“There were more than 200 drone sightings, and police had taken 67 statements, including from police officers and airport workers.”

Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable. If 200 sightings is proof then witches and ghosts must exist.

Plus, 200 sightings in an area where there must be tens of thousands of people, plus dozens of plane-spotters with telephoto lenses raises serious doubts in itself. Something happens in front of tens of thousands of people and only 200 people spot it? Do those 200 have better eyesight or just better imagination? (Also are they *sure* they have no radar that can pick up drones? A normal Marine Radar will often pick up a drone, doesn’t Gatwick have radar to sport birds etc? I find it really hard to believe there would be no evidence *other* that witnesses.)

Out of the 200 reports, how many got a really good look? What percentage of the reports tally in terms of description? Do they all state the same number of rotors etc?

Also if they’re relying on eye witnesses alone, how was the 17:10 drone sighting a ‘confirmed sighting’? It can only have been confirmed by another eye witness – in the dark.

I think it’s entirely possible there was a drone about on the morning of day 1 to kick all this off. The idea of a master criminal cleverly orchestrating a multi-day drone attack is looking highly unlikely AFAIC. Battle of Los Angeles scenario far more likely.

I think we can discount ransom. In the same way that if want a ransom you have to prove the victim is still alive, if you want a ransom from drone activity you need to to fly it close enough to someone with a camera to prove something is actually going on.

Just landed, how you could see a drone in the dark is beyond me.

Also are they *sure* they have no radar that can pick up drones? A normal Marine Radar will often pick up a drone, doesn’t Gatwick have radar to sport birds etc?

Gatwick doesn’t have radar to spot birds etc.
Gatwick doesn’t have a radar that could identify a drone.

Gatwick doesn’t have radar to spot birds etc.
Gatwick doesn’t have a radar that could identify a drone.

Which calls into question the whole idea of a “confirmed sighting”. What was it confirmed by? Another eye witness who was expecting to see a drone and saw what he was expecting to see? In pitch black with glaring light all around to kill their night vision?

Battle of Lo Angeles, perhaps with a real drone or something that could be mistaken for a drone at the very beginning to kick off the hysteria.

I was actually surprised at how high my dji spark would automatically go when doing an automatic circle, it was like a speck and this is with inbuilt altitude restrictions applied and me being directly underneath it.
You could also have it moving at 40mph as well, I suppose what I’m getting at is these things can easily be very hard to spot by the human eye.

Er no I wasn’t doing a selfie shot at Gatwick 🙂

I’ve got witnesses to prove I was having a cup of tea as well!!!

Chatting to other staff at LGW yesterday the airport securtity vehicles were chasing the drone around the airport at one point. Every time they got close it would move away.

The two arrestees are on the news in tears about how thier Christmas and life has been ruined. Not so much by the arrest but by the media exposure and attention.

By this time next year they’ll be loaded. Every cloud…

I think it just hilights how crap the media/handling of has got in the news feeding frenzy.

Why even say there may have not been a drone if the airport security are chasing one.

Yeah – yesterday they weren’t, but today after being courted by the lawyers they’ve realised how much cash they can get.

You would have thought the media would have learned their lesson, I wonder if they’ll get as much as Cliff!

So what other news got buried while all this was going on? And was she really 54!!

Ohh easy one that they cut millions of nhs funding 🙁

And I didn’t even mention that austerity’s over and the Brexit dividend.

I really hope that the couple stayed and exposed by the media claim/due for everything they can against the media outlets that exposed them /printed their names.

There was some expert on the beeb explaining that there are laws in place to prevent people’s names being released and plastered in the press.

I feel for that couple.

And in this case, Kryton, no, not every cloud etc. They were vilified before even being charged…. Piss take!

Bit more detail on the ‘sightings’:

https://www.chichester.co.uk/news/crime/gatwick-airport-drones-50-000-offered-for-information-and-all-sightings-are-revealed-1-8750216

I really hope that the couple stayed and exposed by the media claim/due for everything they can against the media outlets that exposed them /printed their names.

+1

I hope they can retire off this, like Christopher Jefferies.

Jnrs uncle bought him a drone for Christmas. Not sure he’s even allowed to fly it!

I will be very surprised if any media outlet pays the two arrested people a significant amount of money.

It is not just the exposing, the headline of “Are these the morons that ruined Christmas” next to an A4 sized photo of them is not very helpful. How does the Daily Mail even still exist.

I will be very surprised if any media outlet pays the two arrested people a significant amount of money.

Until directed by the courts.

Fify there.

It is not just the exposing, the headline of “Are these the morons that ruined Christmas” next to an A4 sized photo of them is not very helpful. How does the Daily Mail even still exist.

What irks me is the retraction they will be forced to print which will on bottom of page 2 really small.

I think the retraction apology should be the same size and position as it was printed.

Maybe it was aliens.

Or giant mosquitoes in winter in SEAL outfits.

Oddly enough that Cliff case does play a part as does the ECHR

In so doing, he has created a precedent with worrying implications for press freedom. It suggests that reporting the identity of anyone whose home is raided, or who is known to be under police investigation prior to being arrested or charged, amounts to an intrusion into their privacy. It means that Mann has broken new legal ground by rebalancing the two articles in the European convention on human rights that deal with respect for private life and freedom of expression. He has decided that article 8, the right to privacy, now trumps article 10, the public’s right to know.

That’s not correct. The right to privacy doesn’t take priority over the right to free expression. Neither is an absolute right, and sometimes the two are in tension. The court decided IN THAT INSTANCE that the infringement into Richard’s privacy wasn’t outweighed by the public interest in the reporting. (Public interest isn’t just stuff the public would be curious about, it’s a higher standard that that).

That won’t always be the case and it’s different to what’s happened here. In most cases, the media simply reported facts, and the courts won’t lightly interfere with the media’s right to report (and the public’s right to read about) arrests in connection with matters of serious public concern. If the public draws an adverse inference from arrests (when we all know that many people are arrested without ever being subsequently convicted of a crime), then that’s the public’s mistake.

As for the Daily Mail, I’m not convinced that their normal shitty snotty tone changes anything. Being critical of someone isn’t itself an invasion of privacy. Neither is it defamatory.

In any case, suggestions that the couple are going to being retiring as millionaires next year are woefully off the mark. I don’t think they’ll be raking in significant amounts of money.

“Until directed by the courts.

Fify there.”

Thanks for your considered and stimulating contribution, Mike, always appreciated.

As for the Daily Mail, I’m not convinced that their normal shitty snotty tone changes anything. Being critical of someone isn’t itself an invasion of privacy. Neither is it defamatory.

So calling someone a moron on the front page of a national newspaper combined with claiming they may have ruined Christmas is not defamatory. Is it the fact that it was posed as a question means they are okay to do it? The fact that you can run that headline for 2 innocent people should bot be able to go unchecked.

Public interest isn’t just stuff the public would be curious about, it’s a higher standard that that

The Public Interest phrase regularly winds me up; it was the reason the BBC gave for the Cliff Richard intrusion/debacle.

It might partly be down to the ambiguity of English, but Interest in this context should be interpreted as benefit and in the public interest as something from which the public benefit from knowing; it does not mean or justify the publication of an interesting bit of salacious gossip that the public would be interested in knowing.

That won’t always be the case and it’s different to what’s happened here. In most cases, the media simply reported facts, and the courts won’t lightly interfere with the media’s right to report (and the public’s right to read about) arrests in connection with matters of serious public concern. If the public draws an adverse inference from arrests (when we all know that many people are arrested without ever being subsequently convicted of a crime), then that’s the public’s mistake.

The problem is that the Cliff Richard ruling effectively up-ended the status quo when it comes to reporting criminal investigations and what constitutes a reasonable expectation of privacy for those under investigation.

The media will find themselves increasingly tested in a lot of areas where previously they had carte blanche to print facts, and their ‘interpretation’ of them.

It all hinges on whether the courts decide that being under investigation (as per Cliff Richard) has the same status as being under investigation, but additionally under arrest (these two). I can’t see why there wouldn’t be the same expectation of privacy.

Wouldn’t be surprised if the courts decide to rein back the Cliff ruling a bit though, so these two might end up disappointed. Otherwise we are heading for the French model where stories have to meet a very high standard in terms of national interest to overcome privacy.

Regards this couples ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ I suspect that the police’s decision at the time to not reveal their identity (the statement was careful just to say that ‘a 47-year-old man and a 54-year-old woman from Crawley had been arrested in relation to the incident’) will have a bearing on whether the press have overstepped the mark. Some papers are at pains to point out that they did not name them, and excuses and justifications are being bandied about by those that did; the Sun editor tried to suggest that it was only through their reporting that the couples alibis were revealed, lol. This all strikes me that the papers that revealed identities are aware that they overstepped the mark and are likely liable.

I just think they haven’t got a clue how the courts will view this, TBH. Some of it, like the ‘morons’ headline, they would dress up as ‘fair comment on facts known to be true’ (!) to fudge the defamation issue, but in reality, this is all about privacy, and is unknown territory for the press and the courts.

I suspect the police don’t have an issue in terms of privacy. They never officially release names of those arrested unless they need more public help, so unless it could be demonstrated that they have confirmed identities or tipped off the media, which I doubt in this case, they are in the clear.

Yes, the Sun editor is clutching at straws there. The alibi would emerge within about five minutes of questioning, and would be confirmed within a couple of hours. Can’t see why the police needed them in for 36 hours, but that’s another issue (and maybe a more fruitful one in terms of compo for the couple!)

Can we change the title to Dublin, please?