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)

Council Van 6th Feb 2019 17:41

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.


9 lives 6th Feb 2019 18:08


The runway was closed for more than an hour and 23 incoming flights had to be diverted to other airports.
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!

ph-sbe 6th Feb 2019 18:37

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.

DaveReidUK 6th Feb 2019 18:49

Do we need another thread on this?

PPRuNe: Stansted deportation protestor could get life in jail

BluSdUp 6th Feb 2019 21:09

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.

rcsa 7th Feb 2019 06:20

on the other hand...
 

Originally Posted by Council Van (Post 10382155)
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.

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.

KiloB 7th Feb 2019 07:11

A Protest?
 
This was NOT a “peaceful protest”. A peaceful protest is standing holding a placard with your message.

This incident included (defined) criminal acts and inconvenienced thousands of people who had no relationship to their perceived ‘problem’. As such it is an aggressive use of force which should have been punished appropriately.

DaveReidUK 7th Feb 2019 07:22

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

Hodin 7th Feb 2019 07:45


Originally Posted by DaveReidUK (Post 10382637)
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?

Planemike 7th Feb 2019 07:51


Originally Posted by KiloB (Post 10382626)
This was NOT a “peaceful protest”. A peaceful protest is standing holding a placard with your message.

This incident included (defined) criminal acts and inconvenienced thousands of people who had no relationship to their perceived ‘problem’. As such it is an aggressive use of force which should have been punished appropriately.

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.

homonculus 7th Feb 2019 09:48

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

followthegreens 7th Feb 2019 09:58

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.

DirtyProp 7th Feb 2019 11:44


Originally Posted by Planemike (Post 10382669)
Of course it was a peaceful protest. What was unpeaceful about it............???
.....

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.

edi_local 7th Feb 2019 12:06

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.

Planemike 7th Feb 2019 12:47


Originally Posted by DirtyProp (Post 10382960)
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.

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.

DirtyProp 7th Feb 2019 13:22


Originally Posted by Planemike (Post 10383029)
No, you are right, I won't. Not related in anyway ..... complete non-sequetor.
.....

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.

bingofuel 7th Feb 2019 13:29

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?

Thud105 7th Feb 2019 13:32

"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?

Asturias56 7th Feb 2019 16:52

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

KelvinD 7th Feb 2019 18:10

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.

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 09:07.


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