Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


57 arrested as Stansted protest grounds flights

View Video
Download Video

Video

Plane Stupid's Leila Dean talks about the reasons behind today's protest
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 08 December 2008
POLICE arrested 57 people today after a protest by climate change activists forced flight cancellations and delays at one of Britain's busiest airports.
Queues grew and tempers frayed in the departure lounge at Stansted Airport after budget airline Ryanair cancelled 56 flights as a result of the early- morning protest by Plane Stupid.

Activists broke into a secure area at around 3am, forcing the runway to remain closed for three hours.

Ryanair called for an investigation into why airport operator BAA had failed to keep the Essex airport "secure and open", saying the disruption to passengers was "unacceptable".

Travellers caught up in the queues for information expressed little sympathy for Plane Stupid's stance that disruption would prevent "the release of thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere".

Lainey Mace, of Fakenham, Norfolk, said: "They have caused great inconvenience."

She added: "It is very worrying that protesters were able to get either close to the runway or on the runway.

"One would have thought security at an airport would be much tighter than that."

Today's protest was sparked by the Government's decision to allow the expansion of the airport with a second runway.

Activist Lily Kember, 21, a third-year anthropology student at Edinburgh University, said the group used bolt-cutters to get into a secure area around 55 yards (50m) from the runway.

Ms Kember, from London, said: "Being arrested is a terrifying prospect, but not nearly as terrifying as the threat of climate change."

BAA said protesters did not get on to the runway, but it was closed as a "precaution".

The runway had been due to open at 5am after maintenance work but remained closed until 8.10am, causing delays to flights in and out of Stansted.

Ryanair, the only airline to cancel flights, said: "Ryanair will be calling for an investigation as to why the BAA Stansted security has once again failed to keep Stansted Airport secure and open to the travelling public.

"It is unacceptable that the travel plans of thousands of passengers have been disrupted because BAA Stansted security have failed to remove a number of protesters."

Long queues formed at Ryanair check-in desks and armed police officers helped to keep order as a small number of passengers became irate.

Airline staff were forced to shout in an attempt to get passengers on planes, at one point yelling "Hands up if you're going to Hamburg."

Passengers who were due on the cancelled flights have been told they can re-book free of charge, subject to availability, or some will be able to claim a refund.

A Stansted Airport spokesman said officials would work with the police to investigate how the breach occurred.

"If there are lessons to be learnt, that is what we need to take on board. We need to discover if there's anything we can do better.

"This is a site of about 2,000 acres bordered by a security fence. It is not operated as a fortress.

"The people were spotted very quickly this morning and the police and security staff were quickly on the scene.

"The first wave was intercepted before they got to the runway.

"The second wave was intercepted before they got through the fence."

He said passengers should check with airlines before leaving home as delays were likely to continue throughout the day.

"Ryanair decided to cancel their first wave of flights so, with luck, later waves should not be too badly affected.

"Other airlines decided not to cancel so they will have to try to catch up."

He praised the way the majority of passengers had responded: "I think most people have been in fairly good spirits even though their plans have been very badly disrupted."

The spokesman said BAA is happy to discuss airport expansion and respects people's right to protest within the law.

"However, any unlawful or irresponsible behaviour aimed at disrupting the smooth operation of the airport is unacceptable."

Essex Police said 50 of those arrested today were held on suspicion of aggravated trespass, three on suspicion of attempting to gain access to a restricted area and four of conspiracy to commit a public nuisance.

A force spokesman said a detective superintendent will head an inquiry into the incident but added that security at Stansted was primarily the responsibility of the airport authority.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown's spokesman told a regular daily media briefing in Westminster: "Of course everybody has a right to protest, but people also have a right to be able to travel without unnecessary hindrance."

A Greenpeace spokesman said: "The climate change secretary Ed Miliband called for a Suffragette-style movement to pressure governments to act. Well, he got his wish. The Suffragettes were disruptive and lambasted by the establishment of the day, but have been utterly vindicated by history, and no doubt it will be the same with Plane Stupid.

"The delays to passengers are unfortunate, but right now we're in the most important hundred months in human history as we try to beat climate change before it's too late – and the Government's plans to expand airports could destroy our chances before we start."

Sign company chief executive Terry Purton, 61, of Edenbridge, Kent, had been due to board a flight to Bratislava at 3.30am today.

"I just wish the protesters had left it for a couple of hours," he said.

"I do wonder about security. They did it to protest so it shows somebody more serious could as well. If they can do it, I'm sure there would be nothing to stop terrorists."

Mr Purton praised the way the situation had been handled by airport bosses.

"They've kept us informed," he said. "I just can't stand the queuing. They've come round and given us water. I don't think there's anything more they can do."

Student Andrew Montgomery, 25, from Glasgow had been set to fly home at 8.40am after visiting family in the London area.

Asked for his view on the protest, he said: "I think it's pretty bad. I don't think they should have been able to get where they did."

Teacher Anne Nordbye, 35, from Oslo, Norway, who spent the weekend Christmas shopping in London, had her 6.30am flight cancelled.

"The information has not been very good," she said. "Luckily, I have a brother who works at an airport in Norway so he has kept me up to date with what has been happening. Otherwise I would have been really in the dark and frustrated."

She added it was "worrying" that the protest had been able to take place.

"How did they do it?" she said. "That's what I would like to know. It's worrying. There must be cameras to spot this type of thing."

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 08 December 2008 4:55 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Climate change
 
1

observer9,

08/12/2008 12:50:22
I.D. cards would have stopped this.

maybe not.

But 57 people gain entrance to a major airport. An airport which is supposed to be protected and for which, we, as travellers, pay a supplement called airport tax on all tickets.

More tax money well spent wouldn't you agree.



2

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 08/12/2008 13:09:44
Looks like 57 pampered, wealthy, tree-hugging nutters were out in force at Stansted.

What a bunch of privileged phonies and hypocrites.

Down with the aristocracy!
3

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 08/12/2008 13:13:19
This lot are just a bunch of morons.

However, it raises the very pertinent question of how they managed to do this, whilst millions of innocent people are subject to some of the most humiliating and degrading treatment in the world in the name of "security".

This band or idiots just happened to make their presence felt, however it could just as easily have been the case that one or two people could have broken in by the same means and then gone under-cover with intent on causing mayhem.

Maybe the "security" measures should be directed at making our airports actually secure rather than harassing the paying passengers.
4

JG,

Fife 08/12/2008 13:25:03
Their actions won't make a blind bit of difference. All they've done is cause disruption and cost people who missed thier flights a lot of money (or the pleasure of their holiday trip).
5

JT,

08/12/2008 13:27:54
I think these people should be treated as terrorists not eco warriors. Their actions should be regarded as a threat on the infrastructure of the country and therefore an offence under the terrorism act. After all if the met can gather 20 officers (some prob spooks) to raid an MP's office and home claiming it could be against the constitution or some claptrap like that then these prats deserve the same. Yes they have the right to protest but not at the expense of someone trying to get a flight. Perhaps those who flew out today eventually should get their air taxes refunded as the issue of security didnt work?
6

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 08/12/2008 14:05:27
-- Their actions should be regarded as a threat on the infrastructure of the country.

Perhaps they are Unionists.
7

lulach mac gille coemgain,

08/12/2008 14:06:02
Ha ha ! 57 folk grind the wurld tae a standstill - I hear they were lookin fer Joe the planespotters lost contact lens only he thinks it fell intae a barrel o baa excra-ment that they were sayin was necissary for the improvement of the Labour Party Economy !
8

Ewan Oosami,

08/12/2008 14:35:57
Why the airport didn't carry on operating I don't know, the first plane to land or take off would have scattered the great unwashed. Perhaps a couple of just subsonic passes by a Typhoon would have ended their prank. However the serious point is that they could have been terrorists (who at least have a purpose in life) and were able to get onto a supposedly secure airfield.
As usual they were handled too gently - a damned good beating would make them reconsider the next time their collective single brain cell thought of a similar stunt.
9

Joe Macdelta.,

08/12/2008 15:56:50
I hope they are made to pay for the damage they done to the fence, and also compensate those who were inconvenienced had flight delays, they should also pay for any extra security measures required.
10

Griffe,

08/12/2008 16:23:32
They could have been Islamist terrorists. The security heads at Stansted should be sacked.
11

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 08/12/2008 17:20:48
The total cost of these morons' actions must have been quite high - malicious damage to the fence, disruption to flights (costing the airlines time loss and financial turnover loss), cost to air passengers in real folding money even if the do get their air fare refunded there will be the cost of excesses and accommodation cost, plus extra travel to go home and come back etc.

I would say charge them with malicious damage at least and the airlines surely have a case for civil action. If they really have nothing better to do than try to promote this insane AGW solution, get them on a treadmill and feed the output into the grid!
12

observer9,

08/12/2008 19:05:08
poster 15

It is not the super rich who fly about. The majority of air travel, especialy during the week is done by people on business, normally working for SME's. Thats Small to Medium size enterprises = small companies who are the tax and productive backbone of this country.

Without their risk taking, work ethic and the risks they endure in an uncertain commercial world there would be no UK. Sure the big brands get all the headlines but they rarely innovate and contrary to opinion they dont employ the majority of workers.

I'll give you a clue on this global warming thing. "Follow The Money".

Check out whose behind all the hype, Big Banks, Lobbyists, vested interest groups and many others who survive on the spin.



 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.