they were protesting about cheap flights and stuff, but if any of them had been to sunnier climes recently, then they might not have been so pasty white and the armed police would naturally have thought they were terrorists and blammo...
Five people have now scaled the roof of the Houses of Parliament and unfurled banners protesting about the Heathrow Airport expansion plans.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7266512.stm
They probably should have shot them too, eh.
Gee, wouldn't it be great if someone educated the Tan Middle-Eastern Muslim Suicide Bombers about Greenpeace?
I'm sure they'd join in droves, considering how effective (and legitimate!) Greenpeace is.
Problem solved.
As to the trespassers who are the subject of this thread:
What if they were terrorists, intent on hijacking an airliner (and benefiting from the absence of a bunch of annoying and potentially problematic passengers) in order to reprise a 911-style attack?
To the best of my knowledge, the airport tarmac is generally considered to be restricted-access.
You see where I'm going with this, of course...
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
No, no.
They were not authorized to be on the tarmac, and the wearing of safety colors doesn't mitigate their trespass.
Had they actually been shot (which could have very easily happened) before their intent became clear, I doubt negligence could be proven...given today's atmosphere.
Do we then blame Al Qaeda for causing undue paranoia.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
Bookmarks