Re: "environmental rights terrorists"
No, the last two do not apply to these jokers. All of those bullet points come under the heading:
Terrorism is a violent action that:
IANAL, but this reads to me that they must all be "violent actions". If there is no violence, or at least wanton destruction, then it can't be "terrorism".
- Interferes with or seriously disrupts an electronic system
e.g. blowing up subsea internet cables in the Bristol Channel or deliberately dragging an anchor to destroy them. (I worry about this sort of thing bringing the UK to a standstill at some point.. No more "cloud"! Most big shops can't even take Cash without the Internet.)
- Creates a serious risk to the public’s health and safety
e.g. throwing caltrops or burning bin bags off of motorway bridges. The M25 turns into a car park with just one breakdown.. Imagine the chaos someone could cause deliberately.
Whereas this drone, if there even was a drone, was just flying somewhere in the vicinity of an airport, probably minding its own business. It's illegal, due to the proximity to the airport, but not "terrorism" by a long shot. The only "terror" was caused by the media and airport management when they shut the whole place down at Christmas on a knee-jerk!
TBH, all of this sounds to me like an excuse to "crack down" on drones in general, because the government sees them as a hazard. I think Mrs. May would like all of them banned except for her own
manhacks authorised police drones.