5 Replies to “British leftists commit major crimes to aviation safety, convicted but they don’t get it”
Still, not a peep from them about Muslims sex-trafficking young British girls.
Lock them up.
Their arrogance makes them so self centered that they are unable to see anything but their intentions and goals. They will never realize the danger they were placing people in, for this reason lock them up where they will have to exist in the real world instead of their delusions.
All this reminds me very little of how, in America, it can be an actionable FELONY if you’re caught without clearance inside the operational area of any government-run airfield.
These sanctimonious wankers did so with premeditation and malice aforethought. This is not to mention how these addlepated, moral flat-liners did so as part of impeding removal</strike deportation of some-or-the-other Nafri along with howevermany more assorted deplorables.
Reaction to the news has been overwhelmingly negative, with Amnesty International noting the protest prevented the plane from leaving, and of the 60 individuals due to have been deported on the flight, 10 currently pursue asylum claims in the UK, and at least one has since been granted permission to remain in the UK.
Put another way, these fifteen idjits most likely abetted in the further or permanent imposition upon British society of at least one more—if not an extra ten—unlikely-to-assimilate welfare siphons and criminal parasites. How many more tens-of-thousands of pounds will be flung into this latest ambulatory sinkhole (and his fellow aspiring invaders) because of the ‘Stansted 15′ and their patently illegal acts?
All this intolerable drain upon society goes unmentioned as the defendants’ barrister puts on parade their Liberal sermonizing and sanctimonious virtue signalling. Thank goodness at least one person in the courtroom had their wits about them (i.e., the judge).
… while the defence argued the group acted to prevent human rights abuses, judge Christopher Morgan told the jury to disregard all their evidence and only consider whether there was a “real and material” risk to the airport — defence barristers claim the move amounted to a direction to convict.
Since this criminal act was done knowingly and with malicious intent, Judge Morgan was well within legal bounds to restrict the jury’s deliberations solely to any “real and material” chance of harm or subsequent risk to the facility. It’s no surprise that the defending barrister would attempt to frame this as a pseudo-moral dilemma, despite how any “morals” involved represent personal, arbitrary, unenforceable positions upon the part of these fifteen tossers.
GAH!
Ay caramba! Let’s try that again…
All this reminds me very little of how, in America, it can be an actionable FELONY if you’re caught without clearance inside the operational area of any government-run airfield.
These sanctimonious wankers did so with premeditation and malice aforethought. This is not to mention how these addlepated, moral flat-liners did so as part of impeding removaldeportation of some-or-the-other Nafri along with howevermany more assorted deplorables.
Reaction to the news has been overwhelmingly negative, with Amnesty International noting the protest prevented the plane from leaving, and of the 60 individuals due to have been deported on the flight, 10 currently pursue asylum claims in the UK, and at least one has since been granted permission to remain in the UK.
Put another way, these fifteen idjits most likely abetted in the further or permanent imposition upon British society of at least one more—if not an extra ten—unlikely-to-assimilate welfare siphons and criminal parasites. How many more tens-of-thousands of pounds will be flung into this latest ambulatory sinkhole (and his fellow aspiring invaders) because of the ‘Stansted 15? and their patently illegal acts?
All this intolerable drain upon society goes unmentioned as the defendants’ barrister puts on parade their Liberal sermonizing and sanctimonious virtue signalling. Thank goodness at least one person in the courtroom had their wits about them (i.e., the judge).
… while the defence argued the group acted to prevent human rights abuses, judge Christopher Morgan told the jury to disregard all their evidence and only consider whether there was a “real and material” risk to the airport — defence barristers claim the move amounted to a direction to convict.
Since this criminal act was done knowingly and with malicious intent, Judge Morgan was well within legal bounds to restrict the jury’s deliberations solely to any “real and material” chance of harm or subsequent risk to the facility. It’s no surprise that the defending barrister would attempt to frame this as a pseudo-moral dilemma, despite how any “morals” involved represent personal, arbitrary, unenforceable positions upon the part of these fifteen tossers.
Their intentions are immaterial.
They’re on trial for what they did.
Remember Comey on The Witch’s email server?
He figured she didn’t intend to compromise national security by using an unsecured server. So that made it ok?
“Intent” is beside the point for such crimes.
~ ~ I didn’t know the gun was loaded
and I’m so sorry, my friend.
I didn’t know the gun was loaded!
and I’ll never, ever do it again. ~~
Discover more from Vlad Tepes
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
Still, not a peep from them about Muslims sex-trafficking young British girls.
Lock them up.
Their arrogance makes them so self centered that they are unable to see anything but their intentions and goals. They will never realize the danger they were placing people in, for this reason lock them up where they will have to exist in the real world instead of their delusions.
All this reminds me very little of how, in America, it can be an actionable FELONY if you’re caught without clearance inside the operational area of any government-run airfield.
These sanctimonious wankers did so with premeditation and malice aforethought. This is not to mention how these addlepated, moral flat-liners did so as part of impeding
removal</strike deportation of some-or-the-other Nafri along with howevermany more assorted deplorables.From: ‘Stansted 15’ Who Blocked UK Immigration Removal Flight Facing Life Imprisonment
Reaction to the news has been overwhelmingly negative, with Amnesty International noting the protest prevented the plane from leaving, and of the 60 individuals due to have been deported on the flight, 10 currently pursue asylum claims in the UK, and at least one has since been granted permission to remain in the UK.
Put another way, these fifteen idjits most likely abetted in the further or permanent imposition upon British society of at least one more—if not an extra ten—unlikely-to-assimilate welfare siphons and criminal parasites. How many more tens-of-thousands of pounds will be flung into this latest ambulatory sinkhole (and his fellow aspiring invaders) because of the ‘Stansted 15′ and their patently illegal acts?
All this intolerable drain upon society goes unmentioned as the defendants’ barrister puts on parade their Liberal sermonizing and sanctimonious virtue signalling. Thank goodness at least one person in the courtroom had their wits about them (i.e., the judge).
… while the defence argued the group acted to prevent human rights abuses, judge Christopher Morgan told the jury to disregard all their evidence and only consider whether there was a “real and material” risk to the airport — defence barristers claim the move amounted to a direction to convict.
Since this criminal act was done knowingly and with malicious intent, Judge Morgan was well within legal bounds to restrict the jury’s deliberations solely to any “real and material” chance of harm or subsequent risk to the facility. It’s no surprise that the defending barrister would attempt to frame this as a pseudo-moral dilemma, despite how any “morals” involved represent personal, arbitrary, unenforceable positions upon the part of these fifteen tossers.
GAH!
Ay caramba! Let’s try that again…
All this reminds me very little of how, in America, it can be an actionable FELONY if you’re caught without clearance inside the operational area of any government-run airfield.
These sanctimonious wankers did so with premeditation and malice aforethought. This is not to mention how these addlepated, moral flat-liners did so as part of impeding
removaldeportation of some-or-the-other Nafri along with howevermany more assorted deplorables.From: ‘Stansted 15’ Who Blocked UK Immigration Removal Flight Facing Life Imprisonment
Reaction to the news has been overwhelmingly negative, with Amnesty International noting the protest prevented the plane from leaving, and of the 60 individuals due to have been deported on the flight, 10 currently pursue asylum claims in the UK, and at least one has since been granted permission to remain in the UK.
Put another way, these fifteen idjits most likely abetted in the further or permanent imposition upon British society of at least one more—if not an extra ten—unlikely-to-assimilate welfare siphons and criminal parasites. How many more tens-of-thousands of pounds will be flung into this latest ambulatory sinkhole (and his fellow aspiring invaders) because of the ‘Stansted 15? and their patently illegal acts?
All this intolerable drain upon society goes unmentioned as the defendants’ barrister puts on parade their Liberal sermonizing and sanctimonious virtue signalling. Thank goodness at least one person in the courtroom had their wits about them (i.e., the judge).
… while the defence argued the group acted to prevent human rights abuses, judge Christopher Morgan told the jury to disregard all their evidence and only consider whether there was a “real and material” risk to the airport — defence barristers claim the move amounted to a direction to convict.
Since this criminal act was done knowingly and with malicious intent, Judge Morgan was well within legal bounds to restrict the jury’s deliberations solely to any “real and material” chance of harm or subsequent risk to the facility. It’s no surprise that the defending barrister would attempt to frame this as a pseudo-moral dilemma, despite how any “morals” involved represent personal, arbitrary, unenforceable positions upon the part of these fifteen tossers.
Their intentions are immaterial.
They’re on trial for what they did.
Remember Comey on The Witch’s email server?
He figured she didn’t intend to compromise national security by using an unsecured server. So that made it ok?
“Intent” is beside the point for such crimes.
~ ~ I didn’t know the gun was loaded
and I’m so sorry, my friend.
I didn’t know the gun was loaded!
and I’ll never, ever do it again. ~~