[NYTr] London mayor fights 'stupid' Heathrow airport protesters ban

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

sent by marcus (activ-l)

The Independent - Aug 1, 2007
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2823101.ece

Livingstone fights 'stupid' Heathrow protesters ban

By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent

Heathrow's owner, BAA, came under sustained attack from the Mayor of
London and business leaders over poor facilities at the airport and
plans to halt environmental protesters.

Ken Livingstone, launched a tirade against the Spanish-owned company's
"breathtaking stupidity" for trying to ban from the London Underground
millions of people who might join a protest camp next month.

Today, BAA will mount its High Court bid to allow police to prevent five
million members of the National Trust, RSPB and other groups from
joining the protest against Heathrow's plans for expansion. They would
be banned from within 100 yards of any airport building, travelling on
the Tube's Piccadilly line, parts of the M25 and M4, platforms 6 and 7
of Paddington Station and from taking the Heathrow Express.

Mr Livingstone said yesterday that, "someone there must be out of their
skull" as he confirmed that Transport for London's lawyers would fight
the Tube's inclusion in the action. The Mayor complained that
protesters would also be banned from within 100 metres of all Transport
for London property.

Speaking at a press conference, he argued that all the injunction had
done was to increase the likelihood of hardcore protesters invading the
Camp for Climate Action being held from 14 to 21 August.

"A small hard core of virtually professional protesters were planning
to do the sort of thing they do at G8 and other places," Mr Livingstone
said. "What BAA have done is guarantee massive coverage of what was
going to be a minor encampment. Now it will undoubtedly be larger than
it would have been."

Mr Livingstone also promised to fight plans for a third runway and gave
a withering assessment of Heathrow, which has been criticisedfor delays,
overcrowding and shabbiness.

"Certainly Heathrow does shame London," he told reporters. "It is
typical of the English short-termism, lack of planning, lack of
investment."

Sir Thomas Harrison, of Standard Chartered Capital Markets, complained
that years of under-investment and poor planning had left Heathrow
"unfit for purpose" and said executives would do, "almost anything" to
avoid the airport. The Confederation of British Industry said the
solution to the "strains" on Heathrow was to expand its infrastructure.
BAA's plan to increase flights by 50 per cent with a new runway and
increased capacity on the existing two is behind the planned protest by
the Camp for Climate Action and Plane Stupid.

Seven hundred homes would have to be demolished to make way for the
runway and local council leaders warn noise will greatly increase. BAA
claimed that the problems at Heathrow had been caused by facilities
being too small, with 68 million passengers passing through facilities
built for 45 million.

A spokesman said: "In under six months time, with the opening of T5, the
experience will be vastly improved and BAA's plans to transform
Heathrow will be clear for all to see and experience."

BAA sought to reassure members of the public about the terms of the
injunction. In a statement, it said: "Contrary to media reports, the
injunction will not affect anyone lawfully travelling to and from
Heathrow airport or lawfully engaged in activities at the airport."

Nick Blake QC is defending the four environmentalists named by the
injunction. One of them, Joss Garman, of Plane Stupid, said airport
expansion had to be halted to prevent climate change. "Whilst BAA can
ask for an injunction to protect their profits - there is no law
protecting the Amazon, the coral reefs or the glaciers," he said.