Are the ones that were damaged owned by the MoD or leased? If the latter, will the cost of repair not sit with Air Tanker’s insurance?
Owned by Air Tanker, and in what is supposed to be a secure environment, I suspect the insurance company will say, not our problem.
ahh right well i understand more why the loss of this aircraft is fundamentally bigger than i first thought
was there a sign up on the BZN apron wording to the effect of
“the apron management accepts no responsibility or liability to any damage to any aircraft including but not limited to, theft, collision, fire, or other types of damage or loss of personal belongs to any aircraft left unattended”
Aircraft are parked here entirely at the owner’s risk"
Unless a Tornado Sqn (when still in service), you’d be lucky to get 5 serviceable until they started, when at least 1 would go down.
1 Like
Used to get F3s come to the North Devon Flying Club for Dissimilar Air Combat.
Crews would walk, spend ages doing checks and once the engines fired up the Hawk crews would walk (count the wings, kick the tyres) and get ready to taxi
Then one F3 would shut down and go U/S and the sortie became a 2v1
1 Like
Well they tried that today, mass arrests at Parliament Square on Twitter, would expect some whopping fines to be incoming.
Can feel the further degradation in public trust of the Met from all the way over here…
Social Media seems to be quite positive about it, lots of “about times” from people who probably don’t understand the law.
Ultimately they will be slam dunk cases, just don’t have the prison space for the appropriate sentence on the sentencing guidelines, I assume they will just have to lump on the fines.
Crazy that holding a placard suddenly has a starting sentence of 1 years custodial.
3 years would be the starting point based on the guidelines.
Could that three years be suspended- that’s a decent deterrent against even simple criminal damage or other misc crimes.
But we’re talking about that for holding a sign up.
Like this:
Because Palestine Action has been proscribed, this is now very illegal. Under the terrorism act.
So this 83 year old vicar was arrested:
This is crazy.
1 Like
Sad 83 year old vocal is a professional protester, was arrested gor previous protests for IRC JAO.
Actually they could be sent down for 14 years.
1 Like
And you’re okay with people getting arrested and put in prison for multiple years for holding up a sign? No blocking a road. No assaulting the police. Just holding a sign = prison. That’s okay?
The law is the law as passed by Parliament. Appeal against to the high court was struck down and no appeal allowed further. Whether I agree or not is irrelevant, Parliament has spoken. You break the law at your own personal risk, as an individual you make the choice as you are over the age of criminal responsibility.
Make a tweet, which got Lucy Connell two and a half years in jail.
1 Like
Not her first time, she’s a professional activist more than she’s a vicar, relies on her age and dog collar to avoid prison does our Sue.
She will go not guilty and will be quite happy to go to Crown Court to argue her case.
She’s been found not guilty in a slam dunk case in the past, will be interesting to see what a jury says this time.
2 Likes
And what I’m saying is I think that law is ridiculous, over the top and frankly facto-fascist.
Well, your post made it sound like you agreed with it. I was just trying to confirm. As I’m intrigued if people actually agree with this. Sign = prison.
What Lucy Connelly did was completely different to holding a sign as in the example above. And she was not prosecuted under terrorism laws. It’s not comparable at all. She was directly inciting violence directly to people capable of that violence at that time.
The reality is that they do sit squarely in the established definition and none of the arguments anyone is making change that.
Yes there are other protest groups which also sit with the definition, JSO and the ULEZ lot being prime examples. However Government decisions not to proscribe them doesn’t suddenly make PA not fit within the definition. Ultimately an attack on key Strategic assets does cross a big red line.
4 Likes
They fall into the FAFO group, they knew what the law was and consciously broke. Same as the shouts ‘from the river to the sea” people about it but don’t understand what it actually means.
What I feel is gir me to know and nobody else.
1 Like
Having been acquitted on a bulletproof job before some of them thing they are untouchable.
Not sure what the Government will do if it gets to court and a Jury goes not guilty. But then that will be late 2027 at the current rate.
1 Like