barnstormer
Let's say that, in theory, the RAFP had assessed the available intelligence on the protest groups and decided that, on balance, their intent did not expand to widespread damage or wanton murder. Would it then not be a criminal waste of taxpayer's money (and a dwindling defence budget) to spend it on personnel to defend the base to a standard that would resist a wartime special forces assault? Even at the height of the Cold War that kind of defence was limited to certain small areas of certain bases, and even then only for a certain period of time while a certain kind of support was rustled up from a certain location. Even today, the really sensitive operational bits of most bases have more security than just the outer fence. The photos looked to me like they'd stuck their posters on the DF antenna building or some other not-quite-critical-to-current-ops installation out on the airfield, rather than a satellite link transmitting messages of death to Afghanistan (which is almost certainly surrounded by razor wire and on top of a very high thing watched by cameras and movement sensors).
All that said, the punishment is entirely inappropriate. Our society is built upon the expectation that citizens will obey the law, but they will generally not be forced to do so by preventative policing. So when people purposefully break the law, they are breaking their 'contract' as citizens and deserve appropriate punishment. This punishment could almost be seen as offering 'open season' and expecting law enforcers to prevent further breaches. Which is not how I thought our justice system operated.
Last edited by Easy Street; 14th Oct 2013 at 20:49.