"If you don't move I'll run you over".
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Polish Bus Drivers
Next: The motorway
From: Ret. on 4 Mar 2010 07:02 Phil W Lee wrote: > Cynic <cynic_999(a)yahoo.co.uk> considered Wed, 03 Mar 2010 16:01:46 > +0000 the perfect time to write: > >> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 15:04:23 -0000, "The Todal" <deadmailbox(a)beeb.net> >> wrote: >> >>> Presumably the prosecution can only be on the basis that the pilot >>> could have safely brought his aircraft to a halt and should have >>> been aware that if he failed to do so, he was likely to cause Mr >>> Morse's death. And presumably the jury will decide whether or not >>> that is what happened. >> >> Yes, there is quite obviously a duty to prevent injury *even if* >> someone is behaving unreasonably or even illegally. It is exactly >> the same as a motorist who runs over a pedestrian who is deliberately >> standing in the road when the motorist could easily have stopped and >> prevented the collision. > > Except that a pedestrian can legally stand in a road. No he can't - not if he is causing an obstruction. > To invade an airport and deliberately disrupt legal flight operations > is an act of terrorism. Oh for goodness sake. This was a gyrocopter on a small private airfield - not a 747 at Heathrow. Kev
From: Ret. on 4 Mar 2010 07:04 Steve Walker wrote: > Ret. wrote: > >> Would the fatality have occurred if the pilot had stopped his >> machine? > > > Yes, but that reductionist approach isn't generally helpful : > > - Would the death of Jean Charles de Menezes have occurred if the > police officers had kept their guns holstered? > > - Would the Hudson River Plane Landing have been neceesary if the > passengers had gone by train? > > - Would Princess Di still be alive if she had worn her seatbelt? > > - Would PC Ian Terry have died if his force had dissolved it's > dangerously indisciplined firearms unit? > > - Would child road fatalities be reduced by a national 10mph limit? > > - Would Fred West have been able to commit his crimes if the city of > Bristol had been nuked from the sky? > > - Would Michael Powell still be alive if 6 hefty cops hadn't crushed & > asphyxiated him? > > > These questions tell us nothing useful. Life has to go on despite > protesters, and we just have to use the best care we can. And if the pilot had used the best care he could - he would have simply stopped his machine... You > wouldn't seriously argue that it's right that a single 'swampie' > protester can cost millions per day by halting a major construction > project, would you? Or that the whole M25 should be halted until > the F4J protesters came down from that gantry they were on? > > I reckon the pilot will say he taxi'd his plane around the protester > (allowing a safety margin), and that the protester then made a > reckless decision to move forward into a dangerous area out of his > line of sight. *If* that's the case, I can't see how the pilot can > reasonably be blamed. Well - we will just have to see what comes out as the case develops. Kev
From: Ret. on 4 Mar 2010 07:04 soup wrote: > On 04/03/2010 09:28, Ret. wrote: > >> Would the fatality have occurred if the pilot had stopped his >> machine? > > That rather supposes he *could* stop his machine. Or knew he had to; > supporter in blind spot, keeps jiggling about etc. Clearly the prosecution believes that he could have avoided the incident. Kev
From: The Todal on 4 Mar 2010 07:47 Ret. wrote: > Phil W Lee wrote: >> Cynic <cynic_999(a)yahoo.co.uk> considered Wed, 03 Mar 2010 16:01:46 >> +0000 the perfect time to write: >> >>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 15:04:23 -0000, "The Todal" >>> <deadmailbox(a)beeb.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Presumably the prosecution can only be on the basis that the pilot >>>> could have safely brought his aircraft to a halt and should have >>>> been aware that if he failed to do so, he was likely to cause Mr >>>> Morse's death. And presumably the jury will decide whether or not >>>> that is what happened. >>> >>> Yes, there is quite obviously a duty to prevent injury *even if* >>> someone is behaving unreasonably or even illegally. It is exactly >>> the same as a motorist who runs over a pedestrian who is >>> deliberately standing in the road when the motorist could easily >>> have stopped and prevented the collision. >> >> Except that a pedestrian can legally stand in a road. > > No he can't - not if he is causing an obstruction. > >> To invade an airport and deliberately disrupt legal flight operations >> is an act of terrorism. > > Oh for goodness sake. This was a gyrocopter on a small private > airfield - not a 747 at Heathrow. Anyway, the defendant could plead "necessity" only if he acted reasonably in trying to avert an act of terrorism or prevent injury to people or property. If he could persuade a court that he believed his aircraft was in danger from the deceased's activities and that the *only* reasonable option was to attempt a take-off rather than stop and get out and run away, then he might have a chance of being acquitted.
From: Steve Walker on 4 Mar 2010 08:18
The Todal wrote: > Anyway, the defendant could plead "necessity" only if he acted > reasonably in trying to avert an act of terrorism or prevent injury to > people or property. If he could persuade a court that he believed his > aircraft was in danger from the deceased's activities and that the > *only* reasonable option was to attempt a take-off rather than stop and > get out and run away, then he might have a chance of being acquitted. I hadn't thought of the personal fear factor, that's an good point. Interestingly this wasn't the usual bunch of soap-dodging 'sabs' - the air surveillance is part of a new approach led by POWA (Protect Our Wild Animals). POWA is a group of older, professional people, very respectable and very effective - they are excellent witnesses, they have depth of judgement and they don't get emotional or aggressive. And guess what... The hunt supporters *really* hate and fear POWA, and are trying very hard to intimidate them. Thugs like Christopher Marles are used to target POWA observers, eg the recent incident www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/Huntsman-jailed-horse-attack-monitor/article-770698-detail/article.html where one of POWA's leaders (Helen Weeks, 61) was brutally, repeatedly assaulted. Marles was still serving a suspended sentence for a previous assault on an IAWF observer http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/6077154.stm. The Telegraph reported that : "Mrs Weeks is part of a dedicated breed of hunt monitors who, following the ban on hunting with hounds four years ago, switched tactics: from disruption and sabotage to hi-tech surveillance and evidence-gathering. Dressed in sensible clothes, groups of respectable-looking men and women, whose numbers include retired vets, civil servants and teachers.... " www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/countryside/4991735/Bitter-battle-between-hunts-and-anti-hunt-lobby.html So I think it's highly likely that the gyrocopter crew will say that they were fearful of being assaulted, and the prosecution's evidence is so far supporting that - for example the Times says that Julie Sargeant (a hunt supporter accompanying Mr Morse) "told police that Mr Morse, 48, had been angry during a �white knuckle ride� to Long Marston airfield" in Warwickshire Hunt�s Land Rover and that she expected there was going to be trouble 'kicking off' when they confronted the gyro crew. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article7048129.ece If I was the pilot (who apparently isn't an activist) then I would be seriously fearful for my safety in that situation, and I certainly wouldn't want to get out of my aircraft and be confonted by 6'2" of purple-faced furious hunt supporter, determined to make sure that I was taught my place. |