nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Gatwick closed (mod note post 1)

Mebuntu

LGW has been closed for some time. Diversions in progress.

Mod Note added 23/12/2018:

This is not the Conspiracy Theories forum, nor is it After Hours. Posters who do not come here often are asked to read the charter. Conspiracy theory posts are not acceptable here.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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?

0_Po0_Paul-Gait-and-his-wife-Elaine-Kirk-were-arrested-by-police-in-connection-with-the-drone-disruption-a.jpg

0_Po0_Paul-Gait-and-his-wife-Elaine-Kirk-were-arrested-by-police-in-connection-with-the-drone-disruption-a.jpg

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

tuxy

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

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

If the photos are from social media they could be taken years ago.

Edit: Nevermind, the photo was taken last year so recent enough.

Pat Dunne

cameramonkey wrote: »

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.

Then you seriously compromise the effectiveness of your proposed weapon system by using your operational criteria. Any nefarious drone operator will use these operational parameters to their advantage.

The are a number of anti drone defensive systems available which use electronic countermeasures and tracking systems which currently present the best defence against Drones in a non battlefield setting.

L1011

Whoever those people are, they aren't 54 and 47 either way around. I'd advise extreme caution in assuming anything from rumours until daytime if not Monday or even after Christmas

DOCARCH

Given their ages and the fact they live in Crawley (beside Gatwick) you'd have to suspect some sort of environmental/anti-Gatwick protest.

whisky_galore

Maybe they're just f-ing idiots?

They're youthful looking but clearly not spring chickens.

abff

I think it remains to be seen whether they have the right people. They were saying on Sky News just now that police are searching a nearby house and that they will have to either charge or release them shortly or apply to a magistrate for an extension.

It looks as if the only evidence they have at this stage is circumstantial. From reading about the couple, it looks as if they may just tick some of the boxes, but there's nothing disclosed to date that would suggest a motive. Unless they find a "smoking gun", they may have no alternative but to release them.

If they are innocent, I really hope for their sakes that the police catch the actual perpetrators as otherwise the finger of suspicion may hang over them for the rest of their lives.

Wheres Me Jumper?

tuxy wrote: »

If the photos are from social media they could be taken years ago.

Edit: Nevermind, the photo was taken last year so recent enough.

i agree. my missus thinks their clothes and hair looks 1990s.

nim1bdeh38l2cw

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

i agree. my missus thinks their clothes and hair looks 1990s.

The camera quality doesn't though.

FrancieBrady

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

i agree. my missus thinks their clothes and hair looks 1990s.

I think her eyebrows date it to the fairly recent fashion phenomenon of making them look like runways!

Wheres Me Jumper?

apparently they have alibis, and his mum has said @he is a very nice boy not an Eco-warrior.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gatwick-drone-suspect-paul-gaits-13771091