RT @raycorrigan: "Fifteen activists who locked themselves together around an immigration removal charter flight to prevent its departure from Stansted ... have gone on trial charged with a terrorist offence." https://t.co/YEBpNOosqe CPS now treating civil rights protesters as #terrorists
Helen Brewer, Lyndsay Burtonshaw, Nathan Clack, Laura Clayson, Mel Evans, Joseph McGahan, Benjamin Smoke, Jyotsna Ram, Nicholas Sigsworth, Alistair Temlit, Edward Thacker, Emma Hughes, May McKeith, Ruth Potts and Melanie Stickland are charged with intentional disruption of services at an aerodrome under the 1990 Aviation and Maritime Security Act, a law passed in response to the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.
Shite biased reporting from the Guardian.
You can get done under the exact same act for lying about who packed your bags at check in. Anybody who enters an unauthorised area in an airport is in breach of the act, don't run on airport tarmac without permission.
Up to life but I doubt they'll get anything like that. Can't find any actual guidelines. It's an extremely serious offence, and whilst it might seem fairly innocent and principled it caused a lot of diversions through incredibly busy airspace. An incident like that and the enormously increased workloads on controllers could easily cause a fatal collision over London.
I'm not sure what the sentence should be if found guilty but it does seem a criminally stupid thing to do.
There seems to be a mode of thinking that the freedom to protest should be absolute, that any form of protest is fine whatever the consequences so long as one thinks the cause is just - with the sole exception of protests around abortion clinics of course, which shouldn't be allowed.
00DEADBEEFThe United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern I10 months ago
They haven't been "charged as terrorists". They are charged with intentional disruption of services at an aerodrome under s1(2)(b) of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990.
"It is also, subject to subsection (4) below, an offence for any person by means of any device, substance or weapon unlawfully and intentionally ... 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."
The Guardian says that is "a law passed in response to the 1988 Lockerbie bombing" - that may be the case, but it doesn't make any offences in the law "a terrorist offence". Another offence in that legislation is to lie in relation to baggage intended for carriage by a civil aircraft registered or operating in the United Kingdom - hardly a "terrorist offence".
In any case, *should* it be an offence to disrupt the services of 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? If it should be, did these people do that on the face of it?