Yes, you do sound like a jaded old Marxist, actually! Young people are castigated when they are apathetic and selfish, yet face even more scorn when they take an interest in issues that affect them and get involved - just as you did in your youth!

Daniel, Sheffield,

Having cycled 130 miles to Heathrow from Bristol to see what this protest was all about and see some of the more rational speakers, I am now called a 'self-righteous clown'.

I, and many others their accept that the overthrow of capitalism is not a feasible, let alone desirable option. Many criticize the government's and BAA's actions not because they are angry with the capitalism (as the article seems to imply) but because there exist interesting, well thought out alternatives.

Many academics at the site advocated the 'Convergence and Contraction' model of dealing with the problem on a global level and this is not merely compatible with capitalism, but in fact needs capitalism to function.

Stereotyping protesters and avoiding their academic advocates takes attention away from the fact that we need to cut emissions to prevent a global disaster. Two academic UK organisations who deal with this are CAT http://www.cat.org.uk/ and the UK GCI http://www.gci.org.uk

Robin Lovelace, Bristol, UK

Strange that this article claims the action had no elements of solidarity with ordinary people.

what about the 10,000 residents of Sipson, Harlington and Harmondsworth, who will be forcibly moved from their homes if the thrid runway goes ahead?

What about the workers at nippon express, which the camp gave full support to?

What about the millions of people around the world who will be affected by climate change?

What about the 150,000 people who, according to the WHO, are dying each year as a result of changed weather patterns and ecological conditions attributable to climate change?

mike nilson, torquay,

Mick, Firstly - you don’t have to have someones permission to say that famines, floods and droughts caused by anthropogenic global warming (if the overwhelming majority of the worlds climate scientists are right) are something that should be prevented if possible. Call me crazy, but I take it for granted that when someone is dying unneccessarily, they don't like it.

Secondly - it is not impossible to reduce emmissions and improve infrastructure and public services in the majority world. Many environmentalists are working simultaeneously for social justice too you know, and are motivated by humanitarean concerns.

Thirdly, there have already been loads of voices from the majority world expressing concern over climate change. Wake up!

graham, newcastle,

you say: "The campaign against Heathrow expansion bears no comparison to those that led to “things like black people getting the vote”. Direct action is neither good nor bad in principle. It is just a tactic, used by all manner of protest movements. What matters most are the political aims and outlook informing the protests"

We know, but in this political climate where the legal is equated with the moral there is a need to stress that not every ‘illegal‘ act is immoral, and the civil rights movement provides an example which everyone has heard of. There were political aims and outlooks to the camp as anyone who attended will attest, you just choose to pretend there are not to fit your argument, or were gullible enough to believe that all there was to the protest was what you saw on the television.

jim, ipswich,

You say: "The pursuit of self-interest was the driving force for political change. Others such as we on the Left supported their struggles, but we acted in solidarity, not as self-appointed substitutes for the miners or disadvantaged minorities."

Some might debate this. You commies are renowned for tagging on to popular struggles to further your own goals of state socialism. Besides this, many see the camp as an act of solidarity with those at the sharp end of climate change. If you think that nobody in the majority world is concerned about changing weather patterns, you really need to wake up.

You say: "Today, by contrast, to take political action in your own interests seems frowned upon as greedy, even sleazy."

Because climate change will affect the whole world, it is possible to be campaigning simultaneously on behalf of oneself and others.

jim, ipswich,

I was at the camp. I live and work (as an IT bod) in Oxford. I saw my town flooded. We'll be seeing more extreme weather events like this in the next 20 years. Everyone but conspiracy theory nutters knows this. So, I took action. On my own behalf, though I have many friends in Africa, Asia and Latin America who support my action and some of whom would actually want me to have done more.

The "logic of my protest" was not that anyone should be sacked but that building a third runway at Heathrow at a time when we need to be cutting emissions is an extremely bad idea. And I am prepared to break the law to convince people just what a bad idea it is.

I met local residents, workers from Nippon Express (on strike down the road and very supportive), accountants, ex-miners, musicians, international activists, not a homogenous block of naive, bossy youngsters. What the author has written is a character assasination of a selection of fictional characters. Hardly effective direct action is it?

Charlie, Oxford,

Has Direct Action Man bought a few shares in BAA, by any chance?

As far as acting "in the name of" the impoverished and unborn, does the fact that these protestors have no mandate from these groups mean that they can't be concerned. So who should be concerned? None of us have this mandate, so shall we all join the astute Jeremy Clarkson in saying sod the future?

Furthermore, I don't think anyone is saying we shouldn't ever fly, but perhaps just less - hardly so controversial, is it?

Maybe the protestors aren't the "rock hard" Doc Martin-clad anti-capitalist warriors of Hume's day, but attacking the messengers instead of the message is hardly an argument worthy of The Times.

PS - the peer-reviewed science that Hume sees fit to put in inverted comments - "peer-reviewed" generally means it's got a much better chance of being right.

J, London, UK

Mick, you comment that the so-called climate change protesters said “We are armed . . . only with peer-reviewed science”. My reaction is that they would probably achieve far more for the climate change debate if they protested against the corruption of the peer review process.

The process has been distorted by editors who send articles to reviewers that defend their own work against any challenges, by editors who side with authors and defend the absence of full disclosure of data and method, by reviewers who think it is okay to to present a certain hypothesis without showing why other hypotheses should be rejected. In short the peer-review process has become a rort for pushing certain barrows. Clean out the corruption and we just may see some progress.

John, Melbourne, Australia

I thought these beautiful Olympic villages such as Nagano were supposed to calm the inner soul.Obviously not so if Andrew Milner' s prediction of violence for some yet to be named "cause" is an example.

Perhaps Andrew could give it a trial run in a country where the police are still allowed to control the rabble without being sued.

grant watt, glenning valley, australia