UK protesting. Do what ever you want.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Or is that a lesser right?
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Here and There
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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:
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.
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?
Or is that a lesser right?
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: London
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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:
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.
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)
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."
"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."
Not to mention "CPS being economical with the truth" shocker. 
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: London
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely that threat of being separated from your family if you screw up OUGHT to be enough to focus your mind into behaving accordingly.
