Interesting that there are several protests against the expansion plans for Heathrow airport. One story and lots of links here:
BBC NEWS | UK | BAA wins Heathrow protesters ban
As far as I can see there are more things to be worrying us in the climate change debate. The evidence I've seen all points to air travel being only a minor contributor to the problem but even so, is this really the right time to be expanding our airline capabilities? Is a protest directly in and around the airport really a good idea? Given its likely status as a major terrorist target it has to be likely that such an ongoing disruption may cause security breaches.
Whichever side of this debate you come down on there's been one part of the reporting which instantly grabbed my attention. This was seeing just how quickly our police began threatening to use the anti-terror laws against our own citizens engaged in peaceful protest.
Again.
You know those laws which they swore blind that, if they were granted them, they would only use in emergencies and to protect us? That's right, the ones they've used in such circumstances as throwing an old man out of the Labour Party Conference for heckling, shutting down several protests against anything the government didn't want us kicking up a fuss about and, oh yes; shooting an innocent Brazilian seven times in the head whilst he was being held down.
Look, you can't blame the police for wanting stronger powers to combat the terrorists, but most people realise that what they had was pretty well enough already. The vast majority of the uses of these powers do seem to have been abuses. The fact that the vast majority of these abuses have centred around people engaged in legitimate protests or even debate within their own party tells me a lot about how the powers that be want us kept. Threatening people wiith these laws for wearing anti-government slogans on their t-shirts or confiscating placards, pens such materials just makes them look like the enemies of the people and not the protectors. Which is, after all, what they should be.
BBC NEWS | UK | BAA wins Heathrow protesters ban
As far as I can see there are more things to be worrying us in the climate change debate. The evidence I've seen all points to air travel being only a minor contributor to the problem but even so, is this really the right time to be expanding our airline capabilities? Is a protest directly in and around the airport really a good idea? Given its likely status as a major terrorist target it has to be likely that such an ongoing disruption may cause security breaches.
Whichever side of this debate you come down on there's been one part of the reporting which instantly grabbed my attention. This was seeing just how quickly our police began threatening to use the anti-terror laws against our own citizens engaged in peaceful protest.
Again.
You know those laws which they swore blind that, if they were granted them, they would only use in emergencies and to protect us? That's right, the ones they've used in such circumstances as throwing an old man out of the Labour Party Conference for heckling, shutting down several protests against anything the government didn't want us kicking up a fuss about and, oh yes; shooting an innocent Brazilian seven times in the head whilst he was being held down.
Look, you can't blame the police for wanting stronger powers to combat the terrorists, but most people realise that what they had was pretty well enough already. The vast majority of the uses of these powers do seem to have been abuses. The fact that the vast majority of these abuses have centred around people engaged in legitimate protests or even debate within their own party tells me a lot about how the powers that be want us kept. Threatening people wiith these laws for wearing anti-government slogans on their t-shirts or confiscating placards, pens such materials just makes them look like the enemies of the people and not the protectors. Which is, after all, what they should be.
No comments:
Post a Comment