It's a shame that debates like this always degenerate into slanging matches. Both sides have valid points to make, and would benefit from listening to each other.
I'm a pilot, a helicopter instructor and a former resident of Richmond, 6nm short of 27L at EGLL. I bought my home there at a time when it was firmly promised that T4 would be the last development at Heathrow, and that movements would be capped at 260,000. I've never objected to aircraft noise (I do make rather a lot of it myself) but my former neighbours often did, because they felt they'd been deceived over the expansion of Heathrow.
There were a few questions I found difficult to answer. It was galling for them to be told that aircraft had to land at Heathrow at 4:30am because of night curfews in places like Narita or Mascot. Why, in a country the size of the UK, were the three major airports virtually co-located in one corner, remote from the 'C of G' of the population? Why did a Scotsman, or a northerner, have to travel all day to reach Heathrow, then fly back over his own home to get to North America? Is it the case that the population is there to serve the airports, or the airports to serve the population? When my neighbours say aviation policy in the UK is largely made by BAA and BA for their own benefit, it's hard to argue.
Most of my neighbours objected most strongly to the 20 or so landings between 4:30am and 6am (out of what, 1,200 movements daily?). If they were removed, I suspect HACAN would just melt away.
On the other side of the coin, it is important to stress that aircraft have become significantly quieter over the years, and the demise of Concorde has made a huge difference. But I think the simple if-you-don't-like-it-move argument is wooden-headed, and sets us up for confrontation when dialogue would be constructive.
Of course, I live in Cornwall now, so I don't give a stuff.