UK protesting. Do what ever you want.
 

Yet again the UK justice system has signalled that it is perfectly acceptable to break into the secure areas of anan Aerodrom to protests as you will not have to worry about going to prison.

I suspect that if I entered the judges Court to protest I would be in prison for contempt of court before I knew it. It is just a pity the airlines can not go after these idiots for the loses incurred. Perhaps if they ended up loosing their houses to cover the airlines loses they might think twice in future. They were also protesting and trying to to prevent the deportation of people who had illegally entered the UK and so broke the law of this Country.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-47145449


Fifteen protesters who chained themselves to a plane to stop it deporting people to Africa have avoided immediate jail sentences.

Dubbed the Stansted 15, the group broke through a fence at the airport in a bid to reach the jet taking 60 people to Nigeria, Ghana and Sierra Leone.

They were found guilty of endangering the safety of an aerodrome.

Three were given suspended jail terms and 12 received community orders at Chelmsford Crown Court.

The group has said they will appeal against their convictions, which they believe have serious implications for the freedom to protest.

They used bolt cutters to enter Stansted Airport and attached themselves to the Boeing 767 using tubes and expanding foam on 28 March 2017.

The runway was closed for more than an hour and 23 incoming flights had to be diverted to other airports.https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/images/ic/720x405/p0704s99.jpgMedia captionStansted 15 'relieved' to avoid jailPassing sentence, Judge Christopher Morgan told the 15 that while he accepted the group were seeking to demonstrate in support of their cause, they had come "perilously close" to causing a catastrophe.

He said: "In normal circumstances only a normal custodial sentence would have been justified in this case, but in your case I accept that your intentions were to demonstrate."

"There is no doubt that you understood that there were safety implications," he added.

"You put at risk the safe operations of the airport and the persons who were there on the night."https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cp...c46832b58f.jpg

Analysis

By Dominic Casciani, BBC Home Affairs correspondent

In court, the judge faced some tough arguments from a top human rights barrister about his duties to balance the question of airport security with the need to protect freedom of speech and assembly. Judge Morgan said he did this through tempering his sentences - in other circumstances, he said, he would have jailed the lot of them.

Some of the defendants looked jubilant and defiant. Others looked like defendants often do: exhausted by the process, somewhat remorseful and promising never to do it again.

So if the Court of Appeal decides not to examine the convictions, this prosecution will stand as a warning to others of the type of charge they could face for endangering an airport.

Brings to mind the drunken passenger who recently was fined the cost of the fuel wasted to return him to the airport of origin. I like the idea that people found to be responsible for creating delay/operational costs because of their illegal actions should be fined the operational cost of their behaviour!

They can still be held responsible for the financial side of the case. The criminal proceedings determine punishment. Civil proceedings determine liability. Now that they have been found guilty in criminal proceedings, it would only take a small amount of effort to win a civil suit.

Do we need another thread on this?

PPRuNe: Stansted deportation protestor could get life in jail

Why bother!
 

I have to wonder why we bother with following the Law.
It clearly does not apply to an Anarchist!
Freedom of Speech and Assembly.
Breaking and Entering? Was this the Judge s first day?
Pathetic.

on the other hand...
 

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.

I suspect that if these people had been intent on causing physical harm to assets or people, they would not have been treated so leniently.

A Protest?
 

A somewhat less hysterical discussion of the case by the BBC here: Are the Stansted 15 being treated like terrorists?

"The defendants argued during their 42-day trial that their actions were justified: that even if they had technically broken the law, they had a good reason for doing so."

Strange things happen in people's minds. They certainly need a reality check. Who determines what a good reason is, tho?

Of course it was a peaceful protest. What was unpeaceful about it............???

This is Britain, not China or some Middle Eastern country where folk can be locked up on the whim
of the government.

Protesting on the highways, preventing access to others etc etc is peaceful protest. These people caused criminal damage by cutting a perimeter fence. I suspect given their age and behaviour they were tweeting or using social media - not that difficult to imagine others with far more malevolent learning of the plans and following them through the fence to commit terrorist acts.

If they wanted to protest against UK law they could have protested outside the terminal land side. They decided to go further. They are not stupid. They deserve what they got, and indeed should be relieved not to be jailed.

The problem is the message this sends out to others, and the effect it will have on airlines when next asked to deport these illegals. Civil action would help as a deterrent even if it merely resulted in bankruptcy, but I suspect it wont happen

Just because they have a suspended sentence does mean you can "do what you want", as the OP proclaims. The implications of being found guilty of a crime in a court of law will be potentially profound (background check, anyone?). I think the judge got it right, TBH. There is no evidence that their intent was anything other than protest. If they had planned to go and damage planes, vehicles, etc it would be another matter. Yes they were foolish and careless. They are now convicted criminals with a suspended jail term. I think that's enough. If I wanted more, I'd move to Saudi.

Really?
Fair enough, tomorrow I'm gonna peacefully put a nice wheel clamp to your car just to protest about something.
I'm sure you'll have nothing to say against it.

It is frustrating to see yet again that airport protestors get away with it.

Personally I don't agree with the UK's treatment of deportees or the mentality of send them home and then let them appeal later. That said I don't feel the need to break my way into an airport to district everyone and anyone else using that airport that day to force others to see that I'm unhappy. There are other ways they can challenge the government on these issues. The fact that the UK treats deportees badly and has a harsh immigration system is hardly a secret anymore after recent years. They can't claim it's to raise awareness.as everyone knows about it.

Anyway all of that aside. Why do we have aviation bylaws if they are not enforced? I have to go through a background check with full 5 year history and references to get an airside ID and have to repeat that process every few years. Not to mention passing my GSAT and other recurring training to be let airside. Before all that I have an escorted pass and can't leave my chaparone. I did once, by mistake, and both of us got read the riot act and had our passes revoked for a week. This was despite both of us clearing security at the airport and both being long time employees known to the airport (I was awaiting a new pass as my other one had expired). I'm told that it's a critical part of an airport and no one unauthorised should be there and there are consequences if someone is found in an area they aren't mean to be in...yet apparently I could just cut a hole in a fence if I want to be near a plane and no one will do anything about it. It doesn't add up. Why have they been let off so lightly?

I don't care about the commercial loss to those affected or really care if someone misses something due to a delayed flight. All annoying and yes, these idiots should pay the price financially too, but it's the principal of it all. Airports are meant to be secure and trespassing is meant to be a serious offence, punishable by law. It's not treated at all seriously in the UK. Anyone can break and enter and airport and essentially get away with it.

No, you are right, I won't. Not related in anyway ..... complete non-sequetor.
(Looked peaceful enough to me)....

edi local.....
Read what is written, no one has "got away" with anything. I do not see how anyone has been "let off lightly". Each of the protestors has received a sentence and therefore a criminal record.

I beg to differ.
They deliberately caused disruption, aggravation and financial damages to people and businesses to stage a protest, not to mention the security breach. They had no right to do so, and quite frankly this behaviour is not peaceful at all in my book.

"The defendants argued during their 42-day trial that their actions were justified: that even if they had technically broken the law, they had a good reason for doing so."


Let's say that someone can't afford to buy their insulin (seriously, people are dying because of that over here). If they held up a bank to get money to buy insulin, would the " even if they had technically broken the law, they had a good reason for doing so" work as a defence?

In most of Europe it probably would... especially in a jury trial..

Isn't there an argument that goes something like "for the greater good"? I am not arguing for or against that, just wondering.
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.