Boris Johnson is an ARRSE...er

#2
The airport, which could cost between £10billion and £30billion, could be completed in six years
So if it goes ahead, what are the chances of any of those figures being accurate?
 
#4
your second link isn't working which is the point of this thread......Fix please?
 
#5
Pluvia_Plumbum said:
More to the point, I wonder if there is any money left in the kitty, still its only taxpayers money. :D

I'm trying to work out why the taxpayers would be stumping up for something that would be run by a private company, although looking at the accounts for BAA would tell you they're heavily in debt as it is, especially after the cost and mess up that was terminal 5.
 
#7
that link isn't any better either.
 
#9
I don't think that they could get the BAA to move, especially since there is a sunken ship full of dodgy thermite in the back end of the estuary
 
#10
Thunderer said:
I don't think that they could get the BAA to move, especially since there is a sunken ship full of dodgy thermite in the back end of the estuary
Couldn't they raise some money by selling tickets, then blowing it up? got to be worth a tenner a seat :D
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#11
Is it not enough that Boris takes us seriously? Airport on no, he's one of ours! We own him!

That aside - makes perfect sense to me.
 
#12
Angular

Good fireworks display, but would do quite a lot of damage to Sheerness apparently.

Link.

In 1970, government tests on the site showed a blast would hurl a 1,000ft wide column of water, mud, metal and munitions almost 10,000ft into the air.

The shock of the blast would shatter almost every window in Sheerness and damage buildings.

The explosion would also generate a 16ft high wave that could sink a small craft.
 
#13
Thunderer said:
Angular

Good fireworks display, but would do quite a lot of damage to Sheerness apparently.

Link.

In 1970, government tests on the site showed a blast would hurl a 1,000ft wide column of water, mud, metal and munitions almost 10,000ft into the air.

The shock of the blast would shatter almost every window in Sheerness and damage buildings.

The explosion would also generate a 16ft high wave that could sink a small craft.
I wouldn't worry about it if I were you, for the following reasons:

(1) The ship has more or less broken up and is sinking deep into the sandbank, taking the remaining nasties with it (much was offloaded).

(2) It is Sheerness after all.

(3) The threat of explosion is so low now that on the rare occasion when a fisherman pulls a bomb up in a fishing net it is no longer considered dangerous. For some years the Sheerness fire station has dealt with such things by simply rolling the bomb off the deck of a fishing boat back into the sea.

(4) It is Sheerness after all.
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
#14
And who remembers the scheme to build an airport on Maplin Sands, wound up in the seventies? After vast expense, of course.
 
#15
abeaumont said:
Thunderer said:
Angular

Good fireworks display, but would do quite a lot of damage to Sheerness apparently.

Link.

In 1970, government tests on the site showed a blast would hurl a 1,000ft wide column of water, mud, metal and munitions almost 10,000ft into the air.

The shock of the blast would shatter almost every window in Sheerness and damage buildings.

The explosion would also generate a 16ft high wave that could sink a small craft.
I wouldn't worry about it if I were you, for the following reasons:

(1) The ship has more or less broken up and is sinking deep into the sandbank, taking the remaining nasties with it (much was offloaded).

(2) It is Sheerness after all.

(3) The threat of explosion is so low now that on the rare occasion when a fisherman pulls a bomb up in a fishing net it is no longer considered dangerous. For some years the Sheerness fire station has dealt with such things by simply rolling the bomb off the deck of a fishing boat back into the sea.

(4) It is Sheerness after all.
Do they have windows in Sheerness? Pikey cnuts.
 
#16
k13eod said:
Do they have windows in Sheerness? Pikey cnuts.
Dunno, you been round there lately? :wink:
 
#17
I've had the misfortune of speaking to a few people from sheerness.
They all seemed like the proverbial todger, "stuck up cnuts".

Bring on the explosion :D.
 
#18
Personally I think that the building of a new airport in the thames is the best thing to come out of London in the last 11 years.

Regardless of where the cash comes from it has to be the best solution. Heathrow is a dump and is costing the UK economy billions as people skip London and go via Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt.

Building a new runway at heathrow would not only involve coughing up hundreds of millions in compensation for all those whose houses and business's would need to be bought and demolished, but it would also create even more chaos on an already overloaded segment of the M25, M40, M4 and M3.

It's a fantastic opportunity to purpose build a facility for the future and not bastardise something that has never been up to the job anyway.
 
#19
Shouldn´t be that much of a drama, look at what happened in Dubai, with teh "palm Tree" and "the World" I think there is a third one too.
´
Much better to push the air ports out to sea, and get a grip of the rail network in land. It doesn´t have to be just a airport, it could also handle ferries.
 
#20
Slightly off topic but a suggestion for Boris if you're reading.

I was in Victoria, British Columbia the other month. They have a regular air-shuttle service between Victoria and Seattle of floating planes that take off from the bays. The thought crossed my mind it would be a nice idea for a similar service between London and Paris. Taking off from the Thames, say by Westminster Bridge and landing on the Seine. The tourists and business-types would love it and would be the quickest and most interesting way of travelling between London and Paris, or other European capitals.

Just not sure on the logistics though, perhaps too many bridges on both rivers?
 

Latest Threads

Top