Mummy says: "Family is being held to ransom over Santa dispute"

From the BBC:

The family is being "held to ransom by little Billy" due to the dispute over the non-appearance of Santa in the shopping centre in January, Mummy has said.

Mummy called for an end to all public tantrums following revelations that Santa will not appear again for another eleven months - and that includes quiet sulking - following a fifth minute of whining in the shopping centre.

It's not fair

Little Billy spat out his dummy, kicked his sister Siobhan on the shin and shouted at Mummy in the food court. Daddy threatened to take everybody straight home in response.

Bending down to pram level and speaking firmly, Mummy said: "It's not acceptable that those who say they want to see Santa again - in January - are actually doing it by showing us all up in public and ruining our little family outing. It's disgraceful, frankly."

I hate you

Mummy described the continuing bad behaviour as "profoundly depressing" and said she was "fully supportive of the great efforts which Daddy is taking to crack down robustly on those who continue to behave like a spoiled brat". She called for Billy to "come off it" in order to allow her to pop into Clark's to see if she can find some new school shoes for Siobhan.

"We will not be able to get a solution while the family is being held to ransom," she said.

I wish I'd never been born

Three family members have been kicked or shouted at and eight passers-by were on the point of saying something, bringing the total number of mildly irrirated adults since the Santa protests began to 104.

Billy has been told off for threatening to get out of the pram and is due to be sent to the naughty step as soon as the family gets home. Siobhan has so far resisted the temptation to ask when the Easter Bunny will be coming.

Tory Greenies and NIMBYs shoot each other in foot (Part 94)

You may remember a few weeks ago, when the Tory Greenies were still in ascendance..?

Mrs Villiers revealed at the Conservative conference last month that a Tory government would scrap a third runway in favour of a £20billion, 180mph North-South [railway-] link. She said the line would take 66,000 domestic flights a year out of the UK's skies and avoid 'considerable' environmental harm from a new runway.

Right. Fast forward to last weekend ...

Shadow transport secretary Theresa Villiers said the number of international connections [at Heathrow] grew by nearly 4,000 between 2000 and 2006. Over the same period, the number of international flights terminating at Heathrow grew by 919, while domestic terminations fell by 1,394, she said...

"It is startlingly clear that that the growth in passenger numbers at Heathrow Airport has been fuelled by the use of our national airport by people who do not even stop to visit the country. The benefits conferred on the economy by transfer passengers are by no means clear. While the environmental and social cost of a third runway is high, the facts revealed by this report confirm that the economic case is looking thinner and thinner."

Reality check:

1. The figures she mentions - 4,000 more international connections, 919 fewer terminations, 1,394 domestic terminations are absolutely insignificant compared to 480,000 aircraft movements per annum.

2. "The benefits conferred on the economy by transfer passengers..." are quite simple. Six aircraft movements per annum equate to about one job. If it's transfer passengers, so much the better - they create jobs without clogging up local tranport.

3. If it were true that expansion at Heathrow were solely down to international transfer passengers (which it clearly isn't - see point 1. above) then why on earth would The Tories suggest that a "£20billion, 180mph North-South [railway] link" is a viable alternative to a third runway? (Don't get me wrong - I am a big fan of railways and public transport and so on, but you have to see it in context.)

Or is this maybe, just maybe, an unholy alliance between the Greenies and the NIMBYs, and right now, it's difficult to say who's worse?