Gatwick drones

[secret santa]

Does anyone else think like me that those morons who flew the drones over Gatwick should be locked away for life ?

[azda]

Not life, but they should certainly be made an example of, 5 years should be good. I have a drone myself and these idiots are just making the hobby all the harder

[1949threepence]

7 hours ago, secret santa said:

Does anyone else think like me that those morons who flew the drones over Gatwick should be locked away for life ?

Not life. That would probably be too harsh. But they do deserve the maximum sentence of 5 years with no early parole. Irresponsible idiots. 

The massive inconvenience that have caused to so many thousands is incalculable. Plus, if they hadn't been spotted in time and had been sucked into a jet engine, it would have been instant curtains for everyone on board.  

[Paddy]

I suggest locking them in a large warehouse with a good selection of the thousands of people they inconvenienced. I think they would happily take 5 years in gaol instead of that!

[azda]

So, it seems the 2 people held for questioning have been released without charge, Gatwick has set a 50k offer for information leading to arrest and conviction

[azda]

 

[Ukstu]

2 hours ago, azda said:

So, it seems the 2 people held for questioning have been released without charge, Gatwick has set a 50k offer for information leading to arrest and conviction

Yes. Looking like Fake news. Surrey police have announced with no photographic evidence it's highly likely to have been either a hoax or mistaken identity of a bird or something. Labour appear to be demanding an inquiry into it , guess they haven't been told yet! 

[1949threepence]

21 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Not life. That would probably be too harsh. But they do deserve the maximum sentence of 5 years with no early parole. Irresponsible idiots. 

The massive inconvenience that have caused to so many thousands is incalculable. Plus, if they hadn't been spotted in time and had been sucked into a jet engine, it would have been instant curtains for everyone on board.  

The drones, not the culprits 

Anyway the entire episode is now taking on a bizarre twist. 

[Peckris 2]

Aircraft should be fitted with anti-drone devices - a very large fan should do it.

[Rob]

2 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

Aircraft should be fitted with anti-drone devices - a very large fan should do it.

So should politicians

 

[1949threepence]

The entire case raises a number of disturbing questions, the answers to which are vague at best:-

1/ How were the drones identified as such in the first place? - given that doubts are now expressed as to whether they were drones at all. Somebody must have first reported this - who was it, and precisely what evidence did they hold?

2/ Was any official daylight verification of the sightings made by police/intelligence/airport management, before the decision was made to completely shutdown the airport? If not, why not?

3/ Since the suspects concerned have now been released without charge and had cast iron alibis, exactly what evidence caused the police to arrest them in the first place? 

Personally I'm left with the distinct impression that there was an almost hysterical, unthinking reaction to the initial sightings, then further knee jerk actions in arresting the suspects concerned. All part of the really worrying trend of downgrading the importance of actual evidence, and seemingly placing more reliance on "some bloke down the pub told me".  

Even more concerning is that Paul Gait's employer contacted the police early on to verify that he was at work at the time, but nobody got back to him or seemingly followed up this piece of highly relevant information. 

    

 

 

[azda]

10 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

Aircraft should be fitted with anti-drone devices - a very large fan should do it.

Personally i think a geofence should be fitted into all drones, so if it goes near an airport the thing will just drop from the sky and kill it for good, that way people will learn that when they say don't go near an airport that's exactly what they mean

 

Edited December 24, 2018 by azda

[Peckris 2]

18 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

3/ Since the suspects concerned have now been released without charge and had cast iron alibis, exactly what evidence caused the police to arrest them in the first place? 

From what I can gather, they were merely drone enthusiasts who lived nearby.

"We got 'em, guv. Drone enthusiasts. Must be them."

"Bring 'em in. Bang to rights."

 

[Sword]

We all knew the police was under great pressure to find the culprits but it would be totally unacceptable if they had made the arrest without sufficient grounds. That would simply be an easy way out.

I was one of those "stranded" and unable to fly back to Gatwick. The flight was eventually cancelled after a 10 hours wait in the airport. No worthwhile communications from the airline.  Then the rule was that the airline had to find hotel accommodation for the passengers and get them there. Had no idea regarding the location or name of hotel when I arrived at 10pm. It turned out that the hotel was really rather nice and it was three nights stay before the new flight. Net effect was 2 more days of sightseeing and so it didn't worked out too badly after all.

 

 

 

 

[1949threepence]

Nice one, Sword. At least in worked out positively in your case. 

[Gary D]

On 12/24/2018 at 9:26 AM, azda said:

Personally i think a geofence should be fitted into all drones, so if it goes near an airport the thing will just drop from the sky and kill it for good, that way people will learn that when they say don't go near an airport that's exactly what they mean

 

I believe this is the case but as usual you can buy software on the tinternet to defeat it.