Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Stansted 15 found guilty of 'endangering' airport

Spymaster

Cockney Wanker
This must be some specialised definition of the term "endangering" that is used only within the law courts of England and Wales, right?
It's an airport, ffs.

Do people really expect to be able to cut a hole in the fence, go wandering around the operational area, chain themselves to an aircraft, and not get nicked?
 

SpookyFrank

Self-cleaning oven, the whole bit.
It's an airport, ffs.

Do people really expect to be able to cut a hole in the fence, go wandering around the operational area, chain themselves to an aircraft, and not get nicked?
They expected to get nicked. They didn't expect to be contemplating the prospect of life in jail when they have not harmed a living soul and have acted in defence of human rights.

Ultimately they expected, as you would, a fair trial. The judge's intructions to the jury denied them that.
 
Last edited:

NoXion

oof
It's an airport, ffs.

Do people really expect to be able to cut a hole in the fence, go wandering around the operational area, chain themselves to an aircraft, and not get nicked?
Nope. And if you re-read carefully, you'll note that my objection is not that they've been arrested, or even that they've been charged with an offence. Rather it is that legislation ostensibly cooked up to "preserve" our freedumbs from the guddam terrists, is being used on the flimsiest of pretexts as an act of political intimidation against people who non-violently acted according to their conscience.
 

eoin_k

Lawyer's fees, beetroot and music
They weren't tried as terror offenses. They were charged with intentionally disrupting services at an airport. Which they did.
The defendants were charged under a law to enact an international treaty against sabotage to civil aviation, which came out the year after a related treaty on hijacking planes. Both agreements responded to a wave of such actions in the late 1960s and early 1970s. At the time lawyers drew a contrast between the close relationship between these two agreements, and another earlier treaty on jurisdiction over general criminal offences taking place on board aircraft. What seems so inaccurate to you about describing this as counterterrorism legislation?

In this case, everything took place in the UK and involved a plane chartered by the UK Home Office. None of the complications to do with jurisdiction involved with international transport came in to play here.Presumably, these defendants could have been charged with the usual protest offences (criminal damage, aggravated tresspass etc.).

Hopefully, the judges instructions to the jury provide the basis for a quick appeal.
 
Last edited:
Top