markjmd

iTrader: (11)

It's very convenient for the Government to say that though, isn't it, considering that the whole shambles has demonstrated that they had near-enough no plans or measures in place to stop it happening in the first place. You can blame the Police all you like for mucking up arrests, if that's what you think they've done, but the bottom-line here is that it isn't and shouldn't be their job to keep airports from being shut down like this by a couple of complete muppets with a drone(s). That should be down to the government and airport authorities, who between them clearly hadn't given the possibility of something like this happening more than 5 minutes thought.

We can only hope that this now serves as a major wake-up call for them both to start getting their **** together.

Felix.

lol - doesn't take much with your intellect - since you raise a discussion point, then refuse to answer and questions on it.
If you can't continue in a discussion without being evasive, abusive and misogynistic then I suggest you cease trying.

Felix.

But you get the evidence from the interviews, then testing what was said in the interview, the search of the houses etc

To look at it another way - member of the public comes forward and states that he believes that the suspect is responsible for x,y,& z reasons. Police say its not enough to prove anything for a charge and do not investigate. Suspect then carries on flying his drone and decides to try Heathrow, where a large jet is brought down killing lots of people. Police examine the drone in the wreckage and prove the link to the original suspect. Would there then be an outcry that the police should have acted on the information sooner?

Or after the member of the public comes forward and states that he believes that the suspect is responsible for x,y,& z reasons - police knock on his door and the suspect states its not him as he was at work that day, 'just ask my boss'. Police don't arrest him and check out his story first. The person who he stated was his boss is spoken to and states that the suspect does not work for him and was sacked moths ago. Police obviously become suspicious with the suspect as his alibi appears false, so they go back to the house to find the suspect has vanished and stripped the house bare of anything incriminating. Again, would the police be accused of being incompetent?

What do you think they should have done with the information given to them? Act on it or just ignore it? If you ignore it, then vital evidence from a house search and their accounts in interview may never be discovered - which will prove them either guiltily or innocent.

Felix.

I agree, this is more of an airport security issues and should have been a consideration a long time ago with appropriate responses already in place.

1509joe

iTrader: (2)

Do you really think I'm going to incriminate myself to satisfy your brainwashed little mind. I think you'll find I've been around a whole lot more corners than you'll ever likely see. I wish my Christmas present was a day in the interview room with you cause you'd be crying to be let out. I would then tootle of to my wee cell for a nights kip looking forward to another go at you in the morning in anticipation of shaking your hand and saying better luck next time. Nighty night I've to go and play Santa. Happy Christmas AGAIN.

Felix.

Just when you make the comment of...

then can not support such a claim, it just shows the kind of person you are.

Felix.

Is that out of laughter......

I wish the same my friend. I have had a few people like you in interviews, it ends up with the solicitor looking at his client and shaking his head in dismay. The soliciotr then advises his client to go guilty at court - lol

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

Ooooooops!

https://news.sky.com/story/some-gatw...-says-11593854

the shreksta

iTrader: (20)

lol..........fecking bell-ends

silver-sub

Lol!!

lozgti1

Here we go again..... I can't get the "Catch the pigeon " music out of my head......

urban

iTrader: (1)

Ha ha, good one.