Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 102 posts

Re: Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'

#41

Post by mattmanser »

ajb257 wrote: post #5
Normal_gaussian wrote: post #2

I'm sure the two of them are enjoying having their faces plastered over the sunday news ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs/the_papers ) and sorting through all the lovely messages they've received over the last day or so.

Whilst a free press is important, I would argue that 'a man and a woman have been held in connection with the Gatwick Airport drone incident' would suffice. Kudos to the BBC for recognising this. It's not in the public interest for us to know exactly who they are unless they're actually found guilty of a crime. Publishing their names and pictures before _even being charged_ does nothing but open potentially innocent…

While it's not clear, the NYT seems to be saying that the local MP (politician) accidentally named them thinking the police had made them public, while the police would not confirm them and never named them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/22/world/europe/gatwick-airp...

I think it's a very British whoopsie, they're plastered over the papers and they didn't do anything.

Re: Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'

#42

Post by hopler »

dahart wrote: post #33
zozbot123 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... It's not in the public interest for us to know exactly who they are unless they're actually found guilty of a crime. ... On the contrary, the commonly-acknowledged right of habeas corpus essentially requires the government to make the fact that someone is being detained public, at least if the prisoner himself so chooses. Privacy is a red herring here - habeas corpus is about preserving basic freedoms.

What do you mean when you say habeas corpus essentially requires a detention to be made public? Habeas corpus provides for a review of the legality of a detention for the requester. How & when is any information given publicly under habeas corpus laws? What makes you think habeas corpus and privacy can’t co-exist?

Without public knowledge and pressure, there is no check on authoritarian abuse and the law has no teeth.

Re: Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'

#43

Post by scottmf »

Considering how well organized the attack seems to have been, I assume those behind it know a lot about airports/drones.

I wonder if it could be a government researcher worried about a lack of funding/preparation for this kind of attack (similar to the FBI's conclusion regarding the anthrax attacks)?

It doesn't seem like a protest, so unless it's economic terrorism or a state-backed attack, what else is it likely to be? A former pilot with a grudge?

Re: Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'

#44

Post by tobylane »

e40 wrote: post #24
Normal_gaussian wrote: post #2

I'm sure the two of them are enjoying having their faces plastered over the sunday news ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs/the_papers ) and sorting through all the lovely messages they've received over the last day or so.

What happened to the UK law or practice of not naming suspects? That's the way it was a decade ago (or more?), right?

The police and CPS don't name them, but MPs do for political reasons. Even if everyone couldn't, MPs can say things in Parliament more freely than outside.

Re: Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'

#45

Post by pjc50 »

hopler wrote: post #34
pjc50 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You cannot hope to bribe or twist, thank God! the British journalist. But, seeing what the man will do unbribed, there's no occasion to." -- https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Humbert_Wolfe , 1930 The lack of ethics is definitely imposed from the top, by people like Rupert Murdoch and Piers Morgan.

Rupert Murdoch, the Australian-American?

The owner of News International, Fox etc? Yes.

Re: Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'

#47

Post by thinkingemote »

scottmf wrote: post #38
starbeast wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Times, The Telegraph, The Sun and Transport Secretary Chris Grayling have already labelled any culprits as 'eco-warriors' and that was even before these two were arrested and then released. https://www.desmog.co.uk/2018/12/21/comment-why-it-s-too-soo...

Ah, the perfect protest. Where no one knows what you're protesting!

What is the aim of any protest? Is it to get publicity or to make an actual impact? Might environmental activists be fed up with the limited effect getting in the news brings, and like the yellow vests over the channel, prefer actual effects? "The revolution will not be televised" for the 21st century.

Id like that to be the case as it's more interesting, but in this case I suspect a couple of pranksters having a laugh amongst themselves.

Re: Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'

#48

Post by dahart »

hopler wrote: post #42
dahart wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean when you say habeas corpus essentially requires a detention to be made public? Habeas corpus provides for a review of the legality of a detention for the requester. How & when is any information given publicly under habeas corpus laws? What makes you think habeas corpus and privacy can’t co-exist?

Without public knowledge and pressure, there is no check on authoritarian abuse and the law has no teeth.

Maybe, but that's not what I asked. Don't habeas corpus laws provide public access to a (perhaps private) legal review? When do laws require sharing results with the public, as the GP comment claimed? Can there be checks on authoritarian abuse that don't require public dissemination? Is the threat of publicity exactly the same thing as a requirement for publicity?

Re: Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'

#50

Post by dTal »

Serious question - is there any actual evidence that there was ever a real drone? There are no available pictures of the supposed drone, which seems odd if it was 'buzzing the tower'. It also seems odd that it kept 'popping up' in random places, yet nobody managed to follow it with their own drone, or track it on radar. And now the police are arresting people with no connection to the incident and clearly still have no idea what was going on. The most parsimonious explanation would appear to me to be that somebody reported a drone once, possibly mistakenly, and once the extremely costly call had been made to shut down Gatwick, it snowballed into a mass hysteria / UFO sighting scenario, with everyone seeing 'drones' all over the place.

Of course, it's possible there is in fact ironclad evidence for the official story that we're not being told. But it seems to me there's lots of incentive for the police to share all they know, and huge incentives not to admit that it was all a cock-up.

Post reply on HN