I support Marcus.

Yesterday the climate change camp insisted they would not be going on to runways - a sensible stand to take.
Marcus and the others were on a live runway without the slightest need to be. This runway is the emergency landing strip for all transatlantic flights, as they knew in advance, as well as a military flight test runway. TP had been shown other routes to the aircraft. Five years ago TP would have not defined this as NVDA. So have TP given up on non-violence or have they just redefined it to suit themselves ?

Is that the "inside information" you were touting to journalists / the State on another thread?

I've waited until after the last of the trials to even mention the hypocracy of the TP action last year to anyone outside of TP.

What I'd feel free to point out is that TPs current spokesperson admitted on IM beating up a girl, and that violence was tolerated by TP members as 'fair enough'.

But stick to the point Richard, how does TP justify risking other peoples lives on what they call a NVDA ?

My name isn't Richard.

As a long time TP member, I'd like to see the hard, factual and verifiable evidence for the claims you have made, Danny.

Put up or shut up.

Yeah, since my family have been harrased and threatened by a Glawegian TPer called Richard who posts here under false names - and admits that and worse - excuse my mistake. I'm sure you know that though.

Care to answer the question then ? Why have TP thrown away ther pose of NVDA over this action by crossing a live runway unnecessarily and after they'd been warned not to ? I mean, are you even a TPer 'Glaswegian' and if so why are you ashamed to post under your own name and address that issue ?

"As a long time TP member, I'd like to see the hard, factual and verifiable evidence for the claims you have made, Danny."

Are you seriously denying the TPers crossed that runway after being warned not to ?


"The UK’s nuclear weapon system (both the current Trident and the planned successor) is illegal, dangerous, a menace to the environment, a terrible waste of resources, and utterly immoral. It is not a defensive system - it poses an active threat. Although I recognise that there are many valid ways to respond to Trident, and to the systems which support it, I believe that resistance through non-violent direct action is necessary. I am committed to taking part in non-violent direct action against Trident, or providing support to those who do, and to doing so peacefully, openly, safely and accountably."


Fine words. Now, ignoring the fact the Prestwick had nothing to do with Trident, and that no TP actions were reported against Trident for three years now, focus on the last sentence, especially that one word "safely". The Prestwick action was carried out unsafely. It was unsafe for the participants, which I feel is acceptable if the participants understand the risk although most of them seemed to be unwarned by the ringleaders who had been warned more than once. It was also unsafe for other unrelated people which is never acceptable in NVDA - according to TP themselves previously. How many of the participants realised at the time - or even now for that matter - of the nature of Prestwick airport. I can name three.

It wasn't necessary to cross the runway to get to the planes. Aerial photographs, maps and safe entry routes were provided to TP in advance.
So, do you want to argue that it was in fact safe to cross the runway ? The airport is where all flights are directed to in an emergency on the European side of the mid-atlantic. It is also a military airport where test flights of planes too dangerous to test elsewhere land. Heavily armed aircraft can land there at any time - the one airport in the UK that is both military and civilian use. It is also where coastguard flights have to be able to land and takeoff with no notice. It is in fact a much more dangerous runway to cross than Heathrow or in fact any other European airport, military or civilian. This information was spelled out to the TPers in advance, which is why alternative safe routes to the aircraft were both provided and demonstrated.

No one can outrun a jetliner. Richard certainly can't since he tripped on the tarmac and was left there by the others. Crossing a runway is a dangerous procedure that requires training and should only be undertaken with the knowledge of ATC. Say a 747 had to make an emergency landing when Richard was lying flat on his face there - what would the pilot do when he saw a fat git in a fluourescent jacket sprawled all over the runway ? There is no way of telling what he would do. Crossing a busy motorway with your shoelaces tied together is a far safer action both for yourself and others.

And what was to gain from such an action ? Well, the bomb flights had stopped two weeks previously when the TPers were still posing for Herald photographers, admittedly you couldn't have known that at the time. Crossing the runway certainly saved two minutes off your time to reach the planes you boarded from the route you took, although you could just have skirted around it. You could have taken a far more direct route but that would have meant climbing a fence and risking cutting yourself on barbed wire. That is cowardly and lazy and vainglorious.

So, apart from getting your names in the paper, what did you achieve by risking other peoples lives unnecessarily ? You never damaged the planes you boarded as you feared prosecution, you never even vandalised them, you never even tried to photgraph them and escape. It was a shameless piece of irrelevant self-promotion that risked the lives of innocents, and it makes a mockery of TPs previous 'holier-than-thou' stance on NVDA. It's time for TP to call it a day when they can't even follow their own platitudes.

Now I could add a hell of a lot more about this action in particular and these people here, not to grass them out - though don't claim to be anarchists or working class activists I'd still hate to grass them up on what has happened since.

So everyone got off except poor Marcus? Congratulations to all who participated in the action for their extreme bravery and deep sense of morality. Our thoughts and prayers are with you and your family, Marcus. I had the pleasure of walking with Marcus during the recently-completed Footprints for Peace 900-mile walk from Dublin to London for a nuclear-free future (  http://footprintsforpeace.tripod.com/index.htm ).

Sorry Danny, but many of the claimed facts in your posts just aren't true, in particular your claims that the action was wilfully dangerous are just not true. To deal with things in the order you posted them:

"I've waited until after the last of the trials" No, you haven't. There's still one group of trials to come in October.

"that TPs current spokesperson admitted on IM beating up a girl, and that violence was tolerated by TP members as 'fair enough'." This is simply not true. I don't know who you're referring to, but I do know who the people are who have acted as spokespeople/media contacts for TP recently (I am one of them) and none of them even use IM much! And certainly TP members wouldn't have tolerated violence as described.

"Are you seriously denying the TPers crossed that runway after being warned not to ?" Yes. I am. I was at the TP Camp last year from which the actions happened, I've been in court for all of both trials so far, and I have talked to all the participants in all three actions. Who warned who when? And who ignored it?

"This information was spelled out to the TPers in advance, which is why alternative safe routes to the aircraft were both provided and demonstrated." Really? I was at camp last year when the actions happened and, as described above, have been involved in supporting the defendants since. No-one provided or demonstrated any routes which were ignored. Yes, safety issues around going in to an airport were considered and people were careful. None of the several airport employees called as witnesses in either of the cases so far has made any allegation of endangering aircraft.

"the bomb flights had stopped two weeks previously when the TPers were still posing for Herald photographers". Firstly, I don't remember a Herald photographer being there two weeks before the action. Given the camp only started a week before I somewhat doubt it. Secondly, we have no information, even now, to know when the bomb flights stopped. There were some reports, on July 29 last year, that the bomb flights wouldn't be using Prestwick anymore but there were other reports at the same time that they could as long as the paperwork was right. The Government was very careful not to confirm that the flights wouldn't use Prestwick anymore and there were also reports that information about such flights was subject to a news blackout. On what are you basing the claim they had stopped?

It's true people didn't damage planes --- the idea here was to gather information and then the present it publically in a way which forced the authorities to act. We do know (suspected at the time and confirmed last week in court) that US military flights which had been planning to land at Prestwick didn't do so as a direct result of these actions. In fact, the US military advised it's pilots not to use Prestwick for three months while they reviewed security there.

I know you have a personal issue with one person who was involved in this action. I don't see why this means you have to smear him, and everyone else involved, in this way. Your understanding of the actions and their context is severely factually incorrect.

I'm sorry, I don't usually reply to this sort of message but I wanted to set the record straight.

It was an excellent action. I have disagreements on both legal and moral grounds with the verdict and the reasoning behind it. I think Marcus did a really good job of putting forward the issues in this case in court. If there were more people like him, the world would be a much better place.

I didn't realise there was one more trial. If you want, because of that, I can have this converstation here after that. I can also prove everything I've said at this point. However everything else I said above is true and it is you who should check your facts before you accuse people of smears.

Aw, fuck it. I owe you nothing. None of this can be used in evidence against you in court anyway whih is why I paused earlier. Maybe it's not to late for some of you to examine your motives and tactics. Maybe it's just in time to save the Climate Change Camp from making the same mistake.

>Sorry Danny, but many of the claimed facts in your posts just aren't true, in particular your claims that the action was wilfully dangerous are just not true.

Yes, it was willfully and needlessly dangerous. Your group was warned not to cross that runway and it was explained why in detail. Your group had previously stated it would not cross any runway. You lied about that and crossed the runway for no reason except convenience.


>This is simply not true. I don't know who you're referring to, but I do know who the people are who have acted as spokespeople/media contacts for TP recently (I am one of them) and none of them even use IM much!

Richard does, he claims since day one. He is posting TP stuff here under the name Slartibartfast while claiming to be 'part of the luminous thrid wave at Prestwick Airport'. He is better known here as MI5. The guy who argued for compulsary CCTV in every home. Maybe you should read IM more often.

>And certainly TP members wouldn't have tolerated violence as described.

Richard attacked a teenage girl who was taunting him in the company of other TPers, who saw his attack on someone half his age and size as acceptable given he'd been verbally provoked. He admitted that here, while trying to excuse it. And the Peaton Glen Woods people said that was fair enough, minimising it to their own advantage. Defend that Adam, or deny it.

>Who warned who when? And who ignored it?

I was doing the warning since I have some expertise in this matter - seemingly your whole ignorant group chose to ignore that.

There was a discussion at TP camp in 02 on how to close down Shannon Airport. I warned everyone present - which included several of the people charged for Prestwick - not to stray onto the runway, and that was agreed without question. So what changed ?

Before the Prestwick actions I was there with the socialist demonstrators when none of you were even thinking about the issue. Again, I can prove this simply from IM links.

"This information was spelled out to the TPers in advance, which is why alternative safe routes to the aircraft were both provided and demonstrated."
>Really? I was at camp last year when the actions happened and, as described above, have been involved in supporting the defendants since. No-one provided or demonstrated any routes which were ignored.

I provided them to the Belgian who poses as a childrens cartoon character - he calls himself Pooh but I think 'The Child Catcher' is more appropriate. I also demonstarted one of the routes to that group before you ever visited Prestwick.

>Yes, safety issues around going in to an airport were considered and people were careful.

Going into an airport is safe. Going across any runway - and that runway in particular - can never be described as 'being careful' especially when there was no need to. It was shamefully and knowingly disregarding other peoples safety. It was not NVDA. Would you care to stick to that point ?

>None of the several airport employees called as witnesses in either of the cases so far has made any allegation of endangering aircraft.

None of you lot admitted to them crossing the runway. I think it is personally shameful to you that you hide behind that at this point.

>Firstly, I don't remember a Herald photographer being there two weeks before the action. Given the camp only started a week before I somewhat doubt it.

Given you weren't there two weeks before the action then expressing an opinion on the matter is symptomatic of the inaccuracies in your reply and your general understanding of the universe - you express damning opinion without relation to fact. You imply the camp is only there for a fortnight when it is in fact a permanent fixture constantly occupied. FYI the Herald visited and photographed it before the camp.

>Secondly, we have no information, even now, to know when the bomb flights stopped. There were some reports, on July 29 last year, that the bomb flights wouldn't be using Prestwick anymore but there were other reports at the same time that they could as long as the paperwork was right. The Government was very careful not to confirm that the flights wouldn't use Prestwick anymore and there were also reports that information about such flights was subject to a news blackout. On what are you basing the claim they had stopped?

I am basing that on US and Israeli reports that the consignment had already been recieved in full. And the fact that the war stopped before your camp ended. And certain inside information I wouoldn't trust someone of your intellect and moral standing with. These things are unknowable.

>It's true people didn't damage planes --- the idea here was to gather information and then the present it publically in a way which forced the authorities to act. We do know (suspected at the time and confirmed last week in court) that US military flights which had been planning to land at Prestwick didn't do so as a direct result of these actions. In fact, the US military advised it's pilots not to use Prestwick for three months while they reviewed security there.

Yes, they rerouted to other British airports and you did nothing to stop that.

>I know you have a personal issue with one person who was involved in this action.

I have a personal issue with everyone involved in this hypocritical action. The whole of TP. The fact one of you threatened my family and had them taken in for police questioning on false premises since then hardly endears me to them - or you.

>I don't see why this means you have to smear him, and everyone else involved, in this way. Your understanding of the actions and their context is severely factually incorrect.

I was there before you were you moronic liar. I know more about the airport and the actions and the lead up than you do.

>I'm sorry, I don't usually reply to this sort of message but I wanted to set the record straight.

My hero. An Attica Finch for the 21st century.

>It was an excellent action.

It was a pathetic and dangerous action, certainly not NVDA by your own pious standards.

>I have disagreements on both legal and moral grounds with the verdict and the reasoning behind it.

You people are a menace to yourselves and others. If I had the slightest respect for the law the people who risked innocents at Prestwick by crossing runways unnecessarily would be behind bars for the protection of the general public. You could have done the same action without risking others. You had been told the risks. You chose to ignore them for no good reason.

It is arguable that NVDA is not the best tactic in all situations. TP argue that constantly but yet they boast when they break their own guidelines. I don't think Marcus will be one bit the wiser after his 28 days. I don't think TP should be imprisoned, but I know that are not to be trusted.

Danny, I can see two effects of your posts here:

1. undermine support for someone who's got the jail for a courageous anti-militarist action
2. propagate (in a deniable way) the idea that Climate Camp-ers are thinking of invading the runways at Heathrow.

In both cases, you're being very helpful to people you might not want to be helpful to.

Personal disputes and political disagreements with a group should be taken up with that group directly, rarely in public and never in a way that seems to deliberately undermine them unless they really deserve it. Do you have an issue with the guy in jail? If not, why undermine support for him?

Climate Camp people said *months* ago that they weren't going near the runways. The media pressure they've been put under has led to them having to repeat this over & again, to the detriment of communicating about the issues.
For you to treat this as some kind of live issue that needs your wise intervention plays into the hands of that negative media campaign.

I'm saying nothing about your motives, but your methods leave a lot to be desired.

"Yesterday the climate change camp insisted they would not be going on to runways - a sensible stand to take." - Danny

"Danny, I can see two effects of your posts here:
1. undermine support for someone who's got the jail for a courageous anti-militarist action
2. propagate (in a deniable way) the idea that Climate Camp-ers are thinking of invading the runways at Heathrow. "

At no point have I said the Climate Campers have considered invading thre runways. And as long as cowardly cretins like Marcus stay away then there should no risk of that. I applaud the CCers for their moral stand when hypocrites like TP have been willing to risk innocent lives to make the papers.

Still, Glaswegian, you accuse me of duplicity falsley and hide behind a false name. And yet you accuse me of dual-posting. If you are are TP and sure of what you are arguing, why not use your true name ?

So much for accountable.

Danny, kindly present the evidence that I, as a long time TP member, asked for previously, please.

As it is, you have what looks like a personal agenda against Marcus Armstrong and against TP as an organisation and you haven't as of yet presented any hard, verifiable and checkable evidence despite a request to do so.

You also seem happy to sprinkle your replies with personal abuse and insults, rather than presenting a reasonable and objective case for what you allege. Until you present me with the evidence I asked for I won't feel obliged to take you in any way seriously.

I'm not a TP pledger and you aren't a nuclear base.

What you appear to be is someone who flies off the handle, doesn't read posts before replying, bears grudges, is involved in a long-running feud, touts information to the state and journalists, jumps to conclusions unsupported by facts and has no problem repeating misinformation.

I have no interest in making myself accountable to you, or to give you a name that you can build a paranoid fantasy around.

What evidence are you asking for ? Are you asking for proof that the runway was crossed ? I can forward emails where participants who have already been cleared admit that.

Are you asking for proof that I gave safe entry routes to the TPers to avoid them having to cross the runway ? I can do that too simply by trawling through the archive here and again by providing personal emails. I feel however that the full story of that action would be a more 'reasonable and objective case' for you but you can get that from the TPers involved as readily as from me.

It seems odd that you'd dispute either of these facts though so I am unsure exactly what you wish me to furnish you with, please spell it out clearly. What do you want me to prove that I have stated ?

As to having a personal grudge against Marcus, I'm afraid you misread me. I've met him only in passing and admire his previous principled actions. Everyone who took part in the Prestwick actions was in the wrong though for the reasons I have spelled out. Crossing runways with no need is not NVDA - can you agree with that statement ? Because TP can't, and that is hypocritical and potentially fatal.

As to being insulting, look not just at my posts but at 'Glaswegian's and realise there is a lot going on behind the scenes that you are probably unaware of. I don't mind that you doubt me, at least you give a name. You haven't claimed that my posts here are a duplicitious attempt to smear the Climate Change camp - and yet you haven't commented on that smear.

Odd how 'Glaswegian' - who fo course isn't Richard, that would be paranoid of me to suggest that, won't reveal their name, but on the same day Richard appears on IM misrepresenting me on another thread (  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/08/378176.html ) . And just hours after the nuisance phone calls to my parents house started up again after months of merely smearing me anonymously behind the scenes. Richard is a disgrace to his race not just to TP. Some of you - those of you who know me especially - should hang your heads in shame for believing his lies for a second and letting him represent you here. Let us not be distracted here though. Ignore Richard and what I have endured since meeting him, or my interpretation of his motives. Ignore all that.

ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION.

Do TP condemn crossing runways needlessly ? Or do TP deny they did that ?