This is terrorism? - REALLY?

[stockhausen]

Fifteen activists who blocked the takeoff of an immigration removal charter flight have been convicted of endangering the safety of Stansted airport, a terrorism offence for which they could be jailed for life.
. . .
The court had heard how members of the campaign group End Deportations used lock-on devices to secure themselves around a Titan Airways Boeing 767 chartered by the Home Office, as the aircraft waited on the asphalt at the airport in Essex to remove undocumented immigrants to Nigeria, Ghana and Sierra Leone.

The prosecution argued that their actions, which led to a temporary shutdown of Stansted, had posed a grave risk to the safety of the airport and its passengers.
. . .
“This is a law that’s been brought in concerning international terrorism,” [Dr Graeme Hayes, reader in political sociology at Aston University] said. “But for the last 10 weeks [of the trial], we’ve heard what amounts to an extended discussion of health and safety, in which the prosecution has not said at any point what the consequences of their actions might have been.” (LINK)

Preventing the departure of a deportation aircraft may be described as many things - terrorism isn't one of them.

Breaches of Health and Safety now amount to terrorism?

I suspect that this will be turned over on appeal and that Judge Christopher Morgan will be given the opportunity to spend more time with his family.

 

[CREATIVE!11]

Who cares, they're morons.

 

[Roar87]

I think it's abuse of the Terrorism laws, but then I also wished the plane simply went ahead and took off with them in front it.

 

[snips86x]

Who cares, they're morons.

Great contribution! They're doing something they believe in, just because you think otherwise, doesn't mean its wrong.

 

[cheesyboy]

utterly unacceptable for terror laws to be used in a case like this.

 

[Chris Wilson]

If they were that fond of the African illegals they should have put them on the flight with them and dropped them over there. Judge Morgan sounds my kinda guy

 

[stockhausen]

Who cares, they're morons.

A harsh but fair assessment of Judges, they should be confined to shop doorways and food banks -or- lunatic asylums.

 

[Pudney]

I suspect that this will be turned over on appeal and that Judge Christopher Morgan will be given the opportunity to spend more time with his family.

Why are you blaming a judge for the decision of a jury?

 

[stockhausen]

Why are you blaming a judge for the decision of a jury?

Have you bothered to read the referenced Guardian article?

 

[Pudney]

Have you bothered to read the referenced Guardian article?

I'd read the story elsewhere but now read the Guardian link, and the related link about the dismissal of evidence. Still don't see the issue, a political defence isn't much good where the argument is a legal one.

“The following matters … while providing background and motivation [to the actions of the defendants], have no relevance to the issues in this case: immigration policy, the fitness or otherwise of the Home Office or any minister of state, the views of any parliamentary committee or MP, the decision-making process [giving rise to the charge], whether there is a more appropriate or alternative charge, [or] the length of trial or the cost,” Morgan said.

“None of these matters have any relevance.”

If that was their argument then the necessity argument would seem flawed from my uneducated view.

 

[Minusorange]

they're morons.

Being a moron doesn't = a terrorist though

 

[dowie]

It isn't terrorism, it is an offence being prosecuted under laws related to terrorism.

I don't like the idea of terrorism laws being abused/used outside their intended purpose - for example as an excuse to stop and search large numbers of people when blatantly unrelated to any real terrorism fears. But I'd be interested to know what the alternatives for charging them were? What other laws are there covering the disruption of airports etc..? Because if this is the main legislation intended to deal with this sort of thing now then this could well be a lot of fuss over nothing/semantics etc.. re: the "terrorism" angle.

 

[CREATIVE!11]

Great contribution! They're doing something they believe in, just because you think otherwise, doesn't mean its wrong.

Holding up the deportation of illegal immigrants or criminals like the last ones just for some twitter likes?

 

[Deluxe1]

They're doing something they believe in.

Doesn't mean they can break the law.

 

[Pudney]

It isn't terrorism, it is an offence being prosecuted under laws related to terrorism.

I don't like the idea of terrorism laws being abused/used outside their intended purpose - for example as an excuse to stop and search large numbers of people when blatantly unrelated to any real terrorism fears. But I'd be interested to know what the alternatives for charging them were? What other laws are there covering the disruption of airports etc..? Because if this is the main legislation intended to deal with this sort of thing now then this could well be a lot of fuss over nothing/semantics etc.. re: the "terrorism" angle.

To support what you say some more, this is the introductory text for the legislation that the protestors contravened, emphasis is my own:

An Act to give effect to the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation which supplements the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation; to make further provision with respect to aviation security and civil aviation; to give effect to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and to the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf which supplements that Convention; to make other provision for the protection of ships and harbour areas against acts of violence; and for connected purposes.

And the likely offence:

Unauthorised presence in restricted zone.
(1)A person shall not—

(a)go, with or without a vehicle, onto any part of a restricted zone of—

(i)an aerodrome, or

(ii)an air navigation installation which does not form part of an aerodrome,

except with the permission of the manager of the aerodrome, the authority responsible for the air navigation installation or a person acting on behalf of that manager or authority, and in accordance with any conditions subject to which that permission is for the time being granted, or

(b)remain on any part of such a restricted zone after being requested to leave by the manager of the aerodrome, the authority responsible for the air navigation installation or a person acting on behalf of that manager or authority.

(2)Subsection (1)(a) above does not apply unless it is proved that, at the material time, notices stating that the area concerned was a restricted zone were posted so as to be readily seen and read by persons entering the restricted zone.

(3)A person who contravenes subsection (1) above without lawful authority or reasonable excuse shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

 

[dirtybeatfreak]

Great contribution! They're doing something they believe in, just because you think otherwise, doesn't mean its wrong.

Endangering other peoples lives is wrong though...

 

[cheesyboy]

Doesn't mean they can break the law.

But also doesn't mean we should necessarily pass judgement on the morality of their actions.

 

[Deluxe1]

They were causing disruption at an airport, did they honestly think they would just get off scott free?

I wouldn't call it terrorism myself but on the other hand wouldn't bat an eye lid if they did get sent down for life.

 

[Rifte]

But also doesn't mean we should necessarily pass judgement on the morality of their actions.

Believing in something doesn't necessarily make it right and immune from judgement or opinion.
100% they need to be brought to task over what they did, whether the terrorism laws are appropriate or not is another thing altogether.

 

[Chris Wilson]

Ask the Fathers For Justice lot about terrorism laws after their little debacle in the House of Commons.... You need to educate yourself what laws may be applied to wherever you decide to have a rant at the processes of the legal system, or anything else for that matter, some are more sensitive areas than others, and the H of C and airports get right up in the top echelons.