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

UK police release airport drone suspects, admit there may not have been drones

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 90 posts

Re: UK police release airport drone suspects, admit there may not have been drones

#71

Post by klyrs »

huffmsa wrote: post #34
jsjohnst wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I just still can’t wrap my head around the fact that in 2018, with a camera attached to every waking persons hand (and some sleeping people too), how is it that there is not a single public photo or video published of this specific drone. I’ve been in many debates about this in the drone flying community (and with friends who know me and how much I fly) and I keep coming back to this point. I’d even take a blurry “…

Even asleep, a one ton animal is hard to move

And yet, flipping cop cars is a common and well-documented pastime among rioters

Re: UK police release airport drone suspects, admit there may not have been drones

#72

Post by sys_64738 »

When I read about this, the intense pressure the police were under, that they arrested two people then released them due to iron clad alibis, it makes me wonder if they panicked and tried to pin it on the first couple of people to pass within their sights. Reading about English police corruption recently, this doesn't surprise me if it were true.

Re: UK police release airport drone suspects, admit there may not have been drones

#73

Post by kurthr »

Edd314159 wrote: post #5

> The suggestion there may not have been any drones at Gatwick Airport was a "miscommunication by police", a government source has told the BBC. > During a conference call between ministers, chaired by Transport Secretary Chris Grayling, it was agreed the 67 drone sightings were legitimate. ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46670714 ) As much as "it was all a false alarm" would make a killer headline (and clear…

Yeah, considering they found a damaged drone near Gatwick airport... it is strangely possible with 67 witnesses that there is no video "proof", but unlikely there were no drones.

On the other hand, I won't be surprised if the couple that were released use the fairly strong libel laws to punish early press shaming.

Re: UK police release airport drone suspects, admit there may not have been drones

#74

Post by DanBC »

DanBC wrote: post #15
tezza wrote: post #7

This country ( UK ) is highly prone to mass psychosis. Not really ascribing anything negative there, just an observation. A few winters ago there was minute by minute updates on Bird Flu. The press was covering swans and ducks found dead on the ground. Each individual fowl corpse was covered in breathless detail amongst infographics and timelines The government was manoeuvred into buying close to a billion pounds of…

> The government was manoeuvred into buying £9 billion pounds of Tamiflu vaccine. £9bn was about the total prescription medication budget at the time, so I think you've gone wrong somewhere.

The H5N1 scare was around 2008.

Some sourcing on the medication budget: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/rising-cost-medici...

> Estimated total NHS spending on medicines in England has grown from £13 billion in 2010/11 to £17.4 billion in 2016/17

A few years earlier in 2006: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/casenotes_20060509.shtml (The transcript used to be available, not sure if it's possible to get to it now, but that gives the £9bn figure).

Re: UK police release airport drone suspects, admit there may not have been drones

#75

Post by brianwawok »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #56
C1sc0cat wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't hire the brightest - recently I heard a former senior ex met natsec policeman who presented as very very stupid individual I would not trust to investigate a missing kitten. There was also the scandal where a v senior copper on the Cyber side was found cheating.

In the USA, courts ruled it was legal for police departments to discriminate based on intellect and refuse to higher persons with high IQs. They hire less smart people on purpose because they tend to question orders less and do what they are told more (their words, not mine).

Source? Chicago lost a landmark case where they hired fire fighters based on a written test, because it was found to discriminate.

So in practice the written test got removed or downplayed

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/f...

Re: UK police release airport drone suspects, admit there may not have been drones

#76

Post by pjc50 »

benj111 wrote: post #37
DanBC wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are some very small protests in the UK from people wearing Yellow Vests. These appear to be from Brexit supporters. Here's a video of some people blocking a bridge, causing delay to an ambo: https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/10735588338789621...

So Brexit supporters are copying French fuel protesters even though we have a different fuel duty regime that isn't set by Europe, and they want to leave Europe (and by extension, France) anyway? That makes perfect sense.

It makes perfect sense when you realise that the UK protests are, like the rest of Brexit, pure astroturf.

Re: UK police release airport drone suspects, admit there may not have been drones

#77

Post by pjc50 »

kurthr wrote: post #73
Edd314159 wrote: post #5

> The suggestion there may not have been any drones at Gatwick Airport was a "miscommunication by police", a government source has told the BBC. > During a conference call between ministers, chaired by Transport Secretary Chris Grayling, it was agreed the 67 drone sightings were legitimate. ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46670714 ) As much as "it was all a false alarm" would make a killer headline (and clear…

Yeah, considering they found a damaged drone near Gatwick airport... it is strangely possible with 67 witnesses that there is no video "proof", but unlikely there were no drones. On the other hand, I won't be surprised if the couple that were released use the fairly strong libel laws to punish early press shaming.

No legal aid for libel, so unless they're willing to take out another mortgage they're unlikely to get started there.

Re: UK police release airport drone suspects, admit there may not have been drones

#79

Post by ams6110 »

monochromatic wrote: post #41
redcalx wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The paper's that did that made clearly libellous claims - because the couple had not yet been charged with an offence when their names were published. Those paper's can now expect libel claims against them, although given the clear breach of libel law I expect they will wish to settle out of court rather than take on the extra expense of a court case they can't win.

I’m not too familiar with UK libel law. Is it not a defense that they were reporting on statements they were given? Is there a reasonableness question?

I thought there was an actually arrest made? Don't know about the UK, but in the US arrests are public record.

Re: UK police release airport drone suspects, admit there may not have been drones

#80

Post by DanBC »

monochromatic wrote: post #41
redcalx wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The paper's that did that made clearly libellous claims - because the couple had not yet been charged with an offence when their names were published. Those paper's can now expect libel claims against them, although given the clear breach of libel law I expect they will wish to settle out of court rather than take on the extra expense of a court case they can't win.

I’m not too familiar with UK libel law. Is it not a defense that they were reporting on statements they were given? Is there a reasonableness question?

There's a difference between saying "Mr and Mrs Bloggs were arrested in connection to the Gatwick drone chaos" and "ARE THESE THE MORONS WHO RUINED CHRISTMAS?" in 144pt font on the front page with a fuck-off huge photo of them.

http://suttonnick.tumblr.com/post/181330292801/hendopolis-ma...

But this newspaper probably won't have to pay out anything. They've been careful with their wording; they do this a lot; they have lawyers on staff; and defamation is difficult in the UK.

Post reply on HN