Cheap flights bad...

[Nemesis]

No, I don't go again. It's you, casting dreadful slurs against posters on this forum.

It's not funny, it's not clever, and if someone here - as you alleged in previous posts - has been doing these things then do something to track them down but don't insinuate it's any of us.

You allege 'abuse' when it's just a bit of direct talking. You abuse me in the process. You make slurs against me.

And it seriously isn't worth raising issues here, they are just reduced to the lowest level of banality.

I think it's maybe time, as others have done, to go elsewhere.

 

[Schoolmarm]

mmmmmmmmmmm parkin, lovely. Did you bake it yourself?

 

[Schoolmarm]

Pford, I have no idea if you are a man or a woman and no idea if you are a different culture or nationality to me.

Are you sure the emails with racist abuse were from a forum member?

 

[Nemesis]

Of course. Organic, naturally.

Well, the balloons are deflating, the bottles are empty, and I have taken my slap off and brushed my teeth really well (all that sugary cake...) so maybe it's time for bed.

Tomorrow, as Scarlett said, is another day.


xxxx

 

[Nemesis]

You know - we have on this forum, over a number of years, had a great deal of shall we say 'robust discussion', plain trolling, fancy trolling with knobs on, some pretty near the knuckle postings (Grimmers where art though...) some totally close to the knuckle postings, and I've been on the receiving end of a great deal of what I would call crap in daily discourse but in order to not offend the sensibilities of some I will call, as David has in another thread, sh*ite, (as indeed you are well aware Carole) but I have only ever once had a bit of a strange PM. It was just silly, and followed a bit of trolling on the site.

If anyone was sending me racist and abusive - I mean genuinely abusive - e-mails I would do something about it like report it to the police. I cannot believe anyone on this site, no matter how daft ( I name no names...) would do such a thing.

I may tell people they are daft tw*ts and that's what I would say to their faces, but I abhor racism and it was not me.

This forum is becoming so bizarre now I am not sure I want to carry on.

 

[Schoolmarm]

I can't abide racism either.


You have to carry on or my head will just fill up with trivia again. Like the pine pot cupboards on ebay and fluffy puppies on dog rescue forums.

 

[skier-hughes]

FWIW on the original survey by Travelodge, I know for a fact that the busiest Holiday Inn hotels are those at airports...I would assume the same is true of theirs. Anyone who has ever 'eaten' (and I use that description advisedly) at a Travelodge, will know exactly why they are struggling to get customers....uuuurgh

Pford75,
As you've obviously stayed at a Travelodge, have you ever been in a room of theirs when at 1.27am some person is trying to get in with a key?
Thank goodness it was one of the occasions I was with my wife, as it scared her to death.
What do you do?
They don't publish phone numbers for individual hotels, so we called the central number to get a 24hr answerphone message.
The chap tried again at 1.35 and he then left again, by which time I had properly woken and got dressed, so leaving my wife in the locked room I made my way down to reception. After spending 10 minutes trying to find the night porter, he returned from giving the chap another room.
Apparently when this chap arrived back from being away for a day he had been told to use the room he was using two days before as it was still his!!!!

A letter to their head office got a std reply, sorry you didn't enjoy your stay, here's a free night voucher, would have been nice if they'd read it and given a personalised reply.

 

[Nemesis]

Totally lost the plot.

 

[skier-hughes]

Don't worry, I'm sure you'll pick it up again soon if

Read the posts Nemesis. Read the Posts Nemesis. Read the posts Nemesis.

 

[Nemesis]

I read the post Graham. You have lost the plot.

 

[skier-hughes]

Read the posts Nemesis. Read the Posts Nemesis. Read the posts Nemesis.

the s on the end means it's plural, more than one post.

I suggest their drop in numbers may be more to do with their customer service than cheap flights.

Graham

Pford75 replied at a later time with this

FWIW on the original survey by Travelodge, I know for a fact that the busiest Holiday Inn hotels are those at airports...I would assume the same is true of theirs. Anyone who has ever 'eaten' (and I use that description advisedly) at a Travelodge, will know exactly why they are struggling to get customers....uuuurgh

I'm merely follwowing the plot that I started in my first post, now if you have something constructive to say, go ahead, otherwise, my post, if you read it properly was directed to Pford75, who is following the plot.

 

[Nemesis]

Right - so this thread is reduced to discussion of your personal Travelodge stories.


Carry on. I am sure it will make really interesting reading. Possibly you can put it in as supplementary evidence to the Commons Select Committee on tourism.

 

[Schoolmarm]

Carry on. I am sure it will make really interesting reading. Possibly you can put it in as supplementary evidence to the Commons Select Committee on tourism.

Oooh well done Graham I didn't realise you were an active campaigner.

 

[skier-hughes]

Why post that Schoolmarm?

Where did I say I was an active campaigner?

If I was to campaign about anything at this forum it would be for freedom of speech to allow people speak their thoughts without having to be bullied.

 

[Schoolmarm]

Oops sorry Graham, I thought you were on with something to do with the Commons Select Committee on tourism.


I didn't mean campaigning on the forum :roll: you already do that.

 

[Nemesis]

then I expect to see no more posts on Stopping Stanstead from you, deal?

Graham.

I think I'm the one bullied Graham. Frequently. I can think of some pretty choice things you have said about me in the past.

I also find it hard to say more clearly that I don't wish to engage in the sort of nitpicking 'debate' which some here seem to wish to indulge in - no matter how many times, in how many ways I say it, it keeps happening. I have no time to play silly games of 'Devil's Advocate' and as I suspect some here will never see eye to eye with others then life, as the cliche goes, is too short.

And we have had again allegations of abusive and racist e-mails in a context which insinuates somehow I was the person involved. Last time the finger appeared to point at Biff and myself.

So as I said earlier - maybe we should colour code posts. Or some of us post elsewhere.

 

[skier-hughes]

Then just say in simple English why you keep replying to posts;
1. You don't like
2. Have nothing to do with you, because they are directly addressed to someone else?
3. You have already said you'd not reply to anymore?


I didn't say you were bullying, you are assuming that.

Likewise, Pford75 didn't say you sent any racial or abusive emails/messages, so why assume they meant you had done it?


You think me laying a bet with you is bullying?

If you read the posts in full you will see that they say,

If I write to the guy and he doesn't reply you will stop posting about SSE, if he did reply I would sit and mutter into my beer.

As for choice words, I've never accused you of f***y fiddling or being a tit an arse or any of the other names you have used towards me. I have simply put facts to you, just because they are not what you believe is right doesn't mean they are not.

If you don't like my posts ignore them.

If I post innacurate info correct it, but don't just put........ Where shall I start, I have no time, I won't, put your facts down in writing and let me learn.

 

[Nemesis]

OK Graham - I will ignore you, you ignore my posts. You have made your opinion of me clear in the past, so quite why I should feel warmly towards you now I have no idea.

If you write to Mr Ross or don't to discuss your issues with him is no reason to try, in some spurious 'deal', to gag me from posting about something which clearly is of concern to those with an interest in historic buildings. I am unsure what your issues are with Stansted expansion and the attendant protests (see local authority website) but I though you were a SPAB member and as such, I would have thought you would take an interest.

It is difficult at times to tell to whom posts are addressed. I respond as it seems impolite to leave them dangling, often to point out I really don't wish to discuss it further but I am ignored.

However - with regard to PFord75 and his e-mails - either he follows it through with the police, or ceases to cast slurs on PPUK posters about it. In the context of his post, it gives the distinct impression - whether he intended it to or not - that the finger is being pointed at me.

This has turned into one of the silliest threads on this forum for a long time. In the realms of la la land.

 

[skier-hughes]

I do take an interest in historic buildings.
I am dismayed some will be destroyed if the runway is built.

I was solely replying to the article you posted which was from Travelodge's point of view on budget airlines, and gave my point of view on Travelodge.

That is my last post in this thread.

 

[Nemesis]

Good.

In fact the Press Release was a short report of part of a Commons Select Committee hearing on tourism in this country. It was not simply a piece of Travelodge PR as some seemed to think, who clearly had not read the thread carefully. You don't turn up at a Commons Select Committe as a bit of PR, believe me. You turn up, having put forward your evidence first in written form, fully briefed with facts at hand and expect a grilling. Not something to be taken lightly, as anyone who has been involved can testify.

Travelodge gave evidence, as have others connected with tourism in this country. For a number of reasons having a booming tourist industry is possibly a good thing. It is also possibly not a bad thing that people are encouraged to remain in this country for holidays, or at least short breaks, instead of flying off for weekends and spending cash in economies elsewhere.

The hearing at the CSC will,as I have pointed out, be available, as uncorrected oral evidence, on the CSC website very shortly. I can't find the written memoranda so maybe as yet nothing has been published. This seems to be becoming increasingly common, it used to be the case that all submissions were avaiable in print and on the CSC website.

It would appear that Travelodge believes (as do many others) that the 'cheap flights' bonanza is aided by the failure to impose VAT on air travel (aviation fuel). I suspect that most cheap flights are out of the country not internal ones. I also doubt that a huge numbrer of flights cost nothing, so VAT would then bring nothing back in revenue. There is a view that unfettered air travel is currently being bolstered by unsustainable levels of cheap flights. This in turn means that claims that Stansted (and possibly Heathrow) need to continue to expand, with the attendant environmental damage which would ensue, maybe based on an unsustainable projected level of growth in air travel.

The entire second runway issue at Stansted is causing a great deal of uncertainty in the surrounding area, and blight. That may be sound business sense to BAA and Graham, the idea that they moot a second runway but don't seem to have the finance to do it and have not as yet even submitted an application, but to those living with the uncertainty regarding their homes, communities and environment it is not a pleasant thing.

BAA ( a commercial company) did apply to massively expand the number of flights out of Stansted using the existing runway. This application was turned down by the local authority, naturally concerned at the noise and environmental damage. This application then went to a public inquiry last summer. The outcome is still awaited. The SPAB gave evidence at that inquiry.

It will be interesting (at least I will be interested) to read the full report of last week's proceeding when it appears.

One worrying side issue is the current planning bill going through Parliament, which will curtail the public's right to protest at such things as airport expansion. This seems to me to be a denial of democracy, as decisons such sas this should not be left to government departments and at times far from impartial advisers and commercial interets.

The above is a very brief overview of some of the issues involved.

If anyone wished to delve further I am sure there is a great deal of wider reading they can do. I have posted a link to the CSC site, the Stop Stansted site, and the local authority site where there is more information. Google is avaiable also.

Don't shoot the messenger or bother, anyone, to cut and paste and forensically nitpick every word I have said in this very rapid post. It is here to attempt to show that the perceived ills of staying an a Travelodge is possibly not the major issue here.

I appreciate that some here think expansion of airports and air travel is a good thing. They are entitled to those views. Personally, I disagree with them. I do not wish to engage in discussion regarding those views. If others do, I suggest they begin a fresh thread.