The action at Stansted is counter-productive. The planes have high load factors, it pisses off Joe Public whose support we need.

Far, far better to target Farnborough Airport. Businesses aviation, very low load factors, key component of globalisation, very little security, will not alienate Joe Public, indeed would have widespread local community support were Farnborough shut down for a few days.

The security is so light at Farnborough that once in, it would be necessary to call the control tower otherwise high risk of serious injuries and fatalities.

The Heathrow guy nearly got shot - legitimate security concerns there - how long until genuine protestors get mown down either by a plane or by the police?

The coming deflationary depression will probably reduce flights to a trickle, so all the little killjoys and puritans in plane stupid will be happy.

Keith.

I'm bored of hearing and reading such ridiculous arguments.

If a person is going to fly despite knowing the problems of climate change I think we know which side of the fence they're on. And somehow I don't think pretending that we think flying is okay is going to change their minds.

Unfortunately, if you actually allow yourself the luxury of having reality slap you in the face, you'll realise the problem isn't educating and informing people or even tugging at their heartstrings with tales of "your grandchildren won't have much of a life". Nobody with working eyes or ears could be unaware of the dire consequences of climate chaos and if they don't care now they probably never will.

Have fun trying to find this "support we need". But while you're off barking up a tree that doesn't exist, please don't criticise people who are actually trying to do something. You may think they're being counter-productive (countering co2 production?) but I hardly think armchair criticism like yours is fair. Especially from somebody who is more than likely UN-productive when it comes to tackling climate change.

And unless you actually have targetted Farnborough I think you should retract your comment and go do something useful.

L&R

I support this action, it was a great way to raise the profile of the climate issue, an issue I care deeply about. I think the media reaction to it, even the BBC's, was horribly biased, never putting these spoilt passengers complaints in the context of the climate catastrophe that is a few years around the corner.

That said, I do have issue with the idea that "If a person is going to fly despite knowing the problems of climate change I think we know which side of the fence they're on' (Eric Missions' comment above). Ok, global aviation is a major contributor to climate change, but 1 persons 1 flight is completely insignificant. By catching a flight from Stansted this morning they were not bringing about an ecological catastrophe - if they'd opted to stay in bed that morning in the name of helping the environment, the ecological catastrophe will still be just as severe and just as imminent. So these passengers that this action 'pissed off' are really not setting out to destroy the planet. En masse that is their effect, but not individually, so don't see all air travelers as the environmentalists adversaries. (Although they shouldn't mind a bit of disruption now and again if it really raises the profile of the fight against climate change.)

The only way climate change will be solved is if governments take action to stop the population as a whole from being able to fly so much, in my view, by pricing flights out of the reach of most people (yes, I'm actually interested in solving climate change rather than bringing about a communist revolution, unlike many so-called environmentalists).

And why are we targetting air travel at this point anyway. Yes, we need to reduce it to solve climate change, but at this point there are a hell of lot of other things we can change to make progress, that don't involve sacrifice. Lets change the way we generate power from fossil fuels to renewables, before we worry about cutting back our overseas travel.

Todays action at Stansted was more than a protest, it was a direct intervention to stop emissions by stopping the airport reopening after repairs. It is apparent that people feel they must take action themselves to stop climate change because the government is committed to aviation expansion and business as usual. There is a question as to whether political activists should have the right to stop peoples activities. This is really a discussion of how acceptable such activities are in the publics eye. Flying is socially accepted yet the science says it is one of the most destructive of human activities. So what plane stupid are doing is challenging the public to re-asses its attitude towards flying and get real. Stansted was targeted because it is expanding to allow more short-haul flights, the most unnecessary of all. Unfortunately people were inconvenienced today but how much more will people be inconvenienced by catastrophic climate change. This action should really be seen in the wider historical context of normal people trying to stop this planet from burning.

Civil disobedience is a necessary and integral part of our democracy. The activists have put their liberty at risk to achieve this action. We should pause to understand their motives and commend them for doing something the politicians are unwilling to, that is to take personal responsibility for this crisis. It is most clear that this is only really the beginning of such a movement to stop heavy polluting industries like this. Above all it is important to realise that these people are not terrorists they are educated informed agents for social change. The authorities will like us to denounce such actions but we should all thank them for taking a stand in defense of the planet we all live on. Desperate times call for desperate measures and we should blame the government for its insistence on planet destroying policies. Decades from now the passengers who have missed flights will have forgotten, but we will remember the actions of plane stupid as a moment of sanity at a time when we needed to act and some people did just that.

A load of Daddies little rich kids protesting against working class people going on holiday,flying to their fathers funerals. They won't stop business aviation because daddy might be on that plane.

"Anita Kelleher had been due to fly to the Irish Republic to attend her father's funeral, but her flight was cancelled.

"His funeral is tonight, the Rosary is tonight. I've missed being at my dad's Rosary tonight and I'm heartbroken," she told the BBC. "

There were many stories where travellers became very upset and did not deserve what Plane Stupid did to them. Plane Stupid have shot themselves in the foot really. Who is going to have sympathy with people who have no regard as to why people are travelling - passengers are not all capitalist evildooers who want to destroy the world. It's like the government calling all protesters terrorists... not all plane passengers are flying because they enjoy pollution... but you punish them all regardless.

There are much better ways of making the point really.

Before I say anything let me qualify where I'm coming from - I'm an anarchist (of the eco variety if you need more than that) and I've been active in eco-direct action for a while (ten years plus).

So, it was an impressively planned action, well done to all who sorted it out and carried out the plan. Pulling off a blockade of a major airport is hard and possibly dangerous, you did it with no injuries or deaths and beat the cops to the draw, who no doubt will be fuming. Great!

However I do have some massive concerns about this action and the way it was represented by the activists, and those like it that target individual flyers.

1) Plane Stupid (well the spokespeople I have read and seen in the media) have a fucking really obnoxious political standpoint (whether they do personally or not I don't know, I'm just saying it as I see it conveyed) that seems to verge on religion - 'good' climate change activists vs. 'evil' flyers. The logos on the back of the jackets they wore all said something like 'Please do something'. Guilt anyone? No mention of class, why people feel the need to escape work/life for a holiday somewhere. Infact, the only wider political message I got from people was that direct action enriches democracy/last resort cos the government failed us/asking the state to do something.... horrible, reactionary and reformist politics.

2) What is the point of the action? To directly stop carbon emissions? Good idea, but I think people are kidding themselves if they think that this action has done that. Planes are just delayed, moved elsewhere, less carbon is unlikely to be emitted, and how could you judge anyway? So, is it a battle for the headlines? If so then it's a victory in one way, as people have a clear example of the climate change/aviation link and the issue has been raised massively. However if it's a battle to convince people that we need to take action on CC I think it's badly flawed. Targetting people who fly is only likely to end up with making people take the other side and this can be seen from all the people interviewed on TV and radio today. At the end of the day I really believe that trying to convince people not to fly is just a huge waste of time... and is counterproductive in many ways.

Anyway, I fully admit it's a complicated process to think about and come up with some answers to. Would be interested to hear any useful arguements from anyone either way...

It is obviously not nice for the people concerned to have their flights delayed, missed funerals etc., but look at the scale of the problem. as a result of climate change 160,000 people are dying every year, already, as a result of climate change and that number will grow quickly as the years pass. That's quite a lot of funerals.

The class argument is bandied around a lot when it comes to climate change. While there may be a couple of hundred or so working class people missing flights and urgent appointments, there are hundreds of thousands of people (climate refugees) who are being displaced from their homes in countries like India and Africa, because of flooding, droughts, famines, all caused by or exacerbated by climate change.

I think that this action was proportional to the threat that climate change poses to us.

But I think a better way of combating climate change is through community and workplace organisations. For example, you can campaign in your communities for lagging, insulation, renewables, and build class power at the same time. And there have in the past been trade unions implementing 'green bans' - (strikes for environmental reasons), so these would be worth striving for in your union, or better yet, join the Industrial Workers of the World, a radical democratic union without bosses or bureaucrats ;)

why did it take till long after flights were scheduled to leave for plod to get them off the taxiway?

they must have been freezing out there all morning.

those sub-daily mail phoney 'i'm more working class than you' frustrated armchair activist do-nothing thumb twiddling passive 'usefully foolish' self-victimising whingeing 'i'm more anarchist than you' jealous unhelpful unconstructive unparticipatory uncelebratory 'solidarity but not with you' small-minded, gutter press corporate tabloid-minded responses complaining about these protesters as too young, too middle class, too studenty, too trendy or whatever - they make me feel sick and embarrassed.

well done brave young folk! early morning and healthy exercise in the fresh air, disrupting a major contributor to uk co2 emissions, getting nabbed by plod, keeping the pressure on government and the aviation industry whose comments only make their greed and shortsightedness clearer and clearer - all in a day's work.

I'm amazed that this action went off without the filth getting wind, well done to all concerned. I know that getting a group this large together from all over the country to do a covert action and keep it quiet is a mean feat and I'm sure that at least one dedicated person has travelled up and down the railways over the last few weeks paying personal face to face visits to a lot of people to pull it off.

The logistics would have been quite a challenge too, perhaps four mini buses and a flatbed truck for the fencing and concrete blocks, a venue for the pre action briefing etc etc. Getting over 50 people through a fence and then carrying all the gear to the right spot and getting set up before confronted, all very very well planned and executed.

I'm also aware that the usual indymedia disinfo troll has taken an interest in this thread and I don't want to add to the criticism of Plane Stupid or this action because when all is said and done, it was a very cool action. But, there are a couple of things I do want to raise and one of them is the appallingly diversive bullshit spouted by some of the Plane Stupid activists to the press today. These include bullshit irrelevant carp about how these protesters arn't your usual activist types, but rather well educated and intelligent young people. I'm sorry but that's not just nonsense but arrogant, patronising shit and guaranteed to further the bad reputation Plane Stupid has for being upper middle class twats.

Finally, I have to admit that while I think the action was great and totally respect those that pulled it off, I'll not stop flying quite yet. I'm pleased people are out there doing some real actions with a passion but I don't buy the aviation thing. This last year has shown that the economy simply will not sustain flying at the levels the government forecasted and which the likes of Plane Stupid base their campaigns. Over 30 aviation companies have gone bankrupt this year, aircraft manufactures are laying off staff, carriers cutting flights and struggling to fill seats. This might all prove to be a temporary glitch if the recession is short lived but how likely is that? As it stands, aviation is far from being the biggest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and probably no longer the fastest growing either thanks to the recession.

Strategically I doubt there is much to be gained from Plane Stupids campaigns although I'd be the first to admit that there is little evidence of long term strategic thinking taking place anywhere in 'the movement'. So, that said, any action is better than no action and Standsted was a really inspiring action and we need our victories wherever we can find them.

All those people who take flights are slowly but surely destroying the planet. Yes we might piss off many people who travel by plane but the alternative is far, far, far worse, the total destruction of all life on earth!

Wake up to the reality of climate change it really is a life or death issue for all of us!

In my experience, people who use "working class" in their arguments are usually trying to disrupt things - hoping to make people feel guilty about where they were born to cower them into inaction.

That's, for instance, the same tactic used by the Church (making people fee guilty about something they can't help - thinking about sex - in order to have them under control), or political parties such as the SWP ("you're bad coz you were born in the wrong neighborhood - now come and sell our papers to atone for your sins").

It is arrogant of people to think that those who carried out this action didn't think things through properly. They knew there would be a lot of criticism of this kind - and still decided that this was the right thing to do. When people die by the million because of climate change, people will look back and say "why didn't you do anything when you could ?".

Well, some people are trying - they are trying to do something, to show the way, to have an impact. No action is perfect, and no individual action will have measurable results. It's silly to try and evaluate the exact impact of a single action - "did they really save some Co2 emissions???" is the most stupid comment. This action is part of a movement, a drop of water - hopefully an empowering one that will bring more people to action.

I don't care whether people are reformist or revolutionary ; whehter they're anarchists or left wing liberals. What matters is what people are doing - and those people here did a fantastic action. I'll have that any day over a politically right-on armchair (in)activist.

All those people who use computer technology are slowly but surely destroying the planet. Yes we might piss off many people who use the internet but the alternative is far, far, far worse, the total destruction of all life on earth!

Wake up to the reality of climate change it really is a life or death issue for all of us! Stop using the Internet!

Ok, so perhaps not the best example but hopefully you get the point. There are many many things we do each day as individuals that are slowly but surely destroying the planet and at a simplistic level you can say that if we stop doing those things individually then we remove that element of destroying the planet. Unfortunately it doesn't always work like that in reality.

If I choose not to buy a new computer, I've not really effected demand that much and the computer I might have purchased is still made and bought by somebody else. If many more of us don't buy that computer then perhaps demand is reduced but the supply at this stage remains the same so prices drop and people who hadn't been planning to buy a computer may now do so. Prices drop until demand matches supply or until no further cost cutting by the manufactures and distributors is possible at which point they might reduce the supply. Other companies however might be better placed to cut corners and steal some of the market share, or more innovative in building some other new gadgets that people will want to buy, perhaps something that targets the market provided by people that don't want to buy a whole new computer because of their concerns over the environment.

When as a single individual we choose to stop flying, the seat is still there perhaps even a little cheaper than before. Without a mass shift in consciousness there is always somebody else to take that seat. Now however, things are changing and not because of increased environmental concern but because of economics. The cost of providing flights went up massively over the last year with the cost of fuel. The costs have dropped again now as fuel is dirt cheap but people disposable income has evaporated (hense the drop in fuel prices) so much fewer people can afford to fly. When these people chose not to fly, they are not as simply replaced by another person. It's almost like a mass shift in consciousness but in this case cause by everyone tightening their belts in fear and uncertainty around the current economic situation. The airlines can try to get prices to keep people flying but they have only so much scope for that as in the budget sector at least they have been operating on very low margins already. Their other option is to cut services and that's what many, including Ryan Air, have been doing.

As pointed out elsewhere, loads of airline companies have gone bust this year and more are likely to follow next year. The economics are such that the only section of the aviation market that is not shrinking massively is the private jet and business class, and even there they've taken a battering.

None of this is due to people thinking 'I'm slowly but surely destroying the planet by flying', it's just due to an economic situation that is not going away any time soon. So how much sense does it make to target individuals on this point rather than something bigger picture, something we all do and have to do every day regardless of the recession, like heat our homes or buy and cook food for example.

Whatever we target, we either have to achieve a bottom up mass changes in consciousness or top down imposed restrictions through legislation, planning control and/or taxes. For aviation, if you think the the recession is simply going to lift and allow business as usual for the aviation industry then targeting the legislators to impose limits on aviation expansion would appear to be much more useful than trying to change individuals. If however you think the recession is pretty much here to stay then perhaps aviation isn't the thing to be targeting at all in the goal to save the planet from destruction.

I expected to get some lame comments on here about the action (both for and against) and haven't been suprised.

Constructive criticism is essential for evolving radical and effective actions, so anyone carping on about 'armchair activists' and how dare they criticise anybody taking any action is just doing nothing but showing themselves up to be slightly politically naive.

The comment that provoked me to respond again (and illustrated a point I made earlier) is the idea a few posts up by Plane Stupid is that 'everybody who flies is killing the planet' (or something similar. Yes, technically correct, but where does that leave us with regards to targetting stuff? Does it mean that everybody who flies is equally responsible for climate change? The poor family who take one flight a year on holiday, and the CEO of a multinational who owns a personal jet and flies everyday? Talking about class is important, not (as some idiot said above) to make people feel guilty, but to look at who is actually responsible for the fucking over of the planet. Who profits and actively resists change towards an ecologically sound future? Ar these the people that we should be hitting, not individual flyers on cheap flights...

(Although I do have some sympathy with the thought that this is so bad, and so urgently pressing that, well, fuck it. As someone said above, yeah 'someone missed a funeral, but CC cause a lot of funerals'. Why didn't this eloquent view come across when Plane Stupid people were intereviewd on TV and radio?)

And if not, why do people insist on making it a moral and righteous dichotomy so much like holier than thou vegans do?

Again, a great action, worthwhile, and well planned. But there are some concerns about the political views expressed around it, and the strategy that it exposes.

Please don't bother posting unless it's useful thoughts.

Writing off somebody's efforts on the basis that they either come across as middle class twats, or because of their supposed middle class background, is just divisive nonsense. However, critiquing an action on the basis of lack of class analysis, that's potentially a different matter.

So many times comments on indymedia just throw the term 'middle class' around as an insult and those doing it are no less bigoted and prejudicial than somebody using the terms jew, nigger or queer.

Indymedia editorial guidelines state that posts using discriminatory language may be hidden and I think there is a strong argument that those which hurl the term 'middle class' as a form of personal attack should be hidden. Then perhaps people will move towards some real constructive analysis instead of just slagging people off for having been born one thing and not another.

" Joss Garman, 23, the grandson of a pilot, who founded Plane Stupid, said that yesterday’s protesters were “not the sort of people who usually go in for activist stuff”, adding that they were “educated, scientifically literate, passionate and eloquent”. "

T and G also support airport expansion according to FlyingMatters
 http://www.flyingmatters.co.uk/site/uk/about

yeh the truth though is there is a big massive class split here and on related matters. ( BTW I don't really see T and G and for the workers..)

 http://www.opendemocracy.net/blog/ourkingdom-theme/paul-kingsnorth-1/2008/11/04/the-ugly-economics-of-immigration

not quite the whole picture, but some complex issues - shall I expect the usual braindead troll response

Brilliant action! Well done to all involved, you were really fucking brave and you did it. :)

While I feel bad for those whose holidays were disrupted, this action comes at a crucial time when the government is considering expanding Stansted and Heathrow - nothing else has worked so far and this shows we won't put up with it. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Lets get this straight, if its a matter of targeting a poor person going on holiday or a CEO on a business trip, its the holiday we should be targeting. We NEED CEOs to do business if we are to keep our economy going. These are the guys who create the jobs that we all need, and if creating these jobs requires a few flights to New York then so be it. Everyone likes a holiday but they are not vital, and cutting back on the poor who take their one holiday a year, since there are a lot of them, will make a huge contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Foreign holidays are a privilege not a right. If the poor insist of having one, they should save, work longer hours, or work harder in education and get a better job; failing that they can holiday in Blackpool. CEOs need to fly to conduct business across borders - they really have no other choice if they are to build a successful business.

This is the reason why the poor pay tax on their holidays, but people don't pay tax on business trips. The latter is vital, the former is not. This protest was right to target cheap holidays, not CEOs. The people posting above need to realise this, and then the green movement can actually focus on tackling climate change rather than enacting a communist revolution.

UNITE (T&G Section) and the TUC are on the above list of supporters of airport expansion. They both claim to speak for the workers and many workers are members of these organisations. They both have leaders and these leaders are influential members of the Labour party. When you talk to workers directly you tend to find that many of us don't share the politics of those who claim to represent us. I asked a UNITE (T&G Section) picket in Sipson what he thought about airport expansion. He responded "They want to knock down this town. Anyone would be against it, wouldn't they?"
Campaigners often try to appear "middle class" and "non-violent" because this leads to lower levels of police repression and to more favourable coverage in the corporate media. This feeds the police's political agenda because is alienates most people and keeps the movements small and controllable.
There are two classes; the Employers and the Workers; the Employers are not about to save the planet. "Middle class" political sentiment ignores the reality of most peoples lives.

The slogans on the back of the fluros isn't very direct action really, asking someone else to do something...! Shame, 'cos otherwise great action in many ways.

Class analysis yes; class bullshit comments no - from being involved in a project working in a poor area, we found that people who lived there actually didn't fly. From that, it's shades of middle class that are flying. Of course there will be inconvenience and sad stories, but each time someone chooses to fly it's killing people in other parts of the world, who are much more 'traditionally working class' than pretty much all in the UK! I don't mean that each person flying is an evil wrong-doer, but what they are doing, how they are behaving, the choices they make are contributing to 150,000 dying annually. It is those flights, those fliers that are inconveniencing, punishing, others. Even if actions like these entrench most flyers, we still have to throw down the gauntlet before it's too late, and challenge our behaviour.

It's these hard choices we have to make (ie not to fly) now.

I agree with Jon, but it's all these things we have to be doing, not lagging vs flying.

If my two cents is right that the PS spokespeople were saying that "these protesters aren't your usual activist types, but rather well educated and intelligent young people" then that's bullshit. I read an article (in the Guardian maybe?) at the time the coal train was stopped, and that was someone saying it's not like in the 90s when people were against everything, when they weren't well educated and focussing on one issue in sophisticated fashion. Well excuse me, it's still possible to join the dots and campaign on one issue, whilst seeing it as a systemic problem that needs to be challenged - true then, true now.

However, my two cents, you're just making excuses to keep flying yourself. If a sector is not the biggest evil, doesn't mean it's not wrong and should be stopped. It's better to try and get people to stop flying than stop heating their houses! And as for lack of strategic thinking, you must be hanging out with the wrong people.

Matt talks about not targetting business people but instead targetting holidaymakers - well, both! You've swallowed Thatcher's trickle down effect bullshit whole - that the CEOs create jobs and money for us down here...hmm, heard of non-hierarchical working? And the CEOs don't have a choice for a successful business - you're either trying to provoke, or you type before you think!

I do hope PS will think seriously about some of the comments above, particularly by my two cents.

Emphasising and revelling in their exclusionary class base, as PS do, turns people off and makes them rather narrow, cliquey and difficult to work with. Some of their actions have been inspiring and very effective in propaganda terms, and I take no credit away from them for that.

BUT....PS and their ilk do not have a monopoly on intelligence and their scientific literacy is sometimes less than impressive.* Those who, unlike them, were schooled to be factory fodder are not thick and have insights and understanding which they often lack and seem unwilling to learn from.

I'm not slagging PS off, but I am suggesting they try cultivate a bit more self-awareness and reflect on the sometimes cringe-inducing or alienating way they come across, how it detracts from what they do and makes it seem like a mere caper by bumptious, privileged youth. The issues are far too serious to be diluted or sectionalised like that. More awareness of a wider world, of the realities and problems other people -most people- face, would help.

The future of the planet and all its species (including us) cannot be addressed effectively from a mono-cultural ghetto. Like it or not, we're all in this together, so pissing people off by telling us you're some sort of golden youth at whose ultra-cleverness we should all be awed is counter-productive. Natural resentment at your arrogance gets -wrongly but understandably- transferred to your argument. There are enough crappy excuses for people to bury their heads in the sand and carry on as before, without stirring this sort of class provocation into the mix.


------------------------------------

* For example, PS people usually also subscribe to the "No New Coal" slogan, apparently blithely unaware that bikes, wind gennies and solar panels are either coal-based artefacts or oil-based when local coal would be a more sustainable alternative. Thus, the case against the vandalism of burning coal for electricity generation is made to look ridiculous, when it is certainly not.

I do hope PS will think seriously about some of the comments above, particularly by my two cents.

Emphasising and revelling in their exclusionary class base, as PS do, turns people off and makes them rather narrow, cliquey and difficult to work with. Some of their actions have been inspiring and very effective in propaganda terms, and I take no credit away from them for that.

BUT....PS and their ilk do not have a monopoly on intelligence and their scientific literacy is sometimes less than impressive.* Those who, unlike them, were schooled to be factory fodder are not thick and have insights and understanding which they often lack and seem unwilling to learn from.

I'm not slagging PS off, but I am suggesting they try cultivate a bit more self-awareness and reflect on the sometimes cringe-inducing or alienating way they come across, how it detracts from what they do and makes it seem like a mere caper by bumptious, privileged youth. The issues are far too serious to be diluted or sectionalised like that. More awareness of a wider world, of the realities and problems other people -most people- face, would help.

The future of the planet and all its species (including us) cannot be addressed effectively from a mono-cultural ghetto. Like it or not, we're all in this together, so pissing people off by telling us you're some sort of golden youth at whose ultra-cleverness we should all be awed is counter-productive. Natural resentment at your arrogance gets -wrongly but understandably- transferred to your argument. There are enough crappy excuses for people to bury their heads in the sand and carry on as before, without stirring this sort of class provocation into the mix.


------------------------------------

* For example, PS people usually also subscribe to the "No New Coal" slogan, apparently blithely unaware that bikes, wind gennies and solar panels are either coal-based artefacts or oil-based when local coal would be a more sustainable alternative. Thus, the case against the vandalism of burning coal for electricity generation is made to look ridiculous, when it is certainly not.

"Stroppy old git" objects the the slogan "no new coal" on the basis that coal is used for environmentally appropriate technologies. Coal is a mineral so all coal is old. The slogan opposes the proposed new coal industry projects; filthy big power stations and huge, devastating open cast mines.
These are usefully mapped on Coal in the UK.
Sorry for responding to "Stroppy old git"'s digression. Solidarity to Plane Stupid and all workers in struggle!