Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'

Post by wbl » Sun, Dec 23, 2018, 9:15 PM UTC

dahart wrote: post #48

hopler wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Post by HarryHirsch » Sun, Dec 23, 2018, 9:29 PM UTC

wbl wrote: post #51

dahart wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Imagine a country where the police arrest people and they vanish in the middle of the night, with no way to determine what their status is.

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Dec 23, 2018, 9:35 PM UTC

dTal wrote: post #50

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…

Post by dbdjfjrjvebd » Sun, Dec 23, 2018, 9:41 PM UTC

zozbot123 wrote: post #8

ajb257 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> ... 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.

Post by dang » Sun, Dec 23, 2018, 9:48 PM UTC

setquk wrote: post #22

qrbLPHiKpiux wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of them death threats, others suggesting life prison and torture. Side note, this shows, in the lowest common denominator, the true nature of people on the internet.

Believe me it’s not just the internet. Those people are just as vocal about it among friends and family. If you think the average British person is nice, you’ve probably just been lucky so far.