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 ✨
Options
The protest camp at Heathrow
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
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...
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.
0
Comments
2. It's a complete waste of time for everyone involved.
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.
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:
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.
Doing something isn't as good as doing something productive
I have to ask, what does this achieve - apart from a huge tax bill.
Is alledged to...
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!
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?)
I'd like to see your calculations for that.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why?
And more to the point, why lobby for reduced air travel instead of fuel changes?
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.
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.
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.
Do we?
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.
Yep.
Why would it have to run through there? Most of it could run over or paralell to existing track.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why?
Oh dear, you should have a look at where the main lines run. Get your map out and look up Beattock and Shap.
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.
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.
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...
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
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
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.
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.
But the lines are already there. So how is anything going to be different?
Fuckin Snooker Booker Cooker Chin Comanchhe
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.
:yes: