0720 Hrs GMT London
Tuesday 26 June 2007
Why Crossrail hole plot can only be stopped by the people threatened by it and people who are most directly affected by it as a community. Why the FT's token 'debate' as typified by the piece by-lined to Michael Schabas is a joke. It has no depth. It has no ethics. It is opportunistic in the same way that the alleged Superlink alternative to Crossrail has been. So far.
In the UK, there is a very unhealthy culture where big business is concerned.
They cover up for Big Business while they trample the small business. And they disrecognise the individual unless the individuals are shown to be one of the big business controllers.
This is being seen in the so-called debate on CrossRail. There is an article on the FT's website [which ahs shrunk it to two paragraphs now since first publishing it on 21 June 2007] by a man called Michael Schabas.
He is supposed to be giving an alterative view.
This is a con.
Very typical.
What is wrong with the FT's piece by-lined to Michael Schabas?
Everything.
Because Schabas pretends that he is providing an alternative to the CrossRail hole plot when in fact he isn't/. His 'reasons' and his reasoning are all derived from the same agenda that Big Business follows. That is why Schabas made no impact when he was allegedly dragged into the UK House of Commons a few months ago to give a sort of expert's evidence 'against' Crossrail.
This is the same reason why the so-called Super link has not made much of an impact either.
These elements, like Schabas, are touting forever for business to be led and controlled by Big Business.
That is why they are leaving the main populations - in other words, the communities affected by the behaviour of the looting, plundering Big Business- out of their calculations. So far as the rights and the views of the main populations [=communities] go.
[To be continued]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)