The more you read about the Gatwick incident, the stranger this seems. At the moment the one thing I would take seriously is the comment by DCS Jason Tingley, that there may not have been any drone in the first place. This was stomped on following a communication from the government (what do they know about it?) to the police, and the Chief Constable now says he is absolutely certain there was a drone. Honest Guv. He says that DCS Tingley was describing an investigative approach which seeks to establish whether there was a drone or not. Well, yes, he is a DCS, thats sort of his job. But there is no photo or film of a drone, and the reports of a damaged drone near the perimeter fence have disappeared (probably because it was rusty and months old). So, there is no hard evidence for a drone. What there are 115 reports, "92 of them from credible people". 1 each from 92 credible people or 92 from one credible person? And who says who is a credible person?

I am sorry, but there is more evidence for the Loch Ness Monster than for there having been a drone over Gatwick.