Things Noticeable this week

[CARLTON BROWN]

Is there some reason why we don't know the name of the Greenpeace protestor who flew his powered paraglider over the Trump gathering? Mysterious Scottish law perhaps?

And has he simply been allowed to walk free without being charged? Whether you approve of this stunt or not, he's lucky not to have shot as it could have been something rather different taking place.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by CARLTON BROWN

Is there some reason why we don't know the name of the Greenpeace protestor who flew his powered paraglider over the Trump gathering? Mysterious Scottish law perhaps?

And has he simply been allowed to walk free without being charged? Whether you approve of this stunt or not, he's lucky not to have shot as it could have been something rather different taking place.

I don't know if he was allowed to go free; two people were arrested and logically he ought to be one of the two. What he did was dangerous and irresponsible and very aggressive, and I hope he gets a spell in prison.

[old alal]

Originally Posted by CARLTON BROWN

Is there some reason why we don't know the name of the Greenpeace protestor who flew his powered paraglider over the Trump gathering? Mysterious Scottish law perhaps?

And has he simply been allowed to walk free without being charged? Whether you approve of this stunt or not, he's lucky not to have shot as it could have been something rather different taking place.

I thought it was Jimmy Krankie aka Nicola Fish Face

https://goo.gl/images/K1KmZZ

[Reclaimedwg]

Well, geee....

All I can say about this is Welcome to America!

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ity/791511002/

[Rogerbh]

Was the hotel suppose to have metal detectors at all entrances? Were they required to do room to room searches for weapons at specified times? I am not sure that a hotel meeting reasonable security requirements would have stopped this shooting prior to this first time event.

If a guest does not want any maid in the room for several days, is the hotel suppose to conduct a security check now? I'd be interested to know if any laws or guidelines have been set up since this event.

I can't see the hotel being liable for damages unless it is a soak the deep pockets type judgement. I don't think anyone thought some rich idiot would do such a thing.

Are tall buildings overlooking open arenas now required to have such security? I haven't read that any new requirements are being enforced.

I believe most people if they were the defendant hotel would take every action they could to protect themselves. Arguing that they have no responsibility for the security of an event taking place in an adjacent unrelated area seems to be a valid defense.

Arguing that the hotel should have foreseen that a millionaire who frequently stayed there would go murderous on a crowd outside doesn't seem reasonable to me. I think ACLU advocates would defend the rights of guests wanting their privacy. I wonder what if any changes this event will do to laws covering such areas.

Being upset over this defense tactic to me is just showmanship.

[charliels531]

Originally Posted by Nobody1

https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Pages...archcases.aspx

https://wikileaks.org/tpp-investment...nt-Chapter.pdf

You can easily find more information on the subject yourself if you want. I promise I will not stop you from doing that.

Yes, at one time the TPP countries (which do not include either Germany or Sweden) considered using the same arbitration forum (ICSID) for dispute resolution that the World Bank uses.

I fail to see how that creates some sort of economic crisis.

[charliels531]

Originally Posted by Rogerbh

Being upset over this defense tactic to me is just showmanship.

Spot on, Rogerbh. I suspect this is what is known as a strategic counter-claim which will be used, if at all, as a discovery device.

[otokonomidori]

Originally Posted by CARLTON BROWN

Is there some reason why we don't know the name of the Greenpeace protestor who flew his powered paraglider over the Trump gathering? Mysterious Scottish law perhaps?

“The procurator fiscal at Ayr received a report concerning a 55-year-old man and an alleged incident on Friday 13 July,” a Crown Office spokesman said. “He was liberated from custody pending further inquiries and did not appear in court.”

You'll get to know his name once he's been in court to plead.

In Scotland we don't have those ghastly "perp walks" of people who are still legally innocent.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by otokonomidori

“The procurator fiscal at Ayr received a report concerning a 55-year-old man and an alleged incident on Friday 13 July,” a Crown Office spokesman said. “He was liberated from custody pending further inquiries and did not appear in court.”

You'll get to know his name once he's been in court to plead.

In Scotland we don't have those ghastly "perp walks" of people who are still legally innocent.

I suppose this must be a sort of confirmation that the microlight pilot is one of the two people arrested for naughty doings during Mr Trump's visit to Scotland.

While I acknowledge that he has not yet had his day in court, if he should in fact turn out to be an innocent man, wrongly traduced by the media coverage, his story will be worthy of a Franz Kafka novel.

[vannax]

Originally Posted by Rogerbh

Was the hotel suppose to have metal detectors at all entrances? Were they required to do room to room searches for weapons at specified times? I am not sure that a hotel meeting reasonable security requirements would have stopped this shooting prior to this first time event.

If a guest does not want any maid in the room for several days, is the hotel suppose to conduct a security check now? I'd be interested to know if any laws or guidelines have been set up since this event.

I can't see the hotel being liable for damages unless it is a soak the deep pockets type judgement. I don't think anyone thought some rich idiot would do such a thing.

Are tall buildings overlooking open arenas now required to have such security? I haven't read that any new requirements are being enforced.

I believe most people if they were the defendant hotel would take every action they could to protect themselves. Arguing that they have no responsibility for the security of an event taking place in an adjacent unrelated area seems to be a valid defense.

Arguing that the hotel should have foreseen that a millionaire who frequently stayed there would go murderous on a crowd outside doesn't seem reasonable to me. I think ACLU advocates would defend the rights of guests wanting their privacy. I wonder what if any changes this event will do to laws covering such areas.

Being upset over this defense tactic to me is just showmanship.

Still, given the generally dishonest media in the USA, this is a PR disaster for the hotel. None of the media seem to mention that its a counter-suit, for example.

I'm guessing the bean counters did a cost/benefit analysis, and figured they'd lose less money this way, as the travelers to the resort hotel will have forgotten about this soon enough.

1000 plaintiffs each suing for, say, a million bucks is a lot of money.