text:
The UK Government's commission issued its final report in July 2015. The modelling in the report demonstrated that expanding Heathrow would deliver no significant return to the UK's economy. Instead, Heathrow's third runway would divert flights and wealth to London at the expense of the rest of the country.
It would reduce growth of the UK's aviation sector, leave unchanged the growth in UK's long-haul destinations, and reduce growth in the UK's short-haul destinations. It would not improve connectivity in terms of number of destinations served from the UK. Instead a new runway would result in higher frequencies of flights to the already most popular routes. Around 50% of the new capacity would be used for International-to-International transfer passengers which are of little or no value to the UK.
In addition to there being no economic case for a third runway at Heathrow, there are many other reasons why there should not be any further expansion at the airport. These include air pollution, noise, carbon emissions, surface access and traffic/public transport congestion, the likelihood of a large public subsidy being needed, and the suppression of competition from other airports leading to higher costs to airlines and passengers.
Nevertheless, the report's Executive Summary recommended expansion at Heathrow and in 2018 Parliament voted for this to proceed.
Title of Consultation/Presentation
11 Dec 2019
Royal Botanic Gardens Kew
World Heritage Management Plan 2019-2025
20 Nov 2019
RHC Prsentation to Heathrow Community Noise Forum (HCNF)
11 Oct 2019
Economic regulation of Heathrow Airport Limited: working paper on financial resilience and ring fencing, CAP 1832, August 2019
26 Sep 2019
Carbon offsetting in transport: a call for evidence, July 2019
13 Sep 2019
Heathrow Airport Consultation on Airport Expansion
13 Aug 2019
Working paper summarising affordability and financeability modelling for capacity expansion at Heathrow airport, CAP 1812, June 2019
7 Jul 2019
Airspace change: consultation on a decision-making process for PPR (planned and permanent redistribution of air traffic) proposals, CAP 1786, May 2019
20 Jun 2019
Aviation 2050: The future of UK aviation, December 2018
16 Jun 2019
ICCAN first Corporate Strategy: aims and objectives for 2019-2021
24 May 2019
Economic Regulation of Capacity Expansion at Heathrow: Policy Update and Consultation CAP 1782 Consultation
23 Apr 2019
Economic Regulation at Heathrow Airport from 2020: Proposals for Interim Arrangements CAP 1769 Consultation
11 Apr 2019
Aviation 2050: The Future of UK Aviation (Green Paper) - Annex A Consultation
4 Mar 2019
Airspace and Future Operations & Making Better Use of Existing Runways Consultation
4 Jan 2019
Economic Regulation: Capacity Expansion at Heathrow Policy Update and Consultation CAP 1722 Consultation
7 Dec 2018
Building a Zero Carbon Economy - Call for Evidence
9 Nov 2018
Independent Parallel Approaches (IPA) Heathrow Consultation
9 Sep 2018
Draft Airspace Modernisation Strategy CAP 1690 Consultation
14 Aug 2018
Clean Air Strategy Consultation
Heathrow Airspace Principles Design - July 2018 Update
Consultation on the design principles that could be used as the basis for developing Heathrow's future airspace design, and requests views and preferences relating to them.
The consultation can no longer be found on Heathrow's website. You can access a copy of the consultation document from here on our website.
July 2018
RHC Response
Noise Objectives
Heathrow's Airspace principles currently have three noise objectives:
(a) Limit and where possible reduce the number of people in the UK adversely affected by noise
(b) Share benefits from future noise improvements between the aviation industry and local communities
(c) Strike a fair balance between the negative aspects of noise and the positive economic impacts of flights
The Richmond Heathrow Campaign believes there should be the following two crucial updates to these objectives.
1. Amend Noise Objective (a) to incorporate WHO (World Health Organisation) guidelines, establishing their legal status, and a UK strategy and timetable for meeting them.
2. Add a fourth Community Noise Objective: Where there is a reduction in overall noise the benefit should be applied to those already most affected and where there is an increase in overall noise the dis-benefit should be applied to those already least affected.
Airspace Design Principles
The Richmond Heathrow Campaign's response also makes 13 further recommendations on airspace design principles. These cover safety, flight dispersion, flight frequency, noise respite, flight path separation, flight path concentration and performance based navigation (PBN), less noisy aircraft fleet, ICAO* land use requirements, runway length and parallel operation, ICAO* flight operational requirements, London's parks, night noise, and altitude based priorities.
* ICAO is the acronym for the United Nations International Civil Aviation Organisation.
Integrated Decision Framework
The Richmond Heathrow Campaign recommends that there should be an integrated decision framework to bring together design principles and stakeholder interests in order to minimise noise impact the share the costs and benefits of noise mitigation both rationally and fairly.
RHC presentation to Heathrow Community Noise Forum
Economic regulation of capacity expansion at Heathrow: policy update and consultation CAP 1658
Consultation from the CAA.
This follows on from the June and December consultations that the RHC responded to -
It confirms the CAA's approach in respect of key elements of the regulatory framework for Heathrow Airport Limited and discusses issues around the relationship between the regulatory framework and alternative delivery mechanisms, the cost of capital, financeability, financial resilience, the regulatory treatment of early construction costs and the further extension of existing price control.
The consultation can be found
Due 29th June 2018
RHC Response
Reiterates the evidence that DfT and CAA data does not support any economic case for additional runway capacity at Heathrow.
Urges the CAA to focus on passengers arriving and departing from London and not on passengers transiting Heathrow who add negligible economic value.
Quantifies the excess profits made by Heathrow and urges the need to reduce the aero charge at Heathrow, which is one of the highest in the world for a major airport.
For the CAA's economic assessment to be valid, all costs should be included, including the costs of carbon emissions, surface access, and lowered air quality. Currently they are absent.
The Treasury – and by implication all British taxpayers – are exposed to two major financing risks arising from Heathrow Airports Limited's excessive debt leverage and the substantial support given to its shareholders in the form interest tax relief.
Heathrow Airport Limited has not provided an adequate assessment of the investment needed for surface access. Substantial public investment of up to £25Bn in public transport capacity and in shifting travellers from road to public transport is missing from the costs and should be included.
The affordability and financeability of Heathrow's expansion should already have been fully determined at an earlier stage but wasn't. It needs to be addressed now, not later.
Heathrow Airport Expansion
This consultation presents Heathrow's options and proposals to expand and build a new north west runway and requests views to help shape the emerging proposals.
The consultation can be found
Due 28th March 2018
RHC Response
1. The options provided are descriptive and not sufficiently developed for objective response. For the most part, it is impossible for individuals or communities to assess the assumptions and decision criteria for choosing between options because the evidence is missing from the consultation and its supporting documents. It is not clear why the proposed options have been selected.
2. The topics are not linked into an overall decision framework making it impossible to discern and balance the priorities and assess the economic and environmental uncertainties and risks.
3. The Consultation fails to establish the strategic need or consequences of expansion and the choice of Heathrow and its hub model. Heathrow's north-west runway expansion has a substantially negative outcome at UK level, taking passengers from UK regional airports, delivering no additional long haul passengers for the UK as a whole, and principally only benefiting airlines who choose to route transfer passengers through Heathrow
4. The Foreword and Section 1 of the consultation establishes a bias without evidence in favour of a third runway and makes statements that are incomplete, misleading and unsubstantiated.
5. The claims by Heathrow regarding the environmental impact on communities are incomplete or misleading.
6. It is not clear how the results of the consultation will be used by Heathrow.
7. Conditions are vague and provide little assured protection for those potentially harmed by a third runway.
8. The consultation makes no mention of the costs and financial viability of a north-west runway expansion. Responses are likely to be overridden by financeability constraints, potentially making them irrelevant.
Heathrow Airspace Principles Design
Consultation on the design principles that could be used as the basis for developing Heathrow's future airspace design, and requests views and preferences relating to them.
The consultation can be found
Due 28th March 2018
RHC Response
1. The consultation does not make it clear whether it concerns airspace modernisation for a two runway Heathrow or a three runway Heathrow.
2. We believe it is important when designing flight paths to distinguish between communities experiencing reduced and increased noise and not merely to net them off.
3. The options provided in the consultation are descriptive and not sufficiently developed for objective response.
4. The topics are not linked into an overall decision framework making it impossible to discern and balance the priorities and assess the economic and environmental uncertainties and risks.
5. Objectives come before principles but the objectives are missing from the consultation and are in the process of being reviewed for possible change later in 2018.
6. The rate of reduction in noise from source is much slower than it used to be. It will be that much harder to re-structure Heathrow's flight paths and even more difficult with an increase in flights and noise from a potential third runway.
7. We understand the consultation is being treated as the first portal of the CAA's airspace change process. There is no statement of need as is required by the change process.
8. The foreword of the consultation establishes a bias without evidence in favour of a third runway. The consultation provides no evidence to support their positive statements, which we believe to be incomplete and misleading.
9. The claims by Heathrow regarding the environmental impact on communities are absent or misleading.
10. It is not clear how the Heathrow will use the results of the consultation. However, using this serial approach there will be no scope for going back to reconsider earlier decisions.
Consultation on economic regulation of capacity expansion at Heathrow: policy update and consultation, December 2017 (CAP 1610)
Consultation from the CAA.
It confirms the CAA's approach in respect of key elements of the regulatory framework for Heathrow Airport Limited and discusses issues around the relationship between the regulatory framework and alternative delivery mechanisms, the cost of capital, financeability, financial resilience, the regulatory treatment of early construction costs and the further extension of existing Q6 price control.
The consultation can be found
Due 2nd March 2018
RHC Response
We broadly support the CAA's approach to developing the regulatory model of Heathrow to manage the North West Runway expansion. It is key to controlling Heathrow's monopoly position.
We do not believe the North West Runway expansion can be developed without increasing aero charges, which would be unacceptable to airlines, passengers and the Government. To achieve financeability and breakeven on the North West Runway expansion, Heathrow would need to approximately double existing charges, already the highest in the world for any major airport.
As yet we have not seen estimates of expansion costs including surface access costs that have been reduced sufficiently to ensure financial viability. Over and above this, the CAA should take environmental costs into consideration.
We are not clear that Heathrow's total £56bn of capital expenditure for the North West Runway and other projects s factored into the CAA's assessment but we believe it should be.
We reiterate our doubts about the value of International-to-International transfer passengers. We believe that CAA data confirms that very few thin routes have such transfers and 99% of such transfers are on popular daily routes. A large proportion of the increased passengers as a result of a third runway are likely to be International-to-International.
We reiterate that Heathrow cannibalises aviation activity from other UK airports and harms their economic viability. Of the 43 million passengers a year served by the North West Runway, 16 million are additional International-to-International transfers and 27 million are additional UK terminating passengers. But 17 million of these are sourced from reduced growth at other UK airports, resulting in just 10 million net additional UK terminating passengers as a result of building a third Heathrow runway.
It is important that before parliament considers the NPS, the financial viability of Heathrow expansion be properly assessed. If parliament approves the NPS supporting Heathrow expansion it should simultaneously guarantee that the Treasury will not assist the funding of the expansion even as last resort. Not only is this a state aid issue, but Heathrow Airport Limited is a private enterprise and 90% owned by overseas shareholders.
Mayor of London: London Plan
Consultation from the Mayor of London.
The London Plan covers areas of strategic importance to Greater London:
• promoting economic development and wealth creation in Greater London
• promoting social development in Greater London
• promoting the improvement of the environment in Greater London
The consultation can be found
Due 2nd March 2018
RHC Response
The tension between the need for housing and additional flights has to be resolved. Whether this means fewer houses or fewer flights is the issue. Local Authorities cannot deliver enough land to meet housing targets and provide the accompanying schools and infrastructure while still ensuring an acceptable noise environment.
Additionally, it is not clear from the draft plan whether Heathrow expansion is taken into account by the projected housing needs. The Airports Commission recognised that providing the number of houses required and the related infrastructure in the boroughs around Heathrow could be challenging.
We believe that many of the residents of new housing in Greater London will experience significant levels of aircraft noise. This matter needs to be given much greater attention in the London Plan, and needs to be addressed before Heathrow is granted planning permission to expand. The design of flight paths needs to be accelerated to run in parallel with decisions on housing.
Given the intractable problem of housing and aircraft noise we believe serious consideration should be given to not expanding Heathrow.
Finally, we recommend the London Plan extend its consideration of parks and open spaces to include the impact of overhead flight paths taking into account Quiet Areas.
Proposed changes to the TfL Ultra Low Emission Zone and Low Emission Zone
Consultation from TfL.
The consultation can be found
Due 28th February 2018
RHC Response
We agree with the ULEZ consultation's premise that poor air quality is causing harm to people's health and needs to be reduced as soon as possible.
We support the proposed strengthening of LEZ standards for heavy vehicles in the zone that already covers wider London, that is all 33 boroughs and including Heathrow. We propose that this be brought forward by one year to October 2019.
We believe that the ULEZ area for lighter vehicles and cars should expand to cover wider-London and not just the area bounded by the north and south circular roads as proposed by the Mayor. Also, we propose that its expansion be brought forward by one year to October 2020.
We reiterate that there is no credible plan for the investment in surface access to Heathrow in either the two or three runway cases. The negative impact on air quality and comfort and convenience of Londoners and Heathrow passengers will be severe without considerable investment of at least £10 billion in surface access.
We do not believe the introduction will be fast enough to prevent an increase in air pollution in either the two or three runway cases. It is essential that Heathrow's growth is constrained within a pollution envelope.
We point out that the law does not only require compliance with fixed emission limits. It also requires developments to reduce emissions.
We support the Kew Society's response to the consultation, which we present as an appendix.
Revised Draft Airports National Policy Statement (NPS)
Consultation from the Department for Transport on new runway capacity and infrastructure at airports in the South East of England.
The consultation can be found
Initial deadline 19th December 2017
First Addendum 1st January 2018
Second Addendum 2nd February 2018
Summary of RHC response
1.The Revised Draft NPS fails to assess the need for additional runway capacity notwithstanding that a main purpose of the NPS is to establish need. UK passenger demand can be met to 2050 without additional runways.
2. The Revised Draft NPS fails to address the negative impact of the North West Runway on the UK aviation market and the demand risk. The consequences of the North West Runway for the UK aviation market are dire.
3. The Revised Draft NPS fails to examine the hub activities of Heathrow. Heathrow's 16 million additional International-to-International transfers a year resulting from the North West Runway are substantially negative for UK aviation.
4. The Revised Draft NPS fails to assess adequately the surface access needed for the North West Runway and who should pay for the additional capacity. The risk is the Government will end up paying heavily.
5. The Revised Draft NPS fails to demonstrate that the environmental impact of the North West Runway can be adequately controlled.
6. The Revised Draft NPS fails to recognise its own estimates of poor economic value when justifying the North West Runway, and overstates the economic value in the first place. The Revised draft NPS estimates the North West Runway economic value ranges between minus £2.2bn and plus £3.3bn. This very poor value is diminished still further to result in an economic loss of between £20bn and £25bn after taking account of overestimates for the value of suppressed demand, International-to-International transfers, and wider economic benefits, and underestimates of surface access, environmental costs, and the accelerated value of unrealistically fast growth.
7. The Revised Draft NPS fails to assess the affordability and financability of the North West Runway and hence the project's financial deliverability. Regulation is unfit for purpose as demonstrated by Heathrow's current excess profits and the failure to control costs making it the most expensive airport in the world.
8. The Decision Process is unsound in many substantive ways. The process is not transparent, it is biased and selective in the options and evidence considered. In many important respects is back to front with decisions being made before the evidence is gathered or assessed. It would be unacceptable for necessary conditions to be curtailed so as not to challenge parliament's decision to support the North West Runway.
Draft London Environment Strategy
Consultation from the Mayor of London on the draft London Environment Strategy. This is the first integrated strategy for London, bringing together air quality, green infrastructure, climate change mitigation and energy, waste, adapting to climate change and ambient noise.
The consultation can be found
Due 17th November 2017
Summary of RHC response
We find the strategy thorough in scope and approach with the exception of Heathrow. We reiterate the principle that the polluter should pay.
We believe Heathrow has such a major impact on the London environment that there should be a section in the Environment Strategy that more fully deals with Heathrow or defers to some such section in another component part of the emerging London Plan.
We review in detail how Heathrow's operations add to pollution, and how pollution would increase if a third runway were built.
We urge that the Greater London Authority:
(a) Seek from the Government binding assurance that there will be no Government financial assistance for the expansion of Heathrow whether by guarantee or other means, whether or not this is to mitigate pollution.
(b) Seek from the Government binding assurance that the expansion of Heathrow will not be allowed to increase the emissions and concentrations of NOx and particulates (PM10 and PM2.5) compared not just with today's levels but future levels.
Pollution has too great an impact on health for there to be any trade off with expansion of Heathrow.
Improving Air Quality
Joint consultation from four parliamentary select committees reviewing evidence on how effective the Government's plans are for tackling the health and environmental impacts of outdoor air pollution.
The four committees are:
The consultation can be found
Due 9th November 2017
Summary of RHC response
Our principal concern is with Heathrow and the adverse economic and environmental impact of any Heathrow expansion. Our response therefore focusses on the impact Heathrow has on air quality and in particular the NOx pollution from road traffic accessing Heathrow.
We propose that the Air Quality objectives should go further than the statutory threshold and seek to reduce NO2 levels whatever they might be and not just those above the statutory limits.
At present, monitoring locations in the UK are agglomerated. This has the unintended consequence of discouraging the reduction of NOx levels elsewhere within areas where one sensor show a high reading but others may also be over legal limits.
The UK Plan should state meaningful targets for compliance in the shortest possible time. There is no target time-table for compliance by each of the 43 zones.
Heathrow expansion is not considered by the Plan. This omission needs to be rectified.
Delegation of the problem to local authorities may not always work. For example pollution from buses is largely out of the control of Richmond Council. Nor does Richmond Council have significant control of pollution caused by access to Heathrow.
Richmond Air Quality Action Plan
Consultation from the London Borough
The consultation can be found
Due 30th October 2017
Summary of RHC response
We believe that Heathrow expansion has a negative impact on the UK economy, carbon, noise and air quality and accordingly is unjustified on all four counts. Efforts should be made to reduce air pollution as soon as possible and Heathrow should contribute its full share of the mitigation costs and not be allowed to take advantage of any reduction in background emissions and concentrations by slowing the reduction with its own emissions. Heathrow's full share of the cost of mitigation and residual pollution should be included in the decision on whether or not to expand the airport.
Our response goes into further detail on the points raised in our response to Improving Air Quality - Joint Parliamentary Committees above.
Beyond the Horizon -
Summary of RHC response
The UK Aviation industry has had its failures as well as its successes. The benefits stated for it are overstated and the harm - for example to the environment - understated. Too many of the objectives for the industry are proposed without critical assessment.
We agree there is a need for a new Aviation Strategy. However, the sequencing of decisions and the gathering of evidence and the public consultation to support these appear haphazard. Moreover, too often decisions appear to be based on political expediency or lobbying from business - for example the Airports Commission's proposal to expand Heathrow despite its own evidence.
While we do not cover safety in detail, we observe that it is unacceptable that a Safety Case for an expanded Heathrow has not yet been published.
We believe Heathrow's hub concept is vastly over-rated and that there should be a full review of the pros and cons of the hub system.
We believe Heathrow exhibits market dominance leading to excess profits and inefficient allocation of resources, and that this should be addressed.
There is virtually nothing in the consultation on the essential framework for comparing and reconciling the economic benefits of aviation and its growth with the environmental harm and its reduction. We regard this as a major failing of the consultation.
RHC believes it would be preferable to improve the surface access to London's five airports rather than spend money on an additional runway.
Mayor's Draft Transport Strategy
Transport for London consultation
seeking views on the draft Mayor's Transport Strategy.
The strategy covers three themes:
The consultation can be found
Due 2nd October 2017
Summary of RHC response
We restate the reasons why Heathrow should not be expanded, in the context of the Mayor's Draft Transport Strategy.
1. CO2 from the use of an additional runway will breach UK Climate Change limits.
2. Substantial capacity at Heathrow could be released by reducing transfers, which contribute very little to the route network or the UK economy.
3. A 3rd runway at Heathrow will take growth from other London airports and from regional airports with a negative impact on the UK aviation market and local economies.
4. A 3rd runway does not increase UK connectivity (number of routes) and in the carbon capped case reduces UK passenger numbers, UK inbound tourism and UK business travel.
5. The expansion of Heathrow will make it even harder (if not impossible) for local authorities to plan additional homes to avoid excessive noise.
6. Heathrow expansion results in a loss to the UK economy of at least £10 billion (NPV) and puts the viability of Heathrow Airport Limited at risk.
7. There should be no support for Heathrow expansion through subsidies, guarantees, contingent liabilities, favourable tax treatment or any other means - especially in relation to surface access. It is a private company, 90% owned by overseas shareholders.
8. There is no credible plan for the investment in surface access required for the existing or an expanded Heathrow. At least £10 billion needs to be spent on improved surface access.
9. Heathrow expansion will inevitably result in more noise. There will be no scope for the community to share the benefits of less noisy aircraft and operational improvements - the aviation industry will take all the benefits.
10. Mitigation of noise and air pollution and investment in surface access would not materially change the overall arguments that a 3rd runway at Heathrow should not be built.
11. We recommend investment for better access to London's five airports and that the airports should reduce the environmental harm from noise and air pollution. Such a Policy should also contribute to containing aviation carbon and the very significant negative impact it has on climate change.
12. We urge the mayor to include in the Policy a timetable to reduce noise levels from Heathrow to WHO limit levels and to ban scheduled night flights between 11pm and 7am. At the very least there should be no increase in the number of flights in this period.
13. We urge the mayor to include in the Policy a provision that there should be no increase in the number of passengers and staff travelling to/from Heathrow, in order to contain air pollution.
14. Should Heathrow get permission for a 3rd runway, we urge the Mayor to support legally binding conditions to limit and where possible reduce the environmental harm. Also, we urge the mayor to consider how the ICAO Balanced Approach on Land Use planning can be integrated with local authority Local Plans for housing in the boroughs surrounding the airport.
Regulatory framework for capacity expansion at Heathrow (CAP1541)
Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) consultation seeking views on the priorities and timetable for their programme of work on the economic regulation of new capacity at Heathrow.
The consultation can be found
Due 20th September 2017
Summary of RHC response
We review the economic processes in Heathrow's market in detail, including the impact of the CAA's regulation, and assess that Heathrow Airport Limited is making an excess profit of £300 million per year. Regulation is not preventing this; indeed, it is actually supporting it.
As part of this, Heathrow is not contributing enough to mitigate the environmental costs of its operations - up to £150 million annually. Regulation should better ensure these costs are met in future.
If an additional Heathrow runway is built, we assess that airlines are unlikely to generate a scarcity rent and excess profits. There is no financial capacity within the airlines to absorb higher aero charges from Heathrow and they would have to be passed on to passengers and freight owners.
If there is to be no increase in the aero charge to support a new runway then Heathrow's shareholders are likely to experience a drop in value of at least £12bn, which approximates most of the debt and equity of Heathrow and clearly is untenable.
To break even on the expansion requires the aero charge to be increased by 38% from first flight in 2026 compared to the charge with no additional runway. We believe a charge of £37.67 per passenger (real 2016 prices) would be unacceptable to airlines and passengers.
Any substantial reduction in capital expenditure in an attempt to address this would likely result in a material reduction in service and inefficient allocation of resources.
We therefore urge the Government to confirm without delay that it will not provide any financial support for Heathrow expansion, including, subsidies, guarantees, contingent liabilities or favourable tax treatment.
Draft Airspace Design Guidance
Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) consultation seeking views on the new guidance that the CAA drafted following consultations in 2016 to support the new airspace change decision-making process.
The consultation can be found
Due 2nd July 2017
Summary of RHC response
Heathrow must follow a process regulated by the CAA for Permanent Change to 'Notified' Airspace Design, that is, lateral structure of flight paths defined as Tier 1. The CAA makes the change decision and includes noise and carbon emissions and safety. Communities are consulted. There is no Guidance yet for Tier 2 and 3 changes, which include vectoring and traffic volumes.
Guidance, as drafted, is not fit for purpose: it omits potentially harmful Tiers 2 and 3 and cannot be scaled up for multiple flight path changes anticipated by airspace modernisation and Heathrow expansion. The CAA is subject to conflicts of interest. The environmental objectives are flawed and Government decisions on expansion will be made before objectives are updated and there is a comprehensive process for airspace change.
Other deficiencies include altitude tests, noise metrics and flight path evaluation process. Choice of design principles and consultation should involve independent bodies and not depend on Heathrow.
Draft Revised UK Air Quality Plan
Summary of RHC response
The Richmond Heathrow Campaign believes that it is unacceptable that a decision by parliament and government should be made on Heathrow expansion before the air quality issue is addressed.
The draft Plan's proposed objective is deficient in three areas: thresholds, granularity and uncertainty of future compliance. It is too weak to deal with the NO2 problem, and indeed it has not been possible to establish from the draft Plan the size and nature of the NO2 problem.
It fails to make explicit how mitigation measures will be applied to specific sensitive locations, such as London and the area around Heathrow. It fails to assess the very substantial cost implications of Heathrow's proposal to mitigate the impact of a third runway on air quality by greatly increasing the use of public transport for accessing the airport.
The Richmond Heathrow Campaign questions whether local authorities could implement the draft Plan's proposed Clean Air Zones mitigation proposals in practice. Moreover, the RHC doubts whether the use of a Clean Air Zone or speed measures by Highways England could have sufficient impact in countering the increase in surface access NO2 from the expansion of Heathrow.
At a UK level, the draft Plan fails to address the challenge that extra electricity generation to replace fossil fuels used in transportation will be substantial and itself potentially polluting.
UK Airspace Policy Consultation
Department for Transport (DfT) consultation on the processes and policies that will govern the redesign of UK airspace to accommodate increasing demand.
The consultation can be found
Due 25th May 2017
Summary of RHC response
The DfT seeks modernisation and increased capacity of UK airspace, taking account of safety and harm from noise and carbon emissions.
The Richmond Heathrow Campaign focuses on Heathrow.
Draft Airports
Summary of RHC response
The National Policy Statement (NPS) is pursuant to the Planning Act 2008. It requires approval of Parliament and is the basis for an airport's application for a Development Consent Order (DCO). The DCO is examined by the Planning Inspectorate and then decided by the Secretary of State in accordance with the NPS. The NPS considers need, specific location and related planning matters.
The Richmond Heathrow Campaign raises 3 procedural objections:
Regarding specific issues, the Richmond Heathrow Campaign demonstrates that there is absence of need for another runway and there is harm to the UK aviation market from Heathrow expansion. The net present value economic loss to the UK of the Heathrow North West Runway option is likely to exceed £15 billion. The NPS assessment principles are unsatisfactory.
The Richmond Heathrow Campaign challenges:
The NPS fails to provide meaningful and enforceable conditions mitigating noise, nitrogen dioxide and carbon emissions. The NPS fails to recognise that the Heathrow expansion may self-destruct because of the many unresolved problems. The 'Do-Minimum' option of not adding runway capacity may be the best viable alternative and should not be prematurely dismissed.
Economic Regulation
Summary of RHC response
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) regulates Heathrow's market dominance with the aim of protecting airline customers by capping Heathrow's charges to the airlines. Customer affordability is balanced with Heathrow's financability. The CAA uses a Regulated Asset Base (RAB) approach to recover Heathrow's costs from customers and share the risks among stakeholders. The current 5-year regime expires in 2020. The next regime, "H7" needs to regulate expenditure on expansion and the existing business - hence this review.
Heathrow's substantial future capital expenditure will result in large increases in charges unless capped, but this may make the proposed expansion unviable.
The Richmond Heathrow Campaign disagrees with the CAA opening premise that there is a need to expand Heathrow. The CAA's RAB model should:
The Richmond Heathrow Campaign believes that:
In July 2016, the Richmond Heathrow Campaign wrote to the Prime Minister to draw her attention to the absence of any economic case for expanding Heathrow. You can see this letter by clicking on the image or here.
Air quality assessment
The call for responses is in the Commission's Extensive Consultation Documentation.
Due 29th May 2015
Summary of RHC response
Heathrow expansion cannot take place without delaying the time when current air quality limits can be met.
The Government would not be in a position to approve the expansion knowing that it will worsen the degree to which air quality fails to meet quality limits.
The report estimates at least 100,000 people would be affected by a worsening of the air quality resulting from Heathrow expansion.
Mitigation can generally be bought but the question is whether it can be afforded at the cost of £20bn estimated by TfL.
The Supreme Court's recent decision on setting a timetable by the end of 2015 for compliance on air quality as soon as possible is likely to require firm action. Expanding Heathrow under these circumstances seems wildly optimistic and we believe undeliverable.
Increasing the UK's
Summary of RHC response
Increased runway capacity at Heathrow does not add value to the wider UK economy.
Re-distributing passengers and flights from the regions results in economic dis-benefits.
Noise costs are substantial, impacting 1.5 million people based on WHO standard levels.
The value of international transfers is substantially overstated and with it the single airport hub concept.
A dispersed model that makes best use of all five London airports without any new runways is the best solution.
Building a new runway will need massive public subsidy.
There is still substantial uncertainty regarding the impact of carbon emissions, air pollution and surface access congestion.
Davies: Criteria for identifying the most plausible Long Term Options
The call for suggestions is in Paragraph 1.19 on page 10 of the Commission's Guidance Document 01.
Due 15th March 2013
Summary of RHC response
Proposals should be considered on their merits and not who submitted them. Proposals should be considered both in isolation and in combination with other proposals. Criteria should also include political considerations, how proposals meet key end objectives, which market forces could aid or impede delivery, and their effect on competition between airports and airlines.
Davies: Discussion Paper 01: Aviation Demand Forecasting
The call for suggestions is in Discussion Paper 01: Aviation Demand Forecasting.
Due 15th March 2013
Summary of RHC response
We agree that the present number of passengers at London airports is likely to increase in the period to 2050 but we do not agree that the DfT forecasts constitute proof that the development of an additional runway or runways in the London area is the only feasible response.
An alternative option, at lower financial and environmental cost than additional runways and terminals, may be to carry larger numbers of passengers per aircraft within the existing runway limits.
We have concerns over the assumed benefit of transfers and hence the so called hub concept.
Davies: Expressions of Intent in Developing Proposals
Summary of RHC response
The Richmond Heathrow Campaign expresses its intent to submit by 19 July 2013
proposals for airport capacity in the longer term.
We point out that there are four options for handling the additional passenger numbers:
The public debate about short and medium term passenger capacity has been dominated so far by the first option, and that for long term capacity by the second option.
We consider that it is time for the third and fourth options of increasing the number of passengers per flight to be given equal consideration and to reverse the strategy of attracting ever-more transfers to Heathrow.
RHC response 3
Davies: Discussion Paper 02: Aviation Connectivity and the Economy
The call for suggestions is in Discussion paper 02: Aviation Connectivity and the Economy.
Due 22nd April 2013
Summary of RHC response
Our wide-ranging response covers many issues related to connectivity. London's international connectivity surpasses other European countries on most counts. We offer criteria by which the connectivity profile of individual airports should be assessed.
We point out that the signs are that aviation does not grow faster than the economy as a whole and therefore does not contribute more to growth than the average non-aviation sector.
We observe that the transfer market has become over-inflated, mainly in response to airline strategies rather than passenger preference. In the capacity debate, particularly at the so-called hub airports, the arguably excessive number of transfer passengers has itself contributed to congestion problems.
We note the substantial potential for new routes contained in the recent DfT passenger demand forecasts that could potentially serve the relatively small proportion of long-haul business passengers at UK airports.
We believe the markets should be the principle drivers in creating economic value. Where policy can help is to reduce or remove barriers and imperfections in the markets e.g. runway slot allocation and use, taxes on aviation, and surface transport capacity. We believe that providing an airport with four or more runways, would unduly concentrate the airport and airline markets so that connectivity would be determined by interests of a handful of key players.
Davies: Discussion Paper 03: Aviation and Climate Change
The call for suggestions is in Discussion paper 03: Aviation and Climate Change.
Due 17th May 2013
Summary of RHC response
We ask the Airports Commission to consider what the future impact of aviation would be on climate change if, instead of the projected increase in the number of aircraft movements in order to carry the projected increase in the number of passengers, there were to be a proportionate increase in the number of passengers carried per aircraft movement (either with an increased proportion of seats filled per flight or an increased average number of seats per aircraft), with a relatively small increase in the total number of movements compared with today.
Intuitively, we believe that fewer aircraft movements than are projected should mean less fuel consumption overall (even if the individual movements consume more fuel on account of the increased passenger loads). and this should feed through into fewer CO2 and other emissions.
Davies: Proposals for best use in the Short & Medium Term of Existing Capacity
The call for suggestions is in Paragraph 2.5 on page 12 of the Commission's Guidance Document 01.
Due 17th May 2013
Summary of RHC response
We submit three separate but mutually supporting proposals for the better use of Heathrow capacity in the short and medium term while delivering an overall improvement to the local noise climate:
1. More even distribution of aircraft movements across each hour of the day at Heathrow, in order to avoid disruption and delay in peak hours and to end night flights.
2. Increase the seating capacity of the Heathrow air fleet (i.e. more larger aircraft and fewer small aircraft), in order to increase the number of passengers per aircraft movement within the 480,000 movements limit operating in unbroken segregated mode.
3. Reverse the strategy of attracting ever more transfer passengers to Heathrow, in order to free up terminal and aircraft capacity for more terminating passengers within the legal limit of 480,000 movements limit operating in unbroken segregated mode.
Davies: Discussion Paper 04: Airport Operational Models
The call for suggestions is in Discussion paper 04: Airport Operational Models.
Due 11th July 2013
Summary of RHC response
A hub airport can be described as one in which a sizeable proportion of the passengers are transfers. Our case is that international transfers are not needed as an ever increasing number of passengers at a single airport.
Instead the issue is how might the existing capacity of London's five airports and regional airports best share in growing point-to-point demand which is broadly the dispersed model described by the Commission's Paper and the one we support.
A reduction of international transfers at Heathrow would free up capacity for growth in local demand and connectivity and we submit that this is one of several reasons that no new runways are needed until at least 2050 and possibly beyond.
Therefore, concentrating demand growth at a single hub airport is not justified either by there being unmet demand or by the need for transfer aggregation.
Davies: Outline proposals for Long term Additional Capacity
The call for suggestions is in Paragraph 3.7 on page 15 of the Commission's Guidance Document 01.
Due 19th July 2013
Summary of RHC response
The DfT's forecast states that for unconstrained demand will exceed capacity by 95 million passengers per year in South East England by 2050.
1. We propose that passenger demand will continue to be inflated by aviation's exemption from fuel duty and VAT on tickets. We estimate that a fairer level of aviation taxation would slow the rate of growth in passenger numbers by at least 95 million per year in the South East.
2. We propose that the DfT forecasts are unrealistic in assuming that the present 3::2 split between the number of passengers in the South East and other UK regions will remain unchanged through to 2050. We estimate that a more even 1::1 split would reduce the surplus demand in the South East from 95 million to 44 million passengers per year.
3. We propose that limited expansion of terminal capacity by 15 million passengers at Heathrow and by 15 million in total at Gatwick, Stansted, Luton and London City would enable an additional 30 million passengers to be handled per year, to be carried by increasing the number of passengers per aircraft movement, and reducing the surplus demand in the South East from 44 million to 14 million.
4. We propose that the growth in passenger demand be met with a London Dispersed Airport Structure without a hub airport. Reducing international transfers at Heathrow would release capacity for around 35 million terminating passengers per year. The proposal includes re-distribution of demand between the five main South East airports so as to better balance demand with existing capacity without the need for additional runways.
In summary, either the first proposal on its own or the other three proposals together would entirely remove the forecast surplus passenger demand in the South East. The Airports Commission therefore have two options for addressing surplus demand that do not involve the development of additional runways at Heathrow or anywhere else in South East England.
Davies: Discussion Paper 05:
Summary of RHC response
1. Existing aircraft noise associated with Heathrow significantly breaches World Health Organisation (WHO) guideline limits. Targets and a timetable should be set to bring aircraft noise within these guidelines.
2. Noise contours and population numbers effected are based on averages: we see this as deficient. We suggest some new metrics to reduce the averaging effect and facilitate assessment of impact and respite.
3. Night Noise. The next 5 Year Night Flight Regime should commit to a phased extension of a no flight period resulting over time in a total ban on night flights between 11pm and 7am.
4. A doubling of passengers by 2050 will require noise per passenger to be halved just to avoid an increase in noise let alone an advance towards WHO guideline limits. We recommend fewer flights with higher loads and larger aircraft.
In April 2013 we also responded to the consultation on Night Flights. Further information and our response are on our consultations page.
Airports Commission:
Summary of RHC response
We recommend the Appraisal Framework should be based on a reduction in noise that satisfies both current NPF objectives and the WHO Standards, whichever is the lower.
We recommend that the Appraisal Framework provide for the sharing of the noise benefits of quieter aircraft between the aviation industry and the community.
We oppose the Commission's recommendation of Early Morning Smoothing.
We recommend that the Appraisal Framework should include an objective to comply with EU limits on air quality.
We question whether the UK Aviation's projected carbon emissions of 25% of the national quota in 2050 are sustainable without a significant negative impact on the rest of the UK's economy.
We recommend that there should be a gradual replacement of international transfers at Heathrow with local demand. London is the hub, not Heathrow.
We suggest the meaning of the term "do-minimum" is not sufficiently clear in the Draft Appraisal Framework. The lack of well-defined "do-minimum" options may compromise the evaluation process.
We question the financial viability of any new runway requiring large state subsidies to keep down ticket prices and increase the rate of return for private investors.
Davies: Discussion Paper 06:
Summary of RHC response
1. Our analysis indicates that by 2050, passenger demand in the regions will have shifted from the post-recession 3:2 split in favour of the South East to an even 1:1 split between the South East and the other regions.
2. Increased runway capacity in the South East would be contrary to shifting the balance of the UK's economic growth to the regions.
3. We have already submitted evidence that increasing the proportion of Heathrow transfer passengers reduces the number of destinations served. Reducing this proportion could make it possible for 35 million more passengers per year to fly to and from London.
4. Meanwhile, the proportion of domestic transfers at Heathrow has decreased as regional airports offer direct long-haul services.
5. The value of international transfers to the UK economy is overstated.
6. We refer to reports by the RSPB and WWF that point out that even with just one additional runway in the South East, it may not be possible to meet UK carbon emissions targets.
Davies: Discussion Paper 07:
Summary of RHC response
We believe that two specific aspects of the National Planning Policy Framework issued by the Department of Communities and Local Government (March 2012) should be prioritised by the Commission:
a. "Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reduction
in greenhouse emissions and reduce congestion" (para. 30),
Since many past promises made by the aviation industry and politicians on the subject of Heathrow have been broken, we urge legally binding permissions and enforcement of environmental and other conditions with proportionate penalties.
The Government should formulate plans to meet statutory obligations - for example, on compliance with EU air pollution and WHO noise targets - that currently it is failing to meet. It must do this before any decision is made on airport expansion.
Improvements to other unacceptable outcomes need to be implemented by the state, and before a decision on expansion is taken – for example surface access congestion.
If any decision on a third runway at Heathrow fails to rule out a fourth runway in the strongest legal terms then it is essential the full consequences of a fourth runway be included as part of the third runway proposal and appraisal.
Those communities newly affected by noise should have the right to redress through civil action and/or through their council's environmental provision and not have the rights on this matter waived as they have been by successive aviation Acts since 1922 when aviation was on a wholly different scale to the present.
The detailed parameters where legally binding commitments from airports and airlines are needed should be identified and formal commitments should be part of any recommendation by the Airports Commission.
Kew Gardens is a World Heritage Site and the Government has signed up to various concordats regarding such sites: we expect these to be complied with.
We do not believe the consequences for other airports in the South East and the regions and non-aviation sectors of the economy have been examined sufficiently for the Commission to conclude that the climate change statutory requirement will be met without undue harm. We believe this examination needs to be completed before any recommendation is made by the Commission.
We cannot see how the Treasury can justify additional multi-billion pound public funding of aviation, especially for new runways where 85% of the capacity on such routes will be used by UK resident leisure travellers who are likely to be the better off and who generate a sizable balance of payments deficit when travelling overseas.


text:
Stuart Little 2
Stuart Little
The Birdcage
Elaine Stritch: Shoot Me
The English Teacher
Mirror Mirror
The Nutcracker in 3D
Astro Boy
Swing Vote
The Producers
Teacher's Pet
All Nathan Lane photos
All Nathan Lane films
Movies.com, the ultimate source for everything movies, is your destination for new movie trailers, reviews, photos, times, tickets + more! Stay in the know with the latest movie news and cast interviews at Movies.com.
Copyright © 2020 FANDANGO MOVIES.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The easiest way for you to repurpose and use your old blog post is to turn them into shareable videos.
You can now quickly and easily create these videos using an app called Lumen 5
Watch the video for a step by step tutoral on how to convert you blog post to video.
Once inside you Lumen 5 account, click on the "create video" tab located at the top right-hand corner of your page.
Copy and paste the URL of the blog post you would like to turn into a video.
Click on the "Create" button
You are now ready to start adding text to your video. Click on the "+" icon to start adding from your blog post to your video.
All you need to do is highlight the text, and it will add it automatically
after you are done adding all your text, you can preview your slides to make sure that everything reads correctly and that it is easy to follow along
You can customise the look of your video by changing out the colours and fonts, and you can add some music to set the tone.
Use images from your blog post or select images from the built in stock library.
After you have changed out photos and customised to your liking, you are ready to save your changes and create your video.
Download your video and share it on Youtube or upload it to Facebook and drive more likes and engagement to your page.
I would love to know if you have tried the app and what you think about it.


text:
RockSports Daily PE
RockSports Daily PE is where RockSports posts its discounted physical education tees. Everyday RockSports will post a new PE t-shirt that is available that day only at the sale price. Once the day is complete a new design will be posted. To see old designs you can view them at our store. You will probably want to come back to the site frequently to see our new and creative physical education designs.
RockSports is a custom screen printing and embroidery company with two locations in the Austin, TX area. For questions about our daily PE designs you can email firstname.lastname@example.com.
Posted by rocksports at 12:31 PM
Labels: About us, pe t-shirts, physical education, RockSports Daily
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
It's a funny old month, April. The days are longer and it's warmer than it was even a couple of weeks ago (yesterday, I went out without a coat) but spring still feels a little wait away. Today, as I sit at my kitchen table writing this, I'm waiting for it to rain. It's been forecast all morning but despite the dishwater grey skies, it still hasn't come. All is quiet in the flat and on the street outside and I haven't really spoken to anyone all day. Far from feeling lonely, I'm relishing it.
I'm not quite ready for my spring renewal, not just yet. In the last year there's been so much change in my life (going freelance, moving to another city and writing a book) and now I'm ready to sit tight and take some time to rest and reflect. I'm still working, of course, but life is a bit slower while I try to assemble all the thoughts in my head into some sort of orderly fashion.
What's next? Surely it's what anyone asks after writing a book. It's almost a month since The Occasional Vegan was published and I'm enjoying all the lovely things that people are telling me, but I'm also itching to start something new. I have some exciting projects lined up (including a new vegan menu at Milk & Sugar in Cardiff) and there'll definitely be more food writing in the near future.
I had such a lovely time at the launch event for the book last week. So many of my nearest and dearest came along to support me (and to buy a signed copy of the book – thank you!) and despite my quavering voice, I managed to say a few words about why I wrote the book and what it means to me. Even though I do lots of TV and radio stuff, I feel anxious every single time so I'm glad that it went down well. In the middle of my rambling, I quoted from a review of the book, by my friend (and fellow vegan), Sareta.
"This book proves that veganism really is for everyone which is refreshing in a world of books by polished west London daddy's girls. Sarah's food is real food for real people."
Now, I have nothing against anyone who's had life handed to them on a plate (and if that helps them make a living, lucky them) but that's clearly not me. I'm passionate about making eating well accessible and affordable to everyone and that will continue to be my ethos.
This week, I'm back in the kitchen and cooking simple meals using seasonal ingredients. I'm no purist, but the locally grown stuff tastes like heaven (and it's often cheaper, too) and the appearance of new season tomatoes and strawberries at my local supermarket or greengrocer really does get me excited. Sometimes I do a little solitary fist pump – people must think I'm odd.
Wild garlic is all over my Instagram feed at the moment and it just so happens to be growing in the woods near to where I live. It's free and plentiful at this time of year (although don't pick from private land without permission and only take as much as you intend to use) and is so easy to whizz up into a quick pesto. It has a much mellower flavour than garlic, so you can afford to use a bit more of it than you would with the ordinary kind, but you'll still get a sweetly fragrant sauce for your pasta. My other half's not a fan of overly strong flavours (something I'll never understand) so it got the thumbs up from him, too.
Pasta with wild garlic pesto
Serves 2
For the pesto
5-6 large leaves of wild garlic, chopped finely, stalks removed
2 big handfuls of rocket, spinach or watercress
80g walnuts
4 tbsp olive oil
The juice of one lemon
Salt and pepper
150-200g pasta of your choice
Boil a pan of salted water and cook your pasta for about 10 minutes (or according to the instructions on the packet) until al dente.
Meanwhile, put all the ingredients for the pesto in a blender and pulse on high for a minute or so. You should end up with a fairly smooth paste, although a grainier texture (if your blender is quite basic, like mine) is fine, too.
When the pasta's cooked, keep a tablespoon or two of the water and then drain. Return to the pan, stir through the pesto and the pasta water and heat for a minute, then serve.


text:
Earn points toward FREE PIZZA with Piece of the Pie Rewards
More About Your Baltimore Domino's
Spicy, Sweet or Savory: Get Pizza in 21222
When your tastebuds are tingling for a delicious slice of cheesy, meat-topped goodness, we know you're not craving any old pizza in 21222. You're looking for a delectable pizza with a freshly made tomato sauce, generous heaps of mozzarella, expertly diced pepperoni, and a golden-brown crust that's crunchy, crispy, and chewy—all at the same time. You want pizza, perfected. You want Domino's.
At Domino's in 21222, it's never been easier to get the fast and fresh pizza your tastebuds are begging you for! Visit your nearest Domino's location to place a carryout order, give us a call, or order your pizza online!
Start by choosing from one of our handmade crusts, including a fluffy hand-tossed crust loaded with buttery flavor, a crispy thin crust, a pan crust featuring two delicious layers of cheese, or even a gluten-free pizza crust! And next, select your sauce and start loading up on toppings. Pick as many or as few as you want! Whether you're a freak for sausage and mushrooms or love sweet pineapple and tangy feta cheese, you can count on your local Domino's to deliver.
We've got slices to suit any taste. How do we know? Because there are more than 34 million ways to craft a single Domino's pizza. Build your own pizza from scratch or choose from one of our specialty pizzas, like the popular MeatZZa™, Honolulu Hawaiian, or Memphis BBQ Chicken, and have it delivered to your door today, fast!
Pizza Delivery in 21222: Deliciousness at Your Door
When it comes to pizza delivery, we take things pretty seriously at your local 21222 Domino's. In fact, we guarantee your pizza will arrive hot and fresh, right from our oven to your door. Want to know what's happening with your order like, right now? Use our expertly engineered Domino's TrackerⓇ to follow along as your order is prepped, baked, checked for quality, and sent out our door for delivery... and try not to drool on your keyboard while you wait.
Hungry for More Than Pizza Takeout in 21222?
Sure, we deliver pizza, but we're also experts when it comes to fast pizza takeout in 21222. Feel free to try something different or stick to your favorites from our pizza menu. Give your tastebuds exactly what they're looking for with a flavorsome pasta, order of breadsticks, a crisp garden salad, boneless chicken wings, and event satisfyingly sweet desserts like Domino's Marbled Cookie Brownie™. It's a decadent blend of gooey milk chocolate chunk cookie and rich fudge brownie that'll have you begging for another.
With over 12,000 locations in 80 plus countries, we know customer service and we know quality. It's our mission to be the best pizza delivery company not only in Baltimore, but in the world, and everything from our sweet pizza deals and coupons to our friendly delivery drivers reflects this pledge. Use your mobile phone to place an order via our free app, order online, or call your nearest Domino's restaurant in 21222 for quick and delicious pizza delivery and carryout today! We may have been around since 1960, but we aren't just any old 21222 pizza restaurant. We're your number one pizza place in 21222!
More Domino's in 21222
Nearby Postal
- 21010
- 21021
- 21051
- 21056
- 21057
- 21061
- 21076
- 21082
- 21085
- 21087
- 21090
- 21093
- 21108
- 21122
- 21128
- 21144
- 21146
- 21156
- 21162
- 21201
- 21202
- 21204
- 21205
- 21206
- 21207
- 21208
- 21209
- 21210
- 21211
- 21212
- 21213
- 21214
- 21215
- 21216
- 21217
- 21218
- 21219
- 21220
- 21221
- 21223
- 21224
- 21225
- 21226
- 21227
- 21228
- 21229
- 21230
- 21231
- 21234
- 21236
- 21237
- 21239
- 21240


text:
The American Dream in Free Slots Games
Online gambling has reached a new level with free American games. You can express your love for all things American, touring the entire nation with our fun games. You'll feel like you're at a swanky casino as you play with a single click and no downloads. It's easy to see America! These are free online American slots for fun and you don't need any money to play these games, but you still get all the excitement of a high stakes game. Test your skill and your luck. Whether you play like a Texas Cowboy, a New York Gang member or a Las Vegas high roller, these American themed games have it all. Go to classic America with delicious burgers and fries, movie stars, horses, guns, a majestic eagle or the great red, white and blue. The free American slots online offer you a tour of America and the history of the country from the Wild West to modern times. It doesn't matter if you've been American since birth or simply always dreamed of setting foot in New York City and seeing the Statue of Liberty. The red white and blue flag is waiting for you to play with one click. You'll feel like a true American idol when you play these free games.


text:
Memorial services for Mr. Robert Hall, 59, of Plano, formerly of Henderson, were held at 1:00 p.m., Sunday, Jan. 11, 2015 at the Heard Natural Science Museum and Wildlife Sanctuary in McKinney, TX. A Celebration of Robert's Life will be held... View Obituary & Service Information
Obituary & Service
Memorial services for Mr. Robert Hall, 59, of Plano, formerly...View More
Sympathy Cards
Customized sympathy cards. Mailed for you.Send a Card
Photos & Videos
Share and view memories of Robert...View Photos & Videos


text:
Signing up for credit cards through partner links earns us a commission. Terms apply to the offers listed on this page. Here's our full Advertising Policy.
Update: One or more card offers in this post are no longer available. Check our Hot Deals for the latest offers.
It's Friday! And you can get a free movie ticket to a Friday showing at Fandango when you buy 1 with your Visa Signature card.
Find out if your card qualifies by looking for "Signature" under the Visa logo.
This deal is good each Friday through August 21, 2015. And it's a great way to save on a night out!
I'll show you how to get your free movie ticket!
How Can You Get in On This Deal?
Link: Visa Signature +1 Movie Fridays
Link: +1 Movie Fridays FAQ Page
Link: Fandango
To get your free movie ticket, visit Fandango (using this link only). Then add 2 movie tickets for a Friday showing to your cart. And when you pay with your Visa Signature card, the lowest-priced ticket (up to $19.50) is free!
Visa Signature cards have "Signature" printed beneath the Visa logo. Tickets are limited. And next Friday, August 21, 2015, is the last day to take advantage of this deal.
If you have a Chase Visa Signature card, can get a jump start on tickets before they sell out! That's because you can also get your Friday tickets on Wednesday and Thursday.
Important Terms
- Offer only good while supplies last
- Maximum value of free ticket is $19.50
- Limit of 1 free ticket per card, every 30 days
- Limit of 1 registration per email address (regardless of card number) per 7 day period
- Can NOT be combined with other coupons or discounts
It's easy to get this deal multiple times if you have more than 1 Visa Signature card and email address.
More Ways to Save
You can save money at the movies any day of the week! That's because office supply stores and supermarkets carry movie theater gift cards and you can earn 5% to 6% back by paying with certain cards such as:
- Blue Cash Preferred® Card from American Express – 6% cash back at US supermarkets up to $6,000 per year; then 1%. Terms apply.
- AMEX SimplyCash – 5% cash back at US office supply stores. Terms apply.
- Chase Ink Bold, Chase Ink Business Cash Credit Card, Chase Ink Plus – 5X Chase Ultimate Rewards points at office supply stores
If you find gift cards to be a hassle, you can earn 2X Citi ThankYou points on movie theater expenses with the Citi Prestige Card and Citi ThankYou Premier Card.
Bottom Line
Today you can get 1 movie ticket free (up to $19.50) when you buy 1 at Fandango with your Visa Signature card.
This deal is good this Friday and next Friday, August 21, 2015.
And if you have a Chase Visa Signature card, you don't have to wait until Friday. You can also get your ticket to a Friday showing on Wednesday and Thursday.


text:
Stuck In Thee Garage #228
Listen to this broadcastPlay Loading… Pause
This week, DJ Koomdogg delivers two hours of the good stuff, including songs about loudness in hour 2.
Track Listing
Click buy to purchase tracks from this playlist and BFF.fm will receive a small percentage. You can also support BFF.fm with qualifying purchases made via Amazon Smile. Every bit helps!


text:
Rachael Ray's failed attempt at being as seductive as Nigella Lawson…
Rachael Ray's failed attempt at being as seductive as Nigella Lawson…
Filed under Reality Check
Diesel XXX is throwing a massive 17-city party on Saturday, October 11th. But that's not my point because well, who cares? What's interesting is the short they created to promote it.
Filed under advertising, brilliant, design
Not only is it Friday, let alone the Friday before a three day weekend… but today is also the day that Night of the Giving Head, a "zombie porno" movie, is being released. Yeah, you read that right… a zombie porno.
Obviously this peaked my interest, um… bad choice of words, I mean 'left me with questions'. The following is the first line of the press release on AVN and I think it pretty much covers it.
"Half-naked zombie girls surround a hilltop house, pounding on its plate glass windows and screaming for "more cum, more cum."
This is not a joke… although admittedly funny.
Filed under Holiday, Reality Check, trends
I would love to get my head out of the gutter… oh wait, no I wouldn't… which is why I bring you the fourth installment of I AM SPAM.
SPAM is nothing but a dirty, four-letter word… isn't that awesome?
If it takes three things to make a trend, then I think we are on to something with my third installment of I AM SPAM…
Janet Nelson is turning penis enhancement SPAM into something for the whole family… good, clean, cartoon fun.
And for the academics, there is SPAM is Poetry dedicated to turning authentic spam into prose. The About page says the site is "a collection of desperate cries for attention from the marketing gutter."
I guess, I don't believe in the Ferber Method. Do you?
Filed under I AM SPAM, marketing, trends, Uncategorized
More sexual spam that arrived this morning…
Come on NoticeThings readers… I know you must have received some dozies! Send them my way so we can share with the world!
Filed under good times, I AM SPAM, marketing, Reality Check, trends
Thanks to a way-too-easy work email address, I get a ton of spam. Which would normally be annoying except that the subject lines are ridiculous. So ridiculous, in fact, that I sent one around to my coworkers at which point my boss kindly pointed out, "You are the only person I know that would forward sexually explicit spam to her colleagues". 'Nuff said… bad call… but my mistake is your good fortune because now I am just going to blog about them.
I present you with my spam subject lines, in no particular order:
If you have seen any that should be on this list, please let me know!
Filed under good times, I AM SPAM, marketing, Reality Check, trends


text:
"Judge Tosses Suit Over Bad Review Of Doctor's Work"
A Minnesota judge has boosted free-speech protections for online commentary by finding a neurologist cannot sue a patient's son over criticisms of his bedside manner that allegedly damaged his professional reputation.
Dennis Laurion posted comments on doctor rating websites in which he vented about how Dr. David McKee of Duluth, Minn., treated his father while performing a neurological examination on him. Kenneth Laurion, 84, was recovering from a stroke at a hospital.
At one point in the examination, Dennis Laurion wrote, McKee said "it doesn't matter" when someone mentioned that the patient's gown had come open, exposing his backside.
St. Louis County District Court Judge Eric L. Hylden took a refreshingly direct approach in summarily dismissing McKee's defamation lawsuit. "Taken as a whole, the statements in this case appear to be nothing more or less than one man's description of shock at the way he and in particular his father were treated by his physician," he said in a recent decision. He also suggested that Internet postings are as deserving of protection as other forms of speech: In modern society, there needs to be some give and take, some ability for parties to air their differences. Today, those disagreements may take place on various Internet sources. Because the medium has changed, however, does not make statements of this kind any more or less defamatory.
After hearing of the decision, McKee exercised his First Amendment rights by describing Laurion as "a liar and a bully and a coward." He said he would confer with his attorney before deciding whether to appeal.
Another thin-skinned doctor, Chicago plastic surgeon Jay Pensler, has filed no fewer than three defamation suits against patients who criticized him on Yelp and Citysearch. One of the defendants complained that he gave her "Frankenstein breasts."
Admittedly, the criticisms of Pensler were more harshly-worded than those of Dr. McKee. But courts should follow Hylden's sensible lead and protect the online expression of opinion about medical professionals.
As Bender said in her motion to dismiss, just as a court "may not bar those who yell in the street that 'Dr. Pensler is a horrible doctor,' online reviewers cannot be chained … [P]ublic forum websites such as Yelp.com and Citysearch.com are forums where expression should be encouraged by the courts as a matter of public policy."
December 12, 2011
"Physicians face barriers when fighting derogatory comments posted on the Internet, but some legal strategies can curb the problem"
Alicia Gallegos, AMedNews
Reviews by patients have become common as blogs and review websites proliferate on the Internet. But doctors are seeking legal remedies to battle alleged online libel and defamation.
On Nov. 10, the Minnesota Court of Appeals heard arguments in the case of a neurologist suing a former patient's family for alleged defamation. David McKee, MD, alleges that a family member made derogatory and untrue posts about his treatment of the man's father. A ruling is expected by January 2012.
From 2009 to 2011, Chicago plastic surgeon Jay Pensler, MD, sued three patients and an attorney for alleged defamation stemming from comments left on review websites and for statements made to a TV station. One of the cases was settled, and three are ongoing, said an attorney involved in the litigation.
Before suing, experts say doctors should consider all legal strategies that may help remove comments from a website. Knowing the right legal step to take — and when to take it — could be the difference between a quick remedy and a years-long ordeal.
"Lawsuits are time-consuming and they're expensive, and they may not result in the outcome the physician wants," said neurologist Daniel Larriviere, MD, a former medical liability attorney and current chair of the American Academy of Neurology's Ethics, Law and Humanities Committee. But because of federal laws, "a physician can't go onto the website where a comment is posted and defend themselves. For better or for worse, sometimes the only way for the physician to present his or her side of the story is to do so in court."
In Dr. McKee's case, a trial court ruled that the comments posted by Dennis Laurion, the son of one of Dr. McKee's former patients, were not defamation but rather an "emotional discussion of the issues." Dr. McKee appealed. He accused Laurion of writing untrue posts about his interaction with Laurion's family, including a charge that the doctor did not treat his father with dignity after a stroke.
Laurion's assertions go beyond opinion, said Marshall H. Tanick, Dr. McKee's attorney. "He felt he was viciously defamed by the son of a patient. He sued to vindicate his reputation," Tanick said. "We maintain these statements cross the line. [They are] demonstrably false."
Laurion's attorney, John D. Kelly, said some of Laurion's statements were true and the rest were vague or obvious opinions. For example, Laurion wrote that Dr. McKee was "scowling" during his interaction with Laurion's family, Kelly said. Statements about a person's expression or demeanor are open to interpretation and cannot be considered defamatory, he said. If doctors aren't sure if an online comment is defamatory, seeking legal guidance can help, Schaefer said.
Doctors can contact the patient directly to ask that the post be removed or request that an attorney send a letter warning the poster of potential legal action, said Mitchell Marinello, an Illinois attorney who practices defamation law. If requests to take down posts fail, seeking a court order is another option. If doctors can show that false posts are causing irreparable harm to their reputation or practice, a judge can demand the comments be removed.
That's what Indiana plastic surgeon Barry Eppley, MD, sought in 2009 after finding Internet postings by Lucille Iacovelli, a patient who was unhappy about a facelift done by Dr. Eppley, court documents show. She also created Web pages about her experience. Dr. Eppley sued Iacovelli for defamation and other things. A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction against Iacovelli, preventing her or anyone "acting as her agent" from posting online comments about Dr. Eppley, according to court documents. She was ordered to remove prior postings about the doctor from her websites. A Web operator who did not remove postings about the doctor was ordered to pay Dr. Eppley $1,772. The operator is appealing. Dr. Eppley got $40,000 in damages and attorney fees.
"The record before the court demonstrates that Ms. Iacovelli has made numerous false and offensive statements about Dr. Eppley on public websites," said Judge Sarah Evans Barker, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, in her ruling on the injunction. "As Indiana courts have held, when the speech enjoined is of lesser constitutional value because it is false and defamatory, and the injunction operates to address specifically that speech, the injunction passes constitutional muster under the First Amendment."


text:
Are you looking for a Chevrolet in Calgary?
Calgary Auto Finance has a great selection of affordably priced Chevrolet vehicles for sale in Calgary.
With models ranging from the Chevrolet Impala to the popular Chevrolet Silverado we are sure to have the ideal Chevy for you. All our pre-owned Chevrolet cars, trucks & suvs have been through a 130 point AMVIC certified safety and mechanical inspection and also include a CarProof vehicle history report for your peace of mind.


text:
CLOSED- Congrats Ambre S. =)
THE GIVEAWAY- A Photo Frame 'The Store of Us Multiple Opening Wood Photo Frame
Frame Details:
The frame has openings for three different photos. Sized for a 3.5" X 3.5" photo.
Screen Printed on black with cream colored lettering and finished with a satin Polycrylic varnish.
This frame can be used in many different ways telling the story of your family:
Photos of 3 generations of your family
Childrens photos/baby photos
Sisters/brothers photos
Family vacation photos
Wedding photos
School photos
Family Reunion Photos
* Shown in black
* Outside measurements are 16" X 8"
* Keyhole (2) slots on the back for hanging ( see picture above )
For more information about the product, please click here.
Price worth: $26.95
1. Enter the giveaway via rafflecopter. See form below.
2. Follow BlogLoveTherapy on either Blog or Twitter.
3. Follow Mulberry Creek on either Twitter, Pinterest, or Blog.
4. Leave a comment with your name, email that you used to enter the rafflecopter, and if you followed us through Twitter, Blog, or Pinterest (for both Bloglovetherapy and Mulberry Creek).
{Optional}-- For extra entires. Please also include the link(s) in comment with your name and email.
5. TWEET this Giveaway {+1}
6. SHARE this Giveaway on YOUR Blog or Facebook page {+1}
7. Follow on Twitter if you have not already done so. {+1}


text: This month's Technical Rescue Drill focused on rescues involving impalements, entrapment in machinery and ring removal. While these all may not be "technical" rescues, they often require the knowledge, skills and equipment that our Rescue Company provides. Ring removal techniques were demonstrated and practiced. The next station demonstrated rescues involving an extremity trapped in some kind of machinery. Different rescue techniques were discussed and members demonstrated using different types of saw to delicately remove the machine from the person whose body is entrapped.


text:
Here's how to troubleshoot problems you might have when using G Suite Sync for Microsoft Outlook (GSSMO) to import data to your Google Account.
Try the Log Analyzer
Submit your trace files to our GSSMO Log Analyzer. Most issues can be identified within a few moments of your submission. Get details on where to find your trace files.
Importing and migrating issuesSome or all data not importing from old account
- Check that you're connected to the Internet for the duration of the migration and not experiencing network connectivity issues.
- Don't import from an OST file. GSSMO supports importing only from a PST file or directly from your Exchange account. Learn more
- Import directly from GSSMO and don't drag files from IMAP folders. This method isn't supported by GSSMO and can cause import issues. If you didn't import directly from GSSMO, recreate your profile and try to import the data again.
If you import contact or calendar data multiple times into the same G Suite account, you get duplicates. You can manually remove them from your G Suite interface (not Outlook). Or, you can follow these steps to reimport that data:
From your G Suite interface (not Outlook):
- Delete all events in your primary calendar.
- Delete the contacts in your personal contact list.
- Then, use GSSMO to reimport your calendar and contacts. To do this, follow the steps in Import later.
GSSMO trace files are located on your computer in the following location: C:\Users\your-user-name\AppData\Local\Google\Google Apps Sync\Tracing\
Unified single sign-on trace files are located on your computer in the following location: C:\Users\your-user-name\AppData\Local\Google\Identity
You can find details about the failure in Outlook's Sync Issues/Local Failures folder. If you get this error, the rest of your data will still continue importing.
GSSMO doesn't migrate certain message classes, including read receipts and delivery reports. Learn more.
Are there known data migration issues?
To find out, see Known Issues and look under Data migration and Device syncing.Google, G Suite, and related marks and logos are trademarks of Google LLC. All other company and product names are trademarks of the companies with which they are associated.


text:
To positive living, one tea cup at a time.
Let's drink to the fact that our Pure Green Tea has been crafted by our master blenders to deliver a fragrant and invigorating blend. Delicious with every sip, this tea will have you seeing the world in a beautiful glow.
Green Tea.
Add a little zing to your day.
Harmoniously balanced, Green Tea & Lemon are perfect for each other. The flavour of lemon brings out the fragrant green tea in this delicious pairing. Enjoy this zesty and vibrant tea and let it fill your moment with a little burst of sunshine.
Green Tea, Natural Flavouring, Lemon Pieces (1%).
Add a fresh minty twist to your day.
We think that our Green Tea & Mint are perfectly matched. The mint softens the taste of green tea so it's deliciously light and refreshing. Perfect any time you want to bring a little moment of zen into your day.
Green Tea, Natural Flavouring, Mint Leaves (5%)


text:
To get in the spirit of the upcoming holiday, I wanted to find a book that would begin teaching my three year old guy about gratitude and what it means to be thankful. Thanksgiving is for Giving Thanks is the perfect story to explain this to a little one. Giving thanks for things like family, playing outside, hot chocolate and lollipops is right up Liam's alley and really speaking his language!
This special book touching on all of a toddler's favorite things will really connect the deeper meaning of Thanksgiving. We've read it every single night since it came in the mail courtesy of Amazon.
By Margaret Sutherland
Illustrated by Sonja Lamut
Grosset & Dunlap, Publishers
3-5 years
24 pages


text:
Price: £25.00
Quantity: 1 available
Book Condition: Very Good
Book would be a near fine copy, but the front free endpaper has been removed; otherwise, a clean, bright, tight copy; dustwrapper has some light wear & a couple of small dents. Text in English & Chinese. Colour plates of works of Chinese oil painter Ng Po Wan, 1938-1991.
Title: Ng Po Wan
Categories: Art,
Publisher: Art Beätus: 1991
Binding: Hardback
Book Condition: Very Good
Jacket Condition: Good
Type: Book
Item: 300.00 Item
Seller ID: 912938-135
Keywords: NG PO WAN


text:
In 2014, I started the PhD program in the Civil Engineering Department at the University of NewMexico as a research assistant. My research interest focuses on community participation in transportation decision making process, urban sprawl, and sustainable transportation planning.
Comparing the Output of a Community-based and Technical Experts' Impact
Assessment of a Transportation Project, IRAN
Community-led Regeneration with Special Reference to Collaborative Planning: Case Study of District Fifteen of Tehran, IRAN
I was always looking forward to the opportunity of improving my research achievements and turning them into practical use. In 2014, I started the Ph.D. program in the Civil Engineering Department at the University of New Mexico as a research assistant. Based on the quality of my application, I have been offered a "Civil Engineering Department Graduate Fellowship for Academic and Research Excellence" in a competitive atmosphere. My advisor, Dr. Rowangould in the area of "sustainability of transportation planning" is especially strong. I have been continuing my researches about the community roles in transportation projects.
My recent project was about comparing the evaluation of a transportation project based on the values of lay community members and those of planning professionals surveyed by the research team. We find that experts and community members came up with different preferred scenarios. The evaluation completed by the community suggests that constructing the highway will improve the quality of life in their community while the experts rated the project poorly. The result of this research highlights the areas where experts and the community disagree. The information pinpointing where the disagreements are will be used to either focus my further researches and investigation. The information gained through this process should be useful in avoiding conflicts and identifying more optimal alternatives. Knowledge of where values diverge can also be used to target limited resources for additional evaluation of project impacts.


text:
If you have suffered a personal injury in Florida, an important part of the legal analysis involves determining whether punitive damages can be successfully added to the claim. For plaintiffs, doing so is very likely to increase the potential value of the claim.
Punitive damages are awarded to penalize defendants for intentional misconduct or gross negligence, per F.S. 768.72. The statute requires injury plaintiffs to prove with clear and convincing evidence that defendant had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness of conduct and the high probability that defendant's conduct was so reckless or wanton in care that it amounted to a conscious disregard for or indifference to the life or safety of others.
Florida law limits punitive damages to either three times the amount of compensatory damages or up to $500,0000 – whichever is greater. The only exceptions would be if defendant's conduct was especially egregious and motivated by unreasonable financial gain, in which case the limit is four times the amount of compensatory damages or $2 million.
The rules are different in each state, though almost all have limits on when punitive damages can be awarded and how much may be awarded.
Recently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, plaintiff in Lompe v. Sunridge Partners LLC sought damages for toxic exposure to carbon monoxide due to malfunctioning of the furnace in her Wyoming apartment.
According to court records, plaintiff was a 20-year-old college student when she moved into the apartment in question in September 2010. About five months later, she was evacuated from her apartment and transported to a nearby hospital after a gas company alerted emergency crews to high levels of carbon monoxide emanating from the apartment.
Plaintiff was treated for acute carbon monoxide poisoning, and as a result, has suffered a number of various neurological conditions, including cognitive deficits, chronic headaches, sleep disturbances and emotional disorders. She continues to take a host of medications to control seizures, migraines, mood fluctuations and sleeping trouble.
She filed a personal injury lawsuit against the owner and property manager of the apartment. She alleged defendants failed in their duty of care to ensure the apartment was safe for inhabitants and their negligent actions caused her injuries.
Evidence presented revealed this was not the first time there had been a problem with carbon monoxide at the residence. Testimony indicated there had been at least four prior incidents at defendants' apartments – three at the very same residence – that red-flagged problems with the HVAC system.
Plaintiff was only saved when an apartment complex worker arrived around 9:30 a.m. to deliver a lease renewal to another tenant and detected a strange odor. He called a gas technician who detected carbon monoxide. They both entered the apartment and took the unconscious woman out, called 911 and evacuated the apartment. It was later revealed most of the units did not have functioning carbon monoxide detectors.
At trial, jurors found both the owner and property manager were liable for negligence. They awarded plaintiff $3 million in compensatory damages and a total of $25.5 million in punitive damages. The owner was apportioned $3 million in punitive damages and the rest was apportioned to the property management company.
On appeal, defendants argued there had been insufficient evidence to submit the question of punitive damages to jurors and further, the amount of punitive damages was grossly excessive and in violation of the 14th Amendment clause on due process.
The federal appeals court reviewed and determined the award of punitive damages against the property owner should be vacated, as there was not enough evidence presented before trial that showed defendant was grossly negligent or had intentionally harmed tenants. As for the property management company, the court did find the punitive damage award excessive, reducing the total amount owed by that defendant from $22.5 million to $1.9 million. That meant plaintiff will receive a total of about $5 million, less attorney fees and court costs.
If you have been injured in Boca Raton, contact the Hollander Law Firm at (888) 751-7770 for a free and confidential consultation. There is no fee unless we win.
Additional Resources:
Lompe v. Sunridge Partners LLC , April 1, 2016, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit
More Blog Entries:
Intern Injury Compensation a Thorny Legal Question, Jan. 23, 2016, Boca Raton Personal Injury Lawyer


text:
Sponsored By
Update: Missing Person Alert For Savage Man CancelledThe missing alert for a 22-year-old man has been cancelled.
School Districts Looking To Make Up Several Snow DaysSchool districts around the state are starting to make up days cancelled due to the extreme cold. In some cases, school was closed as many as six days this winter because of the sub-zero temperatures.
How Do Schools Decide To Close, When Is The Decision Made?Thousands of school kids across the state got to stay home again Thursday because of the extreme cold. This is the third day this month, the sub-zero temperatures have kept students out of class and that's very unusual for Minnesota school districts.
Latest Casualty Of The Mild Winter: Mora VasaloppetThe mild weather has ruined another winter event.
Many Flights Cancelled At Minneapolis AirportWhile the huge blizzard bearing down on the Midwest is largely bypassing Minnesota, the state is still being affected.
Hmong New Year Event Cancelled Because Of DomeA major event scheduled for this weekend at the Metrodome is being cancelled because of the roof collapse.
Local Travelers Heading East Stuck At MSPFor once this month, it's not the snow in Minneapolis causing the headaches.


text:
The Thing That Happened At C4[3]
I'm back from C4 now, and as I come down from the adrenalin rush of a fascinating weekend, followed by a not-that-bad-yet-still-horrendous flight, one thing from this weekend has stuck with me. And I think it's going to stick with me for some time to come.
I'm back from C4 now, and as I come down from the adrenalin rush of a fascinating weekend, followed by a not-that-bad-yet-still-horrendous flight, one thing from this weekend has stuck with me. And I think it's going to stick with me for some time to come.
If you're reading this, you've probably seen the movie Serenity: that feature-length conclusion to the television triumph that was Firefly. Perhaps, like me, you've only seen it once. That's because of this one scene that is too painful to watch, where our beloved character Wash is — OH GOD OH GOD, I can't bear to even write it! My mind jerks away from the moment as my hand would wrench back from a fire.
After the events of yesterday — Saturday — I'm tempted to do the same thing. A Horrible Thing happened, and I want it to not exist. Yet this moment, and what happened after, deserve really close scrutiny.
Let's start from the top. As a surprise guest, Jonathan "Wolf" Rentzch presented Marshall Culpepper, the lead developer for a product called Appcelerator Titanium. This product does something pretty miraculous: it allows you to code a single application, in the Javascript language, and have it converted on-the-fly to the Mac, Windows or Linux. Hell, you can even use Javascript in Appcelerator to write iPhone and Android applications!
I'd never heard of this product before this presentation, but you can bet that my ears perked right up. I'm a web developer who's struggled for years to learn Cocoa and Objective-C. Here was a guy who purported to give me a language I already knew, and build the apps I want to build, for whichever platform I wanted. Crazy talk!
I'm no software engineer, but I can't help but fathom that there is a serious, metric assload of engineering in this thing. The kind of shit that would empty my bowels if I were to see it. So I watched with skepticism, but with an evaluating mind.
As it happened, the rest of the room — mostly seasoned Cocoa developers — had a somewhat different opinion. I saw it in the body language: the muttering to each other, the shaking heads, the rolling eyes. But the documentation is right there in the Twitter back channel. Several of us took to it with our opinions on the talk, in real time.
My eyes glaze over the moment I see the phrase "web technologies" Adobe Air as your comparison?! AAAANNNKKK. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you for playing though.
Oh Ess Ecks is nails on a chalkboard.
Switching to doing your UI in HTML/CSS is gonna be a REALLY hard sell in this room.
"All the things a normal desktop app can do…" plus, being bloated and unstable as hell. Just like AIR.
And so on. But this wouldn't be a true telling if I didn't include myself in this stream:
aaronvegh: Since when is the language the major barrier to developing for a platform? 4:48 PM Sep 26th from MGTwitterEngine
Which in my defence wasn't meant as a slag so much as a statement that frameworks are the barrier to entry (in my opinion), while this project seemed focused on the language. But I think you'll agree, the tone of this chatter was unfriendly to say the least.
When an intermission followed Marshall's presentation, the consensus among us was that we'd watched a pretty spectacular flameout. It wasn't until just now that I went back to this back channel stream and read it again (in horror) that I saw a sternly justified warning from @violasong:
violasong: frigging behave, people. Marshall's here as our guest to share something cool+geeky. How about some respect. 5:03 PM Sep 26th from MGTwitterEngine
Like the moment of Wash's demise in Serenity, I think we C4 attendees were all too keen to bury it in the back of our minds, and drink after drink after drink. So when we arrived for the first talk on Sunday morning, it was with some difficulty that all of us in that room were dragged, forcefully, into living that moment again.
Before the first speaker, Kevin Mitchell, could tell us about PyObjC, Wolf let loose with a very clear, very angry, very emotional rebuke. I can't quote it verbatim, but it went something like this:
"Every year, I try to bring you something outside of your comfort zone. We as indie Mac developers tend to reside in an echo chamber, so I want to share with you experiences outside of what you know. These people come here, at their own expense, and sometimes with great difficulty — Marshall came here in spite of having his wife over 8 months pregnant. What I saw on the Twitter back channel was rude, and insulting, and wrong. It doesn't befit who we are as indie developers, and it's not what C4 is about. We should be on the presenter's side."
The last part was the most haunting and striking part of his speech:
"Those of you who did this are not part of what C4 is about, and you shouldn't return to this conference."
(Update: @violasong writes that Wolf's true meaning here was more along the lines of "if you don't agree with what I'm saying, then don't return to this conference." Self-selecting rather than excommunication. Personally, I'm relieved).
These words were not delivered easily. The emotion was painfully apparent in his voice, and he was clearly between rage and tears. The silence in the room was achingly long, and I wondered, in those microseconds that stretched for an eternity, how it would resolve. Then, the most unexpected thing happened: we started clapping. Support for his words, acknowledgement of what he'd said, and hopefully, the beginning of a new maturity for the attendees of this conference.
Wolf did something brave in the face of craven behaviour. He looked into the darkest pit of what we had collectively done, and rather than turn away, he jammed his stake in the ground and said, "this is unacceptable". In that moment, Wolf became not just a community leader, bringing us together every year, but a moral leader. He showed us that our indie lifestyles are more than just writing code and chatting up our fellow Mac nerds. He showed us that we are snobs about our technology, and that we are not charitable to outsiders.
It's a sobering moment, and one that I'll carry with me for years to come. Thank you, Wolf, for demonstrating the better path.
And Marshall, if you're reading this: you deserved a better reception, you didn't get it, and I apologize for my own role, however small, in that drama.
Update: Names removed from example tweets to protect the commenters, save my own.