Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'
1–10 of 102 posts
Re: Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'
#2I'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.
Re: Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'
#3I'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.
The retraction never spreads as much as the accusation.
Her Majesty's Christmas gift to these two appears to be Scotland Yard routing thousands of bits of hate mail their way.
Re: Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'
#4There must have been some motive for whoever did this. AFAIK, no environmental or terrorist groups have claimed responsibility.
Is it possible that this has been done by someone within the police or intelligence community in order to create a pretext for pushing through drone licensing laws?
Re: Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'
#5I'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 people up to danger.
Whoever caused the Gatwick chaos needs to be brought to justice, but this is beyond reckless
Re: Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'
#6I'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.
Being accused is the same as 100% guilty, and being guilty is always reason for pubic shaming and unlimited amounts of vitriol.
Good ol' British press logic. I wonder where they get their journalists from. Is there an education to be a heartless bastard with no sense of ethics? Or do they train them in-house?
Re: Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'
#7I'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.
Being accused is the same as 100% guilty, and being guilty is always reason for pubic shaming and unlimited amounts of vitriol. Good ol' British press logic. I wonder where they get their journalists from. Is there an education to be a heartless bastard with no sense of ethics? Or do they train them in-house?
They recruit them from the alumni of the same boarding schools they went to.
I wish I was joking.
Re: Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'
#8I'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…
> ... 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.
Re: Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'
#9I'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…
I would argue that publishing the names at all isn't particularly news-worthy. The right to privacy exists, too.
In the justice system it's the judge which rules a sentence. Years – or even decades – of public shaming doesn't seem fair to me. Committing a crime doesn't mean you're no longer dealing with a person with real feelings. Publishing names and photos strikes me as "2 minutes of hate", and not "news".
Also note that it doesn't just affect the person(s). Family members or even completely unrelated people with similar names can get threatened.
Re: Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'
#10I'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.
Being accused is the same as 100% guilty, and being guilty is always reason for pubic shaming and unlimited amounts of vitriol. Good ol' British press logic. I wonder where they get their journalists from. Is there an education to be a heartless bastard with no sense of ethics? Or do they train them in-house?
It's why there's so much outrage in America when differences between the verdict of public opinion and the verdict of the court happen.