Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Heathrow campaigners stage protest on Parliament roof

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

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: 27 February 2008
PROTESTERS breached security at Westminster today by climbing on to the roof of the Houses of Parliament to demonstrate against the expansion of Heathrow airport.
The five activists from campaign group Plane Stupid unfurled two huge banners, one saying No Third Runway, and the other, in a reference to airport operator BAA, read BAA Headquarters.

The protest came on the final day of the Government's consultation on expanding Heathrow airport, including a third runway.

Plane Stupid said they gained access to Parliament as visitors, walked through the building, got into a lift and then climbed onto the roof.

It was the second security breach this week following an incident at Heathrow on Monday when five Greenpeace activists managed to climb on top of a British Airways plane in protest against expanding the airport.

The protest lasted almost three hours and ended shortly after Gordon Brown stood up in the Commons at the start of Prime Minister's Questions.

Mr Brown told MPs: "The message should go out today very clearly that decisions in this country should be made in the chamber of this House and not on the roof of this House.

"It is a very important message that should be sent out to those people who are protesting."

One of the roof protesters, Richard George, 27, from London, said: "I am stood on the roof of Parliament because the democratic process had been corrupted.

"The aviation industry had taken full advantage of a weak Prime Minister to get the Heathrow consultation fixed.

"It does not even consider global warming despite everything Brown has said about the environment and despite the massive impact aviation has on the climate.

"The Prime Minister does not even have the courage to ask Londoners the simple question: 'Do you want a third runway?'. Instead, his Government published a consultation document full of gobbledegook and industry spin."

Mr George added: "We decided to let Gordon Brown get on with Prime Minister's Questions, but we just wanted him to know what it is like to have an inconvenience above your head that you did not ask for."

They made paper aeroplanes out of confidential Whitehall documents they claimed showed the consultation process was "fixed", and glided the planes into the MPs' car park below.

The campaign group claimed that the documents – obtained under the Freedom of Information Act – proved that BAA wrote parts of the consultation document and that the Government had already decided to build a third runway and a sixth terminal at the world's biggest international airport.

Mr George added: "Now the consultation is over, we can safely ignore the fixed result and get on with the job of stopping this new runway being built.

"A huge coalition of local residents, Londoners and environmentalists is coming together, supported by all the major mayoral candidates, to stand against Gordon Brown and say 'no more'."

Plane Stupid said BAA and the Government wanted a sixth terminal and third runway built over homes, schools and churches in the villages of Sipson and Harmondsworth.

"This would increase the number of flights from 480,000 a year to at least 702,000.

"Two million Londoners face increased levels of noise, while CO2 emissions from the airport would shoot up despite claims by Brown that he's committed to fighting climate change," a spokesman said.

The protesters said they branded Parliament "BAA HQ" because of the "extraordinary level of collusion" between the aviation industry and government.

Matthew Knowles, spokesman for the Society of British Aerospace Companies, said: "These stunts are becoming tiresome and do nothing more than peddle inaccurate propaganda.

"The aviation industry has achieved a 75% cut in fuel burn over the past 50 years and a similar reduction in noise from aircraft in the past 30 years."

Michelle Di Leo, director of FlyingMatters, a coalition of unions, business, tourism groups and farmers, commented: "Today's action by Plane Stupid is misjudged, misdirected, and irresponsible.

"Aviation is responsible for 2% of global carbon emissions and is growing at a slower global rate than power generation and industry.

"If they are serious about climate change, they should engage in a proper debate about solutions that will make a real difference rather than indulge in publicity stunts which waste police time."

Westminster sources said they suspected the banners were stored inside the Commons for the protesters to collect this morning.

The banners were believed to be too big for the activists to have taken them through security, it was suggested.

The full article contains 754 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 27 February 2008 2:32 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 27/02/2008 10:22:16
I hope they fall off the roof.

This article has mis-spelt the name of the group. It should be "Plain Stupid".
2

AJ Fife,

27/02/2008 10:46:08
You get better security at New Bayview on a Seterday!
3

Edward,

27/02/2008 10:51:43
So much for security!
It beggers belief that these people managed to evade all the so called anti-terrorist measures that Jacqui Smith is supposed to have in place, she should resign
4

truthsleuth,

South of the Border 27/02/2008 11:07:36
The only stupidity is the Governments stupidity and that of petrol heads and air brains who can't get their muzzles out of the exhaust pipe.
Accelerated Climate Change is of far greater importance than increased petrol prices or my one flight a year to Australia to see my sisters as important as I may see it.
You lame brains should take the time to examine the facts and current evidence with an open mind (not one where the mouth is opened before the brain is put in gear.
Air tansport benefits the well off far more than it benefits the less well off and in this statement you see how the odds are weighted in favour of air transport for those who don't understand this it is the rich (and politicians) who decide what happens and of course will have the means not only to survive ACC but benefit from its affects.
By investing in High Speed Rail for inland journeys releases enough landing slots and passenger capacity to make the third runway and a fifth terminal unnecessary and associated expansion of local airports. If airlines were to pay the same fuel tax as other forms of transport its growth would probably be reversed especially if the revenue were invested in High Speed Lirail lines.
Of course the airlines argue they would simply refuel outside the UK the answer is to tax their landing slots and flight paths through UK air space after all the air belongs to us taxpayers and not the airport owners.
5

Edward,

27/02/2008 12:06:37
#4
Exactly where do you place the UK in the league of world poluters?
What proof have you that manmade co2 emmissions are contributing to climate change?
The fact of the matter is that the planets climate does change on a cyclical basis, regadless of what mankind does
Its you who is a bit short on the brain cell front
We had global warming, then when its not that warm, we are told its climate change. This winter has not been any different (in Scotland at least) than any other
Its still very cold, we still have snow falls, its still the same, so grow up and get a life!
6

eyeswider,

work 27/02/2008 12:07:06
Their grasp of atmospheric dynamics is as great as Westminster security personnel's command of the word "security"

There is no CO2 issue. We may fly or drive where and whenever we want for far into the future and all that will happen is a global increase in plant size and growth rates. Consider this as our gift to the poorer nations of the world. Free fertilizer if you will.

Humans exploit stuff - duh. Any attempt to stop us doing so is at least misguided and at worst sinister - eugenics and Malthus are not just words on paper. Only world-wide raising of standards of living and education will persuade people that smaller population levels are better but if draconian measures, as advocated by the demagogues at the UN, are implemented then no-one will have time, or resources, to care for this planet. For reference one could quote the figures, and the pollution created, for maize as bio-fuel. People may starve because pen-pushers have persuaded politicians and farmers that food should be turned into fuel on the twin pretexts that oil is bad and running out. Some protest is called for but it is not this. Pushing for legislation or practice to send the industrialized nations in completely the wrong direction is what is wrong. For example, if anything could warm the world we would be very grateful soon as we are entering a cold phase of the natural, cyclical system called climate and cold kills many more people than the supposed "heat" we have been "suffering" from during the recent benign period of "global warming" yet we are told we must curb progress, industry and wealth creation so we may make it even colder.

Atmospheric CO2 laid bare:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ClimateChange_Nicol.pdf



7

PJ,

Edinburgh 27/02/2008 12:43:03
"Anti-airport campaigners stage protest on Parliament's roof!" That's not a headline "Numpty protestor scrapped off the ground, after falling from Parliament's roof!" or ""Anti-airport campaigner shot off Parliament's roof as they were believed to be a terrorist threat!" would have been a lot better!
8

sam the god,

27/02/2008 13:01:29
#7

""Anti-airport campaigner shot off Parliament's roof as they were believed to be a terrorist threat!" would have been a lot better!

you have the right idea a bit of lead ballast is needed
9

The Fly Fifer,

Fife 27/02/2008 15:33:37
OK folks imagine the banners when rolled up were high explosive and they had been carried by religous fanatics, imagine the headlines,

The whole security shift on duty for this day MUST BE SACKED WITHOUT EXCEPTION right up to jacqui smith.

If heads don't do not roll for this BREACH OF SECURITY then the religous fanatics will soon make heads rool for real

GET ON TOP OF THIS NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
10

Enigma,

27/02/2008 16:07:25
If governments don`t start acting on concerns about the environmetal consequences of our addiction to subsidised polluters such as civil aviation, breaches of security at Westminster will be the least of problems.
11

Queen D,

Glasgow 27/02/2008 16:44:20
I take it I am alone in saying ' well done boys!'
They have taken their protest in an active manner , while the rest of us sit on our butts saying ' terrible in'tit'
They have demonstrated the inability of the security staff at the commons,to protect the great and the not so good!
And they have made their point.
When will we take to the streets and demand that certain things are treated as unacceptable to the population? Like our French friends who demonstrate against politicians actions? They seem to have an excellent grasp of who serves whom!
12

Enigma,

27/02/2008 16:51:16
11

I agree, except the French Government would simply decide where to build a runway or terminal , then go ahead and build it irrespective of opinion.
13

voltaire's janny,

27/02/2008 16:59:14
It is difficult to escape the conclusion that where one sits on the "C02 emmission causes climate change" issue depends on one's own prejudices. I am closer to the groups calling for objective assessment and critical analysis of claims than I am to the "ban planes" brigade. Pollution is, I believe, intrinsically bad and worth investment and legislation to control. However who on this post can claim they can prove the assertion that C02 causally influences climate? No-one.

But do I join the petrol head, Chelsea tractor brigade and dismiss it? No. Because if we are wrong, things will get much worse before they get better again. I have no first hand evidence and a bunch of shrill nut-cases claiming all sorts of nonsense makes no coherent argument.

So what do I KNOW rather than parrot?

The polar bear is not now extinct. I know because I have seen one. I have also seen films and talked to an Innuit this year who is permitted to kill one or two for food and has done so. This year. These are then facts that I know.

I also know, second hand, that Viking seafarers occupied and farmed on Greenland between ~800 A.D to ~1500 and then the world got colder, farming failed and the aboriginal hunt/fish lifestyle took over.

I know, because I have been to the arctic, that farming is not possible today at these latitudes because it is too cold.

Climate scientists agree that the temperature in the past has been warmer than now. For a thousand years from 500 AD it was warmer and at a time before any significant man-made pollution.

And the polar bear survived.

Al Gore has admitted his film contained material deceptions or errors. The most egregious of these is the lack of truth about the CO2 concentration and average temperature. On close inspection the data show that C02 levels increased historically AFTER temperature increases. C02 cannot then be said to cause global warming.

Other scientists have pointed out the real portend of climate change is sun spot ac
14

voltaire's janny,

27/02/2008 17:02:48
sun spot activity. I have never seen a reference that refutes this with evidence. So. Tree hugging, leftie, Gaia-persuaded, veggies for peace and anti-capitalists. Show me or shut up.
15

Mirrorman,

On the Roof 27/02/2008 17:14:00
Brown..'The message should go out today that decisions in this country should be made in the chamber of this House and not on the roof of this House'...that'll explain why all the decisions are sh*t then.
16

Highland Mighty,

27/02/2008 18:02:52
9. They check for all people for weapons and explosives as they walk into the building.

Obviously what they don't do is check for are 80ft protest banners or monitor fire exits!

Saying that, a couple of years ago, I went for a wander round the US Capitol after nipping down a staircase closed to tourists. It was at least 15 mins before security noticed that I shouldn't have been outside certain offices!
17

Highland Mighty,

27/02/2008 18:03:44
16. Really must remember to 'preview' before posting!
18

Media 1,

cape town 27/02/2008 19:53:01
I wonder what the best way to deal with these campaigners is.
They are destructive, left to run the world they would have us at war...
They are the African's of Europe, they want the modern world to stop growing, they are primitive.
How selfish must a person be that they would try and stop progress during their life time? As if the blink of an eye moment that they are on this planet is the way it should always be. How facking selfish is that?
We wont even be living on this planet in 200 years time, so why stop the progress now and hinder the chances of the people who are still on their way?
19

Terrier2,

27/02/2008 20:17:39
Isn't it funny that these five illegal protestors get more attention on here, than the thousands of decent law abiding citizens who on the same day, turned up to legally protest to MPs about the imposition of an illegal and immoral dictatorship on them through the EU treaty?

20

eyeswider,

stuporville 27/02/2008 22:33:37
#13/14 voltaire's janny
Wonderfully put.

#19 Terrier2
Makes one wonder.
21

I eat cookies wrapped in scotch tape,

28/02/2008 00:25:22
#19,

Do you really expect to read impartial news here?
22

PJ,

Edinburgh 28/02/2008 08:54:27
Will they get charged with breach of the peace…no! Will they get charged with criminal damage…no! They won’t even get charged with littering, as they decided to throw paper aeroplanes off the buildings a stunt that in London which can lead to a maximum fine of £2,500 after summary conviction.

That was very environmentally friendly of them...not!
23

eyeswider,

home 28/02/2008 22:18:56
They don't care because CO2 is plant food and no threat to anyone. Carbon trading, however, is a new, border-less, currency for the world order of meddlers that calls itself the UN and must be o-paid.

The protesters got a lot of airtime yesterday - airtime that should have gone to a legitimate, and far more important, protest.

They didn't look very green to my eye - whats the bet we don't hear too much about this "incident" from here on in. Mission accomplished. Nothing to see here citizen. Move along.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


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.