> If BAA has their way, that is.
>
> No, really. You couldn't make it up. Check outwww.tubenightmare.com
> or the front page of today's Independent for more.
>
> What kind of society are we sleepwalking into, that they even think
> its acceptable to try this on?
>
> And more prosaicly, how the heck would i be supposed to get to
> Finsbury Park lawfully (!) to even get on the blooming Victoria Line
> rail replacement bus, then?
>
> (Don't mention the overland line to Walthamstow/Chingford from
> Liverpool St - that is also currently undergoing engineering works
> Monday to Thursday, as I discovered last night).

> On 27 Jul, 12:21, "carolinejmol...@googlemail.com"
> googlemail.com> wrote:

>> If BAA has their way, that is.
>>
>> No, really. You couldn't make it up. Check outwww.tubenightmare.com
>> or the front page of today's Independent for more.

> It's the usual stance of an oppresive government -- make life illegal,
> then cherry pick who you don't like, and the rest will be too scared
> to compain as they are breaking the law anyway.

>

> seems really unlikely that a judge would approve such a thing.
>

> And if it is as broad as people fear, then it
>

>> seems really unlikely that a judge would approve such a thing.

>
> Well let's hope not. Nonetheless I think it's depressing that the
> right to protest has been eroded so much already, that they can even
> think to ask for such a ridiculously broad ranging injunction. it
> seems to me they are adopting the standard practice of starting with a
> position that is so outrageous, to make a more limited ban which
> 'only' affects part of the tube line, or 'only' thousands rather than
> millions of people, seem moderate. Given the recent floods that have
> affected the country it is ironic that protest against climate change
> is coming up against such...

>

>>

> And if it is as broad as people fear, then it

>> seems really unlikely that a judge would approve such a thing.
>>

>
> Well let's hope not. Nonetheless I think it's depressing that the
> right to protest has been eroded so much already, that they can even
> think to ask for such a ridiculously broad ranging injunction. it
> seems to me they are adopting the standard practice of starting with a
> position that is so outrageous, to make a more limited ban which
> 'only' affects part of the tube line, or 'only' thousands rather than
> millions of people, seem moderate. Given the recent floods that have
> affected the country it is ironic that protest against climate change
> is coming up against such frantic attempts to silence it.
>

>Paul Weaver wrote:

>> On 27 Jul, 12:21, "carolinejmol...@googlemail.com"
>> googlemail.com> wrote:

>>> If BAA has their way, that is.
>>>
>>> No, really. You couldn't make it up. Check outwww.tubenightmare.com
>>> or the front page of today's Independent for more.

>
>You couldn't make it up, but you could sensationalize it. I'd like to
>see the actual text of the requested injunction, as opposed to somewhat
>vague newspaper reports. And if it is as broad as people fear, then it
>seems really unlikely that a judge would approve such a thing.

> The government isn't doing this.

> On 27 Jul, 13:14, Michael Hoffman cam.ac.uk> wrote:

>> The government isn't doing this.

>
> Assuming the judicary don't allow the injunction