Environment Protestors

[Dark_One]

Quoting from an article in The Independent today :

" If you're a member of the National Trust, the RSPB, the Woodland Trust or Friends of the Earth, then you could be banned from Britain's biggest airport. And the Piccadilly line. And parts of Paddington station. And sections of the M4. All because the authorities want to halt a protest against climate change..."

Heathrow puts up legal barricades to keep away protesters - Independent Online Edition > This Britain

To be honest, I'm a little bit shocked and certainly angry about this.

[pressld2]

Well I'm a member of two of the four and I will continue to use the M4, the M25 and the Picadilly Line any damn time I please - what a rebel!

I think Liberty's comment of "ridiculously unenforceable" just about sums it up. But that doesn't mean that BAA should be allowed to get away with it.

Dave P.

[agrumpycow]

to be honest I read the first paragraph of that report and couldn't help but laugh! Journalism at it's best, drawing up ridiculous head paragraphs to draw you in.
Can you imagine being stopped in your car on the M4 and the police saying, ' can I see your driving licence ,Sir, and proof that you don't beling to the RSPB. No? Then I'll have to arrest you sir'
Banning members from those groups/charities form airports and the M4, totally unworkable and unenforcable and I'm amazed the Independant actually printed the story like that.
As for the actual story, I am a member of several of the organisations mentioned and am seriously concerned about climate change but I find this whole protest thing annoying. Petitions, informing and teaching others etc is, in my mind, a much better way in getting yourself and your beliefs heard and, I believe, a much better way to strive for change than gathering en masse with banners and loud speakers which I think only make a lot of people turn and walk the other way.

[Kayleigh]

We are not allowed to protest at anything any more. Talk about free speech.

We had a convoy to protest about the development of houses in Towcester, the lady (in her 60s) who organised it, had a visit by a police officer wanting to know what questions we were going to be asking the developers. All of a sudden the protest went quiet.. I wonder why.

I think we are living in a dictatorship and a nanny state.

They can prosecute now under the terrorism act.

[Purplepixii]

For continued employment reasons I cannot afford to be arrested, but I refuse to accept this nanny state trying to silence our right to freedom of speech! Especially as our beliefs are for the good of this planet!!!

Like previously stated, this is going to be impossible to enforce - and the Police have far too much to do without being given this stupid "responsibility".

Yes, the Police do have powers to search, but these aren't infinite. More info can be found on the Home Office website, under the "Police" heading.

Purplepixii

[Kayleigh]

Originally Posted by agrumpycow

to be honest I read the first paragraph of that report and couldn't help but laugh! Journalism at it's best, drawing up ridiculous head paragraphs to draw you in.
Can you imagine being stopped in your car on the M4 and the police saying, ' can I see your driving licence ,Sir, and proof that you don't beling to the RSPB. No? Then I'll have to arrest you sir'
Banning members from those groups/charities form airports and the M4, totally unworkable and unenforcable and I'm amazed the Independant actually printed the story like that.
As for the actual story, I am a member of several of the organisations mentioned and am seriously concerned about climate change but I find this whole protest thing annoying. Petitions, informing and teaching others etc is, in my mind, a much better way in getting yourself and your beliefs heard and, I believe, a much better way to strive for change than gathering en masse with banners and loud speakers which I think only make a lot of people turn and walk the other way.

The RSPB want to make our seas around our coasts conservation areas. They are running a petition at the moment. I suppose this type of lobbying is what this is about. Not just protesting with banners.

[Tormentil]

Originally Posted by agrumpycow

Can you imagine being stopped in your car on the M4 and the police saying, ' can I see your driving licence ,Sir, and proof that you don't beling to the RSPB. No? Then I'll have to arrest you sir'

Don't believe that this type of thing can't happen. It can and has. I had some work mates who lived 30 mile from our work place, they drove to work together. During the miners strike the police stopped them not once but several times and prevented them from driving down the M180 towards town. No matter how much they protested that they were not miners and were not going to picket, the police refused to listen and if they did n't obey they would be arrested.

So the idea is not as laughable as you think.

[agrumpycow]

Originally Posted by Tormentil

Don't believe that this type of thing can't happen. It can and has. I had some work mates who lived 30 mile from our work place, they drove to work together. During the miners strike the police stopped them not once but several times and prevented them from driving down the M180 towards town. No matter how much they protested that they were not miners and were not going to picket, the police refused to listen and if they did n't obey they would be arrested.
So the idea is not as laughable as you think.

Point taken and accepted but I still believe the police will not and cannot enforce this. The current terrorism threat in the UK, particuarly around airports, means they should and will be concentrating on that.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by agrumpycow

Point taken and accepted but I still believe the police will not and cannot enforce this. The current terrorism threat in the UK, particuarly around airports, means they should and will be concentrating on that.

no of course they won't - the who;le thing is completely unworkable - preventing people who they believe to be suspicious from traveling towards a demo/picket is a whole different thingto preventing people from using any section of a road due to them being members of a particular charity

i can see then nicking people congregating at an airport for the sole reason of protest but thats a bit different - and they have been able to do that for ages not just due to the prevention of terrorism laws but under the criminal justice act in the mid 80s.

the whole article is a total non story - note that they use the term "could" rather than "will" which is the mark of spurious juornalistic licence - anything "could" happen , aliens could land on the whitehouse lawn, I could be the next prime minister , it could go for a whole vweek without raining... but none of this means than any of these things will happen

[Purplepixii]

I noticed today on the BBC website that they're running this story too:

"Plea for Heathrow camp ban heard

Airport operator BAA is heading to court to seek a wide-ranging injunction to prevent a major climate change protest taking place at Heathrow.
Thousands of campaigners, opposed to the airport's expansion, are expected to set up a ring of camps around Heathrow between 14 and 21 August.

BAA, which runs Heathrow, wants to ban 15 groups from taking part in the Camp for Climate Action protest.

The National Trust and the RSPB are among those facing the proposed ban.

They have been earmarked because they are affiliated to Airport Watch, an umbrella organisation which unites green bodies and community groups opposed to the expansion of the aviation industry.

Demonstrators are threatening what they call a week of "high impact" direct action.

Organisers hope as many as 5,000 people will take part, spending a week in tents outside the UK's busiest airport.

'Mother of all injunctions'

BAA insists it is seeking the ruling "to protect the operation of the airport and the safety of passengers".

A spokesman for BAA said 200,000 people a day passed through the airport during the busy August period, adding: "It is these people who would suffer as a result of any unlawful or irresponsible behaviour.

"We respect people's right to protest within the bounds of the law and airport bylaws, and we would invite protesters to similarly respect the rights of passengers travelling through Heathrow."

But the protesters claim BAA has resorted to "legal bullying" and has gone over the top by trying to extend the ban to people using the road and rail network near the west London airport.

This is a cut-and-dried case of corporate bullying designed to shut down peaceful protest

John Stewart
Anti-Heathrow expansion campaigner

London Mayor Ken Livingstone has accused BAA bosses of being "out of their skull" and claimed the injunction application has increased the likelihood of hardcore protesters invading the camp.

Hacan, the Heathrow anti-noise and anti-expansion organisation, is one of the groups named in BAA's court action.

Its chairman John Stewart said what was being sought was the "mother of all injunctions".

"This is a cut-and-dried case of corporate bullying designed to shut down peaceful protest," he said.

Friends of the Earth is also facing the ban and its lawyer Gita Parihar said: "This is an unnecessary and unworkable request by Heathrow Airport and we are confident it will be thrown out of court.

"We believe people have the right to protest peacefully about issues which concern them such as climate change."

Civil rights group Liberty said the injunction was an example of a "dangerous and undemocratic trend" by large companies to seek to limit the right to protest.

The case is expected to be heard at the High Court on Wednesday."

Today's Wednesday - High Court answer will be interesting!

[agrumpycow]

An update on this story has just been added to the BBC website:

'AIRPORT BAN 'ONLY FOR PROTESTORS''
Heathrow operator BAA has denied claims it is seeking to ban million people from using roads and railways near the London airport.
The company is asking the High Court for an injunction to prevent a climate change demonstration later this month.
BAA's solicitor said it was aimed only at protesters who wanted to obstruct use of the airport or break the law. cont......

BBC NEWS | UK | Airport ban 'only for protesters'

Sounds a bit more 'adult' than previous press

[jnb]

Originally Posted by agrumpycow

An update on this story has just been added to the BBC website:

'AIRPORT BAN 'ONLY FOR PROTESTORS''
Heathrow operator BAA has denied claims it is seeking to ban million people from using roads and railways near the London airport.
The company is asking the High Court for an injunction to prevent a climate change demonstration later this month.
BAA's solicitor said it was aimed only at protesters who wanted to obstruct use of the airport or break the law. cont......

BBC NEWS | UK | Airport ban 'only for protesters'

Sounds a bit more 'adult' than previous press

Well, no.

They are still asking for an injunction which would give them the right to ban anyone from using public transport, roads, railways and generally take part in legal and innocent activities on the basis that they might be associated with an organisation that might disagree with the BAA. The fact that they are promising to not use that power if they are granted it is irrelevant they are still seeking to attack the civil liberties of millions of people.

Should I have the legal right to ban you from approaching within 10 miles of my house on the basis that you might know someone who was once a burglar? It's OK I promise not to use that power as I know you're innocent but I must be granted that power over you.

[agrumpycow]

Originally Posted by jnb

Well, no.
They are still asking for an injunction which would give them the right to ban anyone from using public transport, roads, railways and generally take part in legal and innocent activities on the basis that they might be associated with an organisation that might disagree with the BAA. The fact that they are promising to not use that power if they are granted it is irrelevant they are still seeking to attack the civil liberties of millions of people.
Should I have the legal right to ban you from approaching within 10 miles of my house on the basis that you might know someone who was once a burglar? It's OK I promise not to use that power as I know you're innocent but I must be granted that power over you.

It was the less sensationalistic (geez, thats a long word for me!) aspect to the report I was talking about. The original report by the Independant was so sensationalistic (and again!) and badly written,it was childish to say the least.
I still have no time for protests, however, they've already created enough publicity for their cause I doubt any protest in necessary!

[nightshade]

I do belong to some of these trouble making organisations,
especially WAB

[Purplepixii]

Hearing has been adjourned...
BBC NEWS | UK | Airport injunction is 'bizarre'

[Meles meles]

oh yeah, we are all bad people. bad to the bone.

What is heathrows policy now adays??
Keep the activists out and let the terrorists in??

Isnt our good mayor a rspb member??

[jnb]

BAA wins Heathrow protesters ban

[Purplepixii]

Hmmm not a totally bad result, I particularly like the quote

"Chairman of the anti-noise group Hacan Clearskies John Stewart added: "BAA had asked for the mother of all injunctions. They have received the mother of all setbacks."

Purplepixii

[Swallowtail]

Actually the press coverage WASN'T exageration BAA really did try for this injunction.

It is DREADFULL