Subject: Manchester Runway 2 Campaigning Here is a letter which I sent to Martin Bell M.P. for Tatton. Below my letter I have included his 2 responses. I wrote the letter on the subject of eviction, and not about environmental issues directly. Some may find the reply interesting. I hope it persuades people who aren't directly involved on campaign sites that lobbying the MP's local to campaign sites, along with your local MP, might change an MP's opinions. If little else, it creates paperwork which has to be replied to - which draws attention to your campaign. If anyone would like to comment on this, email me : H9602529@hud.ac.uk Cheers Mark Richards ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- 28 May 1997 Dear Sir, I am writing with reference to the eviction of the conservationists camped on the intended site of Manchester Airport's proposed second runway. My interest is that I have a friend who is presently living at the camp. I have written out of concern for his safety, and because I am familiar with the issues and process of the campaign. Firstly, I thank and congratulate you for openly expressing your hope that the eviction will proceed peacefully as a model eviction. I agree that this is of primary importance for maintaining a working dialogue between the conservationists and those evicting them. The abuse of the powers granted to the bailiffs, as has been happening, is itself an abuse of the democratic process which the peaceful protesters are committed to working within. Any further breach of this code of conduct could escalate into the contractors using violent tactics without thinking of the safety of the consequences. For example, the allegations that the eviction team have used sledgehammers on doors directly above protesters is one such example, and the consequence has been the water entering the vertical tunnel shaft through the entrance, which bailiffs thoughtlessly battered and left open to the rain storm on Tuesday night. This demonstrates how mindless, impulsive force has repercussions, here a lack of consideration for the fragile nature of the defenses, placing the safety of both the conservationists and hired hands at risk. I believe that the conservationists have a valid reason for protesting peacefully against this development. However, regardless of the detail of this issue, anyone attempting to evict them should respect their devotion to their ecological beliefs. The conservationists will be feeling very distressed that they can do no more to prevent the destruction of the ecosystem, and subsequent the development of a polluting airport. Many of the conservationists have children, like yourself, whose future heritage they are defending. Added to this is the depression of facing their camp, which they have carefully built and inhabited, immediately demolished. Those evicting them should not add to these feelings of hopelessness and depression by adopting violent tactics. As the duration of the eviction process increases, the contractors will become increasingly frustrated. Some of the recruited climbers have been condemned by the country's climbing community as "vicious thugs" who are not members of the Rope Access Trade Association, the industry's only governing body. The boredom and the anticipation of action may lead them to take their frustrations out upon defenseless protesters. Beyond the stress of being threatened and abused by menacing masked men in black, there is the verbal and physical intimidation which the security guards constantly inflict on the conservationists. These conservationists are not extremists, they show tolerance themselves. For example, many of them leave voluntarily when the camps are initially penetrated. Contrary to ambiguous and unsubstantiated accusations, these people are not terrorists, and are not booby trapping the tunnels they live in with butane canisters in the foundations. Any explosion within the tunnels would obviously undermine the stability of the campaigners' living area, and affect the oxygen supplies to them, and also destroy their own escape route. This rumour of butane camping gas canisters, produced by an unaccountable, indistinguishable hired tunneller, picked up by the news soon became elaborated into tunnels laced with homemade bombs, and even landmines. Bombs in Tunnels on the front page of the Daily Express. Could our humble camping stove cannister, used for brewing a cup of tea, really be so misinterpreted? The cannister in question was left on the ground at the camp, and was not found in any tunnels or foundations. These are not the tactic of non-violent campaigners, the site was not laced with any cannisters, bombs, or landmines. If cannisters were integrated into tunnel foundations, which they are not, it would hardly slow the eviction, as the hired tunnellers could easily detect these metal canisters with metal detection equipment before proceeding. So, I ask who could possibly benefit from such rumours ? Consider the source of these unconfirmed reports; the head tunneller. This undisclosed, masked source of these allegations has been granted power without responsibility or accountability. He has abused his power by coming out and making this allegation without having to produce evidence, and also by selling his story to the Daily Express newspaper. He has discredited the non-violent campaign without having to authenticate the claims he has made about bombs being imbedded as a weapon against bailiffs. There are people who hold an interest in smearing the campaigners. There are forces, holding power, who would like to portray these peaceful protesters as violent to discredit the campaign, and thereby dismiss the issue. There are others, hired hands and security, who would have an interest in creating a prolonged eviction for maximum length of employment.. I understand that you were recently the victim of a smear campaign during the general election. I read that some journalists had alleged the absurd claim that you had paid youngsters in Northern Ireland to throw stones at the guards for the television camera. Your morale also appeared to be set back by the underhand threatening tactics of Neil Hamilton. With these events in mind, you will be aware of such sinister political forces, and less susceptible to their influence and intimidation. To repeat myself, these conservationists strictly abide to principles of non-violent protest as a vehicle for their message, many being highly educated and openly accountable for their actions. The Under-Sheriff, acting as an authority in a civilised society, should be tolerant towards non-violent peaceful protesters, and his "expert" contractors should act with conduct becoming of an expert. Surely we have a duty of care for these very responsible and caring campaigners, who risk their lives to preserve our British heritage. With the recruited clearance teams hiding their identities behind black combat clothes and balaclavas, I am increasingly anxious of the apparent lack of control over their methods. Do you realise that none of these clearance teams bear any observable identification or distinguishing marks? The police must always bear their identification number on their lapels, and their handcuffs. The clearance team has been issued with uniforms, but they have not been issued with any number or marking with which they can be identified. This is a very sinister development in this eviction which concerns me. Added to this, the adoption of the euphemism "bailiff" in preference to "contractor" seems to add to the camouflage covering their behaviour. I don't believe that the masked "bailiffs" will act with care for the campaigners unless there are independent legal observers and journalists monitoring their activity. The Under-Sheriff of Cheshire has removed all impartial legal observers who are trained to monitor the process of the eviction. This is a second development which worries me. Furthermore, the press have been corralled into an enclosure from which the eviction actions cannot be seen. When the Under-Sherriff made a statement to these journalists, I was very concerned that he so quickly denied his men might have been heavy handed. Such a rapid denial, before any official investigations were conducted, seems to reject the accountability of the hired contractors. He also refused to answer any questions regarding the assault, by the clearance team, of campaigners and a journalist. I agree with you that the best solution to maintaining the safety of the evictions would be to open the actions of the contractors to the monitoring by legal observers and journalists. This would eliminate any abuse of power by the contractors, as any violence would be independently recorded. I gather that you were not allowed to meet any of the campaigners in the camps, and that your requests that journalists be allowed to observe the evictions were not accepted. Your election campaign was centered on your openness, and the disclosure of the hidden misdemeanors of your opponent. Your constituents elected you on the premises of trust, integrity and honesty, and they will expect that this openness is maintained throughout your term of office. Thus, I ask you to use your power to urge the Under-Sheriff to allow the legal observers and journalists full access to witness the eviction proceedings openly. I am very concerned for the persistent lack of concern for safety by the eviction teams, which is jeopardising the peaceful operation. My fear is that by the time you receive this letter it will be too late, and that my friend, or another campaigner will have been seriously injured. I anticipate a reply at your earliest convenience. Should you wish to discuss this matter further, I would be available for you to contact me. Yours sincerely, Mark Richards B.Sc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- 30th May 1997 Dear Mr Richards, Thankyou for your letter. I believe that I did have some effect in persuading the Under Sheriff that the eviction is to be conducted as openly and transparently as possible, but I am of course greatly concerned about the dangers of accident and injury. I expect the eviction to take a long time, but I continue to hope that it can be carried out peacefully. I have too many pressures on my own time to maintain a permanent presence there myself, but you may be assured that I shall do all I can to be helpful. Yours sincerely, Martin Bell. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- 4th June, 1997 Dear Mr Richards, Thankyou for your letter. I agree with almost everything you say. As you will know, I impressed on the Under Sheriff as strongly as I could the need for openess and transparency in all his actions. I know and understand that you share my concern about the risk of a very serious accident during the eviction process. As you will know, I am probably the last MP to need or seek publicity on any issue, and I am trying to confine myself to actions which might actually be useful. I am in close touch with Mobberley Parish Council who are still hopeful of reversing the decision on the second runway, and I have written to John Prescott, MP, urging a "stay of eviction". In view of the Government's commitments to an integrated transport policy, this would seem a logical consequence. I am also very concerned about damage being done to the environment in the course of the eviction. I appreciate your views very much and will continue to look for the most sensible way forward. Yours sincerely, Martin Bell. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- I think his first reply was to try to immediately reassure the anxious comments I made in my letter. His second reply was to briefly address the matters I raised in my letter. All in all, I believe he is being honest, and will act as he says. H9602529@hud.ac.uk - message sent by infoterra@cedar.univie.ac.at to signoff from the list, send an email to majordomo@cedar.univie.ac.at the message body should read unsubscribe infoterra your@email.address -