Paul was refused permission to land his helicopter

http://people.monstersandcritics.com...ys_landing_ban

Paul McCartney's landing ban
Nov 23, 2007, 13:30 GMT


Sir Paul McCartney was refused permission to land his helicopter because he is a vegetarian.


The Beatles legend was planning a trip to his late first wife Linda's vegetarian food factory near Fakenham racecourse, but his request was rejected because he supported the ban against foxhunting.


Chief Executive David Hunter, a supporter of the West Norfolk Hunt, told Britain's Daily Mail newspaper: "The helicopter company would not tell me who their client was but, putting two and two together, I rang back and said, 'If it's Paul McCartney, tell him he's not welcome because of his views on hunting.' "I heard from them a few days later and they told me they'd be landing elsewhere."


Foxhunting was banned in Britain last year after an ongoing campaign by hunt supporters for the House of Lords to oppose the bill.


Meanwhile, 65-year-old Paul revealed music has helped him cope during his bitter divorce battle from second wife Heather Mills.


He said: "The last couple of years, I've been very glad to have my music and I've been putting stuff into it that seems to have added up to something.


"I think one of the greatest things is that music is a great healer and it's a great sort of therapy."


(C) BANG Media International

And Fox says, "Thanks, Paul, who needs their stinky field anyway?!"

It's okay, Paul, you can land your helicopter over here at my place. We can have mashed potatoes and ...not hunt.

Stupid people!! But would you want to land on their land anyway Paul? I don't think so!

Originally Posted by oldbeatlechick

Stupid people!! But would you want to land on their land anyway Paul? I don't think so!

Well... it works both ways...

Paul's "banned" or boycotted people and companies because of his views on meat-eating, only fair that they could do the same to him.

What disgusting blood-thirsty thugs.

Well put, Lucy. Paul certainly has his options of where to fly and land.

There are many people in my neck of the woods who would be delighted to make room at the landing strip for Paul.

Wow.

Sir Paul doesn't get special treatment anywhere - lol! I don't believe that he should have been denied landing just because he supports the ban on fox hunting. Then again, ABCKO has a point. Paul has also boycotted a lot of things in his time because he is a veggie. Tit for tat, I suppose.

Even the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper wouldn't see him when Sir Paul was in Canada to call attention to the seal hunt (which is going on right now by the way)! Then again, the Canadian PM wouldn't see Brigitte Bardot either for the same reasons.

I digress...I wonder why an article about Paul not being able to land his heli finished with talking about his divorce. Helicopter landing denied...Divorce. Oh ok, I see the connection. Nice journalism.

If he says to care a bit about things like environment he should not fly a helicopter at all in the first place? It's ok when you are a flying doctor in Australia or so, but....

Sure he can ride a bike to the place.

my thoughts exactly

a good ancient saying for him this time is... when you point one finger to someone... 3 will point your own way...(considering you have all 5 ofcourse)

yet...it's a newspaper story...so...and also... there are good things about helicopter flying actually ... smart people here in Holland think within 5 years from now it will have increased a lot...because it saves people from traffic jams in their big cars steaming away gas or petrol or cigarette smoke whilst standing in many rows..... so I am in fact enthousiastic about the idea as such... so cheers Paul...

Originally Posted by FPSHOT

there are good things about helicopter flying actually ... smart people here in Holland think within 5 years from now it will have increased a lot...because it saves people from traffic jams in their big cars steaming away gas or petrol or cigarette smoke whilst standing in many rows.....

Well, a very lightly loaded, highly fuel efficient helicopter like a Bell Jetranger uses at least 7 gallons (26.5l) for a 30 mile (50km) flight. 4.28 mpg or 5.3 lit/10 km. That means flight path and, as you have to take off and land a helicopter, you must add that to the distance traveled, so add another gallon. Then you need to have a daily inspection before take off, a certified pilot, regular maintenance at predetermined intervals etc. etc. and that's even if you DON'T have troubles with your chopper. Yup, veeery Eeekonomical indeed!

Yes, Paul. Why oh why did you not use a portkey?

Originally Posted by hibgal

Well, a very lightly loaded, highly fuel efficient helicopter like a Bell Jetranger uses at least 7 gallons (26.5l) for a 30 mile (50km) flight. 4.28 mpg or 5.3 lit/10 km. That means flight path and, as you have to take off and land a helicopter, you must add that to the distance traveled, so add another gallon. Then you need to have a daily inspection before take off, a certified pilot, regular maintenance at predetermined intervals etc. etc. and that's even if you DON'T have troubles with your chopper. Yup, veeery Eeekonomical indeed!

and I thought I was technical lol

Thanks...even more reason for all you guys here to pay attention to this issue as well in stead of only thinking of the land owners.

Saying you care about the foxes is one thing but then to scare the hell out of cattle on the land wih the wind and noise + all the environmental issuess when flying a chopper makes no sense to me.

I agree with the issues raised about all the fuel burned by the Helicopter and the chaos it creates with the landing, let's take in the whole environment, not just saving the animals, Paul you need a "go green lesson" yourself me thinks!

My parents live close to the NYC area and there are executive helicopters flying over their place all day long, guess the execs laugh at all that traffic below as they fly over it, to me this is just plain excessive, get a life, you are not the only big fish in the sea Mr. Exec; if all your employees have sit in traffic to get to work, what kind of an example are you setting?

Originally Posted by beatlelover45223

I agree with the issues raised about all the fuel burned by the Helicopter and the chaos it creates with the landing, let's take in the whole environment, not just saving the animals, Paul you need a "go green lesson" yourself me thinks!

My parents live close to the NYC area and there are executive helicopters flying over their place all day long, guess the execs laugh at all that traffic below as they fly over it, to me this is just plain excessive, get a life, you are not the only big fish in the sea Mr. Exec; if all your employees have sit in traffic to get to work, what kind of an example are you setting?

Yeah, that whole "Paul and his onw helicopter" aspect sort of begged me as well. All fine saving animals... but if every one had his own chopper, the said animals would have no forrests (ect) to live in anyways !

... and all those big, gas guzling and polluting, semi-trucks when he goes out on tour (+ the onsene amount of electricity used during his concerts). *

* I'm not saying that he should stop topuring, or cut down on the number, or gigs he does, or how often he goes out on tour.... BUT he (and others) could still do the same tours + play the same big venues, minus all the pyrotechnics multi (and huge) screens, without he, or his fans, "losing" anything.

Take the Beatle concerts... do you EVER hear anyone complaining, even 40 years later, that they were "boring" and (fill in the blank !) because "all you had" were the four of them, singing and playing on stage ?

Heck, even with the lousy accoustics, I'm sure that most of us would still take 1965 at Shea... rather than a current Paul gig... and not just for the nostalgia of it.

Originally Posted by Legs

Sure he can ride a bike to the place.

... singing "Biker like an icon" as he pedals...

I think the arguments here are getting more lame by the minute.Sure we all want to see the Beatles and good thing that Pink Floyd isn't touring anymore with their huge screens and energy sucking tours.

Look we're all hypocrits, which is alright as long as we're not pointing fingers at each other.

I mean we are all doing what we can, we might do one thing like seperating paper and glass and other waste, but yet we migh love cars and car racing which is also very good for the environment. So we all do our little bits, but fail to do other things. Which don't give any of us the right to judge each other. Remember point one finger and you get three sticking back up your noise.

Instead of picking on Paul for what he fails to do look at what he has done, which is probably more then any of us here, certainly more then me.
And if we do look at the subject matter, those guys refusing Paul to land are very childish. Any sane person should suport the ban against vox hunting, not anything you can blame Paul for. To say he had it coming and that he shouldn't have suported the ban doesn't make sense. They are killing those fox for fun not because their life depends on it.

Anyway the whole article seems to me another excuse to write something about Heather, it wouldn't surprise me that the whole helicopter thing happened years ago. Even the title is wrong, he wasn't refused permission just because he was a vegetarian but because he, like any normal person, supported the ban against foxhunting.

Another in the long line of nonsense articles.
I think I just get one of my versions of "Memory almost full" and just enjoy the music.

Legs, this was a very silly article as such... ( No offense Esmiralda)

It is 7 paragraphs of totally pointless information and which have absolutely nothing to do with eachother. How worse can the press get?

So one way is to avoid it and play another set of Mind Games, another choise is to act as silly as the article is... and write some things on it without trying to save the world. That's what I did at least.... I believe... Then after my last post I took the bike to do errands... in stead of the car...

Originally Posted by FPSHOT

I believe... Then after my last post I took the bike to do errands... in stead of the car...

That's good. Another thing I did apart from riding the bike to work, is turning the computer off to save some energy. Also good I think.

I wouldn't mind a helicopter tho now it's getting colder.
They just have to remove some trees to make me a nice landing place.