CROSSRAIL is seen as a crass burden...KHOODEELAAR! Updating on the scandal of the Crossrail scam being rubber-stamped via UK Parliament of stooges

2215 Hrs GMT
London
Thursday
03 September 2009

KHOODEELAAR! Updating on the scandal of the Crossrail scam being rubber-stamped via UK Parliament of stooges

The following is the latest in a series containing literally thousands of KHOODEELAAR! Reports published since July 2004 on the Internet, chronicling the stooping of the UK Parliament by the forces of the Military Industrial Complex that has been peddling the Crossrail scam.

This has been carried in almost identical from by the web site of the Corydon Advertiser today.

Khoodeelaar! Organiser Muhammad Haque posted the commentary this evening:




I have been arguing for almost six years now that the word ‘CrossRail’ is inappropriate. It should be ‘transport’.

Once this inaccuracy is dealt with, there is then no need for ‘CrossRail’. Look at the transport needs of all of London and apply the available money and investment accordingly. This is in line with the reasoning contained in the rod Eddington transport study. That was published by the department for transport in 2006.

Who is Rod Eddington?

None other than the ‘expert’ front man appointed by the then UK finance minister Gordon Brown.


As the USA business publisher FORBES pointed out when rod Eddington published his report, Eddington had not endorsed CROSSRAIL. This central role of the specialist report was later reinforced by channel 4 news in October 2007 who asserted that Gordon Brown’s funding backing for Crossrail was against the advice of Rod Eddington. During the artificial passage of the Crossrail Bill through the two houses of UK parliament February 2005 to July 2008 when it was rubber-stamped into the ‘Crossrail Act’ ALL evidence of the damaging effects of Crossrail were barred from being submitted to the ‘Crossrail Bill Select Committees’ that were set up, for show, in the UK House of Commons and then in the UK House of Lords. Hundreds of officially listed objectors were prevented from submitting evidence of the wastes, the losses that Crossrail would cause. I represented the objections of thousands who signed a series of documents showing the wastefulness and ill effects of the Crossrail scam. Others who filed objections were concerned about a host of serious issues. Those ranged from economic, environmental, and social to fiscal and vitally included evidence showing the IRRELEVANCE of Crossrail to the transport needs of people in and around London. A de facto ban was also imposed on the mainstream media. With the exception of that one item on Channel 4 news in October 2007, there was no mainstream, sustained report about the negative effects of Crossrail in any of the ‘mainstream’ media. During 2007-2008, I took part in the on-line commentary on the London Times and to lesser extents on the other publications, about Crossrail. But at crucial points, the relevant media censored the comments thus making it impossible for their readers to get the full facts. One-sided propaganda for Crossrail touts and agents was dominating in the mainstream. Only this year 2009 have they begun to publish any serious criticism of Crossrail. These have included the London EVENING STANDARD piece on 28 April 2009 by Simon Jenkins who belatedly recognised some of the key flaws of Crossrail. The ECONOMIST magazine too has now published an almost identical piece highlighting the fact that Crossrail is in essence a diversion of resources needed for the upgrading of the dilapidated existing London rail and tube networks…

Muhammad Haque
Organiser
KHOODEELAAR! No to "Crossrail hole Big Business scam" CAMPAIGN
2158 Hrs UK
London
Thursday 03 September 2009
_________________________

Croydon businesses question how Crossrail will benefit them
Thursday, September 03, 2009, 07:00
8 readers have commented on this story.
Click here to read their views.

by Ian Austen

ian.austen@essnmedia.co.uk

Businesses in Croydon and across south London are being asked to say if they support a hike in their rates to pay for the proposed new Crossrail rail link.

The £15.9 billion line will link Maidenhead, Berkshire, in the west to Shenfield, Essex, in the east passing through Heathrow Airport, the West End, the City of London and Canary Wharf on the way.

Backers say the link will bring £36bn worth of benefits to the economy.


But companies in Croydon have joined others in south London to question how they will gain from the new rail line as only a short link to Woolwich and Abbey Wood runs south of the Thames.

Those concerns have been heightened by the announcement from Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, that all businesses in the capital with a rateable value of more than £50,000 will face a 2p in the pound rise in their rate bills from next April.

This will help go towards the overall costs of the project, construction of which is due to start next year.

Croydon-based South London Business (SLB) - which provides support to companies in the area - has now launched an online survey to get a picture of the true feeling of companies towards Crossrail.

Chief executive Peter Pledger, said the organisation in Sydenham Road, fully supported investment in the rail network and was sure it would benefit London as a whole.

But he said he had concerns about the effects of the increase in business rate bills.

"The announcement of an extra tax on business in the middle of a recession is unlikely to be welcomed by the business community," Mr Pledge explained.

He added: "There is an indication from businesses in south London that they feel that the amount they will pay will outweigh the amount of benefit they will get from Crossrail.

"In some companies the extra bill could run into tens of thousands of pounds."

Mr Pledger told the Advertiser the aim of SLB's survey was to gauge businesses' opinions on the increase and to get ideas on whether there were different ways in which the link could be funded.

The results, he said, would be fed back directly to the Mayor.

SLB itself will be urging the Mayor and Transport for London to consider alternative funding methods.

Mr Pledger said issues had been raised about the fact that areas at both the Maidenhead and Shenfield ends of the line, which could be expected to benefit from a new link to the centre of London, were not being asked to pay anything towards the cost.

He said: "Spreading the cost a bit wider would be one way of reducing the bills being faced by companies in London."

Businesses wanting to complete the survey should go to www.southlondonbusiness.co.uk


This story
Email to a friend Print Comment
< Previous story
Read all stories
Next story >

Bookmark with (what is social media?)
Facebook Digg Reddit Delicious StumbleUpon
Comments (8)
I have been arguing for almost six years now that the word ‘crossrail’ is inappropriate. It should be ‘transport’. Once this inaccuracy is dealt with, there is then no need for ‘crossrail’. look at the transport needs of all of London and apply the available money and investment accordingly. this is in line with the reasoning contained in the rod Eddington transport study. that was published by the department for transport in 2006. who is Rod Eddington? none other than the ‘expert’ front man appointed by the then UK finance minister Gordon brown. as the USA business publisher FORBES pointed out when rod Eddington published his report, Eddington had not endorsed CROSSRAIL. this central role of the specialist report was later reinforced by channel 4 news in October 2007 who asserted that Gordon Brown’s funding backing for Crossrail was against the advice of Rod Eddington. During the artificial passage of the Crossrail Bill through the two houses of UK parliament February 2005 to July 2008 wqhen it was rubber-stamped into the ‘Crossrail Act’ ALL evidence of the damaging effects of Crossrail were barred from being submitted to the ‘Crossrail Bill Select Committees’ pthat were on papoer created in the House of Commons and later in the House of Lords. So hundreds of officially listed objectors were prevented from submitting evidence of the wastes, the losses that Crossrail would cause. I represented the objections of thosunads who signed a series of doements showing the wastefulness and ill effects of the Crossrail scam. Others who filed objections were concerrned about a host oif serious issues. Those ranged from economic, environmental, social to fiscal and vitally included evience showing the IRRELEVANCE of Crossrail to the transport needs of people in and around London. A de facto ban was also imposed on the mainstream media. With the exception of that one item on Channel 4 news in October 2007, there was no mainstream, sustained reports about the negative effects of Crossrail in any of the ‘mainstream’ media. During 2007-2008, I took part in the on-line commentary on the London Times and to lesser extents on the other publications, about Crossrail. But at crucial points, the relevant media censored the comments thus making it impossible for their readers to get the full facts. One sideed propaganda for Crossrail touts and agents was dominating in the mainstream. Only this year 2009 have they begun to publish any serious criticism of Crossrail. These have included the London EVENING STANDARD piece on 28 April 2009 by Simon Jenkins who belatedly recognised some of the key flaws of Crossrail. The ECONOMIST magazine too has now publshed an almost identical piece higligting the fact that Crossrail is in essence a diversion of resources needed for the upgading of the delapidated existsing London rail and tube networks…

Muhammad Haque
Organiser
KHOODEELAAR! No to "Crossrail hole Big Busiess scam" CAMPAIGN
2158 Hrs UK
London
Thursday 03 September 2009
Muhammad Haque, London, UK
Report abuse
commented on 03-Sep-2009 22:01
The case for crossrail has NOT been made. Anyone wanting to get from the West End to, say Docklands, has the river. This is a woefully underutilised transport thoroughfare, with enormous development potential.

The direct financial cost of Crossrail (the extra 2p in the £) and the indirect cost of the ensuing disruption to passengers and commerce alike is eye-watering for the benefits it is said to bring. The huge sums would have been better spent improving existing transport infrastructure south of the river, to provide an incentive for us all to leave our cars at home and use public transport.

It is the same with Thameslink 2000. Swathes of historic London being swept away, so that a few ATOC member companies and their directors can make even more money. So it is that we are losing much of Borough Market for a complete white elephant.
Dr Beeching, In my car
Report abuse
commented on 03-Sep-2009 16:26
The South East of England has been paying for the rest of the country for decades. A small part of London will benefit from the Olympics yet all Londoners are paying extra money towards it (will there even be a single event south of the Thames?). Lets face it, taxes are never "fair". If we all only paid in for things we would benefit from the rich wouldn't need to pay more than the rest of us.
David, South Croydon
Report abuse
commented on 03-Sep-2009 12:56
Well of course you wont actually be able to get on a train in Croydon, but the impact on Croydon will be significant. It will make travel across London so much easier and relieve congestion for everyone.

Therefore it WILL DIRECTLY help Croydon, but we wont have the building work to put up with it.

I don't live anywhere near a tram stop, but the tram benefits me and the town that I live in.

Once completed, I will be able to get a train to London and on to Heathrow in less than an hour - hassle free. Now that is a direct benefit!
SV, Croydon
Report abuse
commented on 03-Sep-2009 12:30
I can see the bigger picture here.

Think of London as a whole.
Positive, The Cronx
Report abuse
commented on 03-Sep-2009 12:26
Crossrail will benefit those travelling long distance and having to get across London to connect with transport services on the other side of London. I dont think it will have any positive effect on local business at all. As there is no connections at all near Croydon - it wont benefit us at all.
JJ, CROYDON
Report abuse
commented on 03-Sep-2009 12:14
Why should Croydon's economy suffer because of a project that would not benefit us at all. First they cancel our tram extension, and now we're being forced to pay for something that won't benefit us whatsoever, without getting anything in return. City hall doesn't care about south London, and something needs to be done about it.
Daniel, Croydon
Report abuse
commented on 03-Sep-2009 11:31
Stop moaning. The rest of us have to pay taxes for things we do not use or receive. Men pay more tax than women to the NHS for example, but the service they provide is directed at women.
Negative, The Cronx
Report abuse
commented on 03-Sep-2009 09:29
Please fill in the following form to add your comment.
* indicates a required field