Glad to see security didn't back down

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/03102005/140/prince-andrew-airport-security-row.html

The Duke of York has reportedly been stopped from boarding an airliner in Australia after refusing to be screened by security guards.The Sun Herald newspaper said Prince Andrew protested when guards at Melbourne airport tried to scan him with a handheld detector.

One source told the paper: "There was a bit of consternation on both sides.

"Managers and security were called and it was suggested to the Prince that he sit down in the next room and think about it for a while."

The Duke was told he would not be allowed to board the plane to New Zealand unless he agreed to be screened - a legal requirement in Australia.

"Eventually he reluctantly agreed," the source said.

The scan took 10 seconds and Prince Andrew was then allowed onto the flight.

The Duke had attended a charity conference in Melbourne.

There is only one comment to be made and that is PRAT and that is being generous.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Jumped up twxt
Must the Genes from his dad

That is one of the most retarded things I have read for awhile regarding "airport security". Why on earth do they feel the need to "wand" a member of the royal family? What could possibly be the purpose? It just goes to show what a complete joke security is, a job for the brain dead. What possible risk to security is Prince Andrew likely to pose? Honestly, its the same as aircrew being forced to pass thru the metal detector. :rolleyes:

Nosey

the law says everyone gets scanned.. no exceptions. Where is the problem.. but someone takes another opportunity to have a pop at airport security. Aurcrew getting scanned? Why not? Get off your high horse and accept that everyone gets scanned....

One would have thought that even a lowly UK Prince would have been allowed "diplomatic" priveledges. Or am I thinking of a byegone era? Surely he'd have been spared the cavity search on arrival though? Or would that be too controvertial for any press to report?! :uhoh:

Can one no longer bring in a couple of pounds of Semtex or cocaine in the diplomatic bag? How on Earth is 007 expected to operate these days?! :(

From my point of view it is not the same as aircrew getting scanned. I trust the aircrew with my life - I wouldn't trust HRH Andrew as far as I can chuck him.

Why scan babies?

Oh yes- because it is a fantastic way of smuggling all sorts of things to be collected later!

Why is this much different? (I know he will have had his own security so the collection of weapon that had earlier been slid into his bag/jacket on the flight by said terrorist will be more difficult but still...

And also glad to see that a member of the royal family of a country affected by the current terrorist threat is able to publicly undermine security staff in front of other travellers and point out that certain people should be able to do what they want reagrdless of the law - I know as a travelling member of the public I would have felt much safer having overheard the conversation:rolleyes:

Speaking of diplomats ,are they searched? or rather those diplomatic bags, or does imunity also cover that? get a lot of semtex in one of those bags.
:rolleyes:

Surely setting-off a bomb on an aircraft is the LAST thing that Prince Andrew (or anyone) would do . . .

Surely setting-off a bomb on an aircraft is the LAST thing that Prince Andrew (or anyone) would do

'(or anyone)'.... setting of a bomb, wherever, is the first LAST thing a lot of suicide bombers do!!

They get caned when they charter air transport by the British taxpayer and they get caned by the rest of the world when they (quite rightly) get a bit upset when they get cornered by a 'jobsworth' intent on getting his name in the papers.

As I said in a similar thread on the Military Aircrew forum - I can't remember the last time that a member of the Royal Family tried to bomb an aircraft.

remember when his dozy brother overan the runway in some JT that time ? What a plooooonker !!!

Oh why should Andy be wanded ?? after all, Congress is trying to exempt themselves from airport security screenings along with federal judges and anyone else on the payroll...after all these people know better than your Joe Schmoe public person.

Does the Aussie PM (or Bliar) get scanned on his way to the plane? I'll be surprised if either of them does.

Having met the D of Y twice I don't personally like the bloke, but I think he could have handled the situation better by making light of it, rather than giving an opportunity for the Royal bashers to have another go. :rolleyes:

>'(or anyone)'.... setting of a bomb, wherever, is the first LAST thing a lot of suicide bombers do!!
That was my point.

>I can't remember the last time that a member of the Royal Family tried to bomb an aircraft.
So maybe such an occurrence is due?

I'm sorry, but I think Prince Andrew should have been accorded the Diplomatic Status to which he is entitled too ... it doesn't surprise me that the Australians did this: only last year they did the same to the New Zealand & Papua New Guinea PMs.

Maybe we should make John Howard go through security next time he arrives/depts the UK.

Jordan

The boy should have had more sense and just followed instructions, it was hardly an inconvenience.

The inconvenience or otherwise isn't really the main issue.

I note that he was travelling to attend a charity conference and was no doubt travelling under an invitation, possibly at his own expense. I don't think he could be blamed if he decides not to go back. :ouch:

A ten second scan is hardly an inconvenience and although Prince Andrew is highly unlikely to be doing anything illegal he is in a leadership position. He is a member of the Royal family and the son of the Australian head of state, he should set an example.

As I said in a similar thread on the Military Aircrew forum - I can't remember the last time that a member of the Royal Family tried to bomb an aircraft.

So what? I can't remember the last time a member of my family tried to bomb an aircraft either. Does that mean I should be allowed to board without being checked by security.

If you let a Prince bypass security, who would be next. A Lord, An Earl, a Knight possibly.

Ye're all paranoid! :rolleyes:

>Ye're all paranoid!

*********************************

Not at all.
IF screening is of ANY benefit, it should be applied according to the 'rules' (even if it's every tenth passenger or whatever). If we ONLY searched those liable to be terrorists, should we therefore only examine those who have already done the deed, or their relatives, or those of the same racial background or socio-economic class?
To be of use, screening has to implimented in a predictable (or unpredictable) basis. Nobody should be able to circumvent the system.
Not sure about the value of screening aircrew though - anyone set on committing suicide would presumably be able to devise a system of avoiding detection.

"Just 'cause your'e paranoid, doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you"

Not sure about the value of screening aircrew though - anyone set on committing suicide would presumably be able to devise a system of avoiding detection.
But, if someone wanted to get a gun or other weapon onboard, I'm sure that they could try to get the aircrew to carry it without their knowledge, maybe by planting it in a bag or similar. At least screening ALL people boarding might help prevent this.

So much for the departure, was he made to go through the sheep-dip on the way in to Oz?

I thought they only did that if you were a sex tourist.
:uhoh:

>So much for the departure, was he made to go through the sheep-dip on the way in to Oz?

**********************************

My first trip to OZ - we landed at Perth (for a comfort break I think, as we were headed for Sydney) and I was SHOCKED to be assaulted by the fly-spray, and furthermore I recall something stamped into my passport (the QUEEN's document that she sent me so that I could travel around the World unfettered - and certainly should have been able to enter a colony without let or hindrance!).

My opinion of the convicts hasn't changed, however.
A mate of mine emigrated to Oz, but returned some years later - "Australia was alright," he said " it's just the bloody Aussies - they think they OWN the place!"

Interesting to see the two diametrically opposing viewpoints here. One camp thinks the 'royles' desreve the priviliges a ruling family should enjoy in their realm (and by extension, as family of the head of state, in other countries), whilst the other thinks one rule should, particlularly on a matter of security, apply for all. It strikes me that if PA was travelling in an official capacity, the Australian government official in charge of protocol probably deserves a bollocking.

The widely opposing views probably say a lot more about what the result of that referendum a year or two ago in Australia would have almost undoubtedly been if John Howard hadn't deliberately phrased the yea/nay to a republic question in such a way that he knew a yea would be unacceptable to the majority. Certainly, the way many voted had little or nothing to do with their desire to retain the Queen as head of state.

I think many Brits completely misunderstood the result of that referendum as an endorsement of the current rather silly situation where Australia's head of state lives 12,000 miles away and isn't even a citizen of the country.

Alot of security probably pick on celebs just for the fun of it to do a search. i don't know if the prince got searched as in body searched.

>One camp thinks the 'royles' desreve the priviliges a ruling family should enjoy in their realm (and by extension, as family of the head of state, in other countries), whilst the other thinks one rule should, particlularly on a matter of security, apply for all.

**********************************
I really don't give a t@<hidden> what privileges or benefits the Royals or any other official or personality enjoys within their own sphere, but if any of them wish to travel with Joe Public then they MUST obey the rules.
I'm just as dead, whoever carries the bomb.
Did Prince Andrew pack his own bag, or was he carrying anything given to him . . .?

"IF screening is of ANY benefit, it should be applied according to the 'rules' (even if it's every tenth passenger or whatever)."

So a 90% chance of a terrorist getting through is considered acceptable, but the miniscule chance of a member of the royal family carrying a bomb isn't, so he must be screened?

Strange logic in motion here, or is it just plain anti-royalism?

As I said, I don't like the bloke and think he should have handled it differently but he was probably taken completely aback that some over-zealous plonker wanted to prove something at his expense.

BTW, he IS aircrew ;)

Personally, I think he should have agreed straight off just for show.

What is a "Member of the Royal Family"? HM the Queen and The Prince Consort, OK I can live with that until the revolution, but why should the kids or the in-laws get special privileges? Duke of York my arse, he should be plain Mr. Andrew Windsor - no more and no less.

>Strange logic in motion here, or is it just plain anti-royalism?

**********************************

Far from it - I'm a Royalist!
Screening can never be 100%, but, as I said, PA was joining Joe Public, so he was just Joe Public (and NOT even Aircrew in this instance . . . )
I've had to divest myself of coat, jacket, shoes etc at CDG (and any fule can see that I'm no terrorist)

It's normally top-secret, but I will reveal some interesting information here for all to read.
On the application form to be an airport security guard in Australia, there is only one question and it has three choices -
Q. Are you capable of independent and rational thought?

A1. Yes.
A2. No.
A3. What?

Only those that answer A3 are given the job.
Or the odd shaved chimpanzee that is from a zoo that closes down.

I have nothing good to say about them ...

I am not aware that minor members of the Royal Family have diplomatic immunity.

He could perhaps have had the good graces to just do it,

Saw this fellow in question once argue with the plods while they were doing a bomb drill practice thing at a Wardroom at a southern English Naval Air Station. Seems Princey had read the notice that the drill was to take place, and all cars etc should be removed from car park for stated period, but he did not know it also was meant for him. I must say he did go a very funny colour when a passing three ringer told him to stop being a prat.

Now is it the Duke of York that marched his men to the top of the hill? By the looks of him he does not do this too often!!!!

Don

Martin Samuel, writing in today's Times, supports HRH: (edited)

Terrorists travel unmolested, while airport busybodies decide they must do security checks on harmless royalty
A NICE, EASY target, Prince Andrew. Come on, the man is a joke. So when he throws a regal tantrum at Melbourne airport after being asked to undergo a security check before departing for New Zealand, the press take aim faster than a Balmoral shooting party.

“Prince Pompous,” announced the Mail. “Very Idiotic Prince,” sneered the Mirror. You can imagine what is being said in Australia, a country that managed to turn a rugby match into class war two years ago. “Who does he think he is?”, exclaimed an affronted security worker. “The law is the law, no matter who you are,” intoned the spokesman for the Australian Republican Movement.

And three days after this silly spat, Bali went up. Again. Andrew, you see, was right; he was just right for the wrong reasons.

His security check, we are told, only took ten seconds. Yet multiply that by every other stupid, unnecessary, diversionary security check undertaken throughout the world and how many hours, days, weeks and months do you think are lost each year looking for completely the wrong people in completely the wrong place? Others subjected to well-targeted Australian security searches of late: Helen Clark, Prime Minister of New Zealand, and Sir Michael Somare, Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, who was made to remove his shoes. Still at large? Azahari Husin, also known as the Demolition Man, architect of four big terrorist atrocities in Asia, each aimed at least in part at Australian targets.

Prince Andrew is not too important to be searched; he is too unimportant. What are we doing giving princes the once-over, when active terrorists walk unmolested? Adhering to nothing more than a preposterous, half-baked, fake egalitarianism that in this case actually works against the common good. .........please do not insult our intelligence by pretending that a man who spends every waking hour flanked by MI5 and Special Branch heavies could ever present a tangible terrorist threat.

“What makes him think he should be treated differently?” asked the dingbat from the Republican movement. Perhaps because, unlike just about everybody else passing through international borders each day, we know for a fact, 100 per cent, that he presents no danger whatsoever to society, unless he shanks one from the first tee.

There is something else about Andrew that is largely ignored. He has been in a war. This gives him the jump on 99.9 per cent of people who currently believe themselves to be in the advance party of the War on Terror, including glorified draft dodgers in suits in the White House and security staff at Melbourne airport. Andrew saw action aboard HMS Invincible in the Falklands in 1982 as a Sea King helicopter pilot in the 820 Naval Air Squadron. He was part of the task force that sailed to the south Atlantic and directly engaged in anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare and Exocet missile decoy.

This appears to have placed him more at the sharp end of life and death conflict than the chap currently rifling through your wife’s vanity case in terminal one, looking for nail clippers.

And while minor royalty might take some beating in this field, there are, in my experience, few more pompous individuals than those engaged in the increasingly spurious business of airport security. Not one pinprick of doubt is allowed to permeate that elephantine hide of misplaced certainty.

The news that assorted al-Qaeda nut-bags, masterminds, suicide bombers and support networks have moved through airports from training camp to inner-city mosque without harassment does not faze them; the muffled explosions from Tube carriages and tourist spots raises not one question.

If the computer selects Diana Ross or Andrew Windsor at random, then Diana Ross or Andrew Windsor must be scrutinised. As if. As if this presents even a remote chance of an investigative breakthrough, as if this pointless pedantry can ever succeed in making the world safer.

“Everyone has to go through security screening,” said a Group 4 spokesman. Well, everyone should not have to, you dolt. Can’t you see that is the problem? This is far too serious to be weighed down with small-minded bureaucracy. Each second shaking down Prince Andrew in Melbourne was a second wasted. The same second it would take to send another nightclub or commuter train to kingdom come. Random searches shed random light on a subject far too significant to be treated this haphazardly.

The most spurious claim is that Prince Andrew is meant to set an example. Of what? Meek acceptance of a system that is so badly flawed it puts lives in danger? There are two possibilities. The first is that the Prince truly believes his royal bearing sets him apart, in which case he is twit, and an expensive one; the alternative is that, in a rare moment of golden insight, Air Miles Andy looked up from his tee-shot and saw the complete sham that is the front-line of the War on Terror. It could happen: on a golf course, you see, you get quite a lot of time to think.

@<hidden> - good to see at least some of the media has a grasp of the realities of security.

Unlike both the Oz and Brit gutter press engaged in a feeding frenzy of Royals bashing cloaked in self-righteousness

@<hidden> - strange logic indeed to witness the mentality of those in here falling over themselves to join the latter group and the OZDroids.

Question:

How many terrorists have been caught at the airport by security staff in circumstances like these?

It could be said that these personal checks, albeit undoubtedly brought in with the best of intent, are really now all about the authorities being seen to do something. "Tick the box, our duty is done for now, therefore we can't be criticised". The terrorist has simply moved on to use different tactics in a different environment.

It's a bit like the IRA threat to airfields some years ago. Lines of barbed wire were placed all over airfields. This did absolutely NOTHING to prevent terrorism but allowed someone in MOD to say "we did something" and put it more in the public eye. However, it inconvenienced everyone except the IRA, which is just what the terrorists wanted.

Cat ready? Pigeons primed?...

I think Martin Samuel has got a grasp of the issue - and to 7gbsc: how does he make the link between Andrew & Bali? He doesn't. Read it again - he suggests a timeline continuation. Three days after the first event happened, the second event happened.

Who knows, it might even be chaos theory.

Jordan

For those not understanding the article U_R posts (not mentioning any numbers or names), which has a good point perhaps I might summarize?

Security resources are better used scanning people who are not known for being senior officers in the Royal Navy, let alone senior Royals, and therefore unlikely terrorist suspects. Why not just wave him through? It is a pointless delay that does nothing to improve security.

Oh, just realise what I said there. That's the point isn't it, the delay? That reassures people that "something is being done". I'd have thought more people here would have become fed up of the "something must be done, do something" syndrome though. Only do something if it does any good!

a 'jobsworth' intent on getting his name in the papers

Did it work allan907, because I haven't seen the name yet! :p

Ah, but 7, that's PR :D

At least the public like the military when they are "protecting" them visibly. Not the most popular in peacetime.

While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind",
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind,
Rudyard Kipling

His mum owns hundreds of aircraft, tiz called the RAF, why didn't send for one of them instead of having to travel with the scruffs.
:rolleyes:

Simple, Mr. D.

If that happens he gets castigated by the same antis who want him to travel with the Hoi Polloi. :(

Still don't like the bloke but this lot are making me feel more sympathetic to him :yuk:

Just a point I'd like to add...

As usual, the "Johnny screwed our Referendum" crowd pop up whenever there's a Royal stoush. Totally irrelevant to this argument of course, but there they are again, whinging like the crowd they detest so much. These are probably the same people that would've had Latham in power now!:rolleyes:

Anyway, the point is that this is all about perception. PM casting a vote, Treasurer filling out a tax form (notable exceptions excluded!), kids first day at school, Royal getting screened at airport...perception. Your tax dollar at work, your 2 hour wait in the queue as experienced by the "privileged" of society. "I don't care how unlikely a head of state, Royal, actor, rock star, first Ape on the Moon would be carrying a bomb!" they shout, "I want to know that I, the little person, am going through all this for a damned good reason AND EVERYBODY ELSE IS TOO!"

It would have been a great PR coup for the Prince. "Yes little person, I am one of you!", he cries majestically from the parapet! But alas, he screwed the pooch!

The perception that everyone gets screened is vitally important to the punters that actually pay their way. To say it is a sleight to the Prince is extraordinary...especially on a commercial flight. If the Pope was in the queue & an Imman close behind him, would it be wise to give the Pope a nod & screen the Imman...or vice versa?

Suck it in Andy, take it like a Royal & if you're still upset when you get to NZ, let Helen Clarke have one right between the eyes...you'll feel much better!

Good points from all sides. Makes for interesting reading.

I'm not going to get into the debate of whether certain people should be screened or not. My question is this: why is it, that when the press report on an 'incident' with an airplane for example, most on this board immediately point out how the press can get the facts wrong and that quite possibly it was inaccuarate reporting (often quite true) but when it involves an individual that most of us do not know personally but has had their "time in the limelight", the reporting is taken as gospel? I'm sure that parts of the story are accurate--that Prince Andrew was told he was to be screened and perhaps he was surprised by that,-- but do we REALLY know that he caused as much of a 'kerfuffle" as was reported? One poster earlier suggested that perhaps he should have made light of it. Maybe he did and the whole thing has been blown out of proportion. We really don't know. I do, however, know for certain that exaggerated reporting is not reserved exclusively for airplane malfunctions and possible pilot error.

Just my two cents!:O

tiz called the RAF, why didn't send for one of them

I would be all for that Mr. D, on one condition. That he had to explain in person to a couple of hundred paras or pbi or whoever that they had to wait a few more days in Basra while Timmy Tristar was diverted to Oz to pick him up.

I'm sure they would be terribly understanding.

@<hidden> the North - remarking on suddenly "the reporting is taken as gospel?". That is precisely the point of inconsistency (some would say hypocrisy on the part of those who are first to slag the media ) that I was making in reference to strange logic.

Sadly Traffic Warden mentality prevails it seems Shy Torque:(

Roolz is rools and all that.

BTW @<hidden> Ropey 7gcbc and several others who raised the point - none of this occured in front of other boarding pax.

Did you actually think he joined the conga line with his plakky bag of duty free?

AFAIK He was afforded separate private QANTAS VIP screening.

Which may well account for his surprise and dummy-spit on discovering that QANTAS considered he posed a level of risk to the safe operation of the flight.

If you disagree GOTO Sadly
END Loop

Oh and Buster "Suck it in Andy, take it like a Royal & if you're still upset when you get to NZ -...blah blah "

Do try to keep up mate - the Duke left NZ last Sunday.

:ugh:

It'd be worthwhile to go back & do it though!:E

the "Johnny screwed our Referendum" crowd That'd be me, Buster.

At the risk of serious thread creep, do you really believe the majority of Australians genuinely wanted to retain the royal connection - or were they more afraid of the alternative, (just as 'Johnnie' knew they'd be when he couched the question the way he did)?

I heard on the ABC last week that 25% of the Australian population was born overseas , which i think most woud agree is a staggering stat. Many of them, not to mention a huge number of native born Australians, have no connection at all with Britain.

I accept that quite a few of the 'not born in Oz' people would be from the UK, but if we ignore them [as we Dinky Di Ostrayans always try to do :)], I think I'd be pretty damn safe in saying that the vast majority of Australians under the age of 40 treat the whole 'royle' connection with complete ignore and wouldn't lose a moment's sleep if it was to be cut and we could have our own head of state.

No disrespect to HMQ, we all think she's a bonzer lady, but she's the Brit's bonzer lady, not ours, and from what I've heard from people who've actually met the man, the less said about her second born son - the subject of this thread - the better.

MTOW we're in serious continental thread drift mode at the moment & I apologise...but...
25% of the Australian population was born overseas
And roughly 50% of the British population are Muslim, should Britain become an Islamic state? I wont roll out the "they chose to come to this political system" argument.

Howard showed how clever he was in defeating that referendum. Like it or not, he did well. I can assure you though, that I will vote for a break from our colonial ties, when the model is right!! Until then...:ok:

What gets me about the press, is they moan he doesn't do a job, but there he is - having had a miltary career (whatever you may think of it) and now he is representing British Industry at every bloody opportunity he gets.

I'd like to see the editors of some of the daily rags, doing their bit for British industry.

Jordan

I would hang fire with the cutting the apron string forra while yet, when those folks north of you start casting covetous eyes on all your wide open spaces, you might be glad mummy still has about 450 120 kiloton buckets of sunshine you might like to borrow.
:E

I say full cavity search. Bend over yer Royal Highness and take a deep breath.

Gloves!. Forceps! Swarfega!:ok:

If you let a Prince bypass security, who would be next. A Lord, An Earl, a Knight possibly.

Or a shiek!!

This is'nt the first time though, I believe the PNG Prime Minister was stopped once too, it was discussed in D&G but can't seem to find a link!!

South Africa elected Mandela as President.
Maybe Australia should have an 'original' as their President? Seems fair?

First folks in Siff Ifrica were Dutchmen weren't they?
:rolleyes:

Small yellow folk with styptogokia I belive Mr D. As for Andrew and the security issue, as a Royalist and ex grey funnel I am disappointed that he took this line. Seems that twats can be found in all walks of life.