"Mait001" wrote in message
...

What retrospective legislation has been passed?

Who is not innocent till found guilty?

Your first question: all legislation that criminalises conduct
which, at the time it was performed, was not a criminal act;
e.g. Sexual Offences Act 2003,
which criminalises certain conduct restrospectively.

I didn't know that, the *******s. How can we live our lives free of fear if
we never know what the *******s are going to retrospectively criminalise
next? I hope the next Tory Prime Minister makes the passing of retrospective
legislation retrospectively illegal, and then locks up Blair and every MP
who "aye'd" that bill. The only purpose of retrospective legislation is to
please bullying politicians who get a kick out of making the general public
afraid.

Your second question: the same Act is an example: people
(usually men) can now be subjected to a Sexual Offences
Prevention Order even if acquitted of the offence with which
they have been charged. The Order can prohibit anything
from travelling on public transport to owning or using a
telephone, camera, computer, television: there is no
exhaustive list so the Court an literally order anything at all.

Can't both of these points be overturned in the European Court Of Human
Rights?

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

John Rowland wrote
"Mait001" wrote
[...]
Your first question: all legislation that criminalises conduct
which, at the time it was performed, was not a criminal act;
e.g. Sexual Offences Act 2003,
which criminalises certain conduct restrospectively.

I didn't know that, the *******s. How can we live our lives free of
fear if

nobody else did either perhaps ?

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/legislation/uk-expa.htm

we never know what the *******s are going to retrospectively
criminalise
next? I hope the next Tory Prime Minister makes the passing of
retrospective
legislation retrospectively illegal, and then locks up Blair and
every MP
who "aye'd" that bill. The only purpose of retrospective legislation
is to
please bullying politicians who get a kick out of making the general
public
afraid.

Sure you havn't got a penkife in your briefcase ?

Bullying pressure groups rather.

Your second question: the same Act is an example: people
(usually men) can now be subjected to a Sexual Offences
Prevention Order even if acquitted of the offence with which
they have been charged. The Order can prohibit anything
from travelling on public transport to owning or using a
telephone, camera, computer, television: there is no
exhaustive list so the Court an literally order anything at all.

Strange, it has been possible since 1485 or so to bind over a acquitted
person 'to keep the peace' and there is no "exhaustive list" of
conditions that may be imposed there either (was used against 'peeping
toms', so same subject matter).

Can't both of these points be overturned in the European Court Of
Human
Rights?

If they are indeed ex post facto criminal laws then yes (or declared
'incompatible with the ECHR' under the Human Rights Act 1998 by our
appeal courts as per this month's example).

As per my other post I suspect that what the group's barrister and the
previous and new chairman of the Bar Council say is more sound bite
with ten minutes thought and no historical memory than contribution to
public discussion with citations and references.

The latest wish to jail anyone with a penknife (no 3 inch blade
exception) is a bigger threat to the public.

--
Mike D

Mait001 wrote:

It is also the complete lack of foresight and advance preparation when
building the original line, and then the T4 line that irks me.

There are many places with an irkable lack of foresight and advance
preparation (most notably Cutty Sark, where they built the platform too
short) but this is not one of those instances. The problem at Heathrow
is that they got the forward planning WRONG - other factors resulted in
the decision to build T5, making the advance preparation useless. How
could the engineers doing the planning avoid this? Do you think they
should make provision for every conceivable future plan, even the
mutually exclusive ones?

I think that would work out far more expensive than making no advance
preparation!

Let me give you an example. In the late 1960s/early 1970s, my father was a
civil engineer working for the London Borough of Hounslow. He was responsible
for rebuilding Stanwell Road, a road connecting the Great South West Road to
the cargo area of Heathrow Airport. At the time, there were vague rumblings
about building a rail link to Heathrow from Victoria. In the end, it was
abandoned because it would have cut through Buckingham Palace Garden.

What route would it have taken?

Why was Buckingham Palace Garden considered such an obstacle?

With that possibility in mind, however, he ensured that there were culverts,
diverted drainage etc., and indeed an opening beneath Stanwell Road (that is
there, unused, to this day) so that this could have been used by the railway
line if ever it was built.

Is it just under Stanwell Road itself? Or does it continue on under
Bedfont Road?

That would have ensured virtually no disruption to
Stanwell Road had that line been built.

But wouldn't the alternative (building it with a TBM) have the same
effect?

That is called foresight and forward planning that is so patently missing now.

With the Heathrow terminals in their current locations, is their any way
this piece of forward planning could now be exploited?

TheOneKEA wrote:

Brimstone wrote:

As was done during the building and extending of every deep
tube line on the underground since the 1920s. Build the
junction round the existing tunnel whilst allowing the service
to continue running.

That is not possible at Heathrow, as Richard J. has indicated
elsewhere.

Basically, the ground is so unstable and poor that if a traditional
step-plate junction were built, the tunnels could collapse. Thus a huge
cofferdam is needed to enclose the site of the junction.

I highly doubt that TfL wanted to do this in the first place, but they
would rather close the loop than risk a collapse and entrapment of a
service train with hundreds of passengers.

Which is preferred?

The huge cofferdam, obviously - but that doesn't explain why such a long
closure is required. Aren't cofferdams relatively easy to construct?

Wasn't there a big tunnel collapse some years back, during work by Balfour
Beatty? Fortunately it was section not yet in use, or a disater might have
occurred. I seem to remember tunneling methods used by Austrian engineers were
tried, but these had worked in granite, not London Clay.
Perhaps better informed readers can recall details of the event?
I do remember a minor incident blocking the lines to Heathrow one Sunday
morning - a tower crane had come down across it - fortunately it came down in
the night, though one family living nearby had a narrow escape when the top of
the crane crashed through their roof.
Next morning I witnessed some passengers clamouring at the Acton Town ticket
office, apparently unable to comprehend that the besieged clerk could not get
the obstruction cleared at once and trains running again just for them.

In message ,
CharlesPottins writes

Wasn't there a big tunnel collapse some years back, during work by Balfour
Beatty?

Not on the Piccadilly. It was during the building of the Heathrow
Express tunnel (although it nearly affected the tube tunnel as well):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/280107.stm
--
Paul Terry