Cliff got a lot because the accusation was extremely serious (more so than flying a drone) and caused damage to his reputation that will have affected his livelihood. The accused won't be losing anything will they? So why can they expect much, if any, money?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Travel] Drones spotted at LGW.
- Thread starter AmexRuislip
- Start date
dadams2k11
ID10T Error
Fair point but how do we know they have nothing lose?
They may of had plenty of reasons for their Identity to remain anonymous and the papers plastered their face and location all over the front pages for the world to see..
I have certain people I don't want knowing where I reside now* so would be mighty pissed off if this was me.
*Nothing dodgy I must add.
I'm certainly not claiming to know, and if they sue their lawyer will have to make a claim as to why they've lost out - but if they have standard jobs, and haven't lost them, it'll be tricky to argue loss of earnings.
Yeah, papers are scum. I wouldn't begrudge them getting something from the papers. But the papers always post shit about people, and it seems rare that they have to pay much compensation.
Understood, but being pissed off about it wouldn't necessarily win you much money.
And if they do get much, if this ever happens again I'm going to get friends to dob me in.
dadams2k11
ID10T Error
Just to clarify Trig,I meant the papers cough up the compo.
I think the invasion of privacy would get the compo nowadays and the guilty before trial mantra the we find ourselves in this day and age is completely shocking, regardless of who the person may be.
It's not right having your life turned upside down over a "tip off" with not a slice of evidence by the scummy papers who don't have an ounce of decoram or empathy and basically couldn't give a shit what they wrote as long as the coin comes in.
I will now get off the fence as I'm starting to get splinters in my backside
sydney
tinky ****in winky
i ll just add that if they were flying drones anywhere near gatwick then they deserve what they got but if they weren't , perhaps they could appreciate that the actions of the police in the current environment is within reason .....to me that whole rigmarole is precursor to a compo claim and frankly they can dream on .
Arthritic Toe
Well-known member
Surely its about defamation of character, by about 3 or 4 papers, but especially the Mail. If you name people and call them morons they can be sued for defamation. To avoid that, their lawyer will negotiate a substantial out-of-court settlement. I'd have thought they could sue the police too for wrongful arrest? I'm sure their lawyer is all over it.
If they've been called morons, that sounds like a fair claim (not that I know).
I wouldn't think so. Surely the police had to arrest people if they'd given a tip off, it was quite serious. Otherwise every time they arrest someone and release without charge, they'd be sued.
Sorrel
Well-known member
My guess is that there may have been some kind of drone or event for the very first sighting - maybe - but after that every sighting was of the police drones sent up to look for the reported ones. That would explain the complete inability to trace these drones as it's difficult to trace something that isn't there.
In short, there was no threat - and most likely no drones except police drones. And now we have a probably very expensive anti-drone system in place for something that never happened. That might be a good outcome, though, as it may be useful in deterring other events. Or it might be a waste of money as drone "attacks" don't actually happen.
In short, there was no threat - and most likely no drones except police drones. And now we have a probably very expensive anti-drone system in place for something that never happened. That might be a good outcome, though, as it may be useful in deterring other events. Or it might be a waste of money as drone "attacks" don't actually happen.
franks brother
Well-known member
They can't be police drones as they didn't have blue flashy lights and go woo woo woo.
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
The police didn't necessarily have to arrest them, they could have merely interviewed them under caution initially. The suspects would of course have to agree to that but if they declined they could then be arrested but as far as I am aware they were never given that option. Had they agreed to an interview the appropriateness of any subsequent arrest could then have been evaluated on the answers given by the two interviewees or on any subsequent information coming to light such as the information given by the male suspect's employer and his ex wife, both of which the police initially ignored. The mere fact of a tip off shouldn't be used as justification for an arrest. There are too many nutters and people who hold grudges to use a mere tip off as sole justification for an arrest. The credibility of the tip off should also be assessed.
Pretty pink fairy
Banned
- Jan 30, 2008
- 31,981