Drones over gatwick..

New regulations won't impact incidents like the Gatwick one. Not even slightly. It'd be like a criminal using their own car to go ram raiding. They don't do it. They nick someone else's car.

Registration and a 'test' of some sort was already going to be implemented in November 2019. The only thing that's changed is the radius around airports.
The only people that will affect are those that fly legally at the moment, and won't be able to in future. For example, there are at least two model flying clubs within 5Km of Heathrow, so they'll probably have to ask for an exemption, or re-locate, which is easier said than done.

It's a case of the government need to be seen to be doing something, about a drone that may or may not have existed. I'm not usually the conspiracy theory type, but the whole Gatwick incident stinks of a cover up. Whether it was to cover up a hack or IT problem, or to cover something else that could have prevented the subsequent sale proceeding.
 
Bigpops said:
New regulations won't impact incidents like the Gatwick one. Not even slightly. It'd be like a criminal using their own car to go ram raiding.
Click to expand...

Given we don't even know what caused the Gatwick issue I'm not sure you can make that claim. The first drone sighting might well have been unintentional as a result of some amateur with no clue etc..
 
It's no different to the gun debate in the US, laws and regulations only impact law abiding citizens and won't stop guns being smuggled in from Mexico or prevent criminals who have no respect for the law from committing crimes with them.

It seems that governments always jump on the few exceptional/extreme cases to punish the majority with further loss of freedom.
 
mmj_uk said:
It's no different to the gun debate in the US, laws and regulations only impact law abiding citizens and won't stop guns being smuggled in from Mexico or prevent criminals who have no respect for the law from committing crimes with them.

It seems that governments always jump on the few exceptional/extreme cases to punish the majority with further loss of freedom.
Click to expand...

Its the same for gun laws in the UK, its highly unlikely that anyone shot in UK would be by a registered firearms and the registered owner.
 
robj20 said:
That's kind of my point. All this legislation does nothing to stop the idiots and people up to no good, it just impacts the normal people that aren't doing anything wrong in the first place.
Click to expand...

Wait until you see the fee charged for taking this competency test and then you'll see the real reason why they impose it
 
BowdonUK said:
There was no evidential link to the couple and so no suspicion of him doing it. Yet they still arrested him.
Click to expand...

You don't need an "evidential link" to have suspicion.

"Reasonable suspicion": about a 2 or 3 on a scale of 1-10 - the standard of proof required for an arrest and for the exercise of most stop-search powers, and for a warrant under section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. In Hussein v Chong **** Kam 1969, the Court said that suspicion is "a state of conjecture or surmise where proof is lacking"; in Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Armstrong 2008 the Court called "reasonable suspicion" a low threshold.
Click to expand...
 
Oh goody. And at night too, when it's dark, and difficult to spot.

If you want to disrupt an airport, lets face it, you don't need a drone. All you need is the ear of someone with enough clout that they're listened to and acted upon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom