Would Wild Birds Eat Grapes If They Were...
Home & Garden6 mins ago
Drones Couple Arrested
As title. A man and a woman have were arrested yesterday. Apart from a full jail term, not a 12 month suspended sentence. Should this pair have a lifetime ban from flying on all airlines. Your thoughts.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by malagabob. 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.
As always, emotion demands that this couple are punished in line with the misery they have caused, and the money they have cost.
But the law works without emotion, and they can only be convicted for the offences they have committed in law, which may only amount to invasion of civil airspace, and is unlikely to attract the sort of sanction that distraught holiday makers would want for them.
But the law works without emotion, and they can only be convicted for the offences they have committed in law, which may only amount to invasion of civil airspace, and is unlikely to attract the sort of sanction that distraught holiday makers would want for them.
// But the law works without emotion,//
o god who wrote this? ( gawd I mean - sorry Nigh)
the law also allows a civil action on account ( depending on the charges whether or not convicted ) for the loss caused
my rather boozy in laws were on a flight where the drunks were er thrown off mid flight and were charged with the extra cost of landing and taking off ( thousands )
o god who wrote this? ( gawd I mean - sorry Nigh)
the law also allows a civil action on account ( depending on the charges whether or not convicted ) for the loss caused
my rather boozy in laws were on a flight where the drunks were er thrown off mid flight and were charged with the extra cost of landing and taking off ( thousands )
“Shame they can only get 5 years.”
With the (very large) caveat that these two are the perpetrators and are found guilty, it’s not at all certain that is true. That is the maximum sentence for “endangering an aircraft” (which is about the most serious offence I can see them facing). I can see them successfully arguing that no aircraft faced any danger because the airport was closed almost as soon as their device appeared and/or that they had no intention of endangering an aircraft and their machines were under control to prevent that at all times.
“my rather boozy in laws were on a flight where the drunks were er thrown off mid flight and were charged with the extra cost of landing and taking off ( thousands )”
A civil matter, Peter. They may well be on the wrong end of such a claim from the airport and/or airlines but they will not face custody for that. Further, the airport/airlines will know that they have no chance of securing anything remotely close to the losses they have incurred and that the action will cost them far more than they might hope to gain.
With the (very large) caveat that these two are the perpetrators and are found guilty, it’s not at all certain that is true. That is the maximum sentence for “endangering an aircraft” (which is about the most serious offence I can see them facing). I can see them successfully arguing that no aircraft faced any danger because the airport was closed almost as soon as their device appeared and/or that they had no intention of endangering an aircraft and their machines were under control to prevent that at all times.
“my rather boozy in laws were on a flight where the drunks were er thrown off mid flight and were charged with the extra cost of landing and taking off ( thousands )”
A civil matter, Peter. They may well be on the wrong end of such a claim from the airport and/or airlines but they will not face custody for that. Further, the airport/airlines will know that they have no chance of securing anything remotely close to the losses they have incurred and that the action will cost them far more than they might hope to gain.
// I have no idea what your phrase in brackets means, but don't worry about that.//
o gawd who wrote this ?
andie - it means that you can sue for the damage done in an action on account
whereas someone wrote - ( I dont know who it is)
"are punished in line with the misery they have caused, and the money they have cost."
and the two statments kinda conflict or clash as we say.
And only one statement can be true
that would be my one
the other one is rubbish
AB in full swing again tonight I see
o gawd who wrote this ?
andie - it means that you can sue for the damage done in an action on account
whereas someone wrote - ( I dont know who it is)
"are punished in line with the misery they have caused, and the money they have cost."
and the two statments kinda conflict or clash as we say.
And only one statement can be true
that would be my one
the other one is rubbish
AB in full swing again tonight I see
// A civil matter, Peter.// yeah absolutely NJ
BUT....
this is all a bit high falutin for a sat night on AB
and implies a difference between
and I was punished with a £20 000 fine which was awful: I didnt know how I was gonna pay
AND
I had to pay restitution for losses of £20 000 which I had no idea how to pay and they took my house away from me - but it wasnt punishment so I really felt OK about it all.
In sex cases you never get costs on acquittal
so that guy who didnt assault the game of thrones actress had costs of around £30 000. But it wasnt a fine ( it might have felt like it for him) so it was all OK really
BUT....
this is all a bit high falutin for a sat night on AB
and implies a difference between
and I was punished with a £20 000 fine which was awful: I didnt know how I was gonna pay
AND
I had to pay restitution for losses of £20 000 which I had no idea how to pay and they took my house away from me - but it wasnt punishment so I really felt OK about it all.
In sex cases you never get costs on acquittal
so that guy who didnt assault the game of thrones actress had costs of around £30 000. But it wasnt a fine ( it might have felt like it for him) so it was all OK really
