If BAA has their way, that is.

No, really. You couldn't make it up. Check out www.tubenightmare.com
or the front page of today's Independent for more.

What kind of society are we sleepwalking into, that they even think
its acceptable to try this on?

And more prosaicly, how the heck would i be supposed to get to
Finsbury Park lawfully (!) to even get on the blooming Victoria Line
rail replacement bus, then?

(Don't mention the overland line to Walthamstow/Chingford from
Liverpool St - that is also currently undergoing engineering works
Monday to Thursday, as I discovered last night).

On 27 Jul, 12:21, "
wrote:
If BAA has their way, that is.

No, really. You couldn't make it up. Check outwww.tubenightmare.com
or the front page of today's Independent for more.

What kind of society are we sleepwalking into, that they even think
its acceptable to try this on?

And more prosaicly, how the heck would i be supposed to get to
Finsbury Park lawfully (!) to even get on the blooming Victoria Line
rail replacement bus, then?

(Don't mention the overland line to Walthamstow/Chingford from
Liverpool St - that is also currently undergoing engineering works
Monday to Thursday, as I discovered last night).

RSPB sounds the nicest one, I'll have to join for the day out of
principle. It'll be unenforcable of course, however it means they can
move "troublemakers" on without appearing to make protesting illegal.
It's the usual stance of an oppresive government -- make life illegal,
then cherry pick who you don't like, and the rest will be too scared
to compain as they are breaking the law anyway.

Paul Weaver wrote:
On 27 Jul, 12:21, "
wrote:
If BAA has their way, that is.

No, really. You couldn't make it up. Check outwww.tubenightmare.com
or the front page of today's Independent for more.

You couldn't make it up, but you could sensationalize it. I'd like to
see the actual text of the requested injunction, as opposed to somewhat
vague newspaper reports. And if it is as broad as people fear, then it
seems really unlikely that a judge would approve such a thing.

It's the usual stance of an oppresive government -- make life illegal,
then cherry pick who you don't like, and the rest will be too scared
to compain as they are breaking the law anyway.

The government isn't doing this.
--
Michael Hoffman

And if it is as broad as people fear, then it
seems really unlikely that a judge would approve such a thing.


Well let's hope not. Nonetheless I think it's depressing that the
right to protest has been eroded so much already, that they can even
think to ask for such a ridiculously broad ranging injunction. it
seems to me they are adopting the standard practice of starting with a
position that is so outrageous, to make a more limited ban which
'only' affects part of the tube line, or 'only' thousands rather than
millions of people, seem moderate. Given the recent floods that have
affected the country it is ironic that protest against climate change
is coming up against such frantic attempts to silence it.

On 27 Jul, 14:00, "
wrote:
And if it is as broad as people fear, then it

seems really unlikely that a judge would approve such a thing.

Well let's hope not. Nonetheless I think it's depressing that the
right to protest has been eroded so much already, that they can even
think to ask for such a ridiculously broad ranging injunction. it
seems to me they are adopting the standard practice of starting with a
position that is so outrageous, to make a more limited ban which
'only' affects part of the tube line, or 'only' thousands rather than
millions of people, seem moderate. Given the recent floods that have
affected the country it is ironic that protest against climate change
is coming up against such frantic attempts to silence it.


If any such injunction was approved, I would join several of those
organisations and go to all the banned places and join any protest
that was taking place.

Otherwise, I probably won't.

wrote in message
ups.com...


And if it is as broad as people fear, then it
seems really unlikely that a judge would approve such a thing.


Well let's hope not. Nonetheless I think it's depressing that the
right to protest has been eroded so much already, that they can even
think to ask for such a ridiculously broad ranging injunction. it
seems to me they are adopting the standard practice of starting with a
position that is so outrageous, to make a more limited ban which
'only' affects part of the tube line, or 'only' thousands rather than
millions of people, seem moderate. Given the recent floods that have
affected the country it is ironic that protest against climate change
is coming up against such frantic attempts to silence it.

And of course the biggest abusers of the right to protest are the Labour
Government. Now which party is Ken Livingstone a member of, having jumped in
to criticise BAA. And not forgeting how many times he has flown in and out
of Heathrow.

Kevin

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:14:38 +0100, Michael Hoffman
wrote:

Paul Weaver wrote:
On 27 Jul, 12:21, "
wrote:
If BAA has their way, that is.

No, really. You couldn't make it up. Check outwww.tubenightmare.com
or the front page of today's Independent for more.

You couldn't make it up, but you could sensationalize it. I'd like to
see the actual text of the requested injunction, as opposed to somewhat
vague newspaper reports. And if it is as broad as people fear, then it
seems really unlikely that a judge would approve such a thing.

And, of course, it's pointless, as the airport's byelaws already only
allow for public access if travelling or accompanying a named
passenger...

As for the proselytising environmentalists, I'd give them this advice:
every time you breathe, you exhale 100 times as much carbon dioxide as
you inhaled; save the planet: stop breathing.

On 27 Jul, 13:14, Michael Hoffman wrote:
The government isn't doing this.

Assuming the judicary don't allow the injunction

Paul Weaver wrote:
On 27 Jul, 13:14, Michael Hoffman wrote:
The government isn't doing this.

Assuming the judicary don't allow the injunction

Well, I regard the judiciary and the government as separate, but let's
agree that you included them both in your original use of the word. But
I think it's a bit unfair to presume that they will.
--
Michael Hoffman