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

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.

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

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

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)

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”

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

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.

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

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.