Stanstead Closed by Deportation Flight Protesters

[Escapegoat]

Starfighter said:

My job is connected to the aviation industry as a parts maker, am am aware of the delicate nature of parts and FOD risks.

As I said, I have no problems with prosecuting these people, I question the nature of the prosecution under “terrorism” legislation. This is. It the type of case it was intended for.

Criminal trespass, criminal damage, possession of a blades article (cutters) were all option and likely much easier to prove.

Exactly; the anti-terror legislation has been used to create a far bigger deterrent effect than existing (and more relevant) laws*. These people are now terrorists. They are going to find it extremely difficult to travel internationally in the future. Result = fewer such protests, and happy authoritarians (as shown in this thread).

Reports of the trial say that much of it was H&S-related evidence. Nothing about any terror-related intent. Because there was none. These people will win on appeal.

* Hmmm... I wonder if anyone mentioned this likelihood when the anti-terror legislation was drafted so loosely?

[Rovinghawk]

Escapegoat said:

They are going to find it extremely difficult to travel internationally in the future. Result = fewer such protests, and happy authoritarians (as shown in this thread).

I'm generally anti-authoritarian but see no problem here. They knew what they were doing was naughty, could reasonably expect to be punished & so can't complain when punishment actually happens.

Escapegoat said:

These people will win on appeal.

I'll have a pound against you on this.

[superlightr]

Eric Mc said:

Rovinghawk said:

Starfighter said:

I question the nature of the prosecution under “terrorism” legislation.

Presumably the judge thought it was OK as he found them guilty of the charges.

Judges don't always get things right - as we all know.

whooo the horses....

Am I reading a different story?

The CPS said they were charged with intentional disruption of services at an aerodrome, contrary to section 1 (2) (b) of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990.

The bleeding hearts said "The terrorism-related charge "

So the Terrorism Act 2006 was not used.

[Escapegoat]

Rovinghawk said:

I'm generally anti-authoritarian but see no problem here. They knew what they were doing was naughty, could reasonably expect to be punished & so can't complain when punishment actually happens.

Imagine that you have a child, perhaps student age and full of idealism. Enough to protest injustice at an airport (or any other place covered by that gross anti-terror law) and she gets arrested and successfully prosecuted as a terrorist. If you're OK with that, you're an authoritarian, despite your claims. She's no longer "naughty" as you put it, she's now a terrorist. Literally.

She can't get certain jobs (nurse, teacher, FFS) and she'll not be able to travel freely. When she tries, her passport is flagged and she'll have to get used to being pulled out of the line for any number of who-knows-how-many intrusive interrogations.

[andy_s]

She wouldn't because she wouldn't have been convicted of a terrorism offence. They were convicted under section 1 (2) (b) of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990, which seems perfectly reasonable.

ETA As per superlightr above.

[Rovinghawk]

Escapegoat said:

Enough to protest injustice

One flaw in your argument is that it wasn't injustice, it was judicial process.

Escapegoat said:

she gets arrested and successfully prosecuted as a terrorist. If you're OK with that, you're an authoritarian, despite your claims. She's no longer "naughty" as you put it, she's now a terrorist. Literally.

Read the bit above about them not being terrorist charges- that would tend to take the wind out of your sails.

Escapegoat said:

She can't get certain jobs (nurse, teacher, FFS) and she'll not be able to travel freely. When she tries, her passport is flagged and she'll have to get used to being pulled out of the line for any number of who-knows-how-many intrusive interrogations.

Leaving aside the fact that this won't actually be the case for reasons given above, the whole point of punishments is that they act as unpleasant consequences of crimes. You might wish to promote and reward those who commit crimes but when it's clearly & blatantly criminal then I feel they have to stand accountable for their acts.

If they don't get punished then they & the rest won't learn that actions have consequences. Sadly the current educational system tries to teach the opposite but it doesn't apply to the real world, as these idealists are suddenly finding out.

[Murph7355]

Escapegoat said:

Imagine that you have a child, perhaps student age and full of idealism. Enough to protest injustice at an airport (or any other place covered by that gross anti-terror law) and she gets arrested and successfully prosecuted as a terrorist. If you're OK with that, you're an authoritarian, despite your claims. She's no longer "naughty" as you put it, she's now a terrorist. Literally.

She can't get certain jobs (nurse, teacher, FFS) and she'll not be able to travel freely. When she tries, her passport is flagged and she'll have to get used to being pulled out of the line for any number of who-knows-how-many intrusive interrogations.

Others have noted this doesn't seem to be the case here, but...

You do stupid things and get caught, you suck up the punishment.

If you don't understand the full consequences of your actions, then don't dabble until you do.

[Rovinghawk]

Murph7355 said:

If you don't understand the full consequences of your actions, then don't dabble until you do.

There's a planning technique by which you ask yourself "And what happens next?"

[Eric Mc]

Murph7355 said:

Escapegoat said:

Imagine that you have a child, perhaps student age and full of idealism. Enough to protest injustice at an airport (or any other place covered by that gross anti-terror law) and she gets arrested and successfully prosecuted as a terrorist. If you're OK with that, you're an authoritarian, despite your claims. She's no longer "naughty" as you put it, she's now a terrorist. Literally.

She can't get certain jobs (nurse, teacher, FFS) and she'll not be able to travel freely. When she tries, her passport is flagged and she'll have to get used to being pulled out of the line for any number of who-knows-how-many intrusive interrogations.

Others have noted this doesn't seem to be the case here, but...

You do stupid things and get caught, you suck up the punishment.

If you don't understand the full consequences of your actions, then don't dabble until you do.

Or, you expect the authorities to apply the law in a fair and equitable way - and apply the legislation that REALLY applies to the offence.

And, if the WRONG legislation is applied, you appeal. That's how the law works in a democracy.

[amusingduck]

Eric Mc said:

Murph7355 said:

Escapegoat said:

Imagine that you have a child, perhaps student age and full of idealism. Enough to protest injustice at an airport (or any other place covered by that gross anti-terror law) and she gets arrested and successfully prosecuted as a terrorist. If you're OK with that, you're an authoritarian, despite your claims. She's no longer "naughty" as you put it, she's now a terrorist. Literally.

She can't get certain jobs (nurse, teacher, FFS) and she'll not be able to travel freely. When she tries, her passport is flagged and she'll have to get used to being pulled out of the line for any number of who-knows-how-many intrusive interrogations.

Others have noted this doesn't seem to be the case here, but...

You do stupid things and get caught, you suck up the punishment.

If you don't understand the full consequences of your actions, then don't dabble until you do.

Or, you expect the authorities to apply the law in a fair and equitable way - and apply the legislation that REALLY applies to the offence.

And, if the WRONG legislation is applied, you appeal. That's how the law works in a democracy.

Why is "section 1 (2) (b) of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990." the "WRONG legislation"?

[Rovinghawk]

Eric Mc said:

Or, you expect the authorities to............. apply the legislation that REALLY applies to the offence.

To which legislation do you refer?

[Biker 1]

untakenname said:

Refreshing to see the publics reaction to this mp's tweet
https://twitter.com/CarolineLucas/status/107211877...

God I can't stand Lucas - a nasty hypocrite

[Biker 1]

Eric Mc said:

That's how the law works in a democracy.

Except that democracy is dying a death in this country........

[superlightr]

its like talking in a vacuum ……..
(except other recent posters who have also read and understood)


? let me try....again...……


am I reading a different story?




[/quote superlightr]

whooo the horses....

Am I reading a different story?

The CPS said they were charged with intentional disruption of services at an aerodrome, contrary to section 1 (2) (b) of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990.

The bleeding hearts said "The terrorism-related charge "

So the Terrorism Act 2006 was not used.

Edited by superlightr on Tuesday 11th December 11:48

Edited by superlightr on Tuesday 11th December 11:50

[Shakermaker]

superlightr said:

its like talking in a vacuum ……..


? let me try....again...……


am I reading a different story?

whooo the horses....

Am I reading a different story?

The CPS said they were charged with intentional disruption of services at an aerodrome, contrary to section 1 (2) (b) of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990.

The bleeding hearts said "The terrorism-related charge "

So the Terrorism Act 2006 was not used.

But as the old saying goes - "A lie will travel around the world before the truth has even got its shoes on."

[Not-The-Messiah]

These people are now convicted criminals and as such there opinions and political views should be now fully disregarded.
That's how it works doesn't it? See the Tommy Robinson thread.

On a more serious note they have clearly broken the law and you cant even claim it to be a ambiguous law. As such they should be held to account for their actions and perhaps should have thought about the consequences before doing it.
Other than that I don't really care if them and others want to defend their actions and try and justify them then thats OK with me. If in this case they feel that an injustice as been done that also ok with me.

I can potentially see their reasoning but in this case I'm not going to agree with them.

[dudleybloke]

What about the rights of the rape victim?
Or does having brown skin make the rapist a bigger victim than her?

[Rovinghawk]

Not-The-Messiah said:

I can potentially see their reasoning

Illegal immigrant convicted rapist should be prevented from being sent back from whence he came?

Could you please explain the reasoning? It's not entirely clear to me.

[Halb]

Shakermaker said:

But as the old saying goes - "A lie will travel around the world before the truth has even got its shoes on."

or around PH even quicker!

[Gameface]

It isn't rocket science.

Don't fk around at airports. And similarly military bases, nuclear power stations, houses of parliament etc unless you are willing to face the full force of the law.

Dressing it up as standing up for a rapists human rights makes it more palatable does it? Does it fk. It belittles their argument rather than helps it IMO.

They deserve punishment simple as that.

Maybe they'll think twice next time. fking idiots.