MAN breach
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Finland
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAN breach
Sky News:
SkyNewsBreak: Protesters breach security at Manchester Airport: gain access to terminal and reportedly chain themselves to aircraft
Now, am I imagining things, or has there been such a thing before at MAN ? It just feels "to have happened before."
SkyNewsBreak: Protesters breach security at Manchester Airport: gain access to terminal and reportedly chain themselves to aircraft
Now, am I imagining things, or has there been such a thing before at MAN ? It just feels "to have happened before."
No doubt they will just get a few hours of community service like the trespassers at Stansted got, I seem to recall.
I also think they should be treated as potential terrorists!
I also think they should be treated as potential terrorists!
Last edited by fireflybob; 24th May 2010 at 15:24.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 52
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am i the only one who thinks they should start the plane up and go and do some fast taxi checks, maybe a little flight!
Same thing should happen when they invade a runway....... business as usual.
Same thing should happen when they invade a runway....... business as usual.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was the cargo terminal, but it does illustrate that all the DfT screeners in the world are no match for a pair of wire cutters.
True of almost any airport, anywhere though
.
True of almost any airport, anywhere though
.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Altrincham
Age: 58
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did this breach cause diversions of aircraft? Only my aunt was coming back from Cancun today (presumably on Thomas Cook) and they had to turn away from MAN and divert to East Midlands for 5 hours.
Or was there another reason it diverted?
Or was there another reason it diverted?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: halifax
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
personally, i agree with fireflybob, and treated them all as potential terrorists and shot the lot of them.
as is mentioned on another post here on Pprune, what they actually did was self defeating. they were campaining for lower emmissions, saving the trees, looking after the earth blah blah blah and therefore wanting less aircraft traffic, however by causing aircraft to hold, then divert to alternates, basically incresed emmissions, thus defeating their point of protest.
as is mentioned on another post here on Pprune, what they actually did was self defeating. they were campaining for lower emmissions, saving the trees, looking after the earth blah blah blah and therefore wanting less aircraft traffic, however by causing aircraft to hold, then divert to alternates, basically incresed emmissions, thus defeating their point of protest.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However one has to ask the question, why was it allowed to happen. Apparently the protesters were known about, and had been seen chaining themselves to the fences an hour or so before! Why didn't security or the police therefore prevent them from cutting this fencing and thus be able to penetrate the airfield, or at least contain them in a small area. To allow them to take the action they did which resulted in the closure of the airport seems very careless in the extreme.
However the closure was another over-reaction yet again, all supposedly in the name of corporate laibility, but in reality it's a "Run around like headless chickens", instead of appraising the risk properly. (Which would be negligable seeing that it was so far away from the bulk of the operational area)
I hope the airlines send the bills to MA and then they may react a little better the next time anything like this happens.
I do agree that as a breach of security the tree huggers should be treated as probable / possible terrorists and therefore wave goodbye to their rights to be handled with kid gloves.
Should be dressed in orange jump suits and put on an Island in Morcambe Bay with regular rendition flights into Walney Island courtesy of BA in conjunction with UNITE.
'Who me sir, extreme in my opinions? - I should coa-coa!
However the closure was another over-reaction yet again, all supposedly in the name of corporate laibility, but in reality it's a "Run around like headless chickens", instead of appraising the risk properly. (Which would be negligable seeing that it was so far away from the bulk of the operational area)I hope the airlines send the bills to MA and then they may react a little better the next time anything like this happens.
I do agree that as a breach of security the tree huggers should be treated as probable / possible terrorists and therefore wave goodbye to their rights to be handled with kid gloves.
Should be dressed in orange jump suits and put on an Island in Morcambe Bay with regular rendition flights into Walney Island courtesy of BA in conjunction with UNITE.
'Who me sir, extreme in my opinions? - I should coa-coa!
personally, i agree with fireflybob, and treated them all as potential terrorists and shot the lot of them.
Planemike
We are supposed to live in a democracy and people are allowed to speak out
Free speech allows people to speak out but they are not supposed to break the law when doing it. When people do break the law it can actually result in freedoms being reduced.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: halifax
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
planemike, what that the view when the hijackers boarded the aircraft on the morning of 9/11. oh it's just a harmless screwdriver / craft knife etc etc etc.........
the fact is they entered an area where they were not supposed to be, and an area that is favoured by terrorists. and as for non violent - yes, that may be the case, but criminal damage was done by cutting the fence.
how would you like it if i broke into your house and then made a protest (non violent) about the noise that your dog made during the night? would that be acceptable? No, i dont think so.
i'm all for freedom of speach, provided it is done in the right & correct way!
the fact is they entered an area where they were not supposed to be, and an area that is favoured by terrorists. and as for non violent - yes, that may be the case, but criminal damage was done by cutting the fence.
how would you like it if i broke into your house and then made a protest (non violent) about the noise that your dog made during the night? would that be acceptable? No, i dont think so.
i'm all for freedom of speach, provided it is done in the right & correct way!
Last edited by HXdave; 25th May 2010 at 11:04. Reason: corrections.
Apparently the protesters were known about, and had been seen chaining themselves to the fences an hour or so before!
Police arrest 100 in swoop on green protesters
i'm all for freedom of speach, provided it is done in the right & correct way!
Without some protest and people speaking out we would not enjoy some of the rights that we do. Some civil disobedience occurred in order for women to obtain the vote, just as one example.
Planemike
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: halifax
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Planemike, i think you misunderstand my views. there is nothing wrong with freedom of speech, and it does not matter whether i agree with what is being said or not - everybody has a right to say what they want (giving consideration, anyway!)
what i am saying is there is a right way and a wrong way to go about putting across point of view. you could also argue that there is a 'legal' way and an 'illeagal' way too. and at the end of the day, if you do something illeagal, then you should pay the price for that.
what i am saying is there is a right way and a wrong way to go about putting across point of view. you could also argue that there is a 'legal' way and an 'illeagal' way too. and at the end of the day, if you do something illeagal, then you should pay the price for that.
