Crosswords15 mins ago
One Law For The Rich And Another For The Poor?
45 Answers
http://
Although this group of useless left-wing hooray Henrys and Henryettas disrupted flights for more than six hours. they left court after only paying court costs of £95 each and ordered not to do it again.
£95????????? that wouldn't pay for a solicitor's email.
Although this group of useless left-wing hooray Henrys and Henryettas disrupted flights for more than six hours. they left court after only paying court costs of £95 each and ordered not to do it again.
£95????????? that wouldn't pay for a solicitor's email.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
naomi, That is my point entirely. AOG is just giving them even more free publicity.
The thing these people really fear is being ignored. That would defeat them totally!
Ummmm, your point is also valid. This was a ridiculous protest, they say they were protesting about 'effect of UK environmental policy on black lives!' No, I don't under stand what that means either!
The thing these people really fear is being ignored. That would defeat them totally!
Ummmm, your point is also valid. This was a ridiculous protest, they say they were protesting about 'effect of UK environmental policy on black lives!' No, I don't under stand what that means either!
The benefit is that millions of people are now aware and talking about their campaine and all it has cost is £95 each !!
That is success on a grand scale!!! They must have a brilliant publicist, how do you think worldwide TV and film crews were waiting on the runway to film them being removed and arrested!
That is success on a grand scale!!! They must have a brilliant publicist, how do you think worldwide TV and film crews were waiting on the runway to film them being removed and arrested!
I always cringe at the oft used 'oxygen of publicity' expression.
Publicity is simply either positive or negative and the media run with it as they see fit.
Let's get stories like this further out in the open and debate on social networks to expose these numpties for what they are.
Attention seekers perhaps but the more their lack of credibility is highlighted the better as far as I am concerned. They are that stupid they probably don't realise how little gumption they have and it makes you wonder how some of them have achieved academically.
Nothing but a bunch of selfish,time-wasting rebels without a cause.
Publicity is simply either positive or negative and the media run with it as they see fit.
Let's get stories like this further out in the open and debate on social networks to expose these numpties for what they are.
Attention seekers perhaps but the more their lack of credibility is highlighted the better as far as I am concerned. They are that stupid they probably don't realise how little gumption they have and it makes you wonder how some of them have achieved academically.
Nothing but a bunch of selfish,time-wasting rebels without a cause.
They were well aware that the offence committed was only punishable by a fine. It was something like ' unauthorised entry to a restricted area.'
They could not be charged for 'danger to aircraft' or a similar offence, they announced what they had done to make sure flights had been suspended.
There was another thread on this I will try to find it.
They could not be charged for 'danger to aircraft' or a similar offence, they announced what they had done to make sure flights had been suspended.
There was another thread on this I will try to find it.
Here we are, much the same as this thread
http://
http://
^^ Their only purpose was to gain publicity for their cause which they have done! They are not going to be worried about a £95 fine which will be a 'spent' conviction in a few months anyway ! In fact they will be proud of the conviction and the dedication to the cause it shows!
The actual 'cause' by the way is >>
'To highlight the effect of UK environmental policy on black lives' ????
As I said I can't even understand what it is about!
The actual 'cause' by the way is >>
'To highlight the effect of UK environmental policy on black lives' ????
As I said I can't even understand what it is about!
“They were well aware that the offence committed was only punishable by a fine. It was something like ' unauthorised entry to a restricted area.'”
They were convicted of “aggravated trespass”, Eddie. This is trespass (which is normally only a civil matter) but aggravated by preventing people taking part in their lawful business. It carries a maximum of three month’s custody and/or £2,500 fine. They were not fined. The £95 was the standard amount ordered to be paid towards prosecution costs in the event of a guilty plea. They were dealt with by way of a conditional discharge (for various periods between 18 months and three years). Although they all now have a criminal record (two of them already had for similar offences) their convictions become “spent” when the period of the discharge expires.
They were convicted of “aggravated trespass”, Eddie. This is trespass (which is normally only a civil matter) but aggravated by preventing people taking part in their lawful business. It carries a maximum of three month’s custody and/or £2,500 fine. They were not fined. The £95 was the standard amount ordered to be paid towards prosecution costs in the event of a guilty plea. They were dealt with by way of a conditional discharge (for various periods between 18 months and three years). Although they all now have a criminal record (two of them already had for similar offences) their convictions become “spent” when the period of the discharge expires.
