pooley wrote:
As direct action goes it is effective- this land can not be built on until sold, i'm sure a compulsory purchase order will be issued eventually but will take time
As direct action, I'm pretty certain it'll be ineffective. As you say, they'll issue compulsory Purchase Orders, the same as they would if it had been owned by anyone else.
As a publicity stunt, it's marvellous. High profile press coverage, pulls in people so they cross the line from spectating to participating.
pooley wrote:
So much more effective than blocking a run way - this will take ages to sort, rather than the one day at stanstead. It didn't stop the public going about their business and therefore alienated none of the people whos support this kind of action need.
Effective?
By getting flights cancelled the Stanstead action saved hundreds of tons of CO2 emissions, right now. Way more effective in those terms.
NOT REALLY, THE EXTRA FLIGHTS LAID ON TO GET THOSE WHO MISSED THEIR FLIGHTS TO WHERE THEY WANTED TO GO MUST HAVE MORE THAN MADE UP FOR IT. SO NOT EFFECTIVE AT ALL. UNLIKE THE HEATHROW THING WHICH HAS 1) MADE THE PUBLIC AWARE IN A POSTIVE WAY, 2) MADE THE GOVERMENT LOOK STUPID 3) MADE PROTEST SEEM LIKE A GOOD NEWS STORY
The 'public going about their business' at airports need challenging. I loved those reports from Stansted with people saying that they were distressed because they were only going abroad for a day to Germany to do their Christmas shopping and now they won't get the chance, or the woman who said 'cheap flights are essential, without them I couldn't afford to have my house in Spain'.
These people should be delayed, their 'business' should be disrupted. What they are doing is little short of murderous.
AND THE WOULD BE PASSENGER WHO COULDN'T GET TO HER FATHERS FUNERAL? DID YOU LOVE THAT REPORT? I'M SURE YOU WILL SAY THAT SHE COULD HAVE LEFT A DAY EARLIER, YEAH IF SHE KNEW SHE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GET HER FLIGHT I'M SURE SHE WOULD HAVE.
YOU HAVE NO SYMPATHY FOR THE PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO GET ABROAD FOR WHAT YOU SEE AS UNESSENTIAL REASONS, FINE. I AGREE WITH YOU TO A CERTAIN DEGREE ON THAT. BUT THESE ARE EXACTLY THE PEOPLE YOU NEED ON SIDE. IF YOU CAN MAKE THEM STOP FOREVER, RATHER THAN BE DELAYED BY A DAY THEN YOU ARE GETTING THERE. YOU NEED THESE PEOPLE TO AGREE.
And if you think the support of people in an airport should be the present focus of attention then I'm glad you're not running any anti-aviation campaigns.
NOT REALLY WHAT I MEANT, SEE ABOVE
It's about making flying something that's controversial, something that people should be challenged to justify, it's about feeding in to the groundswell that the Greenpeace land thing also feeds into.
YEP, I AGREE. HOLDING THEM UP FOR A DAY WON'T DO THAT, BASIC HUMAN NATURE WILL MAKE THEM REBEL AGAINST WHOEVER IS HOLDING THEM UP. THEY NEED BRINGING ON SIDE, NOT FIGHTING.
But it is also, crucially, about being genuine direct action. Each person on the runway prevented the equivalent of about four years of the average Briton's carbon emissions.
http://www.headheritage.co.uk/uknow/features/index.php?id=84
