[Travel] Drones spotted at LGW.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in










Triggaaar

Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
53,225
Goldstone
So was there a drone, or not?
 










Chicken Run

Chicken Run

Member Since Jul 2003
NSC Patron
Jul 17, 2003
19,826
Valley of Hangleton
Napper said:
I must admit when I saw it was sussex police who were leading this hunt my heart did sink a little bit .

I’ve never been in trouble but have had to deal with sussex police a fair bit over the years personally but mainly through my job . I’m not exagorating when I say they must be the most useless police force in the entire country .

None of this is a surprise . Just sussex police being sussex police .
Click to expand...

None of this would have happened if the nasty party hadn’t made al the cuts!
 




vegster

vegster

Sanity Clause
May 5, 2008
28,274
Looks like all will be well from now on ! I think the government had put down " Anti-Drone Technology " on their Christmas letter to Santa but, were told in the run up that the Tory Government had been naughty when it came to Homelessness and withholding benefits to the poor and disabled. So, after a last minute squirrel around in the treasury small change they nipped down to Argos just before it closed Christmas Eve !

"UK now has systems to combat drones " - Ben Wallace

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46676762
 




A

Arthritic Toe

Well-known member
Nov 25, 2005
2,488
Swindon
beorhthelm said:
names were originally reported to media from neighbours.


it is now recognised in law as invasion of privacy to release the names before charging. so they will be in line for lot of cash to soften the blow. tenuous but interesting argument i heard that the publicity led to faster resolution with employer and others coming forward to support their alibis. another point made was that naming people can acclerate an investigation as people come forward with information. im on the "dont name" side (especially before charging) but interesting views, its balance that we get wrong eitherway.
Click to expand...

Well instead of communicating with their friends and other alibis by splashing their names all over the papers and describing them as morons, perhaps they could have just phoned them directly?

Christmas has come early for them though, their tearful description of the trauma they have suffered shown this morning was text-book. That performance alone will net them millions. And good for them.
 




dadams2k11

dadams2k11

ID10T Error
Jun 24, 2011
5,024
Brighton
Arthritic Toe said:
Well instead of communicating with their friends and other alibis by splashing their names all over the papers and describing them as morons, perhaps they could have just phoned them directly?

Christmas has come early for them though, their tearful description of the trauma they have suffered shown this morning was text-book. That performance alone will net them millions. And good for them.
Click to expand...

Tbf you would over egg it if you knew you were about to become a millionaire over night. Like you said, good for them.
 




M

marlowe

Well-known member
Dec 13, 2015
4,296
dadams2k11 said:
Tbf you would over egg it if you knew you were about to become a millionaire over night. Like you said, good for them.
Click to expand...

I don't think their compensation will be anywhere near a million. Possibly around £100,000. Cliff Richard got £200,000 and he was hounded for months and accused of far worse. Colin Stagg got £700,000 but he was accused of murder and spent a year in custody plus the negative publicity he received went on for well over a year. By comparison this couple were essentially accused of ruining thousands of peoples' holidays and spent 36 hours in police custody.

I think they should go for as much compensation as they can get and if they are laying it on I don't blame them because in order to receive any additional compensation for their distress they will need to demonstrate that they are distressed. If they come out all laughing and joking about their little escapade it could seriously undermine that compensation. Sometimes peoples' distress and psychological trauma might be masked or contradicted by their outward behaviour but it doesn't mean to say it's not there. They can't afford to take the chance of the level of their distress being questioned.

It would certainly be in the interests of all of those who might be liable for that compensation for the couple to appear in photos in the coming weeks laughing and smiling enjoying their Christmas and New Year seemingly unaffected by their experiences. The captions underlining those photos would probably suggest that innuendo as any displays of happiness or merriment could be negatively interpreted with accusations of them being fake and milking it which is of course ridiculous. Now they are in this ridiculous situation where they are under pressure to "appear" miserable and distressed.
 




Stat Brother

Stat Brother

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
73,888
West west west Sussex
I don't see what the problem is here.

As BG says 'I (the papers) only asked the question'.

It works for him.
 


Herr Tubthumper

Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
62,750
The Fatherland
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46676762

So. I did ask why this issue had not happened elsewhere and it would seem the answer is simple, the operators of Gatwick had not bothered to make the investment. Seems there isn’t any requirement from the authorities either. Beggars belief.
 








Birdie Boy

Birdie Boy

Well-known member
Jun 17, 2011
4,400
Just seen a mate of mine over Xmas who works at Gatwick loading the planes on the tarmac. He was there the whole day and he saw nothing and said that the hi-tech cameras didn't pick up anything either.

Strange one this...
 




You must log in or register to reply here.
Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports

Share this page


Top