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 |
Originally Posted by Planemike
(Post 10384055)
Do you have any evidence for making that assertion??? If true, why should a human rights lawyer not be arguing a Criminal Prosecution?
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. |
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.
Or is that a lesser right? |
Yep, whataboutery beats evidence hands down.
|
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 |
Originally Posted by Steamer Ned
(Post 10384120)
The attached may be of interest, as it lists the legal parameters pertaining to this case, according to the CPS:
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:
|
Originally Posted by TPE Flyer
(Post 10384085)
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. 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? |
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. |
Nobody here is saying this was a peaceful protest. Of course it was a peaceful protest |
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 10384126)
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:
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." |
Originally Posted by Plain1
(Post 10385874)
UK Media in "not telling the whole story" shocker! :rolleyes:
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. |
Originally Posted by Asturias56
(Post 10385929)
...there is one man here who would have been separated from his family and is now here with his family..."
Surely that threat of being separated from your family if you screw up OUGHT to be enough to focus your mind into behaving accordingly. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 23:15. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.