This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk/6932519.stm

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
BAA wins Heathrow protesters ban BAA wins Heathrow protesters ban
(40 minutes later)
Airport operator BAA has won a High Court ruling banning certain climate change protesters from Heathrow. BAA has won a High Court ruling banning certain protesters from Heathrow during a week-long climate change camp.
The High Court granted the injunction which BAA hopes will stop disruption at the airport between 14 and 21 August. But protesters say it is a setback for the airport operator, as it applies to three groups - not the 15 sought.
Thousands are expected at the Camp for Climate Action, threatening "high impact direct action". The ban will not apply to AirportWatch, an umbrella group covering 5m people, because it is too large to define.
Three groups are included in the injunction which BAA says will ensure a peaceful protest, but critics argue is an infringement of civil liberties. It applies to Plane Stupid, a group with a history of "direct action", amid fears terrorists could use disruption at the airport as cover for an attack.
The High Court granted the injunction on Plane Stupid, and members of two other groups - Hacan Clearskies and the No Third Runway Action Group - if they were intent on unlawful action.
Airport expansion
Thousands of people are expected to join the Camp for Climate Action between 14 and 21 August - which organisers say opposes the "lunacy of the government's airport expansion plans".
The order should not affect the peaceful and lawful activities of people taking part in the protest - but is aimed at those planning to disrupt the operations of the airport.The order should not affect the peaceful and lawful activities of people taking part in the protest - but is aimed at those planning to disrupt the operations of the airport.
'Damaging consequences' It's our responsibility to make sure we do everything we can to guarantee their safety and comfort BAA spokesman
Mrs Justice Swift ruled at the High Court that the only way to prevent potentially "serious and damaging" consequences of any unlawful direct action was to grant an injuction. Mrs Justice Swift ruled at the High Court that there was a risk that "a terrorist group may use the disruption caused by the protesters to perpetrate a terrorist act".
One group, Plane Stupid, was banned because of its history of taking "direct action" - there were fears it would try to blockade the airport. Plane Stupid was banned because of its history of taking "direct action" - there were fears it would try to blockade the airport.
The judge said there was a risk that "a terrorist group may use the disruption caused by the protesters to perpetrate a terrorist act". BAA had denied that it was trying to ban 5m people using the roads and public transport around Heathrow by seeking the injunction, under the 1997 Protection from Harassment Act.
BAA had denied that it was trying to prevent 5m people using the roads and public transport around Heathrow. It said the injunction, under the 1997 Protection from Harassment Act - was aimed at protesters acting unlawfully. 'Irresponsible' action
In a statement, it said it had the right to explore "every legal avenue" to protect its staff and passengers - 1.5m of whom are expected to pass through the airport during the week of the protest.In a statement, it said it had the right to explore "every legal avenue" to protect its staff and passengers - 1.5m of whom are expected to pass through the airport during the week of the protest.
"It's our responsibility to make sure we do everything we can to guarantee their safety and comfort," a BAA spokesman said."It's our responsibility to make sure we do everything we can to guarantee their safety and comfort," a BAA spokesman said.
He added that, considering the current threat of terrorism, keeping the airport "safe and secure" was a "very serious business", and added that any action that would distract the police was "irresponsible".He added that, considering the current threat of terrorism, keeping the airport "safe and secure" was a "very serious business", and added that any action that would distract the police was "irresponsible".
It's a good day for the freedom to protest Peter Lockley AirportWatch
But there were concerns that, if AirportWatch had been included in the injunction, millions of people would have been banned from the protest - included members of affiliated groups like the RSPB and National Trust.
Peter Lockley, of AirportWatch, told the BBC the group did not support direct action and were planning a peaceful protest. He said the injunction was limited as it was aimed at stopping activity that was unlawful anyway.
He added: "It's a good day for the freedom to protest."
Chairman of the anti-noise group Hacan Clearskies John Stewart added: "BAA had asked for the mother of all injunctions. They have received the mother of all setbacks."
The final terms of the injunction will be drawn up later.