Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Gatwick drone(s)

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Gatwick drone(s)

Old 14th Jan 2019, 18:04
  #341 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 29
Originally Posted by BehindBlueEyes View Post
All gone very, very quiet.

Do we think the investigation has been discreetly dropped or is a case still being built against the individual(s)?

The Heathrow incursion doesnít seem to be mentioned or referred to anymore in the media either.
Probably on the DA Notice until someone makes a coherent analysis of the whole mess.
Auxtank is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2019, 18:02
  #342 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Ilmington, Warwickshire
Posts: 137
BehindBlueEyes is online now  
Old 14th Apr 2019, 20:03
  #343 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 29
Originally Posted by BehindBlueEyes View Post
Yes, interesting. It was briefly talked about at the time and dismissed.

Or it's an exceedingly clumsy attempt at a cover-up for some unfathomable (lost within the dusty corridors of Whitehall) reason.

In summary; guess we mere mortals will never know.
Auxtank is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2019, 08:19
  #344 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by BehindBlueEyes View Post
All gone very, very quiet.

Do we think the investigation has been discreetly dropped or is a case still being built against the individual(s)?

The Heathrow incursion doesnít seem to be mentioned or referred to anymore in the media either.
The Heathrow incursion was someone flying a recently-purchased RC aircraft in the vicinity of the airport. The security teams could see the aircraft and track it to its landing area, directing ground elements to make the arrest. This was how they were able to re-open so quickly!
It's old news, hence the media have let it drop.
Sqints is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2020, 13:59
  #345 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: South East England
Posts: 585
Gatwick drone couple compensated £200k by police.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-53041256

Still not enough for the disgraceful and prolonged detention and disgraceful media fabrications.The only drones were the polices own.
Stampe is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2020, 21:48
  #346 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Posts: 544
My experience is contrary to your assertion but eager to hear any proof you have.
Del Prado is online now  
Old 14th Jun 2020, 22:33
  #347 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever someone will pay me to do fun stuff
Posts: 5
I think the problem is that there is no proof, that has been made public anyway, that there actually was an unknown UAS/vehicle in the vicinity. Or have I missed something? Happy to be corrected and interested in whatever information that is available.
LookingForAJob is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2020, 22:40
  #348 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 819
Originally Posted by Stampe View Post
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-53041256

Still not enough for the disgraceful and prolonged detention and disgraceful media fabrications.The only drones were the polices own.
You know you might want to look at your own thread title and read the article before throwing around words like "fabrication".

The article makes clear that the couple are not getting anything like 200k in compensation. The police are paying out 200k, but most of it to lawyers. Note, they are not paying the victims to pay their lawyers, the lawyers are billing the police direct, clearly stated.
infrequentflyer789 is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2020, 00:01
  #349 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Oxide ghost
Age: 55
Posts: 47
I'm not the OP, but I'm fairly sure that when I first read the article at lunchtime, the paragraph reading "Sussex Police confirmed it has paid the couple the £55,000 owed in damages, and law firm Howard Kennedy said it has billed the force an additional £145,000 in legal costs." wasn't present; neither was the final one mentioning that the police spent £790k investigating 96 suspects.

So it seems that the BBC may have updated the article silently, as they are occasionally wont to do. The fact that the article is timed "7 hours ago" (so around 6pm Sunday), when in fact I read it at around 2.45pm, would tend to support that. Either that or my memory's not what it was.
Ambient Sheep is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2020, 06:51
  #350 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: england
Posts: 732
I’m always interested when I read something like the police spent 790k on an investigation. Is that in addition to their normal running costs? Don’t we pay them anyway? Or do we pay them to sit in the office doing nothing, and then extra if they go out and do their jobs?
hunterboy is online now  
Old 15th Jun 2020, 07:22
  #351 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: sussex
Posts: 108
We pay them to genuflect to the protesters they are shadowing who are then emboldened because they think the police will not intervene in any rioting.
farefield is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2020, 07:50
  #352 (permalink)  
ZFT
N4790P
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Asia
Age: 70
Posts: 2,047
Sorry but you have totally lost me!
ZFT is online now  
Old 15th Jun 2020, 07:58
  #353 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 203
ZFT, I think farefield is alluding to those people marching the streets in London trying to desecrate statues.

maxed-out is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2020, 07:58
  #354 (permalink)  

"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: England
Age: 73
Posts: 3,261
It would be interesting to know why the police arrested this couple, with no evidence. Did someone "shop" them?
Herod is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2020, 08:24
  #355 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Various at the moment
Posts: 1,093
Always nice to see layers get more than the victim............wtf has this country come to.
dc9-32 is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2020, 08:46
  #356 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Korea
Posts: 99
Originally Posted by Herod View Post
It would be interesting to know why the police arrested this couple, with no evidence. Did someone "shop" them?
Apparently the male suspect is a known drone enthusiast.
Euclideanplane is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2020, 09:22
  #357 (permalink)  
TWT
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: troposphere
Posts: 724
A drone enthusiast who, according to the BBC article in the OP, did not possess any drones. Curious.

Twelve armed officers swooped on Mr and Mrs Gait's home, even though they did not possess any drones
P.S. I am assuming the BBC reporting is factual. Perhaps that's wishful thinking
mmmmm
mmmm
mmmmm

Last edited by TWT; 15th Jun 2020 at 09:37.
TWT is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2020, 09:23
  #358 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 86
He might have been a "known drone enthusiast" but both he and his wife had rock solid alibis - which the police reportedly completely ignored. I suspect that must account in part for the payout
redsetter is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2020, 09:45
  #359 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 378
Originally Posted by TWT View Post
A drone enthusiast who, according to the BBC article in the OP, did not possess any drones. Curious.
Right now I don't own any working quadcopters, but I have probably three or four in bits, and for years was very interested in playing around with them, particular some of the challenges of tuning the stability augmentation and autopilot features. I've no doubt that the media might choose to label me a "drone enthusiast", although I've never belonged to any sort of club, partaken in FPV racing events, or whatever, I've always just been interested in the technology. The reason my quadcopters are all dismantled and stored away is just because admitting to owning even one of these things was getting to be tantamount to declaring yourself to be a criminal. The need for registration was the final nail in the coffin for me, as it was a step too far, especially as the sales of highly capable autonomous air vehicles is almost completely unregulated. Anyone intent on doing mischief with one of these things is very unlikely to bother with registration, so the only purpose of registration seems to be to create extra hassle for people who just want to play around with the technology.

As above, it seems the police went completely OTT with this chap, and screwed up big time. He and his wife were miles away at the time of the incidents, and could prove it, yet that didn't stop the police carrying out an armed raid on his house. Quite why on earth they didn't check his whereabouts before arresting him, or why the police felt the need to send in a firearms squad, seems to be a mystery. It seems probable that someone chose to report him, perhaps because there are a few people around who just detest anyone that has a hobby like this, and the police didn't bother to check any details before going in mob-handed. Nice to see they've got a reasonable compensation deal, and that it's received some publicity. All too often those wrongfully arrested seem to suffer the indignity of loads of adverse media coverage at the time, and then get next to no coverage when they are found to be wholly innocent.
VP959 is online now  
Old 15th Jun 2020, 10:48
  #360 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,923
Agreed, VP. None of the new legislation makes it any harder for some troublemaker to do a repeat of the Gatwick fiasco. Just the usual clobbering of the already law-abiding.

Gatwick aside, the main objection to drones seems to come down to modern self-centredness; a drone appearing anywhere in sight MUST be looking at Meeeee... Because Iím so interesting!
ShotOne is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.