Gatwick Airport closed, because idiots are flying drones close to it.

[likesfish]

Police are still tryi g to ban . 50 bmg cal rifles.

Due to their "serious threat"
The fairly ridiculous rifles all weigh over 20lb plus are bolt action and used for a rather geeky pastime of target shooting at a mile and a half.
Without explosive tip ammo they aren't much more dangerous than a hunting rifle and hitting even a jumbo jet taking off with a bolt action rifle is unlikely let alone anywhere vital.

 

[Indeliblelink]

More diverted flights yesterday
DRONE DRAMA: Flights diverted due to possible drone sighting

THREE flights have been diverted after reports of a possible drone sighting.

The flights landed at Stansted following the alert at Gatwick this afternoon.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

Will they catch the phantom drone operator this time?

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

And now it's Frankfurt's turn... Update: 143 flights cancelled at Frankfurt Airport due to drone sighting

 

[skyscraper101]

That'll disrupt things a bit. Frankfurt is massive. One of the busiest airports in Europe after Heathrow, Schipol and Charles de Gaulle

 

[teuchter]

Excellent news.

 

[weltweit]

At the end of the day the chances of bringing down a plane with a drone are pretty much zero. Even if you manage to take an engine out, all passenger aircraft can fly safely on one. And anywhere else it might impact, it will never cause serious structural damage that would compromise the ability of the plane to continue flying.

Have you not seen the video of a drone being fired at a wing at normal closing speed? The drone made a drone shaped hole in the front of the wing.

You know, the wing, where they keep the fuel tanks.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Excellent news.

Who for?
For whom?

 

[Spymaster]

Who for?
For whom?

Climate twats.

 

[teuchter]

Who for?
For whom?

Read the thread.

 

[T & P]

Have you not seen the video of a drone being fired at a wing at normal closing speed? The drone made a drone shaped hole in the front of the wing.

You know, the wing, where they keep the fuel tanks.

Yeah but that would be the leading edge of the wing. I am no airplane engineer but am not sure a drone impact near an airport where the approaching speeds are fairly low would be near enough to cause such catastrophic damage to a wing as to pierce the fuel tanks buried well within.

 

[Saul Goodman]

twats.

FFY

 

[weltweit]

 

[T & P]

Who for?
For whom?

Climate twats.

It doesn't matter. It won't make any difference. It will not cause a single person affected by such actions to modify their flying behaviour in the future, let alone any numbers of people needed to make even the slightlest difference to climate change.

In fact the opposite might be true. If for instance I had been prevented by some drone-happy cunt from, say, making it to the funeral of a loved one across the Pond, my most likely reaction to the act would have been to start looking for cheap flights and book 10 domestic flights from London to, say, Manchester or Plymouth or similarly pointless domestic air destinations from London, and then publish my deeds on social media as a monumental 'fuck you' to the idiotic fucktoid. And would encourage others to do the same every time there is a further drone incident near an airport.

 

[Saul Goodman]

In fact the opposite might be true.

I'm sure the opposite is true.

 

[hash tag]

and Singapore Drones disrupt flights at Singapore Changi airport

 

[T & P]

Bump because the couple wrongly accused and very publicly demonised have just been awarded a 200k payout from the Met

Gatwick drone arrests: Sussex Police pays out £200,000 - BBC News

Paul and Elaine Gait say they are "delighted to be vindicated" after a long fight for justice.

www.google.com

Pleased about that, but I would have been even more pleased if the tabloid press had been made to share the bill.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Bump because the couple wrongly accused and very publicly demonised have just been awarded a 200k payout from the Met

Gatwick drone arrests: Sussex Police pays out £200,000 - BBC News

Paul and Elaine Gait say they are "delighted to be vindicated" after a long fight for justice.

www.google.com

Pleased about that, but I would have been even more pleased if the tabloid press had been made to share the bill.

Not the Met, but Sussex Police.

And, damages paid was only £55k, the extra £145k talked about is billed legal costs.

 

[MrCurry]

£55k in damages. £145k in legal costs.

They went the “no win, no fee” route then.

 

[existentialist]

£55k in damages. £145k in legal costs.

They went the “no win, no fee” route then.

Probably not surprising. Even without opportunist lawyers, and assuming the actual costs could have been a third of what's being claimed, that's a lot of wedge to have to find, for most normal people...

 

[DJWrongspeed]

I'm not sure I would've bothered to take legal action against the police but I wasn't in their position. They obviously had it bad from the police. I'm not sure how they can say "delighted to be vindicated." Does anyone seriously think they were guilty? The lack of prosecution is the bigger story that affirms their innocence as well.

Airports are now so tooled up with detection that it may never happen again which makes it all the more mystifying.

 

[existentialist]

I'm not sure I would've bothered to take legal action against the police but I wasn't in there position. They obviously had it bad from the police. I'm not sure how they can say "delighted to be vindicated." Does anyone seriously think they were guilty? The lack of prosecution is the bigger story that affirms their innocence as well.

Airports are now so tooled up with detection that it may never happen again which makes it all the more mystifying.

I'd have much preferred to see them go after the papers for libel (we don't have "criminal libel" on the statute books here, do we?), which should have been an open and shut case...but such is our legal system now that the only way you can bring a libel action is if you have very deep pockets. Just another example of lack of accountability.

 

[two sheds]

They'll doubtless have used words like "are accused of ...", "a police spokesperson said ...", ....

 

[tim]

I'm not sure I would've bothered to take legal action against the police but I wasn't in their position. They obviously had it bad from the police. I'm not sure how they can say "delighted to be vindicated." Does anyone seriously think they were guilty? The lack of prosecution is the bigger story that affirms their innocence as well.

Airports are now so tooled up with detection that it may never happen again which makes it all the more mystifying.

I would.; I could find something useful to do with a paltry £55,000

 

[T & P]

I'm not sure I would've bothered to take legal action against the police but I wasn't in their position. They obviously had it bad from the police. I'm not sure how they can say "delighted to be vindicated." Does anyone seriously think they were guilty? The lack of prosecution is the bigger story that affirms their innocence as well.

Airports are now so tooled up with detection that it may never happen again which makes it all the more mystifying.

Do you not remember the circumstances of their arrest? I don’t have an issue with genuine mistakes that might lead to innocent people being arrested, so long as the error is swiftly remedied and the cops own up publicly to their mistake.

But this was a very high profile case and clearly these people’s names were leaked (or perhaps even officially disclosed in a press release, I can’t remember) to the media immediately after their arrest, and inevitably got demonised by the press. That the police didn’t appear to have any remotely credible basis to make an arrest makes it even worse.

This was one of those hot potato issues that had just about the entire country up in arms and probably had the government demanding swift results from the police. Which is fine in itself, but not so much when the filth decide to chance it and arrest people on flimsy shit if they have no good leads.

 

[Pickman's model]

Not the Met, but Sussex Police.

And, damages paid was only £55k, the extra £145k talked about is billed legal costs.

You think the lawyers should have charged the cops more?

 

[cupid_stunt]

You think the lawyers should have charged the cops more?

Don't be fucking stupid.

 

[SpookyFrank]

I would.; I could find something useful to do with a paltry £55,000

You could get a motherfucker of a drone for that. Just hover it over the chief inspector's house all day.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Incidentally, this is one of my favourite threads of recent years and I'm delighted to see it bumped.

 

[Part 2]

Incidentally, this is one of my favourite threads of recent years and I'm delighted to see it bumped.

Yea definitely, I remember it being the highlight of Xmas