Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

UK protesting. Do what ever you want.

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

UK protesting. Do what ever you want.

Old 8th Feb 2019, 12:16
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 290
I don't know about you but where I work the people who are in favor of draconian sentences for protesters are also the people who rave about "health & safety gone mad" and " Fascism" when they 're caught breaking the speed limit etc
Very true.
vancouv is online now  
Old 8th Feb 2019, 12:25
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Taipei
Posts: 19
Originally Posted by Planemike View Post
Do you have any evidence for making that assertion??? If true, why should a human rights lawyer not be arguing a Criminal Prosecution?
So by your argument, you can break the law and then jusitfy it by claiming it is in defence of Human Rights. What a joke.

Why not get an Environmental lawyer in to claim you stopped the flight to prevent further damage to the Earth's atmosphere from Jet exhaust.



TPE Flyer is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2019, 12:58
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Off the map
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by Planemike View Post
Yes, you are all for human rights, so long as they are rights you approve of. Human rights extend beyond their life not being in danger.
What about my freedom of movement right? You know, the right I have to go about my business without restrictions placed by someone else deliberately to inconvenience me?
Or is that a lesser right?
DirtyProp is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2019, 13:03
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 9,366
Yep, whataboutery beats evidence hands down.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2019, 13:03
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Here and There
Posts: 8
The attached may be of interest, as it lists the legal parameters pertaining to this case, according to the CPS:

Not allowed to post a link, due to being insufficient in the matter of post numbers, but you can find it on the CPS website, under the heading 'Stansted Airport case', today's date. Sentencing, as per usual, a matter for the judge.

Ned
Steamer Ned is online now  
Old 8th Feb 2019, 13:10
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 9,366
Originally Posted by Steamer Ned View Post
The attached may be of interest, as it lists the legal parameters pertaining to this case, according to the CPS:
It says (https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/stansted-airport-case):

The prosecution of 15 defendants following an incident at Stansted Airport in 2017 has led to a number of misleading reports about the case.

To clarify:
  • The charge used in this case applies to those who intentionally disrupt service at an aerodrome regardless of their motivation. It is not a terrorist charge.
  • It has never been suggested these defendants are terrorists and they were not prosecuted under terrorism legislation.
  • The charge used in this case is from the Aviation and Maritime Security Act of 1990 and applies to those who intentionally disrupt service at an aerodrome regardless of their motivation.
  • The evidence showed that unauthorised people with unidentified equipment and unknown intentions had cut through the perimeter fence into the airside part of Stansted airport.
  • The protestors were in possession of scaffolding poles and metal tubing which they used to lock themselves together forming a chain around the nose of an aircraft.
  • Their actions meant the runway was immediately closed down and all flights were suspended, meaning none could take off or land.
  • They caused a significant risk to the safety of those on the airside, themselves included, and to the safe operation of the aerodrome. The potential consequences of a person impacting with an aircraft either taking off or landing, or a piece of debris being ingested into a jet engine were described as ‘catastrophic’, including the safety of entire aircrafts [sic] and all their passengers being at stake. The jury agreed that their actions were likely to endanger safety.
  • Prosecutors select charges which reflect the seriousness and extent of the offending and give the court adequate powers to sentence. The evidence supported that the actions were likely to endanger safety and therefore the selected charge was the most appropriate one.
  • Their case was put before a jury at Chelmsford Crown Court and they were unanimously convicted. The sentence was a matter for a court and the court was fully aware of the circumstances of this case.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2019, 13:44
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bolton ENGLAND
Age: 73
Posts: 848
Originally Posted by TPE Flyer View Post
So by your argument, you can break the law and then jusitfy it by claiming it is in defence of Human Rights. What a joke.

Why not get an Environmental lawyer in to claim you stopped the flight to prevent further damage to the Earth's atmosphere from Jet exhaust.
I am not making an argument either way, just wondering why a human rights lawyer cannot argue a Criminal Prosecution case.
What about my freedom of movement right? You know, the right I have to go about my business without restrictions placed by someone else deliberately to inconvenience me?
Or is that a lesser right?
Yes, sometimes it might be....
Planemike is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2019, 15:54
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Wilds of Warwickshire
Posts: 145
Perhaps the Prosecution missed a trick here, in that they should have produced a stream of Witnesses who had:
Missed onward connections.
Missed Family events.
Suffered significant financial loss.
Suffered being dumped at other Airports (MAN etc) while travelling with a baby and expecting to be met by Family and a car.
Missed medication for the same reason.

The 'victims' were perceived as 'just Airlines losing a bit of money'. This is a long way from the truth of the human impact.

But then 'Human Rights' seems to trump Human's Rights in this crazy world.
KiloB is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2019, 00:34
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 2,510
Nobody here is saying this was a peaceful protest.
Oh, yes they are. Post #10,
Of course it was a peaceful protest
.
megan is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 13:06
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: London
Posts: 12
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
Quote:The prosecution of 15 defendants following an incident at Stansted Airport in 2017 has led to a number of misleading reports about the case.

To clarify:
  • The charge used in this case applies to those who intentionally disrupt service at an aerodrome regardless of their motivation. It is not a terrorist charge.
  • It has never been suggested these defendants are terrorists and they were not prosecuted under terrorism legislation.
  • The charge used in this case is from the Aviation and Maritime Security Act of 1990 and applies to those who intentionally disrupt service at an aerodrome regardless of their motivation.
  • The evidence showed that unauthorised people with unidentified equipment and unknown intentions had cut through the perimeter fence into the airside part of Stansted airport.
  • The protestors were in possession of scaffolding poles and metal tubing which they used to lock themselves together forming a chain around the nose of an aircraft.
  • Their actions meant the runway was immediately closed down and all flights were suspended, meaning none could take off or land.
  • They caused a significant risk to the safety of those on the airside, themselves included, and to the safe operation of the aerodrome. The potential consequences of a person impacting with an aircraft either taking off or landing, or a piece of debris being ingested into a jet engine were described as ‘catastrophic’, including the safety of entire aircrafts [sic] and all their passengers being at stake. The jury agreed that their actions were likely to endanger safety.
  • Prosecutors select charges which reflect the seriousness and extent of the offending and give the court adequate powers to sentence. The evidence supported that the actions were likely to endanger safety and therefore the selected charge was the most appropriate one.
  • Their case was put before a jury at Chelmsford Crown Court and they were unanimously convicted. The sentence was a matter for a court and the court was fully aware of the circumstances of this case.
UK Media in "not telling the whole story" shocker!

All15 of these people should have served jail time. Not years and years, but a few months to send the message to the protesting community.


You aren't allowed to break into aerodromes and protest at the UK government deporting convicted rapists....

(As an added bonus. Would also affect ESTA applications as well)
Plain1 is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 14:29
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 96
Perhaps but it seems that some (at least three) of those about to be deported may have been victims of .. a gung-ho attitude perhaps:-

"Emma Hughes, who gave birth between being convicted and sentenced, said the group were "massively relieved" none of them would be going to jail. She said: "It is a massive vindication of what we did. There are 11 people still in the UK because of the action we took. Three of them have now been granted leave to remain; there is one man here who would have been separated from his family and is now here with his family. We are going to keep fighting until we get these convictions overturned."
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 14:52
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 9,366
Originally Posted by Plain1 View Post
UK Media in "not telling the whole story" shocker!
Not to mention "CPS being economical with the truth" shocker.

CPS: The charge used in this case applies to those who intentionally disrupt service at an aerodrome regardless of their motivation. It is not a terrorist charge.
Hmmm.

The Stansted defendants were arrested for, and initially charged with, aggravated trespass - similar to the Heathrow protesters in 2015, who caused roughly the same amount of damage (to the respective airport fences), with both events resulting in flight cancellations and diversions.

Only later were the defendants charged under s.1 of the Aviation & Maritime Security Act 1990 (endangering safety at aerodromes). Those offences are specifically identified in Schedule 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 as Convention offences as defined by the International Counter-Terrorism Conventions.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 17:20
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: London
Posts: 12
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
...there is one man here who would have been separated from his family and is now here with his family..."
Personally, if you are a visitor to a country and you break their rules and they want to get rid of you. Then getting out of it by having your family here does seem a bit of a loophole.


Surely that threat of being separated from your family if you screw up OUGHT to be enough to focus your mind into behaving accordingly.


Plain1 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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