Heathrow protests

[Flat.tyres]

whether or not you believe in climate change or think that protests are going to make the slightest bit of difference, Im interested in the views of the handleing of the protests at Heathrow.

is it right that Police should use anti-terror laws for dealing with this, so far, peacefull protest? I am surprised by the lack of news this is creating and am concerned that for such a significant story, very little is being reported. Is this an example of these anti-terror laws in use? another example, I heard of one 19 year old girl protestor that was arrested on a public footpath and detained for approx 30 hours with no access to legal representation under anti-terror laws.

is this an abuse of police powers on protestors?

also, what about the scale of the response? about 2000 protestors are expected over the weekend and currently 1,800 police are stationed there closing of roads and denying residents access.

again, is this justified?

National security is a serious matter but isnt this abuse of the law and heavy handedness?

[Drew]

Of course, we don't know all the facts on what happened.

Problem is, they are protesting right outside the UK's biggest airport in a time were terrorist attacks on airports and planes have been quite recent.

If none of them thought they were going to face any problems, quite frankly they would be very naive.

[Flat.tyres]

Of course, we don't know all the facts on what happened.

Problem is, they are protesting right outside the UK's biggest airport in a time were terrorist attacks on airports and planes have been quite recent.

If none of them thought they were going to face any problems, quite frankly they would be very naive.

I suppose there is an age old ethos in place about not agreeing with someones point of view but defending to the death their right to express it.

thats an idealistic standpoint and sometimes we cannot allow things to occur but is this really one of them? if I wanted to damage Heathrow, I would find a nice quiet road with a SAM or drive a bomb into the drop-off point and blow it up. not join some tree hugging protest. besides, are a couple of thousand hippies and disgrundled residents singing Kumbiya in a
field really more of a security threat to Heathrow that a couple of hundred thousand people going through the terminal each month?

[Drew]

I suppose there is an age old ethos in place about not agreeing with someones point of view but defending to the death their right to express it.

thats an idealistic standpoint and sometimes we cannot allow things to occur but is this really one of them? if I wanted to damage Heathrow, I would find a nice quiet road with a SAM or drive a bomb into the drop-off point and blow it up. not join some tree hugging protest. besides, are a couple of thousand hippies and disgrundled residents singing Kumbiya in a
field really more of a security threat to Heathrow that a couple of hundred thousand people going through the terminal each month?

I imagine it would be easy to mingle in with the protesters (the stereotypical ones would be easier) and then drive your car full of explosives as far as you could.

The difference is that the protesters are in a field protesting about it, where as the majority of the hundred thousand people are passing through the terminal because they want to use the airport's services.

[Flat.tyres]

I imagine it would be easy to mingle in with the protesters (the stereotypical ones would be easier) and then drive your car full of explosives as far as you could.

The difference is that the protesters are in a field protesting about it, where as the majority of the hundred thousand people are passing through the terminal because they want to use the airport's services.

driving as far as you could in a field :laugh: do you know how much rain weve had recently. youd have more success in a boat :laugh:

so, a big field in the middle of nowhere with high security and nothing to blow up but a couple of greenies or a bloody great terminal with little security before the actual terminal and thousands of people, property and widescale disruption to airport services.

[Drew]

driving as far as you could in a field :laugh: do you know how much rain weve had recently. youd have more success in a boat :laugh:

so, a big field in the middle of nowhere with high security and nothing to blow up but a couple of greenies or a bloody great terminal with little security before the actual terminal and thousands of people, property and widescale disruption to airport services.

Haha well, it's just a thought.

What if a thousand of these protesters were in fact terrorists and they had camper vans full of AK-47s, kalashnikovs, hand grenades and land mines. They could easily take out the police, take the airport lay down land mines all around the airport and then hope that the RAF are a bit busy :p :

[Mark]

terrorism is not the issue. These protests have recently been nasty with protestors taking things too far. It's right that they should be prevented from interfering with airport operations.

[J4MIE]

Saw on the news (forget which channel) that they interviewed a guy and asked him if he would go as far as affecting people using the airport, and he came right out and sais that he would.

Though I don't think it'll make a bit of difference to government policy or the climate in general, I don't mind peaceful protests but if it affects people who work bloody hard to get their 2 weeks a year in the sun then I am not happy with that at all :mad:

[LotusElise]

This government's record of coming down very heavily on anyone trying to protest anything is not encouraging. The rights of people to protest are part of democracy and are being eroded by new laws, manufactured fear of terrorists and pressure from business.

[Drew]

Terrorism is not the issue, but it's certainly a concern when it happens next door to an important airport

I assume, Mark, you're talking about the G8 protests in Edinburgh? Those were carried out by anti capitalists and not climate protesters.

I'm fine with them wanting to protest and highlight an issue important to them.But if they try to cause chaos ffor others, I'd happily pick up a police baton and start happy-whacking.

[Daniel]

Saw on the news (forget which channel) that they interviewed a guy and asked him if he would go as far as affecting people using the airport, and he came right out and sais that he would.

Though I don't think it'll make a bit of difference to government policy or the climate in general, I don't mind peaceful protests but if it affects people who work bloody hard to get their 2 weeks a year in the sun then I am not happy with that at all :mad:

So am I right in saying that the only thing that J4mie hates more than rally marshals is climate change protestors who want to piss off normal people just trying to have a holiday? :p I definitely agree :up:

[Daniel]

Terrorism is not the issue, but it's certainly a concern when it happens next door to an important airport

I assume, Mark, you're talking about the G8 protests in Edinburgh? Those were carried out by anti capitalists and not climate protesters.

I'm fine with them wanting to protest and highlight an issue important to them.But if they try to cause chaos ffor others, I'd happily pick up a police baton and start happy-whacking.

The thing is these people don't care what they're "campaigning for" there will be a lot of people (the majority I suspect) who genuinely want to campaign for something and there will be a minority who don't actually care about the cause and just want to riot and cause damage like G8 protestors always seem to do.

[Drew]

The thing is these people don't care what they're "campaigning for" there will be a lot of people (the majority I suspect) who genuinely want to campaign for something and there will be a minority who don't actually care about the cause and just want to riot and cause damage like G8 protestors always seem to do.

I dunno, don't tar 'them' all with the same brush. There might be some there who are just trying to pull and score weed. But, you're gonna get trouble makers anywhere, it doesn't mean people should be stopped from protesting.

[Daniel]

I dunno, don't tar 'them' all with the same brush. There might be some there who are just trying to pull and score weed. But, you're gonna get trouble makers anywhere, it doesn't mean people should be stopped from protesting.
Exactly. But keep them away from where they could cause damage :)

[Drew]

Dear upset climate change protesters,

I am worried about your protests in areas where you may cause problems. I kindly ask you to move all future protests to either national parks (where you're out of the way) or to North Wales (nobody will notice)

Or else, I'll get those nasty riot police officers on you!

Pretty please (with a cherry on top) can you accept my ideas.

Hugs and kisses,
Gordon Brown
(The Prime Minister, not the Chancellor)

Uggh, nah that's not really going to happen. Where exactly is somewhere where they can't cause damage?

[Captain VXR]

Personally the can &*%# off cos holidays are something to look forward to. Using the terror law is justified because if some extremists came security threats could happen.

[Mark]

Drew, No.
I was thinking more along the lines of the Drax protests.

[Mark]

The fact is that if you stop people going about their business by force then that IS terrorism.

[Spoonbender]

The font of all knowledge that is Eamon Holmes, said on Sky news this morning that boats, Ships, Ocean going container ships etc.. are pumping out more polution than aircraft. I for one would back these protesters in jumping off the Severn Bridge in protest. I'll stand there and clap furiously as they do it :)

[Flat.tyres]

The fact is that if you stop people going about their business by force then that IS terrorism.

no, its called the Police :p :

Im a great fan of the Police and respect a lot of what they do but existing powers are enough to deal with these protests. they are not on BAA property are they?

how police can detain a 19 year old girl that hasn't done anything wrong, detain her for 30 hours with no access to legal representation and without allowing her to notify anyone of her detention is beyond my comprehension.

oh yes, I forgot, she was a terror suspect. :rolleyes:

[Caroline]

There are probably files on each of these protestors. I remember back in the nineties the uproar about some people being labelled subversive by Government agencies because they were just members of Friends of the Earth. If they were terrorists, they would probably be known.

[CarlMetro]

I wonder how all these so called protesters got to the big field? Did they all wlak there? Or perhaps they cycled? Or maybe, just maybe they drove their cars and camper vans there?

[oily oaf]

Now I don't condone much less perpetrate mindless acts of violence........STOP SNIGGERING AT THE BACK BOY! :mad: but it is my considered opinion that the whole yogurt guzzling lot of 'em should be taken to the site of a proposed new motorway and burned face down before having their ashes used in the concrete for a bridge support as punishment for having nasty little goatee beards and filthy underpants. As for the blokes............ :mad:

[Dave B]

The fact is that a 3rd runway at Heathrow would reduce emissions as it would lower the time 'planes have to circle pointlessly over west London waiting for a landing slot.

But don't let logic get in the way of your protests, hey guys.

I'll be amazed if at least some of the protestors don't attempt some direct action. Though with hte general chaos at Heathrow at the moment it's debatable whether they could actually make the situation worse.

I don't often agree with Ken Livingstone, but the London mayor recently said that Heathrow "shamed" the capital. Nail. Head. Hit.

[Drew]

I wonder how all these so called protesters got to the big field? Did they all wlak there? Or perhaps they cycled? Or maybe, just maybe they drove their cars and camper vans there?

Easyjet FA1023 from Edinburgh :p :

[Flat.tyres]

OK, seeing as most people have missed the point of the thread ;) let me try and clarify it a bit.

whether the cause is a good or bad thing is immaterial if you ask me. what Im worried about is the abuse of police powers in this case and the worrying trend it establishes for dealing with anything the Government sees as undesireable.

lets say it is a protest at a refinary about petrol costs and the police whip them off because the Refinary would be a terrorist target or lets say anti-war protestors mill around the Houses of Parliment and find themselves banged up for 30 days with no access to legal representation or anyone being told where they are? the police have already come out and publically stated that they will use all and any powers they have in circumstances like this in the capital in the future.

this is the problem in my opinion, not some smelly sandle wearing, hairy vegan daddies girls playing eco warrior in a field in Middlesex.

[CarlMetro]

The police are within their rights to minimise public disruption and threats to public health, no matter where or who that threat is posed by. BAA gained a court injunction against the protest and the police are the only body enabled to enforce that injunction.

Frankly I don't see a problem.

[CharlieJ]

The police are within their rights to minimise public disruption and threats to public health, no matter where or who that threat is posed by. BAA gained a court injunction against the protest and the police are the only body enabled to enforce that injunction.

Frankly I don't see a problem.
Actually, BAA got an injunction against one group, not against the protest in general.

But the point is...

Scenario 1 - Fifty or so thugs go on a rampage on a council estate; half a dozen coppers turn up and just watch while they burn cars, throw missiles at said coppers, and generally terrorise people, but the scum are highly unlikely even to be arrested.

Scenario 2 - 2000 people set up camp in afield where they can't hurt anyone for a peaceful protest. 1800 coppers turn up so that they have pretty much a one to one situation, even though no actual crime has so far been committed.

Once again, the police are only interested in soft targets, rather than tackling real crime.

[Daniel]

I was going to reply to Carl saying I wondered how long till people said "Why don't they tackle real crime"

The thing is and perhaps you don't understand this. The police being there in such numbers is what we call a "deterrent" which as the name suggests tends to deter people from actually commiting crime. If it were up to you the Police would all sit in their station until a crime was commited and then come out when it was too late to actually do something.

[CarlMetro]

Scenario 1 - Fifty or so thugs go on a rampage on a council estate; half a dozen coppers turn up and just watch while they burn cars, throw missiles at said coppers, and generally terrorise people, but the scum are highly unlikely even to be arrested.

LINK PLEASE

[Daniel]

LINK PLEASE
:rotflmao:
Scenario 1 - 3000 South American Llamas rampage through the streets of london spitting at people and 20 police officers arrive and just watch on and don't try to do anything to stop them.

Scenario 2 - Thousands of people turn up to a busy airport quite possibly intending to interupt things and the Police turn up and make sure they don't do anything wrong - Bloody outrageous!!!!

Why the Police don't do anything about this countries Llama problem is beyond me! They're just after soft targets!

[Flat.tyres]

I was going to reply to Carl saying I wondered how long till people said "Why don't they tackle real crime"

The thing is and perhaps you don't understand this. The police being there in such numbers is what we call a "deterrent" which as the name suggests tends to deter people from actually commiting crime. If it were up to you the Police would all sit in their station until a crime was commited and then come out when it was too late to actually do something.

your naivety to the situation in this country may be an excuse but using such derogatory wording just p*sses me off so if you "think" you have a valid point, then please re-read what I have written because you have obviously failed to comprehend the subject matter :p :

so, lets begin again for the 3rd time of asking.

1. please aquaint yourself with the public order act 1986 and subsequent ammendments for dealing with organised protests. this act was a huge restriction to the publics democratic right to protest and is draconian to the extent that if 3 people converge on a street corner without notifying the police, they can be charged under the act under public order offences.

pretty f*cking stringent and an abuse of public legislation and police power eh and more than enough to deal with this protest dont you think?

2. no, look up what can be done under the prevention of terrorism act.

this is where they cart you off for 48 hours with no access to medical, legal or civil assistance under suspicion of a terrorist act. These are the powers in place at this demo!

couple this with media reporting restriction etc and you may be able to understand why I started this thread. this is what people do in this country when they think that something is wrong. they discuss it and protest about it. of course, under the current restriction, I am probably committing some infringement of the terrorism act by publishing subversive material contrary to public safety in questioning these actions but what the hell :D

[Daniel]

Most protestors are fine people who just want want to highlight an issue. The problem is that some people aren't and the law needs to cater for them. Yes it penalises people who do nothing wrong but each day we're penalised for what other peopledo.

[Flat.tyres]

Most protestors are fine people who just want want to highlight an issue. The problem is that some people aren't and the law needs to cater for them. Yes it penalises people who do nothing wrong but each day we're penalised for what other peopledo.

so, your happy that people can be carted off that have done nothing wrong and denied basic civil liberties such as access to a Lawyer or a phone call to let someone know they are OK.

that scares the bejezuz out of me. :s hock: mind you, if it saves someone spilling lentil soup over the perimeter fence of a BAA site, then its all worthwhile.

[Daniel]

so, your happy that people can be carted off that have done nothing wrong and denied basic civil liberties such as access to a Lawyer or a phone call to let someone know they are OK.

that scares the bejezuz out of me. :s hock: mind you, if it saves someone spilling lentil soup over the perimeter fence of a BAA site, then its all worthwhile.
How do you know that these people have been refused these rights? How do you know they've not done anything wrong. Let the justice system do it's thing and when it comes out THEN make a judgement. Not before.

[Flat.tyres]

How do you know that these people have been refused these rights? How do you know they've not done anything wrong. Let the justice system do it's thing and when it comes out THEN make a judgement. Not before.

there was a report on the BBC about a 19 year old girl who was carted off for 30 hours earlier in the week with no access to a phone or Legal representation. I know its only been reported as such as she was in an interview on the news but I cannot find any reference to it now.

thing being is that these are the powers that are in place for these protestors whether they have, or have not, committed an offence. its enough to "suspect" that they might.

I know it seems far fetched, I know that things like this can never happen in the UK and I know that some South American cannot get shot seven times in the head because a copper went for a p*ss and the police try and cover it up by saying he was running away.

I know these things cannot happen in the UK :(

[Daniel]

there was a report on the BBC about a 19 year old girl who was carted off for 30 hours earlier in the week with no access to a phone or Legal representation. I know its only been reported as such as she was in an interview on the news but I cannot find any reference to it now.

thing being is that these are the powers that are in place for these protestors whether they have, or have not, committed an offence. its enough to "suspect" that they might.

I know it seems far fetched, I know that things like this can never happen in the UK and I know that some South American cannot get shot seven times in the head because a copper went for a p*ss and the police try and cover it up by saying he was running away.

I know these things cannot happen in the UK :(
**** happens and when a person dies needlessly it's not good but back then there was a climate of fear when there had been the attacks on London previously so sometimes the wrong decision is made and humans make mistakes. No one intended for that to happen though did they?

If some silly hippie protestor has been locked up for 30 hours then it's no big loss anyway :)

[Flat.tyres]

I respect your opinion and accept it fully.

all I would say is that the prostertute is someones daughter at the end of the day.

one Hippy getting banged up or some Brazillian having his brains blown out are unfortunate mistakes but as you say, sh*t happens. cant make an omlette without breaking some eggs now, can we?

even when its attempted to be covered up then its no big deal because the police would have learnt from the Government that its OK to lie to Parliment and the people they are paid to serve as sh*t happens :D

so, some south African gets shot in the welsh Riveria becasue he looks like a potential terrorist and his girlfriend is murdered in a botched mugging because all the police are involved in spurious anti-terrorist activities of one type or another.

no skin of my nose. No sirieee, not my problemo fella. NIMBY by name, NIMBY by nature.

apart from a growing sense of depression spreading over me, I am reminded of a Pink Floyd song (as I normally am when things done seem to make sense any more :( )

So ya
Thought ya
Might like to
Go to the show.
To feel that warm thrill of confusion,
That space cadet glow.
I've got some bad news for you sunshine,
Pink isn't well, he stayed back at the hotel
And they sent us along as a surrogate band
We're gonna find out where you fans really stand!
Are there any queers in the theater tonight?
Get them up against the wall!
There's one in the spotlight, he don't look right to me,
Get him up against the wall!
That one looks Jewish!
And that one's a coon!
Who let all of this riff-raff into the room?
There's one smoking a joint,
And another with spots!
If I had my way,
I'd have all of you shot!

Pink Floyd In The Flesh (II) lyrics

[Daniel]

If only we were all perfect and all knowing like you then these problems wouldn't exist :)

[CarlMetro]

there was a report on the BBC about a 19 year old girl who was carted off for 30 hours earlier in the week with no access to a phone or Legal representation. I know its only been reported as such as she was in an interview on the news but I cannot find any reference to it now.

The amazing thing about the BBC is that the news website has archives which stretch back for years so I'm sure if there was a report about it, you'll be able to find it and then piost the link on here.


thing being is that these are the powers that are in place for these protestors whether they have, or have not, committed an offence. its enough to "suspect" that they might.

I would rather they do that than turn a blind eye to a potential threat.


I know it seems far fetched, I know that things like this can never happen in the UK and I know that some South American cannot get shot seven times in the head because a copper went for a p*ss and the police try and cover it up by saying he was running away.

Sorry, you've lost me now, what has Menezes shooting got to do with the Heathrow protest :confused:

[Flat.tyres]

If only we were all perfect and all knowing like you then these problems wouldn't exist :)

I agree :) but perhaps we should be a bit more objective, question what is going on and look at how others are being affected and not whether it just affects us?

anyway, its fine that we disagree on this so lets just accept our different views?

[Daniel]

I agree :) but perhaps we should be a bit more objective, question what is going on and look at how others are being affected and not whether it just affects us?

anyway, its fine that we disagree on this so lets just accept our different views?
I don't accept your views though. If we had it your way we'd be far more open to potential threats.

[Flat.tyres]

The amazing thing about the BBC is that the news website has archives which stretch back for years so I'm sure if there was a report about it, you'll be able to find it and then piost the link on here.

this was an item that I saw on the TV news. I think it was the 18:00 news on Monday or Tuesday? I have extensively searched the BBC site without luck. sorry



I would rather they do that than turn a blind eye to a potential threat.I do not want our police to turn a blind eye to any threat but I think this is heavy handed and a misuse of police powers on a group of who, up till now, are lawfull protestors.



Sorry, you've lost me now, what has Menezes shooting got to do with the Heathrow protest :confused: I had a feeling I had :) I have taken great pains to point out that I am not offering a view on the ethics behind global climate change but am concerned that the Police are using powers that should be used in extreem circumstances to control a legal civil protest.

the relevance to Menezes is that the same powers were used as a justification to his murder.

lets take it one step further. suppose some spotty 6formers manage to get onto BAA property waving their size B bras around their head in protest.

should we shoot them as a legitimate terrorist threat (they might not be real breasts but decoy implants with C4 in them) or arrest them under civil disobediece laws?

[Flat.tyres]

I don't accept your views though. If we had it your way we'd be far more open to potential threats.

your open to potential threats all the time Daniel whether you like it or not. we are not in a police state (debateable) and can hold oposing views which we accept but may not agree with.

your view is that these people pose a terrorist threat to national security. mine is that they are protestors that if they break the law, should be dealt with under current civil disobidence laws with the appropiate civil libities this entails such as legal access, medical help, telephone call etc.

Its called debate.

[Daniel]

What if we get attacked by a herd of moose? :rolleyes:

[Flat.tyres]

What if we get attacked by a herd of moose? :rolleyes:


??? lost me there

[Daniel]

Well you were going on about bras so I thought I'd mention something just as random and pointlessly not related.

[Flat.tyres]

Well you were going on about bras so I thought I'd mention something just as random and pointlessly not related.

:laugh: whatever fella. whatever :laugh:

[Hondo]

As I have quoted before "Those that would trade liberty for security, deserve neither...". Our governments and police knew full well that the patriot acts and terror laws would far more useful than in just fighting terrorism. Shame on the people's failure to read these laws and digest their full impact before allowing them into effect. We might not have been able to stop them, but we could have made enough noise to let them know we cared and would be watching how they would be applied.

I don't mind people waving a sign at me or handing me a leaflet to read, but like Mark, I don't think they have the right to obstruct people from going about their business. If this protest is on private land and the owner wants them moved off or if they are on public land and require a permit, the police are right to move them along if they don't comply.

From what I have seen of the English police, I'd find it hard to believe they would take an active hands-on approach to the situation without very politely asking the protesters to disperse about 30-40 times first. They could have made their point and walked away when asked to do so. Any person that decides to be an on-site spectator runs the risk of being included with the troublemakers by the police.

[ShiftingGears]

no, its called the Police :p :

Im a great fan of the Police and respect a lot of what they do but existing powers are enough to deal with these protests. they are not on BAA property are they?

how police can detain a 19 year old girl that hasn't done anything wrong, detain her for 30 hours with no access to legal representation and without allowing her to notify anyone of her detention is beyond my comprehension.

oh yes, I forgot, she was a terror suspect. :rolleyes:

Its quite disgusting. Some governments seem to have forgotten what they're fighting for when they're fighting the terrorists. And protestors are not terrorists, they should not be detained under an anti-terror law.

[Malbec]

so, your happy that people can be carted off that have done nothing wrong and denied basic civil liberties such as access to a Lawyer or a phone call to let someone know they are OK.

that scares the bejezuz out of me. :s hock: mind you, if it saves someone spilling lentil soup over the perimeter fence of a BAA site, then its all worthwhile.

Isn't it ironic that the two countries that pride themselves most on their democracy and open societies have actually clipped civil liberties the most after 9/11?

Looking at the various terrorist bills in the UK or the Patriot Act in the US, one wonders whose side the governments are on. One thing can be said though, there's been more open debate in the US about the Patriot Act than there has been in the UK about the various terrorist laws.

Another thing is the naivety of the British population who seem to trust in giving the government more powers. I think this is because there never has been a dictatorship here. Had the German, Italian or Spanish governments or some of the East European ones tried to introduce similar acts they'd have had mass protests since their populations aren't quite as naive or trusting given their history.

I think the difficulty you are having with some of the members here illustrates that point, some people feel that the government can only be a benign power and therefore there isn't an issue with giving it rather frightening and sweeping powers that, when used in a certain way could curb individual rights to a staggering degree, particularly those involving the right to protest which is one of the fundamentals of living in a democracy.

Terrorist threats come but more importantly they go too. However no government has ever retracted powers to pry into and control its populations lives except at gunpoint. That is the real issue here.

[Daniel]

Oh no! I can't protest near a big terrorist target without having some police around me! BOO FRIKKIN HOO HOO!

[SEATFreak]

I am getting mixed messages here.

I am under the impression here some are in support of the Heathrow protestors with the view that they ough to be allowed to protest in peace and the hadling by the cops are somewhat heavy handed.

But this link below is just the first 10 news items Yahoo! Search pulled up. As you can see virtually every one (all within a matter of days) is about extreme action like the protestors who superglued their hands to the doors of the Department of Transport and the threat of militant action to besiege the terminals and leave hoax packages.

Surely whilst the handling may/may not be excessive the police do need to be there atleast to stop any extreme action before it starts.

http://uk.news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?fr=btfp-news&tab=News&p=heathrow&btn=Search

[Brown, Jon Brow]

On a BBC interview with one of the protesters one woman said that she may have to break the law in order to raise public public awareness. This means that it may not be a peaceful protest, so in my opinion the police being there is fully justified.

[Daniel]

I am getting mixed messages here.

I am under the impression here some are in support of the Heathrow protestors with the view that they ough to be allowed to protest in peace and the hadling by the cops are somewhat heavy handed.

But this link below is just the first 10 news items Yahoo! Search pulled up. As you can see virtually every one (all within a matter of days) is about extreme action like the protestors who superglued their hands to the doors of the Department of Transport and the threat of militant action to besiege the terminals and leave hoax packages.

Surely whilst the handling may/may not be excessive the police do need to be there atleast to stop any extreme action before it starts.

http://uk.news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?fr=btfp-news&tab=News&p=heathrow&btn=Search

Very VERY good point. People are trying to portray all the protestors as lentil eating peaceful people and while a lot are there are a lot of people wanting to cause disruption. If anyone had camped outside Manchester airport when I was trying to get to Finland would have had a problem. I'd have driven Caroline's dad's Focus through them to get into the terminal.

[Daniel]

On a BBC interview with one of the protesters one woman said that she may have to break the law in order to raise public public awareness. This means that it may not be a peaceful protest, so in my opinion the police being there is fully justified.

Never! :eek:

[Malbec]

Oh no! I can't protest near a big terrorist target without having some police around me! BOO FRIKKIN HOO HOO!

You've illustrated this point perfectly.

You don't even need to be near a 'potential terrorist target' for the police to prevent you from a mass protest that hasn't been licenced, and thats under current legislation. Who defines what the potential terrorist target is?

Detention without access to a lawyer and without being charged for 28 days on suspicion of being connected to terrorism? You have to go quite far to get to another country where the police have similar powers, places like Russia or the Middle East in fact. Is that the kind of country that British democracy really wants to compare itself to?

How about section 44, the infamous stop and search rule. Remember Walter Wolfgang? He was the old retired Jewish Socialist who dared to shout out at a Labour Party conference that the war on Iraq was based on a lie. He was arrested later under section 44 of the Terrorism act. Quite right too, can't have these people claiming their right to free speech on live TV when its so inconvenient.

Its this naivety and the inability to grasp the bigger picture which is just so odd.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Never! :eek:

Exactly

So if we are all agreeing then why are we disagreeing :laugh:

[Daniel]

You've illustrated this point perfectly.

You don't even need to be near a 'potential terrorist target' for the police to prevent you from a mass protest that hasn't been licenced, and thats under current legislation. Who defines what the potential terrorist target is?

Detention without access to a lawyer and without being charged for 28 days on suspicion of being connected to terrorism? You have to go quite far to get to another country where the police have similar powers, places like Russia or the Middle East in fact. Is that the kind of country that British democracy really wants to compare itself to?

How about section 44, the infamous stop and search rule. Remember Walter Wolfgang? He was the old retired Jewish Socialist who dared to shout out at a Labour Party conference that the war on Iraq was based on a lie. He was arrested later under section 44 of the Terrorism act. Quite right too, can't have these people claiming their right to free speech on live TV when its so inconvenient.

Its this naivety and the inability to grasp the bigger picture which is just so odd.

You do NOT have the right to go into someone elses meeting and cause disruption. You're getting "the right to be a disruptive idiot" confused with "the right of free speach". If this be the case then they have the right to beat the crap out of you as well. We live in a free country you know!

The reason for being able to hold someone for a length of time is to stop the old "we've got no proof right now so we've got to let you go" old malarky that so many criminals get off on. It's not a problem with petty thievery or other such crimes but when the lives of lots of innocent people could be affected then it IS appropriate. Tell you what. I don't give a **** about the human rights of someone who wants to kill you or I or any other UK citizen for no real reason. As I said previously no one knows what these people were up to in order to justify this detention so don't go trumpeting on about how it's an abuse of power. I trust the police more than I trust you!

[Malbec]

You do NOT have the right to go into someone elses meeting and cause disruption. You're getting "the right to be a disruptive idiot" confused with "the right of free speach". If this be the case then they have the right to beat the crap out of you as well. We live in a free country you know!

The reason for being able to hold someone for a length of time is to stop the old "we've got no proof right now so we've got to let you go" old malarky that so many criminals get off on. It's not a problem with petty thievery or other such crimes but when the lives of lots of innocent people could be affected then it IS appropriate. Tell you what. I don't give a **** about the human rights of someone who wants to kill you or I or any other UK citizen for no real reason. As I said previously no one knows what these people were up to in order to justify this detention so don't go trumpeting on about how it's an abuse of power. I trust the police more than I trust you!

I think you ought to read up about the Walter Wolfgang affair.

He's a fully paid up member of the Labour party and was a Holocaust survivor. He heckled Jack Straw and was ejected. A guy sitting next to him who protested about his ejection was also thrown out. The combined age of the two protestors was about 150.

Walter Wolfgang was then arrested under the anti-terrorist legislation for trying to regain entry into the conference.

You may have strong opinions about hecklers to which you are entitled, although it should be pointed out that heckling at party conferences is quite common but hecklers being arrested/ejected is not.

However I'd like you to point out where in the above episode the actual terrorist threat materialised.

You see, your whole argument is based on the fact that this legislation is used solely against terrorists or potential terrorist threats, yet the fact is that they have been used against totally unrelated and peaceful forms of protest.

Whether these airport protestors intend to use violent means isn't the point. The fact is that under current legislation even if they ARE totally peaceful they can be stopped from meeting up. That is the point here.

Again, regarding the 28 day detention, you're missing the point. Your assumption is that it will only ever be used against terrorists/potential terrorists. My point is that like other terrorism legislation it can and probably will be used against non-terrorists.

I'm glad you feel that you trust the government enough to allow them to strip the UK population of its civil rights. Thats what I was pointing out in my first post on this thread.

[Mark]

It's not entirely true that Britain has never been subject to dictatorship. The kings and queens were not usually elected.

[SEATFreak]

Very VERY good point.

REALLY?! :eek:


I think you ought to read up about the Walter Wolfgang affair.

He's a fully paid up member of the Labour party and was a Holocaust survivor. He heckled Jack Straw and was ejected. A guy sitting next to him who protested about his ejection was also thrown out. The combined age of the two protestors was about 150.

Walter Wolfgang was then arrested under the anti-terrorist legislation for trying to regain entry into the conference.

You may have strong opinions about hecklers to which you are entitled, although it should be pointed out that heckling at party conferences is quite common but hecklers being arrested/ejected is not.

However I'd like you to point out where in the above episode the actual terrorist threat materialised.

You see, your whole argument is based on the fact that this legislation is used solely against terrorists or potential terrorist threats, yet the fact is that they have been used against totally unrelated and peaceful forms of protest.

Whether these airport protestors intend to use violent means isn't the point. The fact is that under current legislation even if they ARE totally peaceful they can be stopped from meeting up. That is the point here.

Again, regarding the 28 day detention, you're missing the point. Your assumption is that it will only ever be used against terrorists/potential terrorists. My point is that like other terrorism legislation it can and probably will be used against non-terrorists.

I'm glad you feel that you trust the government enough to allow them to strip the UK population of its civil rights. Thats what I was pointing out in my first post on this thread.

Completly agre.

Look in the link I posted. In the 6th result (Daily Telegraph; 17/8), arrests for extremism has been made when all ten who were at the department for transport were arrested for agrivated trespass and criminal damage (nothing about terrorism charges), the handling at the airport has largely been aimed at those who have done largely nothing.

That is what I am against and I think many of you. Not the presence of the cops. What I am against, and I think this what your saying Dylan, is the fact current legislation on the handling of percieved terrorist threats includes the removal of all "threats". That seems to include peaceful protestors.

[BDunnell]

I do not believe that anti-terrorist legislation should apply to protests of any kind. The trouble is that you can get away with an awful lot of extremely unwise measures under the guise of 'making us all safer' because everybody wants to be safe. Sadly, some people have an exaggerated view of the threat that exists, and can never be convinced otherwise. Measures can never be taken that would remove every potential threat to our security, because this is physically impossible, so I would rather we accepted the fact that some people may get hurt, as bad as this is, and get on with our lives as normal.

On the specific subject of the Heathrow protesters, I hope that they do not undermine their cause by taking direct action that disrupts and irritates others without doing anything to enlighten or inform them. I have a feeling that, in cases such as this, there are better ways of getting the important message across.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Protesters always protest any attack on their "right to protest". The problem is their "Right" is usually being in the way of everyone else's rights, and when you confront them with THAT reality, they try to tell you how you are unenlightened to their cause. I Think the right to protest should be protected, but it also shouldn't be an excuse or writ to just be an utter pain in the arse either...

[Ian McC]

I do not believe that anti-terrorist legislation should apply to protests of any kind.


If these people decide to invade the runway not only does it put peoples lives at risk from the act alone it opens up other possiblities within the secure area, terrorist groups would certainly see it as a chance to gain access to aircraft under the cover of an environmental protest.

[Daniel]

If these people decide to invade the runway not only does it put peoples lives at risk from the act alone it opens up other possiblities within the secure area, terrorist groups would certainly see it as a chance to gain access to aircraft under the cover of an environmental protest.
And what of those who work at the airport too? :) What about their safety? ;) Surely it's fine for these people to be endangered so these people can have their freedom of speach :rolleyes:

[Malbec]

If these people decide to invade the runway not only does it put peoples lives at risk from the act alone it opens up other possiblities within the secure area, terrorist groups would certainly see it as a chance to gain access to aircraft under the cover of an environmental protest.

If the protesters use force to either cause damage or pose a threat to life then existing (pre-terrorism act) legislation would give ample powers to the police to intervene without need to inappropriately use terrorist act powers.

IIRC the police didn't exactly need the terrorist act to physically crush the miners strike did they?

[Dave B]

There's a lot of "what ifs" here. Let's see what, if anything, these protestors actually do before we get too carried away with conjecture.

Then shoot them. :p

[Kev2012]

QUOTE FROM BBC.co.uk/news website.

Climate change campaigners have been involved in minor scuffles with police as they targeted the offices of Heathrow Airport operator BAA.

The BAA protest forms part of 24 hours of "direct action" by the Camp for Climate Action.
Police in riot gear are at the scene surrounding protesters in the car park at the company's offices.
Organisers say 1,400 people are taking part in the day, while police at the scene put the number at about 1,000.
Protesters and members of the local community also symbolically walked the 3km (1.8 mile) route of Heathrow airport's proposed third runway.
They are campaigning against Heathrow's planned expansion because, they say, it will contribute to climate change.

Map of proposed Heathrow expansion and climate camp (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6953518.stm#map)
[/B]
The BBC's Nicola Pearson said there was some "pushing and shoving" between the two sides as protesters approached the BAA offices.
Police say they have made three arrests - one for assault on a police officer, carrying Class A drugs, and going equipped to cause criminal damage.
About 50 protesters are in the western part of the car park outside of the BAA building in Bath Road.
About 100 protesters are also being contained in nearby Mondial Way following confrontations between police and protestors in which missiles were thrown at officers. Organisers of the action said three teenage protesters had managed to scale a structure near BAA, and unfurled a banner saying "Make Planes History".

BAA has said it will not be commenting on the day of action.
Earlier there were a few minor scuffles as police officers encircled one group during their procession towards Sipson Village, where part of the new runway is expected to be located.
Protesters left the camp - situated between the M4 motorway and the airport's northern perimeter in west London - in separate groups at midday to begin their march.
Banners carried slogans such as "You Fly, They Die", "Climate Change Kills" and "No Third Runway: Sipson Village RIP". Protester Layla Harris said: "We have had enough of the prioritisation of economic growth over the future of our

Alex Harvey, one of the campaigners at the camp, said the siege at BAA would last until Monday morning.
But, while she said it would remain peaceful, she could not guarantee it would be lawful.
"There are certainly times when unlawful action is required in order to force changes that aren't happening fast enough," she said.
Ms Harvey said that, if police intervened to stop the campaigners reaching BAA's offices, they would be protecting the interests of the corporation over the needs of the people. A fifth terminal will open at Heathrow in March 2008 and a new runway has been proposed by the government for about 2020.

[Kev2012]

I was a little worried listening to Radio5 this morning, hearing some of the "protesters" was rather worrying, i'm sure nobody is against peaceful protests - but to have people saying they will deliberately infiltrate BAA offices dressed as officials, well that's not protesting, it's blatant law breaking!

I probably don't have enough information to say whether the runway expansion is a good idea, but the issues of protesting is an interesting one. Like the "Anti War/Anti Violence" protest, where the protesters got "violent". It's just a bit contradictory!

[Daniel]

I was a little worried listening to Radio5 this morning, hearing some of the "protesters" was rather worrying, i'm sure nobody is against peaceful protests - but to have people saying they will deliberately infiltrate BAA offices dressed as officials, well that's not protesting, it's blatant law breaking!

I probably don't have enough information to say whether the runway expansion is a good idea, but the issues of protesting is an interesting one. Like the "Anti War/Anti Violence" protest, where the protesters got "violent". It's just a bit contradictory!

Are you using word or outlook as a text editor and then copying and pasting it into the forum? Better to use notepad if you must.

[Kev2012]

Are you using word or outlook as a text editor and then copying and pasting it into the forum? Better to use notepad if you must.
Ah right cheers. Got a bit of an ear full from a member for spelling something wrong, lol, so thought i'd be more careful, and yeah, was using word to copy and paste. Thanks for the heads up was wondering why the black tags were appearing!

[Mark]

Stopping the runway won't help climate change, although it will help the local area, granted.

You aren't going to stop air travel, maybe these people should be putting their efforts into propulsion research? But no that would require some intelligent thought. Sitting on a campsite is easier.

[Flat.tyres]

well, it looks like the terrorists are winding down their offensive now.

a couple of people have superglued their hands to some doors, some protestors have slept overnight in a BAA car park, a scuffle has lead to a couple of arrests and someone has been nicked for having a joint or something.

Im expecting Southampton to be classed as a terrorist risk next Friday night as you get worse than this in just about every bar. :laugh:

out of all the posts, I found Dylan to be the most insightfull on this subject. he is right that the police have more than adequate powers to deal with lawfull and unlawfull protests as it is. the extreem measures that were called upon to manage this situation were disgracefull and inflamatory but did serve the protestors cause to the ground. there would have been barely a ripple about this had the police not issued statements saying that Anti Terrorist measures would be put in place for what was overwhelmingly a peacefull, lawfull protest.

I found Daniels comments to be most worrying in that he would break the Law and endanger peoples lives if a protestor dare stand in his way when he's behind the wheel of a car and that he wont accept anyone with a different view to him. nice rational human being :laugh:

[Daniel]

None of these twits has the right to stop me going on my holiday.

On the BBC site today these idiots were seen to be holding a banner saying "make planes history". Why do we waste our time with these people. Drop some napalm on them and reduce the carbon footprint of this country by getting rid of these people because they're just a waste of space and they emit CO2. I'm all for being greener and reducing our emissions because it's something we have to do and I'm very much against a local group which is trying to block the construction of a large windfarm. But when people start blockading a place where people work and start causing disruption on that scale then something needs to be done.

Yes you have the right to protest.
But no you don't have the right to blockade a place of business.

[Caroline]

Napalm, yes, very environmentally friendly.

They are getting their message across and getting publicity. They are doing this fully aware that they may end up in court. A stint in jail may seem worthy of disrupting a business and getting on the news. It's their choice.

[Daniel]

Napalm, yes, very environmentally friendly.

They are getting their message across and getting publicity. They are doing this fully aware that they may end up in court. A stint in jail may seem worthy of disrupting a business and getting on the news. It's their choice.
That's why I love you so much :p

How can I not like someone who understands how good napalm is for the environment :p

Of course I'm being OTT and honestly I think it would be horrible if they were to burn these people alive for protesting. But just because they want to have a say doesn't mean they should be allowed to cause such interuption to a business. I think climate change is an important and complicated issue. It needs to be discussed at an international level. Sure they'll get on the news. But this is negative publicity and they look stupid.

If you want an inch. Ask for 2 inches. Don't ask for a mile and don't try to annoy people while asking because you'll alienate the very people who might just be happy to back you.

[Caroline]

Some people might say there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Even bad publicity is publicity and if you look on the BBC website you will notice that it is being reported all the way round the world.

[Daniel]

Some people might say there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Even bad publicity is publicity and if you look on the BBC website you will notice that it is being reported all the way round the world.
Sometimes yes. But if I went on the BBC and did an interview saying that these people should be burnt to a crisp I'd look an idiot. If I went on there and was reasonable and asked that they find a less disruptive way of protesting then I'd look much better and get more support.

If my memory serves me correctly your Subaru bears the scars of some "peaceful" protestor thinking that spilling brake fluid over the bootlid of a car is a good thing :mark: Peaceful protests are not always peaceful!

[Caroline]

If my memory serves me correctly your Subaru bears the scars of some "peaceful" protestor thinking that spilling brake fluid over the bootlid of a car is a good thing :mark: Peaceful protests are not always peaceful!


Yes. It adds character to the car :p

I don't think you or I would break the law (too much) if we were protestors, but some people have different values. Some people don't recognise the law and I am sure don't care about what people think. Some people are just concerned and angry and want to voice their opinion and raise awareness.

And no, I won't invest in a water cannon for your Christmas pressie. :p :

[Daniel]

Yes. It adds character to the car :p

I don't think you or I would break the law (too much) if we were protestors, but some people have different values. Some people don't recognise the law and I am sure don't care about what people think. Some people are just concerned and angry and want to voice their opinion and raise awareness.

And no, I won't invest in a water cannon for your Christmas pressie. :p :

It's not JUST a watercannon though! It will protect me from tear-gas or do you not care about me that much? :( :p

]http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22275551-2,00.html (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22275551-2,00.html[/color)[/color]I still think these people would do much better for their cause by not getting involved in criminal activities and by being vocal but not ridiculous and criminal :p

[Drew]

Now I'm starting to get a little bit worried. I have a flight out soon, if they start protesting at Bristol airport and disrupt the flights, I will actually pack a baseball bat and go ape on them :\

so, your happy that people can be carted off that have done nothing wrong and denied basic civil liberties such as access to a Lawyer or a phone call to let someone know they are OK.

that scares the bejezuz out of me. :s hock: mind you, if it saves someone spilling lentil soup over the perimeter fence of a BAA site, then its all worthwhile.

Mmmm! Lentil soup! Yum Yum! Seems a shame to waste it!

[Flat.tyres]

Now I'm starting to get a little bit worried. I have a flight out soon, if they start protesting at Bristol airport and disrupt the flights, I will actually pack a baseball bat and go ape on them :\

from what ive seen, there has been no attempt to disrupt flights so you should be OK in Bristol :)

for the record, I think protesters are generally long haired dreamers with a suicidal sence of fashion and personal hygine problems. mind you, the same could be said for Chavs and Festival goers. support for the Heathrow protests was NOT my intention at all. what I was trying to highlight was the way terror legislation, hastily thrown together to appease some transitional politicians, was being abused against the public. whatever my personal views on climate change are, I do not think protestors should be labled, and treated like they were terrorists.

now, extreem animal rights protestors are a different matter as are legitimate terrorists intent of carrying out acts of terror. I think if you have hotch potch
legislation for terrorists then use it but not for a bunch of smelly protestors.

protest is legal in this country (although the Government have all but made it illegal) and a cornerstone of our democratic right. I wonder how many people here would be in favour of Nationwide protests including direct criminal action, large-scale disruption and possibly the bitch slapping of politicians in general if Motorsport was banned? :D

[Drew]

from what ive seen, there has been no attempt to disrupt flights so you should be OK in Bristol :)


It seems they are protesting at airports that are planning to expand. I think I might be safe :p :

[Mark in Oshawa]

I find protests useful. It allows society to identify those people who cant be bothered doing anything REALLY constructive with their time. Some protestors are legit, but for the most part, you will find half of them are hard core's who protest anything done by the "establishment" or anyone with gumption, talent or entrepreureal spirit. The cause or the reason is just an excuse...what it comes down to often is these people just don't want to admit they havent' the talent to be rich, and they are envious of people who are rich and powerful.