The day began with a march from Fairford town centre to the main gate of RAF Fairford.

The Gloucestershire Weapons Inspectors explained to the crowd they suspected Fairford base might contain weapons of mass destruction and asked to be let in. None of the security guards would speak to them so they put their request in song and the crowd joined in.

Several participants, including mayor of nearby Stroud, John Marjoram, then spoke to the crowd. One young child asked why the billions being spent on the bombers couldn't be spent on hospitals instead.

Then a stealth bomber, held up with wooden sticks, swooped on the crowd who fell to the ground by Fairford's main entrance as it passed over.

Finally, using cycle generated power, some musicians performed an anti-war rap song for the remaining protestors.

 http://bristol.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=2664&group=webcast
(includes pictures)

Also see:
www.cynatech.co.uk/gwi/


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

Mass Weaptons Inspection Of USAF Fairford - Not In Our Name - Not From Our Land (USAF Fairford - : Saturday 14th Dec, 2002)

Weapons inspectors denied access to UK bomb factory

From the office of the Green MEPs

13 December, 2002

WEAPONS INSPECTORS DENIED ACCESS TO UK BOMB FACTORY

- MEP TO APPEAL DIRECTLY TO DEFENCE MINISTER GEOFF HOON

A TEAM of 20 weapons inspectors led by Green MEP Caroline Lucas and TV satirist Mark Thomas was today refused access to the UK's nuclear weapons factory in Berkshire.

The group had hoped to conduct a 'citizens' inspection' of the UK's capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction and seek reassurance that a #2.5bn investment in Aldermaston announced in the summer will not contravene international law, in parallel with the UN mission currently operating in Iraq.

But military police guarding the base refused to let the team out of the car park. Dr Lucas, who represents South East England and is a member of the European Parliament's Peace Intergroup, said:

"We were refused access to the weapons site despite our having a clear mandate from constituents to ensure the facility was not being used to amass weapons of mass destruction or engage in any activity which contravenes international law.

"We particularly sought an assurance that the base will not be used to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons to succeed Trident, as has been suggested in the media and elsewhere. Any such development would constitute a clear 'material breach' of the UN Non Proliferation Treaty, of which the UK is a signatory and is binding in international law."

The inspectors also fear the planned developments will make the base an increased target for terrorist attack and will be fundamentally undemocratic, since any planning applications will be submitted by the Ministry of Defence and neither the planning authority or residents will have any right to influence the planning process.

The #2.5 development at Aldermaston is the Government's response to a 1998 Strategic Defence Review, which called for the base to maintain "a capacity to design a successor warhead to Trident" - despite any such research being prohibited by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

"In the context of the current threat of war against Iraq for its flagrant disregard for international law and Saddam's history of production and use of weapons of mass destruction it is clear the world has had enough of bullying regimes riding roughshod over international law and maintaining power by the threat or use of force.

"I have a clear mandate from constituents to seek assurances that, despite appearances to the contrary, the UK is not such a regime. As the US has consistently asserted of Iraq - if the Government had nothing unlawful to hide it would have had no problem letting the inspectors in.

"Since we have been denied access we can only assume the worst. I will now be writing direct to Defence Minister Geoff Hoon to demand an explanation - and access to the base. If it transpires Aldermaston is being used to develop weapons in breach of the Non-Proliferation Treaty it will be a matter for the International Court of Justice and the UN Security Council."

ENDS