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

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.

Flying into London is, by any reasonable definition, hell. But I
resent this implication that it's a one way street. The US needs to
sort its house out too.

Jonn

On 23 May, 10:10, 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.


Over the long term, the universities are the economy - one of the
reasons the US has done so well over the last century is the amount
poured into practical academic research. The fact that Harvard and
Stanford attract bright people from all over the world has done
wonders for the US economy. The fact that most European universities
don't is one of the reasons Europe's a mess.

Whoever said that the US authorities don't care about any of this is
right. But give it twenty years and they'll wish they had.

Jonn

wrote:

The fact that Harvard and Stanford attract bright people from all over
the world has done wonders for the US economy. The fact that most
European universities don't is one of the reasons Europe's a mess.

That's a fair assessment, except for two things - first Europe's
universities contain many bright people, and second, Europe isn't a
mess.

In matters that are on topic for this group, it's the US that is in a
mess.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683725.html
(55012 (Class 122) at Stratford-upon-Avon, 6 Aug 1982)

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.
--
Michael Hoffman

wrote:
On 23 May, 10:10, 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.


Over the long term, the universities are the economy - one of the
reasons the US has done so well over the last century is the amount
poured into practical academic research. The fact that Harvard and
Stanford attract bright people from all over the world has done
wonders for the US economy. The fact that most European universities
don't is one of the reasons Europe's a mess.

Sitting here at my desk in a UK university, looking at the graduate
students, I'd say that we have about 10% UK nationals, about 50% other
EU nationals, about 15% Commonwealth and most of the remainder are far
eastern (Korea and China seem to dominate), though a few interesting
others. I'd say we're doing a pretty good job of attracting people from
around the globe.

Robin

On 23 May, 11:29, "R.C. Payne" wrote:
Over the long term, the universities are the economy - one of the
reasons the US has done so well over the last century is the amount
poured into practical academic research. The fact that Harvard and
Stanford attract bright people from all over the world has done
wonders for the US economy. The fact that most European universities
don't is one of the reasons Europe's a mess.

Sitting here at my desk in a UK university, looking at the graduate
students, I'd say that we have about 10% UK nationals, about 50% other
EU nationals, about 15% Commonwealth and most of the remainder are far
eastern (Korea and China seem to dominate), though a few interesting
others. I'd say we're doing a pretty good job of attracting people from
around the globe.

Generally UK universities are considered separately from mainland
European universities in this context (because ours are unequivocally
the best outside the US, largely because we have a national merit-
based admissions system rather than a "anyone who passes their A-
levels can go to their local Comprehensive University" system.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

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

John B wrote:
On 23 May, 11:29, "R.C. Payne" wrote:
Over the long term, the universities are the economy - one of the
reasons the US has done so well over the last century is the amount
poured into practical academic research. The fact that Harvard and
Stanford attract bright people from all over the world has done
wonders for the US economy. The fact that most European universities
don't is one of the reasons Europe's a mess.
Sitting here at my desk in a UK university, looking at the graduate
students, I'd say that we have about 10% UK nationals, about 50% other
EU nationals, about 15% Commonwealth and most of the remainder are far
eastern (Korea and China seem to dominate), though a few interesting
others. I'd say we're doing a pretty good job of attracting people from
around the globe.

Generally UK universities are considered separately from mainland
European universities in this context (because ours are unequivocally
the best outside the US, largely because we have a national merit-
based admissions system rather than a "anyone who passes their A-
levels can go to their local Comprehensive University" system.

While I can see that applying at undergraduate level (where UK students
definitely dominate), I'm not sure that's as relevent at a graduate
level. Most of the graduate students here did their undergrad in their
home country and have only come here for the next bit.

Robin

PS perhaps I was a little pessimistic on my previous numbers, perhaps
it's more like 20% UK / 40% EU

"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.