Bishop Hill Going down?
The highlight of the day looks as though it's going to be the sentencing of the Heathrow 13 - the gang from Plane Stupid who thought it would be amusing to shut down Heathrow airport for several hours. Expectations are that a jail sentence beckons.
The usual suspects are protesting outside the Magistrates Court and there will no doubt be lots of spurious claims that these were "peaceful protestors", as if preventing people from going about their daily business were anything other than thuggery.
Massive support for #Heathrow13 here Willesden for sentencing. A travesty and a disgrace if they are jailed. pic.twitter.com/HmamLzvV4x
— Sian Berry (@sianberry) February 24, 2016
It's about time these people were dealt with.
Bishop Hill
As always, it's good to look at the protests from a wider angle.
Bit late but im here to support the #Heathrow13 pic.twitter.com/1NyEVM2DTY
— Isabel Bottoms (@IBottoms) February 24, 2016
Bishop Hill
Six week sentences, suspended for 12 months, plus community service plus fines.
I wonder if this will put any of them off.
Reader Comments (264)
I did (he says modestly) predict that they probably would not go to prison. Incidentally, comparisons with the Suffragettes may be misleading. The recent film has given an inaccurate impression. Don't claim to be an expert but I gather that the Suffragettes probably did more harm than good as the fight had already been won by the Suffragists (?).
What does: "the right side of history" mean? Is that like IRA killers of 40 years ago becoming politicians and running a government now? Is it like having the power to own the present and change the past? Or is it just a pompous soundbite that pretentious people tend to use?
So Phil Clark will you be engaged in Non Violent Direct Action at York Railway Station tommorow
According to Alex and Matt on the One Show the Flying Scotman Steam locomotive after a million pound restoration will be back chucking along the mainline to London spewing Smoke Soot and CO2 into the air. Also you and your anarchist mates won't be needed at Didcot power station.
Nope. Delingtool was wrong, again. Nobody is going to jail.
GC: True NVDA is acceptable provided (a) the perpertrators genuinely believe legitimate protest routes have been exhausted and (b) they are prepared to accept the consequences of any illegal actions, that is, criminal convictions.
The Kinder Trespass comes to mind.
Should be quite apparent to all by now that this lot has learnt their lesson to not trifle with British justice. Swift and brutal rulings from the bench such as this - I'm reminded of the shrieks of the "Queen of Hearts" character, "Off with their heads!". And somewhere a Cheshire Cat is fading to a smile. Chapter II - the Black Knight fights on.
Apologies to Brandon Shollenberger for the reactions that his perfectly sane remarks have provoked.
Alan the Brit's “These people are thugs, & if not now, they will become so, probably very soon!” is the mirror image of the madder comments on extreme warmist blogs concerning us.
I don't think commenters here realise to what extent continually huffing and puffing on the same tired subjects leads to mental inbreeding. It's not the right wing “Retired-colonel-from-Cheltenham” nature of the comments that worries me so much as their self-satisfied complacency. You all sound so weird.
Isabel Bottoms was in Egypt (and previously the Lebanon) working for some NGO. I did a piece on my blog on her and her colleagues at the UKYCC, criticising the way they'd been groomed by Greenpeace and the WFF, but acknowledging their qualities.
"The Kinder Trespass" - what a load of sphericals. Did that piece of NVDA prevent a billion pound company going about its business; prevent thousands of people going about their lawful business; damage private property? There is no comparison. Plane Stupid caused massive disruption to a major city and people could have - may have - died as a result. As for saying it's ok to do so if you're prepared to take the consequences, that's even more puerile rubbish: these people were demonstrably NOT prepared to take responsibility - and punishment - for their actions: they had high-powered lawyers to make sure of that.
I'm with geoffchambers on this one.
I understand people's irritation with the green blob's behaviour, but we do need to keep a sense of proportion. And although I regularly disagree with Phil Clarke, I think we need him, and people like him and Raff (not the ATTPs of this world, obviously) to prevent this site from being an echo chamber.
One of the great things about sceptics is an independence of mind and an ability to think for ourselves. It would be more than a little disappointing, in my opinion, if we all just end up parroting the same views. Vive la difference.
Perhaps the Kinder Trespass was not such a good parallel. Access to private land and Right to Roam were significant victories, but the stakes here are far higher, if aviation continues to expand at current rates, all other industries will have to completely decarbonise to meet the targets set by our democratically elected Government in the Climate Change Act and the Paris Treaty.
Harry- have you tried decaff? This morning they were packing for prison, fully prepared to take the legal penalties for their actions, gleefully predicted hereabouts to be a custodial sentence. What transpired was a win-win, the case attracted national headlines and publicity for the issue, and nobody had to pay with jail time.
A good day.
geoffchambers, apologise for yourself, mate, if you like.
When Brandon Schollenberger forgets to take his medication then I don't think it is unreasonable for people to call him on it.
The British justice system has a long history of lenience with such calculated lawbreaking, and I certainly didn't expect the convicts to get what they deserve. However, post 9/11, people posing such an unknown immediate threat to airline safety at JFK could probably expect a significantly more "robust" response from the New York security forces.
But if I didn't comment here, who would you taunt?
Do you mean sceptics, or "sceptics"?
geoffchambers
I have to say I'm with you. (Not for the first time nor, probably, the last!)
I am also in considerable sympathy with some of the comments but we are developing a tendency to come over like Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells!
As I said these idiots have got themselves a criminal record, a prison sentence is hanging over them for the next two years, they've been fined, and they have to do some community service which (we can but hope) might bring them into contact with some "real" crims.
Sitting around huffing and puffing about them is a waste of effort. Perhaps identifying the people that are preying on these gullible little minds and trying to tackle them would be a better use of our time, no?
Good luck to the LHR 13 when they try boarding a flight or gain entry to the USA.
Criminal record = waiver required + (possibly) considered a "Threat To Aviation" = No Fly List.
MH
Yes, I agree, we need the counter arguments on this site.
I just wish some of them could grasp something as simple as the future tense.
(My comments are coloured by having a pilot's licence). For me this has nothing to do with whether it's a green issue or not. Entering an active runway at a busy airport is criminally irresponsible in that it puts the lives of others at (in this case) very great risk. That would apply, for me, no matter what degree or cause the protest.
For that reason I think Alan's remarks are proportionate, but I might have chosen different words. The actions of these protesters were extremely dangerous. Alan's language might not be right, (and the mealy mouthed/PC- reposts followed) but if someone wants to protest, I expect them to consider whether they might threaten the welfare of others. In this case, they didn't.
Geoff Chambers is wrong. I respect the views of retired colonels from Cheltenham (I thought the preferred location was Tunbridge Wells), vicars and the rest. Let's huff and puff for all we're worth. We know whereof we speak. Perhaps we might even prevent someone from being killed - and for what - a few silly aeroplanes (he wrote revealing his age) puffing a few molecules of carbon dioxide whilst landing at an airport. I think we all sound perfectly rational.
. . . Unlike PC.
Oh dear - a Climate Scientist conflates two things and ends up wrong. That almost never happens!
michael hart
Brandon doesn't need medication. He's American. He has a different vision of rights, including the idea - quaint to most Brits -, that they are not fixed eternally by authority, and, however they are defined, they belong equally to people you disagree with.
Cutting a fence and delaying a plane doesn't make you a thug. Hurling extreme and irrelevant insults at opponents is what they do to us, in order to express their frustration at their lack of rational arguments. What excuse do we have?
Mike Jackson
Agreeing with you across the ideological divide is always a pleasure. I did spend some time “identifying the people that are preying on these gullible little minds,” when I researched UKYCC, though it would take the lifetime's work of a team of social scientists toget to the bottom of it. Likewise, Brandon has spent a good deal of time carefully analysing some of Lewandowsky's nonsense. It's tedious work, and less fun than indulging in punitive fantasies on blog threads.
Phil Clark:
Oh really? You were there? You're trying to play both ends of this game (which it seems to be to you). You try to tell us they wouldn't go down for this 'acceptable' bit of NVDA and now you tell us they were prepared for it. In some places they call that talking out of both sides of your mouth.Why - and how - did they have expensive representation? They had that lined up to make sure they did NOT do time.
BTW: The Paris Treaty - which made no legally binding decisions is not 'democratic'. Did you get a chance to vote for it? And the CCA was dreamed up by a place-man (OK, woman) who was seconded (and en-nobled - how does that sit with your democratic mores?) by Miliband from FoE: I never had a chance to vote for her. Did you?
And so, little by little are your rights and liberties eroded, yet useful tools like you think it a game. Sad, sad man that you are.
Phil Clarke, 8:55pm: "This morning they were packing for prison, fully prepared to take the legal penalties for their actions,"
At least three of them; Basto, Paffard and Thompson, have previous convictions (Didcot/West Burton, I think), they are repeat offenders and should have been banged-up.
You are correct in equating this case to the Kinder Trespass. As you stated to GC at 7.44 "True NVDA is acceptable provided (a) the perpertrators genuinely believe legitimate protest routes have been exhausted". In the case of Kinder, the trespass went ahead without any previous "legitimate protests". In the case of Heathrow, the decision on the third runway is still under review.
So, in neither case, could they have "genuinely believed legitimate protest routes had been exhausted" - more a case of trying to circumvent legitimate routes.
And then there's Physics: Did you mean Physics, or "Physics"?
There is, of course, no reason why companies which lost money as a result of these people's illegal behviour should not sue them for damages in the civil courts. 13 people might have to find an astronomical amount of money to pay the damages which could make outstanding student loans seem trivial.
Michael Hart, we are told not to give in to bullies, who hurt other people, not expecting to get hurt themselves. Describing these protestors as bullies is fair enough. They would not try the same stunt in New York, or Moscow, or New Delhi, or Beijing, where they might be met with more than sufficient force, and a far less sympathetic attitude, than the UK. Bullies always pick on those perceived as weak.
The Green Blob, with its Bullying tendencies, sees the UK as weak and vulnerable. They like soft targets, that can't/won't fight back, just like terrorists.
When it goes wrong, the Green Blob Bullies melt away, leaving others to pay for the mess and disasters they have created.
Harry P: Oh really? You were there
No, I read the papers.
"Who owns sensible trousers that aren’t navy blue or black? In an effort to better distinguish between the guards and the guarded, the prison dress code has ruled out most of my wardrobe. I’m left staring at a sizeable collection of brightly coloured leggings and weighing them against advice from sites like “first time in prison dot com” to “keep your head down”.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/24/heathrow-13-terrified-prison-no-regret-danni-paffard>
In the case of Kinder, the trespass went ahead without any previous "legitimate protests".
Not really. Previous requests that the landowners should open a public path through Kinder Scout, when the land was not in use were rejected. There really were no effective legitimate protests available. Sometimes the only way to change a bad law is to break it.
In the case of Heathrow, the decision on the third runway is still under review.
Well, quite. We've gone from 'no ifs, no buts' to kicking into the long grass. Time is a luxury we do not have, actually.
Phil Clarke:
Nope: you read the Guardian. Singular. It supports your biased view of society. Oh dear.PC, 10:23 PM; As I said, earlier, Paffard has previous convictions, if she was genuinely "terrified" of the prospect of going to prison (as she claimed to her mates at the Gruan), I doubt if she would have gone ahead with this action. She and they, and you are just taking the pi$$, because the police, CPS and Magistrates are too scared to stand up to the luvvie activists.
As usual you are squirming like a worm, in the space of three hours you have gone from; "True NVDA is acceptable provided the perpertrators genuinely believe legitimate protest routes have been exhausted" to "Sometimes the only way to change a bad law is to break it."
And you show the same contempt to due process by saying "Time is a luxury we do not have, actually." So, basically. if a particular issue is not concluded within at timescale chosen by you or your activist confederates, then it is legitimate to, bypass the law and conduct criminal offences?
Ramspace 4:21 PM
fair enough - that consequences thing ... it's fairly clear that's broken in the UK at the moment. The sentences meted out to the this crew aren't that bad in the general run of things - assuming they care about being put in an open prison for a few weeks it should keep them focused .... although I was unaware of the previous of several folk - that should have attracted a few weeks each - just to keep proportionality.
The fines are undisclosed .. that's not right and proper.and pretty much misses the point of having a criminal court at all
What this does do is clear the way for anybody to sue for damages - which would be fun :-) Buses, taxis, hotels, repositioning flights, missed flights etc. BAA have previous going after Joss Garman - I hope they redouble their efforts .
Phil Clarke, aren't contestants in Non Violent Direct Action reality stunts given advice on selecting appropriate clothing for 'going away to prison' ? Obviously they would want to have something worthy of the Guardian front page photo opportunity, for their triumphant release.
If not, it does suggest they were not adequately prepared for the consequences of their action. Always next time I suppose.
Salopian: She and they, and you are just taking the pi$$, because the police, CPS and Magistrates are too scared to stand up to the luvvie activists.
So the justice system is flawed, in your analysis, cowed by a bunch of hippies (Translation: You did not get the result you desired)
And you show the same contempt to due process by saying "Time is a luxury we do not have, actually." So, basically. if a particular issue is not concluded within at timescale chosen by you or your activist confederates, then it is legitimate to, bypass the law and conduct criminal offences?
And now 'due process' is rehabilitated. Gosh.
It can never be legitimate to bypass the law (consult your dictionary). But it can be nccessary (consult your history book)
Time will tell if the Heathrow 13 were heroic martyrs or deluded fools. All we can really say for sure right now is that the Bishop was deprived of his 'highlight of the day'
When is yur next long-haul plane flight, Phil?
Salopian, I don't think the Green Blob Bullies have thought through the consequences of other people, who object to Non Violent Direct Action by Green Blob Bullies, taking Non Violent Direct Action against Green Blob Bullies, and pleading a 'public interest' defence.
Football thugs used to claim to believe they were doing it for the honour of their club, but they were just mindless idiots looking for an excuse aswell.
I don't believe Putin used violent action against the Arctic Green Blob Bullies, but he made his point very well, and now they leave him alone.
The UK is being bullied by the Green Blob, and UK taxpayers are forced to contribute to the Green Blob's costs aswell as the Judicaries.
As and when the UK public start to realise what they are paying for, whether by taxation, or TV appeals to save Pandas, Polar Bears and Penquins, they might get a bit peased orf.
Diogenes,
I am a hypocrite in many ways.
But not that. I have never flown, and never will, fly long haul.
Phil Clarke, should those that live by Non Violent Direct Action, be subjected to Non Violent Direct Action?
PC 11;35pm; Yet more deflection and diversion from you as usual.
"So the justice system is flawed, in your analysis, cowed by a bunch of hippies"
The Heathrow 13 are not a 'bunch of hippies' or 'heroic martyrs', they are professional activists, with criminal records. They are getting paid to carry out these activities, it will be very interesting to see who picks up the costs from this case.
As I said previously, at least three of your 'heroic martyrs' were already convicted criminals. Now all 13 of them are, which will seriously limit their employment prospects (they will never get jobs within the UK or EU Civil service, UK public services or NHS, and will find very difficult to get visas to places like the USA.
BTW, I think you are the one that needs a dictionary and history book.
Going down?
O yes, for sure.
What is going down?
Democracy - UN calling for end? No need for any further explanation.
Responsibility - those who have the ability to respond are choosing not to, why?
Etiquette - old fashioned I know, but it is an very indicative human trait.
Progress - restriction of homo sapiens always = conflict of which our ability is infinite.
Science - the side-lining/avoiding/excusing the need of adherence to the scientific method
Post Normal Science - Why does it exist, if not to enable a scientist to circumvent the scientific method?
Put together I see no progressive, caring, society. I just see idealism with no responsibility.
Some think blowing themselves and others up is 'progressive' some think messing up an airport is 'progressive'. I have no truck with fanatics, be they football, religious, climate...
'fanatics' never, never, ever think past their initial conclusion. Hence the myriad ill conceived consequences
Mike,
Doubtless, there are certain pedagogues who combine in a malicious glee to stir the pot, ref - see Paul Matthew at the beginning of this here blog thread.
I've said it before, parrots like Monbiot should be aware to exercise some caution, many of his loyal subjects believe unerringly in his every edict, who can say, how much mayhem has been wrought by George's baleful exhortations?
Lets have it said, the whole rotten green shebang, has rather over hyped the myth,and jumped the shark - boiling seas and waterlogged Britain included and good grief nay! the media cannot be blamed - for.......... that?
Rebels needs and some kids, love a cause - didn't we all?
Teachers, headmasters, all play the global warming genie, exam papers test for it even in ancient Greek and health tourism classes........ probably. Coke, Mac, Branson, H&M to Jade Jaggers kid, indeed all of luvviedom and Charlotte Church - stuff it down kids throats, "eat a green burger, save a penguin" and then, get to save the world and back in time for tea.
But mainly, it, the green psychosis dwells, is incubated, is force fed an odd symbiosis and meeting of minds. A collective, of what can only be described as a Born again revelation, in an ecstasy of virtue signalling to the rest of the twitterati - converted.
But all of that is OK, it is. After all is said, they can't leave it there - now can they Mike?
YET - I couldn't careless but............. all based on a political myth.
I still didn't care...........until it started. Coming over, begging to be loved, trying to proselytise, telling 'us' to believe in the green goblins, making us pay for mind boggling expensive but more than useless palliatives at a price: which will bankrupt the nation.
I care, I want to hear their views, I believe in free speech..... but - whosoever comes this way (Bishop's blog) and with yakking on about "the science" and about the philosophy, agenda , politics, money - not one of them (green advocates) has come anywhere close to changing my mind by any measure you could care to mention.
The door is open - so convince me.
For Phil:
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/specific-co2-emissions-per-passenger-3
Time for a holiday?
It is good to know at least a couple people here realize how incredibly toxic this post and the comments on it are being. That's a welcome break from the barrage of hatred and hostility here, where people complaining about peaceful protestors actively discuss how they'd like to see the protestors be made victims of violence. Sure, you could say the commenters are just joking, but that doesn't make these sort of remarks acceptable. It doesn't matter whether or not it is a joke; it is not okay to say you want to see people assaulted (or murdered, as in one commenter's case).
Even so, this is still probably my favorite example of how hilariously disturbing these comments are:
Leaving aside the obscenity of assuming anyone who says things you dislike must be a close-minded hyporcrite who only disagrees with you due to being completely biased and partisan, this comment is absurd as I have a long history in the climate blogosphere demonstrating this claim is clearly BS. Whether or not one accepts I'm a fair-minded individual, I have done far more to argue against the global warming movement than most people here.
Perhaps the ultimate absurdity, however, is how people here will never criticize the person behind Climategate, preferring to promote him as a hero, even though he broke into a computer server, deface it and locked its owners out to prevent them from using it. That's criminal. It's far more thuggish than anything these people did, and it didn't at least have the moral integrity of risking one's own well-being to do it.
I could break into the Skeptical Science website and bring it down, and people here would probably praise me for it. Because apparently, that's not thuggish. But laying down on a runway is.
Someone named Brandon has completely lost the puhlot.
For a somewhat similar situation across the pond:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/us/25-plead-not-guilty-in-standoff-at-the-oregon-wildlife-refuge.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Possible prison terms up to 6 years for occupying a Federal wildlife refuge. But this time at least it wasn't due to Green beliefs, more the Libertarian approach. They no doubt have utterly no use for Greens.
The lie of global climate crisis is revealed in the fact that not one flight, train or car journey has been stopped to save us from planetary catastrophe. These protesters might as well try to minimise harm by demanding eco friendly bullets, missiles and nuclear weapons. It isn't going to happen.
Planes will continue to fly Flight numbers will increase every year. Global temperatures will defy computer models.
Not enough. A few years plus massive fines would be more appropriate.
I didn't know that the person behind Climategate broke into a computer server, defaced it and locked its owners out to prevent them from using it. That's news to me. Where is the evidence?
Brandon at 3:50am: There could have been no consequences of Climategate which resulted in death or injury - but in the case in point there easily could have been, with further consequential damages and injuries of which we can never know. This is so simplistic that I wonder why it needs pointing out to you.
Some contexts
There were at least 3 illegal protests
#1 3 JULY, 2015 protesters block the airport main entrance road using a van and lock-ons in a tunnel "No arrests were made."
#2 13 July 2015 The 13 cut the fence and occupied the runway :caused 25 flights to be cancelled
#3 Nov 26, 2015 : 5 protesters block the airport main entrance road using a van and lock-ons in a tunnel
- There is a small issue with the democratic process in that idiot PM made a stupid promise "No new runways" and has backtracked. However the decision will still be made within the democratic process.
- It was wrong of Dellers and Bish to express certainty is reporting convictions likely. Predictive reporting intended to manipulate events is a nasty lefty media trick these days.
- When prisons are already full, is it right to fill them with protesters.
..BUT if courts send a strong message ..it saves future prison space by deterring future crimes.
(however prison space is a problem for politicians not judges)
True the protesters were not in the same league as Al-Khaida
However they are NOT non-violent protesters
..as the outcome could have been violent eg. A plane with a transplant donation could have been fatally delayed.
Thought exercise : What would happen if protesters blocked an illegal mosque entrance for 40 minutes and delayed prayers ? (due to their previous licenced protest and political representations being ignored)
- Imagine if half of those involved already had criminal records.
...Would they just get a small fine and community service ?
...............................
DETAIL : Imagine this protest : In a area a mosque with a loud Muezzin and disruptive parking suddenly appears. Some local residents first try council and politicians but there's no action.
The residents get a licence for street march, and traffic is warned in advance of the disruption.
Deaf ears
Then some of them "say the democratic process is broken and we are a downtrodden mass. We voted for UKIP they got the third highest vote, 12.6% with 4 million votes but only 0.02% of the parliamentary seats..Soso we have the right to direct action"
In 2016
DramaGreens = slave owners a minority group that get their way via DISRUPTION, INTIMIDATION, BULLYING, MISPRESENTATION of opponents and debate EVASION. Thus almost controlling both media & politicians.
UKIP voters = the oppressed denied a fair voice, like 18th slaves or suffragettes.
All non-dramagreens are similarly disenfrachised.
In 2016 Dramagreens are not the downtrodden innocents but rather the powerful bullies in league with corrupt subsidy fed "green businesses"
So I am staggered at @geoffchambers and @MJacksons opinions
and I'm with @GolfCharlie it is a principal that you don't give into intimidation by bullies.
(of course despited the misresenting demonisation by its opponents UKIP is not an anti-foreigner party or anti-Islam party, rather a party who is anti-EU and pro maths, logic and due process on everything else)
@Brandon - Re Climategate and your claim there is proof it was a hack. Rather than go off topic here, cam you click the unthreaded button above ..and post a link to further info.
On your thinking there's a "barrage of hatred" "here". I'm not even going to debate that strange opinion, but do note that maybe you were riled by an early comment @Alan made which I haven't seen as it seems to have been deleted (about hanging or something).
"Perhaps the ultimate absurdity, however, is how people here will never criticize the person behind Climategate, preferring to promote him as a hero, even though he broke into a computer server, deface it and locked its owners out to prevent them from using it. That's criminal. It's far more thuggish than anything these people did, and it didn't at least have the moral integrity of risking one's own well-being to do it.
I could break into the Skeptical Science website and bring it down, and people here would probably praise me for it. Because apparently, that's not thuggish. But laying down on a runway is."
Brandon, you pride yourself on being fair-minded and go out of your way to chide "deniers" when you see something wrong, but given the above it's not obvious to me that you are.
The first paragraph is a scoop - I wasn't aware that we knew that someone had broken into the UEA server, defaced it and locked its owners out, the worst I'd heard was that someone "stole" the emails. I'm pretty certain, given the sympathy the UEA got at the time (to the extent that they were allowed to choose which papers would be used to assess their work in the Oxburgh report, which itself called no witnesses and was over by the time I'd had lunch) if these outrageous practices had taken place they would have been splattered across the front pages of every paper in the UK and on every alarmist blog in the blogosphere. But they weren't. So I'm going to have to request that you produce evidence that the UEA were locked out of their server by the hacker. It was locked but by the UEA who put out this statement:
"We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites.
‘Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all of this material is genuine.
‘This information has been obtained and published without our permission and we took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation.
‘We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and we have involved the police in this inquiry.’
So what does Brandon know that the UEA didn't at the time? Let's have it.
The second paragraph, for a person who quite clearly believes they're fair-minded, is little short of scandalous.
I'm baffled at the people trying to claim these protesters put people's lives at danger. Do you guys realize how absurd that sounds? Airports like this one are designed to be able to handle a runway being unavailable without any serious consequences. It's not like anyone was going to try to land on the runway they occupied, and if there were any flights whose timing was critical, the airport would have just delayed other flights for them.
And even if that weren't true, if the airport went to the protesters and told them it was in fear of people's safety from any sort of real threat, the protesters would have certainly moved. They wouldn't have stayed there and risked someone getting killed. Doing so would have ruined their entire effort, plus there's the whole part about these people not being sociopaths.
You guys sounds like classic authoritarians who will use any excuse, no matter how bogus, to pretend the people they dislike are violent criminals endangering the well-being of everyone around them.
Wow, you guys are some combination of incredibly uninformed and bad at reading. I never said the person behind Climategate hacked anything to get the e-mails he released. I referred to how he broke into the RealClimate server to try to use it to publicize the Climategate e-mails. Anyone familiar with the events of Climategate should have immediately understood that as what I described couldn't have possibly referred to anything else.
In the future, I'll have to remember to clarify which obvious topic I'm referring to. I guess it was silly for me to think people who would discuss what happened with Climategate would actually know anything about what happened with Climategate.
Oh, and stewgreen, if you think that's the only example of hatred being promoted on this post, I don't know what to tell you. Comments being disappeared without any trace does tend to interfere with things, but I'd say there being a number of comments wishing for violence to be carried out on these protesters goes a long way in demonstrating hatred.
Though I don't know how much I can blame you. I don't feel like going back and trying to figure out how many comments were disappeared for promoting violence. Even the rhetoric the remains though indicates plenty of hate.
Brandon
So if all airports simply issue a notice to the effect that runways are very dangerous places (who'd have thought!), then the protesters will stay away?
Of course, why didn't we think of that . . .