BAA

Despite changing a misleading title on my previous post (which seemed accurate on the scant information available earlier this morning), I'm now beginning to think even 'BAA wins its case' is a bit too strong. Sure, they managed to get something out of their High Court injunction but it's a far cry from what they applied for.

This from Sky News on BAA's injunction:

The operator of Heathrow airport has been granted a High Court injunction banning unlawful behaviour by environmental activists next week.

BAA says it wants to protect the safety of staff and passengers during the busy holiday season.

Just a very quick update. The Heathrow injunction hearing has closed and Mrs Justice Swift will be ruling at 10am on Monday.

If you want some weekend reading to keep you going until then, The Times has a piece on the legal basis of the injunction attempt (an anti-stalkers law), the BBC has a round-up of yesterday's happenings at the High Court and Sian Berry mulls over what it all means in the New Statesman.

The hearing on BAA's Heathrow injunction began today and, so far, it mostly seems to have involved debate about whom BAA did and didn't intend to injunct.

From PA (snipped for length):

Update - 1st August: The hearing is underway.

Here's a doozy for you: on Wednesday, the aviation industry is taking five million people - including a lot of their own staff - to court. If you're a member or supporter of a group that's concerned about climate change, the chances are you're a defendant too.

The industry seems to want to ban five million of us from Heathrow and all routes to the airport, including the Piccadilly line, parts of the rail network, and sections of the M25 and M4.