I have to admit that I was intrigued by this idea - buying land which would be needed. And if there was any chance that the owners would be able to hold out in the face of a compulsory purchase, I'd say it's a good thing.

However, given that it's going to make no difference to the end result, and along the way it's just going to mean more money going to lawyers, at least part of which will be a direct payment from the public purse (and the rest indirect as travellers pay more to use BAA's facilities), I can't help but think that it's counterproductive.

In this case, I think that doing nothing - specifically not using Heathrow - is probably the best approach. I wonder whether the celebrities involved in this campaign are doing their bit - did Emma Thompson use a rowing boat or some other carbon-neutral and silent form of transport to get to the Golden Globes ceremony in LA this past weekend?