This is terrorism? - REALLY?

[mmj_uk]

As stated many many times in the thread, they were not charged under the Terrorism Act 2000 but under the 1990 Aviation and Maritime Security Act.

So it's just fake news from the Guardian then, many people (and I'm guilty of this in this instance) don't read past the headline it's one of the ways fake news works.

In the moments before police arrived, they were able to display their banners, one of which said: “No one is illegal.”

They're clearly virtue signalling idiots who probably think that enforcing immigration laws are an act of Nazism. Like Adolf Hitler respected national boundaries...

 

[h4rm0ny]

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.

Terrorism laws were always going to be abused. Look at how Lauren Southern was detained for her "Allah is a Gay God" experiment. Every time the State expands its powers we say the laws will be abused and every time apologists for authoritarianism claim that they wont be.

Now these people should probably be arrested. ******* around with airports is generally a bad idea and there are reasons why security and its enforcement are so strict around them. Don't see that it's terrorism, though.

EDIT:

Good job it wasn't under terrorism laws then!!!

As stated many many times in the thread, they were not charged under the Terrorism Act 2000 but under the 1990 Aviation and Maritime Security Act.

Aaaand I should have read a little further on...​

 

[Hotwired]

So the answer to the thread title is.... no

The guardian constructed the impression in a desire to bait clicks and outrage.

Meanwhile over on the Independent:

A Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) spokesperson said: “The charge used in this case is from the Aviation and Maritime Security Act of 1990 and applies to those who intentionally disrupt service at an aerodrome, regardless of their motivation. It is not a terrorist charge.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...n-airport-guilty-verdict-terror-a8675966.html

Hopefully it encourages people to not break into airports and hold the departure of planes and their passengers hostage for attention.

 

[/\ndy]

They're clearly virtue signalling idiots who probably think that enforcing immigration laws are an act of Nazism.

A common smear tactic which is over used unfortunately, they clearly don't get the distinction between legal and illegal immigration.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Just watched video of them. Why are they chanting "We don't need your racist chat up lines"? Or am I going deaf?

 

[dowie]

So the answer to the thread title is.... no

The guardian constructed the impression in a desire to bait clicks and outrage.

Yup and the OP lapped it all up blindly without stopping to think for himself.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...n-airport-guilty-verdict-terror-a8675966.html

Hopefully it encourages people to not break into airports and hold the departure of planes and their passengers hostage for attention.

This bit is worth some punishment in itself:

A pilot who saw the activists approaching closed the plane’s doors before calling security, and the ensuing police operation caused flights to be diverted to other airports.

Flights, plural... so hundreds or possibly thousands of people potentially inconvenienced.

 

[subbytna]

So based on that logic, I'm guessing you think the guy who killed Jo Cox was also a terrorist too right?

Not saying you're wrong btw.

Yes he was too. To terrorise persons through fear and violence is terrorism.

 

[TJM]

I have a lot of sympathy with their motives, but civil disobedience and punishment go hand in hand. You aren't taking a stand if it costs you nothing.

 

[stockhausen]

The Tory LawnOrder brigade on here seem to suggest that prosecuting the 15 Stansted protesters under "terrorism" legislation is appropriate and proportionate. Amnesty International and Liberty amongst others appear to disagree.

I extracted the following quote from the Guardian:

The 15 protesters were initially accused of aggravated trespass. The Crown Prosecution Service then upgraded this to “intentional disruption of services at an aerodrome” by means of “a device, substance or weapon”.

This obscure-sounding charge was introduced in response to the Lockerbie bombing and carries a correspondingly harsh maximum penalty: life imprisonment. It has been used just once before, 17 years ago, in the case of a pilot who deliberately flew his helicopter at Coventry airport’s control tower.

The CPS maintains that the group “placed themselves, the flight crew, airport personnel and police at serious risk of injury or even death”.

Perhaps the defenders of the draconian charge by the CPS can explain how exactly the lives of the flight crew, airport personnel and police were placed at serious risk of injury or even death!

Then again, probably not.

 

[dowie]

Since this is GD rather than SC, I just have to say:

LOLStockhausen

 

[Angilion]

The Tory LawnOrder brigade on here seem to suggest that prosecuting the 15 Stansted protesters under "terrorism" legislation is appropriate and proportionate. [..]

As you could see if you read the posts, many people here are stating that the "protestors" were not, repeat not, prosecuted under terrorism legislation or for terrorism offences.

On political quadrant tests, I end up about a third into the left/libertarian quadrant. Your categorisation of people who disagree with you is even more fictional than your categorisation of the law these people were prosecuted under.

 

[ianh]

Perhaps the defenders of the draconian charge by the CPS can explain how exactly the lives of the flight crew, airport personnel and police were placed at serious risk of injury or even death!

Then again, probably not.

You obviously don't work at an airport, they're dangerous places at the best of times which is why airports spend a huge amount of time and effort keeping people away from the dangerous parts even including those people who work there. So when a group of people enter these dangerous areas and, being unaware of the dangers, tend to be at a huge risk, others have to increase the risk to their own personal welfare to go and remove that group to a safer area.

Just like oil rigs, military, trains etc when everything is working perfectly fine then those working, even though the job is dangerous, are usually very safe, but when you throw a huge spanner into that previously safe workspace anything can happen!

 

[kindai]

Good, throw the book at them. There are some places you just dont **** around and breaking into secure areas of airports is high up on that list.

 

[Caracus2k]

The blatant liars at the Guardian are still pushing the 'terrorism' legislation angle.....

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...on-the-stansted-15-a-sledgehammer-prosecution

You only have to look at the legislation itself to see how full of **** they are.... Here's the opening statements for the act and an actual piece of 'terroist' legislation.

Terrorism Act 2000

2000 CHAPTER 11

An Act to make provision about terrorism; and to make temporary provision for Northern Ireland about the prosecution and punishment of certain offences, the preservation of peace and the maintenance of order.


Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990
1990 CHAPTER 31
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.

Perhaps the defenders of the draconian charge by the CPS can explain how exactly the lives of the flight crew, airport personnel and police were placed at serious risk of injury or even death!

Then again, probably not.

I know you are quite immune to facts but the wording of the specific charge used in this case doesn't require anyone being placed at risk of death or serious injury rather it requires action that endangers the safe operation of the aerodrome or the safety of persons at the aerodrome .

Random people running about the airfield before attaching themselves to planes would certainly fulfill this criteria

Group convicted over Stansted Airport break-in

10 December 2018|News

Fifteen people who broke into Stansted Airport and chained themselves around a plane have been convicted of an aviation security offence today.

The defendants used an access road to get to the airside perimeter fence at the airport, making a hole with bolt cutters on 28 March 2017.

Once inside, they approached a large plane waiting on a stand, securing themselves around its wheel and wing using ‘lock box’ devices which made them immovable.

The plane was a charter flight by the Home Office which was repatriating passengers to Nigeria and Ghana, Chelmsford Crown Court heard.

Airport security and police spent hours removing the defendants from the aircraft before they were arrested.

Multiple flights in and out of Stansted were disrupted as a result of the protest, causing delays for thousands of passengers.

Judith Reed, of the CPS, said: “Through their actions these defendants intentionally grounded a Boeing 767 and caused significant disruption at Stansted Airport.

“Fifteen protestors used equipment such as industrial bolt cutters, chains, expanding foam, scaffolding poles and lock box devices to prevent the take-off of a plane.

“These people placed themselves, the flight crew, airport personnel and police at serious risk of injury or even death due to their actions on the airfield.

“The CPS worked with the police to build a strong case which reflected the criminality of the defendant’s actions, regardless of their motivation.”

The group will be sentenced in February 2019.

Notes to editors

• Judith Reed is a Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS East of England
• Edward Thacker, Benjamin Smoke, Melanie Strickland, Lyndsay Burtonshaw, Laura Clayson, May Mackeith, Melanie Evans, Alistair Tamlit, Nicholas Sigsworth, Emma Hughes, Ruth Potts, Jyotsna Ram, Joseph McGahan, Nathan Clack and Helen Brewer all denied intentional disruption of services at an aerodrome, which is contrary to section 1 (2) (b) of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990. They were convicted following a trial at Chelmsford Crown Court

Endangering safety at aerodromes

1 Endangering safety at aerodromes.E+W+S+N.I.

(1)It is an offence for any person by means of any device, substance or weapon intentionally to commit at an aerodrome serving international civil aviation any act of violence which—

(a)causes or is likely to cause death or serious personal injury, and

(b)endangers or is likely to endanger the safe operation of the aerodrome or the safety of persons at the aerodrome.

(2)It is also, subject to subsection (4) below, an offence for any person by means of any device, substance or weapon unlawfully and intentionally—

(a)to destroy or seriously to damage—

(i)property used for the provision of any facilities at an aerodrome serving international civil aviation (including any apparatus or equipment so used), or

(ii)any aircraft which is at such an aerodrome but is not in service, or

(b)to disrupt the services of such an aerodrome,

in such a way as to endanger or be likely to endanger the safe operation of the aerodrome or the safety of persons at the aerodrome.

For the record I think their actions would be enough to constitute a risk of causing serious injury or death, which is the more serious charge under section 1(1)(a) in the same act, which is likely why the CPS statement makes reference to parts of the more serious offence despite the defendants in this case being charged with the lesser offence.