Gatwick closed by drones

Author
Discussion

B'stard Child

20,167 posts

204 months

Friday 31st May 2019
quotequote all
kowalski655 said:
On LBC someone was saying thje leaked document only said they would fly drones when planes werent flying
Of course if they are still flying when planes are supposed to be taking off or landing then they won't be a problem will they



ChocolateFrog

9,970 posts

131 months

Friday 31st May 2019
quotequote all
I hate these eco terrorists do-gooders.

I ALMOST hope someone dies as a result of the resources they tie up and they have to face the family.

They're scum, my hat goes off to the police in their efforts to have every single one of them prosecuted, let them enjoy declaring criminal convictions for the foreseeable future.

A few nylon baton rounds should do the trick, my weapon handling test isn't that out of date, I'll volunteer.

lemmingjames

6,621 posts

162 months

Friday 31st May 2019
quotequote all
Say you was due to get a flight when some numpty pulled this stunt and was caught/arrested/charged, could you pursue a civil case against said person and claim your money back from them?

poo at Paul's

9,584 posts

133 months

Friday 31st May 2019
quotequote all
djc206 said:
Yes China where the per capita emissions are roughly half that of the USA despite the fact they manufacture almost everything for the western consumer.
You really ought to go and look at how they do business, how they live and work. It's almost unbelievable what scant regard they have for their local environment, let alone the global one.

There's probably 6 or 7 global hotspots for crimes against the environment, and be assured, China IS one of them.

Exige77

5,409 posts

149 months

Saturday 1st June 2019
quotequote all
djc206 said:
wc98 said:
djc206 said:
Yes China where the per capita emissions are roughly half that of the USA despite the fact they manufacture almost everything for the western consumer.
that is the best whataboutery post i have ever read on here since i joined. you deserve a prize for that biggrin
What do I win? Is it a second hand drone? Or a pink yacht?
Just an “I’m a bit thick” badge.

Nothing to worry about !!

CAPP0

16,792 posts

161 months

Saturday 1st June 2019
quotequote all
kowalski655 said:
On LBC someone was saying thje leaked document only said they would fly drones when planes werent flying
So between something like 00.00 and 05.00 then? (I don't know exactly what time flights stop and restart). And that would have precisely what effect? "Oh look, we could if we wanted to"?

Or do they think that if a plane isn't airborne over the airport itself, it will be OK to launch?

Tossers.

djc206

7,110 posts

83 months

Saturday 1st June 2019
quotequote all
Exige77 said:
Just an “I’m a bit thick” badge.

Nothing to worry about !!
But I’m right. If you wanted to protest carbon emissions your efforts would best be focused in Middle Eastern oil producing countries or countries with substantial mining industries like Canada or Australia. Or you could target the western consumers who are the beneficiaries of heavy industry which is what they are doing. I don’t agree with them or their methods but it’s intellectually lazy to point at China and shout emissions.

djc206

7,110 posts

83 months

Saturday 1st June 2019
quotequote all
poo at Paul's said:
You really ought to go and look at how they do business, how they live and work. It's almost unbelievable what scant regard they have for their local environment, let alone the global one.

There's probably 6 or 7 global hotspots for crimes against the environment, and be assured, China IS one of them.
I’m well aware but the post I responded to specifically referred to carbon emissions. There’s no debating the environmental destruction in China, it’s a rapidly developing manufacturing economy, we went through the same thing 150 years ago, India will be next.

Dr Interceptor

5,928 posts

154 months

Saturday 1st June 2019
quotequote all
El stovey said:
article said:
The plan to use drones was revealed in a leaked consultation document shared between group members.
Should be easy enough to arrest these people?
If the document has been leaked, surely the authorities know who these halfwits are, and should lock them up for even thinking of doing it.

Vandenberg

1,673 posts

91 months

Saturday 1st June 2019
quotequote all
ChocolateFrog said:
let them enjoy declaring criminal convictions for the foreseeable future.
Already having an impact, I am currently working at client site, and one of the younger members of the team had been selected to work on a high profile UK project that requires security clearance.

She was told at the end of the week that their forms wouldn't even be submitted for SC due to her getting arrested at the recent demo.

She spent most of thursday afternoon in the toilets crying, she was doing ok, albeit very quiet on friday, until someone asked her if she was still going to Orlando for her summer holiday as it was iffy if she would get an ESTA. Another afternoon of crying.

I anticipate more tears when she twigs that her career arc has a serious dent in it. Good life lesson for her, actions however well intentioned have consequences.




ApOrbital

7,844 posts

76 months

Saturday 1st June 2019
quotequote all
Can they not just shoot them down? wink

Monkeylegend

19,665 posts

189 months

Saturday 1st June 2019
quotequote all
ApOrbital said:
Can they not just shoot them down? wink
A bit drastic. Arrest and imprisonment is the way to go.

Vaud

37,629 posts

113 months

Saturday 1st June 2019
quotequote all
Vandenberg said:
Already having an impact, I am currently working at client site, and one of the younger members of the team had been selected to work on a high profile UK project that requires security clearance.

She was told at the end of the week that their forms wouldn't even be submitted for SC due to her getting arrested at the recent demo.

She spent most of thursday afternoon in the toilets crying, she was doing ok, albeit very quiet on friday, until someone asked her if she was still going to Orlando for her summer holiday as it was iffy if she would get an ESTA. Another afternoon of crying.

I anticipate more tears when she twigs that her career arc has a serious dent in it. Good life lesson for her, actions however well intentioned have consequences.
I'm not sure that is right. It's not the employers choice as to if that fails security clearance (assuming you refer to Counter Terrorist Check/SC/DV). You can pass even DV with a record. They (generally) just want to know about it. Lots of people have SC with records of minor crimes. Why would they not submit them?

You are right that she will not automatically qualify for an ESTA but she can still (probably) get a visa but it will require an interview. I'm not totally convinced the systems are properly linked for minor crimes, but lying on an ESTA has potentially worse outcomes than following process.

Sounds like she needs to read up... her colleagues don't sound very helpful.

Lily the Pink

2,845 posts

128 months

Saturday 1st June 2019
quotequote all
lemmingjames said:
Say you was due to get a flight when some numpty pulled this stunt and was caught/arrested/charged, could you pursue a civil case against said person and claim your money back from them?
You think they have money (or liquid assets) ?

egor110

13,358 posts

161 months

Saturday 1st June 2019
quotequote all
Lily the Pink said:
lemmingjames said:
Say you was due to get a flight when some numpty pulled this stunt and was caught/arrested/charged, could you pursue a civil case against said person and claim your money back from them?
You think they have money (or liquid assets) ?
Yes , there trust funds .

TeamD

4,664 posts

190 months

Saturday 1st June 2019
quotequote all
Vaud said:
Vandenberg said:
Already having an impact, I am currently working at client site, and one of the younger members of the team had been selected to work on a high profile UK project that requires security clearance.

She was told at the end of the week that their forms wouldn't even be submitted for SC due to her getting arrested at the recent demo.

She spent most of thursday afternoon in the toilets crying, she was doing ok, albeit very quiet on friday, until someone asked her if she was still going to Orlando for her summer holiday as it was iffy if she would get an ESTA. Another afternoon of crying.

I anticipate more tears when she twigs that her career arc has a serious dent in it. Good life lesson for her, actions however well intentioned have consequences.
I'm not sure that is right. It's not the employers choice as to if that fails security clearance (assuming you refer to Counter Terrorist Check/SC/DV). You can pass even DV with a record. They (generally) just want to know about it. Lots of people have SC with records of minor crimes. Why would they not submit them?

You are right that she will not automatically qualify for an ESTA but she can still (probably) get a visa but it will require an interview. I'm not totally convinced the systems are properly linked for minor crimes, but lying on an ESTA has potentially worse outcomes than following process.

Sounds like she needs to read up... her colleagues don't sound very helpful.
Since submitting someone for security clearance costs the employer money then they have every right to refuse to put an employee forward for it should they stand a chance of being declined. It's their cash, It's their choice. Serves the daft bint right.

snuffy

6,566 posts

242 months

Saturday 1st June 2019
quotequote all
TeamD said:
Since submitting someone for security clearance costs the employer money then they have every right to refuse to put an employee forward for it should they stand a chance of being declined. It's their cash, It's their choice. Serves the daft bint right.
What a farce SC is.

"If you join a banned organisation or go off your nut or if anything else changes that would invalidate your clearance then you must inform us". What a fking joke that is.

TeamD

4,664 posts

190 months

Saturday 1st June 2019
quotequote all
snuffy said:
TeamD said:
Since submitting someone for security clearance costs the employer money then they have every right to refuse to put an employee forward for it should they stand a chance of being declined. It's their cash, It's their choice. Serves the daft bint right.
What a farce SC is.

"If you join a banned organisation or go off your nut or if anything else changes that would invalidate your clearance then you must inform us". What a fking joke that is.
I made no comment about SC in that respect. TBH, it seems to me that it gets used as a mechanism to operate a closed shop more often than not.

Tuna

15,878 posts

242 months

Saturday 1st June 2019
quotequote all
djc206 said:
But I’m right. If you wanted to protest carbon emissions your efforts would best be focused in Middle Eastern oil producing countries or countries with substantial mining industries like Canada or Australia. Or you could target the western consumers who are the beneficiaries of heavy industry which is what they are doing. I don’t agree with them or their methods but it’s intellectually lazy to point at China and shout emissions.
The reason China has lower per-capita emissions is that a huge portion of the 1.4 billion people are basically living in near third world rural conditions.

They're working as hard as they can to change that - at any cost to the environment - and that includes coal burning power stations, deforestation, strip mining and all sorts of other things that we've moved away from in the west.

So the argument that China is OK only holds if you expect them to keep their population in conditions that would make austerity campaigners in the west weep. They aren't about to do that, so there's only one direction their environmental impact is going to go.

Against that, we're on a negative trajectory in the west. The UK recently recorded the lowest carbon emissions since 1888 - Victorian times.

Of course it's lazy making China the 'bad guys', but they are the place where the biggest wins can be made.

djc206

7,110 posts

83 months

Saturday 1st June 2019
quotequote all
Tuna said:
The reason China has lower per-capita emissions is that a huge portion of the 1.4 billion people are basically living in near third world rural conditions.

They're working as hard as they can to change that - at any cost to the environment - and that includes coal burning power stations, deforestation, strip mining and all sorts of other things that we've moved away from in the west.

So the argument that China is OK only holds if you expect them to keep their population in conditions that would make austerity campaigners in the west weep. They aren't about to do that, so there's only one direction their environmental impact is going to go.

Against that, we're on a negative trajectory in the west. The UK recently recorded the lowest carbon emissions since 1888 - Victorian times.

Of course it's lazy making China the 'bad guys', but they are the place where the biggest wins can be made.
And they will in time. As they develop their labour costs will increase and manufacturing will move to the next third world country that can supply the consumers of the world with the stuff they want at the price they’re willing to pay.

Whilst coal is a problem China produces twice as much of its energy from renewable sources as the US. They have quite a lot of hydropower (which comes with its own issues of course) which the US doesn’t.

Fun fact: the largest open mine in the world is in Utah and is owned by a British Australian company.