Mike J I don’t think I said you suggested that, I was looking for where these “extra” costs would be and repeat I am sure you are right but without any real justification on the police’s part. Where do you think the extra police cost lie?

Bomberboy I hope you are not suggesting that the Waddington airshow will not return next year with a shiny new runway, it is still on my bucket list.:D

Plenty of police and private stewards outside RIAT but I suppose they could have been RAF Police.

Certainly no expert on airshows but I thought Biggin Hill was the present owners shutting it down and all the RAF shows presumably because they had no aircraft to display with.:D

In the relatively few years left to me I hope to make a small contribution to keep Sallly B flying and to put a Shack in the air.

Indeed, indeed, indeed. Let’s us now put our support into the Shack. and get it flying before Charlie takes up farming.:D

Thank you Belforte.

So at least they do not appear to have any $100 donations and in 2011 and they were out of pocket. I wonder what they spent the $128 on? Hardly a trip to Wales!

Let’s hope it stays that way I am sure that nobody on this forum have or will make any donations.:D

Thanks for posting Charlie.

Glad I hadn’t got round to posting my so called “information” obtained at DX as it was all totally wrong..:mad:

Interesting though the article itself is the comments are also very revealing, take particular note of the voting “likes” and “dislikes”.

Obviously from the outside it is impossible to know what is actually going on, I wonder if Central Government will risk becoming involved again with no election imminent.

If I have understood the article correctly RiverOak are saying that they are not supplying a bond for the actual purchase of Manston claiming this is not necessary until the CPO is successful. Presumably if the CPO is successful there would be an obligation to proceed with the purchase, if that is the case then I agree with the Council the purchase bond is required now. If there is a failure to provide the bond then maybe RiverOak’s critics are correct.

It would certainly be interesting to see what other approaches have been made.

I hear what you say Mike but as others have said the police cannot clear the naughty field at DX or stop people standing anywhere they choose. Nor can the traffic be stopped. At the three sisters at Waddington restrictions were in place on the main road but this seemed to be the RAF Police. I think there are warning signs at the end of the runway at Waddington plus a fence/hedge to discourage watchers but they bring step ladders. Surely police involvement outside the airfield is traffic management.

But that is looking at it logically and it is doubtful that logic will play any part in this.:D

Vast amounts of farmland has no fences or gates therefore there is no prevention of people straying onto the land. If the “trespasser” falls into a ditch or trips over a piece of farm machinery left in a field who is liable, if anybody?

Any reasonable person would say that the “trespasser” should not have been there but is there also not a responsibility to take reasonable precautions to prevent injury to visitors to your property. This clearly applies to callers to your front door but does it apply to open farm land?

Adrian is right, the insurance companies will be paying out millions over Shoreham and despite the fact they have been collecting premiums for many years to cover such an eventuality they will have already taken that in profit and they will now want to recover this loss rapidly by increasing premiums and maintain their investors dividends.

Cannot quite remember what the disaster was but the Names at Lloyd’s insure all sorts of special risks like oil rigs and ships. They usually make a good return on their money. Then when a disaster happens they squeal and look for help and extra relief, but that was the risk they took and set the premium for. I hope you understand it as I don’t.

11 in my view in recorded memory the motorcyclist was unrelated or do you know different.

Unfortunately with my experience of insurance company I am not looking for a reasoned response.

When I had 2 cars stolen in totally different areas in ONE week, of insignificant value, they reinsured both replacement cars but when it came to renewal of my van they declined because of my claims record, namely 2 claims in 40 years. Despite the fact they had been taking premiums without any claims for 40 years up went the premiums.

I am sure they will see this as a good excuse for upping the premiums but, of course, statistically the risk has hardly changed, as some loss must have been factored into the past premiums.