Gatwick closed (mod note post 1)

anewme

to be honest, I would think they need to be kept away from the public for their own safety till this calms down. They are very hated oeople.

there's a lot of emotions running high over the unnecessary suffering gtheir actions have caused ppl. I would not be surprised if someone went for them.

Amprodude

Drones should be made illegal. Every drone bought should be registered and available trackers onboard.

Wheres Me Jumper?

if these are the idiots responsible for this chaos, i hope they bankrupt them.
not sure what charges can be brought. terrorist related perhaps? that would see them locked away for quite a few years?:D

Amprodude

Amprodude wrote: »

Drones should be made illegal. Every drone bought should be registered and available trackers onboard.

So they should be illegal. As in not legal for sale or purchase. But also, every drone sold should be registered and have trackers on board.

Lolwut

trellheim

You cannot account for stupidity it seems according to the Telegraph

Detectives were understood to have drawn up a shortlist of potential culprits after the pilot gave vital clues away by audaciously flying the drone right up to the air traffic control tower.

Drone 'buzzed' the tower
In a move known as "buzzing the tower", it emerged the perpetrator had taunted airport staff by circling the drone around the building and flashing its lights, an industry source told The Telegraph.

A detailed description of the drone, provided by witnesses, meant experts were able to determine the make and model of the machine, which is only available from a handful of locations in the UK.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/22/gatwick-airport-drone-chaos-man-woman-arrested-passengers-brace/

anewme

Some very sad stories out there.

One girl missed her Fathers funeral and another lad was in an awful state trying to get to Australia to be with his terminally ill Mother.

These are complete assholes and I hope they throw the book st them. Five years is the max they can get, that needs to be increased.

Wheres Me Jumper?

anewme wrote: »

Some very sad stories out there.

One girl missed her Fathers funeral and another lad was in an awful state trying to get to Australia to be with his terminally ill Mother.

These are complete assholes and I hope they throw the book st them. Five years is the max they can get, that needs to be increased.

but they have not yet brought charges against these morons.
this is terrorism in my opinion, but the Crown Prosecution may/may not agree.

faoiarvok

anewme wrote: »

Some very sad stories out there.

One girl missed her Fathers funeral and another lad was in an awful state trying to get to Australia to be with his terminally ill Mother.

These are complete assholes and I hope they throw the book st them. Five years is the max they can get, that needs to be increased.

I wondered if maybe they would try to get 5 years for each visit the drone made to the airfield?

vectorvictor

faoiarvok wrote: »

I wondered if maybe they would try to get 5 years for each visit the drone made to the airfield?

Doubtful that would succeed but they will probably get more than if it was an Irish airfield which would probably be a very harsh suspended sentence and €50 to the poor box...

ISOP

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

but they have not yet brought charges against these morons.
this is terrorism in my opinion, but the Crown Prosecution may/may not agree.

it needs to be treated very seriously whatever the motivation, if this was just for a laugh it was mindless vandalism, as someone said there are loads of tales of people missing funeral of close friends and loved ones etc

faoiarvok

trellheim wrote: »

You cannot account for stupidity it seems according to the Telegraph



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/22/gatwick-airport-drone-chaos-man-woman-arrested-passengers-brace/

In my opinion, it seems fairly clear from the fact that the lights were on when first seen that the perpetrator wanted it to be well known that the drone was there, in order to cause disruption. Flying close to the tower would be a good way to ensure the drone is spotted by controllers.

iamwhoiam

I may be naive and admit I know very little about drones but am shocked that no police squat team was deployed to shoot it down ? It could have been carrying a bomb or antrax for all they knew . Why did it take so long and the drone was not taken out ?

anewme

ISOP wrote: »

it needs to be treated very seriously whatever the motivation, if this was just for a laugh it was mindless vandalism, as someone said there are loads of tales of people missing funeral of close friends and loved ones etc

They are 47 and 54, surely a bit old for mindless vandalism.

Pat Dunne

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I may be naive and admit I know very little about drones but am shocked that no police squat team was deployed to shoot it down ? It could have been carrying a bomb or antrax for all they knew . Why did it take so long and the drone was not taken out ?

Alway remember Newton's law of Gravity, what go up must come down and that includes bullets.

iamwhoiam

Pat Dunne wrote: »

Alway remember Newton's law of Gravity, what go up must come down and that includes bullets.

I dont understand so . What if it was threat to people ?

Wheres Me Jumper?

i'm gonna play Devil's Advocate here.

a bit like Hackers, perhaps they have done us all a big favour by highlighting the vulnerabilities in airport security?

i mean we know Islamic terrorists would love to be able to do something similar, but with terrible consequences.
this is the 30th anniversary of Lockerbie i believe.

this is from 2 days ago,
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46639182

anewme

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

i'm gonna play Devil's Advocate here.

a bit like Hackers, perhaps they have done us all a big favour by highlighting the vulnerabilities in airport security?

i mean we know Islamic terrorists would love to be able to do something similar, but with terrible consequences.
this is the 30th anniversary of Lockerbie i believe.

this is from 2 days ago,
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46639182

I'm sure that the girl who missed her Fathers funeral as a direct result of these morons really appreciates the favour.

abff

Assuming they've caught the perpetrators and can prove it was them, I expect they will look for some form of anonymity while serving their prison sentences in order to protect them from reprisals.

I don't think they deserve to get any consideration in this regard and if this means they have to spend their entire sentences in solitary confinement, then it would serve them right.

As for the kind of reception they would get on their release from prison, I don't think anyone will be welcoming them with open arms. What a pair of muppets!

Pat Dunne

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I dont understand so . What if it was threat to people ?

If you take a shot at a target, the bullet doesn't just magically stop and fall harmlessly to the ground. Bullets fired into the air usually fall back with velocities lower than their muzzle velocity, in other words when they leave the weapon. Nevertheless, people can be injured, sometimes fatally, when bullets discharged into the air fall back down to the ground.

iamwhoiam

Pat Dunne wrote: »

If you take a shot at a target, the bullet doesn't just magically stop and fall harmlessly to the ground. Bullets fired into the air usually fall back with velocities lower than their muzzle velocity, in other words when they leave the weapon. Nevertheless, people can be injured, sometimes fatally, when bullets discharged into the air fall back down to the ground.

Thank you .

uck51js9zml2yt

1000 flights affected according to the news.

They should be locked up and the key misplaced.

mickdw

Surely you could instruct marksman to shoot reasonably in line with runway if bullet injuring people was a concern.
To one end of runway, there is farm land that could easily have access restricted so the bullet would have runway length plus farmland area to come back to earth.
How far can a bullet fly and what length is runway?
Of course drone would need to pass over runway then to be able to shoot it.

nim1bdeh38l2cw

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

but they have not yet brought charges against these morons.
this is terrorism in my opinion, but the Crown Prosecution may/may not agree.

What is the legal definition of terrorism, and how does this meet it?

zapitastas

abff wrote: »

Assuming they've caught the perpetrators and can prove it was them, I expect they will look for some form of anonymity while serving their prison sentences in order to protect them from reprisals.

I don't think they deserve to get any consideration in this regard and if this means they have to spend their entire sentences in solitary confinement, then it would serve them right.

As for the kind of reception they would get on their release from prison, I don't think anyone will be welcoming them with open arms. What a pair of muppets!

Why would they need to spend their sentences in solitary confinement? Is hardly the crime of the century

ISOP

mickdw wrote: »

Surely you could instruct marksman to shoot reasonably in line with runway if bullet injuring people was a concern.
To one end of runway, there is farm land that could easily have access restricted so the bullet would have runway length plus farmland area to come back to earth.
How far can a bullet fly and what length is runway?
Of course drone would need to pass over runway then to be able to shoot it.

A high velocity bullet could travel 3 miles

Wheres Me Jumper?

Paulina Fit Slime wrote: »

What is the legal definition of terrorism, and how does this meet it?

i'm not a barrister so i wouldn't know.
maybe someone here might?

faoiarvok

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I may be naive and admit I know very little about drones but am shocked that no police squat team was deployed to shoot it down ? It could have been carrying a bomb or antrax for all they knew . Why did it take so long and the drone was not taken out ?

Shooting a container of anthrax just achieves the objective of dispersing the powder on the airfield, though I’m guessing that’s not really a viable attack because of the huge area and limited payload that could be carried by a drone.

I think it was pretty clear to all involved that the perpetrators were simply attempting to cause disruption, and not actually launch an attack.

I’m also guessing that in addition to public safety concerns about shooting at the drones and resulting FOD/falling debris dangers, they assumed that the perpetrators could launch further drones, and their priority was to catch the person controlling them in order to be sure there weren’t more to come.

Finally, “police squat team” conjures a hilarious image.

Pat Dunne

Hitting a very mobile airbourne target the size of a dinner plate from 500 to 1000 metres at night is easier said than done. This not a computer game, this is a real world problem.

nim1bdeh38l2cw

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

i'm not a barrister so i wouldn't know.
maybe someone here might?

But you still wanted them charged with terrorism, but you've no idea what that is, right?

abff

zapitastas wrote: »

Why would they need to spend their sentences in solitary confinement? Is hardly the crime of the century

Because there's a good chance that somebody else who is incarcerated with them might be associated with someone who was adversely affected by their antics and might decide to extract revenge?

On the other hand, maybe I've watched The Shawshank Redemption once too often?

tuxy

Solitary confinement is used as a punishment which is arguably inhumane.
Segregation is what's used to protect prisons that are at risk of violence.

Two very different things.

zapitastas

abff wrote: »

Because there's a good chance that somebody else who is incarcerated with them might be associated with someone who was adversely affected by their antics and might decide to extract revenge?

On the other hand, maybe I've watched The Shawshank Redemption once too often?

Not really worth shanking someone in the showers and getting a life sentence because an acquaintance had been inconveniened due to missing a connecting flight . Is possible I suppose but on the grand scheme of things I think the prison authorities would forgo the added expense of solitary and risk it

Wheres Me Jumper?

Paulina Fit Slime wrote: »

But you still wanted them charged with terrorism, but you've no idea what that is, right?

please stop being argumentative for the sake of it.
it's called EXPRESSING AN OPINION.
like i said i am not a barrister. i suspect neither are you.

that decision will be down to the CPS, not me, not you or indeed anybody else expressing an opinion (oops! there's that word again) on Boards.ie. or perhaps you think the CPS ought to consult with Boards.ie before deciding what to do?!! :rolleyes:

iamwhoiam

faoiarvok wrote: »

Shooting a container of anthrax just achieves the objective of dispersing the powder on the airfield, though I’m guessing that’s not really a viable attack because of the huge area and limited payload that could be carried by a drone.

I think it was pretty clear to all involved that the perpetrators were simply attempting to cause disruption, and not actually launch an attack.

I’m also guessing that in addition to public safety concerns about shooting at the drones and resulting FOD/falling debris dangers, they assumed that the perpetrators could launch further drones, and their priority was to catch the person controlling them in order to be sure there weren’t more to come.

Finally, “police squat team” conjures a hilarious image.

Lol . Sorry I got my squad and swat mixed up in one word . Thanks for the explanation it does make more sense now

Irish Steve

This thread is discussing the events at Gatwick NOT the UK judicial system. While arrests have been made, as no charges have been made yet, it is very premature, and inappropriate to be discussing what might happen to the perpetrators after conviction, and this thread is not the place to be having that discussion.

cameramonkey

Pat Dunne wrote: »

If you take a shot at a target, the bullet doesn't just magically stop and fall harmlessly to the ground. Bullets fired into the air usually fall back with velocities lower than their muzzle velocity, in other words when they leave the weapon. Nevertheless, people can be injured, sometimes fatally, when bullets discharged into the air fall back down to the ground.

You could use rounds that explode close to the target. That is actually what many air defense systems are designed to do. They could be fired and programmed to explode above an area free of people or aircraft.

pm.

Pat Dunne wrote: »

Hitting a very mobile airbourne target the size of a dinner plate from 500 to 1000 metres at night is easier said than done. This not a computer game, this is a real world problem.

Almost impossible especially if the drone was moving

Wheres Me Jumper?

certainly, there will need to be a serious assessment of airport security in light of these events. it beggars belief that a piece of kit that you buy for your kid in Argos can cause such disruption.
if nothing else these people have highlighted serious vulnerabilities which will have to be plugged.

Locker10a

Apparently there’s been another sighting in the vicinity

trellheim

First picture of couple arrested over Gatwick Airport drone chaos as pair named Paul Gait and Elaine Kirk

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/uk-news/first-picture-couple-arrested-over-15588091?



Twitter starting to light up with details about them , search engines can help you better

Happy4all

trellheim wrote: »

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/uk-news/first-picture-couple-arrested-over-15588091?

not bad for 54

dhaughton99

Happy4all wrote: »

not bad for 54

That’s exactly what I was thinking about the both of them. I’m calling ‘patsies’.

Wheres Me Jumper?

i hope they got the right people.

irishrover99

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

i hope they got the right people.

Arrested and named and shamed in the media before been charged.
One way or the other, their life won’t be the same again.

Wheres Me Jumper?

irishrover99 wrote: »

Arrested and named and shamed in the media before been charged.
One way or the other, their life won’t be the same again.

the pressure on Sussex police to collar someone must be immense. we've seen in the past that "mistakes" can be made in such circumstances.

his dad has said they're innocent, and his boss claims he was fitting windows. time will tell.

wonski

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

certainly, there will need to be a serious assessment of airport security in light of these events. it beggars belief that a piece of kit that you buy for your kid in Argos can cause such disruption.
if nothing else these people have highlighted serious vulnerabilities which will have to be plugged.

You must be an idiot to think its OK to fly a drone around the international airport tbh. Deliberate action imo.


There are many things you can buy for your kid that can cause disruption, yet it is mostly adults who cause a trouble.

Reminds me of laser pointers cases, last one I remember was not a kid but a grown up man.

There are weirdos out there. Those behind this incident should be penalised. Heavily penalised.

anewme

dhaughton99 wrote: »

That’s exactly what I was thinking about the both of them. I’m calling ‘patsies’.

I said the same. They both look very young. There's hope for me yet.

Wheres Me Jumper?

wonski wrote: »

You must be an idiot to think its OK to fly a drone around the international airport tbh. Deliberate action imo.


There are many things you can buy for your kid that can cause disruption, yet it is mostly adults who cause a trouble.

Reminds me of laser pointers cases, last one I remember was not a kid but a grown up man.

There are weirdos out there. Those behind this incident should be penalised. Heavily penalised.

where did i say it was "OK to fly a drone around the international airport"?
please read before you jump to silly and incorrect conclusions.

Wheres Me Jumper?

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

where did i say it was "OK to fly a drone around the international airport"?
please read before you jump to silly and incorrect conclusions.

I presume he meant 'you' as in people in general, not you specifically.

yerwanthere123

Happy4all wrote: »

not bad for 54

Yeah there's simply no way that woman is 54. I'd struggle to put him at 47 either.