Gatwick Airport UK closed by drones

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**War Drone**

Sinister as all hell ... there must have been pretty good cause to detain & question them for two days, so I reckon that was a total set-up.

Next stop Heathrow?

And I'm with Killkrazy ... state actors

**nfe**

So they're no longer suspects. Good of the tabloids to throw photos of them everywhere before they were released.

**Overread**

More likely whoever was controlling the drones might have sat in a car at the end of their driveway/outside their house for a time. Or they were seen with remote controls in the area but for other devices etc....

I don't see any reason for them to be "state actors" or the like as it doesn't really benefit anyone to set it up like that. Esp when the airport is offering £50K in reward money.

**War Drone**

Be quiet, you ... allow me my fantasies

**queen_annes_revenge**

Aparantly they took it down using an Israeli made drone dome

**War Drone**

Ahhh ... I wasn't really being so serious, but I guess ... perhaps I was in my mind ...

Overread wrote:
More likely whoever was controlling the drones might have sat in a car at the end of their driveway/outside their house for a time. Or they were seen with remote controls in the area but for other devices etc....

I dunno ... does that "really" sound so much more plausible than checking out a few civi drone users in their free time in advance and just "dropping the hint" when advantageous?

I don't see any reason for them to be "state actors" or the like as it doesn't really benefit anyone to set it up like that. Esp when the airport is offering £50K in reward money.

But who else would it benefit? There've been no claims/assertions by environmental groups or anti-runway groups or save the ducks groups (eco groups, I guess?).

OK, granted, no claims by any state actors, either, but there wouldn't be, would there ...

**Vulcan**

Azreal13 wrote:
1) Obtain low bar credit card
2) Use card to make a purchase you would have made anyway each month, such as groceries.
3) Pay off balance in full, because you already had the money and were spending it anyway.
4) Watch credit rating grow and your access to cheaper credit with it.

Ah... yeah. Doesn't work. I tried it, and you remain one fiscal emergency away from missing payments and wrecked credit. In the meantime various fees eat up what little money you have.

The only real solution is earning more... easier said than done the past decade or so.

**Howard A Treesong**

Hot new take.

There was no drone.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/gatwick-drone-latest-police-say-it-is-a-possibility-there-was-never-a-drone-a4024626.html

**Overread**

Vulcan wrote:
Azreal13 wrote:
1) Obtain low bar credit card
2) Use card to make a purchase you would have made anyway each month, such as groceries.
3) Pay off balance in full, because you already had the money and were spending it anyway.
4) Watch credit rating grow and your access to cheaper credit with it.

Ah... yeah. Doesn't work. I tried it, and you remain one fiscal emergency away from missing payments and wrecked credit. In the meantime various fees eat up what little money you have.

The only real solution is earning more... easier said than done the past decade or so.

Yes but the idea is to only pay for things you 100% already have the money for, ergo you're not using the card to pay for extra things. So groceries that you were already going to buy and already have the money for. That way you're never going over the card limit and you're already well within the minimum payment threshold and can pay it off fast.

Of course the only way to have more actual money is to earn more; credit cards are not free money not are they a solution for anything but short term cash shortages. As soon as you're living above your means on a credit card you are indeed running a risk that you'll miss a payment.

**Avatar 720**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Hot new take.

There was no drone.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/gatwick-drone-latest-police-say-it-is-a-possibility-there-was-never-a-drone-a4024626.html

Yeah, I saw social media up in arms about it earlier.

To me, it reads like your classic "spokesperson underestimated how much they need to regulate what they say", and while all options obviously need to be explored if just to be able to discount them, it's a common trap to go into specifics. The media loves misrepresenting specifics. I imagine someone is going to get a nice Christmas dressing down for it.

**Vulcan**

Overread wrote:
Vulcan wrote:
Azreal13 wrote:
1) Obtain low bar credit card
2) Use card to make a purchase you would have made anyway each month, such as groceries.
3) Pay off balance in full, because you already had the money and were spending it anyway.
4) Watch credit rating grow and your access to cheaper credit with it.

Ah... yeah. Doesn't work. I tried it, and you remain one fiscal emergency away from missing payments and wrecked credit. In the meantime various fees eat up what little money you have.

The only real solution is earning more... easier said than done the past decade or so.

Yes but the idea is to only pay for things you 100% already have the money for, ergo you're not using the card to pay for extra things. So groceries that you were already going to buy and already have the money for. That way you're never going over the card limit and you're already well within the minimum payment threshold and can pay it off fast.

Of course the only way to have more actual money is to earn more; credit cards are not free money not are they a solution for anything but short term cash shortages. As soon as you're living above your means on a credit card you are indeed running a risk that you'll miss a payment.

For a lot of people just living is is living above their means, and one unexpected expense is fiscal ruin. Pay for a lot of people is just that bad. And it doesn't matter if the money used to cover that emergency would have been used to pay off the credit card, the gas bill, or the rent, their credit rating still gets trashed.

But perhaps we should start another thread about this, and not clutter this thread with something so far off-topic.

On the subject at hand... heaven help whoever was running those drones if they get caught. The criminal penalties are bad enough, but consider the potential civil liabilities. The airport could sue, all the airlines operating from that airport could sue, each and every person whose flight was cancelled could sue... that's enough civil liability to make a billionaire flinch!

**Overread**

Avatar 720 wrote:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
Hot new take.

There was no drone.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/gatwick-drone-latest-police-say-it-is-a-possibility-there-was-never-a-drone-a4024626.html

Yeah, I saw social media up in arms about it earlier.

To me, it reads like your classic "spokesperson underestimated how much they need to regulate what they say", and while all options obviously need to be explored if just to be able to discount them, it's a common trap to go into specifics. The media loves misrepresenting specifics. I imagine someone is going to get a nice Christmas dressing down for it.

Eh the thing is if the officer had said no to that question then the media would have said "Police refuse to admit they could be wrong".

Sometimes its darn hard to speak to the media and not have them miss-represent what you've said if they want to do it. Of course there are tricks and some superstars spend years getting trained in how to speak to the media in a specific way so that what they say can't be "easily" twisted (though even then trashy newspapers and those with an agenda can still do it). This is especially true in the internet age where there's a huge desire for those click-bait type titles all over the place (personally I think we are reaching a near saturation point where they will eventually stop working and filp over to something else)

**Iron_Captain**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Hot new take.

There was no drone.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/gatwick-drone-latest-police-say-it-is-a-possibility-there-was-never-a-drone-a4024626.html

From the article:
Detective Chief Superintendent Jason Tingley told the BBC: "Of course, that's a possibility. We are working with human beings saying they have seen something.

It is good that he clarifies that they are working with human beings. I was afraid they were going to work with aliens or animals.

**Ouze**

Maybe it was a plastic bag again.

**Kilkrazy**

If the drones were a phantom sighting, it would certainly explain why no-one has claimed responsibility.

According to police, they are following up 66 sightings, some by police officers.

**filbert**

The police have also confirmed they have recovered a damaged drone. There was a statement released by the police (on Twitter!) that scotched the 'no drone' rumours - they confirmed there definitely was one or more.

**Kilkrazy**

The damaged drone might not be the drone used at the airport, if there was one.

OTOH if it's true that an interception drone or other anti-drone equipment was used to attack the drone, this damaged one could be the actual drone but we might never hear the details because they would want t keep the defensive measures secret.

nfe wrote:
So they're no longer suspects. Good of the tabloids to throw photos of them everywhere before they were released.

Roy Greenslade in The Guardian thinks they will sue the tabloids' arses off for libel. Rightly so, IMO.

**Elemental**

Overread wrote:
Yeah, I saw social media up in arms about it earlier.

To me, it reads like your classic "spokesperson underestimated how much they need to regulate what they say", and while all options obviously need to be explored if just to be able to discount them, it's a common trap to go into specifics. The media loves misrepresenting specifics. I imagine someone is going to get a nice Christmas dressing down for it

Eh the thing is if the officer had said no to that question then the media would have said "Police refuse to admit they could be wrong".

Sometimes its darn hard to speak to the media and not have them miss-represent what you've said if they want to do it. Of course there are tricks and some superstars spend years getting trained in how to speak to the media in a specific way so that what they say can't be "easily" twisted (though even then trashy newspapers and those with an agenda can still do it). This is especially true in the internet age where there's a huge desire for those click-bait type titles all over the place (personally I think we are reaching a near saturation point where they will eventually stop working and filp over to something else)

Indeed. If anyone has ever wondered why politicians or other officials talk in such a mealy-mouthed, rehearsed manner and wondered why they can't just talk straight and give us the facts.....that's why.

**Ouze**

Kilkrazy wrote:
If the drones were a phantom sighting, it would certainly explain why no-one has claimed responsibility.

According to police, they are following up 66 sightings, some by police officers.

Well, it happens.

**reds8n**

Kilkrazy wrote:
The damaged drone might not be the drone used at the airport, if there was one.

OTOH if it's true that an interception drone or other anti-drone equipment was used to attack the drone, this damaged one could be the actual drone but we might never hear the details because they would want t keep the defensive measures secret.

nfe wrote:
So they're no longer suspects. Good of the tabloids to throw photos of them everywhere before they were released.

Roy Greenslade in The Guardian thinks they will sue the tabloids' arses off for libel. Rightly so, IMO.

https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1076801859300528128

.... a huge and potentially ruinous lawsuit heading towards Mr Morgan ?

.. Xmas really does get earlier every year.

.. still it's hard to imagine him pushing a narrative and releasing photos of events that later on turn out to be true eh ?

**tneva82**

Kilkrazy wrote:
The damaged drone might not be the drone used at the airport, if there was one.

OTOH if it's true that an interception drone or other anti-drone equipment was used to attack the drone, this damaged one could be the actual drone but we might never hear the details because they would want t keep the defensive measures secret.

nfe wrote:
So they're no longer suspects. Good of the tabloids to throw photos of them everywhere before they were released.

Roy Greenslade in The Guardian thinks they will sue the tabloids' arses off for libel. Rightly so, IMO.

Better get sued and made to pay hefty, hefty fine

**Iron_Captain**

Elemental wrote:
Overread wrote:
Yeah, I saw social media up in arms about it earlier.

To me, it reads like your classic "spokesperson underestimated how much they need to regulate what they say", and while all options obviously need to be explored if just to be able to discount them, it's a common trap to go into specifics. The media loves misrepresenting specifics. I imagine someone is going to get a nice Christmas dressing down for it

Eh the thing is if the officer had said no to that question then the media would have said "Police refuse to admit they could be wrong".

Sometimes its darn hard to speak to the media and not have them miss-represent what you've said if they want to do it. Of course there are tricks and some superstars spend years getting trained in how to speak to the media in a specific way so that what they say can't be "easily" twisted (though even then trashy newspapers and those with an agenda can still do it). This is especially true in the internet age where there's a huge desire for those click-bait type titles all over the place (personally I think we are reaching a near saturation point where they will eventually stop working and filp over to something else)

Indeed. If anyone has ever wondered why politicians or other officials talk in such a mealy-mouthed, rehearsed manner and wondered why they can't just talk straight and give us the facts.....that's why.

Yup. And then the media dare to wonder why people don't trust them anymore. There is just way too many media outlets engaging in sensational gutter journalism. Maybe they should have taken more care to preserve journalistic integrity instead of dragging themselves through the gutter in the name of profits. And that, by association, also damages the media outlets that do try to keep up their ethics and standards.

**Kilkrazy**

Latest news -- the drone probably did exist -- reports that it didn't were a miscommunication!!!

Apparently there is video of it, which would seem to be fairly convincing evidence.

**Ouze**

This thread is an emotional roller coaster.

**Techpriestsupport**

So we should only have threads that do not produce emotional responses?

**Mr. Burning**

I hope that the couple wrongly arrested sue the arses of the press and get a heavyweight legal representative to take on the police.

My take. There was a drone sighting, but authorities escalated the situation on the back of poor procedure and couldn't or wouldn't admit an error. Two people were wrongly arrested because of this failure.

This is systemic and not an isolated case regarding our police service. And its not down to lack of funding.

**Overread**

Without a lot more detail its impossible to know if the police were at fault or not. In many crimes the investigative process might well arrest people who have only a fringe connection or who are found innocent. Police shouldn't be punished for doing this line of work unless its found to be because of actual serious mistakes and errors or even bias taking place.

The police might well have had more than enough good reason to detain them pending further investigation.

The media outlets that named and shamed the couple are the ones at far greater fault. They outright named and shamed to the whole world a couple who police found - quite quickly after arrest - were innocent of any connection to the crime in question.

So media outlets that named and shamed first totally yes go sue them for every penny legally owed for such.
Police might warrant investigation into procedure, but might well not be guilty of anything. It's really impossible for anyone on the outside to call judgement there.

**Kilkrazy**

The police can't be blamed for taking suspects into custody for questioning and releasing them when it is found that there is no substantive evidence against them.

The Mail on Sunday OTOH can be blamed for naming and shaming a couple who actually are innocent.

**OrlandotheTechnicoloured**

They held them for 36 hours so this is beyond the normal 24 hours that they get without asking for anything special,

so there are potential questions about why they got the extra 12 hours (or perhaps more as they can ask for up to 96), was it down to there being a potential solid case (fair enough) or just that this was a 'serious' offense (more debatable) as that's meant to be for murder and terrorism type things not just closing an airport (without actively endangering planes)

but its certainly the case that the media have a case to answer

**Overread**

I would wager that flying drones, even without the intent to cause direct harm, could still be taken as a potential act to endanger the planes. That said I'd say there's a line between that and between actual terrorism and thus far nothing in this situation has made me think terrorist. Protest yes, but not terrorist.

In my mind slipping into terrorist activity would have come with more direct attempts to endanger lives and the planes.