TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

In message
, at
04:01:41 on Sun, 25 May 2008, TimB remarked:
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.

You are correct. The other story wasn't quite right.
--
Roland Perry

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

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.
--
Roland Perry

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

On Sun, 25 May 2008, Martin Edwards wrote:

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.

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

Civis Britannicus sum.

Gens una summus.

tom

--
Gotta treat 'em mean to make 'em scream.

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

On Sun, 25 May 2008, Martin Edwards wrote:

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.

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

I'm flying from Zurich to City in the summer. It was something like 20
quid more expensive than BA to Luton. Once you'd factored in the train
fare, it was only about a tenner more, and it's so much easier to get home
from there that it's worth it.

tom

--
Gotta treat 'em mean to make 'em scream.

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

On Fri, 23 May 2008, 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.

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.

And i mine to yours. There was something to it that tripped my troll
detector, and i abandoned politeness. I shall try to avoid such false
positives in the future.

tom

--
Gotta treat 'em mean to make 'em scream.

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

In message
MIG wrote:

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.

And Formula 1, Bernie Ecclestone owns it.

--
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
 

MIG wrote:
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 ...

No, its in Sussex.

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.


--
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
 

"Martin Edwards" wrote in message
...
MIG wrote:

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

No, its in Sussex.

No. Biggin Hill is in London (London Borough of Bromley), and was formerly
in Kent.

Peter

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

Martin Edwards wrote:
MIG wrote:
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 ...

No, its in Sussex.

Kent/Bromley/Greater London, according to preference.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

On Sun, 25 May 2008 07:46:19 +0100, Martin Edwards wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:

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

You'd be surprised. The last few trips I've made to Switzerland,
flying LCY - ZRH has been markedly cheaper than using the other big
London airports, and has even been cheaper than the supposedly budget
airlines' flights to other Swiss airports.

It gets a bit cramped when it's busy, though, does LCY.

--
Ross.
* Opinions are my own; my employer has disowned me again.
* Reply-to will bounce. Replace the junk-trap with my first name to e-mail me.

AD: http://www.merciacharters.co.uk for rail enthusiast tours in Europe

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

"Martin Edwards" wrote in message
...

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

Not nessaccerarly, last time I visited Munich (This January) LCY - MUC - LCY
cost 83 quid for the return...
--
Cheers, Steve.
Change jealous to sad to reply.

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

"Steve Dulieu" wrote in message
...

"Martin Edwards" wrote in message
...

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

Not nessaccerarly, last time I visited Munich (This January) LCY - MUC -
LCY cost 83 quid for the return...

And please excuse that appalling spelling...
--
Cheers, Steve.
Change jealous to sad to reply.

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

Steve Dulieu wrote:
"Steve Dulieu" wrote in message
...

Not nessaccerarly,

And please excuse that appalling spelling...

No! This time, you've gone too far! ;-)

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

"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.

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

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.

Jonn

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

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.

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

In article ,
(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.

St Pancras International to Luton Airport Parkway is 29 1/2 miles.
Liverpool St to Stansted Airport is 37 1/2 miles. But how far is it from
Luton Airport Parkway to Luton Airport?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

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
Apparently DirectGov doesn't cater for flying crows so the shorter
journeys possibly have an increasing distance error.

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

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...

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

On Tue, 27 May 2008 11:12:44 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

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...

The point is that they all *serve* London. Gatwick isn't much
closer...

Neil

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

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

On Tue, 27 May 2008 11:12:44 -0700 (PDT),
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...

Leaving aside the dishonest claims made in airline advertisements
(where they won't necessarily land you in the same country never mind
the named town), the name "XYZ airport" normally indicates the nearby
place served rather than the actual location as in practice many (if
not most) large towns haven't got anywhere to put an airport within
their own boundary. The distances above do not directly relate to the
time taken to reach London (or e.g. somewhere two or three miles from
the station in London which might take longer than the journey into
London); IIRC you'll get to London quicker from Stansted than you will
from Luton (and in the past from Heathrow?).

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

In article ,
(Charles Ellson) wrote:

On Tue, 27 May 2008 11:12:44 -0700 (PDT),
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...

Leaving aside the dishonest claims made in airline advertisements
(where they won't necessarily land you in the same country never mind
the named town), the name "XYZ airport" normally indicates the nearby
place served rather than the actual location as in practice many (if
not most) large towns haven't got anywhere to put an airport within
their own boundary. The distances above do not directly relate to the
time taken to reach London (or e.g. somewhere two or three miles from
the station in London which might take longer than the journey into
London); IIRC you'll get to London quicker from Stansted than you will
from Luton (and in the past from Heathrow?).

Can you demonstrate that? The train times are 47 minutes from Liverpool
St to Stansted and 22 minutes on the hourly fast trains from St Pancras
to Luton Airport Parkway.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
l.co.uk...

Leaving aside the dishonest claims made in airline advertisements
(where they won't necessarily land you in the same country never mind
the named town), the name "XYZ airport" normally indicates the nearby
place served rather than the actual location as in practice many (if
not most) large towns haven't got anywhere to put an airport within
their own boundary. The distances above do not directly relate to the
time taken to reach London (or e.g. somewhere two or three miles from
the station in London which might take longer than the journey into
London); IIRC you'll get to London quicker from Stansted than you
will
from Luton (and in the past from Heathrow?).

Can you demonstrate that? The train times are 47 minutes from
Liverpool
St to Stansted and 22 minutes on the hourly fast trains from St
Pancras
to Luton Airport Parkway.

For Luton you have to add on the time for the bus from the terminal to
the station. Also there is only one fast EMT an hour so unless you are
lucky the journey time will be 33 minutes

Peter Smyth

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

In message
, at
06:47:09 on Tue, 27 May 2008, remarked:
Surely Luton isn't closer to London than Stansted is? I'd have thought
they were about equi-distant.

It's closer in miles, although the train times are almost identical.

And the Luton trains are more frequent, and run through the night.
--
Roland Perry

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

In message , at 21:01:30 on Tue,
27 May 2008, Peter Smyth remarked:
For Luton you have to add on the time for the bus from the terminal to
the station.

Yes, a bus every 10 minutes, that takes about 10 minutes (they provide
the continuous round trip service with three of them I think).

Also there is only one fast EMT an hour so unless you are lucky the
journey time will be 33 minutes

Yes, it's not fair to quote the infrequent EMT time, I always use the
Thameslink^H^H FCC service as a timing benchmark.
--
Roland Perry

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

In message .uk, at
19:04:00 on Tue, 27 May 2008, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:
But how far is it from Luton Airport Parkway to Luton Airport?

1.6 miles, but it's a tortuous and hilly trip. Takes about 10 minutes.
--
Roland Perry

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

In article ,
(Peter Smyth) wrote:

IIRC you'll get to London quicker from Stansted than you
will from Luton (and in the past from Heathrow?).

Can you demonstrate that? The train times are 47 minutes from
Liverpool St to Stansted and 22 minutes on the hourly fast trains
from St Pancras to Luton Airport Parkway.

For Luton you have to add on the time for the bus from the terminal
to the station.

25 minutes, though?

Also there is only one fast EMT an hour so unless
you are lucky the journey time will be 33 minutes

And there are slower trains the Stansted.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at 21:01:30 on
Tue, 27 May 2008, Peter Smyth remarked:
For Luton you have to add on the time for the bus from the
terminal to the station.

Yes, a bus every 10 minutes, that takes about 10 minutes (they
provide the continuous round trip service with three of them I
think).

Also there is only one fast EMT an hour so unless you are lucky
the journey time will be 33 minutes

Yes, it's not fair to quote the infrequent EMT time, I always use
the Thameslink^H^H FCC service as a timing benchmark.

As not all the Stansted services are as fast as 47 minutes either, it
seems fair to compare the fastest regular service.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

In message .uk, at
23:48:00 on Tue, 27 May 2008, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:
For Luton you have to add on the time for the bus from the terminal
to the station.

25 minutes, though?

If you just miss one then you might have to wait 10 minutes for the next
one, and the trip takes up to 10 minutes. If I was catching a train
having arrived on a flight I would want to allow 20 minutes.

But putting that somewhat annoying bus trip on one side, Luton is better
connected than Stansted because there are more trains, and they run
virtually 24x7 (on the Thameslink line). Trains to the Midlands are a
bit patchy, but the line is much faster and more reliable than
Peterborough-Stansted, and runs much later into the evening.

At a glance, it also has more National Express coaches, for connections
elsewhere in the country, plus a connecting bus to Hitchin station (I
think it's still running).
--
Roland Perry

TfL £5Bn short for Crossrail
 

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". :-)