Poet, Activist, Parkinson's sufferer and Granny (79) gets jailed for 6 months.

If I was to do what the protestors do and misinterpret all the facts provided then it would be fair to argue that the West Bank article is misinformed as it's clear from the images that only one person attended in support of her.

bumper234

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If I was to do what the protestors do and misinterpret all the facts provided then it would be fair to argue that the West Bank article is misinformed as it's clear from the images that only one person attended in support of her.

Poor ****er probably didn't even have a clue what the poster said.

jimboblep

Happyman42 wrote: »

Warning taken on board in the spirit it is intended,

I am not accusing anybody of perjury or lying.

I know you didnt but suggestion could be seen as calling somones character into disrepute
I thought i should say something just in case

Shakti

bumper234 wrote: »

Poor ****er probably didn't even have a clue what the poster said.

clarify bold please,

Happyman42

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

How can you tell that tower can see the gate? Unless you've actually been in the tower how can you say that.

The camera man is standing at the gate in the pic attached is looking directly at the tower....yet bumper234 says there is a treeline in the way.

And the small matter that the ATCO testified that he saw people coming from Gate6 at 4.15pm
How would he see them if there are trees in the way?

Remember bumper234 said that the trees obstructed the runway and gate.

Language is full of colloquialisms. Go hang out at the courts for the day - not unusual to hear people using normal language.

'no-one at airside' is normal language? Seems fairly precise to me.

I'd be worried if it took the APS 5 minutes to respond, so 'at least 5mins' is your own made up bollixology. What is exactly is your point there anyway? That ATC was negligent in their scanning of the entire airfield (which you seem to think is their duty). The timeline you are relying on is a bit all over the place. Perhaps you could post it in its entirety to make your point a bit clearer.

According to the ATCO it was 4.15 before anybody called him. So that was 15 mins.
Seems shockingly odd to me too when APS where alerted before 4pm.

gctest50

Happyman42 wrote: »

The camera man is standing at the gate in the pic attached is looking directly at the tower....yet bumper234 says there is a treeline in the way.

Who cares - she went on to a runway

Either she knows this is a serious danger to others or she doesn't

It's not a game - can put many lives at risk

If she doesn't realise the possible implication of her actions she needs to looked after by professionals for her own safety and the safety of many others

Her defenders keep bringing up the fact that the people in charge were alerted to as what was occurring. Is there any evidence of this or do we just have their word to go on? Is there a record of the phone-call and recording of the conversation to verify that the message was delivered to the proper authorities?

Happyman42

Deleted User wrote: »

Her defenders keep bringing up the fact that the people in charge were alerted to as what was occurring. Is there any evidence of this or do we just have their word to go on? Is there a record of the phone-call and recording of the conversation to verify that the message was delivered to the proper authorities?

Checkout the vid posted earlier and the links to the trial reports on Shannonwatch

Is there a recording of the conversation taking place? Voice recording or transcript?

bumper234

Happyman42 wrote: »

The camera man is standing at the gate in the pic attached is looking directly at the tower....yet bumper234 says there is a treeline in the way.

The camera man is OUTSIDE the fence and away from the trees so he can see the tower, the criminals are on the runway closer to the tower BEHIND the trees.

And the small matter that the ATCO testified that he saw people coming from Gate6 at 4.15pm
How would he see them if there are trees in the way?

See above.

Remember bumper234 said that the trees obstructed the runway and gate.

The runway not the gate.

'no-one at airside' is normal language? Seems fairly precise to me.

There would be someone "airside" 24/7 365 at shannon. You are choosing to misinterpret his statement to suit your own agenda.

According to the ATCO it was 4.15 before anybody called him. So that was 15 mins.
Seems shockingly odd to me too when APS where alerted before 4pm.

So you say.

Happyman42

Deleted User wrote: »

Is there a recording of the conversation taking place? Voice recording or transcript?

You can hear both sides of the conversation.

Happyman42

Happyman42 wrote: »

You can hear both sides of the conversation.

Thanks for providing links. Searched for and found the video and for all we know that could be anybody on the other end of the phone.

ProfessorPlum

Happyman42 wrote: »

The camera man is standing at the gate in the pic attached is looking directly at the tower....yet bumper234 says there is a treeline in the way.

And the small matter that the ATCO testified that he saw people coming from Gate6 at 4.15pm
How would he see them if there are trees in the way?

Remember bumper234 said that the trees obstructed the runway and gate.











'no-one at airside' is normal language? Seems fairly precise to me.












According to the ATCO it was 4.15 before anybody called him. So that was 15 mins.
Seems shockingly odd to me too when APS where alerted before 4pm.

Now as a self confessed plane spotter, do you actually believe that there was no body airside at Shannon, in the middle of the day, when the airport was open for business? No body on the ramp even. Very unlikely, so I'm just supposing that the ATCO was referring to the runway area where he had just observed a plane departing.
Given that nobody in court challenged any of this, I fail to see why you seem to think it's such an important point? Surely if it was important, somebody would have picked up on it, trashed it out, and come to the truthful conclusion. That's the kind of thing they do in courts, right?

darkpagandeath

Deleted User wrote: »

Thanks for providing links. Searched for and found the video and for all we know that could be anybody on the other end of the phone.

Don't know were to even get the ATC number (would it not be internal) perhaps they rang duty free and got transferred .... :P

Happyman42

Deleted User wrote: »

Thanks for providing links. Searched for and found the video and for all we know that could be anybody on the other end of the phone.

Sorry, unable to post links from this pad I'm on at the minute. Nobody else wa helping so I thought I'd do my best.

Happyman42

Happyman42 wrote: »

Sorry, unable to post links from this pad I'm on at the minute. Nobody else wa helping so I thought I'd do my best.

Still from the video there is absolutely no evidence that they directly contacted the people who needed to be informed. They could have been talking to some lad in the local supermarket for all we know or just a guy at the airport with no authority

The Rad Runner

Happyman42 wrote: »

You can hear both sides of the conversation.

Anyone remember waaay back in 2008 when Nodin said, "if you think I'm bad, wait until you see what's coming next". Well that time has come

Seriously though, if any of you think debating with haippyman will make him see any sense, you're going to be here for weeks. He already knows whats what. The only thing he wants here, as people have already pointed out, is to keep this thread on page one. You are all delivering that to him on a platter. Let him 'win' whatever small point you are currently arguing with him, and walk away. Don't look back.

Happyman42

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Now as a self confessed plane spotter, do you actually believe that there was no body airside at Shannon, in the middle of the day, when the airport was open for business? No body on the ramp even. Very unlikely,

Nobody 'unauthorised' I'd imagine.

so I'm just supposing that the ATCO was referring to the runway area where he had just observed a plane departing.
Given that nobody in court challenged any of this, I fail to see why you seem to think it's such an important point? Surely if it was important, somebody would have picked up on it, trashed it out, and come to the truthful conclusion. That's the kind of thing they do in courts, right?

To get at the truth we where depending on the judge as the protesters did not defend their actions. He didn't query a fairly gaping anomaly in the timeline of events for some reason.

It is up to you how important you think it is, but at the very least it is worrying from a security and communication stance. 15 minutes before somebody rang ATC about unauthorised people on the runway? As a pilot would you not be a tad concerned?



If he didn't see them until 4.15pm and the alert was raised before 4pm (Carmel Donnellan testified that she proceeded immediately to Gate 6 on recieving the call at 4pm) where the emergency response people not breaking airport rules and themselves endangering approaching aircraft by going on the runway without permission. They arrived via the main runway as we can see in the vid. The ATCO testified that it was he who gave the ER vehicles permission to access the runway after he was informed at 4.15pm.


Of course what would explain it all would be that the ATCO had seen them right away and taken the neccessary precautions, put planes in a hold and gave emergency response vechiles permission to access the runway.
That explains everything, what a shame that is not what happened, eh?, would have been so much neater.

Happyman42

Deleted User wrote: »

Still from the video there is absolutely no evidence that they directly contacted the people who needed to be informed. They could have been talking to some lad in the local supermarket for all we know or just a guy at the airport with no authority

True, but then the video wasn't presented as evidence in court. Make of it what you wish.

Happyman42

The Rad Runner wrote: »

Anyone remember waaay back in 2008 when Nodin said, "if you think I'm bad, wait until you see what's coming next". Well that time has come

Seriously though, if any of you think debating with haippyman will make him see any sense, you're going to be here for weeks. He already knows whats what. The only thing he wants here, as people have already pointed out, is to keep this thread on page one. You are all delivering that to him on a platter. Let him 'win' whatever small point you are currently arguing with him, and walk away. Don't look back.

Did Nodin ever show you how to not click on a thread? He's brilliant at it, is Nodin, look him up.

bumper234

Happyman42 wrote: »

True, but then the video wasn't presented as evidence in court. Make of it what you wish.

But it was used as evidence against them

Happyman42

bumper234 wrote: »

But it was used as evidence against them

sorry?

bumper234

Happyman42 wrote: »

sorry?

Don't be, I'm sure it wasn't your fault.

jimboblep

happyman just to clarify what exactly are you arguing against here
its just not clear what your issue is anymore

Happyman42

jimboblep wrote: »

happyman just to clarify what exactly are you arguing against here
its just not clear what your issue is anymore

I am arguing that what they did was not designed to endanger passengers and that they took the proper precautions.
That they where not reckless passenger killers intent on carnage.
To do that, it is important to show that they made it as easy as they possibly could to let ATC and the authorities know they where there.

Happyman42

bumper234 wrote: »

Don't be, I'm sure it wasn't your fault.

As usual you are making no sense.

bumper234

Happyman42 wrote: »

As usual you are making no sense.

Annoying isn't it :rolleyes:

Happyman42

bumper234 wrote: »

Annoying isn't it :rolleyes:

No, I'm using your posts to teach the child to read...sounds like gibberish though.

ProfessorPlum

Happyman42 wrote: »

Nobody 'unauthorised' I'd imagine.

So, his words not to be taken literally? Is that what you're saying? A 'turn of phrase' perhaps?

Happyman42 wrote: »

To get at the truth we where depending on the judge as the protesters did not defend their actions. He didn't query a fairly gaping anomaly in the timeline of events for some reason.

You referred to both protestors as having cross examined witnesses in court. Sounds like they were mounting a defence. Strange that they didn't see the need to press home the tireless ends they went to ensure safety while recklessly trespassing on the runway

Happyman42 wrote: »

It is up to you how important you think it is, but at the very least it is worrying from a security and communication stance. 15 minutes before somebody rang ATC about unauthorised people on the runway? As a pilot would you not be a tad concerned?

I still haven't seen the evidence to back this claim up. In my experience ATCs do a fine job in this regard and I have nothing to be concerned about as an anything.

Happyman42 wrote: »

If he didn't see them until 4.15pm and the alert was raised before 4pm (Carmel Donnellan testified that she proceeded immediately to Gate 6 on recieving the call at 4pm) where the emergency response people not breaking airport rules and themselves endangering approaching aircraft by going on the runway without permission. They arrived via the main runway as we can see in the vid. The ATCO testified that it was he who gave the ER vehicles permission to access the runway after he was informed at 4.15pm.


Of course what would explain it all would be that the ATCO had seen them right away and taken the neccessary precautions, put planes in a hold and gave emergency response vechiles permission to access the runway.
That explains everything, what a shame that is not what happened, eh?, would have been so much neater.

So you are inferring that he is telling lies? To what end? Weather anyone had or had not seen them at whatever point would make no difference to the case in point and their successful conviction for trespass. Why would he risk a prison sentence himself by lying?

jimboblep

Happyman42 wrote: »

I am arguing that what they did was not designed to endanger passengers and that they took the proper precautions.
That they where not reckless passenger killers intent on carnage.
To do that, it is important to show that they made it as easy as they possibly could to let ATC and the authorities know they where there.

it was not designed to kill passengers granted but it did endanger passengers
do we agree on this?
any incursion onto a runway by untrained unauthorised people is reckless because they could not possibly have full situational awareness
logic dictates they did not make it as easy as possible for authorities to know they were there, the easiest they could of made it, is to announce that they were going to enter beforehand if they had they would not have made it onto the runway.
they would of used some level of guile to achieve their aims thats just common sense.