PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Rumours & News (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news-13/)
-   -   UK protesting. Do what ever you want. (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/618075-uk-protesting-do-what-ever-you-want.html)

Ian W 7th Feb 2019 18:20

I would think that the 'punishment' with the most impact would be to add them permanently to the 'NO FLY' list. These days that would be a significant punishment.

edi_local 7th Feb 2019 18:34


Originally Posted by bingofuel (Post 10383073)
Do these convictions now mean that the airport authority, airlines and passengers inconvenienced can sue these people for any losses or costs incurred due to their behaviour?

I'd at least hope it was grounds for them all to be banned from entering any UK airport or being within 500 meters of one for a considerable amount of time. That ban would also apply to UK airlines.

However I suspect someone would find that would go agasint their human rights. I am all for human rights, but long as Thier life is not endangered by banning them from somewhere then I don't see any controversy. No one could argue their life would be at risk from being banned from using a UK airport.

DaveReidUK 7th Feb 2019 19:13


Originally Posted by KelvinD (Post 10383349)
For me, the biggest disappointment of this out come was that 3 of the culprits had previously received suspended sentences for, I think, offences committed at Heathrow. Those 3 should have gone away as they had proved that they can scoff at suspended sentences. Perhaps their lenient treatment may send a message to all the others that they need not worry about the suspended sentence and may encourage them to chance their arms again in a future breach.

If they had been subject to active suspended sentences, the judge would have had no alternative but to jail them, and leniency wouldn't have entered into it.

They weren't.

Donkey9871 7th Feb 2019 21:00

Simple solution
 
It seems fairly obvious to me, airlines do not have to carry anyone they dont want to, a certain judge might find that his next holiday is a tad more difficult than his last....... 😁😁😁

Planemike 7th Feb 2019 21:55


Originally Posted by edi_local (Post 10383385)
I'd at least hope it was grounds for them all to be banned from entering any UK airport or being within 500 meters of one for a considerable amount of time. That ban would also apply to UK airlines.

However I suspect someone would find that would go agasint their human rights. I am all for human rights, but long as Thier life is not endangered by banning them from somewhere then I don't see any controversy. No one could argue their life would be at risk from being banned from using a UK airport.

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.

ph-sbe 7th Feb 2019 23:33


Originally Posted by rcsa (Post 10382587)
Or maybe the UK justice system has signaled that allowing peaceful public protest against a contentious legal process is a more important moral and social principle than protecting the commercial rights of airlines, airport operators and passengers. Perhaps the 'signal' is that although there will be legal sanction, it will not be so severe as to completely discourage such protest in future.

This is a principle that has been established in court in the past, against road protestors, among others.

Your right to protest ends where my right to go about me legal business is impeded. How it is acceptable to close down roads, airports, shops or anything that self-proclaimed SJWs deem "harmful" goes beyond me. Whether its the legal deportation of someone without a permit to reside in the country, or preventing medical personnel from accessing their clinics, the law should protect the law-abiding citizens from going about their legal business. This verdict clearly shows that in this particular case, the self-proclaimed rights of small group of SJWs are valued above the rights of thousands of travelers.

megan 8th Feb 2019 00:13


Of course it was a peaceful protest
I'm somewhat intrigued how a break and enter (destruction of property) can be classified as "peaceful".
peace·ful
[ pees-f uhl]
ADJECTIVE
1. characterized by peace; free from war, strife, commotion, violence, or disorder: a peaceful reign; a peaceful demonstration.
2. of, relating to, or characteristic of a state or time of peace.
3.peaceable; not argumentative, quarrelsome, or hostile: a peaceful disposition

edi_local 8th Feb 2019 06:56


Originally Posted by Planemike (Post 10383569)
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.

Is being allowed within 500 meters of a UK airport a human right?

The UK may be an island but banning someone from our airports wouldn't prevent them from traveling. We have trains and ferries to other countries. They would be more than welcome to use those to get to another airport If they had to fly.

As far as I am aware there is no human right that says everyone must have access to airports and airlines.

I'm not suggesting we strip them of their home or force feed them through a tube, just ban them from being anywhere near an airport in this country as they have shown they have no regard for the safety or security of them.

​​​​​​

His dudeness 8th Feb 2019 07:04


Originally Posted by Planemike (Post 10383569)
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.

Thats clearly sloblock, as Stephen Fry would say... go and have a read what human rights are. Its an example of a melting and deteriorating society (all over Europe btw) that we witness here. Like the old Roman empire days, when the whole thing rotted from the inside out. There are ways of protesting rightful and breaking and entering and disrupting air traffic is NOT. Now why a court does not understand this is left to the imagination. To my mind that has to do with the rotting....

parabellum 8th Feb 2019 07:40


However I suspect someone would find that would go agasint their human rights. I am all for human rights,
Human rights are not a solo affair, as with all 'rights', they come with responsibilities, deliberately fail to acknowledge one's responsibilities and act appropriately, to the detriment of others who are affected and law abiding at the time and one should be held to account, surely?

followthegreens 8th Feb 2019 07:58

Nobody here is saying this was a peaceful protest. Nobody here said they should not have gone to court. Nobody here said their actions weren't careless or potentially dangerous.

FACT: they got sentenced by a judge to 12 month in prison, albeit with a suspended sentence. They are convicted criminals.

Ah but yes I forgot: facts, or expert opinions, don't matter in the Brexit era...

FullWings 8th Feb 2019 08:32


Nobody here is saying this was a peaceful protest. Nobody here said they should not have gone to court. Nobody here said their actions weren't careless or potentially dangerous.

FACT: they got sentenced by a judge to 12 month in prison, albeit with a suspended sentence. They are convicted criminals.
Agreed, although it sends the signal that you’re unlikely to go to prison if you chain yourself to the nose gear of an A380 on 27L, having cut your way in to LHR. Not quite the message that the AVSEC community would like put about. Try that on a US airbase.

It’s a difficult one to get right, although for public order/nuisance offences making the punishment fit the crime often feels right. Sentence: mend the hole in the fence, two weeks sweeping FOD off the taxiways and a week on the lost luggage desk...

DaveReidUK 8th Feb 2019 08:43


Originally Posted by FullWings (Post 10383889)
Agreed, although it sends the signal that you’re unlikely to go to prison if you chain yourself to the nose gear of an A380 on 27L, having cut your way in to LHR.

Er, no it doesn't. The Titan 767 was parked overnight, empty, when it was immobilised by the protestors, not taxying out onto a runway.

If it had been the latter, then charges of endangering life would be justified, and nobody would be getting a suspended sentence.





Asturias56 8th Feb 2019 08:59

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

;)

MCDU2 8th Feb 2019 08:59

Deport the next lot from a military base and let the protestors cut down a fence and run across the tarmac and be shot. Simple solution.

FullWings 8th Feb 2019 09:30


Er, no it doesn't. The Titan 767 was parked overnight, empty, when it was immobilised by the protestors, not taxying out onto a runway.
Details. If everyone is made aware of something (which is the whole point of protests), there’s no risk to life-and-limb, just a large amount of disruption while the protest is moved on. If you drove a truck covered in flashing lights onto a runway in an obvious manner in front of an aeroplane, then unfurled a “Justice for Cats!!” banner, it could hardly be described as dangerous, more like £$%^ing annoying...

Shandy52 8th Feb 2019 09:40


Originally Posted by MCDU2 (Post 10383931)
Deport the next lot from a military base and let the protestors cut down a fence and run across the tarmac and be shot. Simple solution.

What, shot like the protesters at Greenham Common weren't, you mean?

TPE Flyer 8th Feb 2019 09:44

This is the problem with the Lunatic Left and tree hugging Human Rights lawyers. A human rights lawyer should not be arguing a Criminal Prosecution.
And F&)#ing Judges. "had to balance their right to protest..." But after reading some of the sympatheic/pathetic responses on here, excusing their actions as a public nuisance, it is no wonder they got off.

They have the right to protest.

They don't have the right to break into a secure and/or restricted area to do so.
They have the right to break anything!
They don't have the right to detain anyone or anything.
They don't have the right to force my aircraft to divert.
They have the right to impose the inconvenience on any of the passengers on my flight that I am forced to divert.

As long as the world keeps making excuses for the illegal activities for these types of Social Terrorists then their behaviour will continue.


Planemike 8th Feb 2019 11:00


Originally Posted by TPE Flyer (Post 10383980)
. A human rights lawyer should not be arguing a Criminal Prosecution.

Do you have any evidence for making that assertion??? If true, why should a human rights lawyer not be arguing a Criminal Prosecution?

DaveReidUK 8th Feb 2019 11:03


Originally Posted by Planemike (Post 10384055)
Do you have any evidence for making that assertion???

It's simply an opinion. If opinions requred evidence, the world would be a boring place.

IMHO :O


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:05.


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