Turns out it also makes you a terrorist apparently * shrugs *
No one talking about the "attack" on the RAF refueling aircraft?
- Thread starter Efour
- Start date
They damaged them with paint and crowbars.
Pro-Palestinian activists charged with damaging planes at a UK air base are held in custody
Four pro-Palestinian protesters have been held in custody after appearing in a London courtroom over charges connected to an incident involving damage to Royal Air Force planes.
apnews.com
Plus as I think it was you mentioned on a plane like this which plays a critical military role they may just swap out the engine to minimise downtime, at greater cost, with the old engine potentially not returned to service.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,924
- Location
- Cheltenham
They’d do it on any plane - an airline would do the same as any time not flying is time not making money.
It takes a day or two to swap out an engine from the spares pool, and barring any damage to the airframe and police investigations requiring access to the aircraft it will have been back in service within a few days I would imagine.
I can’t see the registration of the aircraft in question on the video to check unfortunately.
The old engine will be overhauled by Rolls Royce and sent back - it would have to be severely damaged for repair not to be economical as these engines are modular, so large sections can be replaced quite easily ala Trigger’s Broom…
Last edited:
Attacking British military equipment in the name of another country isn't terrorism?
I'm not sure I've ever known a group that has caused criminal damage but has been non-violent in nature to be labelled terrorists.
But because I've not heard of that doesn't mean it's not happened before.
E: Apparently violence is not necessary in the Terrorism Act 2000
I guess 'serious damage to property' would cover it
Last edited:
The dictionary definition of violence also includes damage (or attempted damage) to property so I’m not sure am they can ever claim they are about non violent protest.
Their standard ‘attack’ is to break into places and cause material damage with the aim of stopping said thing from operating.
Be that a defence company and now the MOD itself.
Last edited:
I tend to agree that it is difficult to class it as terrorism, it would be easier to make a claim for treason or sedition.
I guess, one way you could claim terrorism is that they were actively supporting a country that is run by a terrorist organisation.
Dunno about it all really.
If I hear the word terrorist I remember being concerned about bomb threats back in the day, can't say I considered spray painting as something that sent shivers through my bones.
Times a change I guess.
If I hear the word terrorist I remember being concerned about bomb threats back in the day, can't say I considered spray painting as something that sent shivers through my bones.
Times a change I guess.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,924
- Location
- Cheltenham
It’s just definitions and intentions - the word prescribed to them is of less importance really.
That was probably back before stencils became popular.
Well either that or they should be charged with treason - can't expect to be allowed to attack military without consequences
Last edited:
Saying they spray painted it is grossly understating the damage they caused here.
Oh I'm not condoning what they did nor want to minimise how much damage was caused.
I still worry more about actual bombs than paint.
So, what on earth are our military doing? They were lucky it was just paint. Absolutely unforgivable anybody was allowed to get into that position.
That's what disgusts me most at the moment.