jumpstart Posted January 29, 2021 Share Posted January 29, 2021 Daily Mail: 'Stansted 15' protesters who stopped deportation flight have convictions overturned. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9201895/Stansted-15-protesters-stopped-deportation-flight-convictions-overturned.html Protestor,freedom fighter or terrorist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted January 29, 2021 Share Posted January 29, 2021 Human rights activist protesters perhaps. Not Terrorists. There isnt much terrifying about 15 hippies singing "blowin in the wind" on a runway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted January 29, 2021 Share Posted January 29, 2021 Barryd999 - 2021-01-29 6:14 PM Human rights activist protesters perhaps. Not Terrorists. There isnt much terrifying about 15 hippies singing "blowin in the wind" on a runway. IDIOTS is the polite term *-) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted January 29, 2021 Share Posted January 29, 2021 How absurd ! The newspaper says they " stormed the airport ! " No they didn't . they cut a hole in the fence. Because some nut charged them under terrorism law - they got away with it. IF they had been charged with being a bl**dy nuisance - they could / would have been found guilty... ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted January 29, 2021 Share Posted January 29, 2021 jumpstart - 2021-01-29 6:09 PM Protestor,freedom fighter or terrorist? Neither....all are activists and also a vital piece of information missing from the Wail diatribe was the case failed because they'd been prosecuted under a section of the act for extremely serious offences which their conduct did not meet. From a more reliable and credible media source; In a judgment handed down by the court of appeal on Friday afternoon, the lord chief justice, Lord Burnett of Maldon, said: “The appellants should not have been prosecuted for the extremely serious offence under section 1(2)(b) of the 1990 Act because their conduct did not satisfy the various elements of the offence. “There was, in truth, no case to answer.” https://tinyurl.com/y58y5uqp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumpstart Posted January 29, 2021 Author Share Posted January 29, 2021 malc d - 2021-01-29 6:50 PM How absurd ! The newspaper says they " stormed the airport ! " No they didn't . they cut a hole in the fence. Because some nut charged them under terrorism law - they got away with it. IF they had been charged with being a bl**dy nuisance - they could / would have been found guilty... ;-) So when Palestinian's cut a hole in the boarder fence and get shot ,is it the Israeli who is the terrorist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.