Not been picked up yet? Terrorists go free?
Discussion
vikingaero said:
OK, appeal upheld.
Why are they not made to pay for the costs incurred in the aborted flight, the costs of housing and re-transporting the 49 that were later removed and the 11 that are still with us?
Because too many left wing liberals in the Courts allow it. Why are they not made to pay for the costs incurred in the aborted flight, the costs of housing and re-transporting the 49 that were later removed and the 11 that are still with us?
It’s disgusting.
vikingaero said:
OK, appeal upheld.
Why are they not made to pay for the costs incurred in the aborted flight, the costs of housing and re-transporting the 49 that were later removed and the 11 that are still with us?
If you storm an airplane, you’re a terrorist. That’s my view.Why are they not made to pay for the costs incurred in the aborted flight, the costs of housing and re-transporting the 49 that were later removed and the 11 that are still with us?
Should’ve been locked up for life. Lord Trumpton is an idiot.
But they didn’t storm an airplane did they? They broke into the airfield (bad enough) and chained themselves around the wheels to prevent it from taking off.
Doesn’t sound as if they were trying to use “terror” in order to further a political viewpoint?
What they did was break the law, and should be/have been charged against the appropriate legislation.
That’s it really isn’t it?
Doesn’t sound as if they were trying to use “terror” in order to further a political viewpoint?
What they did was break the law, and should be/have been charged against the appropriate legislation.
That’s it really isn’t it?
TVR1 said:
If you storm an airplane, you’re a terrorist. That’s my view.
Should’ve been locked up for life. Lord Trumpton is an idiot.
Should’ve been locked up for life. Lord Trumpton is an idiot.
Rivenink said:
TVR1 said:
Is no one interested in this outrage of justice?
Yes. It was outrageous that they were charged with terrorism offences. What kind of country uses terrorism laws to prosecute peaceful protesters?
TVR1 said:
Is no one interested in this outrage of justice?
I've got no sympathy for the Stansted 15, but from what I can see this is a case of taking crimes committed as absolute in isolation of other factors, vs what people there at the time would have thought was going on. So, to the groundcrew and the aircrew who knew they had an aircraft full of criminals being deported, presumably handcuffed and so on, did they think they were on the receiving end of a terrorist act? A bunch of people shambling about in high-vis, whining about the poor unfortunate convicts would be unlikely to be mistaken for an act of terrorism.
However, had they donned balaclavas, been waving machetes about and started taking hostages, it would have been seen very differently. Especially if they'd got the wrong plane and it was a bunch of holiday makers.
If another charge can be brought (trespass? Criminal damage to fences?) I'd like to see that happen as well as a civil case for the costs incurred as a result of their actions. In questions of humanity and morality too many people assert that they have the correct view and everyone with a different view is wrong - I think the Stansted 15 are guilty of this, in that they've decided it is so inhumane and immoral to deport convicts that they are committing a positive act by committing this act, whereas I suspect the majority of people would rather we have fewer thieves, murderers and rapists running around.
In amongst the sixty deportees were eleven who later obtained permission to stay in the UK, including victims of trafficking. It is often said to be better for ninety nine guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to be imprisoned, and there's some comparison with that proposition here.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 30th January 16:18
Judgment here -
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/...
Instead the protesters were prosecuted for and initially convicted of the offence of "intentional disruption of services at an aerodrome", contrary to section 1(2)(b) of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990, an offence which requires the consent of the Attorney General to prosecute.
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/...
Lord Burnett said:
The appellants should not have been prosecuted for the extremely serious offence under section 1(2)(b) of the 1990 Act because their conduct did not satisfy the various elements of the offence. There was, in truth, no case to answer. We recognise that the various summary only offences with which the appellants were originally charged, if proved, might well not reflect the gravity of their actions. That, however, does not allow the use of an offence which aims at conduct of a different nature.
The protesters could have been done for aggravated trespass (by statute trespass, usually a civil wrong, is a criminal offence in some very specific contexts) and for breach of the Airport Byelaws. Instead the protesters were prosecuted for and initially convicted of the offence of "intentional disruption of services at an aerodrome", contrary to section 1(2)(b) of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990, an offence which requires the consent of the Attorney General to prosecute.
Breadvan72 said:
In amongst the sixty deportees were eleven who later obtained permission to stay in the UK, including victims of trafficking. It is often said to be better for ninety nine guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to be imprisoned, and there's some comparison with that proposition here.
I am interested BV the others involved appear to have been a mix of criminals at the extreme end of crime and as well as others with no legal right to asylum. Edited by Breadvan72 on Saturday 30th January 16:18
I agree the charges were made incorrectly and the CPS should have not allowed this but at what point is peaceful protest, as suggested elsewhere, become none peaceful?
Breaking in and disrupting a legally approved process is not the same as waving a placard, but what is the measure?
How does the legal system and the officers of it, uphold UK law if often people, no doubt well meaning but possibly misguided, can disrupt the application of the law with little in the way of punishment?
Not wanting an argument just trying to understand it from a different perspective
Protest, and the disruption that may attend it, are part of the price of having a free and open society. Penalising protest, or activities associated with protest, is something to be careful about, as otherwise we start to become an authoritarian society. This is not to say that protesters can commit crimes with impunity, but the present case is an example of the prosecution over reaching. Sledgehammers and nuts come to mind.
Breadvan72 said:
In amongst the sixty deportees were eleven who later obtained permission to stay in the UK, including victims of trafficking. It is often said to be better for ninety nine guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to be imprisoned, and there's some comparison with that proposition here.
All very well until one of the ninety nine goes on a knife rampage and murders a few innocent people enjoying the sun in a park. Edited by Breadvan72 on Saturday 30th January 16:18
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff