Tensions erupt at UK's most exclusive billionaire's private jet fair
The Elite London in Wycombe Air Park on the outskirts of London draws in a crowd of well-heeled and deep pocketed punters looking for their next private jet or helicopter
An ultra-exclusive event erupted into chaos over the weekend.
Visit the Elite London at Wycombe Air Park on the outskirts of London and you'll find yourself rubbing up against some seriously well-clad shoulders. The event is aimed at those interested in buying a new private jet, upgrading their helicopter, or purchasing a second yacht. It also features a series of fun exhibits, including virtual golfing, clay pigeon shooting organised by the Churchill family's gun firm, and IV drips for those who indulge in the onsite bar a little too much.
One of the big draws for the cash-rich but time-poor is that you can fly your private jet or helicopter directly to the event.
"The Elite London's unique airport setting allows aircraft owners and private pilots to fly directly to the event. Arrive by air and benefit from complimentary show entry for you and your passengers. Wycombe Air Park's 750 metre tarmac and 610 metre grass runways and helipads can accommodate everything from piston aircraft, turboprops and helicopters. Business aircraft can land at the nearby Oxford Airport where a shuttle awaits to transfer," Elite London's website reads.
Among the attendees over the weekend was a small group who were less impressed with the displays of excess. Marching into the centre of the private jet fair, Climate Resistance protesters held up placards and chanted for the abolition of billionaires.
The campaigning group is calling for a 100% tax on assets over £10 million, alongside global wealth redistribution, an end to what it describes as "wage theft and worker exploitation", and public investment in a "fair, worker-led energy transition."
Climate Resistance targeted the fair due to the particularly high carbon costs associated with private jets and helicopters. Overall private aviation emissions increased by 46% between 2019-2023, with industry expectations of continued strong growth, according to one Nature journal Communications Earth & Environment study.
It also found that most of these small planes spew more heat-trapping carbon dioxide in about two hours of flying than the average person does in about a year.
In 2023, roughly a quarter million of the super wealthy, who were worth a total of $31 trillion, emitted 17.2 million tons (15.6 million metric tons) of carbon dioxide flying in private jets. That's about the same amount as the overall yearly emissions of the 67 million people who live in Tanzania.
Stefan Gossling, a transportation researcher at the business school of Sweden's Linnaeus University, said the issue wasn't so much the emissions, which remain a small part of those produced globally, but the lack of fairness.
'The damage is done by those with a lot of money and the cost is borne by those with very little money,' Gossling said. A separate report by Oxfam claimed that billionaires emit more carbon pollution in 90 minutes than the average person does in a lifetime.
Armed with banners reading 'ban private jets' and 'wealth tax now,' the protesters were quickly hauled away by security guards.
Sam Simons from Climate Resistance said: 'A single private flight to America and back emits more carbon than the average Briton does in a decade. The climate crisis is propelled by the super-rich and cannot be averted while extreme wealth is being used to fund the destructive lifestyles being sold with champagne at Wycombe Air Park. A livable future can't be a luxury. Abolish billionaires and tax private flying out of existence.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
7 days ago
- Telegraph
The burqa is inconsistent with integration
Churchill once said, 'Nothing can save England, if she will not save herself. If we lose faith in ourselves, in our capacity to guide and govern, if we lose our will to live, then, indeed, our story is told.' Let those words settle – less as a relic of the past than as a stern admonition for the present. As we reopen a debate many in Westminster have long preferred to bury, we must ask: has Britain still the will to save herself? Or will we, through cowardice and confusion, allow our national story to end not with a bang, but a whimper? The question of banning the burqa and niqab is not a trivial sideshow in the culture wars. It is a litmus test of national self-belief. It goes to the heart of whether Britain has a solution to the complex problems caused by rapid population increase and demographic change. Starmer, predictably, has neither the inclination nor the courage to approach this subject. But a new government with spine, conviction, and a willingness to take the slings and arrows of metropolitan outrage might yet do so. And it must – for the issue before us is no longer about fabric and facial coverings. Are we, or are we not, a society confident in our values? And if the answer is yes – if we are to stem the disintegration of national cohesion and restore a shared civic space – then we must start by outlawing one of the most visible symbols of separation: the full-face veil. Libertarian objections, while intellectually consistent, fall short of lived reality. It is true that in a free society, individuals ought generally to wear what they wish. But there are limits to freedom, and always have been – limits defined by the need to preserve what the French, with admirable clarity, call le vivre ensemble: the capacity to live together. France and Belgium, far from authoritarian states, understood this when they enacted bans in 2010. In 2014, the European Court of Human Rights – an institution I criticise more often than not – nevertheless ruled correctly in S.A.S. v France. The court unanimously acknowledged that the ban infringed individual freedoms of religion and private life, but held that the interference was justified in order to protect a broader societal good: the integrity of social life in an open, liberal democracy. Interestingly, the court rejected the public safety rationale, instead identifying the core issue as one of cultural compatibility. In a Western, pluralist society, being able to see and be seen, to look one another in the face without impediment, is not merely a nicety. It is a necessity. It underpins trust, empathy, and the social contract itself. The burqa and niqab are not akin to turbans, yarmulkes, headscarves or motorcycle helmets. They are garments of erasure – of identity, of individualism, and of the mutual recognition that life in community demands. No law compelling British Sikhs to remove their turbans, or Orthodox Jewish women to discard sheitels, has ever been proposed – because those traditions do not negate the possibility of social interaction. Full facial coverings do and any ban could reasonably make exceptions for sporting, health or professional reasons or for riding a motorbike (as in France). There is also a deeper hypocrisy. When I have travelled in Middle Eastern or Catholic countries, I have covered my shoulders, legs, and hair when asked. I have done so not under duress, but in a spirit of respect. I have entered women-only spaces and abstained from alcohol when custom required it. Is it so outlandish to expect that those who come to Britain might return the courtesy? Other nations are unapologetic in defending their ways of life. Why are we so ready to abandon ours at the first hint of discomfort? Our culture – rooted in Judeo-Christian values, Enlightenment reason, and the hard-won principle of sexual equality – has made this country one of the most tolerant and liberal on earth. But tolerance cannot mean indifference. A society that tolerates everything, even its own erosion, will not survive. The answer must now be: no more. Not because we are intolerant – but because we wish to remain a society worth integrating into. A society with the courage to demand participation, not parallelism. A society with the clarity to say: there are lines, and they matter. Churchill warned us that if we lose faith in ourselves, then indeed, our story is told. That warning echoes now more than ever.
BBC News
7 days ago
- BBC News
Botley West Solar Farm: Land near airport removed from plans
A portion of land near an airport will no longer be included in plans for one of Europe's largest solar farms. Botley West Solar Farm will cover about 1,000 hectares (2,471 acres) of countryside at three sites in west Oxfordshire if approved. Developers Photo Vault Development Partners (PVDP) said it had now scaled the proposal back by 10 hectares - equivalent to about 16 football pitches - after Oxford Airport raised concerns about building on land that could potentially be needed in the event of an emergency landing. The £800m development has been designated as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project and is currently being evaluated by the government. It would see panels installed in countryside north of Woodstock, west of Kidlington and west of said it would now not be installing solar panels on "sensitive areas" identified for potential emergency landings by aircraft operating from Oxford Airport."We have... agreed to remove panels from areas identified as particularly sensitive, in direct response to local concerns," Mark Owen-Lloyd, director of Botley West Solar Farm, said."These changes reflect our commitment to working in partnership and cooperation with the communities around Botley West and ensuring the project delivers real, lasting benefits where they are most needed," he developers also announced that it had doubled its community benefit fund to £440,000 a year following discussions with local suggested the investment could be used to upgrade community facilities, develop youth and skills programmes and to support local sustainability announcements come in the same week that West Oxfordshire District Council said the development would cause "major harm lasting generations" and should be "dramatically reduced" in comments, which included that the proposals were "detrimental" to the area, came in the council's final written submission to the said it disagreed with the local authority and had made several changes to the proposed locations of solar panels. You can follow BBC Oxfordshire on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram.
The Guardian
04-06-2025
- The Guardian
England's planning bill has many naysayers. I'm not one of them
In recent weeks, various nature groups and newspaper columnists have promoted claims that the government's flagship planning and infrastructure bill is a 'nature sellout'. The argument goes that the government is conspiring with malign developers to destroy irreplaceable habitats as a first resort. This sounds alarming, if only it were true. The truth is that our current framework for protecting habitats has been in place for decades but has failed to prevent nature loss. This is because we approach conservation in the least effective way possible, with tens of thousands of individual site-by-site protections. Ecological science is clear that this is outdated. Modern conservation strategies recognise the necessity of interconnectivity and scale for supporting complex ecosystems. As well as failing nature, this system adds yet more costs and barriers to the new homes and infrastructure our country needs, because builders are distracted by cooking up well-meaning but ultimately piecemeal mitigation schemes with questionable impact, such as the now infamous HS2 bat tunnel, which is ridiculed by environmentalists and industrialists alike. Without more homes, wealth will continue to concentrate and homelessness will grow. Without better infrastructure, we cannot build more prosperous communities across the Midlands and north. And without getting smarter, habitat decline is inevitable. The status quo will see more young people robbed of the joy of nature, the security and socioeconomic mobility that previous generations enjoyed, and it will hinder our efforts to tackle the climate crisis. Something needs to change. The government has proposed a solution. The bill will establish a nature restoration fund, which will support a number of strategic nature restoration schemes across the country at a scale that is genuinely impactful. Natural England will produce a series of 'environmental delivery plans', underpinned by ecological science, explaining how it will deliver an 'overall improvement in conservation status' for a given environmental feature. This test is set out in the legislation. Unlike now, performance will be regularly measured against what was promised and the approach in the plans must be amended if they are not delivering. This will mean results are easier to evaluate and scrutinise, as well as making enforcement simpler. Crucially these schemes will operate across council boundaries, because nature does. Instead of creating their own bespoke schemes, developers will financially contribute to much greater environmental outcomes nationally. This is what is meant by a 'win-win'. Noise about the legislation misses the point that nothing changes until the delivery plans are in place. That is where the action is. Until they are in place, the existing safeguards persists. And until draft plans are published, there is a vacuum in which alarm can thrive. So let's debunk some myths. Green spaces will not vanish. Amenity green space is vital for healthy, fulfilling lives, which is why it is a core principle and given protected designation by the government's new national planning policy framework, and new green spaces created with funds already levied on development. However, local parks and ponds are not great banks of biodiversity, and are no substitute for the woods and wetlands we need at scale. The creation of those habitats will be made possible with the funds levied. Rare habitats such as chalk streams will not be destroyed under the promise of new habitats elsewhere. This is an obviously ridiculous caricature; any such proposal would not pass the hurdles set out in the legislation and Natural England would never claim it can create a new chalk stream. This has not been cooked up in a smoke-filled room with the volume housebuilders. On the contrary, I know first-hand that environmental leaders were intimately involved in its development, which is why organisations like RSPB, Wildlife Trust and Green Alliance were supportive when the Bill was published. . Regretfully, some have changed their tune, and now prefer to defend regulations over defending nature. The proposal is not perfect, but it isn't intended to be. It will take years to be fully implemented and even that is subject to Natural England securing Treasury support in the forthcoming spending review. But it is a serious reform and it must be viewed within the wider context of what this government is doing. The government's land use framework proposes to support farmers to deliver nature and climate benefits across 1.6 million hectares of land – more than the total developed for housing – by 2050. Meanwhile, it has banned bee-killing pesticides and the burning of peatlands, and its farming roadmap supports a shift towards regenerative farming methods. By comparison, just 30,000 hectares of land will be developed to deliver 1.5m homes this parliament, and, over the same period, if current rates of tree planting are sustained, more than double will be used to create new forests. John Cunliffe's review looks set to recommend a shift to nature-based solutions to flooding and water pollution. Replacing concrete with more reed- and tree-lined banks will benefit billpayers and the environment. While the government has walked into a fight with environmental groups, it is also quietly getting on with radical change to enhance our green and pleasant land. Nick Williams was an economic policy adviser to Keir Starmer between 2023 and 2025, having previously worked in HM Treasury
