Gatwick airport shut down by drones

[Erich Templar]

Maybe he was visited by three ghosts during the night.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Suggestions that there may never have been a drone at Gatwick Airport were down to “poor communications” rather than a genuine possibility that the incident was baseless, police have told the government.
Ministers were briefed on the latest situation at the airport in an hour-long conference call chaired by the transport secretary, Chris Grayling.

On Sunday, Sussex police said it was conceivable that there might never have been a drone, despite the massive disruption in the run-up to Christmas. One officer said that there was “always a possibility that there may not have been any genuine drone activity in the first place”.
They also said that wet weather could have washed away evidence and that there were no pictures or video of the drone in Gatwick airspace.
However, following the call, a government source said police accepted that there had been a communications failure.
There were more than 200 drone sightings, and police had taken 67 statements, including from police officers and airport workers.

Suggestion that drone did not exist down to 'poor communications'

 

[PandoraB]

quite incredible the UK press is alowed to put full names (and whereabouts) of suspects in the media, in the Netherlands its illegal to do that. And the names are only disclosed when they are convicted.

 

[detrius]

Drone reports are the new bomb threats.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

quite incredible the UK press is alowed to put full names (and whereabouts) of suspects in the media, in the Netherlands its illegal to do that. And the names are only disclosed when they are convicted.

While there are very tight restrictions on what the press can say about anyone after charges are brought, publishing the names of people who have been charged is seen here as important for both the defendant and the prosecution.

It's seen both as preventing the state from causing someone to disappear into the penal system (if they aren't granted bail) and as a means of allowing potential witnesses for both the prosecution and defence to come forward. I can think of several examples where publicity has helped defendants (especially in establishing alibis) and several where it's helped the prosecution, as additional witnesses have come forward.

Certainly some of the papers behaved extremely bady in this case and I hope the couple are able to obtain some redress though the courts. But I really don't see that anyone's interests would be served by a general ban on reporting the fact that someone faces trial for an alleged offence.

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

It's very un-Piers Morgan like to offer an apology

I suspect that's why it wasn't really a good faith apology, but was instead an attempt to excuse himself by claiming he was only doing what "most in the media" had done, which isn't true of course.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

I suspect that's why it wasn't really a good faith apology, but was instead an attempt to excuse himself by claiming he was only doing what "most in the media" had done, which isn't true of course.

Or stave off a lawsuit.

whynotboth.gif