John Elmer and the Aeroport

Dear Sir,

1. I read the letter on the letters to editor page on 28/8/13 which actively promotes the East of London airport option as opposed to expanding Heathrow. My view is the opposite and is contained in section 2 below whilst in section 3 I comment the why a letter promoting the East London option does not have the address printed.

2.

The continued process whereby Heathrow has been previously promoted as the leading airport for London is ideally suited for business along with transport links appear to be have been conveniently forgotten by all parties who actively promoted this in previous years, by that I mean Governments, London politicians, business leaders, commentators and consultants.

However, now that the most viable and cheapest option is to expand Heathrow, revise/improve its transport links to existing infrastructure and where necessary add to current infrastructure is now being labelled as not acceptable by the same people who have bought and paid ludicrous amounts of money for property compared to normal UK property prices within an area surrounding one of worlds’ busiest airports and its approaches, combined with obviously no thoughts that this airport will ever expand. Whilst the politicians of all parties and their party members who currently live in the proposed enlarged expansion area are quite happy to promote spending  large amounts of public money or providing government backed private finance into blighting other areas and lives of people not affected by Heathrow expansion.

It is patently obvious that the most pro new airport commentators or their friends will be affected Heathrow expansion or have a vested interest in promoting new airport East of London, if anyone who lives in the area which will be effected by the Boris ‘Bluster’ Johnson airport project or an airport East of London is labelled as a Nimby, by those affected by the Heathrow expansion lobby or frightened of losing their lucrative consultancy status.

The latest propaganda by B Johnson airport faction to be reported in the media, is that it will only effect 36,000 people which is a blatant misrepresentation of reality for those who will be affected by the noise and pollution of an airport with four runways East of London, previously the number quoted was 306, 000 but even this is figure is equally false.

Also the people who are currently employed at Heathrow will not be able to transfer to the new airport or are they expected to travel on an already the crowded road and rail infrastructure across London or are they just expected to move house and families from a current established local area with amenities, another piece of social engineering by London politicians, government and so called expert consultants.

Those who do not reside within London boroughs or vote for Mayor of London see this airport promotion East of London as complete arrogance by London authorities and associated vested interests along with a breakdown of elected government and continued unwarranted London expansion/ interference in to other geographical areas and peoples’ lives.

1. I seriously question the fact that a letter which promotes the East of London airport option can be taken seriously or it is not just made up when the name is supplied but no address is given for which one can draw the following points:

1. That the person who wrote the letter does NOT have their main domestic residence in the borough of Swale for which this paper covers and as such will not be affected by the additional noise and air/ environmental pollution by an airport  East of London but is likely to be affected by Heathrow or Gatwick expansion.
2. That the person represents or is part of  a pressure group or an organisation opposed to Heathrow expansion, the person is part of lobby group promoting an airport east of London for London local government.
3. No person of normal intellectual competence would consider there is a security risk to printing the name and address of this person because this letters page regularly carries opposing views on various subjects and prints the aforementioned details.
4. The concept that a so called professional new paper prints letters with a name and no address shows a lack of accountability from the top down.
5. If the Editor deems to respond to section 3 then I request the response is copied to G Henderson MP Swale as per this correspondence.