Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Stansted 15 found guilty of 'endangering' airport

E

Enviro

Make your assessment
I've just read this report:

Stansted 15: Activists who stopped deportation flight found guilty of 'endangering' airport

and am saddened that they have been found guilty. Particularly as 11 of the 60 people due to be deported on the chartered flight have since been granted leave to remain.

As one of the protesters said: it should be the Home Office in the dock :mad:

Apparently the protesters endangered "themselves, the flight crew, airport personnel and police at serious risk of injury or even death due to their actions on the airfield." But I'm struggling to see what the risks to the flight crew, airport personnel and police were?
 
Spymaster said:
They weren't tried as terror offenses. They were charged with intentionally disrupting services at an airport. Which they did.
Click to expand...
Your ignorance is showing. They were found guilty of endangering the safety of the airport. Which they didn't.

It was an offence introduced to target terrorist so fuck off with your nitpicking. I notice amnesty international think it a completely disproportionate and oppressive use of the legislation but spymaster knows better of course.
 
Brainaddict said:
Your ignorance is showing. They were found guilty of endangering the safety of the airport. Which they didn't.

It was an offence introduced to target terrorist so fuck off with your nitpicking. I notice amnesty international think it a completely disproportionate and oppressive use of the legislation but spymaster knows better of course.
Click to expand...
But Amnesty International is full of people like you!

To repeat; they have NOT been charged with terrorist offences.
 
Last edited:
Spymaster said:
But Amnesty International is full of people like you!

To repeat; they have NOT been charged with terrorist offences.
Click to expand...

So was the House of Lords it seems. From Aviation and Maritime Security Bill (Hansard, 5 April 1990):

"The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this Bill is to provide another weapon in the fight against international terrorism in the air and at sea."

It might not be a "terrorist offense" within some legalistic meaning of the term, but the intent of the government at the time is explicit. This is yet again the CPS and a judge lining up with the government to stop effective protest. Given what the gov has done to the courts and legal aid, I wonder where they find the lawyers and judges to do their bidding?
 
Struwwelpeter said:
So was the House of Lords it seems. From Aviation and Maritime Security Bill (Hansard, 5 April 1990):

"The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this Bill is to provide another weapon in the fight against international terrorism in the air and at sea."

It might not be a "terrorist offense" within some legalistic meaning of the term, but the intent of the government at the time is explicit. This is yet again the CPS and a judge lining up with the government to stop effective protest. Given what the gov has done to the courts and legal aid, I wonder where they find the lawyers and judges to do their bidding?
Click to expand...

They're all on the same team. I'm not sure it's judges who particularly suffer from the cuts, any more than Tory councillors do.
 
This must be some specialised definition of the term "endangering" that is used only within the law courts of England and Wales, right?
 
Being fair (in that BBC kind of way), they do need to be really strict about what gets onto the runway area etc. but this is a bit like those women who smashed up that jet - there are bigger and more important concerns here.
 
NoXion said:
This must be some specialised definition of the term "endangering" that is used only within the law courts of England and Wales, right?
Click to expand...

Iirc when they revised some terror law definitions a wee while back, there were some on Urban who predicted exactly this sort of thing. Think one of them might be on this thread.

edit: not talking about myself btw
 
NoXion said:
This must be some specialised definition of the term "endangering" that is used only within the law courts of England and Wales, right?
Click to expand...
Sort of is. Apparently it hinges on the law being phrased as 'the possibility of endangerment' or some such phrase. Words like 'possibility' create huge traps of vagueness in the law that an arsehole prosecutor and arsehole judge between them can lay for anybody they've got it in for. It is political bullshit of the highest order and I hope to god they get a decent appeal.
 
8ball said:
Iirc when they revised some terror law definitions a wee while back, there were some on Urban who predicted exactly this sort of thing. Think one of them might be on this thread.
Click to expand...

My impression was that judicial overreach was an issue concerning recent(-ish, fucking hell has it been that long?) terror legislation from the very beginning, but that what many civil liberties groups and concerned citizens said was largely ignored, because apparently the only way to protect freedumb from those ebil terrists is to destroy it before they can get to it.
 
NoXion said:
My impression was that judicial overreach was an issue concerning recent(-ish, fucking hell has it been that long?) terror legislation from the very beginning, but that what many civil liberties groups and concerned citizens said was largely ignored, because apparently the only way to protect freedumb from those ebil terrists is to destroy it before they can get to it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was very much like the only way to protect us from those who hate our freedom was to capitulate immediately.
 
Brainaddict said:
Sort of is. Apparently it hinges on the law being phrased as 'the possibility of endangerment' or some such phrase. Words like 'possibility' create huge traps of vagueness in the law that an arsehole prosecutor and arsehole judge between them can lay for anybody they've got it in for. It is political bullshit of the highest order and I hope to god they get a decent appeal.
Click to expand...

By that mind-meltingly idiotic metric, any paying passengers attempting to board their plane as part of normal airport operations present the "possibility" of endangerment. There is a non-zero chance that one of them might suddenly lose their minds and start stabbing the person sat beside them to death with a plastic spork. Stranger things have happened.

I mean, do they not teach larval solicitor-forms what a reductio ad absurdum is at law school or wherever?
 
Last edited:
Also, what's the rationale/justification for chucking people out before they've had a chance to have their appeal heard? If they're prepared to spend resources and manpower actually flying people off back to wherever, why do they even bother with allowing appeals in the first place? Some Kafkaesque bullshit right there.
 
NoXion said:
Also, what's the rationale/justification for chucking people out before they've had a chance to have their appeal heard? If they're prepared to spend resources and manpower actually flying people off back to wherever, why do they even bother with allowing appeals in the first place? Some Kafkaesque bullshit right there.
Click to expand...

They're hoping they'll either drop the appeal, or even it is in their favour, they won't be able to afford the flight back.

I'll stop stating the obvious now. :oops:
 
8ball said:
They're hoping they'll either drop the appeal, or even it is in their favour, they won't be able to afford the flight back.

I'll stop stating the obvious now. :oops:
Click to expand...

Doesn't seem obvious to me, but then I'm not some callous Jobsworth prick willing to make my own job easier by shipping off people to places where they might be tortured or killed. My understanding is that in criminal cases, the defendants are generally permitted to appeal *before* they start actually serving their sentence. Most people being deported in these situations haven't even been convicted of a crime, so it makes even less sense for them to be treated more harshly than people who have actually been accused of a criminal offence.

I'm sorry if this all a bit Social Injustice 101 to anyone else, but this just seems so obviously bent that I'm surprised I haven't heard of anyone comment on it before.
 
NoXion said:
Doesn't seem obvious to me, but then I'm not some callous Jobsworth prick willing to make my own job easier by shipping off people to places where they might be tortured or killed. My understanding is that in criminal cases, the defendants are generally permitted to appeal *before* they start actually serving their sentence. Most people being deported in these situations haven't even been convicted of a crime, so it makes even less sense for them to be treated more harshly than people who have actually been accused of a criminal offence.

I'm sorry if this all a bit Social Injustice 101 to anyone else, but this just seems so obviously bent that I'm surprised I haven't heard of anyone comment on it before.
Click to expand...

I think it looks bent because it is bent.
I figured that was where you were going with this anyway.

They're gambling on no one caring.

IMO obv.
 
Brainaddict said:
Your ignorance is showing. They were found guilty of endangering the safety of the airport. Which they didn't.
Click to expand...

They cut a hole in the perimeter fence and were wandering around on the apron so they did make the airport significantly less safe for everyone involved.
 
NoXion said:
By that mind-meltingly idiotic metric, any paying passengers attempting to board their plane as part of normal airport operations present the "possibility" of endangerment. There is a non-zero chance that one of them might suddenly lose their minds and start stabbing the person sat beside them to death with a plastic spork. Stranger things have happened.
Click to expand...
Oh indeed. But that's part of the reason they construct laws like this. It can apply to a very broad range of people and 'offences', but only if they want it to.
 
DownwardDog said:
They cut a hole in the perimeter fence and were wandering around on the apron so they did make the airport significantly less safe for everyone involved.
Click to expand...
As I understand it the charter flight plane was sat in a part of the airport that didn't really have other planes moving about, not the main part. They didn't approach it as it was about to take off, simply surrounded a stationary plane. They did do some research and recon. No-one could really explain in the court what the 'danger' was, or why the staff and police acted quite so calmly, as though, like, they weren't actually scared by a bunch of people in pink woolly hats whose intentions were clear, given the history of protests at these flights.

It's also worth pointing out that, even if staff were briefly worried, there is a difference between a perception of danger and actual danger. Anyone who goes on a rollercoaster can understand that difference.
 
Brainaddict said:
As I understand it the charter flight plane was sat in a part of the airport that didn't really have other planes moving about, not the main part.
Click to expand...

G-POWD was on stand 505 right in between the GA terminal and the taxiway that runs parallel to the runway!
 
8ball said:
Being fair (in that BBC kind of way), they do need to be really strict about what gets onto the runway area etc. but this is a bit like those women who smashed up that jet - there are bigger and more important concerns here.
Click to expand...
And a jury let the women off on the preventing greater harm argument. Fuck the judge
 
NoXion said:
My understanding is that in criminal cases, the defendants are generally permitted to appeal *before* they start actually serving their sentence.
Click to expand...

No.

Sometimes, usually financial type offences they may do that, but the normal course is to be sentenced and then appeal. Sometimes your sentence may be suspended pending an appeal.



As to this case, it's bobbins, but we knew the terror legalisation would be abused thus, that's why they enacted it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Fridays For Future - September 15 Strike
Replies
0
Views
272
Aquamarine
A
C
ACG On-line Public Meeting on February 15th
2 3
Replies
77
Views
3K
charlie mowbray
C
Dystopiary
Stop Deportation - Derwentside (North England) now, and Birmingham Airport tonight (29/06/22) before 10.30PM
Replies
1
Views
344
Dystopiary
Dystopiary
hitmouse
How to sustain strike action and win - 15th June, 6pm
Replies
1
Views
373
hitmouse
hitmouse
Serge Forward
Stand with the Stansted 15 - actions across the country on Tuesday 18/12
Replies
2
Views
563
Brainaddict
B
Back
Top Bottom