SPECTATOR'S NOTEBOOK
J. W. M. TIIOMPSON
Every air passenger takes a calculated risk when he makes his journey (as does every motorist), but the case of the uninvolved by- stander killed in an air crash is altogether different. One must assume, evidently, that from
time to time an aircraft is going to fall to the ground and destroy any people who are unlucky enough to get in its way; at Gatwick last weekend, for example, a man and his wife were killed, and their infant daughter was half- buried, in the ruins of their home. The deaths of the passengers were shocking, of course; but they had volunteered to take the known risks of an air journey. The family which was largely extinguished had volunteered for, noth- ing of the sort, but were, as they thought, safe in their beds at the time.
Looking at the newspapers' maps of the Gat- wick crash, it was easy to imagine what would have happened if the ghastly thing had taken place at either of the British Airports Authority's other airports. At HeathroO, the diving aircraft would have ploughed through who knows how many houses in densely populated western London; at Stansted, it would probably have caused equal havoc in the Hertfordshire town of Bishop's Stortford. Even at Gatwick it was simply by good luck that only one house was demolished, since others were scraped or narrowly missed, and in a built-up area that would be almost incon- ceivable. Here, surely, is yet another power- ful argument for building airports beside the sea, so that as much as possible of the dan- gerous low-level flying can take place over water instead of over people. I suppose techni- cal men will soon be promising us that such crashes will be rendered 'impossible' by the latest safety methods: but, as they are still in- capable, after centuries of effort, of making ships foolproof or trains completely safe, we shall be idiots if we believe them.
Roskill's little list
It didn't need the Gatwick disaster to raise this issue, however, for the Roskill Commis- sion on London's third airport, which has been doing a great deal of quiet work in the last couple of months, is about to make known its 'short list' of possible sites. At the pre- liminary hearings the general nature of the problem has been examined; when the unfor- tunate areas deemed eligible for the short list have been named more detailed examination of the possibilities will begin. What has emerged quite clearly already, I think, is that those of us who claimed that the original Stansted proposal was a travesty of 'planning' were indubitably right, and that while the com- mission may yet plump for Stansted after all, if it does so it will have reached that point by a route altogether different from that which led the bureaucrats there in the first place.
As an illustration of the astoundingly light- hearted way in which this vast planning pro- posal was originally made, the evidence concerning the likely growth in population in the area is significant. Mr'Peter Masefield, head of the airports authority, agreed when ques- tioned that perhaps a quarter of a million people would have to be housed ultimately, but 'this was not gone into in complete detail, cer- tainly not by us.', This is true enough. But I happen to remember how, not very long ago, Mr Masefield was trying to quell opposition to his plan by scoffing at the idea that any great population growth at all would follow . from it—it would 'add a little to each existing village,' be suggested! Subsequently, one town .planning expert has told the commission that a population growth of perhaps one million could be predicted. Such-episodes encourage the fear that the people given power over our environ- ment neither know nor care what the conse- quences of their actions will be.
Touch of freedom
The chances that .the proposed 'independent' university will ever come into being may not seem very bright. Nevertheless, the mere fact that the proposal should be made, and backed by a list of eminent academics, is interesting enough, even if Lord Balogh has his wish and the initiative eventually fizzles out. Only a few years ago, after all, the idea that state inter- ference posed a threat to university standards would have seemed thoroughly far-fetched. Today it has to be taken seriously. The sug- gestion that there was some intrinsic merit in establishing such an institution right outside the state machinery would also have been thought hopelessly unfashionable. Nowadays, however, misgivings about the spread of governmental authority are apparent across a pretty broad sec- tion of the political spectrum. In one sense, the idea of the independent university is akin to the various 'anti-universities' which appeared in odd corners during the season of flourishing student unrest last year. There is also something irresistibly diverting in the sudden discharge of this academic firecracker after all these years when the independent schools have been placed under pressure to conform. It must be dis- concerting to the solemn fellows seeking to stamp out nonconformity in one part of the educational forest when its disrespectful head pops up in a new and unexpected quarter.
Two voices
Like Mr Wilson, I have a weakness for the theatricality of Commonwealth conferences— the gathering of gorgeously robed potentates, the hubbub of exotic voices, the memories stir- red of durbars long ago and the trappings of a defunct empire. The difficulty arises when I try to relate this innocent nostalgia to the real world that lies about us. Nothing at the current jamboree -in London, I would guess, is likely more neatly to summarise this contradiction than two voices heard earlier this week. One was the voice of Mr Wilson himself, loftily assuring the conference that the Commonwealth 'in all its dealings is not only multi-racial but united in its anti-racialism.' The other was the harsher, more up-to-date voice of President Obote of Uganda, declaring flatly 'his intention to boot out of his country some 40,000 British Asians because 'we are not going to have a large body of foreigners controlling a vital aspect of our economy.' Multi-racial we may be, anti-racialist too—just so long as we don't have any of those damned foreigners with British passports getting in our way. Or, as Burke observed, 'a great empire and little minds go ill together.'
Previous page
