Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

The protest camp at Heathrow

So the Camp for Climate Action week has finally kicked off. Already in controversy for setting up camp on private land, and receiving stark warnings from the police and the government alike: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6943549.stm

I have to say I'm a bit uneasy at the apparent overzealeous approach the police are taking to this protest. Not only BAA almost succeeded in banning millions of people from the march (we all know what brutal extremists Friends of the Earth are eh? :rolleyes: ) but our government and London's finest are queuing up to warn of dire consequences if poor BAA has any disruption to its licence to print money- sorry, business.

And yes, of course I am aware that there must be zero tolerance towards any suggestions of actually invading the runways and putting lives at danger. But the whole safety and security issue is being overplayed to ban people from the terminals, lest they cause any discomfort or embarrassement to anyone jetting off to Majorca for the weekend.

Stand by for stories of black-clad anarchists and evil Muslim terrorists hiding amongst the protesters...
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
«1345

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    1. Setting up camp there is a security risk.

    2. It's a complete waste of time for everyone involved.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I really don't think how it is a security risk. If a terrorist had actually acquired the means to bring down an airplane- for instance by a heat-seeking missile or RPG- there are hundreds if not thousands of different positions within a couple of miles of the airport from which they could fire it before any police even knew they were there.

    The only security risk I see is if someone blows himself up amongst the crowds. But then just about everything else in life, from shopping malls to football games are a security risk.

    As for whether it is a waste of time, well doing something is better than doing nothing and any exposure of the issue of the effect of air travel on global climate has to be a good thing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aslong as they dont interfere with the running of the airport in any way (i.e fake bomb threats or invading the runway) then they should be allowed to protest, like anyone else should.

    In all fairness they are more likely to piss me off, than tell me something I already know. **Shock horrow flying contributes to climate change**.

    50 tree-huggers sat around a Heathrow campfire singing Cum-by-ya, wont stop me flying off this summer.

    Hasta la vista :wave:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I really don't think how it is a security risk. If a terrorist had actually acquired the means to bring down an airplane- for instance by a heat-seeking missile or RPG- there are hundreds if not thousands of different positions within a couple of miles of the airport from which they could fire it before any police even knew they were there.

    But can you think of any with as good cover as that?

    Do you think that they only people likely to attend are doing so with "peaceful" intentions - and by that I mean not looking to cause disruption by invading runways etc.
    As for whether it is a waste of time, well doing something is better than doing nothing

    Doing something isn't as good as doing something productive ;)

    I have to ask, what does this achieve - apart from a huge tax bill.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Calvin wrote: »
    **Shock horrow flying contributes to climate change**.

    Is alledged to...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    "Air transport accounts for less than 2% of EU CO2 emissions and delivers huge economic benefits, whereas road transport is responsible for some 20% of emissions and provides a fraction of the economic benefits."

    I'd be so bloody pissed off if some protester delayed my flight. Found the above link on the ryanair website so don't know how reliable it is. We have green taxes now and it doesn't put off anybody from air travel because it's a necessity to get to countries hundreds of miles away and cheaper than the ferry over to Europe so why are Friends of the Earth bothering? Many airlines are even trying to cut emissions and make their aircraft more environmentally friendly. Why don't we work on things like car sharing and public transport instead, it needs a shake up. It's probably cheaper to fly from Manchester to London than it is to take the train!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't see why people should be inconvenienced by a load of tree-hugging morons who have nothing better to do than piss everyone off.

    The carbon footprint of all these mongs driving to Heathrow is far larger than that produced by aircraft. And whilst FotE and Greenpeace are not noted for their violence, they're not noted for their honesty either (Brent Spar anyone?)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    The carbon footprint of all these mongs driving to Heathrow is far larger than that produced by aircraft.


    I'd like to see your calculations for that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's not just about climate change in general is it? It's also about the specific plans for Heathrow. It's about concreting over the precious few green zones left around London too. It's about lies, greed and broken promises.

    Let's remind ourselves than when the inquiry into the building of T5 was being discussed BAA kept saying how on condition of approval they would renounce any plans to build a third runway. And what did the lying cunts do the moment T5 was given the green light? They started lobbying for a third runway.

    I'm really surprised at some people complaining about 'tree huggers' etc etc. I thought right wingers were firmly opposed to the concreting over of greenland? Building homes on greenland is apparently an abomination but building runways for the sole purpose of maximising profits for private corporations is okay is it? :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's not just about climate change in general is it? It's also about the specific plans for Heathrow. It's about concreting over the precious few green zones left around London too. It's about lies, greed and broken promises.

    But Heathrow needs expanding and updating. At the moment its the worlds busiest airport and also in desperate need of a makeover.

    Most people dont come to London for the green zones. There are plenty of fields and trees around the UK if thats what your into. London is our capital and needs to remain as competitive as possible.
    Let's remind ourselves than when the inquiry into the building of T5 was being discussed BAA kept saying how on condition of approval they would renounce any plans to build a third runway. And what did the lying cunts do the moment T5 was given the green light? They started lobbying for a third runway.

    What should we do then? Not build a runway and let the airport choke on its own congestion. All that is going to do is harm to UK's competitivness and force up prices for those wishing to travel.
    I'm really surprised at some people complaining about 'tree huggers' etc etc. I thought right wingers were firmly opposed to the concreting over of greenland? Building homes on greenland is apparently an abomination but building runways for the sole purpose of maximising profits for private corporations is okay is it? :rolleyes:

    Even right wingers accept our airports (in London) are operating beyond maximum capacity. We need to build more runways and terminals to keep up with the demand and improve conditions in that shopping mall they call Heathrow. The building of runways will allow more flights to land, more tourists, more investment and more jobs to come to the UK.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't think Heathrow should have a third runway, but that isn't what Plane Stupid et al are arguing about at all. Their agenda is that air travel is evil and an abomination and it must stop immediately. It's a convenient thing to latch onto, but if their agenda was the abolition of runway three then why hijack a boat carrying bits of Airbuses?

    It's funny, though, how these people have only crawled out of the woodwork since air travel became accessible to low-paid people too. High Poncenby-Smyth, or whatever he's called, didn't give a toss when it was just rich people flying- presumably planes full of rich people were environmentally safe.

    That said, though, I'd hardly say Staines was one of the most beautiful bits of green land in the UK. Would you? The airport's already there so the people whingeing about the development can't exactly say its a surprise.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Calvin wrote: »
    But Heathrow needs expanding and updating. At the moment its the worlds busiest airport and also in desperate need of a makeover.

    Most people dont come to London for the green zones. There are plenty of fields and trees around the UK if thats what your into. London is our capital and needs to remain as competitive as possible.
    In that case Heathrow should be renationalised immediately, seeing as it is seen by just about everyone abroad as a truly abominable place where the only concern is to sell as much shite as possible from the thousands of shops cramming every square foot.

    That situation was created solely by BAA's policy of treating airports as shopping malls with a captive audience. Congestion is not the bigger problem the airport has.


    What should we do then? Not build a runway and let the airport choke on its own congestion. All that is going to do is harm to UK's competitivness and force up prices for those wishing to travel.



    Even right wingers accept our airports (in London) are operating beyond maximum capacity. We need to build more runways and terminals to keep up with the demand and improve conditions in that shopping mall they call Heathrow. The building of runways will allow more flights to land, more tourists, more investment and more jobs to come to the UK.
    We need to cut on flight emissions. And we need to lead by example.

    For the money it costs to build new runways you could improve the railways so people don't choose the plane over the train when travelling from London to Scotland- or even Liverpool and Manchester.

    But the point remains that if we don't seriously start considering cutting emissions we're going to be truly screwed in a matter of a few decades. Instead of bending over to the all-powerful air transportation industry we should start taxing aviation fuel (why on earth don't we already) and promoting other forms of transport and a change of lifestyle.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    It's funny, though, how these people have only crawled out of the woodwork since air travel became accessible to low-paid people too. High Poncenby-Smyth, or whatever he's called, didn't give a toss when it was just rich people flying- presumably planes full of rich people were environmentally safe.
    Or maybe it is the combination of a mass increase in flights in the last 10-15 years (think how it was before Ryanair and Easyjet) and the fact that climate change has become far more high profile issue in the last few years.

    Of course people should have the right to go abroad on holidays. But seeing as climate change is a real issue (despite what some might claim) perhaps it not too much to ask that those who fly 6 times a year to the Continent cut it down a bit or at least travel by train.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    We need to cut on flight emissions.

    Why?

    And more to the point, why lobby for reduced air travel instead of fuel changes?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In that case Heathrow should be renationalised immediately, seeing as it is seen by just about everyone abroad as a truly abominable place where the only concern is to sell as much shite as possible from the thousands of shops cramming every square foot.

    That situation was created solely by BAA's policy of treating airports as shopping malls with a captive audience. Congestion is not the bigger problem the airport has.

    I see your point but I dont think nationalisation will help. Apart from the fact it would cost us billions, nationalised companies are never very competitive.

    I agree with cutting back on the shops though. However BAA needs the permission to start ripping buildings down and replacing them with a airport suitable for the 21 century.
    We need to cut on flight emissions. And we need to lead by example.

    For the money it costs to build new runways you could improve the railways so people don't choose the plane over the train when travelling from London to Scotland- or even Liverpool and Manchester.

    But the point remains that if we don't seriously start considering cutting emissions we're going to be truly screwed in a matter of a few decades. Instead of bending over to the all-powerful air transportation industry we should start taxing aviation fuel (why on earth don't we already) and promoting other forms of transport and a change of lifestyle.

    Fly is one activity that the British public will not give up. You try telling a family who have worked hard all year they cant take their kids to Spain for the summer or explaining why someone shouldnt fly to Australia to see their children or grandchildren.

    What we need to do is give tax breaks to airlines and aircraft manufactures who use more efficient aircraft and punish those airlines and manufactures who continue to use dirty old aircraft. The ability to produce quieter and more fuel efficient aircraft is there, we just need a bit more carrott for manufactures and airlines and less stick in order to force companies into using the most efficient aircraft.

    Air travel isnt going to stop, the best we can do is push to make it as clean and efficient as possible.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    In that case Heathrow should be renationalised immediately, seeing as it is seen by just about everyone abroad as a truly abominable place where the only concern is to sell as much shite as possible from the thousands of shops cramming every square foot.

    Ah yes, Heathrow in the early 1990s was a veritable haven from the hectic pace of life, beer was 2p a pint, and life was grand.
    We need to cut on flight emissions.

    Do we?
    For the money it costs to build new runways you could improve the railways so people don't choose the plane over the train when travelling from London to Scotland- or even Liverpool and Manchester.

    You could, but is that environmentally any better?

    Would this look good through this?

    Nobody cared when it was the rich flying and the poor crowded onto coaches for 40 hours. And now the poor can fly too suddenly its a natural disaster. I smell snobbery from the same greeny loonies who set up the Green Party based on ideals of banning immigration.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    Ah yes, Heathrow in the early 1990s was a veritable haven from the hectic pace of life, beer was 2p a pint, and life was grand.
    Probably not. Naturally nationalisation would have to be paired with a change in attitude: namely that airports should be gateways into a country and a showcase of style- not second rate retail parks full of shops selling ties and overpriced electronics.


    Do we?
    Yep.


    You could, but is that environmentally any better?

    Would this look good through this?
    Why would it have to run through there? Most of it could run over or paralell to existing track.

    Nobody cared when it was the rich flying and the poor crowded onto coaches for 40 hours. And now the poor can fly too suddenly its a natural disaster. I smell snobbery from the same greeny loonies who set up the Green Party based on ideals of banning immigration.
    I don't. I believe it is as simple as climate change barely registering in the public conscience 12-15 years ago, and the number of flights being much lower then.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Calvin wrote: »
    Fly is one activity that the British public will not give up. You try telling a family who have worked hard all year they cant take their kids to Spain for the summer or explaining why someone shouldnt fly to Australia to see their children or grandchildren.
    I'm sure some people would like a total ban on flights but many more concerned people don't want that. They just want a reduction in the number of flights taken.

    Flying once a year to the Continent is not too bad. Flying six or eight times is a different matter. As for domestic flights, it is nothing short of a disgrace that we are in a position where people choose to fly to Manchester or even Scotland.
    What we need to do is give tax breaks to airlines and aircraft manufactures who use more efficient aircraft and punish those airlines and manufactures who continue to use dirty old aircraft. The ability to produce quieter and more fuel efficient aircraft is there, we just need a bit more carrott for manufactures and airlines and less stick in order to force companies into using the most efficient aircraft.

    Air travel isnt going to stop, the best we can do is push to make it as clean and efficient as possible.
    I disagree. We should introduce fuel tax on airlines. If we're in a capitalist system it's the least we can do for the sake of train and coach operators is it not? The revenue raised can be used to make rail travel more attractive.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Probably not. Naturally nationalisation would have to be paired with a change in attitude: namely that airports should be gateways into a country and a showcase of style- not second rate retail parks full of shops selling ties and overpriced electronics.

    So it should be an art gallery?

    The shops are there because people want them. Whether the people only want them because they are there is a different argument.Yep.
    Yep.

    Why?
    Why would it have to run through there? Most of it could run over or paralell to existing track.

    Oh dear, you should have a look at where the main lines run. Get your map out and look up Beattock and Shap.

    I believe it is as simple as climate change barely registering in the public conscience 12-15 years ago, and the number of flights being much lower then.

    The number of flights were lower, but not that much lower. Ryanair and Easyjet have taken over routes that the big carriers no longer run, e.g. Newcastle-London.

    What people seem to object to is the cost.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I disagree. We should introduce fuel tax on airlines. If we're in a capitalist system it's the least we can do for the sake of train and coach operators is it not? The revenue raised can be used to make rail travel more attractive.

    A fuel tax will just increase the price of ticket. Then the only people who will be able to afford to fly are the rich, thats hardly fair is it.

    I dont see why one industry which is profitable and booming should be effectivley subsidising the rail companies. After all competition is good.

    If the railways cant operate at a reasonable cost, then customers simply wont use them. Thats the railways problem and not something the airlines should be subsidising.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    People do use the railways though, and whilst airlines often look to be cheaper, they rarely are. People from Newcastle southwards will use the train for business to London because its quicker, and north of there the train will always be slower.

    Fuel taxes always seem to have the same effect- punish the poor at the expense of the rich. They always seem to end up emptying the roads and airports of the hoi polloi, making it so the rich don't have to mingle with the scruffers. I'm sure its purely incidental...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Calvin wrote: »
    But Heathrow needs expanding and updating. At the moment its the worlds busiest airport and also in desperate need of a makeover.

    the simple answer avoiding the 'green' debate is that expanding heathrow is pointless, it's europes busiest airport already, and less was invested in it than lasy tear, yet BAA have upped their profits somehow :yeees:

    theres OTHER airports in london, the more centralised air travel is the bigger the queues are gonig to be getting there at the cost to everything in the neighbouring area
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Calvin wrote: »
    A fuel tax will just increase the price of ticket. Then the only people who will be able to afford to fly are the rich, thats hardly fair is it.

    I dont see why one industry which is profitable and booming should be effectivley subsidising the rail companies. After all competition is good.

    If the railways cant operate at a reasonable cost, then customers simply wont use them. Thats the railways problem and not something the airlines should be subsidising.

    however air travel is subsidised, there is no duty on the fuel unlike all other forms of trainsport so it's subsidised

    and did you ever hear about all those little european airports being subisidised by national air carriers, it's just as bad as the railways and road in subsidy

    the M1 lane widening is getting more than the entire rail network in the country for example
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    I don't see why people should be inconvenienced by a load of tree-hugging morons who have nothing better to do than piss everyone off.
    Well, here's hoping that when these aforementioned tree-hugging morons decide to invade a runway, a plane runs the lot of them over. ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    So it should be an art gallery?

    The shops are there because people want them. Whether the people only want them because they are there is a different argument.Yep.
    It should be an airport. Just as most of the civilised world manages. They have shops in their aiports too. Though not so many. Not to such oppressing density.

    If we want to impress investors and visitors alike we need to make our airports more pleasant. And ensure there is more staff and more entry points available so clearing security is not an ordeal. Though that would mean spending money of course.


    Why?
    Frankly Kermit I'm not prepared to explain why any more than I'd be prepared to explain to a flat earther why the earth is a sphere. There is plenty of evidence out there and has been for years. Look it up.


    Oh dear, you should have a look at where the main lines run. Get your map out and look up Beattock and Shap.
    But the lines are already there. So how is anything going to be different?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Just ignore them, they'll go away.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Im There In Full Force Got 29 Rpgs And 57 Anti Air Craft Rifles

    Fuckin Snooker Booker Cooker Chin Comanchhe
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think there is something of a misconception about how and why this camp is coming about. Some posters have raised the question of what the point might be, or how the protesters think they might be affecting the issues.

    One of the things to consider is that it is also a forum within which grass-roots solutions will be discussed; not romantic Braveheart-esque stuff like storming valiantly over the wires to attach yourselves to Boeing's, in time for an impromptu chorus of 'We shall overcome'...its also the boring stuff like how people can manage waste in their own homes, lobby local businesses and other institutions to be more pro-active.

    There is an awful lot that can be done this way. Unfortunately one of the downsides of living in a country of (comparably and broadly speaking) immense freedom, wealth and opportunity, is that we often see such actions simply as 'trouble making' and our ready to condemn those actually out there doing something for themselves, and taking steps to set their own agendas.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There will be some people out to cause trouble. The G8 protesting, 'libertarian anarchist', useless trouble making types. They're always there. They'd do better to raise awareness of what homeowners can do to insulate their homes as that apparently contributes more to 'global warming' than air travel does. But sensible as that is, it's no fun because they won't get the satisfaction of knowing that they're valiantly crusading against the 'big bad evil corporations' that way.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Runnymede wrote: »
    There will be some people out to cause trouble. The G8 protesting, 'libertarian anarchist', useless trouble making types. They're always there. They'd do better to raise awareness of what homeowners can do to insulate their homes as that apparently contributes more to 'global warming' than air travel does. But sensible as that is, it's no fun because they won't get the satisfaction of knowing that they're valiantly crusading against the 'big bad evil corporations' that way.

    :yes:
Sign In or Register to comment.