Should airport protests be allowed? Watch

Have Your Say
Badges: 0
#1
Report Thread starter 11 years ago
#1
The owner of London's Heathrow Airport, BAA, is seeking an injunction to ban protests against a third runway.

The injunction could see members of 15 environmental groups being arrested at the airport, or on road or rail links to it.

BAA says it wants to protect the operation of the airport and ensure passenger safety, but campaigners say it would put new limits on peaceful protest.

Organisers hoped as many as 5,000 people would take part in a week-long demonstration planned for August.

Could airport safety be compromised? Is BAA being too heavy-handed? Is this a threat to civil liberties? Should peaceful protests be controlled?
quote
reply
SuperhansFavouriteAlsatian
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report 11 years ago
#2
If it's on their property, they have every right to throw them off.

If it's not, they don't.

Is there really any room for debate, here?
0
quote
reply
thomasp
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report 11 years ago
#3
I suppose they could argue that a terrorist group could "pretend" to be an environmentalist group and protest at the end of the runway and shoot down planes with rocket launchers.

If a protest group is causing a nuisance and overly disrupting people's lives/business, then they should be dispersed/moved on, whether they're near an airport or not.
0
quote
reply
Invocation
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#4
Report 11 years ago
#4
Of course they should be. What a stupid question.
0
quote
reply
SiAz
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#5
Report 11 years ago
#5
Who makes these questions? Seriously, is this whole forum just a sampling ground for thinktanks?

I believe in individual liberty over pretty much everything. So yes, they should be allowed to protest, the idea they could be "terrorists in disguise" is the talk of brainwashed idiots. Quite frankly.
0
quote
reply
djchak
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#6
Report 11 years ago
#6
They should be allowed to protest, but not AT the airport....maybe somewhere near a BAA office, or a place where large numbers of people can protest without having to worry about saftey and disturbing passengers.

It is private property, technically.
0
quote
reply
Dionysus
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#7
Report 11 years ago
#7
The fact that this is even being discussed is ridiculous. If security checks need to be done, so be it, but the right to protest is paramount. That said, the owners of the land do have the right to insist it takes place outside the gates or something.
0
quote
reply
anonymous1985
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8
Report 11 years ago
#8
“Peaceful protest is a legitimate right in our society but sadly is often abused by those who simply want to get involved in criminal fighting and intimidation. As far as Heathrow's… Alfred”

Alfred, you had me at “peaceful protest is legitimate”. No need to say a word more. It is what my grandfather, great grandfather & forefathers fought & died for. To suggest anything else is unthinkable. It’s when people start o use violent, murderous bombing campaigns you know the country is in trouble.
0
quote
reply
GarethBrown
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#9
Report 11 years ago
#9
For I second I thought you were making a statement about our intervention in the middle east. Then I realised you were talking about guy fawkes.
0
quote
reply
Catsmeat
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#10
Report 11 years ago
#10
(Original post by thomasp)
I suppose they could argue that a terrorist group could "pretend" to be an environmentalist group and protest at the end of the runway and shoot down planes with rocket launchers.

If a protest group is causing a nuisance and overly disrupting people's lives/business, then they should be dispersed/moved on, whether they're near an airport or not.
But then who can you trust? If you could assume that every peaceful movement could be a cover for something more sinister, then that could lead to the closure of all movements, whatever their history.

I'm a member of English Heritage, so I believe I may have missed out from the ban (as opposed to members of National Trust, RSPCA). The wide blanket thrown over the various groups which have been banned is faintly ridiculous, unfair and generalistic.
0
quote
reply
Melancholy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 11 years ago
#11
the idea they could be "terrorists in disguise" is the talk of brainwashed idiots. Quite frankly.
Because, you know, terrorists don't exist, of course :rolleyes:
0
quote
reply
mateyface
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#12
Report 11 years ago
#12
They want to ban members of the RSPB! I never thought I'd see the day when birdwatchers were banned from anywhere... and hopefully still won't. If it's a peaeful protest then it should totally be allowed and I don't really see why anyone (except perhaps BAA) would disagree with that.
0
quote
reply
SiAz
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#13
Report 11 years ago
#13
(Original post by TML)
Because, you know, terrorists don't exist, of course :rolleyes:
Because terrorists are everywhere and hate our freedom, not to mention our way of life. To defeat them we need to relinquish our freedoms and overhaul our way of life. :rolleyes:

THIS IS A NEWSFLASH BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE MINISTER OF NEVER LYING, WE LOVE PUPPIES...Live now to westminster..

"The lollypop ladies union has been infiltrated by CIA-ada, they are planning to dress up in shiney shiney drag and distract drivers into killing....
....

....

....Schoolchildren.

I know... I know... The answer is twofold... We must declare war on a dirt poor arab country half a planet away... we must also allow GM government smurfs to live in our ass.. with a camcorder.

Its only reasonable!!! HEIL... Sorry... HAIL THE UN_UNITED KKKINGDUMB!!! THEY CAN TAKE OUR FREEDOM.... BUT THEY WILL NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDUMB!!!! :ridinghor... TO WAR YOU SCUM!!! TO WAR!!!..." *mild clearing of throat.

"We face a grave threat" *sly smile...

Thankyou minister! :rolleyes:
0
quote
reply
Melancholy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 11 years ago
#14
o.O Do you believe that Osama Bin Laden exists or is merely a creation of the CIA? Genuine question.
0
quote
reply
fire2burn
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#15
Report 11 years ago
#15
Injunctions are a slippery slope, if BAA gains one for Heathrow. Other airports considering building work or extensions will use them against local residents campaigning against airport expansions.

To ban the rights to freedom of assembly, free speech, and peaceful protest is nonsense. I hope all those mentioned in the injunction actively ignore it, I'm sure the police will get sick of arresting twitchers in no time at all.

The police already have powers to deal with protesters such as the use of section 30 of the Anti Social Behaviour Act 2003, section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, section 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and Sections 12 and 14 Public Order Act 1986.

There is no need to seek an injunction under The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PHA).
0
quote
reply
bonjovi22
Badges: 0
#16
Report 11 years ago
#16
(Original post by SiAz)
Who makes these questions? Seriously, is this whole forum just a sampling ground for thinktanks?

I believe in individual liberty over pretty much everything. So yes, they should be allowed to protest, the idea they could be "terrorists in disguise" is the talk of brainwashed idiots. Quite frankly.
Look in the mirror you Liberal.

No they should not be allowed to protest - they could be terrorists under disguise, its a precaution we must take. They should protest in a public place like town, where people can stop and ask them questions - at an airport where people are busy and running around in their life's - its out of the question - shoot the hippy's
0
quote
reply
SiAz
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#17
Report 11 years ago
#17
(Original post by TML)
o.O Do you believe that Osama Bin Laden exists or is merely a creation of the CIA? Genuine question.
Osama Bin Laden was driving round the US in the 70's in a pink cadillac under the guise Tim Osmond... fresh from CIA training and flushed with CIA money.

He's their hired bogeyman, whenever the administration need a bit of stimulus for the population he pops up.. a lovely video before the last election was nice. The fact that in half the videos its obvious (from voice analysis and simple eyesight) its not even Bin Laden... merely adds character to the charade. Do you remember the fat Bin Laden? lol That one was classic in a sick way.

The fact his family all sat on the board of the carlyle group prior and also on the board of eridian satellite...ergo make lots of money from the wars in the middle east... again increases the farce. His families companies are getting a sizeable proportion of the the Iraqi reconstruction funds for example. We all know about the way the bin ladens were the only people allowed to fly after 9/11. They weren't even interviewed... wtf?

After 9/11, at a press conference an FBI agent (the same one that leaked w199i I think) refused to comment (for legal reasons) on whether he thought 9/11 was an inside job. He said "All I can say... is that the bushs and the bin ladens holiday together"

Of course, even if mainstream history, countless witnesses and decades of news articles weren't enough for you... he was also at a US military base in Kandahar receiving dialysis a week before 9/11. Oh.. he's such a wanted man.

Check out what I've said, aside from maybe misspelling a company name perhaps, its all on record. He's a blatant CIA frontman IMHO.

(Original post by k77)
Look in the mirror you Liberal.
Actually I'm a libertarian, a right(ish) wing one at that. I don't really hold the left-right paradigm to be valid though, so I just say Libertarian(ish).

Since when was liberal an insult though? You're only confirming you're brainwashed by indulging in the use of politicised language. Are you familiar with the manipulation of language as described most famously by Eric Blair? :confused:
0
quote
reply
Melancholy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 11 years ago
#18
Is that a yes or a no?
0
quote
reply
Jim-ie
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#19
Report 11 years ago
#19
Protesters clearly arent terrorists in disguise, wise up.

As long as they dont get in my way I couldnt give a **** if they protest or not.
0
quote
reply
SiAz
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#20
Report 11 years ago
#20
(Original post by TML)
Is that a yes or a no?
Well of course he exists! He does have links to terrorists but the point is that these are the CIAs hired terrorists, their moveable pretext.

I read an article the other week entitled "US uses Al Qaeda to attack Iran"... I think it said it all. Do some research into the role hired muslim mercenaries played in the Balkans too. Clinton bragged about how he had turned the region into a mujahadeen recruitment zone. He took a lot of flak from the republicans over that comment... the hypocrites.
0
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you like exams?

Yes (207)
18.48%
No (681)
60.8%
Not really bothered about them (232)
20.71%

Watched Threads

View All