Getting trapped airside - when does it become "false imprisonment"?

[CirrusF]

A few days ago I was airside at LGW, about to board a flight with a well known low cost operator. As usual, the flight was delayed, delayed again, and again, then eventually cancelled. The next available flight that they could offer was six hours later. Unfortunately for me, this alternative was of no use at all as I could not make the appointment that I was flying to, so I decided not to go, and reschedule for another day.

I therefore made my way back into the airside lounge and asked at the information desk the procedure for getting back out into the main terminal. I was told to wait, and somebody would come to escort me over. Half an hour later, nobody had turned up. An hour later still nobody came. Eventually, an hour and a half later, a worked from the airline finally turned up to escort me back into the main terminal.

Effectively I was therefore held airside against my will for an hour and a half. Apart from the shoddy customer service from BAA and said airline, is this legal?

[oceans11]

I think I would have just used a fire escape, the airport rozzers would probably liked it, also what about your luggage?

[Bealzebub]

The airport is a secure restricted area. It is governed by various statutes and also by bylaws that you agree to observe and comply with when you enter. You have no right of entry.

From what you have said, because of the delays to your flight you elected not to travel and asked for somebody to escort you out of the airports restricted security area. Your complaint is with the length of time it took for somebody to become available to assist you in your request.

Nobody forced you into that situation against your will, or held you in that situation in order to violate a law, so I think you would have a difficult case convincing anybody that you were falsely imprisoned? Nobody refused to assist you, and it was not inconceivable that it took some time for anybody to become available to assist you in your request.

I am sure you can bring it to the attention of the airport operator (BAA) for a better explanation, and a solicitor can better advise you regarding your legal enquiry. I would have thought a snowball in hell would have a much better chance than your assertion of "false imprisonment" though?

[smudgethecat]

Jesus, some people, "is this legal"? :ugh: give us a break sunshine

[el #]

In all airports of the world that I've visited to far, exit from departure area is close to security check, basically taking the inverse path. There, usually you will find also police officers to address if in doubt.

It is not necessary nor appropriate to ask airline to facilitate your exit. You have the right to leave at any time.

Then if the LGW airport is different in that, someone should explain exactly how and why.

Once, at Madrid I found myself in a situation where the corresponding entry/exit had been closed because it was very late in the night. I walked to an immigration check staffed by police, the officer didn't wanted me to pass in the "wrong direction" first. When I let him know that I had no alternative to leave, he let me through.

[CirrusF]

It is not necessary nor appropriate to ask airline to facilitate your exit. You have the right to leave at any time.

Then if the LGW airport is different in that, someone should explain exactly how and why.



This was more or less what I thought. Surely it should be the airport security who facilitate exit, not the airline? I did ask the BAA security people if I could leave by the way I came in but they told me I couldn't. I asked them on what authority they could hold me, to which they said if I argued then they would call the police. So I asked them to call the police, at which point they started to get quite aggressive.

By the way I am not thinking of really taking them to court, I am just intrigued that BAA seemed to think it within their remit to hold me airside.


From what you have said, because of the delays to your flight you elected not to travel
Not correct - my flight was cancelled. The airline broke their contract with me, not the other way around.

[Skipness One Echo]

The best thing is to call their bluff, make them call the Police and have them escort you out. I suspect that so long as you do not swear or become aggresive they are unlikely to charge you.

[el #]

If you read certain threads here, you will see how security in the UK doesn't really know their own rules and is generally staffed by a bunch on incompetent underpaid monkeys.

Do not hesitate in having police summoned if that happens to you a next time.

Take the name of the people that has treated your rudely, including supervisors. They will refuse, you insist - again in presence of the police.

Tell them that you will write a formal complain, (to which they invariably reply that they don't care) - then write the complain for real at that point they may indeed be replaced, as monkey labour is cheap.

[Bealzebub]

The next available flight that they could offer was six hours later. Unfortunately for me, this alternative was of no use at all as I could not make the appointment that I was flying to, so I decided not to go, and reschedule for another day.

I understood the semantic in the previous answer I gave.

I am just intrigued that BAA seemed to think it within their remit to hold me airside.

They didn't hold you, they delayed you. For obvious reasons (and if they are not obvious, I have no intention of discussing them publicly) you cannot pass through security into a restricted area, and then demand to be allowed to pass back from that area without following the appropriate procedures. Those procedures will depend on the nature of the reversal. For example an emergency, or a cancelled flight with or without baggage, international, domestic, common travel area, etc. The reason for reversal might be as in your case, elective. It might be denied boarding on the airlines part for whatever reason.

I can understand your frustration at it taking 90 minutes to get somebody to escort you back landside, and in regards to this complaint I wouldn't otherwise comment, however it isn't false imprisonment. The security staff would be absolutely correct in calling the Police if you refused to comply with the proper security procedures and it would be most unwise to argue the point unless you were absolutely sure of your assertion. To the poster who refers to these staff as "monkeys", they are individuals doing their job. However much you dislike that job, or anybody employed to do it, they are required to follow rules (even if they dislike those rules), or face dismissal.

[el #]

Bealzebub, would be good to know if what you're saying comes from a position you have or other direct experience.

Go read the thread in "security and pilots", the moniker I've used is actually kind compared to right reaction to harassment routinely reported. You are welcome in venting your defense of the security worker in there, I pretty much guarantee that this will resize your attitude of defending the undefendable (stupidity, ignorance, and arrogance).

Your pompous writing, all inclined to demonstrate that "you better not challenge authority" is of the exact kind that out friend Flying Lawyer dispelled all the time. Luckily for the ones he routinely demonstrated wrong, he has now moved to higher duties (UK Magistrate) to have the time to respond here.

Finally:
pass back from that area without following the appropriate procedures

Please let us know what document states the procedures. Hope you won't use the excuse that this cannot be disclosed for security reasons, as that would be definitely laughable.

I suspect the only procedure is to take the dedicated corridor.

[CirrusF]

The reason for reversal might be as in your case, elective. It might be denied boarding on the airlines part for whatever reason.



How often do I need to explain - it wasn't elective on my part - my flight was CANCELLED.

If my flight had been delayed, I would agree with you that it was elective that I chose not to wait for the delayed flight. But in this case my flight was CANCELLED, and I was given a full refund.

I could have chosen to accept the offer of an alternative flight, but as my booked flight had been cancelled I was equally entitled to accept the refund and leave the terminal.

The issue is whether BAA and/or the airline are then entitled to hold the passenger airside at their own convenience, which is what happened to me.

[Bealzebub]

The position is from a Gatwick based pilot for over 20 years and a familiarity with the operation at that airport as well as seeing the changes that have taken place over that same time period.

I have read the thread in "Rumours & News", however its relevance here is tenuous. Your "moniker" is not kind. It is insulting churlish and infantile, just as it is when it is directed against sportsmen and racing drivers. Far from "venting" a defence, I am stating the defacto situation.

Your pompous writing, all inclined to demonstrate that "you better not challenge authority" is of the exact kind that out friend Flying Lawyer dispelled all the time. Luckily for the ones he routinely demonstrated wrong, he has now moved to higher duties (UK Magistrate) to have the time to respond here.

This brought a wry smile to my pompous face. I am sure the distinguished gentleman would appreciate a well presented argument although I am not sure he would count amongst his friends those who call people "monkeys" in an attempt to be "kind"? Perhaps he will respond, who knows?

In order to procure the "appropriate document" you would need to contact the airport operator or possibly the DfT. I cannot disclose it without having access to it, however the rules do not permit an individual to pass back through the security point at Gatwick as the complainant was clearly told.

CirrusF,

Yes I understand your flight was eventually cancelled, but you stated the airline then offered you a choice. Take a flight 6 hours later, or cancel. You chose (elected) the latter. Presumably there were others in the same position? Some of them would have had to retrieve baggage. The airline would have arranged for them to be escorted to baggage reclaim and then back into the terminal. Did they all have to wait for 90 minutes? Were you the only one? Did you not wait for the airline/agents instruction?

In any event you cannot simply decide for yourself how you will leave the secure area as indeed you didn't, and again it is unfortunate you had to wait 90 minutes for somebody to escort you through.

[el #]

Cirrus, it doesn't make any difference for what reason you wanted to leave.

You have the right to leave anytime and nobody can stop or delay you from doing so.

That is true for all the countries of the world.

However to claim that one was imprisoned, that would to be confined in a physically segregated area, while actually you were left free to wander around finding your way out :)

[el #]

All the rest aside..

however the rules do not permit an individual to pass back through the security point at Gatwick.

Nor in any other Airport of the world. You leave using a dedicated corridor, that usually has a door (might be of the kind that can be opened from inside only) and might be guarded to make sure it is used for exit only. Usually this corridor is just by the side of the security check, but not necessarily have to. If the airport need to escort you through this exit, that is OK too.

as the complainant was clearly told.

He never asked to pass security backwards... again please pay more attention to what he actually wrote.

I rest my case, you would benefit from an exchange on the matter with your fellow pilots. Or it is that you have the right to creative naming, while PAX doesn't ?

it is unfortunate you had to wait 90 minutes for somebody to escort you through.

It's not just unfortunate, is unacceptable.

[Bealzebub]

I did ask the BAA security people if I could leave by the way I came in but they told me I couldn't.

He never asked to pass security backwards... again please pay more attention to what he actually wrote

Before resting your case, you might want to consider having someone else present it? :D

[el #]

Yep... I have misread a sentence, and lost the argument.

CirrusSLF, it's all right, please promise not to use the wrong term again when wanting to leave airport, they were just in delaying and hassling you. That is just unfortunate, but it was elective of you wanting to leave after been given so many reasons to stay.

I also defeat on the hope of ever seeing Bealzebub take such a lovely attitude when championing airport secuirty to other Pilots. On the other hand, he must have a reputation already.

[SNS3Guppy]

This was more or less what I thought. Surely it should be the airport security who facilitate exit, not the airline? I did ask the BAA security people if I could leave by the way I came in but they told me I couldn't. I asked them on what authority they could hold me, to which they said if I argued then they would call the police. So I asked them to call the police, at which point they started to get quite aggressive.


We appear to be seeing the "rest" of the story.

You were never imprisoned. That doesn't happen in airports, save for those who commit criminal acts, or unusual circumstances when security dictates so.

You copped an attitude with the airline personnel, and it's little wonder that you didn't get what you wanted right away.

Nobody "broke a contract" with you. One cannot hold up a ticket and say "This ticket represents a contract, and I'm holding you to it...fly me there now."

Flights are always subject to change, or cancellation, and cancellation or delaying of a flight is right and proper when the conditions warrant. You can imagine, perhaps, the hazard that might be posed if as a pilot I were forced to make a flight, or take an airplane that might not be safe or ready to fly. From a pilot perspective, when I make a safety of flight decision, it's not open for debate or discussion, and it's subject to no "contract." There's no authority which exceeds the pilot's authority in making that call; it's final.

A passenger doesn't have that authority.

While I certainly agree that an airline--any airline--should do whatever it can, within it's power, to serve the customer...you don't own the airline, and you don't set the security rules and regulations. Not having been there it's hard to say, but your comments strongly suggest you became arguementative with the people in the terminal. When you ask "By what authority can you hold me," you're accusing those personnel of "holding" or imprisoning you...surely you understand how this might be offensive?

A passenger who is excited, difficult, argumentative, combative, or otherwise problematic is a safety risk. In the same way you don't really want to use certain key words in the terminal, you also don't want to cop an attitude, because it probably won't be tolerated well.

It's not exactly the same as your situation, but I'll give you the example anyway. Some years ago I had a flight from A to C with a technical fuel stop at B, in between. I had a single passenger; a friend of the owner of the company, an investor, and a part owner of the airplane I was flying. When we arrived for fuel, the fueler had mysteriously vanished, and the fuel was locked...no fuel. This meant calls to dispatch and a change in plans. The passenger, clearly inconvenienced, became irate. He began to scream and yell. He jumped up and down. He turned a reddish purple color, balled up his fists, and was spitting as he screamed at me. He told me to do exactly what he said, told me he owned me, told me to get in the airplane and fly him where he wanted to go.

I politely approached him and informed him that he was a safety risk, and that I had just grounded the airplane and cancelled the flight. This did not improve his attitude. I then contacted the company and informed them of the same.

A short time later he was able to regain his composure. I made alternate arrangements, diverted to a nearby airfield for fuel, and eventually took his destination.

I'm not suggesting that you're that person. That was a very extreme case; almost cartoon-esque in it's exaggerated behavior. However, it does illustrate the difference in perspective. From the passenger's perspective, he was paying a lot of money, and had a lot invested, and felt he had a lot of rights. From my perspective, it was a little different, as I explained to him:

"Sir, I appreciate your frustration, and can only apologize on behalf of the company for this situation. I am unable to take off and fly in search of fuel. We will need to make arrangements and a new flight plan to a location where we will fuel. Until that time, please let me offer you something to eat and drink and a quiet place to relax, and we shall be underway as soon as possible."

To my mind, that's customer service at the grass roots level. However, had we been in a location where secure procedures were in effect, I wouldn't have had that opportunity. He probably would have been arrested for his behavior, with or without my input. Being at the airport, in the terminal, in a secure location, becoming argumentative with the airport or airline personnel won't do anything to help your case; you can only dig yourself into a deeper hole. You may not like to hear this, but it's probably the best advice you can get all day. Yes, you're a paying customer, and yes, your patronage is valued and important. Yes, you're important. Yes, you deserve to be escorted promptly and if you wish, to receive a refund or a rebooking. HOWEVER...drop the attitude because it does not help you in any way...particularly not in the circumstances being discussed.

I've no doubt you're a good person who was placed in a frustrating situation. I've been there too...as I suspect have most others here. I can sympathize. I will conclude by saying that what you want at a time like that is to not make a frustrating situation worse...and cooperation goes much farther than conflict. Best of luck in the future.

[wings folded]

Is it not the case that if we need (or elect or choose, or whatever) to go from secure airside to landside, we are returning to the rest of the planet from which we came to go airside. Why is "Security" concerned about anybody returning to the normal world? Bags already loaded could be an issue, but not if the flight is cancelled.

[Skipness One Echo]

At Gatwick and Heathrow, once in the lounge and Airside you are allowed to mingle with transitting passengers who MAY have no right to enter the UK. Hence the need to be sure that they are allowed to let you back out. This farce is so that the greedy money grabbers at the BAA need as many people as possible to spend lots of money in their shops.

This is the reason for the removal of the dedicated domestic search at LHR. At BAA Glasgow and EDI you would be able to exit the lounge via domestic arrivals as they don't rely on transit passengers. It's just another example of BAA being unable to provide a basic service and everyone being trated like an undesirable, as in this case you need an escort.

At LHR and LGW they prefer you to have your passport even when flying in the UK as it suits their own crap prcedures. Hence there IS a compelling reason as to why you just can't walk back out from the lounge at these two airports, so be careful.

[SXB]

Just to clarify the legal position an international, or domestic, airside terminal (in Europe) is still a public place albeit with some specific legislation. However, the restrictive movement of individuals can only be enforced by certain bodies, this is normally immigration, customs and police. Security and airline staff have no such authority in public places. For example, if you refuse to adhere to security procedures at a check then the staff member can refuse you entry to the airside area but he must call a police officer to enforce that action should you insist on access.

The point raised by the original poster just illustrates an airport which is badly run and I'm not sure why he's being criticised by various people who work for airlines. All the guy wanted to do is leave an airport, hardly an unreasonable or unusual request.

There are various conventions enshrined in the human rights act (relevant only in Europe) which guarantee freedom of movement and, certainly, these are relevant in an airport but you can't really claim any infringement of those rights unless they were denied by a person in authority. An airline or security person (except in some European countries where security is carried out by police officers) is not such a person.

[SNS3Guppy]

An airline or security person (except in some European countries where security is carried out by police officers) is not such a person.


As a pilot, neither am I. That, however, is irrelevant with respect to what you can and can't do in the terminal or any other location on the airport. While I generally have my own business to which I must attend, should you create a disturbance, I'm obligated, along with others, to notify the appropriate authorities who WILL address your concerns.

With that in mind, it's probably best to put the attitude in check and cooperate. Nobody's rights, nor freedoms were denied, and nobody made anybody enter the airport terminal area. That was done by free will. Upon exercising one's free will to enter such an area, one voluntarily subjects one's self to the conditions set forth for being there...which includes the terms and requirements of entry and exit, as well as an implicit agreement to be subject to both search, and where appropriate, seizure.

That didn't happen here. Just a brief delay. No imprisonment, nothing untoward. While it's unfortunate that the original poster (and perhaps others) felt or feel slighted, it's over, it's been handled, and each of you now have the same choices you had before...enter and accept being subject to the operating rules and regulations of both the airline and the airport, or don't enter.

There's no force involved, and the choice, as always, is yours.

[el #]

SNS3Guppy, nice story and lecturing. Now, what it has exactly to do with one being delayed for 90 minutes, actually restricting a basic freedom ?

Would you have tolerated that if that happened to you in civil clothes, you know what, I believe you haven't ever considered that, as your pilot ID/airside clearance would possible get you a different treatment.

Unless you've again misread, CirrusF never said to have lost composture. The aggressive ones, if we want to believe him, were Airport security. Let me also add that one's access to a basic right is not subject to attitude!

What would be the cooperation that one should show? Wait silently for a dysfunctional, farcical organization to arrange for your basic right of movement?

Please.. again.. go read the "frsutrated pilots and secuirty"... are all these colleagues just a bunch of whiners ?

[el #]

With that in mind, it's probably best to put the attitude in check and cooperate. Nobody's rights, nor freedoms were denied, and nobody made anybody enter the airport terminal area. That was done by free will. Upon exercising one's free will to enter such an area, one voluntarily subjects one's self to the conditions set forth for being there...which includes the terms and requirements of entry and exit, as well as an implicit agreement to be subject to both search, and where appropriate, seizure.

That didn't happen here. Just a brief delay. No imprisonment, nothing untoward. While it's unfortunate that the original poster (and perhaps others) felt or feel slighted, it's over, it's been handled, and each of you now have the same choices you had before...enter and accept being subject to the operating rules and regulations of both the airline and the airport, or don't enter.
The above is 99% pure GENUINE CRAP. First of all, the "agreement" to be searched is limited only to procedure at entry, following a formally defined set of rules. After that, if the airport of whatever entity has an issue with you, they have to notify police, they are the only one with the right to search you, and under certain conditions only. Then, there is NEVER a seizure by airport security, what happens is that you cannot enter with certain items that have to be sent as baggage, or disposed before entry.

Finally saying that accepting to enter a place (airport) makes you subject to accept whatever "rule" can be in act in there, is ridiculous. Nobody in the UK (or any other country) has the right to suspend or modify law and basic rights, even if it's private property in which one have agreed to enter. If any rule or action is taken to the contrary, that is ILLEGAL.

All in all, you're just chanting the same mantra: "We run the show. You just pay and sit quiet. Also not raise any problem since this will put you automatically at fault.". Now for you information that doesn't always work, as some people actually have an idea about what a "basic right" is. Seemingly you don't, or care only about "your" rights.



Only one small amendment to what SXB is correctly stating: basic human rights are not only applicable in Europe. Also many Latin American (and other) countries explicitly recall these right in their Constitution.

[Bealzebub]

Human rights is one of those things that often gets trotted out as an argument when all other arguments have failed. In the United Kingdom the Human rights act 1998 is descibed as follows:


Human Rights Act
The Human Rights Act 1998 gives legal effect in the UK to the fundamental rights and freedoms contained in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). These rights not only affect matters of life and death like freedom from torture and killing but also affect your rights in everyday life: what you can say and do, your beliefs, your right to a fair trial and many other similar basic entitlements.

The rights are not absolute – governments have the power to limit or control them in times of severe need or emergency. You also have the responsibility to respect the rights of other people – and not exercise yours in a way which is likely to stop them from being able to exercise theirs.
Your human rights are:

the right to life
freedom from torture and degraded treatment
freedom from slavery and forced labour
the right to liberty
the right to a fair trial
the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it
the right to respect for private and family life
freedom of thought, conscience and religion
freedom of expression
freedom of assembly and association
the right to marry or form a civil partnership and start a family
the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
the right to own property
the right to an education
the right to participate in free elections
If any of these rights and freedoms are abused you have a right to an effective solution in law, even if the abuse was by someone in authority, for example, a policeman.

Which of these was violated by the original posters 90 minute delay in waiting for somebody to escort him out of the airports secure zone ?

[parabellum]

Now that we have an official list of the individual's human rights can we also have a list of their responsibilities please? I think they should go hand in hand and not be separated, ever!:)

[Avman]

Bealzebub

Which of these was violated by the original posters 90 minute delay in waiting for somebody to escort him out of the airports secure zone ?

I'd say his basic freedom of expression from what I read.

Guppy (in his long speel) describes 90 minutes as: Just a brief delay

90 (ninety minutes) a "brief delay"?!! You're having a laugh aren't you :hmm:

[SNS3Guppy]

All in all, you're just chanting the same mantra: "We run the show. You just pay and sit quiet. Also not raise any problem since this will put you automatically at fault.". Now for you information that doesn't always work, as some people actually have an idea about what a "basic right" is. Seemingly you don't, or care only about "your" rights.


No, I didn't say that. You'd do best to put words in your mouth, not mine.

When one accuses the airport personnel of unlawful imprisonment and demands to know by what authority one has been imprisoned, one may fully understand that one is no longer being reasonable and has clearly copped an attitude.

Abuse others, and don't expect stellar service. This thread serves as case in point.

You don't have a basic right to do whatever you please in the terminal. I don't have that "basic right" either. Being in the terminal is not a right. It's a privilege for which you pay admittance, and for which you are expected to exercise decorum and abide the rules.

If a flight is cancelled, you are not free to do as you please simply because you assert that a contract has been broken. It doesn't work that way.

If the poster truly believes he or she has been imprisoned illegally, then I would think he or she has a duty to approach the press and expose this problem, because that would indeed be a very big problem.

Not long ago a passenger on a Delta flight in Guyana decided he'd had enough delays. He removed an exit hatch, popped the emergency slide, and left the airplane, on the tarmac. He believed much the same...nobody was going to tell him what to do, and he thought he had rights, too. He was arrested, incidentally.

When you undertake a flight, whether you actually get on the flight or not, you also undertake certain responsibilities. These don't just start when you set foot on board the airplane. They start before you ever arrive at the airport, and they continue to become more important the closer you get to the airplane. Freedom of expression is all good and well, and if you want to wear a shirt that proclaims "sponge bob lives," by all means do so. Accusing the personnel who are helping you out of taking you prisoner and breaking the law may not be in your best interest. If you find that advice offensive, then by all means, insult the airport personnel and accuse them of illegal acts...see how much mileage it buys you.

[el #]

Bealzebub, perhaps you're more familiar with airplane manuals than law, let me help you a little with the Human Rights Act of 1998. Indeed, "right to liberty" is more completely defined as:

ARTICLE 5
1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
(...)

Without doubt, you know that in English, liberty means "moving around freely". Among cases lawfully limiting this liberty, there is no provision for being an airport or other organization.

[el #]

Woops, seems I've touched a nerve with you, sorry to say your long post is full again of inapplicable, erroneous and biased misinformation. Let's go for one at the time:

When one accuses the airport personnel of unlawful imprisonment and demands to know by what authority one has been imprisoned, one may fully understand that one is no longer being reasonable and has clearly copped an attitude.

Abuse others, and don't expect stellar service. This thread serves as case in point. Where is demonstrated that the original poster ever abused anybody? You weren't there, but for coincidence, you never considered that HE may have beed abused. Beside, please leave the "good behavior" lessons for any minor on which you can exercise an influence.

You don't have a basic right to do whatever you please in the terminal. I don't have that "basic right" either. Being in the terminal is not a right. It's a privilege for which you pay admittance, and for which you are expected to exercise decorum and abide the rules. Where exactly a basic right to do a one please is reclaimed? What the heck decorum has to do with that? This is about a person that had waiting 90 minuts to return to his business, isn't ?

If a flight is cancelled, you are not free to do as you please simply because you assert that a contract has been broken. It doesn't work that way.

At this point you really convinced me that for you, "leaving premises" is the same as "one pleases".

If the poster truly believes he or she has been imprisoned illegally, then I would think he or she has a duty to approach the press and expose this problem, because that would indeed be a very big problem.

The press ??? Actually a reasonable person would write a complaint letter to the airport before anything else.

Not long ago a passenger on a Delta flight in Guyana decided he'd had enough delays. He removed an exit hatch, popped the emergency slide, and left the airplane, on the tarmac. He believed much the same...nobody was going to tell him what to do, and he thought he had rights, too. He was arrested, incidentally.

Sorry, inapplicable example again, as HE WAS NOT ON BOARD OF ANY AIRPLANE. Seems hard for you to grasp that ?
Understand you might be a little territorial on you airplane, but fortunately for the human kind, your airplane does not extends indefinitely.

When you undertake a flight, whether you actually get on the flight or not, you also undertake certain responsibilities. These don't just start when you set foot on board the airplane. They start before you ever arrive at the airport, and they continue to become more important the closer you get to the airplane.In a legal sense, you should know what determines begin of a flight, certainly hanging around in an airport due to a canceled flight isn't that. Then if you wanted to lecture further about "responsibilities" according your own judgment, for as good it can be, honestly it doesn't belong to this discussion so please spare us that.

Freedom of expression is all good and well, and if you want to wear a shirt that proclaims "sponge bob lives," by all means do so. Accusing the personnel who are helping you out of taking you prisoner and breaking the law may not be in your best interest. If you find that advice offensive, then by all means, insult the airport personnel and accuse them of illegal acts...see how much mileage it buys you.What a condescending piece of insinuating half wit prose. Really can be summarized as I did before: "beware... or else!".

You really belong to the rank of those that having picked the undefendable side of an argument, see no other exit that extenuating the interlocutor emitting more of the same triteness. Be welcome in having the last word, as I feel you also have a need for that.

[call100]

False imprisonment is a common law offence involving the unlawful and intentional or reckless detention of the victim. An act of false imprisonment may amount in itself to an assault. If a separate assault accompanies the detention this should be reflected in the particulars of the indictment. If the detention was for the purpose of committing another indictable offence, and such an offence was committed, a count for the substantive offence will usually be enough. Where the detention was for a period of several hours, or days, then it will be proper to reflect the unlawful detention with a count for false imprisonment.


The offence of False Imprisonment did not take place.
The OP Asked to leave. He was not told he could not, he was just informed he needed an escort.. He waited for 90 minutes for an escort. (Maybe he should have asked them a few more times). The Escort eventually led him to another area as requested.

I can't even believe the discussion is even taking place....:ugh:

[Bealzebub]

Artcle 5 is in fact from the Euopean convention on human rights and it states:
Article 5

Right to liberty and security

1 Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
(a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;
(b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;
(d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;
(e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants;
(f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.
2 Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.
3 Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.
4 Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.
5 Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
The poster was not unlawfully arrested or detained. His security and that of others was being excercised under the lawful terms imposed on the airport operator by statutes and instructions of HM government. His right to liberty was not supreme to others right to security so in this circumstance he could not do as he wished immediately and in the circumstances.

[Avitor]

You see it every time you travel, the drama queen. A delay occurs and somebody is for the high jump, it matters little whom it is as long as the spleen is vented.
A storm in a teacup. Chill out, sh1t happens. :=

[strake]

I'm not sure I have much to add on the semantics here...I always thought if you wanted to leave, you just did..
However, I was amused to see that Flying Lawyer has apparently moved onto better things as a "UK Magistrate" whatever that is.....
Whilst the magistracy is indeed a worthy cause, His Honour may feel he is being ever so slightly demoted by that description. Of course, gentleman that he is, he would never say so.:)

[el #]

The poster was not unlawfully arrested or detained.

I never said so. He was however unnecessarily and unreasonably delayed, a small and simple thing that you refuse to admit, like if you was paid to be Airport advocate. In fact hundreds of your colleagues are subject daily to mistreatment, like the thread on "R&N" clearly shows. Only, you're too chicken to write anything of your monotonous rant in there, while you don't have a problem in exercising an misplace authority here in the passengers forum. What a great example you are.

His security and that of others was being excercised under the lawful terms imposed on the airport operator by statutes and instructions of HM government. His right to liberty was not supreme to others right to security so in this circumstance he could not do as wished immediately and in the circumstances.

More pompous BS. You see it in the best form when the HM acronym is pulled in to defend 'status quo' and impose authority. No circumstance shall delay a citizen leaving an airport on a normal day. it never crosses you mind that is the airport that did as they wished. You evidently belong to the ludicrous circle of "everything in name of security" that trades people's fears and foolishness for power and money.

[el #]

The OP

I can image OP means Offloaded Pax ? or Offending ?

Let us know because it seems to me you little technical acronym is actually a short form of contempt and falseness.

Don't you guys never get off you parade horse? It must be very addictive, that's good for troubled egos.

[call100]

It looks like English is not your first language and your experience of forums limited?
OP means Original Poster. Used to guide browsers back to the first question when a thread has drifted slightly...
An apology would be accepted graciously.......

[radeng]

You could always complain that you have severe chest pains and feel unwell, especially if you are sweating from being hot and bothered - and if nothing happens very quickly, dial 999 and ask for an ambulance.

[el #]

Here's my apology call100, I'm actually happy that you simply meant that.

[Bealzebub]

el hash,

You do seem to spend an inordinate amount of time baiting, insulting and arguing vacuously? However I have noticed that the more irate you seem to become, the better your English becomes? :suspect:

This thread was borne out of the authors annoyance at being delayed airside at Gatwick airport. He isn't the first and won't be the last. He wasn't unlawfully imprisoned, a point I believe he recognises.

Your ranting and railing whilst amusing and erroneous, and despite your attempts at provocation, could perhaps be better channeled into a focused advocacy. So far the most accurate thing you have said is:

Yep... I have misread a sentence, and lost the argument.

[Final 3 Greens]

I have read this thread and am somewhat surprised at the comments of some.

The OPs flight was cancelled, which is bad enough, but these things sometimes happen.

He was then forced to remain in the airport for 90 minutes, due to the lack of an escort to landside.

This strikes me as being completely unacceptable treatment, especially as he had paid a security charge in the price of his ticket.

Had this happened to me, on a business trip, the airport authority would have received a bill for 90 minutes at my professional hourly rate, with a reminder letter after 7 days and a final notice after another 7, following which I would issue a summons in the small claims divison of the county court, where the administrators take a dim view of unreasonable behaviour in my personal experience.

We are talking about someone being escorted a matter of 50-100 yards, due to their flight being cancelled and the airport cannot find someone to fo that for 90 minutes.

Its just ridiculous.

[TightSlot]

The delay experienced was many things: Bad customer service, insensitive, irritating, avoidable, unacceptable: One thing it wasn't was false imprisonment, and calling it such simply devalues the argument.

el # - The use of phrases in your posts such as BS and Crap achieve little except a raising of the temperature: When this is contrasted with the calmer, less emotional and authoritative posts that surround yours there is only one possible conclusion as to who is making the better point. In short, behaving like a drunk, in a pub, looking to start a fight tends not to encourage others to take you seriously.

I'll close this now, as I believe that the original question has now been answered.