Attempted burglary

Police attended CARLYON CLOSE in Farnborough on Thursday 25th June at approximately 10.45 hrs as a resident there discovered a male knocking at the patio doors at the back of the house.
The resident shouted to the male through the glass patio doors and he stated that he was looking for his dog that had ran away!
The resident being very vigilant did not believe this male as the garden is secure and a dog could not just get in so called the police as they thought it was suspicious.
When the resident got the phone the male ran off back down the road towards Rectory Rd and got into a small black Vauxhall Corsa.
The male is described as white, early 20's, 5'10" tall of a skinny build. He has medium length messy hair which is a mousey brown colour. At the time was wearing light blue jeans and a white T-shirt.
There is NO damage at all to the property , vehicles and nothing was stolen.
But due to recent burglaries in the area we are asking residents also to be vigilant. Please contact us if have any information that can assist with our enquiries.

https://twitter.com/declifford

I am officially a twitter!!

Rushmoor remember Armed Forces day

Rushmoor marked Armed Forces day with the raising of the Armed Forces Flag today.

Pegasus Bridge and Cemetary - Normandy 09

Lock up your grandmothers - paratroopers storm Pegusus Bridge for the 65th time.

Another memorial to remember - opened by a veteran who cannot forget

Shrinking ranks forming up again 65 years on and saluting their fallen

Two veterans remember in their different ways

It was murder getting an omlette this year!!

Cove Village Fair

Mr Mayor and the Mayoress visit the local beat officers and ward councillors at the Cove Village Fair.

Farnborough Society Airfield Visit

Letter of objection from some of my residents re airport expansion

Farnborough Planning Application for Increased Capacity

Some commentary from concerned residents:

There are some serious flaws in a number of TAG’s (the airport owner’s) arguments which we seek to highlight herein. TAG, with vast resources of cash behind them, have undertaken a most professional job of preparing a master plan and myriad facts and figures on the environmental front. But the fact of the matter is that they want these additional flights to shorten the period over which they can make a return on their investment. Their original business model was flawed and now they want to change the goal-posts to the disadvantage of the local environment and local citizens. Further economic benefits are grossly over-exaggerated. The key points in question are:

The perceived need for a 79% increase

TAG claim/imply that capacity in the South East UK cannot meet demand from business aviation. That is categorically not true. Their key competitor, Biggin Hill airport, closer to central London but with the same opening hours as Farnborough, has plenty of spare capacity for increased flights. Like Farnborough, Biggin is dedicated to business aviation and has no scheduled services. In addition to Biggin, several other airfields with an hour’s drive from London, the core destination for Farnborough’s passengers, have ample capacity to cater for future growth including Southend, Cambridge, Cranfield and Oxford. In the case of Cambridge and Oxford, both have recently invested significantly in dedicated business aviation terminals whilst Oxford see’s less than a third of it’s annual capacity limit.

Luton, Stansted and Heathrow are indeed busy with commercial traffic, but plenty of business aircraft slots are still available today and with the prospect of a third runway at Heathrow, even they will have additional capacity at some point in the future.

Any argument that there is nowhere else for future London-oriented business aviation traffic growth to go is preposterous and wholly incorrect. Indeed it is completely misleading.


Exaggerated claims for new job creation

TAG claim there are over 50 companies based on the airfield providing for 1148 full time equivalent jobs. The application implies that with the increased movements there could be another 1,880 direct, indirect and induced jobs created by 2019. This is an absurd figure. The vast majority of employment created as a consequence of the existence of the airport is already in place. All the positions relating to running the airport are filled with a handful of extra ground handling jobs perhaps necessary to deal with the extra movements anticipated.


Operators based at the airport may increase numbers of pilots to cater for fleet growth. Otherwise, the employment levels would remain pretty close to what already exists. It is ridiculously misguided to assume there would be a doubling of related employment levels. Increased use in the main will come from more aircraft visiting the airport from elsewhere – they don’t live at the airport, therefore there is no additional employment created as a consequence of those aircraft visiting. They are not talking about airline traffic where the footfall of passengers create other retail opportunities within and around the airport. Business jet passengers do not want to stay in Farnborough, they are 95% destined or originated from London.

Environmental Impact – Facts vs. Fallacy

Trying to baffle the lay public with noise contour charts, detailed analysis on NOx and CO2 emissions and a myriad of other professionally-produced charts and tables does not get away from the blindingly obvious fact that a 79% increase in traffic is just that -79% more flights. That may not equate directly to 79% more emissions but anyone can argue that 22,000 additional flights a year inevitably creates more nuisance, disturbance and a less acceptable environment for anyone living in the vicinity. Who on earth are TAG trying to kid that this will have moderate to negligible effect on the local environment – of course it will.

For sure, aircraft will tend to get quieter in years to come as technology improves, but aircraft are designed to last for decades, not years, so todays aircraft will still be flying, making the same noise and producing the same CO2 and NOx levels in 2019.

Farnborough Airport/TAG claim that they will phase out Stage III (ICAO Chapter III) jets and only permit stage IV jets (a measurement of their noise footprint) access after five years. They cannot begin to meet that commitment without shooting themselves in the foot, as the vast majority of jets flying today do not meet stage IV noise criteria. Are they really going to refuse access to the vast majority of their current client base overnight? – extremely unlikely. Were they to be granted permission for these increased movements, the local authority should impose by Section 106 agreement or otherwise, a strict year-by-year allowance for aircraft movements with less than stage IV compliance and any breach of those quotas should be punishable by a levy for each stage III movement undertaken. TAG will have to produce verifiable data on the exact model type and serial number of each aircraft movement for this to be implemented – generic aircraft model names are inadequate for this monitoring task.

Rather than imposing increased access pricing to partially compensate for the environmental impact of their activity, were the increased capacity permitted, the first thing TAG would do is to radically reduce prices to be more competitive and to increase throughput as quickly as possible. This completely flies in the face of a ‘polluter pays’ consensus.


Summary

Pure and simple, this is all about making money for TAG and their investors, trying to get a return on the not insignificant investment they have made in the last decade. From the outset they knew exactly what the constraints were to be, but their business model hasn’t stacked-up, they got their numbers wrong. They’ve spent too much money on developing an airport which had very clear and concise constraints placed upon it when changing over from a military airport to a civil airport. They want a return on their investment over a much shorter term than would now appear to be necessary. That’s entirely their problem and nobody else’s.

Why should the local region have to put up with more movements from 07:00 hr to possibly 23:00 hrs because TAG got their figures wrong?

There’s no moral argument for this. Peripheral prosperity of the region will remain virtually unchanged whether there are 28,000 business jets or 50,000 business jets flying into that piece of tarmac. It will make little to no difference on any further inward investment – the utility is already there and has already played its part in the economic development of Farnborough town.

One blatantly obvious fact that seems to be hidden in all references to this proposal is that business aviation has just about the worse level of emissions per passenger-mile of all sectors of aviation. Average passenger loads tend to be 2 to 3 passengers a trip regardless of the aircraft size and as such one can have a transatlantic jet producing the same CO2 or NOx volumes as a small airliner with a just handful of passengers. The moral argument in today’s climate for allowing yet more over-polluting flights simply isn’t there.

If one bends on the issue of capacity limitations now, in a matter of years, they will come back with requests for an extension of operating hours, then ultimately one runs the risk of the doors being open to a public enquiry in the future on the use of the runway for commercial (scheduled) services should the UK fail to build any further runways in the decades to come for which Farnborough has considerable viability – then we are really in trouble.

Do not open those doors today.


Farnborough Residents
18 June 2009

MP on TAG Airport application

Gerald Howarth MP calls for needs of local residents to be balanced against the economic case for expansion at Farnborough Airport



TAG’s planning application to increase over time the number of movements at Farnborough has been expected for some weeks.

Responsibility for deciding on the application rests with the local planning authority, Rushmoor Borough Council. I am sure they will want to weigh very carefully the economic benefits to the Farnborough area (as well as to the wider South East England) identified by the Planning Inspector who last year approved the increase in weekend movements, against the undoubted concerns of some of those local residents immediately affected by operations at Farnborough, particularly regarding weekend movements.

I believe they will need to be persuaded that TAG has made a strong business case, especially at a time when the economy is experiencing the worst recession in living memory.

Although Members of Parliament have no formal role in planning matters, I take a keen interest in major issues affecting the Aldershot constituency, such as Pyestock, the Aldershot Urban Extension and the Farnborough Aerodrome, and I shall be pleased to receive any representations from constituents who can write to me at the House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA, or email me at geraldhowarth@parliament.uk.

16th June 2009

Runways End - Farnborough

We have been working for some time with Hampshire County Council and the Blackwater Valley Scouts Association in designing and seeking funding to build a state-of-the-art outdoor activity and adventure centre at Runways End, mainly aimed at young people aged 8 - 19. I started these talks 10 years ago, and opened discussions between the Council, County Council and the Scouts.

We have been successful in obtaining a £6.1M grant from the Department of Children, Schools and Families co-location fund. This is excellent news for the borough and a great credit to the strength of the partnership and the tenacity of all those involved in preparing the bid. We have had an enormous amount of support and investment by HCC and we must also pay great tribute to Peter Amies our Leisure Manager for all his hard work and tenacity in seeing this project through.

The centre will include a range of indoor and outdoor activities from archery, canoeing, and abseiling to rope courses, BMX-ing, caveing and camping. There will also be a drop-in youth centre,residental accommodation, offices for support services and a wide variety of environmental education. Now that the grant funding has been confirmed the centre is expected to open in summer 2011 and will extend across eight acres of woodland and land adjacent to the Basingstoke Canal. It will be an integral part of the wider centre of sporting excellence given its proximity to the preparation camp for Team GB in 2012 and the first-class garrison sports facilities.

We will ensure that you are kept informed of progress with this exciting project but it really is excellent news for the borough and importantly our young people.

Airport application for more flights

TAG Farnborough Airport
I can confirm that we have now received an application from TAG to vary Condition 8 of their planning permission (reference APP/P1750/A/06/2024640 issued by the Secretaries of State on 13 March 2008) to allow an increase in business aviation movements from 28,000 to a maximum of 50,000 movements per annum . The application includes an increase in the number of business aviation movements at weekends and bank holidays from 5000 to 8900 per annum. We are required to make a decision on the application within sixteen weeks: otherwise, the applicant has a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. This period will expire on 29 September

As I am sure you would expect, a large public consultation exercise is planned informing everyone on the flight paths either end of the runway together with all those who made comment on the weekend flying application back in 2005/06. This will amount to over 10,000 notification letters and people will be given six weeks to respond ending on 27 July.

Details of the application can be inspected at the Council Offices or on the internet through our webpage www.rushmoor.gov.uk and by following the link Planning Application On-Line. There may be a few days delay before the information is all available on the internet.

The decision on the planning application will be made by the Development Control Committee and it is likely that this will need to be at a special meeting yet to be arranged.

Most common scams in UK

Rachel Robson gives the lowdown on ten of the UK’s most common swindles and rip-offs...

Over the years, scammers and fraudsters have come up with more and more inventive ways to swindle us out of our hard-earned cash.

And unfortunately, when times get tough, more of us become susceptible to these cunning schemes.

So I've decided it's time to give you the run-down on ten of the worst scams to watch out for so that you can avoid being ripped off!

1) Phishing emails
The trap: Emails which appear to have been sent from your bank and ask you to reset or confirm your security details by clicking on a link.

The reality: More often than not, these links take you to a fake website with the aim of getting hold of your personal or financial details to defraud you. So whatever you do, don't click on these links and delete the email immediately.

For more advice, visit the Bank Safe Online website.

2) Bogus holiday clubs
The trap: You're approached by a scratchcard tout or receive a phone call telling you you've won a 'free' holiday. All you need to do is to attend a presentation to collect your prize.

The reality: At the presentation, you'll be persuaded to sign up to an exclusive club and pay a fee for the privilege. But you'll probably find you've bought little more than access to an internet booking service offering the same service you could find in your local travel agent. Read Avoid this holiday rip-off for more advice.

3) Emails from 'friends in need'
The trap: You receive an email from a friend claiming he has lost his wallet and passport abroad and desperately needs money to pay for his hotel bill and his flight home.

Often your friend will tell you all phone lines have been disconnected and the only method of contact available is email. He'll then ask you to wire over some money to help him out, making out this will be repaid upon his return.

The reality: The email is not from your friend, but from a scammer who will happily run off with your hard-earned cash and perhaps even ask for more.

4) Lotteries
The trap: You receive a letter or email to say you've won a large sum of money in a lottery. Hurrah! But when you phone up to claim, you'll be told you need to pay a fee to collect your winnings.

The reality: Hand over the fee and you'll never see your money again - or your prize. It is illegal for a real lottery to charge any sort of fee so if you're told you need to pay, steer clear. And remember - if you haven't bought a ticket, how can you have won a prize?

5) Weight loss aids
The trap: Advertisements promising you'll be able to lose weight with minimal effort thanks to the wonders of a revolutionary pill, patch or cream.

The reality: Usually there's no scientific evidence to back up these claims, and you'll end up spending money on a bogus drug that will make absolutely no difference to your weight.

6) Advance fee fraud (the Nigerian or 419 scam)
The trap: You receive an email or letter from what appears to be businessmen or officials from Nigeria or another African country offering to transfer large sums of money into your bank account to get it out of the country. You're told you can keep a large chunk of this cash, but need to pay a fee to cover the transaction costs and legal fees.

The reality: These emails/letters are from conmen who will simply disappear with any money you give them. What's more, because you'll have to hand over your personal and bank details, you can expect these crooks to empty your bank account while they're at it.

7) Work at home schemes
The trap: You see an advert in the newspaper or on a lamppost offering you a significant income for minimal work - such as envelope stuffing or craft assembly work.

The reality: What you won't be told is that you might have to pay up front for supplies to carry out the job or to cover hidden costs. You may also find your 'employer' refuses to pay you, claiming your work isn't up the right standards, or that you only get commission for signing up more people. Read more in Don't get ripped off by this employment scam!

8) Car matching
The trap: After placing an advertisement for your car in the newspaper or online, you receive a call from someone promising to match you with a buyer. You're then asked to pay a fee for the match - often around £80-£99.

The reality: The call was from a fraudster, there's no buyer and you can kiss goodbye to your cash.

9) Mobile phone insurance
The trap: Not long after buying a new mobile phone, you receive a call from the shop you bought it from, and are offered a fantastic insurance deal.

The reality: After handing over your bank details you discover your mobile phone isn't insured after all and the person on the phone wasn't who he said he was. By which point, your bank account is looking decidedly less healthy. Read more about this in The big mobile phone insurance scam.

10) Pyramid schemes
The trap: You pay a fee to join a scheme but are offered the opportunity to make bags full of money fast by simply recruiting other people into the scheme.

The reality: These schemes are illegal and although the people at the top of the 'pyramid' might make money, it won't be much. And as soon as the pyramid stops growing, there's no money to be made.

Finally...
There are many more rip-offs and swindles out there, but unfortunately I don't have room to list them all. But hopefully the above ten give you some idea of what to look out for.

For further tips and advice, you can read this guide from Consumer Direct. And if you come across any scams, you can report them via the Consumer Direct website.

Remember, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Reproduced from the email newsletter 'lovemoney.com' - link below:

http://www.lovemoney.com/news/manage-your-finances/the-top-ten-worst-scams-ever-3536.aspx?source=1000020

BBQ Rules

New Standard Operating Procedures released today
BBQ RULES

We are about to enter the BBQ season. Therefore it is important to refresh your memory on the etiquette of this sublime outdoor cooking activity. When a man volunteers to do the BBQ the following chain of events are put into motion:

Routine...
(1) The woman buys the food.
(2) The woman makes the salad, prepares the vegetables, and makes dessert ..
(3) The woman prepares the meat for cooking, places it on a tray along with the necessary cooking utensils and sauces, and takes it to the man who is lounging beside the grill - beer in hand.
(4) The woman remains outside the compulsory three meter exclusion zone where the exuberance of testosterone and other manly bonding activities can take place without the interference of the woman.

Here comes the important part:

(5) THE MAN PLACES THE MEAT ON THE GRILL.
More routine...
(6) The woman goes inside to organise the plates and cutlery.
(7) The woman comes out to tell the man that the meat is looking great. He thanks her and asks if she will bring another beer while he flips the meat

Important again:

(8) THE MAN TAKES THE MEAT OFF THE GRILL AND HANDS IT TO THE WOMAN.
More routine...
(9) The woman prepares the plates, salad, bread, utensils, napkins, sauces, and brings them to the table.
(10) After eating, the woman clears the table and does the dishes.

And most important of all:

(11) Everyone PRAISES the MAN and THANKS HIM for his cooking efforts.
(12) The man asks the woman how she enjoyed 'her night off', and, upon seeing her annoyed reaction, concludes that there's just no pleasing some women.