest in having it built have
proposed a very modest benefits to cost ration. Even then, we'd do
rather better, as I recall, sticking the money in a building society
account.
One wonders if you will still think this is true when Europe's
fianancial center has moved to Frankfurt?

Ridiculous scaremongering. If Europe's financial centre moves to
Frankfurt, it won't be because the commute in from Maidenhead hasn't
been reduced by ten minutes.

Ian

Allow me to appraise you of some facts.

Many US companies favor London as a European base of operations.

For several years now US companies have been under the thumb of a
nasty piece of Legislation called Sarbanes Oxley. *One partial
solution to this is to de-list on the US stock exchanges and list on
an oversea exchange. *London has until now been the exchange of
choice.

Another method of reducing the impact of state and federal legislation
is the creation of upstream, offshore holding companies. *Again
England & Wales is the obvious choice. *Although Dubai seems to be
competing well for offshore incorporation and banking.

Against these advantages US CEOs and CFOs have to consider the
following:

London's expensive second rate hotels.

Dumb UK airport rules. *One can deplane with two pieces of hand
luggage, but enplane with only one.

If poor airports are capable of wrecking an economy then the US is
screwed. In my experience any foreigner is made to feel entirely
unwelcome and treated with intense suspicion as you enter the country,
thanks to those nice chaps at the Department of Homeland Security. *I
don't think it's dawned on the US government how much that's going to
put people off studying or working in the states, which over the
medium term is going to do some pretty nasty things to its economy

You are confusing airports and their employees, with US federal
government functionaries. *At some airports, some USCIS enforcers can
be brusque. *These people are outwith the control of the airport.


Doesn't matter even one little bit who they work for. The point is
that flying into New York or Washington is a pretty nasty experience,
and over time that's going to have an impact - just as the nightmare
that is Heathrow is putting Londons's economy at risk.

Flying into London is, by any reasonable definition, hell. But I
resent this implication that it's a one way street. The US needs to
sort its house out too.

Jonn

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

On 23 May, 10:10, TimB wrote:
On May 22, 6:15 pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:





wrote:
If poor airports are capable of wrecking an economy then the US is
screwed. In my experience any foreigner is made to feel entirely
unwelcome and treated with intense suspicion as you enter the country,
thanks to those nice chaps at the Department of Homeland Security. *I
don't think it's dawned on the US government how much that's going to
put people off studying or working in the states, which over the
medium term is going to do some pretty nasty things to its economy

Chap I know is off to Boston or somewhere on business next week, and
reckons he was entirely unwelcome and treated with intense suspicion
just getting to the stage of the visa interview, never mind actually
going...

--
Arthur Figgis * * * * * * * Surrey, UK

Funnily enough, a chap I know went to Boston a couple of months ago,
for a six-month fellowship at Harvard. Couldn't get a visa appointment
in London within any reasonable time-scale so had to fly to Belfast
and stay overnight. The interview took about two minutes. So a total
waste of time, money and carbon emissions (this is a guy who cycles/
trains everywhere and doesn't have a car, so was annoyed by this) -
but at the end of the day, once he got through all the bureaucratic
obstructionism, he was welcomed with open arms. So, a bit of both.
*They risk affecting their universities as well as the economy.


Over the long term, the universities are the economy - one of the
reasons the US has done so well over the last century is the amount
poured into practical academic research. The fact that Harvard and
Stanford attract bright people from all over the world has done
wonders for the US economy. The fact that most European universities
don't is one of the reasons Europe's a mess.

Whoever said that the US authorities don't care about any of this is
right. But give it twenty years and they'll wish they had.

Jonn

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

wrote:

The fact that Harvard and Stanford attract bright people from all over
the world has done wonders for the US economy. The fact that most
European universities don't is one of the reasons Europe's a mess.

That's a fair assessment, except for two things - first Europe's
universities contain many bright people, and second, Europe isn't a
mess.

In matters that are on topic for this group, it's the US that is in a
mess.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683725.html
(55012 (Class 122) at Stratford-upon-Avon, 6 Aug 1982)

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

On 23 May, 11:29, "R.C. Payne" wrote:
Over the long term, the universities are the economy - one of the
reasons the US has done so well over the last century is the amount
poured into practical academic research. The fact that Harvard and
Stanford attract bright people from all over the world has done
wonders for the US economy. The fact that most European universities
don't is one of the reasons Europe's a mess.

Sitting here at my desk in a UK university, looking at the graduate
students, I'd say that we have about 10% UK nationals, about 50% other
EU nationals, about 15% Commonwealth and most of the remainder are far
eastern (Korea and China seem to dominate), though a few interesting
others. I'd say we're doing a pretty good job of attracting people from
around the globe.

Generally UK universities are considered separately from mainland
European universities in this context (because ours are unequivocally
the best outside the US, largely because we have a national merit-
based admissions system rather than a "anyone who passes their A-
levels can go to their local Comprehensive University" system.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

On 22 May, 20:06, 1506 wrote:
On May 22, 3:40*am, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Wed, 21 May 2008, 1506 wrote:

You need to get out more.

You need to shut up more.

Manners.

"You need to get out more" was rather rude too, old boy. We don't need
another Polson here.

Ian

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

John B wrote:
On 23 May, 11:29, "R.C. Payne" wrote:
Over the long term, the universities are the economy - one of the
reasons the US has done so well over the last century is the amount
poured into practical academic research. The fact that Harvard and
Stanford attract bright people from all over the world has done
wonders for the US economy. The fact that most European universities
don't is one of the reasons Europe's a mess.
Sitting here at my desk in a UK university, looking at the graduate
students, I'd say that we have about 10% UK nationals, about 50% other
EU nationals, about 15% Commonwealth and most of the remainder are far
eastern (Korea and China seem to dominate), though a few interesting
others. I'd say we're doing a pretty good job of attracting people from
around the globe.

Generally UK universities are considered separately from mainland
European universities in this context (because ours are unequivocally
the best outside the US, largely because we have a national merit-
based admissions system rather than a "anyone who passes their A-
levels can go to their local Comprehensive University" system.

While I can see that applying at undergraduate level (where UK students
definitely dominate), I'm not sure that's as relevent at a graduate
level. Most of the graduate students here did their undergrad in their
home country and have only come here for the next bit.

Robin

PS perhaps I was a little pessimistic on my previous numbers, perhaps
it's more like 20% UK / 40% EU

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

"Michael Hoffman" wrote in message

wrote:
On 22 May, 19:33, 1506 wrote:
On May 22, 3:45 am, wrote:



On 21 May, 19:11, 1506 wrote:
On May 21, 10:19 am, The Real Doctor
wrote:
On 21 May, 17:05, 1506 wrote:
On May 21, 7:55 am, The Real Doctor
wrote:
Nope. People with a financial interest in having it built have
proposed a very modest benefits to cost ration. Even then,
we'd do rather better, as I recall, sticking the money in a
building society account.
One wonders if you will still think this is true when Europe's
fianancial center has moved to Frankfurt?
Ridiculous scaremongering. If Europe's financial centre moves to
Frankfurt, it won't be because the commute in from Maidenhead
hasn't been reduced by ten minutes.
Ian
Allow me to appraise you of some facts.
Many US companies favor London as a European base of operations.
For several years now US companies have been under the thumb of a
nasty piece of Legislation called Sarbanes Oxley. One partial
solution to this is to de-list on the US stock exchanges and list
on an oversea exchange. London has until now been the exchange of
choice.
Another method of reducing the impact of state and federal
legislation is the creation of upstream, offshore holding
companies. Again England & Wales is the obvious choice. Although
Dubai seems to be competing well for offshore
incorporation and banking. Against these advantages US CEOs and
CFOs have to consider the
following:
London's expensive second rate hotels.
Dumb UK airport rules. One can deplane with two pieces of hand
luggage, but enplane with only one.
If poor airports are capable of wrecking an economy then the US is
screwed. In my experience any foreigner is made to feel entirely
unwelcome and treated with intense suspicion as you enter the
country, thanks to those nice chaps at the Department of Homeland
Security. I don't think it's dawned on the US government how much
that's going to put people off studying or working in the states,
which over the medium term is going to do some pretty nasty things
to its economy
You are confusing airports and their employees, with US federal
government functionaries. At some airports, some USCIS enforcers
can be brusque. These people are outwith the control of the
airport.

Doesn't matter even one little bit who they work for. The point is
that flying into New York or Washington is a pretty nasty experience,
and over time that's going to have an impact - just as the nightmare
that is Heathrow is putting Londons's economy at risk.

I hate to say it, but it's not that nasty for U.S. citizens. Heathrow
is nasty for everyone.

Good point -- the immigration queues for EU arrivals at Heathrow are now
as long as non-EU arrivals. Not so long ago, EU arrivals had almost no
queues. Of course, it doesn't make much difference overall, as baggage
comes through so slowly at Heathrow, that you just waste the time in the
immigration queue, instead of in the baggage hall.

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

On 23 May, 12:28, "Recliner" wrote:
"Michael Hoffman" wrote in message







wrote:
On 22 May, 19:33, 1506 wrote:
On May 22, 3:45 am, wrote:

On 21 May, 19:11, 1506 wrote:
On May 21, 10:19 am, The Real Doctor
wrote:
On 21 May, 17:05, 1506 wrote:
On May 21, 7:55 am, The Real Doctor
wrote:
Nope. People with a financial interest in having it built have
proposed a very modest benefits to cost ration. Even then,
we'd do rather better, as I recall, sticking the money in a
building society account.
One wonders if you will still think this is true when Europe's
fianancial center has moved to Frankfurt?
Ridiculous scaremongering. If Europe's financial centre moves to
Frankfurt, it won't be because the commute in from Maidenhead
hasn't been reduced by ten minutes.
Ian
Allow me to appraise you of some facts.
Many US companies favor London as a European base of operations.
For several years now US companies have been under the thumb of a
nasty piece of Legislation called Sarbanes Oxley. *One partial
solution to this is to de-list on the US stock exchanges and list
on an oversea exchange. *London has until now been the exchange of
choice.
Another method of reducing the impact of state and federal
legislation is the creation of upstream, offshore holding
companies. *Again England & Wales is the obvious choice. Although
Dubai seems to be competing well for offshore
incorporation and banking. Against these advantages US CEOs and
CFOs have to consider the
following:
London's expensive second rate hotels.
Dumb UK airport rules. *One can deplane with two pieces of hand
luggage, but enplane with only one.
If poor airports are capable of wrecking an economy then the US is
screwed. In my experience any foreigner is made to feel entirely
unwelcome and treated with intense suspicion as you enter the
country, thanks to those nice chaps at the Department of Homeland
Security. *I don't think it's dawned on the US government how much
that's going to put people off studying or working in the states,
which over the medium term is going to do some pretty nasty things
to its economy
You are confusing airports and their employees, with US federal
government functionaries. *At some airports, some USCIS enforcers
can be brusque. *These people are outwith the control of the
airport.

Doesn't matter even one little bit who they work for. The point is
that flying into New York or Washington is a pretty nasty experience,
and over time that's going to have an impact - just as the nightmare
that is Heathrow is putting Londons's economy at risk.

I hate to say it, but it's not that nasty for U.S. citizens. Heathrow
is nasty for everyone.

Good point -- the immigration queues for EU arrivals at Heathrow are now
as long as non-EU arrivals. Not so long ago, EU arrivals had almost no
queues. Of course, it doesn't make much difference overall, as baggage
comes through so slowly at Heathrow, that you just waste the time in the
immigration queue, instead of in the baggage hall.


Biggest thing they could do, I suspect, would be to break up BAA. The
idea that a monopoly was fine as long as it was a private monopoly has
turned out to be just as ludicrous as it sounds.

Jonn

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

wrote in message

On 23 May, 12:28, "Recliner" wrote:
"Michael Hoffman" wrote in message




Doesn't matter even one little bit who they work for. The point is
that flying into New York or Washington is a pretty nasty
experience, and over time that's going to have an impact - just as
the nightmare that is Heathrow is putting Londons's economy at
risk.

I hate to say it, but it's not that nasty for U.S. citizens.
Heathrow is nasty for everyone.

Good point -- the immigration queues for EU arrivals at Heathrow are
now as long as non-EU arrivals. Not so long ago, EU arrivals had
almost no queues. Of course, it doesn't make much difference
overall, as baggage comes through so slowly at Heathrow, that you
just waste the time in the immigration queue, instead of in the
baggage hall.


Biggest thing they could do, I suspect, would be to break up BAA. The
idea that a monopoly was fine as long as it was a private monopoly has
turned out to be just as ludicrous as it sounds.

Absolutely, BAA should be broken up, to create at least two owners of
the three major London airports (of course, Luton and City airport
already have different owners), and also to split the ownership of
Edinburgh and Glasgow airports. I assume that the reason that BAA was
privatised in one piece (by the Tories) was purely to maximise the sale
proceeds.

But, to be fair, the long immigration queues aren't BAA's fault --
that's down to the government. BAA has at least created halls large
enough to accommodate them in some of the terminals. And Heathrow does
offer fast track departure and arrival lines, unlike most US airports.

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

On May 23, 4:05*am, The Real Doctor wrote:
On 22 May, 20:06, 1506 wrote:

On May 22, 3:40*am, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Wed, 21 May 2008, 1506 wrote:
You need to get out more.

You need to shut up more.

Manners.

"You need to get out more" was rather rude too, old boy. We don't need
another Polson here.

Ian

Well Dr. Ian,

You certainly know how to grab a guy’s attention. The last thing I
want to do is look into a mirror and see THAT sort of anger.

Mr. Anderson, please know that I regret my acerbic response to your
post.

Adrian

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

On May 23, 4:05*am, The Real Doctor wrote:
On 22 May, 20:06, 1506 wrote:

On May 22, 3:40*am, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Wed, 21 May 2008, 1506 wrote:
You need to get out more.

You need to shut up more.

Manners.

"You need to get out more" was rather rude too, old boy. We don't need
another Polson here.

Ian



Well Dr. Ian,

You certainly know how to grab a guy’s attention. The last thing I
want to do is look into a mirror and see THAT sort of anger.


Richard J, please know that I regret my acerbic response to your
post. I withdraw it.


Adrian

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

1506 wrote:
On May 23, 4:05 am, The Real Doctor wrote:
On 22 May, 20:06, 1506 wrote:

On May 22, 3:40 am, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Wed, 21 May 2008, 1506 wrote:
You need to get out more.

You need to shut up more.

Manners.

"You need to get out more" was rather rude too, old boy. We don't
need another Polson here.

Ian

Well Dr. Ian,

You certainly know how to grab a guy’s attention. The last thing I
want to do is look into a mirror and see THAT sort of anger.


Richard J, please know that I regret my acerbic response to your
post. I withdraw it.

Thanks, Adrian. Have a nice weekend.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

TimB wrote:
On May 22, 6:15 pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
wrote:
If poor airports are capable of wrecking an economy then the US is
screwed. In my experience any foreigner is made to feel entirely
unwelcome and treated with intense suspicion as you enter the country,
thanks to those nice chaps at the Department of Homeland Security. I
don't think it's dawned on the US government how much that's going to
put people off studying or working in the states, which over the
medium term is going to do some pretty nasty things to its economy
Chap I know is off to Boston or somewhere on business next week, and
reckons he was entirely unwelcome and treated with intense suspicion
just getting to the stage of the visa interview, never mind actually
going...

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Funnily enough, a chap I know went to Boston a couple of months ago,
for a six-month fellowship at Harvard. Couldn't get a visa appointment
in London within any reasonable time-scale so had to fly to Belfast
and stay overnight. The interview took about two minutes. So a total
waste of time, money and carbon emissions (this is a guy who cycles/
trains everywhere and doesn't have a car, so was annoyed by this) -
but at the end of the day, once he got through all the bureaucratic
obstructionism, he was welcomed with open arms. So, a bit of both.
They risk affecting their universities as well as the economy.
Tim

The last time I went to the States, only about a year and a half ago,
you didn't need a visa. Has this changed?

--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

In message , at 07:35:52 on Sat, 24
May 2008, Martin Edwards remarked:
Funnily enough, a chap I know went to Boston a couple of months ago,
for a six-month fellowship at Harvard. Couldn't get a visa appointment
in London within any reasonable time-scale so had to fly to Belfast
and stay overnight.

The last time I went to the States, only about a year and a half ago,
you didn't need a visa. Has this changed?

Were you going as a tourist or to a business meeting, and for no more
than three months?

Those are the usual qualifications for not needing a Visa.
--
Roland Perry

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

On 24 May, 00:27, 1506 wrote:

Richard J, please know that I regret my acerbic response to your
post. *I withdraw it.

Coo, isn't this newsgroup getting all polite? I like it - seriously!

Adrian

A Dr. Ian.

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

In message , Roland Perry
writes
In message , at 07:35:52 on Sat, 24
May 2008, Martin Edwards remarked:
Funnily enough, a chap I know went to Boston a couple of months ago,
for a six-month fellowship at Harvard. Couldn't get a visa appointment
in London within any reasonable time-scale so had to fly to Belfast
and stay overnight.

The last time I went to the States, only about a year and a half ago,
you didn't need a visa. Has this changed?

Were you going as a tourist or to a business meeting, and for no more
than three months?

Those are the usual qualifications for not needing a Visa.

AND being a citizen of one of

Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium Brunei, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg,
Monaco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino,
Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom

BUT not

holding a passport indicating that the bearer is a British Subject,
British Dependent Territories Citizen, British Overseas Citizen, British
National (Overseas) Citizen, or British Protected Person

AND

travelling on a valid, machine readable or e-passport with an electronic
chip

PLUS

if entering the United States by air or sea, holding a return or onward
ticket and entering the United States aboard an air or sea carrier that
has agreed to participate in the visa waiver program

OR

if entering the United States by land from Canada or Mexico, in
possession of a completed form I-94W, issued by the immigration
authorities at the port of entry, and a $6.00 fee, payable only in U.S.
dollars

AND NOT

being a person who has been arrested, even if the arrest did not result
in a criminal conviction, with criminal records, (the Rehabilitation of
Offenders Act does not apply to U.S. visa law), has certain serious
communicable illnesses, who has been refused admission into, or has been
deported from the United States, or has previously overstayed on the
visa waiver programme

So there are many reasons why someone might need a visa.
--
Goalie of the Century

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

On Fri, 23 May 2008 02:25:49 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Flying into London is, by any reasonable definition, hell.

No. Flying into *Heathrow* is, by any reasonable definition, hell.
There are, however, many other airports in the London area, and all of
them are orders of magnitude better.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

In message , at 09:26:06 on Sat, 24 May
2008, Goalie of the Century remarked:

Funnily enough, a chap I know went to Boston a couple of months ago,
for a six-month fellowship at Harvard. Couldn't get a visa appointment
in London within any reasonable time-scale so had to fly to Belfast
and stay overnight.

The last time I went to the States, only about a year and a half ago,
you didn't need a visa. Has this changed?

Were you going as a tourist or to a business meeting, and for no more
than three months?

Those are the usual qualifications for not needing a Visa.

AND

[snip lots of unusual things for someone living in UK]

So there are many reasons why someone might need a visa.

The most usual being that they want to study, to work, or to live there.
--
Roland Perry

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

In message , at 09:13:26 on Sat,
24 May 2008, Neil Williams remarked:
Flying into London is, by any reasonable definition, hell.

No. Flying into *Heathrow* is, by any reasonable definition, hell.
There are, however, many other airports in the London area, and all of
them are orders of magnitude better.

I'm not sure Gatwick's much better, especially if your flight is using
the "joke" north terminal extension (which they seem to be so ashamed of
I have tried half a dozen sites and none of them even show it) or you
are going through the South terminal security.

--
Roland Perry

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message

In message , at 09:26:06 on Sat, 24 May
2008, Goalie of the Century remarked:

Funnily enough, a chap I know went to Boston a couple of months
ago, for a six-month fellowship at Harvard. Couldn't get a visa
appointment in London within any reasonable time-scale so had to
fly to Belfast and stay overnight.

The last time I went to the States, only about a year and a half
ago, you didn't need a visa. Has this changed?

Were you going as a tourist or to a business meeting, and for no
more than three months?

Those are the usual qualifications for not needing a Visa.

AND

[snip lots of unusual things for someone living in UK]

So there are many reasons why someone might need a visa.

The most usual being that they want to study, to work, or to live
there.

I think journos need visas, unlike most other people going to the US on
business.

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

In message , at 11:20:22 on
Sat, 24 May 2008, Recliner remarked:
The most usual being that they want to study, to work, or to live
there.

I think journos need visas, unlike most other people going to the US on
business.

One reason for that is journalists are *working* when they are in the
USA. That's why I was quite precise when I talked about "business
meetings" (also "attending Conferences" is OK). I've seen reports of
people being prevented from entering the USA to give a training course,
for example, which is also too close to "working".
--
Roland Perry

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

In message
(Neil Williams) wrote:

On Fri, 23 May 2008 02:25:49 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Flying into London is, by any reasonable definition, hell.

No. Flying into *Heathrow* is, by any reasonable definition, hell.
There are, however, many other airports in the London area, and all of
them are orders of magnitude better.


No they're not, Gatwick is about as bad as Heathrow for a start.

--
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
 

On Sat, 24 May 2008 13:00:07 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

No they're not, Gatwick is about as bad as Heathrow for a start.

Fair point. City (best), Luton and Stansted (despite being a BAA
airport) are rather good, though, in comparison. There's a serious
case to be made if KLM or NWA serve your long-haul destination from
AMS for flying KLM Cityhopper from LCY to AMS and connecting instead
of flying direct from LHR.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message

In message , at 11:20:22 on
Sat, 24 May 2008, Recliner remarked:
The most usual being that they want to study, to work, or to live
there.

I think journos need visas, unlike most other people going to the US
on business.

One reason for that is journalists are *working* when they are in the
USA. That's why I was quite precise when I talked about "business
meetings" (also "attending Conferences" is OK). I've seen reports of
people being prevented from entering the USA to give a training
course, for example, which is also too close to "working".

It's a bit ambiguous, isn't it? Is attending a conference or business
meeting not "working"? How about attending a conference where you may
also be speaking?

Also, in the olden days (when I first visited the US, back in the
1970s), getting a US visa was fairly painless (and mandatory). Now it's
optional (unless you're 'working,' whatever that might mean), but very
tedious to obtain. The odd thing is that, in my 30 years of visiting
the US (between once and seven times a year, always on business), the
immigration staff actually got friendlier after the introduction of
fingerprints and photos. These days, I actually spend less time with the
US immigration officer than 15-20 years ago.

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

In message , at 20:13:51 on
Sat, 24 May 2008, Recliner remarked:
The most usual being that they want to study, to work, or to live
there.

I think journos need visas, unlike most other people going to the US
on business.

One reason for that is journalists are *working* when they are in the
USA. That's why I was quite precise when I talked about "business
meetings" (also "attending Conferences" is OK). I've seen reports of
people being prevented from entering the USA to give a training
course, for example, which is also too close to "working".

It's a bit ambiguous, isn't it? Is attending a conference or business
meeting not "working"? How about attending a conference where you may
also be speaking?

Immigration rules are a bit like that. Underlying them is the concept of
protecting jobs, so a sales presentation for a foreign company is more
likely to be acceptable than going over to give a sales presentation for
a local company.

Also, in the olden days (when I first visited the US, back in the
1970s), getting a US visa was fairly painless (and mandatory).

Yes I have (had) one of those.

Now it's
optional (unless you're 'working,' whatever that might mean), but very
tedious to obtain. The odd thing is that, in my 30 years of visiting
the US (between once and seven times a year, always on business), the
immigration staff actually got friendlier after the introduction of
fingerprints and photos. These days, I actually spend less time with the
US immigration officer than 15-20 years ago.

Maybe that's because they believe they already have enough information
about you, whereas previously people arriving were virtually a clean
slate.
--
Roland Perry

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

Recliner wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message

In message , at 11:20:22 on
Sat, 24 May 2008, Recliner remarked:

I think journos need visas, unlike most other people going to the US
on business.
One reason for that is journalists are *working* when they are in the
USA. That's why I was quite precise when I talked about "business
meetings" (also "attending Conferences" is OK). I've seen reports of
people being prevented from entering the USA to give a training
course, for example, which is also too close to "working".

It's a bit ambiguous, isn't it? Is attending a conference or business
meeting not "working"? How about attending a conference where you may
also be speaking?

As long as you are not getting paid specifically in the US for attending
the conference or delivering said speech, I believe you do not need a
visa. Those are pretty much reciprocal arrangements between US and the
Visa Waiver countries, and the same rules apply in the reverse
direction, except oddly for going to Belgium, where technically if a US
citizen goes for a business meeting and stays more that 7 days they are
supposed to get a visa. But AFAIK that rule is mostly ignored. and has
probably been rescinded by Belgium since when I became aware of it a
year or two ago.

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message

In message , at 20:13:51 on


Now it's
optional (unless you're 'working,' whatever that might mean), but
very tedious to obtain. The odd thing is that, in my 30 years of
visiting the US (between once and seven times a year, always on
business), the immigration staff actually got friendlier after the
introduction of fingerprints and photos. These days, I actually
spend less time with the US immigration officer than 15-20 years ago.

Maybe that's because they believe they already have enough information
about you, whereas previously people arriving were virtually a clean
slate.

Yes, I'm sure that must be the explanation. Once the real-time finger
print scan has cleared, they stop bothering to ask me any more
questions. Presumably the computer tells them that I'm a fairly regular
(but not too frequent) visitor who doesn't overstay or commit any
crimes, so they just smile and welcome me. Before finger print system, I
had to answer at least a couple of questions.

Of course, South Africa is now even more relaxed -- no visa required, no
forms to fill in, no questions asked, no finger prints or pics. As a
British citizen, it's now quicker to clear arrivals in Jo'burg than in
London.

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 07:35:52 on Sat, 24
May 2008, Martin Edwards remarked:
Funnily enough, a chap I know went to Boston a couple of months ago,
for a six-month fellowship at Harvard. Couldn't get a visa appointment
in London within any reasonable time-scale so had to fly to Belfast
and stay overnight.

The last time I went to the States, only about a year and a half ago,
you didn't need a visa. Has this changed?

Were you going as a tourist or to a business meeting, and for no more
than three months?

Those are the usual qualifications for not needing a Visa.

Tourist. Thanks, that's answered it.

--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

Goalie of the Century wrote:
In message , Roland Perry
writes
In message , at 07:35:52 on Sat, 24
May 2008, Martin Edwards remarked:
Funnily enough, a chap I know went to Boston a couple of months ago,
for a six-month fellowship at Harvard. Couldn't get a visa appointment
in London within any reasonable time-scale so had to fly to Belfast
and stay overnight.

The last time I went to the States, only about a year and a half ago,
you didn't need a visa. Has this changed?

Were you going as a tourist or to a business meeting, and for no more
than three months?

Those are the usual qualifications for not needing a Visa.

AND being a citizen of one of

Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium Brunei, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg,
Monaco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino,
Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom

BUT not

holding a passport indicating that the bearer is a British Subject,
British Dependent Territories Citizen, British Overseas Citizen, British
National (Overseas) Citizen, or British Protected Person

AND

travelling on a valid, machine readable or e-passport with an electronic
chip

PLUS

if entering the United States by air or sea, holding a return or onward
ticket and entering the United States aboard an air or sea carrier that
has agreed to participate in the visa waiver program

OR

if entering the United States by land from Canada or Mexico, in
possession of a completed form I-94W, issued by the immigration
authorities at the port of entry, and a $6.00 fee, payable only in U.S.
dollars

AND NOT

being a person who has been arrested, even if the arrest did not result
in a criminal conviction, with criminal records, (the Rehabilitation of
Offenders Act does not apply to U.S. visa law), has certain serious
communicable illnesses, who has been refused admission into, or has been
deported from the United States, or has previously overstayed on the
visa waiver programme

So there are many reasons why someone might need a visa.

Civis Britannicus sum. Thanks.

--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

Recliner wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message

In message , at 11:20:22 on
Sat, 24 May 2008, Recliner remarked:
The most usual being that they want to study, to work, or to live
there.
I think journos need visas, unlike most other people going to the US
on business.
One reason for that is journalists are *working* when they are in the
USA. That's why I was quite precise when I talked about "business
meetings" (also "attending Conferences" is OK). I've seen reports of
people being prevented from entering the USA to give a training
course, for example, which is also too close to "working".

It's a bit ambiguous, isn't it? Is attending a conference or business
meeting not "working"? How about attending a conference where you may
also be speaking?

Also, in the olden days (when I first visited the US, back in the
1970s), getting a US visa was fairly painless (and mandatory). Now it's
optional (unless you're 'working,' whatever that might mean), but very
tedious to obtain. The odd thing is that, in my 30 years of visiting
the US (between once and seven times a year, always on business), the
immigration staff actually got friendlier after the introduction of
fingerprints and photos. These days, I actually spend less time with the
US immigration officer than 15-20 years ago.


I had to get one back in 1977, but it was unlimited. I actually went
across the border at Laredo and back again.

--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

Neil Williams wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2008 02:25:49 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Flying into London is, by any reasonable definition, hell.

No. Flying into *Heathrow* is, by any reasonable definition, hell.
There are, however, many other airports in the London area, and all of
them are orders of magnitude better.

Neil

I imagine you have to be of high net worth to use City Airport. 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.

--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

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".
--
Roland Perry

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

On Sun, 25 May 2008 07:46:19 +0100, Martin Edwards
wrote:

I imagine you have to be of high net worth to use City Airport.

You'd be surprised. Both European fares and those via AMS to wider
destinations, while not comparable with low-costs, are often similar
to or even lower than those from LHR direct.

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.

This is true, though both are accessible to London and the lack of
hassle compared with using LHR make it worth going to them.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

On May 25, 7:53*am, 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".

Which is the second?

There I was thinking it was Biggin Hill. At least that's in
London ...

I am sure I remember a colleague having to fly from there at some
point. I think it's mainly corporate, chartered, air-taxi and other
one-off things.

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

On Sun, 25 May 2008 03:19:14 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

Which is the second?

Airwick Gatport, one would presume. (There is LCY, but while it is
*the* civilised way to fly from London, and not all that expensive
either, it doesn't carry high volumes of passengers, nor would it be
any good if it did).

There I was thinking it was Biggin Hill. At least that's in
London ...

;)

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

"Martin Edwards" wrote in message

Recliner wrote:

Also, in the olden days (when I first visited the US, back in the
1970s), getting a US visa was fairly painless (and mandatory). Now
it's optional (unless you're 'working,' whatever that might mean),
but very tedious to obtain. The odd thing is that, in my 30 years
of visiting the US (between once and seven times a year, always on
business), the immigration staff actually got friendlier after the
introduction of fingerprints and photos. These days, I actually
spend less time with the US immigration officer than 15-20 years ago.


I had to get one back in 1977, but it was unlimited. I actually went
across the border at Laredo and back again.

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

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

On May 25, 11:49 am, "Recliner" wrote:
"Martin Edwards" wrote in message



Recliner wrote:
Also, in the olden days (when I first visited the US, back in the
1970s), getting a US visa was fairly painless (and mandatory). Now
it's optional (unless you're 'working,' whatever that might mean),
but very tedious to obtain. The odd thing is that, in my 30 years
of visiting the US (between once and seven times a year, always on
business), the immigration staff actually got friendlier after the
introduction of fingerprints and photos. These days, I actually
spend less time with the US immigration officer than 15-20 years ago.

I had to get one back in 1977, but it was unlimited. I actually went
across the border at Laredo and back again.

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

That's interesting - I thought the deal used to be that if you had a
new passport you could also bring the old one with the unlimited visa
and it'd be accepted.
Tim