Protesters Buy Up Heathrow Land

[leveller]

link

I like their style. A little fvck you to Brown and co.

Ms. Thompson rocks for saying

"We'll stop this from happening even if we have to move in and plant vegetables."

[jonewer]

Wont the land just be subject to a compulsory purchase order anyway?

I mean, thousands of people own little bits of land in Sipson. They will just be handed some cash and ordered out.

Just another silly greenpiece.

[6538]

Wont the land just be subject to a compulsory purchase order anyway?

I mean, thousands of people own little bits of land in Sipson. They will just be handed some cash and ordered out.

Just another silly greenpiece.

Agreed. It's a total waste of time. It's just an excuse for some has-been luvvies and tre-huggers to get some media attention.

[Gone baby gone]

Have to say I do admire their style. London needs more runway capacity and I have no truck with that, but surely expanding Heathrow - an airport already 20 years past it's 'use by' date and overexpanded to silly levels - is not the way forward? Why not start another satellite airport with high speed links to London?

[Gone baby gone]

Heh, just heard the plans on the news... they are going split the land up into tiny parcels and sell it to people all over the world to slow down the compulsory purchase order. There was also mention of building a network of tunnels underneath...!

[billyslad]

i am in favour of Stansted expansion as they seem to have more room there are a few nimbys but sureley they could install some decent transport links as well , anyone who has driven around Heathrow knows that they cannot take any more cars around there .

let them buy up all the land around heathrow and then build it somewhere else

[6538]

Heh, just heard the plans on the news... they are going split the land up into tiny parcels and sell it to people all over the world to slow down the compulsory purchase order. There was also mention of building a network of tunnels underneath...!

I doubt this will work, in fact I know it won't. All it will mean is that a few more letters will have to go out to land owners.

Besides, if the job at hand becomes too complicated then Parliament can change the law. Large building projects often require a private act of Parliament and it woud be a piece of p1ss to include a clause which says "Title to the land lying in the boundary of X shall vest in the Crown" and another saying, "The secretary of state shall make payments to proprietors in respect of land subject to this provision" - or somesuch.

Anyway, who is gong to buy it? If you buy it you are going to have expenses such as council tax and you will be required to keep it in a safe condition. You will also have to insure it incase someone enters it and gets injured or something on your land causes damage to someone elses. No legal advisor would advise buying any of these plots.

Building tunnels is also a pie-in-the-sky-idea, not to mention being dangerous.

These people are just a bunch of stupid fantasists. If the government decides that this is goign to go ahead then it will go ahead - end of. All they might do it manage to delay it a bit and end up costing the tax payer even more.

[pilchardthecat]

This strategy was very effective in the 1980s and was a significant factor in slowing down the road building plans.

The key is that the little parcels of land are owned in as many overseas countries as possible. Where owners are overseas, the comp purchase process is rather more complex than letter writing.

If nothing else, it will slow the thing down long enough for it to be reversable in 2010, and therefore an election issue.

[RichB]

might have difficulty proving liability for a 1cm square plot...

[kittingerjump]

I don't think this is a bad idea and so what if the government eventually win?! If we all sat and took everything that was thrown at us then nothing would ever move on. Heathrow doesn't need to expand anymore, but it does need to become a more efficient place to travel to and from. I also think that it would help if you could travel cheaper using the train. One of my mates is flying up and down the country as it is cheaper than rail!

[Gone baby gone]

I doubt this will work, in fact I know it won't. All it will mean is that a few more letters will have to go out to land owners.

Besides, if the job at hand becomes too complicated then Parliament can change the law. Large building projects often require a private act of Parliament and it woud be a piece of p1ss to include a clause which says "Title to the land lying in the boundary of X shall vest in the Crown" and another saying, "The secretary of state shall make payments to proprietors in respect of land subject to this provision" - or somesuch.

Anyway, who is gong to buy it? If you buy it you are going to have expenses such as council tax and you will be required to keep it in a safe condition. You will also have to insure it incase someone enters it and gets injured or something on your land causes damage to someone elses. No legal advisor would advise buying any of these plots.

Building tunnels is also a pie-in-the-sky-idea, not to mention being dangerous.

These people are just a bunch of stupid fantasists. If the government decides that this is goign to go ahead then it will go ahead - end of. All they might do it manage to delay it a bit and end up costing the tax payer even more.

Nobody thinks this will stop them building a new runway at Heathrow. But it will make the process damn expensive, and will also generate oodles of bad publicity for the government and BAA/British Airways, etc.

[Gone baby gone]

I don't think this is a bad idea and so what if the government eventually win?! If we all sat and took everything that was thrown at us then nothing would ever move on. Heathrow doesn't need to expand anymore, but it does need to become a more efficient place to travel to and from. I also think that it would help if you could travel cheaper using the train. One of my mates is flying up and down the country as it is cheaper than rail!

Exactly. London needs more runway capacity. It doesn't need it at Heathrow. Let's see a new airport, served by a new high speed rail link and with adequate (and reasonably priced) parking provision. British Airways & BAA run Heathrow like a branch of the mafia, and it's time to draw a line in the sand and say "no more".

[leveller]

Nobody thinks this will stop them building a new runway at Heathrow. But it will make the process damn expensive, and will also generate oodles of bad publicity for the government and BAA/British Airways, etc.

That's what I'm hoping for !

[dances with sheeple]

I doubt this will work, in fact I know it won't. All it will mean is that a few more letters will have to go out to land owners.

Besides, if the job at hand becomes too complicated then Parliament can change the law. Large building projects often require a private act of Parliament and it woud be a piece of p1ss to include a clause which says "Title to the land lying in the boundary of X shall vest in the Crown" and another saying, "The secretary of state shall make payments to proprietors in respect of land subject to this provision" - or somesuch.

Anyway, who is gong to buy it? If you buy it you are going to have expenses such as council tax and you will be required to keep it in a safe condition. You will also have to insure it incase someone enters it and gets injured or something on your land causes damage to someone elses. No legal advisor would advise buying any of these plots.

Building tunnels is also a pie-in-the-sky-idea, not to mention being dangerous.

These people are just a bunch of stupid fantasists. If the government decides that this is goign to go ahead then it will go ahead - end of. All they might do it manage to delay it a bit and end up costing the tax payer even more.

I disagree, they are doing more than the average sheep, and more than many of us (including me) on this website. This kind of stand, which will force the government to try and steamroller them with legislation is not what an unpopular goernment trying to win an election want`s. This is the sort of stuff, combined with the Tory slur campaign which will sicken the sheeple for good on Brown.

BTW can anyone tell me why we need this increased capacity going into a big downturn? Is it just a job creator?

[6538]

Nobody thinks this will stop them building a new runway at Heathrow. But it will make the process damn expensive, and will also generate oodles of bad publicity for the government and BAA/British Airways, etc.

So, that's a good reason to do it then? Put the tax payer to even more expense, simply so some lefty luvvie wanna-be's and has-been's can get their faces in the papers and make their rather pointless point?

So what if it generates bad publicity? The government don't care and are so unpopular at the moment anyway that a bit more bad press won't hurt them - might as well get it all out of the way at once, after all.

BAA and BA probably don't care either - how does it affect them? Is all this publicity going to make people decide that they aren't going to fly if their plane uses the new runway? Is it f*ck! Are the agitating luvvies who are stirring this all up going to refuse to go to a casting session for a big Holywood blockbuster if they have to use the new runway - I seriously doubt it.

[6538]

BTW can anyone tell me why we need this increased capacity going into a big downturn? Is it just a job creator?

Agreed.

[Gone baby gone]

So, that's a good reason to do it then? Put the tax payer to even more expense, simply so some lefty luvvie wanna-be's and has-been's can get their faces in the papers and make their rather pointless point?

Yes. The whole point is to make them think twice about the plan to expand Heathrow. If they know there are cheaper, easier options they will be more likely to take them. Making the Heathrow option more expensive and troublesome makes it less likely to be chosen.

So what if it generates bad publicity? The government don't care and are so unpopular at the moment anyway that a bit more bad press won't hurt them - might as well get it all out of the way at once, after all.

BAA and BA probably don't care either - how does it affect them? Is all this publicity going to make people decide that they aren't going to fly if their plane uses the new runway? Is it f*ck! Are the agitating luvvies who are stirring this all up going to refuse to go to a casting session for a big Holywood blockbuster if they have to use the new runway - I seriously doubt it.

BA and BAA care deeply about bad press, you just need to look at the T5 debacle to see how badly they can be affected by negative publicity. Labour, well, yes they could hardly become less popular But I very much doubt if a Labour government will be in power when this project actually starts to move towards implementation, and those Tories are looking a bit greener...

[King Stromba]

Good on them. At least they are prepared to do somthing about their cause, rather than sit on an internet forum and moan about how they are getting shafted.

Take note my timid friends.

[6538]

They were talking to a property lawyer on R2 last night. He was saying that this plan won't work because a recent piece of legislation (forget the name) has made it possible to essentially ignore stunts like this and disregard the fact that there are numerous owners.

So, it would appear that it probably isn't going to jack the price up or delay things at all.

[Gone baby gone]

They were talking to a property lawyer on R2 last night. He was saying that this plan won't work because a recent piece of legislation (forget the name) has made it possible to essentially ignore stunts like this and disregard the fact that there are numerous owners.

So, it would appear that it probably isn't going to jack the price up or delay things at all.

Yes, I heard it. The negative publicity is already starting!

They also mentioned that members of the current cabinet are against the Heathrow expansion

[6538]

Yes, I heard it. The negative publicity is already starting!

They also mentioned that members of the current cabinet are against the Heathrow expansion

I don't doubt they are. I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with it my self, either.

This type of protest though is just stupid, childish and selfish. It's all very well for a few self-obsessed celebrity types to start agitating but there are 60 million other people in the Country to consider; have they considered what everyone else might think? If an extention of Hethrow is in the national interest (and I'm not offering an opinion either way) and the process has been done lawfully then who the f*ck do they think they are in trying to frustrate it?

Actually, why don't we have a referendum and see what everyone else thinks?

These types of protests do tend to piss me off. Okay, some locals may get upset and some bunny-huggers might get all teary-eyed over the loss of a few trees but so what? There are other people to consider and you can't stop the Country developing because a very small number of people don't like it in their area. If a town needs a by-pass, for instance, and the planning process has been applied lawfully then why do people feel they have the right to dig tunnels and live in trees to stop it? Do I have the right to do the same to the BBC's Broadcasting House so that I don't have to listen to their constant triade of leftist sh1te? Of course I don't and these same people will squeal like stuck pigs about how undemocratic I was being by undermining their freedom of speech.

Lets face facts here. Most of these people voted for this government in the first place so why can't they do the decent thing and stand behind the decisions they make?

[leveller]

I don't doubt they are. I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with it my self, either.

This type of protest though is just stupid, childish and selfish. It's all very well for a few self-obsessed celebrity types to start agitating but there are 60 million other people in the Country to consider; have they considered what everyone else might think? If an extention of Hethrow is in the national interest (and I'm not offering an opinion either way) and the process has been done lawfully then who the f*ck do they think they are in trying to frustrate it?

Actually, why don't we have a referendum and see what everyone else thinks?

These types of protests do tend to piss me off. Okay, some locals may get upset and some bunny-huggers might get all teary-eyed over the loss of a few trees but so what? There are other people to consider and you can't stop the Country developing because a very small number of people don't like it in their area. If a town needs a by-pass, for instance, and the planning process has been applied lawfully then why do people feel they have the right to dig tunnels and live in trees to stop it? Do I have the right to do the same to the BBC's Broadcasting House so that I don't have to listen to their constant triade of leftist sh1te? Of course I don't and these same people will squeal like stuck pigs about how undemocratic I was being by undermining their freedom of speech.

Lets face facts here. Most of these people voted for this government in the first place so why can't they do the decent thing and stand behind the decisions they make?

Would you mind if a nuclear powered sewerage was built in your back garden? It would be 'in the national interest', as you put it.

You can't really say no, after what you just posted.

[6538]

Would you mind if a nuclear powered sewerage was built in your back garden? It would be 'in the national interest', as you put it.

You can't really say no, after what you just posted.

I probably would mind but I would have the opportunity to object during the planning process. I wouldn't claim that I had the right to break the law though. I certainly wouldn't lower my self to breaking the law in aid of a cause that I know can't win.

This type of thing happens all the time. We are an industrialised society and we can't just stop all development because it upsets a few people. I would have a fancy that the majority of existing power stations were objected to when they were planned so should we have just backed down and not had the generting capacity? What situation would we be in if all our airports had never been allowed to develop beyond the grass fields with a shed on them that most of them were in 1930?

There will always be an objection from a few people about every development of any significant size. Are we as a society supposed to give way every time a few people decide to break the law to stop something which is perfectly legal?

These people are not much more than attention grabbing idiots. If the government decides it's going to go ahead then it will, simple as that - and they know it all too well. If it dosen't go ahead they will kid them selves that it was due to them.

A million people signed a petition not to ban fox hunting yet it was still banned. Politicians simply don't care unless it's likely to cost them seats and this is not a vote loser as virtually no one will base their voting habbits on it.

If it does get built I do hope the media has a big splash exposing the first of these opinionated morons to use the new runway.

[Tankus]

boris has the right idea .... stick it in the Thames

[leveller]

I probably would mind but I would have the opportunity to object during the planning process. I wouldn't claim that I had the right to break the law though. I certainly wouldn't lower my self to breaking the law in aid of a cause that I know can't win.

This type of thing happens all the time. We are an industrialised society and we can't just stop all development because it upsets a few people. I would have a fancy that the majority of existing power stations were objected to when they were planned so should we have just backed down and not had the generting capacity? What situation would we be in if all our airports had never been allowed to develop beyond the grass fields with a shed on them that most of them were in 1930?

There will always be an objection from a few people about every development of any significant size. Are we as a society supposed to give way every time a few people decide to break the law to stop something which is perfectly legal?

These people are not much more than attention grabbing idiots. If the government decides it's going to go ahead then it will, simple as that - and they know it all too well. If it dosen't go ahead they will kid them selves that it was due to them.

A million people signed a petition not to ban fox hunting yet it was still banned. Politicians simply don't care unless it's likely to cost them seats and this is not a vote loser as virtually no one will base their voting habbits on it.

If it does get built I do hope the media has a big splash exposing the first of these opinionated morons to use the new runway.

Who is breaking any laws ?

We don't live in a dictatorship.

People, nature, history, need, consequences and impact, have to be considered.

You refer to these protesters as idiots and morons. I'm sure they would all say that you are an idiot and a moron, or misguided and brainwashed at best, a state ant.

You say you have faith in what politicians do 'in the national interest', and you will let them run amok.

Then you say politicians don't care.

In your world, it's a messy and dangerous combination.

There are also politicians who don't want, and see no need, for this runway at this site.

Personally, I don't like the expanding concrete, tediously oozing forward, a manpowered lava flow with dollars at its cold dead heart, creating a dull grey landscape for its sterile 'workers'.

Just my opinion