Police hold pensioners over Heathrow protest t-shirts

On Saturday 31st May, three pensioners were stopped, at the Heathrow
bus station as they made their way by bus to Hatton Cross for the
peaceful demonstration against the expansion of Heathrow.

In the words of one of them:

“We were five pensioners from Slough, changing buses at Heathrow bus
station on our way to the rally against the third runway. Three of us
were wearing T-shirts saying "Stop Airport Expansion", but the police
stop and search rules say that dress cannot be used as a reason to
stop members of the public.

Nevertheless, police officers did stop us. The Heathrow bylaws, we
were informed, permit access to the bus station only to air passengers
or those meeting them. [**] Oddly, only the members of our party
wearing the T-shirts appeared to be in breach of these bylaws. We were
questioned, our details were recorded and we were forbidden access to
the airport for 24 hours on threat of arrest if we did return. In one
case "demo - T-shirt" was recorded as the reason for the stop, but the
other records are inconsistent, referring
only to breach of the bylaws.

Thousands of people change buses at Heathrow daily and hundreds of
buses break the bylaws by carrying them. This restraint on trade is
usually ignored. But five officers took half an hour to take our
details, warn us and see us off the premises. We were given forms
headed "Metropolitan Police:

Working together for a safer London". Safer for whom?

John W……. Slough, Berkshire (Guardian letters 3rd June)

=============

[**] This means that every single person entering the Central Bus
Station and the bus stops at Hatton Cross and Terminal 4 and Terminal
5 are breaking the law unless he/she is a/ an air passenger or b/
meeting an air passenger.

Now I happen to know that many commuters use the the Central Bus
Station as an interchange between London Underground (to/from London)
and their local home towns. Also National Express (and other coach
companies) has a huge number of services going to/from Heathrow and
all points of the compass for passengers who are not actually
travelling by air at all. So are all these passengers breaking the
bylaws as well? I think the travelling public should be told one way
or the other.

CJB.

In article <c6de67e0-ab18-497d-a3e5-
2d4dd0f72e4a@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, chrisjbrady@gmail.com says...
> Police hold pensioners over Heathrow protest t-shirts
> 
> On Saturday 31st May, three pensioners were stopped, at the Heathrow
> bus station as they made their way by bus to Hatton Cross for the
> peaceful demonstration against the expansion of Heathrow.

Something doesn't ring true with this.

In article <c6de67e0-ab18-497d-a3e5-
2d4dd0f72e4a@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, chrisjbrady@gmail.com says...
> Police hold pensioners over Heathrow protest t-shirts
> 
> On Saturday 31st May, three pensioners were stopped, at the Heathrow
> bus station as they made their way by bus to Hatton Cross for the
> peaceful demonstration against the expansion of Heathrow.


I have heard of similar actions within LHR but never outside of it.

I suspect there is more to this story than is being reported.

Jim Mason wrote:
> In article <c6de67e0-ab18-497d-a3e5-
> 2d4dd0f72e4a@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, chrisjbrady@gmail.com
> says...
>> Police hold pensioners over Heathrow protest t-shirts
>>
>> On Saturday 31st May, three pensioners were stopped, at the Heathrow
>> bus station as they made their way by bus to Hatton Cross for the
>> peaceful demonstration against the expansion of Heathrow.
>
> Something doesn't ring true with this.

It does indeed sound very odd.  The demonstration march itself was routed, 
with the full cooperation and support of the Met Police, around the Eastern 
Perimeter Road from Hatton Cross, under planes landing on the northern 
runway (27R), and out on to the A4.  The perimeter road is INSIDE the 
airport boundary. The police actually closed the clockwise side of the road 
to enable the march to proceed.

It's possible, I suppose, that the individual policemen in the central bus 
station hadn't been briefed.  If so, a formal complaint should be made to 
the Met about denying people an opportunity to take part in a legitimate 
protest.

IIRC the fact that access to the airport is allowed only to people having 
business (personal or otherwise) to be there has been true for decades. I 
noticed signs on the exits from the new T5 platforms on the Piccadilly Line 
that said as much.  I suspect that the local bye-laws are intended purely to 
provide a clear legal basis to eject any suspicious characters, and that 
there is an understanding that otherwise people will be allowed to come and 
go as they please.  The understanding seems to have broken down in this 
case.

Follow-ups set to eliminate irrelevant crossposting to Glasgow/Edinburgh 
groups.

-- 
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

In article <KVA4k.8870$E41.2718@text.news.virginmedia.com>, rjnews0811
@blueukder.co.yon says...
> Jim Mason wrote:
> > In article <c6de67e0-ab18-497d-a3e5-
> > 2d4dd0f72e4a@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, chrisjbrady@gmail.com
> > says...
> >> Police hold pensioners over Heathrow protest t-shirts
> >>
> >> On Saturday 31st May, three pensioners were stopped, at the Heathrow
> >> bus station as they made their way by bus to Hatton Cross for the
> >> peaceful demonstration against the expansion of Heathrow.
> >
> > Something doesn't ring true with this.
> 
> It does indeed sound very odd.  The demonstration march itself was routed, 
> with the full cooperation and support of the Met Police, around the Eastern 
> Perimeter Road from Hatton Cross, under planes landing on the northern 
> runway (27R), and out on to the A4.  The perimeter road is INSIDE the 
> airport boundary. The police actually closed the clockwise side of the road 
> to enable the march to proceed.
> 
> It's possible, I suppose, that the individual policemen in the central bus 
> station hadn't been briefed.  If so, a formal complaint should be made to 
> the Met about denying people an opportunity to take part in a legitimate 
> protest.

The right to make a legitimate protest is something that Gordon Brown and 
his party seem to be intent on eroding.

Never before has a Scotsman boosted the prospects of the SNP.

See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/03/travelandtransport.theairlineindustry

and http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/downloads/AirportWatch_Bulletin_June2008.pdf

CJB

On Jun 13, 9:39 pm, "Richard J."  wrote:
> Jim Mason wrote:
> > In article <c6de67e0-ab18-497d-a3e5-
> > 2d4dd0f72...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, chrisjbr...@gmail.com
> > says...
> >> Police hold pensioners over Heathrow protest t-shirts
>
> >> On Saturday 31st May, three pensioners were stopped, at the Heathrow
> >> bus station as they made their way by bus to Hatton Cross for the
> >> peaceful demonstration against the expansion of Heathrow.
>
> > Something doesn't ring true with this.
>
> It does indeed sound very odd.  The demonstration march itself was routed,
> with the full cooperation and support of the Met Police, around the Eastern
> Perimeter Road from Hatton Cross, under planes landing on the northern
> runway (27R), and out on to the A4.  The perimeter road is INSIDE the
> airport boundary. The police actually closed the clockwise side of the road
> to enable the march to proceed.
>
> It's possible, I suppose, that the individual policemen in the central bus> station hadn't been briefed.  If so, a formal complaint should be made to
> the Met about denying people an opportunity to take part in a legitimate
> protest.
>
> IIRC the fact that access to the airport is allowed only to people having
> business (personal or otherwise) to be there has been true for decades. I
> noticed signs on the exits from the new T5 platforms on the Piccadilly Line
> that said as much.  I suspect that the local bye-laws are intended purely to
> provide a clear legal basis to eject any suspicious characters, and that
> there is an understanding that otherwise people will be allowed to come and
> go as they please.  The understanding seems to have broken down in this
> case.
>
> Follow-ups set to eliminate irrelevant crossposting to Glasgow/Edinburgh
> groups.
>
> --
> Richard J.
> (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

"CJB"  wrote in message 
news:c4af4539-8f99-4fb6-83e6-ad8718ab31b0@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
See: 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/03/travelandtransport.theairlineindustry

and 
http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/downloads/AirportWatch_Bulletin_June2008.pdf

CJB

On Jun 13, 9:39 pm, "Richard J."  wrote:
> Jim Mason wrote:
> > In article <c6de67e0-ab18-497d-a3e5-
> > 2d4dd0f72...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, chrisjbr...@gmail.com
> > says...
> >> Police hold pensioners over Heathrow protest t-shirts
>
> >> On Saturday 31st May, three pensioners were stopped, at the Heathrow
> >> bus station as they made their way by bus to Hatton Cross for the
> >> peaceful demonstration against the expansion of Heathrow.
>
> > Something doesn't ring true with this.
>
> It does indeed sound very odd. The demonstration march itself was routed,
> with the full cooperation and support of the Met Police, around the 
> Eastern
> Perimeter Road from Hatton Cross, under planes landing on the northern
> runway (27R), and out on to the A4. The perimeter road is INSIDE the
> airport boundary. The police actually closed the clockwise side of the 
> road
> to enable the march to proceed.
>
> It's possible, I suppose, that the individual policemen in the central bus
> station hadn't been briefed. If so, a formal complaint should be made to
> the Met about denying people an opportunity to take part in a legitimate
> protest.
>
> IIRC the fact that access to the airport is allowed only to people having
> business (personal or otherwise) to be there has been true for decades. I
> noticed signs on the exits from the new T5 platforms on the Piccadilly 
> Line
> that said as much. I suspect that the local bye-laws are intended purely 
> to
> provide a clear legal basis to eject any suspicious characters, and that
> there is an understanding that otherwise people will be allowed to come 
> and
> go as they please. The understanding seems to have broken down in this
> case.
>
> Follow-ups set to eliminate irrelevant crossposting to Glasgow/Edinburgh
> groups.
>
> --
> Richard J.
> (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

It's in a UK newspaper, it must be true!

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:34:08 -0700 (PDT), CJB 
wrote:


>Working together for a safer London". Safer for whom?

I am still trying to work out why this was x-posted to
alt.airports.uk.edinburgh?

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:03:22 +0100, Jim Mason
 wrote:


>> On Saturday 31st May, three pensioners were stopped, at the Heathrow
>> bus station as they made their way by bus to Hatton Cross for the
>> peaceful demonstration against the expansion of Heathrow.

>Something doesn't ring true with this.

The irrelevance to alt.airports.uk.edinburgh?

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:39:06 GMT, "Richard J."
 wrote:



>Follow-ups set to eliminate irrelevant crossposting to Glasgow/Edinburgh 
>groups.


Thank you... can we trace the OP  crossposter? We have a problem in
Scotland with x-post boosting to alt.airports.uk.glasgow..
The newsgroup alt.airports.uk.edinburgh has been a regular victim

In article , 
egph@blueyonder.co.uk says...
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:03:22 +0100, Jim Mason
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> >> On Saturday 31st May, three pensioners were stopped, at the Heathrow
> >> bus station as they made their way by bus to Hatton Cross for the
> >> peaceful demonstration against the expansion of Heathrow.
> 
> >Something doesn't ring true with this.
> 
> The irrelevance to alt.airports.uk.edinburgh?

The irrelevance?