Anyhow, the start of the hearing was brought back to the afternoon and once in full swing, BAA put forward some evidence to give their injunction some substance. Their evidence were some articles from the Evening Standard and the Times newspapers and a chapter from the Eco Defence Handbook. Another bit of evidence was an article about last years Climate Camp in which it was said that local people had joined the protesters and mentiones were made about radical direct action tactics. Interestingly enough, the journalist who actually wrote that was in court today as well and said that some of the things in the article he had just 'put in' or made up. As one does...

Evidence like this is classed as 'hearsay' as it is no direct evidence and therefore pretty irrelevant in court.

It was unclear whether the injunction applied to the named people within the various organisations they served the papers to, or all members from those organisations. If it would apply to all members of the named organisations (over 5 million), it would probably be difficult to enforce but if it only applied to certain individuals, than the injunction wouldn't have a lot of effect.

BAA was so unclear about this, the judge was said to be very confused and gave them until tomorrow morning to get things straight: who are you asking to be injuncted and for what reasons? The whole injunction business seems to be a total joke, poorly prepared and mainly used as a scare tactic. As things currently look, it won't have any effect on the actual camp which is to take place from the 14th August. A spokesperson for the Camp For Climate Action was a lot clearer than BAA: ' This injunction is totally irrelevant to us. We won't be intimidated or bullied. The camp is going ahead! '

A ruling is expected on Friday.