flying_fozzy

More like the one on the Bath Road. Much closer. It's in the Heathrow FreeFlow bus area so they wouldn't have to pay... not like they'd pay for the bus in the first instance anyway

duchy

Me too-flying out on the 20th also to Vegas-hopefully by then the weekenders will have gone home and the diehards are all in custody. Actually hitting holiday traffic rather than business traffic isn't smart-people are a lot more resistent to having a holiday ruined than a refundable business trip delayed or curtailed. They've chosen one of the quietest business travel weeks in the year DUH

ElkeNorEast

I bet they know that business travelers will recognize them for what they are, a bunch of wallies.

They'd much rather try to frighten the fly-once-a-year crowd, who will be very impressed by them and immediately cancel their flights so they can run home to convert their cars into huge planters for all manner of organic veg

zedhead

Like respect, democracy is a two way street.

The Saint

Any one got any more banalities from the Forest Gump handbook?

To das05r, were freedom like this, then there would never be a problem. It isn't, so there is. Whenever you give a population a series of "rights" you will find (to greater or lesser extent) that on occasions they will conflict. Depending upon the importance of the right exercised (and a whole host of other considerations) sometimes one right has to give way to another. As yet, there is not a recognised legal "right" to fly around in planes. There are well-established legal rights of freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom to demonstrate. Throughout history, some people paid a very high price to establish these rights. I, for one, am not prepared to stand by and let their exercise become dependent upon some popularity contest of their cause.

zedhead, I confess to not knowing what "democracy is a two-way street" means. I suspect it means something similar to das05r's unattributed quotation. If so, then the same applies. It would be more apt to think of democracy being a single track road. Sometimes you are required to pull in to let others pass.

Now, it is quite apparent from this thread that most posters are opposed to the demo. Fair enough. That's your right. What is concerning is suggestion that these people have no right to demonstrate or worse that it would be perfectly ok to ban or substantially limit their protest (in the interests of the "rights" of users of Heathrow). Rather sadly (and depressingly quickly) some posters are moved to threatening violence against the intended demonstrators. I ask, in that instance, who is the greater threat to the rule of law?

dgwright99

If I lived in Hebden Bridge, I'd be angry about EVERYTHING as well.

trooper

Saint

Few folks here, as you well know, are seriously advocating any restriction of freedom of expression/right to demonstrate etc. You are quite corrrect that these are "well established rights". But you are (intentionally?) ignoring the valid complaint that many are making....

The objections to the proposed "action" relate principally to the stated intent to disrupt the airport/aviation activities..

Do YOU actually think that such activities are covered by any of these freedoms? They intend NOT to just express their views.. but to interfere with the (currently) legitimate activities of others....

HOW is that "OK"? Because they are "sincere"? Because they think they are "right"?

That would open the floodgates..... most fanatics are VERY sincere! (and damn sure of their "rightness")

The Saint

No, I get their point. For some here, they would constrain these people's right to demonstrate to a sound proof box off the A4.

Of course. That's the point. Most demos expect and intend to cause disruption. By that, they hope to be noticed. When people go on strike they intend to cause disruption. When people lie down in front of earth-movers protesting about new road development, then intend to cause disruption. Down through history, some of the famous agitators for social/legal change did so intending their protests to cause disruption. It was by this simple expedient that they made their strength of feeling known and made people listen to their point of view.

I don't think; plainly they are (subject always to the law).

Mmm. Perhaps you're right. Maybe we should have a "Demonstration Commission" to decide which causes were "right" and which proposals were "sincere". They could refuse applications from "fanatics". The DC could decide in what form the protest could take place, so as not to cause any inconvenience. Wonder who down through history would have been in favour of a DC?

trooper

"Plainly they are.. subject always to the law"

???? ?????????

A person standing on the side of the road (as long as they are not trespassing on private property presumably) can wave signs, yell slogans etc etc.. and noone elses "rights" are interfered with...

The moment however that they step into the road and block it (fr'instance) at least in this "Western Democracy" that I live in, they are in BREACH of the law... as they are now infringing on the rights of others....

I'm curious then as to how you see these protesters disrupting the airport WITHOUT breaking the law????

I just can't reconcile your apparent support for their proposed actions with your comment "subject always to the law".... as I suspect at least some of these protestors have little if any intention of staying within legal bounds....

In response to your first post on this thread.... I do NOT agree with what they say...... yet I do respect their right to say it. Absolutely.

I do NOT agree they have any "right" to do any more than that however. Physically disrupting the activities of other people does not come under the category of "having a say"!

ajax

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Often mis-attributed to Voltaire, this was actually penned by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, when summarising Voltaire's political philosophy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire

The Saint

Your last remark does not follow.

I think you'll find - unless Johnny Howard's been changing the common law - that demonstrators would be permitted to proceed up and down the highway - causing disruption - without breaking any laws. Same in the UK.

See above for the example of causing disruption within the law.

But you misunderstand my remark - subject always to the law. If the protestors break the criminal law, then (as long as it is serious enough) they can be arrested, charged, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced. If they break the civil law (e.g. trespass by having a sit-in at the Terminals), then they can be sued and if they lose, be ordered to pay damages.

For some protestors, they will believe that the cause for which they are demonstrating is worth the penalty.

That raises a very interesting jurisprudential argument as to whether it is ever acceptable to break laws (and if so which) in pursuit of a cause. Again, I refer you to the rich history of demonstration. As I observed above, we learn from that that some people have fallen foul of the law for the manner in which they made their point.

For fear of repeating myself, it plainly does - see above.

trooper

Thank you... it WAS a question I was asking.. I wasn't having a go at you!

And yes, it was a misunderstanding.....

Sorry for (assisting) in getting waaaay "OT"!

BAHumbug

Indeed, and the case that springs to mind is that of the Suffragettes. It's hard to believe that it is only relatively recently that women were given the vote - at the time the actions of the Suffragettes were considered shocking and really more than a civilised society should have to put up with. Yet can you seriously contemplate women not being allowed to vote ?

BAH

redtailshark

Agreed. Must be that's why the BritPoliticos, out of respect for the principle above, vote themselves exemption from the burdensome requirements of FOI legislation. After all, then they can quite legally deny public requests for accountability of public monies.

More generally, this level of intolerance against democratic expression belies the claims of "freedom of expression." Dumping jet fuel on protestors. Nice. There are countries where such expression of views would be dealt with as specified by some BAEC members here. For example, the one run by Mr.Putin.

Why not embrace the thorny and sometimes inconvenient expression of such views with the understanding that, in doing so, you strike a blow against Putin and other repressive wannabe autocrats and dictatorial regimes. I urge BAEC members to recognize that the very fact that such protest is possible is precious. Don't lose it.

Befriend an eco-warrior and guest them into the BA lounges. Upgrade them into CW. Maybe that will change their views.

RTS

kusteneun

I wonder when Jason King will give us his view on this subject?