Stansted Protest

[Stig]

I sympathise with all the poor folk whose travel plans were ruined today. SOme of them will have saved money & time off work to take a holiday looked forward to for months.

But I am 100% behind the protestor's cause. Why are we planning runway expansions when the govt have promised massive reductions in emmissions from air travel? It does not add up.

A lot of disgruntled fliers from other countries say Britain is a disgrace for allowing the action to take place, & that protestors should be frog-marched out of the way post-haste. They're not blowing themselves up or threatening menace - they're making sure their argument gets heard. It's reassuring to see that it's still possible to do so, in UK at least.

[Meanqueen]

I heard that on 5Live this morning, they had a discussion about it. If I was living there, I would be joining the protestors. The UK is just a changeover place for people to fly on to somewhere else.

Ilona

[Richard]

I agree, a valient cause indeed - but I'm not sure about disrupting the 'normal person' as in holidays to see families etc.

When CIWF caused havoc at Dover Docks over the young Calf transportation, it only really affected the Freight side of it.

Thereagain, the Freight can indirectly effect people I guess.

[saint-spoon]

Interesting one really, with the current climate and aviation firms going out of business/cutting routes do we really need another airport or runway? Is this the backlash of the government forcing BAA to sell off half of their operations?
Certainly when it’s issues of carbon emission reductions the relationship between government promise and government do seems tenuous at best.
As for disruptive demonstrations, I’m not entirely sure that they make any difference in the long run. Greenham common didn’t close because of the peace camp and the cynic in me would argue that the ban on fox hunting was more to do with spin than appeasing the hunt protestors; there was a lot of underhanded policy happening at the time which the hunting ban conveniently kept out of the headlines. I also suspect that not one fox has been spared by the ban, it was unenforceable from the offset and I really don’t think that the government ever intended that it was; too many opponents amongst the party fund givers (possibly).
There is however a lot of money at stake and therefore tax revenue so I would reckon that no amount of highly publicised protesting will make a difference to whether or not we construct more aviation capacity.
The lady on the news last night seemed to have a grasp on what she was arguing about but I do suspect that there was a percentage of “professional Protestorsâ€

[jennyf]

I thing it's time that cheap air travel is stopped. The price of flying should reflect the fuel used and the damage to the environment etc.

On one hand you have the people who may have had their travel plans disrupted, but on the other, you have the people who are going to have their lives ruined because of the Stansted expansion. Homes will have to be demolished and those living nearby will have to put up with extra noise levels.

One of the banners displayed on the main road to Stansted states:

"Cheap Flights Cost the Earth"

I have to agree with that and I think the protestors have a valid point.

[Richard]

Yes, agreed. The problem nowadays is that protests are only as good as the Celebrity they have tagged onto them.

There are genuine one's; ie Joanna Lumley and certainly HFW and JO did a lot for Battery Hens, but seem in some ways to have moved on now.
But at the time, it worked wonders and upped the awareness that many of us had been portraying for years.

It seems that protesting against things which run on Fuel, tend to be not very Government friendly !
So many preach that we should be greener, but continue pumping money into Roads and Air Travel, forgetting Public Transport which gets put in the bottom drawer.

A fine example of this is that 75% of Train Operating Companies aren't running trains on Boxing Day - Good grief, it's PUBLIC Transport.

I tend to wonder how many 'Celebs' would protest against thing's they use on a regular basis etc. etc. You don't spot amny of them on Trains and Buses !

Air Trvael is unique in so far that we need it to do the modern thing of trade and tourism around the World.

But yes, proportionately per mile, it is too cheap in some ways.

Throw the right to protest out and you've thrown out democracy as well.

[saint-spoon]

good celeb dig there, some of them really get on my wick because you know that their involvement is purely for publicity; i could mention certain super models and the anti-fur campaign who went on to wear fur for a shoot.........

[Babycakes]

A little bit but I happened to hear Paul Weller recently in an interview saying he does not have a driving licence or a driver because he prefers public transport. And he's regulalrly seen on the tube.

[Richard]

I agree, London is very different and I've bumped into quite a few household names.
After all, who wants to drive there !

As for Paul Weller, liked he got away with smoking on Stage at two Gigs! The Councils caused uproar when they decided against fining him - about 60,000 people wondered why it was OK for him, but not for them.

[julie2]

BAA ownes seven major airports in UK, and Santandair owns BAA, so they are UK owned by Spanish.(Growl)

[Richard]

I believe, think I saw it, that they're now going back to the second runway plan at Gatwick.

I have a bit of a devil in me, but when I saw some of the moans etc. I thought 'well, you did buy a house near a Airport'.

I believe you have better chances of fighting these things with eco issues than human one's.
They can't build on the end of the fields near me because it's the home of a load of Swans.
I like that !

[Babycakes]

I can see what you mean Richard. The train line runs right through the middle of my town. When people complain about the train noise I have to wonder "why did you buy an apartment in RAILWAY COURT then?? Did you not notice the train station next door...?"