|
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
From Watford Observer 28th December 2007
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link Dear Sir, Following the petition to No 10 Downing Street regarding the advancing of funding for Croxley Rail Link, the extension of the Metropolitan Line to Watford Junction station via the disused Croxley Green spur line and serving Watford FC and the new Community Health Campus, I am writing to enquire what if anything the MP is currently doing to support this? Since Cross party support is vital to allow Herts CC (Con) and Watford Borough (Lib Dem elected Mayor) to proceed, it is my intention to set up a cross party lobby group for Croxley Link and to explore all possible options of keeping Watford Met station open with some form of either heritage or Diesel service from Chesham or Aylesbury, so as to prepare the infrastructure for handling a successful World Cup bid for England at Wembley. Seven odd years ago, I wrote in this column that the voters of Watford would decide based on the record. I would urge all politicos to get on board this initiative before the train for funding leaves. Yours Sincerely James Ware Hillingdon English Democrats Submitted application to be London Mayor (Con) 2006 .................................................. ............................................ .................................................. ........................................... John Burke WATFORD RAIL USERS GROUP |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
burkey wrote:
From Watford Observer 28th December 2007 / An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link Dear Sir, /// Since Cross party support is vital to allow Herts CC (Con) and Watford Borough (Lib Dem elected Mayor) to proceed, it is my intention to set up a cross party lobby group for Croxley Link and to explore all possible options of keeping Watford Met station open with some form of either heritage or Diesel service from Chesham or Aylesbury, so as to prepare the infrastructure for handling a successful World Cup bid for England at Wembley. I thought he was talking sense until he mentioned 'heritage', 'diesel' and 'world cup'... Paul |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
On Jan 7, 12:58*am, "Paul Scott"
wrote: I thought he was talking sense until he mentioned 'heritage', 'diesel' and 'world cup'... Agreed, especially since the economic case for the Croxley Link is AIUI partly built on closing Watford Met and releasing the land for housing development. THC |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
THC wrote:
On Jan 7, 12:58 am, "Paul Scott" wrote: I thought he was talking sense until he mentioned 'heritage', 'diesel' and 'world cup'... Agreed, especially since the economic case for the Croxley Link is AIUI partly built on closing Watford Met and releasing the land for housing development. THC Who are the Hillingdon English Democrats...POWER TO THE PEOPLEEEEEEEE! |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
In message , www.waspies.net
writes THC wrote: On Jan 7, 12:58 am, "Paul Scott" wrote: I thought he was talking sense until he mentioned 'heritage', 'diesel' and 'world cup'... Agreed, especially since the economic case for the Croxley Link is AIUI partly built on closing Watford Met and releasing the land for housing development. THC Who are the Hillingdon English Democrats...POWER TO THE PEOPLEEEEEEEE! But presumably not to be confused with the English Democrats for Hillingdon. -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
On 7 Jan, 00:58, "Paul Scott" wrote:
burkey wrote: From Watford Observer 28th December 2007 / An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link Dear Sir, /// Since Cross party support is vital to allow Herts CC (Con) and Watford Borough (Lib Dem elected Mayor) to proceed, it is my intention to set up a cross party lobby group for Croxley Link and to explore all possible options of keeping Watford Met station open with some form of either heritage or Diesel service from Chesham or Aylesbury, so as to prepare the infrastructure for handling a successful World Cup bid for England at Wembley. I thought he was talking sense until he mentioned 'heritage', 'diesel' and 'world cup'... Paul You fail to appreciate that all the visiting Brazilians will stay in tents in Cassiobury Park next to Watford Met station and will all expect to be taken to Wembley behind a Deltic. This noisy Burke could set back the campaign for the Croxley rail link by years! |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Ian Jelf wrote:
In message , www.waspies.net writes On Jan 7, 12:58 am, "Paul Scott" wrote: I thought he was talking sense until he mentioned 'heritage', 'diesel' and 'world cup'... Who are the Hillingdon English Democrats...POWER TO THE PEOPLEEEEEEEE! But presumably not to be confused with the English Democrats for Hillingdon. SPLITTERS! tom -- Just add a little flange and phase in |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
On Jan 7, 5:21�pm, Mizter T wrote:
On 7 Jan, 00:58, "Paul Scott" wrote: burkey wrote: From Watford Observer 28th December 2007 / An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link Dear Sir, /// Since Cross party support is vital to allow Herts CC (Con) and Watford Borough (Lib Dem elected Mayor) to proceed, it is my intention to set up a cross party lobby group for Croxley Link and to explore all possible options of keeping Watford Met station open with some form of either heritage or Diesel service from Chesham or Aylesbury, so as to prepare the infrastructure for handling a successful World Cup bid for England at Wembley. I thought he was talking sense until he mentioned 'heritage', 'diesel' and 'world cup'... Paul You fail to appreciate that all the visiting Brazilians will stay in tents in Cassiobury Park next to Watford Met station and will all expect to be taken to Wembley behind a Deltic. This noisy Burke could set back the campaign for the Croxley rail link by years!- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It's not me! Honest! Burkey |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 16:51:57 GMT, "www.waspies.net"
wrote: THC wrote: On Jan 7, 12:58 am, "Paul Scott" wrote: I thought he was talking sense until he mentioned 'heritage', 'diesel' and 'world cup'... Agreed, especially since the economic case for the Croxley Link is AIUI partly built on closing Watford Met and releasing the land for housing development. THC Who are the Hillingdon English Democrats...POWER TO THE PEOPLEEEEEEEE! Another variation on UKIP ? Apparently some bloke called Gary Bushell is their candidate for the Mayoralty of Greater London :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Democrats which seems to mention desires on the territory of a neighbouring country, a policy which largely fell out of favour in the rest of Europe about 1938. |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 16:51:57 GMT, "www.waspies.net" wrote: THC wrote: On Jan 7, 12:58 am, "Paul Scott" wrote: I thought he was talking sense until he mentioned 'heritage', 'diesel' and 'world cup'... Agreed, especially since the economic case for the Croxley Link is AIUI partly built on closing Watford Met and releasing the land for housing development. Who are the Hillingdon English Democrats...POWER TO THE PEOPLEEEEEEEE! Another variation on UKIP ? Apparently some bloke called Gary Bushell is their candidate for the Mayoralty of Greater London :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Democrats which seems to mention desires on the territory of a neighbouring country, a policy which largely fell out of favour in the rest of Europe about 1938. Oh no, it's all the rage in trendsetting New Europe. None of the former Yugoslavian countries would be seen dead without a claim on someone else's territory! Seriously, though, assuming you're talking about Monmouthshire, that's not an entirely fair description of the situation. tom -- isn't it about time we had some new label for people interested in technology who also have an interest in drinking binges, womanising and occasional bouts of ultra violence? -- D |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 23:06:54 +0000, Charles Ellson
wrote: On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 16:51:57 GMT, "www.waspies.net" wrote: THC wrote: On Jan 7, 12:58 am, "Paul Scott" wrote: I thought he was talking sense until he mentioned 'heritage', 'diesel' and 'world cup'... Agreed, especially since the economic case for the Croxley Link is AIUI partly built on closing Watford Met and releasing the land for housing development. THC Who are the Hillingdon English Democrats...POWER TO THE PEOPLEEEEEEEE! Another variation on UKIP ? Apparently some bloke called Gary Bushell is their candidate for the Mayoralty of Greater London :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Democrats which seems to mention desires on the territory of a neighbouring country, a policy which largely fell out of favour in the rest of Europe about 1938. What, Monmouthshire? |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 16:51:57 GMT, "www.waspies.net" wrote: THC wrote: On Jan 7, 12:58 am, "Paul Scott" wrote: I thought he was talking sense until he mentioned 'heritage', 'diesel' and 'world cup'... Agreed, especially since the economic case for the Croxley Link is AIUI partly built on closing Watford Met and releasing the land for housing development. THC Who are the Hillingdon English Democrats...POWER TO THE PEOPLEEEEEEEE! Another variation on UKIP ? Apparently some bloke called Gary Bushell is their candidate for the Mayoralty of Greater London :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Democrats which seems to mention desires on the territory of a neighbouring country, a policy which largely fell out of favour in the rest of Europe about 1938. Spain, Ireland and various Balkan places at least have laid claim to territory since then, and Russia has annexed territory. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 02:08:49 +0000, James Farrar wrote
Another variation on UKIP ? Apparently some bloke called Gary Bushell is their candidate for the Mayoralty of Greater London :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Democrats which seems to mention desires on the territory of a neighbouring country, a policy which largely fell out of favour in the rest of Europe about 1938. What, Monmouthshire? Some us on this group live in Monmouthshire and are very happy with it being in Wales! |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
Arthur Figgis wrote:
Charles Ellson wrote: On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 16:51:57 GMT, "www.waspies.net" wrote: Who are the Hillingdon English Democrats...POWER TO THE PEOPLEEEEEEEE! Another variation on UKIP ? Apparently some bloke called Gary Bushell is their candidate for the Mayoralty of Greater London :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Democrats which seems to mention desires on the territory of a neighbouring country, a policy which largely fell out of favour in the rest of Europe about 1938. Spain, Ireland and various Balkan places at least have laid claim to territory since then, and Russia has annexed territory. Not forgetting the UK's annexation of territory in September 1955, "the final territorial expansion of the British Empire" according to Wikipedia. (The territory was the island of Rockall.) -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
Richard J. wrote: Arthur Figgis wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: Another variation on UKIP ? Apparently some bloke called Gary Bushell is their candidate for the Mayoralty of Greater London :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Democrats which seems to mention desires on the territory of a neighbouring country, a policy which largely fell out of favour in the rest of Europe about 1938. Spain, Ireland and various Balkan places at least have laid claim to territory since then, and Russia has annexed territory. Not forgetting the UK's annexation of territory in September 1955, "the final territorial expansion of the British Empire" according to Wikipedia. (The territory was the island of Rockall.) That wasn't Rockall. It was Napoleon's Piano. |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
solar penguin wrote:
Richard J. wrote: Arthur Figgis wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: Another variation on UKIP ? Apparently some bloke called Gary Bushell is their candidate for the Mayoralty of Greater London :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Democrats which seems to mention desires on the territory of a neighbouring country, a policy which largely fell out of favour in the rest of Europe about 1938. Spain, Ireland and various Balkan places at least have laid claim to territory since then, and Russia has annexed territory. Not forgetting the UK's annexation of territory in September 1955, "the final territorial expansion of the British Empire" according to Wikipedia. (The territory was the island of Rockall.) That wasn't Rockall. It was Napoleon's Piano. :-)) Interesting that it was broadcast just 3 weeks after the announcement of Rockall's annexation, and with the correct reason too ("because it is in the area of the rocket testing range"). For those who are wondering what on earth we are talking about: http://www.thegoonshow.co.uk/scripts/napoleon.html -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 12:46:16 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote: Arthur Figgis wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 16:51:57 GMT, "www.waspies.net" wrote: Who are the Hillingdon English Democrats...POWER TO THE PEOPLEEEEEEEE! Another variation on UKIP ? Apparently some bloke called Gary Bushell is their candidate for the Mayoralty of Greater London :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Democrats which seems to mention desires on the territory of a neighbouring country, a policy which largely fell out of favour in the rest of Europe about 1938. Spain, Ireland and various Balkan places at least have laid claim to territory since then, and Russia has annexed territory. Not forgetting the UK's annexation of territory in September 1955, "the final territorial expansion of the British Empire" according to Wikipedia. (The territory was the island of Rockall.) It was for practical purposes only a paperwork annexation which was also attempted by Iceland and the Irish Republic. These claims have all been declared invalid by the United Nations as it is not recognised as habitable land despite the efforts of an ex-SAS man who camped on the rock for a few weeks. Perhaps reclaiming Doggerland is more practical ? |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 12:46:16 GMT, "Richard J." wrote: Arthur Figgis wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 16:51:57 GMT, "www.waspies.net" wrote: Who are the Hillingdon English Democrats...POWER TO THE PEOPLEEEEEEEE! Another variation on UKIP ? Apparently some bloke called Gary Bushell is their candidate for the Mayoralty of Greater London :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Democrats which seems to mention desires on the territory of a neighbouring country, a policy which largely fell out of favour in the rest of Europe about 1938. Spain, Ireland and various Balkan places at least have laid claim to territory since then, and Russia has annexed territory. Not forgetting the UK's annexation of territory in September 1955, "the final territorial expansion of the British Empire" according to Wikipedia. (The territory was the island of Rockall.) It was for practical purposes only a paperwork annexation which was also attempted by Iceland and the Irish Republic. Denmark too. These claims have all been declared invalid by the United Nations as it is not recognised as habitable land despite the efforts of an ex-SAS man who camped on the rock for a few weeks. And Greenpeace. http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/pol...k-rockall.html says: should they feel obliged to pursue the matter, we'd like to point out the following interesting statistics: Total number of ballistic missile submarines: UK: 4 Denmark: 0 Total number of operationally-available nuclear warheads: UK: 200+ Denmark: 0 -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Charles Ellson wrote: On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 16:51:57 GMT, "www.waspies.net" wrote: THC wrote: On Jan 7, 12:58 am, "Paul Scott" wrote: I thought he was talking sense until he mentioned 'heritage', 'diesel' and 'world cup'... Agreed, especially since the economic case for the Croxley Link is AIUI partly built on closing Watford Met and releasing the land for housing development. Who are the Hillingdon English Democrats...POWER TO THE PEOPLEEEEEEEE! Another variation on UKIP ? Apparently some bloke called Gary Bushell is their candidate for the Mayoralty of Greater London :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Democrats which seems to mention desires on the territory of a neighbouring country, a policy which largely fell out of favour in the rest of Europe about 1938. Oh no, it's all the rage in trendsetting New Europe. None of the former Yugoslavian countries would be seen dead without a claim on someone else's territory! The Lonely Planet book "Western Balkans" says they struggled to find a name for the volume, having rejected "Greater [insert name of country] and the Occupied Territories" -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 12:46:16 GMT, "Richard J." wrote: Arthur Figgis wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 16:51:57 GMT, "www.waspies.net" wrote: Who are the Hillingdon English Democrats...POWER TO THE PEOPLEEEEEEEE! Another variation on UKIP ? Apparently some bloke called Gary Bushell is their candidate for the Mayoralty of Greater London :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Democrats which seems to mention desires on the territory of a neighbouring country, a policy which largely fell out of favour in the rest of Europe about 1938. Spain, Ireland and various Balkan places at least have laid claim to territory since then, and Russia has annexed territory. Not forgetting the UK's annexation of territory in September 1955, "the final territorial expansion of the British Empire" according to Wikipedia. (The territory was the island of Rockall.) It was for practical purposes only a paperwork annexation which was also attempted by Iceland and the Irish Republic. These claims have all been declared invalid by the United Nations I don't think that's true. Can you cite a source for that? as it is not recognised as habitable land despite the efforts of an ex-SAS man who camped on the rock for a few weeks. You're right about it not being habitable, and despite the SAS camping trip, i don't think anybody claims it is, even the UK. As an uninhabitable rock, it has no effect on the allocation of exclusive economic zones or continental shelf rights, and so nobody really cares who actually owns it. Britain annexed because of the rocket testing thing. Furthermore, AIUI, Rockall just falls within the UK's EEZ, and so it gets too look after it in terms of mining, ecological protection, etc. tom -- Right place, right time, wrong speed. |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 08:11:22 +0000, Stimpy
wrote: On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 02:08:49 +0000, James Farrar wrote Another variation on UKIP ? Apparently some bloke called Gary Bushell is their candidate for the Mayoralty of Greater London :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Democrats which seems to mention desires on the territory of a neighbouring country, a policy which largely fell out of favour in the rest of Europe about 1938. What, Monmouthshire? Some us on this group live in Monmouthshire and are very happy with it being in Wales! In which case, you would get your chance to have your say in the referendum that is proposed! |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
On 8 Jan, 19:19, Arthur Figgis wrote:
(snip) http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/pol...k-rockall.html says: should they feel obliged to pursue the matter, we'd like to point out the following interesting statistics: Total number of ballistic missile submarines: UK: 4 Denmark: 0 Total number of operationally-available nuclear warheads: UK: 200+ Denmark: 0 Fantastic bit of research Arthur - the aforementioned article has solved the mystery of exactly why the UK has spend £XXXX billion on a nuclear arms programme - it's so we can enforce our claim on Rockall. Still, imagine how much better out nuclear arsenal would be if we'd spent the £9bn that's been frittered away on the West Coast modernisation on a proper doomsday device... then no-one would mess with us and our Rockall. |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
"Charles Ellson" wrote in message ... It was for practical purposes only a paperwork annexation which was also attempted by Iceland and the Irish Republic. These claims have all been declared invalid by the United Nations as it is not recognised as habitable land despite the efforts of an ex-SAS man who camped on the rock for a few weeks. Perhaps reclaiming Doggerland is more practical ? The SAS man was Tom McClean who was sent by Maggie to live in a box for 40 days on Rockall. I wonder why the box had a "Barrett" sticker on the side? I also wonder why he was allowed to illegally use Amatuer Radio frequencies to chat to his brother back in Scotland? At least Helen Sharman was given an Amateur Callsign to use when she went into Space. KW |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Arthur Figgis wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote: On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Charles Ellson wrote: On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 16:51:57 GMT, "www.waspies.net" wrote: THC wrote: On Jan 7, 12:58 am, "Paul Scott" wrote: I thought he was talking sense until he mentioned 'heritage', 'diesel' and 'world cup'... Agreed, especially since the economic case for the Croxley Link is AIUI partly built on closing Watford Met and releasing the land for housing development. Who are the Hillingdon English Democrats...POWER TO THE PEOPLEEEEEEEE! Another variation on UKIP ? Apparently some bloke called Gary Bushell is their candidate for the Mayoralty of Greater London :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Democrats which seems to mention desires on the territory of a neighbouring country, a policy which largely fell out of favour in the rest of Europe about 1938. Oh no, it's all the rage in trendsetting New Europe. None of the former Yugoslavian countries would be seen dead without a claim on someone else's territory! The Lonely Planet book "Western Balkans" says they struggled to find a name for the volume, having rejected "Greater [insert name of country] and the Occupied Territories" Brilliant! File under 'too good to check' ... tom -- Science Never Sleeps |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
"Mizter T" wrote in message ... Fantastic bit of research Arthur - the aforementioned article has solved the mystery of exactly why the UK has spend £XXXX billion on a nuclear arms programme - it's so we can enforce our claim on Rockall. Still, imagine how much better out nuclear arsenal would be if we'd spent the £9bn that's been frittered away on the West Coast modernisation on a proper doomsday device... then no-one would mess with us and our Rockall. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Never mind those nasty Danes.... We will always have Rockhall in BOLTON! See.. http://tinyurl.com/32z6v7 of course this is also quite close... http://tinyurl.com/2kvaco KW |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 19:46:22 +0000, Tom Anderson
wrote: On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Charles Ellson wrote: On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 12:46:16 GMT, "Richard J." wrote: Arthur Figgis wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 16:51:57 GMT, "www.waspies.net" wrote: Who are the Hillingdon English Democrats...POWER TO THE PEOPLEEEEEEEE! Another variation on UKIP ? Apparently some bloke called Gary Bushell is their candidate for the Mayoralty of Greater London :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Democrats which seems to mention desires on the territory of a neighbouring country, a policy which largely fell out of favour in the rest of Europe about 1938. Spain, Ireland and various Balkan places at least have laid claim to territory since then, and Russia has annexed territory. Not forgetting the UK's annexation of territory in September 1955, "the final territorial expansion of the British Empire" according to Wikipedia. (The territory was the island of Rockall.) It was for practical purposes only a paperwork annexation which was also attempted by Iceland and the Irish Republic. These claims have all been declared invalid by the United Nations I don't think that's true. Can you cite a source for that? The disputing countries seem to have acknowledged the International Convention on the Law of the Sea (a UN device) by ratifying the relevant treaties rather than "going to court" over the matter. http://www.gpuk.org/atlantic/press/c...29courier.html has an undated reference http://www.gpuk.org/atlantic/politics/c_report.html refers to the "competing claims" as of Sept 1996, apparently as yet to be decided. http://iclq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/46/4/761.pdf has:- "ON 21 July 1997 the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary announced the United Kingdom's decision to accede to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ("the Convention"), a decision which was acted upon four days later in New York." Rockall has six mentions in the text. Consequential changes were made to UK fishing limits by S.I.1997/1750 which removed Rockall as a measurement point and replaced it with St.Kilda. as it is not recognised as habitable land despite the efforts of an ex-SAS man who camped on the rock for a few weeks. You're right about it not being habitable, and despite the SAS camping trip, i don't think anybody claims it is, even the UK. As an uninhabitable rock, it has no effect on the allocation of exclusive economic zones or continental shelf rights, and so nobody really cares who actually owns it. Britain annexed because of the rocket testing thing. Furthermore, AIUI, Rockall just falls within the UK's EEZ, and so it gets too look after it in terms of mining, ecological protection, etc. St. Kilda trumps Donegal for the EEZ measurement AFAICT although ISTR there might be a certain amount of mutually-agreed straight-line drawing of the UK-IRL boundary for the sake of simplicity. |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Ken Ward wrote:
"Mizter T" wrote in message ... Fantastic bit of research Arthur - the aforementioned article has solved the mystery of exactly why the UK has spend £XXXX billion on a nuclear arms programme - it's so we can enforce our claim on Rockall. Still, imagine how much better out nuclear arsenal would be if we'd spent the £9bn that's been frittered away on the West Coast modernisation on a proper doomsday device... then no-one would mess with us and our Rockall. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Never mind those nasty Danes.... We will always have Rockhall in BOLTON! Ah, i can see where you've gone wrong, there - what you have is f*ck all in Bolton. [fx: runs away] tom -- mimeotraditionalists |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 19:46:22 +0000, Tom Anderson wrote: On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Charles Ellson wrote: On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 12:46:16 GMT, "Richard J." wrote: Arthur Figgis wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 16:51:57 GMT, "www.waspies.net" wrote: Who are the Hillingdon English Democrats...POWER TO THE PEOPLEEEEEEEE! Another variation on UKIP ? Apparently some bloke called Gary Bushell is their candidate for the Mayoralty of Greater London :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Democrats which seems to mention desires on the territory of a neighbouring country, a policy which largely fell out of favour in the rest of Europe about 1938. Spain, Ireland and various Balkan places at least have laid claim to territory since then, and Russia has annexed territory. Not forgetting the UK's annexation of territory in September 1955, "the final territorial expansion of the British Empire" according to Wikipedia. (The territory was the island of Rockall.) It was for practical purposes only a paperwork annexation which was also attempted by Iceland and the Irish Republic. These claims have all been declared invalid by the United Nations I don't think that's true. Can you cite a source for that? The disputing countries seem to have acknowledged the International Convention on the Law of the Sea (a UN device) by ratifying the relevant treaties rather than "going to court" over the matter. It's certainly true they've all ratified that treaty, and that it's a UN effort (it's actually called the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, not the International etc), and that signing the treaty meant relinquishing any EEZ claims based on Rockall; i don't think i'd say that counts as the UN declaring anything invalid, but at this point we're splitting hairs. Also, having had a look through the treaty, i don't think there's anything in there which has any effect on sovereignty over islands; it's true that it says that who owns Rockall is irrelevant to the apportionment of EEZs and the continental shelf, but it doesn't seem to say anything about who does own Rockall. Here's article 121: Article 121 - Regime of islands 1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide. 2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory. 3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. Note that paragraph 3 *doesn't* stop Rockall generating a region of territorial sea or a contiguous zone, just EEZ and shelf. FWIW. as it is not recognised as habitable land despite the efforts of an ex-SAS man who camped on the rock for a few weeks. You're right about it not being habitable, and despite the SAS camping trip, i don't think anybody claims it is, even the UK. As an uninhabitable rock, it has no effect on the allocation of exclusive economic zones or continental shelf rights, and so nobody really cares who actually owns it. Britain annexed because of the rocket testing thing. Furthermore, AIUI, Rockall just falls within the UK's EEZ, and so it gets too look after it in terms of mining, ecological protection, etc. St. Kilda trumps Donegal for the EEZ measurement AFAICT although ISTR there might be a certain amount of mutually-agreed straight-line drawing of the UK-IRL boundary for the sake of simplicity. Yes - cribbing mercilessly from Wikipedia: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLAT...-IRL1988CS.PDF tom -- mimeotraditionalists |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 02:00:16 +0000, Tom Anderson
wrote: On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Charles Ellson wrote: On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 19:46:22 +0000, Tom Anderson wrote: On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Charles Ellson wrote: On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 12:46:16 GMT, "Richard J." wrote: Arthur Figgis wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 16:51:57 GMT, "www.waspies.net" wrote: Who are the Hillingdon English Democrats...POWER TO THE PEOPLEEEEEEEE! Another variation on UKIP ? Apparently some bloke called Gary Bushell is their candidate for the Mayoralty of Greater London :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Democrats which seems to mention desires on the territory of a neighbouring country, a policy which largely fell out of favour in the rest of Europe about 1938. Spain, Ireland and various Balkan places at least have laid claim to territory since then, and Russia has annexed territory. Not forgetting the UK's annexation of territory in September 1955, "the final territorial expansion of the British Empire" according to Wikipedia. (The territory was the island of Rockall.) It was for practical purposes only a paperwork annexation which was also attempted by Iceland and the Irish Republic. These claims have all been declared invalid by the United Nations I don't think that's true. Can you cite a source for that? The disputing countries seem to have acknowledged the International Convention on the Law of the Sea (a UN device) by ratifying the relevant treaties rather than "going to court" over the matter. It's certainly true they've all ratified that treaty, and that it's a UN effort (it's actually called the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, not the International etc), and that signing the treaty meant relinquishing any EEZ claims based on Rockall; i don't think i'd say that counts as the UN declaring anything invalid, but at this point we're splitting hairs. Also, having had a look through the treaty, i don't think there's anything in there which has any effect on sovereignty over islands; it's true that it says that who owns Rockall is irrelevant to the apportionment of EEZs and the continental shelf, but it doesn't seem to say anything about who does own Rockall. Here's article 121: Article 121 - Regime of islands 1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide. 2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory. 3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. Note that paragraph 3 *doesn't* stop Rockall generating a region of territorial sea or a contiguous zone, just EEZ and shelf. FWIW. IIRC the catch is that Rockall has in law a territorial sea of its own but it is too isolated from the next bit of sovereign territory to act as an extension to that territory. The rock versus island argument (as in the former doesn't count as "land") seems to be an ongoing matter of consideration, being mentioned in "The Maritime Zones of Islands in International Law" in Google Books with each new proposed definition bringing up a reason from someone why it is defective. as it is not recognised as habitable land despite the efforts of an ex-SAS man who camped on the rock for a few weeks. You're right about it not being habitable, and despite the SAS camping trip, i don't think anybody claims it is, even the UK. As an uninhabitable rock, it has no effect on the allocation of exclusive economic zones or continental shelf rights, and so nobody really cares who actually owns it. Britain annexed because of the rocket testing thing. Furthermore, AIUI, Rockall just falls within the UK's EEZ, and so it gets too look after it in terms of mining, ecological protection, etc. St. Kilda trumps Donegal for the EEZ measurement AFAICT although ISTR there might be a certain amount of mutually-agreed straight-line drawing of the UK-IRL boundary for the sake of simplicity. Yes - cribbing mercilessly from Wikipedia: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLAT...-IRL1988CS.PDF tom |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
I think you'll find that Starbucks are opening an outlet on Rockall in
the next few weeks, as it's the only place in the country that doesn't have one yet! as it is not recognised as habitable land despite the efforts of an ex-SAS man who camped on the rock for a few weeks. You're right about it not being habitable, and despite the SAS camping trip, i don't think anybody claims it is, even the UK. As an uninhabitable rock, it has no effect on the allocation of exclusive economic zones or continental shelf rights, and so nobody really cares who actually owns it. Britain annexed because of the rocket testing thing. Furthermore, AIUI, Rockall just falls within the UK's EEZ, and so it gets too look after it in terms of mining, ecological protection, etc. tom |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008, www.waspies.net wrote:
I think you'll find that Starbucks are opening an outlet on Rockall in the next few weeks, as it's the only place in the country that doesn't have one yet! Impossible - you must be mistaken. They must be opening two! tom as it is not recognised as habitable land despite the efforts of an ex-SAS man who camped on the rock for a few weeks. You're right about it not being habitable, and despite the SAS camping trip, i don't think anybody claims it is, even the UK. As an uninhabitable rock, it has no effect on the allocation of exclusive economic zones or continental shelf rights, and so nobody really cares who actually owns it. Britain annexed because of the rocket testing thing. Furthermore, AIUI, Rockall just falls within the UK's EEZ, and so it gets too look after it in terms of mining, ecological protection, etc. -- Hubo un vez, un gran rev que tenia muchas tierra un Castillo y tambien un amor. |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
On Jan 8, 12:26*pm, James Farrar wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 08:11:22 +0000, Stimpy wrote: On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 02:08:49 +0000, James Farrar wrote Another variation on UKIP ? Apparently some bloke called Gary Bushell is their candidate for the Mayoralty of Greater London :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Democrats which seems to mention desires on the territory of a neighbouring country, a policy which largely fell out of favour in the rest of Europe about 1938. What,Monmouthshire? Some us on this group live inMonmouthshireand are very happy with it being in Wales! In which case, you would get your chance to have your say in thereferendum that is proposed! Is this serious. I must mention this to my brother in Canada. I do hope he, and his spouse, have remained on the Monmouthshire Electoral Role. Adrian |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
On 10 Jan, 18:23, "Adrian Auer-Hudson, MIMIS"
wrote: On Jan 8, 12:26 pm, James Farrar wrote: On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 08:11:22 +0000, Stimpy wrote: On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 02:08:49 +0000, James Farrar wrote Another variation on UKIP ? Apparently some bloke called Gary Bushell is their candidate for the Mayoralty of Greater London :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Democrats which seems to mention desires on the territory of a neighbouring country, a policy which largely fell out of favour in the rest of Europe about 1938. What, Monmouthshire? Some us on this group live in Monmouthshire and are very happy with it being in Wales! In which case, you would get your chance to have your say in the referendum that is proposed! Is this serious. I must mention this to my brother in Canada. I do hope he, and his spouse, have remained on the Monmouthshire Electoral Role. Adrian It's as serious as the idea that the English Democrats party might get in to power so they'd have the power to actually call such a referendum... pedant I presume your brother is on the Electoral Roll as opposed to being a returning officer or having some other role in the electoral system in Monmouthshire. /pedant |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
On Jan 10, 11:16*am, Mizter T wrote:
On 10 Jan, 18:23, "Adrian Auer-Hudson, MIMIS" wrote: On Jan 8, 12:26 pm, James Farrar wrote: On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 08:11:22 +0000, Stimpy wrote: On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 02:08:49 +0000, James Farrar wrote Another variation on UKIP ? Apparently some bloke called Gary Bushell is their candidate for the Mayoralty of Greater London :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Democrats which seems to mention desires on the territory of a neighbouring country, a policy which largely fell out of favour in the rest of Europe about 1938. What, Monmouthshire? Some us on this group live in Monmouthshire and are very happy with it being in Wales! In which case, you would get your chance to have your say in the referendum that is proposed! Is this serious. *I must mention this to my brother in Canada. *I do hope he, and his spouse, have remained on the Monmouthshire Electoral Role. Adrian It's as serious as the idea that the English Democrats party might get in to power so they'd have the power to actually call such a referendum... Well that's alright then, no cause for concern. pedant I presume your brother is on the Electoral Roll as opposed to being a returning officer or having some other role in the electoral system in Monmouthshire. /pedant- Electoral Roll, point taken. Adrian |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
Adrian Auer-Hudson, MIMIS wrote:
On Jan 10, 11:16�am, Mizter T wrote: On 10 Jan, 18:23, "Adrian Auer-Hudson, MIMIS" wrote: On Jan 8, 12:26 pm, James Farrar wrote: (snip) In which case, you would get your chance to have your say in the referendum that is proposed! Is this serious. I must mention this to my brother in Canada. I do hope he, and his spouse, have remained on the Monmouthshire Electoral Role. Adrian It's as serious as the idea that the English Democrats party might get in to power so they'd have the power to actually call such a referendum... Well that's alright then, no cause for concern. The truth is that whilst a pretty small number of people get very exercised by notions of a perceived democratic deficit in England, for the vast majority of the public it simply isn't an issue whatsoever. IMO what is a shame is the lack of elected regional assemblies in England. The North East had a referendum in 2004 on whether they'd be the first region to set up an elected assembly and unfortunately voted against it - so the whole idea of regional assemblies isn't really on the table, not at the moment at least. Though I've a feeling that the idea might surface again at some point in the future - but not for many (many) years yet. (Arguably the arrangements for governance in Greater London have some similarities to the proposed regional assemblies - but in London, the elected Assembly has an oversight role whilst it is the separately elected Mayor who is clearly in charge of the Greater London Authority.) pedant I presume your brother is on the Electoral Roll as opposed to being a returning officer or having some other role in the electoral system in Monmouthshire. /pedant- Electoral Roll, point taken. Now I feel like a proper petty pedant! |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:01:52 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote: IMO what is a shame is the lack of elected regional assemblies in England. The North East had a referendum in 2004 on whether they'd be the first region to set up an elected assembly and unfortunately voted against it - so the whole idea of regional assemblies isn't really on the table, not at the moment at least. Mostly because people are uninterested in expensive talking shops. At least Scotland gets a Parliament (and Wales is on the way to it) -- but, frankly, I'd be surprised if regional assemblies ever get anywhere, as the vast majority of people in England, I suspect, feel no identity with their "region". |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 02:00:16 +0000, Tom Anderson wrote: On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Charles Ellson wrote: On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 19:46:22 +0000, Tom Anderson wrote: On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Charles Ellson wrote: On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 12:46:16 GMT, "Richard J." wrote: Arthur Figgis wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 16:51:57 GMT, "www.waspies.net" wrote: Who are the Hillingdon English Democrats...POWER TO THE PEOPLEEEEEEEE! Another variation on UKIP ? Apparently some bloke called Gary Bushell is their candidate for the Mayoralty of Greater London :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Democrats which seems to mention desires on the territory of a neighbouring country, a policy which largely fell out of favour in the rest of Europe about 1938. Spain, Ireland and various Balkan places at least have laid claim to territory since then, and Russia has annexed territory. Not forgetting the UK's annexation of territory in September 1955, "the final territorial expansion of the British Empire" according to Wikipedia. (The territory was the island of Rockall.) It was for practical purposes only a paperwork annexation which was also attempted by Iceland and the Irish Republic. These claims have all been declared invalid by the United Nations I don't think that's true. Can you cite a source for that? The disputing countries seem to have acknowledged the International Convention on the Law of the Sea (a UN device) by ratifying the relevant treaties rather than "going to court" over the matter. It's certainly true they've all ratified that treaty, and that it's a UN effort (it's actually called the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, not the International etc), and that signing the treaty meant relinquishing any EEZ claims based on Rockall; i don't think i'd say that counts as the UN declaring anything invalid, but at this point we're splitting hairs. Also, having had a look through the treaty, i don't think there's anything in there which has any effect on sovereignty over islands; it's true that it says that who owns Rockall is irrelevant to the apportionment of EEZs and the continental shelf, but it doesn't seem to say anything about who does own Rockall. Here's article 121: Article 121 - Regime of islands 1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide. 2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory. 3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. Note that paragraph 3 *doesn't* stop Rockall generating a region of territorial sea or a contiguous zone, just EEZ and shelf. FWIW. IIRC the catch is that Rockall has in law a territorial sea of its own but it is too isolated from the next bit of sovereign territory to act as an extension to that territory. Yes. If the UK were to declare itself an archipelagic state, it could draw its baseline round the outside of all its various islands, including islands such as Rockall - it doesn't matter that it's uninhabited (Jamaica's done this). Such a baseline would generate the whole gamut of territorial waters, EEZ and shelf rights. However, there's a limit of 125 NM on the length of an individual baseline segment, and Rockall is 162 NM from St Kilda. You are allowed to draw baseline segments to places that only dry out at low tide, provided you have lighthouses built on them. If there happened to be something like that to the west of St Kilda, on the edge of the continental shelf, we could stick a lighthouse on it, use it to stage the baseline to Rockall, and so nab a large chunk of the North Atlantic. Sadly, i strongly doubt that there is. And unfortunately, manmade islands don't count. Of course, if there just happened to be a volcanic eruption there which created a new island, and we were to build a lighthouse on it, to warn people about it ... Sadly, paragraph 3 of article 47 spoils all such fun: 3. The drawing of such baselines shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago. Boo! tom -- When I see a man on a bicycle I have hope for the human race. -- H. G. Wells |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:42:46 +0000, Tom Anderson wrote
IIRC the catch is that Rockall has in law a territorial sea of its own but it is too isolated from the next bit of sovereign territory to act as an extension to that territory. Yes. If the UK were to declare itself an archipelagic state, it could draw its baseline round the outside of all its various islands, including islands such as Rockall - it doesn't matter that it's uninhabited (Jamaica's done this). Jamaica's claiming Rockall?? :-) |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
On 11 Jan, 19:05, Stimpy wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:42:46 +0000, Tom Anderson wrote IIRC the catch is that Rockall has in law a territorial sea of its own but it is too isolated from the next bit of sovereign territory to act as an extension to that territory. Yes. If the UK were to declare itself an archipelagic state, it could draw its baseline round the outside of all its various islands, including islands such as Rockall - it doesn't matter that it's uninhabited (Jamaica's done this). Jamaica's claiming Rockall?? :-) Roll on the Rockall Reggae festival. ;-) |
An open letter regarding Croxley Rail link
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, Stimpy wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:42:46 +0000, Tom Anderson wrote IIRC the catch is that Rockall has in law a territorial sea of its own but it is too isolated from the next bit of sovereign territory to act as an extension to that territory. Yes. If the UK were to declare itself an archipelagic state, it could draw its baseline round the outside of all its various islands, including islands such as Rockall - it doesn't matter that it's uninhabited (Jamaica's done this). Jamaica's claiming Rockall?? :-) Doh! Some particularly careless phrasing on my part there. tom -- 24-Hour Monkey-Vision! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:55 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk