Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2007 0:42:18 GMT
So if the planned injunction to ban members of certain groups from using the Picc line or approaching BAA property is agreed then how many of you Picc drivers will be rushing to join the RSPB? I know I would! <innocent face> "Sorry boss, can't come to work today, I've been banned under this injunction you see...." </innocent face> As excuses go, it's a good one! ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2007 1:29:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by compsci on Jul 28, 2007 7:04:40 GMT
They also seek to ban members of the national trust, which is over three million people (1/20 of the population of the UK), myself included. According to the guardian they even want to cover Paddington station, and parts of the M4 and M25 It would be amusing if Paddington had to be closed due to lack of staff, or if Network Rail pointed out who owns the place, or the electrification controller was forced to leave.
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Jul 28, 2007 14:48:05 GMT
What a load of rubbish - they don't own the Piccadilly line, so they should have no right to dictate who can and can't use it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2007 15:34:35 GMT
What a load of rubbish - they don't own the Piccadilly line, so they should have no right to dictate who can and can't use it. BAA do own the land in which the tunnels run, they did fund the building of them to the airport so they may well own the tunnels as well. I do think their idea is nonsense and unworkable though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2007 15:46:00 GMT
But they want to seek an injunction to prevent approx 5 million people from using the entire Picc Line (not just the Heathrow bit). So any member of staff who works/ travels on the Picc Line AND is a member of the National Trust, wouldn't be able to work for the 7 days. IF the injunction is awarded, could we see alot of staff joining the NT ;D Some links, just in case (like me) you didn't read the story before visiting here: www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jul/27/climatechangewww.mayorwatch.co.uk/article.php?article_id=739
|
|
|
Post by compsci on Jul 28, 2007 16:12:52 GMT
I'm now wondering if services to Heathrow on the Picc will be suspended for a week if this happens. I'm sure LU can think of all sorts of things to do if BAA annoy them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2007 21:57:12 GMT
I'm certain they could since Captain Ken is apparently furious at their attempted interference with LUL.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jul 29, 2007 0:48:24 GMT
Theres a lot the LUL can do if BAA annoy them I'm sure, but BAA hold an ace up their sleeve in the form of T5.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2007 0:59:43 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2007 2:17:06 GMT
I think LU opposing to being part of this, if it goes through, is a bad move. The likely hood is that the protesters would use LU's property to protest on, if BAA got their way to ban them from their property, meaning passengers would use the Heathrow Connect/Express services, losing LU money and disrupting the service!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2007 5:37:46 GMT
I'd say it's more a case of stepping on toes. BAA have nothing to do with LUL and Captain Ken presumably feels that they have no right to try to ban people from LUL property. It's a bit like the bloke up the street saying you can't have your Nan round.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2007 16:40:15 GMT
Fair enough. I'd feel the same.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2007 21:36:44 GMT
What a load of piffle and squish!
I am a member of the Woodland Trust... Fine by me, I will just fly from another airport! Failing that, I'll just catch the train to Paris.
Completely unworkable.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,772
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 29, 2007 23:13:26 GMT
What a load of piffle and squish! I am a member of the Woodland Trust... Fine by me, I will just fly from another airport! Failing that, I'll just catch the train to Paris. Completely unworkable. Quite! As a life member of the National Trust I echo Artery's comments. Indeed the only time I've used Heathrow was not intentional (I missed my flight back to Bristol from Frankfurt, and was only able to get to Heathrow or Glasgow - the latter being much further from Cheddar lost out)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2007 13:44:20 GMT
I think you've both rather missed the point of the injunction!
|
|
|
Post by CSLR on Jul 30, 2007 15:10:42 GMT
As I understand it, the injunction seeks to ban members of certain legally constituted organisations from attending an event at specific locations. Police officers will be required to enforce the injunction. Has anyone considered how many officers will not be able to carry out their duties because, as members of those organisations, they will be banned by that same injunction from attending the event?
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,772
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 30, 2007 16:13:44 GMT
How will they be able to determine whether someone was a member of these organisations? I typically carry my National Trust membership card around with me, but this is not mandatory. As the membership lists/databases of the organisations concerned are covered by the Data Protection Act, I presume that official requests would need to be made by BAA/the police to get access? Even if they were given access, the number of members is huge - the National Trust had 3.5 million members in 2005, the RSPB >1 million and the CPRE has >60,000 (all from Wikipedia), there will be some overlap but not all of it will be - e.g. I am a member of only the National Trust, my boss is a member only of the RSPB.
Another point is, how will the police know who is travelling to the airport for the demo and who is travelling for other reasons. Many travellers will have a ticket, but not all will (it is possible to buy a ticket on arrival at the airport) - so would a person arriving at Heathrow wearing a National Trust T-shirt be prohibited from travelling?
Don't forget that it is not just the police and LU staff who may be members of the organisations concerned - it could easily apply to many staff of BAA, the airlines, contractors, Heathrow Express/Connect, taxi drivers, coach companies, Bus drivers, tour company representatives, hotel staff, independent businesses on industrial estates on the airport site, dispatch riders/drivers, postal workers, security staff, staff of the shops and eateries at the airport, the media, government departments, etc. Just what contingency plans are in place if for example 50% of air traffic controllers are members of one or more of the organisations?
And what about protesters who are not part of any of these organisations? What about members of allied organisations - the National Trust for Scotland, National Trust for Jersey and National Trust of Guernsey spring to mind.
|
|
|
Post by c5 on Jul 30, 2007 18:45:21 GMT
Indeed the Queen and Prince Charles are both members and patrons of these extreme organisations!!!
I think it is time that BAA has its wing's clipped and its monopoly stopped......!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2007 18:47:44 GMT
I daresay there will be a fair few more members of the affected organisations shortly...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2007 21:00:29 GMT
Yes, if trains were stopped, I'd like to see the NOC end of traffic reports/stats sheets.
So guv, how many trains ran on the Piccadilly.
Err, none.
Why?
Err, BAA slapped an injunction on us, barring the running of trains.
Oh, ok then...
*walks off with puzzled expression on face*
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2007 1:06:13 GMT
... and, meanwhile, Iran Air and others continue to fly in and out daily, with who knows who or what on board??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2007 2:14:33 GMT
Hazard a guess but it wouldn't be people and luggage, would it...
|
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Jul 31, 2007 8:31:42 GMT
Has anyone seen PASSPORT TO PIMLICO? A very funny film, especially when they stop the Districts I think, in tunnel and demand passports and customs declarations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2007 19:10:37 GMT
Aye, a classic Ealing Comedy!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2007 21:06:29 GMT
Has anyone seen PASSPORT TO PIMLICO? A very funny film, especially when they stop the Districts I think, in tunnel and demand passports and customs declarations. I think the train concerned is Q-stock. It's one of my favourite Ealing comedies.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Aug 1, 2007 7:28:58 GMT
A great film...can't wait for the brash american remake...
|
|
|
Post by yellowsignal on Aug 8, 2007 10:07:22 GMT
i think you are all overreacting, but then again i live in FREE country ;D
Police can detain people if they think those people will be doing things they arent allowed to do, such as protesting. The protesters can, i assume, be easily spotted (look at other protests and you can identify the treehuggers from miles away....
I'd guess the idea is to pick those people out of the crowd and ask what their intentions are, if they are not carrying a suitcase and airlinetickets they have no reason to travel to Heathrow and could be detained. Those that are not stopped could be detained at the protest site.
|
|