Drones over gatwick..

Even if it was corporate entity, it can't really be the one that the government used, as that system did **** all to solve the problem, probably hurt Rafael more than it helped, so it'd have to be a rival.
 
StriderX said:
Even if it was corporate entity, it can't really be the one that the government used, as that system did **** all to solve the problem, probably hurt Rafael more than it helped, so it'd have to be a rival.
Click to expand...

No, but being the government it would have gone to tender and there would have been a clear understanding if the product purchased by any company who answered the tender. Your competition tends to know your weaknesses better than most :D

The tender provider may also not agree with the level of tech you recommend and may opt for a cheaper option with less features. This happens a lot with government and public sector!

A quick demonstration of why the level you recommended would have been better by some in the know third party happening to know the holes would be wonderful for your business, and very convenient!
 
Malt_Vinegar said:
If you have been in consultation with Gatwick and know what little equipment and resources are available to detect/track and bring down drones. It's VERY low risk. It's a surefire way to grease the wheels.

A quick call to a drone expert friend off the record and a backhander payment, it could be organised very easily and the company could easily sit behind a "rogue" employee if ever caught.
You would be surprised what goes on in business that's far darker.

We had a situation with a customer of ours who had a dramatic failure that escalated and increased the rollout of our product. Money that was previously unavailable was found very quickly. It was very big and hit the news, and that was all it took to change the deal totally from our point of view.

We had nothing to do with it obviously, but it would not surprise me if these things happened with some of what I have seen working for (and against) a Chaebol!
Click to expand...

I mean I'm not denying what you are saying far from a guarantee of it not being traced back and in a case like this they'd almost certainly throw the book at them.
 
Will the two suspects that were wrongly detained be able to get compensated considering how much their privacy has been violated?

Why the police released their names beggars belief.
 
Did the police release their names? I thought I read they didn't. They likely have a pretty clear case against anyone that did though (depending on the nature of the publication possibly).
 
PiKe said:
Will the two suspects that were wrongly detained be able to get compensated considering how much their privacy has been violated?

Why the police released their names beggars belief.
Click to expand...

The 'Police' didn't release their names. Media outlets did via police sources, who no doubt got some back handers.
 
To be fair to them if my name had been dragged through the mud by the media based on incomplete / mis information I'd want to be compensated for it. Perhaps not from the government but at least from any media outlet that decided to run a story about me before I was charged.

This trial by public opinion **** has got to stop.
 
So basically what people should do now, is to try to be the prime suspect and get big compo out of it? Nice precedent to set.
 
chroniclard said:
That eyebrow couple are laying it on a bit thick. Angling for compo.....scrubs
Click to expand...

Was gonna say they are playing it for all it is worth but for once I don't actually blame them if they are innocent in all this that has probably messed with their Christmas as well as being plastered all over the news as guilty before any real facts had come out.
 
PiKe said:
I think it's fair enough, I would be pretty peeved if I was wrongfully accused and had picture plastered on TV and my house routed through by the police.
Click to expand...

2 days in a police station and the chap's boss saying on national Tv and radio that he was on site at work when this was happening, and still another day before release.
I'd be mighty ****** off.
 
I think they knew exactly what they were doing... They saw the story, went out with a drone thinking they would get accused, knew it would be spread all over the place and boom, compo! It's a one way ticket to millions of people feeling sorry for them and them getting a shed load of money for a little bit of pain for a week.

Next some ********* will start up a fund raiser online and they will be quids in!

It's quite clever really.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
azazl187 said:
I think they knew exactly what they were doing... They saw the story, went out with a drone thinking they would get accused, knew it would be spread all over the place and boom, compo! It's a one way ticket to millions of people feeling sorry for them and them getting a shed load of money for a little bit of pain for a week.

Next some ********* will start up a fund raiser online and they will be quids in!

It's quite clever really.
Click to expand...
Stop talking ****. He was working at the time of the incident, how was he out with a drone which he doesn't actually own?
 
all this media attention on the couple reminds me of Christopher Jefferies in 2010 the red tops coverage strange mr jeffiries peeping tom ect..they practically had him convicted of murder and he was totally innocent.

aye his boss tried too tell the police he was working and the detectives did not return his call.
 
PiKe said:
Stop talking ****. He was working at the time of the incident, how was he out with a drone which he doesn't actually own?
Click to expand...
No I mean he had a drone at home and took it out with him with the intention of getting seen in the area with a drone
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom