Blogs

Unfortunately, the Scottish Government announced on Monday 3 November that it is prepared to give the go ahead for the Trump development at Menie. 

First things first – we’re not anti-development, we’re not anti-golf, and we’re not anti-Trump.

We believe in sustainable development to make Scotland both wealthier and greener, which is why we’re surprised and disappointed with the Government’s decision to allow this development to go ahead on an unparalleled, supposedly protected Site of Special Scientific Interest, or SSSI. 

The Government promised a “greener Scotland” as one of the five main planks in its vision for the country.  We’ve praised much of what they’ve done for the environment, including an ambitious climate change Bill, and sustainable flooding and marine Bills.  But it’s hard to see just how this decision can be made in a “greener Scotland”

The sad thing is that John Swinney didn’t have a simple ‘yes or no’ decision to make – we offered up a ‘yes but’ alternative.  We commissioned a respected Scottish golf course designer to come up with a different design for a top level golf course on the site which avoided the most sensitive land, including the SSSI.

Unfortunately, Trump International Golf Links Scotland (TIGLS) refused to compromise throughout, or even consider our ‘yes but’ option – and now the Scottish Government seems to have followed suit.  Our alternative could have brought all the economic benefits without such massive environmental damage, and we can’t understand why John Swinney hasn’t considered it.  By ignoring it, it appears that the government has succumbed to knee-jerk political and business lobbying.

However, given that the Government “called in” the application for their own decision following the original rejection of the plans, we’re not too shocked at the outcome.

So where does this leave the Government’s vision of a “greener Scotland”? 

What is the point of having a network of protected areas if they’re not actually protected?  Will this set a dangerous precedent where, if the scale of your development is grand enough, all of Scotland is up for grabs?

The Government now has a job to win back its environmental credentials.  It will need to confirm that this is a truly unique case, and not a precedent that says money talks.  It will need to make clear that it does indeed value our special wild places for what they are.  Studies have estimated the economic value of Scotland’s environment in the tens of billions of pounds – this is an asset that needs protecting, not undermining. 

The diggers will soon move in and stabilise the dynamic sand dunes at Menie, and one of the best examples of such a landscape in Western Europe will be lost.  The Inquiry report made clear that the loss of dynamism cannot be mitigated, and so we can cross Foveran Links SSSI off the list of ‘protected’ sites in Scotland.  The question for now is whether our our other protected areas are safe in this Government’s hands?

What you can do

We appreciate that many people will be as disappointed as we are with this decision. We are examining the decision documents and will be looking carefully at all the applications Trump International will have to make as the development progresses.

In the meantime, you may wish to contact your MSP and express your regret that the Scottish Government could not find a way to consent this development without allowing destruction of the shifting sand dunes at Foveran Links SSSI. You can find your MSP using the link on the right.

You can contact us on campaigns.scotland@rspb.org.uk

Today was the last day of the inquiry. After this we wait for the Reporters to write up their recommendations, give them to Ministers and for Ministers to decide what to do. It became utterly apparent over the last couple of days that the decision they have to make is actually a fairly simple one. We heard from 32 different witnesses and yet the key points remain very straight forward.
 
Trump International agree that the coastal site is of huge importance and even signed an 'Agreed Statement' which said that the whole coastal area should probably be a Site of Special Scientific Interest. They also agreed that the existing SSSI is extremely unusual and not found anywhere else in Scotland. They were candid in their closing submissions that building the golf course would mean that the designated interest of the SSSI would no longer exist, that the environmental advisors to Trump International had asked for the golf course to be removed from the SSSI and that the only reason for wanting to build in the protected area is because this is Mr Trump's personal ambition.
 
The site visit made it clear that early attempts to translocate bits of habitats had completely failed and the Trump International witnesses agreed that even attempting to do so was a 'measure of last resort'.
 
Critically, multiple witnesses for Trump International agreed that there were many alternative golf course layouts which would allow a development to proceed but which could avoid some of the most sensitive areas and, in particular, the SSSI.
 
Which I think, brings us to the core of the question - if Ministers decide that this development should proceed because of the economic impacts it might bring then they can decide to issue a consent which allows development but not on the SSSI. We would urge them do to exactly that and in doing so consider what is best for Scotland, not just what is best for Trump International.
 
As you can imagine the Inquiry ended, as it began, in a bit of a media frenzy. Although managed a personal first by doing an interview with Al Jazeera news network.
 
Thank you to everyone who has been involved in supporting our work on this inquiry and I hope you can find the time to write to Scottish Ministers asking them to make the right decision given all the evidence that has now been presented to the Inquiry. If you would like more information on how to do this please visit
 
http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/sites/scotland/menie.asp

Today was the beginning of the end but first things first. Yesterday's entry was written by my colleague Pete Gordon who together with a few other members of our team spent the last two days tramping round the dunes with the Reporters.

Pete, along with everyone else on the site visit, turned up with what might be termed a healthy glow due to the fact the site visit coincided with a mini-heat wave in Aberdeen. So thanks to Pete for keeping the blog up-to-date.
 
One of the Reporters is unfortunately sick and unlikely to be back at the inquiry before we finish. We've been reassured he's on the mend but wish him all the best for a speedy recovery.
 
Having completed all the evidence last week, today and tomorrow are devoted entirely to what are called 'closing submissions'. It's a little bit like the summing up you see from lawyers at the end of a court-room drama - but not quite so dramatic. Our advocate, David Tyldesley was fantastic - clear, punchy and right on the money. However, I'm not sure that the 8 year old daughter of one of our witnesses was totally enthralled - dad might need to think up a few more exciting activities for the school holidays.
 
For the benefit of those who have expressed concerns about my hotel I can reassure you I've now moved, it's much better and tonight I even got to visit some of the red kites that will shortly be released near Aberdeen - absolutely amazing.

Friday morning update

I see the Scotsman's report of Thursday's proceedings leads on what it calls an "astonishing personal attack" on Mr Trump by our advocate David Tyldesley.  Sensitive soul that he may be, I'm sure that even Mr Trump wouldn't think that "being carried away by his dream" could be deemed an astonishing personal attack.  Journalists...

See for yourself at The Scotsman

Yesterday and today were devoted to site visits – not the usual huddle of Councillors and Officials in the rain in front of a controversial house extension but more a film set for Lawrence of Arabia.

An army of proponents and objectors to the application accompanied the planners and Reporters on an exhaustive – and exhausting – trek over the whole site.  We looked from prospective tee to site of future green eighteen times and tried to imagine how the sand dunes which were blinding us from an azure sky might become sterile, manicured fairways. 

Every butte and hollow seemed to sport a TV camera or stills photographer, pressmen would scribble down every word which was said (although we knew their reports would be tweaked to suit their editors’ take on the rights or wrongs of the case). Live filming of the proceedings of a public inquiry is not permitted and the Chief Reporter’s irritation at a film crew who ignored his instructions to stop grew as the sun beat down on us.

The vast sands of the domes, to be “stabilised” by golf course proposals, scarcely needed pointing out as we wished for camel-taxis but we had to send out scouts to locate the threatened rare plants for which you have to search on hands and knees.  We assisted the pressmen to take their snaps and carefully spelled out the names of ferns and sedges.  It was less easy to say of the big picture of the value of the dune system as a whole which is at stake “There it is, that’s what we were talking about”

The rules for site visits are that you can direct the Reporters’ attention to features you want to be noted but may not discuss the arguments.  This may seem straightforward but, in practice, it is often difficult to abide by such a rigid line when you want to say “look at this bit of vegetation damaged by trampling, what would be the impact of 10,000 people passing this way?” without straying into repeating evidence given last week in an airless hall.  Both sides were chastised occasionally but relationships remained business-like and even cordial between people who only last week were denying the truth of what the other was saying (and, by proxy of their advocates, will do so again tomorrow at Closing Submissions.)

That's what will take up the remainder of the Inquiry over the next two days.

Today was the last day that we heard oral evidence from witnesses. One of the reasons the timetable has moved so quickly is because the Trump team haven't been doing very much cross examination and the Council have done virtually none. Next week we have the two day site visit and two days of closing submissions, so while we're not quite over yet I can see the finish line. I think that might explain why bits of today felt like the end of term - to the point that some witnesses took the opportunity to crack a few jokes during their evidence sessions.

First up was one of the Councillors who was discussing the conditions that might be put on the development - including a suggestion for a fire station. A query from the Reporters prompted the response that the condition had been put in to see if the Trump Advocate was on the ball......as the Councillor was under the impression there had always been a fire station in Trumpton.  I can only say that inquiry audiences are probably not the best place to try your hand at stand up comedy.

After that we moved onto the evidence from Sustainable Aberdeenshire - but not before home-made muffins were distributed by one of the Councillors to all of those with concerns about the development (very tasty - thanks). Sustainable Aberdeenshire are a local opposition group and their second witness was a qualified planner and lecturer. I'm not sure if he was deliberately trying to flatter but during cross examination he decided to explain that one of the lawyers on the Trump team was something of a guru of planning law. As the Chief Reporter pointed out - it takes a brave man to introduce a ranking system to a room full of lawyers.

Apart from a bit of a discussion about whether the holiday homes would look like Benidorm or not that about wrapped it up for the day. I get to leave my horrible hotel and come home for the weekend, and even better, next week I get to stay somewhere else rather than the dismal room I've been in so far.

Following our evidence session yesterday one of the local papers reports that a spokesperson for Trump International demanded that the Scottish Wildlife Trust witness should resign - apparently because he had taken a 'narrow view of the inquiry process and how democracy works'. Needless to say the individual in question has considerably more experience of both the Scottish inquiry system and the Scottish Parliament than the spokesperson in question and I can confidently predict won't be resigning any time soon.
 
The issue of democracy and the planning system seemed to be the theme for the day. Following some fairly straight forward evidence from the Ramblers and local access groups it was the turn of the group of four Councillors who are presenting their case separately from Aberdeenshire Council. All four were members of the council committee which finally rejected the application, including the Chairman - Martin Ford.
 
The cross examination of Mr Ford by the Trump International advocate was not pretty and not particularly pleasant. At least not for the advocate. Rather than an examination of the evidence it felt more like a personal attack on an individual who very clearly explained why he had used his casting vote to reject a planning application that was contrary to Council policy. Fortunately Mr Ford seems to be very capable of handling such situations and continued to provide robust responses despite repeated attemps by both the applicant and the Council to ask him about the procedures that were followed (in the face of several interventions from the Reporters saying this was an inappropriate and unnecessary line of questioning).

He made it clear that the the application had been rejected because of the environmental damage and because the applicant had refused to negotiate or compromise, particularly when solutions were available that would allow some development with a reduced level of environmental harm.
 
We're nearing the end of things now with just a few more witnesses, a site visit and closing submissions to go. I'll be surprised if we get away without a few more demands being issued. With witnesses being told to resign their jobs and Ministers being told to not to bother issuing a consent unless it includes the SSSI land I suppose we should be grateful for the clarity. I think we'll all be pleased when it's over.

It's hard to believe it is only the eighth day of the inquiry - somehow it feels like I've never done anything else. However, today was the start, and it turned out the end our oral evidence and big congratulations to Dr Martin Auld our East of Scotland Regional Director and Jonathan Hughes the Head of Policy for the Scottish Wildlife Trust who were our key witnesses and performed their task brilliantly. It's genuinely tough putting yourself in the firing line at an inquiry and the amount of preparation required is enormous. They did a great job and very shortly I'm going to take them out to the pub and buy them a beer.
 
However, quote of the day probably goes to the Scottish Natural Heritage witness who, when asked about creating wetlands on golf courses pointed out that of course you could create wetlands - particularly like the one in the picture he was being shown - as it had been created using a liner, akin to a garden pond. He also mentioned that if they wanted that kind of wetland then a few gnomes might not be completely out of place either.
 
One of the most interesting elements to come out of today was the sheer scale of the mitigation work being proposed. On paper saying you're going to move 35 hectares of habitats sounds biggish - but it's hard to imagine. Martin put it into context by pointing out that to move that type of habitat, even working pretty much flat out (and using fairly big buckets - a source of quite a lot of discussion during the day that I won't dwell upon) would take you about two and a half years and cost upwards of £6million. An examination of all the financial material in front of the inquiry doesn't reveal any costings for the mitigation work, the closest thing being £650,000 estimated for 'stabilisation' work.
 
Martin was asked a lot of questions about the alternative design we've put before the inquiry, designed by Mr Mike Wood. Perhaps not surprisingly they tried to show that it was less well developed that the one they'd put in - hardly news given the timescales and our resources. The also tried to suggest it was more environmentally damaging - which was pretty baffling given it avoids the most heavily protected, sensitive and least replicable part of the site. I remain genuinely disappointed that Trump International have been unwilling to meet us even half way on this proposal.
 
Perhaps it's also worth mentioning that the first member of the golf club has been signed up... and it's Sean Connery... who was talking about it while doing a press event with Alex Salmond on another golf course just outside Aberdeen yesterday.  Apparently he's signed a deal to hit the first ball if the development gets approval, which I thought was old news.  Sir Sean said "I don't know too much about the environmental issues but if they can be settled then it's a fantastic opportunity."  Rest assured that we will do everything in our power to bring the best ever Bond up to speed with the environmental issues, so that he will see that our alternative course design is also a fantastic opportunity, that doesn't wreck the unique site.

Of course, the First Minister is barred from commenting on the proposal right now under planning rules.  He didn't comment, but he did appear with a high profile supporter; I wonder if he'll make similar appearances with opponents?

 

Wednesday June 18th: Well, today we galloped through the witnesses, finished early and won't start again until next week because of various availability issues so we all get to take a bit of a breather which is very much appreciated. We started with a local Councillor who said that he knew when he voted to support the application that he was 'riding a coach and horses' through their own policies but had decided to do so anyway - another vote of confidence for the plan led system. Then we heard from a local businessman who is clearly a huge fan of Mr Trump. He mentioned that over and above the existing hotels in the area there are 2,500 more rooms already in construction, consented or in the planning system in already, and he wasn't quite sure how they would find staff for them all. Nevertheless he is obviously a man who feels this is a welcome development.
 
Most of the day was taken up by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) witnesses, starting with geomorphology and a fly-through DVD which reconstructed how the golf course will look once built. I think the Trump team described it as a like being on a warped flying carpet flying through the alps......so I think we can assume they didn't like it. During cross examination it became clear that to build the course some holes will need to be built up (by about 7m or so) while others will have to be 'decapitated' (his words not mine) - resulting in sand movements of 'Biblical' proportions. Coupled with the evidence from Mr Trump's golf course architect that this is going to be an almost 'Olympian' site it's shaping up to be quite a golf course.
 
This witness made it abundantly clear that this site is unparalled anywhere else in the UK.  The next witness made it clear that most of the Scottish resource of a particular habitat type (98%) was found only at this location. So it looks like the various elements that need to be weighed in the balance of decision making are becoming pretty obvious.
 
Next week we don't start until Tuesday - which means that the blog will have to wait until then. However, I have to say hello to some of the Trump team who tell me they've been reading it every day with keen interest. They were also kind enough to congratulate me on a new job I've been given with RSPB Scotland. Thanks, and I hope you all continue to find the blog interesting.

Monday, 16 June

It's the start of the second week of the inquiry and today we heard from a couple of Mr Trump's environmental experts. This meant that at one point the SNH team sitting next to us clearly outnumbered the members of the public listening to the proceedings. However, the level of scrutiny doesn't seem to make much difference to the ever shifting goal posts that are starting to characterise this inquiry.
 
Last week we found out that Mr Trump wasn't content with building a word-class golf course - it had to be the best in the world and in order to do that he must have the SSSI, without it he didn't want any consent at all. We then found out he had to build 500 houses as part of the development in order to pay for the golf course and that the cost of building the houses accounted for a significant part of the development value. When these looked like becoming a bit of a liability we were told that they might not be built straight away, or in fact for many years and that Mr Trump was going to fund the construction of the golf course himself. We were told this was an outline application but that they had a detailed plan for the championship golf course which was just about perfect, it had to be in the SSSI and provided enough information to allow a decision to be made.
 
Today we found out that although they've provided a detailed layout for the golf course they'll move it around once they get their permission to make sure it's just what's needed. Given that we also found out that all the design changes made so far were made to benefit golf and not the environment this doesn't fill you full of hope.
 
Listening to some of the longest answers I've every heard at a public inquiry we eventually found out that, and I should stress it took the best part of a day to winkle this out of the witness, stabilising a dynamic sand dune by covering it in vegetation and turning it into a golf course will probably mean that it's not dynamic any more. Given that it's designated because it's dynamic this is not a good thing. After about 4 hours getting that sorted out we had a brief opportunity to hear from the habitat expert working for the developer who is very happy to point out what a valuable and important site this is and how much it will be damanged by the proposal. Phew - however, he also seems to think that the problems can be overcome by digging up some of the more vulnerable bits and planting them elsewhere. Translocation is a tricky business, but when part of the translocation is onto the dynamic thing you want to protect it starts to err on the side of lunacy.
 
After another day sitting in the black, windowless, over-heated mini-stadium that is the inquiry room I realised that if I didn't see the outside I'd go mad. So tonight I went for a walk along the beach north of Aberdeen from Balmedie Country Park towards the Menie Estate. I've been before but tonight it was windswept, empty, fabulous and
just what was needed to brace myself for the next three weeks.

Finally, I heard from colleagues that TIGLs latest media campaign centred on a letter from one Edward R. Russo, who describes himself as "the resident tree hugger" at Trump's National Golf Club at Bedminster in New Jersey.  We understand that Mr Russo is employed by Mr Trump, and as such it's nice that he wrote an open letter backing up his bosses environmental credentials.  I have to admit knowing little about the New Jersey site, which according to the letter has been changed for the better by Mr Trump's care and attention, but then Mr Russo clearly knows little about the site at Menie.  His contention that "to protect these dunes, environmental stewards should have planted grass all over the surface when they were first exposed" displays yet again the failure to grasp the idea that these dunes are meant to be mobile.  Bit of an own goal there I think.
 
Thanks to everyone who's been sending me emails about the blog. Lovely to hear from you all and please keep them coming!

 

Anne McCall writes:

So, only the fourth day of the inquiry and all my colleagues have deserted me. Our advocate has had to head home for a few days - which we knew about and we'll be using someone else next week until he can return. Everyone else had other things to do and, quite correctly, assumed that today wouldn't be particularly action packed. In fact, it was so lacking in action we finished by lunch time - with very limited flexibility in the schedule there wasn't much scope to yank one of the witnesses from next week forward so we all packed up after lunch.

Before we left it was the opportunity for the Reporters (the 3 individuals appointed by Scottish Ministers to examine the evidence) to question the last Council witness. From this we learnt that there is going to be an affordable housing element to the development - just not located on the site, somewhere else - away from the executive housing. We also learnt that the Council would like to see the 'promotion of sustainable transport', which it transpired, meant a bus stop.

The Reporters know their craft and took the Council rep down a series of pretty testing questions which revealed that the Council believe there will be an impact on the integrity of the area and particularly the SSSI, that the Council accept this but think that economic and social benefits outweigh this impact and that the social benefits are hard to pinpoint but basically came down to money.

The Reporters also asked the Council rep to speculate about how she would feel if all that was eventually built was a golf course and clubhouse given that Mr Trump had mentioned he might wait some time to build the houses until the market was right.....the conclusion was 'pretty disappointed'.

So I get to go home for a couple of nights - away from the delights of my interesting hotel - which seems to be popular with construction guys who watch a lot of football and drink a lot of beer. Hope the fish is still alive!

Anne McCall writes:

Today Aberdeenshire Council got the chance to set out their evidence and for at least one member of the public. it was clearly aggravating enough for them to demand a chance to cross-examine one of the witnesses.

Unfortunately, for him at least, members of the public aren't allowed to do that unless they made their intentions clear weeks ago at the pre-inquiry meeting. I know the procedures, but I'm a planner, and I've got a degree of sympathy for the chap who looked pretty crestfallen when he was told that although it was a public inquiry, partly paid for with public money and he was a member of the public, he wasn't allowed to say anything.

The Council's session contained a few suprises. Probably the biggest came from their independent economic consultant who finished off her evidence by stating that while her work was sound and undoubtedly better than that of the Trump International consultant who gave evidence yesterday - she'd made a few errors which it would be good to correct. This was clearly news to the Council, and to her lawyer, but they needen't have worried - she managed to pull an extra 300 jobs out of the bag which had inadvertantly been forgotten. Not hugely reassuring.

I admit to being distracted for a while due to a nosebleed, most of which I think went into my handbag, but I'm sure nobody noticed......anyway, it had thankfully stopped when we were issued with what I think might best be called 'The Ultimatum'.

It's normal practice in these inquiries for all the parties to come up with suggested conditions which would be attached to any consent - it's not taken as an indication that you think something should go ahead but it makes sure that if it does then the right sort of restrictions are in place. We did this a while ago and included a suggested condition, not surpisingly, that meant there could be no development on the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

The Trump International advocate announced this afternoon that he had received very clear instructions from Mr Trump which stated that if Scottish Ministers wanted to grant a consent with a condition that no development take place on the SSSI then they should simply issue a refusal because a consent with that condition wasn't a consent he wanted to have. Whatever the reasoning behind the announcement, it makes the choices for the decision-makers fairly stark and provides no room at all for compromise.

I should finish with a special mention for the reporter from Original FM, the local radio station, who is sticking in there after the big boys have left town.

Anne McCall writes:

What a complete contrast to yesterday. Hardly a camera crew in sight and those members of the public who did turn up dwindled to single figures by the end of the day. This is the kind of planning inquiry I'm more used to - not glamorous, not in the least like an episode of Perry Mason but long days carefully examining, cross examining and re-examining mountains of detailed paperwork (sounds great doesn't it?).

In most inquiries the developer gives evidence first, then their supporters and finally the objectors so we have quite a long wait before our witnesses take the stand. Today it was the turn of Dr Martin Hawtree, the chap who designed the golf course for Trump International.

As you'll know if you've looked at our webpages about the application (sometimes called the Menie development but perhaps more widely known as the Trump proposal) this is the part of the application which causes us real concerns because in order to build it they'll have to severly damage a protected site - a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

Dr Hawtree's evidence was pretty interesting, not least because chunks of what he said completely contradicted what Mr Trump said yesterday. We had been reassured by Mr Trump that he'd asked both the golf course designers he'd used to come up with plans avoiding the SSSI but that having looked at that option they'd found it unsatisfactory - Mr Hawtree made it clear he hadn't.

However, that didn't stop the applicants trying to dismiss the proposal we've submitted to the inquiry (have a look at it here: http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/sites/scotland/menie.asp) which shows that it is entirely possible to build an 18 hole, championship, links course in this location without destroying the protected site or important areas to the south. Neither Mr Trump not Dr Hawtree seemed very interested in entertaining that option.

Most of the rest of the day was taken up by various bits of economic evidence where we found out that the Trump International had been advised by one of their economic specialists that doing this inquiry was going to cost them around £1million. In case your worried about what we're doing with your membership fees I can promise you we won't be matching that kind of expenditure. The same consultant also said that given the chance 'developers would develop anything that moved....or rather didn't move' - possibly a little more candid than he intended to be.

Tomorrow it's the turn of the Council and maybe the Chamber of Commerce which will both be interesting but I suspect not quite exciting enough to attract the crowds back. Given that the room we were in today had been reduced to half the size it was yesterday I'm slightly concerned that by the end of this four week inquiry we'll be sitting in a small cupboard.

Anne McCall writes:

Well, day one and the circus came to town.  Pros (men in suits) and antis (ladies in hand painted T-shirts) politely protested outside.  The public were probably outnumbered by the media especially as they scrambled to catch the first witness - a representative of Trump International Golf Links Scotland - looking solemn on his way into the conference centre. 

But even then the gigantic hall set aside was about ten times as big as needed.  This proposal attracts attention, but this is still a Public Local Inquiry into a planning application, not Elvis or even Andy Stewart.  A smaller room will do just fine but it's nice that someone took the time to organise a stadium capacity facility had it been needed.

What did we learn?  That Mr Trump hasn't read the TIGLs environmental statement.  Nothing wrong with that, he's a busy man and it's a technical document.  But he hasn't even read the 5 page non technical summary.

He bought the site without ever having visited it, and he didn't know part of it was a SSSI until after he'd bought it.  But our advocate David Tyldesley had a good day teasing out these nuggets, which was recognised in the BBC coverage. 

All in all, we saw pretty much what we've seen before - Mr Trump has a desire to achieve what he says is his dream to create a world class golf course.  It's just that his objective could be achieved without destroying our environment.  

Colleagues spent their time doing endless interviews outside the hall throughout a long day, and we shall question Trump's golfcourse desinger, Martin Hawtree, first thing tomorrow - when most of the media will have departed I guess.  Mr Trump went to catch his plane, and I'm unlikely to bump into him in the lobby of the hotel I'll be staying in for the next four weeks.