NO FLY ZONE . . . IN ENGLAND ! ! !

Whats it like to have sex with an animal and then kill it and eat it

I have no idea. The Only one around here with an Aonus on sheep sex fixation is you dearie.

I believe your mother ship is calling you .

i think it's wonderful that we believe ourselves to achieved some pinnacle of modern civilization

only to have something that was not only here long before we appeared on the scene, but has remained virtually unchanged in all that time (short of some eruption remodeling), take at a look at our technological wonders and stick it's ashy finger up at it (feel free to insert appropriate hand gesture for your geographical region)

go earth, you'll get rid of us yet

However, NATS, the air traffic authority in Britain, said it was confident it had made the right decision in restricting flights.

"The primary concern for all the people involved -- the regulator, the government, and NATS -- has been to ensure flight safety," NATS Senior Manager Alex Bristol told CNN. "Until such time as we had evidence to give us different assurances, then the regulations which existed, and which we were using eight days ago ... then we had to restrict the airspace, and we did the right things."

why dont you and spendi just get a room and tea bag each other.

Wednesday, 21 April 2010 17:02
European airlines could sue government agencies for grounding air traffic due to safety fears over a volcanic ash cloud if they are not compensated for losses by their own countries, some lawyers have said.

Lawyers believe airlines, which industry body IATA says have lost $1.7 billion in the crisis, could bring lawsuits against government agencies. Solicitors said they expected to see 'a raft of class actions brought by airlines and companies' against government agencies if a compensation deal was not agreed.

They said the damages from such lawsuits could 'break the billion pound mark'.

The safety of air passengers is of paramount importance." So spoke Gordon Brown this week, defending the flight restrictions that have been put in place due to the volcanic ash cloud.

And could he really have said anything else? Has any leader every claimed that the safety of the people is his second priority?

However, the ethics of risk is not as straightforward as the rhetoric of "paramount importance" suggests. People talk of the "precautionary principle" or "erring on the side of caution" but governments are always trading safety for convenience or other gains.

Many Americans avoided planes after 9/11 and travelled by road instead resulting in an estimated 1,200 more deaths on the roads

For instance, 30mph speed limits on motorways would increase road safety, but almost no-one is advocating them. Lord Adonis, the transport minister, would sound callous if he said slowing cars down is too high a price to pay to save a few hundred lives per year, but that is precisely the rationale for the policy.

In this respect, governments are only behaving as we all do.

We take risks all the time, and safety is never allowed to trump all other concerns. The under 30s could eliminate one of their single biggest risks of death at a stroke if they never got into a car, but virtually all consider the inconvenience too high a price to pay.

The problem is that people are generally terrible at making rational decisions about risk.

To take just one of many examples, many Americans avoided planes after 9/11 and travelled by road instead. As a result, a team of researchers from Cornell University estimated there were at least 1,200 more deaths on America's roads than there would have been.

Foibles

Some 1,200 people died because they were avoiding what they perceived to be a riskier form of transport, 954 more than who died on the planes used for the terrorist attacks.

But governments have to choose on our behalf which risks we should be exposed to.


That poses a difficult ethical dilemma: should government decisions about risk reflect the often irrational foibles of the populace or the rational calculations of sober risk assessment? Should our politicians opt for informed paternalism or respect for irrational preferences?

The Transport Secretary has today admitted the government was 'too cautious' in imposing a blanket six-day ban on flights from British airports.
The admission will further enrage tens of thousands of passengers who are continuing to face delays despite the reopening of all British airports after they were shut by the volcanic ash cloud.
Lord Adonis told the BBC: 'I think it's fair to say that we have been too cautious. "We" being the international safety regulators.'



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1267597/Iceland-volcano-Lord-Adonis-admits-flight-ban-cautious.html#ixzz0llByilvw

why dont you and spendi just get a room and tea bag each other.

This is a good start, now what changes are going to happen so that you'all do a better job next time??

Once again " as during the 2008 financial crisis and the more recent halt in European air traffic due to volcanic ash " European leaders have failed to surmount national interests and cobble together a coherent policy quickly enough to address a problem. In the process, they may have done permanent damage to the credibility of the European Union.

NO, Considering that closing the European airspace causes billions if not tens of billions of dollars a day in economic damage they had a responsibility to consider the full ramifications of their actions. This was immature decision making, we should expect better out of our leaders.

being right is not always popular

People want others around them who tell them they are right, not those who tell them they are wrong