|
|
| Newsletter | November 2001 |
Since the beginning of the 1970s, the world has become increasingly aware of the importance of environmental issues and of their influence on people's lives. Our Court's case-law has, moreover, not been alone in developing along those lines. For example, Article 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 18 December 2000 is devoted to the protection of the environment. -- Judge Jean-Paul Costa, President
A small group of residents has taken on the UK government and won. -- John Stewart, Hacan
The ruling has opened the way for residents' groups across Europe to challenge night flying. -- John Stewart, Hacan
This is wonderful news. This has been a very long fight and it is a step in the right direction. -- Jenny Tonge
Local residents, backed by HACAN ClearSkies, have won a decisive victory in the European Court of Human Rights. They were forced to go to Strasbourg as at the time they started their case the UK Human Rights Act had not come into force. The eight individual petitioners won £4,000 each in damages and £70,000 costs. The court agreed that their basic human right to a good night's sleep had been infringed, and the government's counter argument of the economic value of night flying at Heathrow carried no weight. [Hatton and Others v the United Kingdon, case 36022/97]
The court held that two rights had been violated:
The loss of sleep caused by night flights at Heathrow (around 16 per night) was held to be a violation of Article 8. The state is required to seek a fair balance between the rights of the individual and the community as a whole. The mere reference to the economic well-being of the country was not sufficient to outweigh the rights of others. The Court observed that whilst at the very least night flights may make some contribution to economic well-being, the importance had never been assessed critically by either the government or independent research.
The Heathrow case has implications across Europe as it may put a stop to night flying. In Farnborough the case has two important implications:
TAG have been carrying out work at night in clear breach of the section 106 agreement between TAG and Rushmoor. It would now appear that the human rights of local residents to a good night's sleep has been breached.
Last year when TAG was granted outline planning permission the economic benefits (which have never been established) were seen to outweigh (at least in the eyes of the planners) any disbenefits to local residents, including the right to quiet enjoyment of one's property and the right to life. The PSZ was allowed to extend over residential Farnborough as to do otherwise would be to the economic disadvantage of TAG (contrary to the planning inspector who recommended the 1 in 100,000 risk contour should be retained within the airfield boundary to safeguard the local community).
The Heathrow case was brought by Richard Buxton, a Cambridge-based public and environmental law firm. Richard Buxton have been retained by a Farnborough resident to apply for a judicial review of Rushmoor and its handling of the TAG planning application. Papers have been filed in the High Court in London for leave to seek a judicial review.
[BVEJ news #0006 November 2000]
The long awaited Michael Jackson CD is out. The pre-release copies to radio stations have the contents table filled with incorrect data to ensure unplayable on a computer, they will play in an audio CD player, but not in the CD drive of a PC or Mac. If the same flawed product goes on sale demand your money back as it does not comply with the CD standard and is thus faulty goods. If Jackson gets away with it others will follow. If you want to rip any of these flawed CDs it is easy if your audio CD player has a digital output - feed the digital output into the back of the sound card.
Star Trek fans have been taking samples of their favourite series then joining these together to make new plots, then putting out on their web sites. The production company is not amused and has been shutting down the web sites.
Citibank is offering an internet banking consolidation service. Let one site have access to all your account details and you then only need to access one site with one set of userID and password. Citibank claim absolute security but won't put their money where their mouth is. It only takes one hacker to access the one site. Curiously the FSA will not regulate this area. Anyone dumb enough to use this service should remember that their own bank will not cover any losses as the users have passed their account access details to a third party.
The aviation industry has always claimed it is a dynamic profitable industry, one only has to look at some of the crap put out by TAG Aviation to get the picture. The events post 11 September 2001 have shown the true picture - a loss making industry that was held together by a wing and a prayer. Towards the end of September British Airways was worth less than Ryanair, by early October Swissair was bankrupt in all but name, Sabena was a lame duck propped up by the Belgium government, KLM was in difficulty. The previous claims to excellence were exposed as froth and hot air, something we have been saying for months. To this one has to add all the hidden subsidies and favourable tax regimes.
Eventually the aviation industry will settle down at a much lower level of flying. As it then begins to recover and grow again, the artificial growth stimulated by all the tax exemptions and subsidies, it is then the time all the subsidises and favourable taxes should be phased out.
The Times, Daily Telegraph and FT have all griped at the Heathrow Human Rights ruling, unfair that a handful of people should be able to hold the aviation industry to ransom. Maybe they should read the full ruling. The European Court of Human Rights found there was no evidence to support that these night flights added to the economic well-being of the country, all the 'economic' evidence put forward came from the industry. The eight who petitioned the Court were only a representative sample of the tens of thousands who are affected every day by flying at Heathrow. Their health that suffers as a result of loss of sleep is a cost to the nation, their poor performance at work through loss of sleep is a loss to their employers. In finding on behalf of the eight, all the Court is asking is that the industry pays its externalised costs. With the sharp reduction in routes by all the major airlines there will be now no shortage of daytime slots. Apart from lack of daytime slots, the main reason for the night flights was for the convenience of long-haul flights, a convenience which was paid for in a high cost by those living beneath the flight path.
The part-privatisation of Nats that culminated in the sell-off to the airlines was to bring much needed capital investment into the air traffic control system, commercial considerations would not affect Nats. One of the first acts of the airlines after the 11 September meltdown was to put on indefinite ice the second air traffic control system at Prestwick. Prestwick was to compliment the cocked-up air traffic control system at Swanwick in Hampshire. The Swanwick system has never worked due to its bug-ridden software and poor contractual controls. It will be a brave person who flies under Swanwicks's control, we won't need terrorists, Swanwick will do the job for them.
It is misleading to regard international airports as being in competition with each other. Airports are best seen as providing collectively an infrastructure to enable international travel to take place. -- HACAN ClearSkies
A claim made by BAA (at their AGM and in their Annual Report) was that they were falling behind, they were losing their competitive edge, for that reason they needed Terminal 5. [BVEJ newsletter #0015 August 2001]
Does it matter? What if Heathrow is falling behind other airports, that they have more passengers. To those living below the flight path it would be a blessed relief.
Heathrow is not in competition with airports on the continent. Passengers don't fly to continental airports if they wish to visit London. There may be passengers who are forced to fly to London who in reality wish to visit other parts of the kingdom and would if they could get a direct flight. Many of the passenger numbers at continental airports are generated by passengers flying from or to London.
The underlying thrust of BAA's arguments that they are falling behind is itself not true. In terms of passenger numbers Heathrow is well ahead.
Heathrow 64 million Frankfurt 49 million Charles de Gaulle 48 million Amsterdam 40 million Madrid 33 million Gatwick 32 million Rome 30 million Orly 25 million Munich 23 million Zurich 23 million
Rather than considering Heathrow alone we should consider London and the airports serving London. There are five airports serving London (Heathrow Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, City of London), six if we count Farnborough.
Heathrow 64 million Gatwick 32 million Stansted 12 million Luton 6 million City of London 1 1/2 million
If we do the same for the continent, eg Charles de Gaulle and Orly serve Paris, we find London is way ahead. The skies over London and the South East are the busiest in the world.
London 112 million Chicago 87 million Tokyo 83 million Atlanta 80 million Paris 73 million Los Angeles 68 million Dallas 60 million New York 57 million Frankfurt 49 million San Francisco 41 million Houston 41 million Amsterdam 39 million
With the meltdown in the industry it is difficult to see there can now be any case for T5.
Are London's Airports Slipping, HACAN ClearSkies, August 2001
It is not often we find grounds to praise the government but the decision to force Railtrack into bankruptcy and turn it into a not-for-profit company was a brilliant move.
Spot the difference. Railtrack is a privatised company, but it has to rely on state handouts running into billions of pounds. PPP and PFI is to inject money from the private sector into the state sector.
Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a Communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country. -- Hermann Goering
We read enough of the news to sense that our government is heading in the direction of violent revenge, with the prospect of sons, daughters, parents, friends in distant lands dying, suffering, and nursing further grievances against us. It is not the way to go...not in our son's name. -- parents of Greg Rodriguez, a young man who died in the World Trade Center
We already have the most draconian anti-terrorism laws compared to most of Europe and America that were renewed only months ago which is why the government is in some difficulty about what they can do. -- John Wadham, director of Liberty
America has created the evil that is attacking it. This evil will not disappear even if I die and Osama bin Laden dies and others die. The US should stop trying to impose its empire on the rest of the world. -- Mulah Omar, spiritual leader of the Taliban
Oh I thought you meant some band. The Taliban in Afghanistan! Absolutely Repressive. -- George W Bush, June 2000
We cannot know why the suicide bombers (or martyrs as the Islamic plotters would preferred to be called) downed the planes into the World Trade Center as the nature of a suicide mission is that the participants are not around to answer questions. Was the killing of several thousand people an end in itself or was it part of a bigger picture?
The US and the West had no choice than to strike back after the attacks on 11 September, to do less would have been seen as a sign of weakness and an invitation to further attacks, but in striking back may trigger the very situation we all wish to avoid. Going in after Osama bin Laden is accepted by most people as inevitable, taking out any nearby military backup a necessary evil, but the night after night bombing of Afghanistan which already lay in ruins has no sense or logic. One cannot bomb a country into democracy. It doesn't take much to plan and execute terrorist attacks. We can bomb Afghanistan back into the Stone Age and it was almost there before the bombing started, but all we do is kill innocent civilians and create a willing supply of martyrs - terrorist attacks can be planned from a cave, there is nothing like hardship to strengthen the resolve of a martyr.
Some mischief makers have tried to link the atrocities in New York with anti-globalisation protesters. They are not linked in this way, but at the same time we would not wish to delink the two. Mayday in London the police were rumoured to be armed then backed down, at Gothenburg the authorities showed a willingness to use live ammunition, in Genoa the police used excessive brutality and one protester was shot dead, at the Labour Party conference in Brighton armed police were patrolling the streets. To deal with protest the authorities have chosen not to engage in dialogue but to turn to the tried and trusted methods of violence. These are the conditions that prevail in the Third World, the breeding ground for terrorism.
Post Cold War the intelligence services knew not what to do, they were desperate for a role to prevent shrinking budgets. One of the roles they undertook was to spy upon and agitate within democratic protest groups. Whilst their attention has been focused on soft targets, targets that are trying to enhance democratic accountability, the real enemies of democracy have been free to flourish. The Terrorism Act has a definition of terrorist so lax, or deliberately broad, that it encompasses al-Qaida and Greenpeace. Earlier this year FBI placed Reclaim the Streets and Carnival Against Capitalism on their list of terrorist organisations!
A time of crisis is when we should safeguard our civil rights as that is when they are most needed. Tony Blair and David Blunket are slobbering at the thought of suspending parts of the Human Rights Act and bringing in ever more draconian legislation.
The Middle East is run by undemocratic corrupt repressive regimes as we see with the Saudi Royal family, a family with close links to bin Laden. The source of funding for Islamic terrorism is opium poppies and oil. Where is the war against oil? Jimmy Carter introduced a crash programme of energy saving measures which were beginning to produce real results until shut down by Ronald Reagan. We should pull out of the Middle East, shut down the flow of oil and money, and let the Muslim fanatics return to their desert kingdoms in the Middle Ages if that is what they want. For too long the West has intervened to the detriment of both the West and the Islamic world.
An appalling political correctness is clouding the judgement of commentators. This is not a war of the West against Islam. Go to the Middle East where it is recognised, whether we like it or not, as a war of Islam versus the West. The first to collapse is likely to be Saudi Arabia when the oppressed masses rise up and impose an Islamic State. The rest of the Middle East would follow, followed by Turkey and Pakistan.
We are not at war with the people of Afghanistan. Is that why we are bombing the shit out of their country, carpeting the countryside with cluster bombs whose only use is to kill civilians? The war against Afghanistan must stop. The hunt for bin Laden has been lost sight of.
Why are we in Afghanistan at all? To revitalise an old plan of extracting the oil riches of the ex-Soviet Bloc counties to the north and piping through Afghanistan. This can only be done if we have a pro-Western government in Kabul.
One group at considerable risk to themselves are fighting the repressive Taliban and Northern Alliance, the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan. When did they last receive support from the West?
If you missed it then you really missed out. He is currently touring the country until early December. A show that must not be missed.
This legislation is, in effect, a protection of war criminals. - William Pace, Convenor of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court
While America tells the world to get behind its 'global war against terrorism' and support the bombing of Afghanistan, a law is being rushed through that will scupper attempts to set up an international criminal court - a court which would be the very body to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks on September 11th. The proposed law has the backing of Bush and has already been passed in the House of Representatives.
The Coalition for the International Criminal Court was formed in 1995 and is a network of over a thousand non-governmental organizations and international law experts from every corner of the world. It's pushing for the creation of a permanent and independent International Criminal Court (ICC) that 'will investigate and bring to justice individuals who commit war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.' 42 countries, including the UK, have signed the treaty which ICC Convenor William Pace, reckons 'will be a powerful international legal tool in the fight against global terrorism.' The US however doesn't want anything to do with it, complaining that' its power could be easily misused to make capricious arrests of American officials or military personnel abroad.' Because as everybody knows, the rest of the world commits war crimes but not the good ol' USA.
So using the current climate of patriotic hysteria Republican lunatic Senator Jesse Helms is pushing a bill of extreme anti-ICC legislation - The American Servicemembers' Protection Act. The Act aims to stop the convention getting the magic number of 60 countries signing up to it - which is how many signatures are needed to make the ICC international law.
Amongst the highlights the Act threatens to cut off military aid to countries that ratify the ICC treaty - apart from NATO, Israel and Egypt - hoping this economic blackmail will stop weaker countries signing up. These are often the countries which are backed by the US, have bad human rights records, and in some cases are the places where war crimes are being committed. The Act would mean that the US military would not take on any UN peacekeeping roles unless they were made exempt from ICC prosecution. It would prohibit US co-operation with ICC inspectors even in a case of international terrorism and give the American President 'all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release from captivity of US or allied personnel detained or imprisoned against their will by or on behalf of the Court, including military force.' This in theory could lead to the invasion and bombing of Holland, since the ICC will be based in The Hague! As Richard Dicker of Human Rights Watch points out 'the State Department has just endorsed a bill that authorizes an invasion of the Netherlands.' No wonder critics are calling it the Invade the Hague Act.
All this hasn't gone too well with America's allies. A European delegate at the United Nations said that legislation 'imposing military and legal reprisals is unprecedented and unacceptable.' While Richard Dicker,added 'This makes no sense. It hardly seems like a good moment for the U.S. to be threatening sanctions against dozens of countries simply because they want to bring to justice the perpetrators of crimes against humanity.'
Forget the talk about a war on terrorism, America wants to be the worlds judge, jury and executioner. As comedian and activist Mark Thomas points out 'In a sickening display of hypocrisy America is acting in its own narrow interests with typical double standards. Supporting terrorism is bad except when we do it, the rule of law is good except when it might be used against us, war crimes must be punished except if we commit them. Standing shoulder to shoulder? No chance! America's natural position is standing behind another country pointing a gun at its head.'
The anthrax crisis in the United States has thrown into sharp contrast the double standard world of the 'haves' and 'have-nots'.
In the wealthy corner we have America and Canada who last month threatened drugs manufacturer Bayer that unless it reduced the price of its anthrax antibiotic drug Cipro, it would change its laws, override Bayer's patent and get other companies to make cheap copies of the drug. Tommy Thompson, US Secretary of Health and Human Services, said 'They are going to either meet our price or else we're going to go to Congress and ask for some support to go in and do some other business.'
Not surprisingly Bayer caved in and will now sell America and Canada cheaper Cipro at the knock down wholesale price of 95c a pill - rather than the original $4.50. Cipro will still be making a small fortune here, even at the reduced price. Like most drugs, ciprofloxacin is cheap to produce: the generic version in India sells for about 3 cents per pill.
Bayer, who had initially threatened to sue the Canadian government for breach of patent, were one of the 39 corporations that took South Africa to court when the country said it would use emergency legislation to make cheap generic drugs to treat people with AIDS. The corporate court action collapsed after worldwide condemnation (SchNEWS 290, BVEJ news #0010 March 2001, BVEJ news #0011 April 2001, BVEJ news #0012 May 2001). The hypocrisy of America and Canada must be sickening for the developing world. For many years, the US has been acting as the pharmaceutical industry's policeman, threatening trade sanctions against any country that wanted to make cheap drugs for its population.
Only last month nearly sixty developing countries asked for a declaration to be agreed at next months World Trade Organisation (WTO) meeting in Qatar to re-interpret WTO rules to give governments the right to have access to affordable medicines. For example, AIDS medicine, which costs $20,000 with patents costs just $200 without. However, this declaration was blocked by Switzerland, Japan, Canada and the United States. Mimicking the line of the pharmaceutical corporations, they argued that the protection of pharmaceutical patents is necessary to encourage research into new drugs. Unless of course those cheap drugs are needed urgently for those countries with the financial clout to cower corporations and break world trade rules.
[adopted from SchNEWS Issue 328 Fri 26 October 2001]
The analysis of the Ilisu Environmental Impact Assessment Report, released by the Ilisu Dam Campaign and seven other UK and international NGOs on 3 October 2001 (Review of EIAR for the Ilisu Dam and HEPP) concludes that the five conditions set by the UK government for project approval have yet to be met:
In addition, on resettlement alone, the dam breaks 15 international guidelines on 75 counts.
Please write to Patricia Hewitt asking that she provides no funding to Balfour Beatty to enable them to participate in the construction of the Ilisu Dam. A model letter can be found at the Ilisu Dam campaign web site (or cut and paste the points made here).
Patricia Hewitt Secretary of State for Trade and Industry DTI 1 Victoria Street London SW1H 0ET
To find out more about the Ilisu Dam and the human rights violations in Turkey make a date with the Mark Thomas Dambusters tour. Key points, an executive summary of the report and the full report can be found on the Ilisu Dam campaign web site.
[BVEJ newsletters passim]
The legal agreement (aka section 106 agreement) drawn up between Rushmoor and TAG for the development and operation of Farnborough Airport is a worthless piece of paper.
There are so many ifs and buts and caveats on enforcement as to make the agreement virtually unenforceable, and that is assuming there is the will to enforce. To date Rushmoor have fallen over backwards to give TAG everything they want. The current flying operation is unlawful as it lacks planning consent. Rushmoor have refused to serve an Enforcement Notice. The licence for the airport is 35 tonnes. TAG routinely breach this limit, no action is ever taken by Rushmoor.
Under the agreement 'no term of this agreement is enforceable ... by a person who is not party to this agreement', or in other words if the agreement is not enforced by Rushmoor (highly likely) the intention is that it cannot be enforced by the local community.
The local community were not consulted on the contents of the agreement, there is no provision for consultation on future changes. The agreement can be changed at any time if both parties agree. So much for the cast iron agreement to protect the interests of the local community.
Electronic records are to be kept by TAG. These will only be kept for 5 years. Rushmoor will have a direct real-time link to the records. Why not the public? These records should be on the net so everyone can access them.
Unlike Manchester there is no penalty on breaches of noise either peak noise or average noise. It will be for TAG to monitor the noise, TAG will also be responsible for validating the noise models. Unlike Manchester there is no ongoing requirements to reduce noise every year over the next 10 years. The noise contours can deviate from those agreed by the council in granting planning consent.
The noisiest planes are to be phased out but with no time scale, thus meaningless. One less noisy plane per annum would be compliance. This is to record what will happen anyway under international agreements, thus TAG not giving anything. Agreement should be at faster phase out.
[The noisiest Chapter I and Chapter II aircraft have to be phased out by 2002 by international agreement, not as claimed by the Tories in a recent disgraceful In Touch leaflet (Knellwood Summer 2001) at their request.]
There is no requirement on best practice, eg a ban on the use of reverse thrust. TAG are required to phase out the noisiest aircraft, but no deadlines.
TAG are required to keep to preferred flight paths but these are not defined and no penalties for non-compliance.
[The recent presentation by TAG to the Royal Aeronautical Society shows there is a world of difference between the flight paths claimed by TAG and what happens in practice (BVEJ newsletter #0017 October 2001).]
TAG are responsible for air quality monitoring and devising how that monitoring will take place. Only nitrogen dioxide is to be measured.
An 80 tonne limit has been set, but this only applies to business aviation aircraft. Other aircraft will be free to exceed it.
TAG are responsible for prompt handling of complaints. No specified procedures. At a minimum there should be a well publicised freephone number.
TAG are responsible for performance monitoring on compliance of the agreement.
'Performance Monitoring of the Section 106 Agreement: Within 6 weeks of the end of each calendar Year, the Company shall submit to the Council a performance monitoring report detailing the performance of the Company against the objectives set out in this agreement ...'
Rushmoor is obliged to establish an Airport Consultative Committee in consultation with TAG. Why TAG? Surely it should be in consultation with the local community. We would expect the majority of the committee to be genuine representatives of the local community (ie not Rushmoor nominees in the pocket of TAG).
TAG will have a direct say in the granting of any future TPOs!
The outline planning permission permits flying when certain criteria are met, eg agreed 'safest possible' runway configurations, establishment of a PSZ. But unlawful flying is already taking place, it increases every year, and will merge seamlessly into that for which planing consent has been granted, making a mockery and a farce of the planning process.
An example of how Rushmoor will enforce the agreement has been given by the night working on the airfield site. Residents have complained at disturbances being caused by TAG carrying out site works at night. The agreement prohibits work after 1800 weekdays, 1300 Saturdays, and no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Rushmoor has failed to enforce the agreement. [BVEJ newsletter #0017 October 2001]
[Residents are entitled to a good night's sleep, a human right established at the European Court of Human Rights by local residents disturbed by Heathrow night flying. The failure of Rushmoor to protect this right is a breach of the Human Rights Act.]
If the challenge is successful it will prove extremely embarrassing for both the council and TAG. -- Farnborough Mail
The council is there to represent the community and on the airfield that is the one thing that they have repeatedly failed to do. -- Keith Parkins
The cast iron legal agreement signed between TAG and Rushmoor prohibits night working. Nevertheless night time working is taking place and causing considerable degree of disturbance to local residents. Sir Donald Spiers was only too happy to tell the Royal Aeronautical Society that only two days flying had been lost as they were able to carry out the work at night. Rushmoor as usual have bowed to TAG. It would appear that TAG losing a few days flying is more important than local residents losing more than a few nights sleep. [BVEJ news #0017 October 2001]
If you have been disturbed by this night working, and the misery is expected to go on for several more weeks, please lodge a formal complaint with Keith Holland, Rushmoor Head of Planning or Andrew Lloyd, Rushmoor Chief Executive. Draw to their attention your human right to a good night's sleep. Please let FARA know that you have objected and let FARA have a copy of any response that you receive. Please also copy to Patrick Kirby.
But even if you have not had your sleep disturbed you can still lodge a complaint on the grounds that TAG are working outside the agreed hours of working and you want that agreement rigorously enforced. If Rushmoor cannot or will not enforce something as simple as working hours, what hope is there of enforcing other aspects of the agreement (eg noise, weight, pollution, number of movements etc)?
Section 106 agreement (signed 10 October 2000) Annex A Condition 20: Site Preparation: Site preparation, clearance works, construction works and pile driving within the area covered by the application site shall only take place within the hours of 0730 and 1800 Monday to Friday and 0800 1300 on Saturdays. No works at all shall take place on Sundays or Bank Holidays except with the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.
These conditions are also contained in the outline planning consent granted to TAG last year. To modify these conditions would require TAG to put in a planning application to modify the consent. No notice being given for such an application.
Papers have been lodged with the High Court in London for leave to take a judicial review of Rushmoor. The judicial review refers to the 8 August 2001 planning meeting where the TAG runway configurations were discussed. Rushmoor has 21 days in which to respond. More cases are expected to follow. [BVEJ news #0016 September 2001, Farnborough Mail Tues 16 October 2001]
The case is being handled by the Cambridge-based Richard Buxton public and environmental law firm who recently won the landmark Heathrow noise case in the European Court of Human Rights, a case that established the human right to a good night's sleep and has implications across Europe. [BVEJ news #0018 November 2001]
Borough Solicitor Michael Lawther is going. He is though being retained as a consultant on the airfield!
TAG have applied for planning permission to build a blast fence on the boundary that runs alongside the Basingstoke Canal. The notice, dated 10 October 2001, is attached to the existing wire mesh fence where it is not visible to canal users. The blast fence was erected before the application was made, once again making a mockery of the planning process.
With Mccarthyism stalking the land it is more important than ever that we turn to alternative media sources.
@nti-copyright - information for education and action - copy and distribute