Gatwick Drone ‘Attack’

[VicParticipant @vic]

The headline says:

"Gatwick Airport drone sightings may have been of police equipment, chief constable admits".

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Vic on 09/01/2019 19:56:50:

The headline says:

"Gatwick Airport drone sightings may have been of police equipment, chief constable admits".

.

Which you interpreted as …

Yes. I think it's been agreed now that the only drones at Gatwick were ones used by the Police?!

[SamsarandaParticipant @samsaranda]

Isn’t it amazing how so much faith will probably be put in a system of licensing for drones in order to control a rebel element using them for nefarious purposes. As a licensed and responsible gun owner I reflect on how successful that stricter controls were in stopping criminals from using guns for criminal purposes, those caught for using guns in crime certainly don’t subject themselves to a strict state controlled registration system, can’t imagine that those who want to misuse drones are going to voluntarily submit their details to a licensing regime. Those with innocent intentions will be registered while the criminals will just cock a snook.

Dave W

[Jeff DaymanParticipant @jeffdayman43397]

"while the criminals will just cock a snook."

What does this phrase mean please? not familiar with this bit of English.

[VicParticipant @vic]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 09/01/2019 20:00:24:

Posted by Vic on 09/01/2019 19:56:50:

The headline says:

"Gatwick Airport drone sightings may have been of police equipment, chief constable admits".

.

Which you interpreted as …

Yes. I think it's been agreed now that the only drones at Gatwick were ones used by the Police?!

Well this has been done to death on other forums and many think the same. What do you think "Gatwick Airport drone sightings may have been of police equipment, chief constable admits", means or do you just not believe the Chief constable?

[Norfolk BoyParticipant @norfolkboy]

"what does this phrase mean please? not familiar with this bit of English."

I think most readily interpreted as the "visual vernacular" (if such a thing exists) of "give the finger" or the V sign, as in "up yours" I hope that has not offended.  Maybe even  modern, "Yeah Whatever" then do as you like.

Alan

 

Edited By Norfolk Boy on 09/01/2019 21:15:43

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Vic on 09/01/2019 20:51:22:

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 09/01/2019 20:00:24:

Posted by Vic on 09/01/2019 19:56:50:

The headline says:

"Gatwick Airport drone sightings may have been of police equipment, chief constable admits".

.

Which you interpreted as …

Yes. I think it's been agreed now that the only drones at Gatwick were ones used by the Police?!

Well this has been done to death on other forums and many think the same. What do you think "Gatwick Airport drone sightings may have been of police equipment, chief constable admits", means or do you just not believe the Chief constable?

.

I'm not picking an argument, Vic … I just find your interpretation rather 'ambitious'

In the quote above, I have emboldened what I find a disturbing leap

Let's just agree to differ

MichaelG.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Norfolk Boy on 09/01/2019 21:13:36:

I think most readily interpreted as the "visual vernacular" (if such a thing exists) …

.

Broadly true, Alan … but more specifically; this gesture: **LINK**

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocking_a_snook

MichaelG.

[Fergus StirlingParticipant @fergusstirling62506]

Ironically, the police drones had to be modified before they could fly them over Gatwick as the airspace was GPS denied by the manufacturer.

[Danny M2ZParticipant @dannym2z]

It looks like the fallout from this 'incident' is reverberating around the world. **LINK** and here **LINK**

Like our knee jerk firearms laws, this is harassing and penalising the innocent, law abiding majority for the transgressions of a few nutbags.

It would have been more effective to spend the $$$ by educating the public rather than stamping down on them.

A criminal operator is as likely to register a drone as they do with an illegal firearm or stolen car.

Why just not demonise the law breaker's and lock them up for a looong time with lots of publicity?

Also, the mass/mess media have a lot to answer for, but that seems to be normal nowadays (when it suits them), as they also fly drones to gather their harvest.

* Danny M *

[Barnaby WildeParticipant @barnabywilde70941]

Posted by Danny M2Z on 10/01/2019 03:00:12:

Like our knee jerk firearms laws, this is harassing and penalising the innocent, law abiding majority for the transgressions of a few nutbags.

History has proven that prohibition & restriction has little to no effect on criminality other than to drive it underground & further outside of the reach of control. In very many instances it has made a bad situation worse. They know this, they're not stupid, but they have to do something, anything. They have to be seen to be tackling the problems, even if they are made aware of the consequences by respected advisors. They do this to 'appease' the majority, which isn't difficult as the majority seem to be asleep. One other, far more dangerous aspect, is that events like this can be used to introduce legislation that the majority simply would not accept in other circumstances.

They are going to chuck £millions in hardware to secure these airfields & it won't work.

[Author]

Posts