How many years do you think the Gatwick drone men or women should get?

[nickiredcar]

Government are saying 5 years apparently, but have heard many people like James O'Brian call for far more and 20 years in prison. I think that puts it way higher than many people get for murder

I would have thought a minimum of 10 personally.

Ladypassarine They should be sent out with spades to plant every single one of those trees.

We were stuck waiting for a flight for a few hours earlier in the year and that was horrible enough (travelling with a toddler, deep joy). And that was just for a few hours! How it must have been for anyone stuck at Gatwick in all this, I dread to think. Absolutely nightmarish.

I doubt they will both get 5 years. I suspect that one or both of them hold a grudge against Gatwick in some way.
As other's have stated, no one was injured and whilst it must have been annoying maybe it's better that this happened as it did and act as a wakeup call to properly defend airports from future issues from people with far more sinister intent?

Make an absolute example out of them. There could very easily have been a huge loss of life so for those saying no one actually died this was down to luck, the airline authority and our emergency services, not design.

This misuse of drones is sick and worrying.

Plus the huge cost, disruption and sadness caused (kids missed their holiday trips to Lapland and the like and some won't make it home/planned destinations for Christmas).

So 5 years minimum. And then banning the purchase of drones without proper licensing.

I said 10 years to my husband. An arbitrary figure plucked from nowhere really, and I agree that if 5yeats is the maximum than 5 years it should be. Until laws/licences are created fit for purpose around these machines a strong message needs to be sent about how it's not OK to cause mass disruption like this. It's terrorism really.

I don't think licencing would change this, they were already breaking the law flying it there and without the geo fencing on.

Their anti technology needs to be updated to reflect the technology out there.

Only a big drone would cause damage more than most birds.

I imagine the charges will involve ‘endangering an aircraft’ and therefore endangering life, (a bit like people who try to open doors etc on airborne flights).
I think about 5 years imprisonment.

I think this might be used to make an example, to stop others doing the same.

They were hardly masterminds.
So this should be the start of major change of mindset with regards to drones.

The couple they’ve arrested don’t seem like they would have a reason to cause deliberate disruption at an airport.
Apparently the guy was at work at the time the drone was flying.
Obviously that doesn’t mean they don’t have a reason, but at first glance they seem like a very ordinary couple who would have better things to do.
It would be more plausible if they’d done it by accident or lost control of it, but it seemed like it was more organised disruption.

It depends how they decide to charge them. There are led aside from drone laws, regarding airspace, that have double the maximum penalty.

*there are laws

‘I can't see them just getting 5 years. New laws and rules could be made to put them away for alot longer‘

New laws could be made. But they would only apply to acts carried out after the date the new law came into force.

Yes, the correct/important answer is that they should get the cirrect sentece as provided for in English law and in accordance with all relevant sentencing guidelines.

But in practice, 5 years stuck in Gatwick departures hall might do the trick nicely

This is a classic example of a person or people who have committed a very serious offence worthy of serious punishment but who maybe (depending on facts and motive) don’t present any ongoing risk to the public. Very disappointing that in the 21st century we can’t find a better form of punishment than “bang em up for X years”, which is expensive, useless and harmful.

An example needs to be made, so at least 10 years? (and none of this getting out in a fraction of the time for 'good behaviour' crap. House and assets seized and sold, and hopefully the laws on owning drones will be changed.

The max is 5 years. They'll only serve half as that's the norm and with tag elegibility for first offense they'll be out in 20 months

And that's if they get the macimum

But in a way they have done a favour to the government. Pointed out the weakness of our airport protection.
It could have easily been a Jihadi Drone with a bomb!

Nobody has died

But the point is they could have done. Endangering an aircraft is a crime. Those things can bring down an airliner, and hundreds of people could have been killed.

A minimum of 5 years seems reasonable to me.

The max is 5 years

It depends what they charge them with

None

Community service

It depends on whether this could potentially fall under the rules of a terror attack.

Considering the potential loss of life if a plane had come down because of their stupid and/or selfish actions, I’d say 10 years.

I reckon they’ll get about 18 months and serve half.

I'd imagine they'll get 2-3.

5 years for every flight disrupted , so 5000 years with no parole.

Prison sentence aside, as a previous poster said, seize their assets. Their crime must have cost millions to the economy. Take their house, their car, their flat screen tellys, their wages... It would never cover the cost, but it will hit them where it hurts. They have shown intent, rather than it being a mistake, by repeatedly flying the damn thing over the airport.