Unwelcome visitors
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peaceful protest is one thing but there is no excuse for criminal damage and the punishment in no way fitted the crime.
There is, however a growing number that question the ethics of drones. I'm all for making the job our military do safer but for once I can see the argument the protesters have. Don't agree with the methods in this case though.
There is, however a growing number that question the ethics of drones. I'm all for making the job our military do safer but for once I can see the argument the protesters have. Don't agree with the methods in this case though.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just this once.
Security IS the issue here.
You are of course telling me what happened with the benefit of hindsight.
I carried out several tests and mock raids, and to be honest if I could get onto MOD land this easily I could do all kinds of nasty stuff.
Let's say they were part of the bad lads club, and had done more damage (waiting for the civil police would have been a waste of time) or had started copying the radicals who murdered lee Rigby, just how useful would it have been to stop them AFTER they had cut the fence and done whatever they wanted.
The idea of security is to make it very hard for intruders to get in (bearing in mind the base should be able to deter special forces with: automatic weapons; support weapons and anti armour weapons in time of war)and to stop them in the act of trying.
This wasn't rocket science, but was poor security, monitoring and response (to the fence cutting) in a base that is being protested at and in huge news.
Fairford was mentioned earlier, and the break in there. The protesters contained a majority of anti war types, but also baddies and Brit and U.S. Baddy spotters dressed as hippies. This worked more effectively that the event the thread is about.
Security IS the issue here.
You are of course telling me what happened with the benefit of hindsight.
I carried out several tests and mock raids, and to be honest if I could get onto MOD land this easily I could do all kinds of nasty stuff.
Let's say they were part of the bad lads club, and had done more damage (waiting for the civil police would have been a waste of time) or had started copying the radicals who murdered lee Rigby, just how useful would it have been to stop them AFTER they had cut the fence and done whatever they wanted.
The idea of security is to make it very hard for intruders to get in (bearing in mind the base should be able to deter special forces with: automatic weapons; support weapons and anti armour weapons in time of war)and to stop them in the act of trying.
This wasn't rocket science, but was poor security, monitoring and response (to the fence cutting) in a base that is being protested at and in huge news.
Fairford was mentioned earlier, and the break in there. The protesters contained a majority of anti war types, but also baddies and Brit and U.S. Baddy spotters dressed as hippies. This worked more effectively that the event the thread is about.
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.
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.
barnstomer,
If you are suggesting that our bases in peacetime are not configured to defend against an out-of-the-blue SF attack then I guess you would be correct.
Do we think that is a current and credible threat that we have to be armed to the teeth to defend against at all times?
This situation was diffused by unarmed RAFP and the local plod; nobody seemed to feel the need to deploy all the guard force with weapons drawn. Proportionality is still a major factor in everything we do with weapons but I also wonder how a Kenyan style attack would play-out in the UK.
If you are suggesting that our bases in peacetime are not configured to defend against an out-of-the-blue SF attack then I guess you would be correct.
Do we think that is a current and credible threat that we have to be armed to the teeth to defend against at all times?
This situation was diffused by unarmed RAFP and the local plod; nobody seemed to feel the need to deploy all the guard force with weapons drawn. Proportionality is still a major factor in everything we do with weapons but I also wonder how a Kenyan style attack would play-out in the UK.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I also wonder how a Kenyan style attack would play-out in the UK."
Badly. The police would take a while to get there, surround the perimeter
and contain but not enter, deliberate over what to do, argue over which agency
would do it, wait for the Gov't to authorize the use of the military etc etc
Re an out of the blue SF attack, unless you ring the base with people 24 /7,
any good SF troops will find the weak spot and plan and prepare enough
force to get in. As to what happens from then on, ..................
Badly. The police would take a while to get there, surround the perimeter
and contain but not enter, deliberate over what to do, argue over which agency
would do it, wait for the Gov't to authorize the use of the military etc etc
Re an out of the blue SF attack, unless you ring the base with people 24 /7,
any good SF troops will find the weak spot and plan and prepare enough
force to get in. As to what happens from then on, ..................
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: In the middle
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4Mastacker
Doesn't look too much like one of those Spetnatz/Taliban types to me.....most definitely a 'sleeper' though - probably after a hot chocolate for elevenses and a couple of chapters of 'People's Friend' !!
Keep reading your 'Boys' Own old boy....!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Closer than you think...
Age: 65
Posts: 390
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ES
Looking at the Pictures and the signs, then at least one of them would most certainly have the potential to cause more than a headache for an hour or two to the whole site.
Lights? what lights, pass the torch please may become the statement of the day/night/week...
Barnstormer is right, Security is THE question here, they should not have been able to get in, much less wander about for a period of time without challenge. Security is not just the job of the barrier operator on the gate, it is the responsibility of EVERYONE on base and that includes both Service and Civi, if it looks out of place either challenge (service people get to do this) or report, either way don't ignor.
Looking at the Pictures and the signs, then at least one of them would most certainly have the potential to cause more than a headache for an hour or two to the whole site.
Lights? what lights, pass the torch please may become the statement of the day/night/week...
Barnstormer is right, Security is THE question here, they should not have been able to get in, much less wander about for a period of time without challenge. Security is not just the job of the barrier operator on the gate, it is the responsibility of EVERYONE on base and that includes both Service and Civi, if it looks out of place either challenge (service people get to do this) or report, either way don't ignor.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just this once.
No, I wouldn't expect an all out SF attack, but that is what the airfield should be able to deter.
I would on the other hand expect an attack from other groups. Again with hindsight the unarmed snowdrop was appropriate. Would he or she have been much use against lee Rigby's murderers.
Other questions perhaps to consider are:
Does the hippy in the above pic look any more dangerous than the white widow or any of the Chechen ladies who occupied the Beslan school number one?
Did it take SF to destroy the USMC harriers at camp leatherneck, or just some determined folks who were very aware of lapse security at a point of the camp perimeter?
RAF airfields are easy prey for attackers, and used to only have low wooden fences. Whether attacks are made by military forces, protesters, the former PIRA or criminal gangs (a criminal attack on a base recently happened) the RAF could do a lot more to secure perimeters.
Very sadly there are a whole bunch of UK nationals who are very anti British, and who support AQ and the Taliban. Give that this station supports UAVs to fight these groups then it should be anticipated that they have already been studied or will be studied for attack.
Extra security does not always require more manning, but simply better measures. Things like the Israeli innofence have been around for over two decades, as have many other modern security systems.
No, I wouldn't expect an all out SF attack, but that is what the airfield should be able to deter.
I would on the other hand expect an attack from other groups. Again with hindsight the unarmed snowdrop was appropriate. Would he or she have been much use against lee Rigby's murderers.
Other questions perhaps to consider are:
Does the hippy in the above pic look any more dangerous than the white widow or any of the Chechen ladies who occupied the Beslan school number one?
Did it take SF to destroy the USMC harriers at camp leatherneck, or just some determined folks who were very aware of lapse security at a point of the camp perimeter?
RAF airfields are easy prey for attackers, and used to only have low wooden fences. Whether attacks are made by military forces, protesters, the former PIRA or criminal gangs (a criminal attack on a base recently happened) the RAF could do a lot more to secure perimeters.
Very sadly there are a whole bunch of UK nationals who are very anti British, and who support AQ and the Taliban. Give that this station supports UAVs to fight these groups then it should be anticipated that they have already been studied or will be studied for attack.
Extra security does not always require more manning, but simply better measures. Things like the Israeli innofence have been around for over two decades, as have many other modern security systems.
Last edited by barnstormer1968; 15th Oct 2013 at 05:33.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"then it should be anticipated that they have already been studied
or will be studied for attack."
The attack on Bastion showed the level of intel and training skills
these guys have got so a very wise assumption.
or will be studied for attack."
The attack on Bastion showed the level of intel and training skills
these guys have got so a very wise assumption.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's interesting most responses here have been from the legal side, I.e. protestors not sentenced strongly enough, but ignoring the legal point that they were making. Now I don't necessarily agree with their point but there is a certainly a case to debate.
US drones, if not ours, are killing people on a daily basis in Pakistan although, they aren't at war. Would you walk up to someone, terror suspect or not, and shoot them in the head with no legal process and expect that to be the end of it? Why is it different if a drone rather than a pistol is used? How would we feel if the Pakistan Air Force was killing people this way in the UK.?
US drones, if not ours, are killing people on a daily basis in Pakistan although, they aren't at war. Would you walk up to someone, terror suspect or not, and shoot them in the head with no legal process and expect that to be the end of it? Why is it different if a drone rather than a pistol is used? How would we feel if the Pakistan Air Force was killing people this way in the UK.?
ShotOne - just not relevant to this thread. We operate Reaper just like any manned platform and I cannot imagine we would ever use any aircraft for ex-judicial killings of any suspect. Re-home them and give them legal aid yes; kill them err no.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: In the middle
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now the UK citizenship has a firmly cynical mind-set courtesy of Tony Blair I'm afraid the prospect of our military being involved in Reaper missions is never going to be popular. Execution style killings with inevitable collateral damage may be seen as a necessity by some but is a pretty poor form of warfare. Gallant it is not. However I'm sure it won't be long before we see our first DFC's - unless it's happened already?!
The fact that the Judge in this case (who I know to be a 'normal' bloke outside of working hours!) took a lenient view in his punishment should be indicative enough of the strength of feeling against the use of drones. You only have to 'read between the lines' of a lot of posters on here to assess where even those who have served queen and country feel about it!!
The fact that the Judge in this case (who I know to be a 'normal' bloke outside of working hours!) took a lenient view in his punishment should be indicative enough of the strength of feeling against the use of drones. You only have to 'read between the lines' of a lot of posters on here to assess where even those who have served queen and country feel about it!!
Gallant it is not.
And there's nothing inevitable about collateral damage with Reaper strikes, indeed the opposite is true. UAVs operate with the same stringent ROE as manned aircraft, they have low-yeild munitions, and their endurance allows the operator to build up a picture of the battlespace that might not necessarily be available to the pilot of a fast jet who's busy flying his aircraft in a tactical fashion, managing his fuel, and trying not to get shot down, etc.
Last edited by melmothtw; 15th Oct 2013 at 09:54.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I disagree about the relevance, just this once; you can't wave the legal cudgel with one hand while insisting the legal issues on drone strikes are above discussion. I'm not against drones, or in favour of criminal trespass for that matter but it's a necessary debate, not just for "soap dodgers" but those of us who have served in uniform too.
ROE's same as for manned aircraft?? For ours, I will take your word that's the case but it's manifestly not the case for the US ops in Pakistan.
ROE's same as for manned aircraft?? For ours, I will take your word that's the case but it's manifestly not the case for the US ops in Pakistan.
ROE's same as for manned aircraft?? For ours, I will take your word that's the case but it's manifestly not the case for the US ops in Pakistan.
I'm not waving any legal cudgel nor am I suggesting the legality of US strikes is not up for debate - feel free to start a thread on the subject. But this thread is about an incursion on a UK base, triggered by UK Reaper operations operated under UK law. It has nothing to do with weapons released by US aircraft elsewhere in the world. For that the protestors would need to challenge a US base!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,560
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
The fact that the Judge in this case (who I know to be a 'normal' bloke outside of working hours!) took a lenient view in his punishment should be indicative enough of the strength of feeling against the use of drones. You only have to 'read between the lines' of a lot of posters on here to assess where even those who have served queen and country feel about it!!
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Submarines were considered 'unfair' at one time but people got used to them, as they will to RPAS.
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, (ABC) are not a reliable source of information at all. The ABC is a hard left organisation who manufacture and manipulate the news to suit their agenda.
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, (ABC) are not a reliable source of information at all. The ABC is a hard left organisation who manufacture and manipulate the news to suit their agenda.