PDA

View Full Version : Police & pax at EMA


Ranger One
21st Sep 2004, 18:09
Some discussion on Usenet about the way a planeload of FR pax were treated at EMA during a 'security alert' last week... sounds well out of order to me:

"...we were met by armed police, held on the plane for a
further 30 mins.

After that time we were taken off the plane, held for 4 hours in a secure area, full of armed police, refused access to food, drink and only limited access to toilets etc.

We were not given any indication as to why we were held.

Eventually, we were advised that our luggage had been taken off our flight, the flight cancelled and we were re-checked by security, only to be re-united with our luggage. At that time we were 8 hours into our travels."

See the full discussion:

http://tinyurl.com/46luf

OK... whinging pax... should be happy to co-operate... 'if you think security is trouble, try the alternative'..., etc. etc. - I can hear the arguments already. But I think the complainer has a point - how much longer can our industry survive fiascos like this?

R1




My question is this, are the police legally allowed to keep 190 people
captive for over 5 hours?

bjcc
21st Sep 2004, 22:17
I think, and I could be wrong on this, that the power is under section 89(1) Terrorism Act 2000.

It seems from what I have read that the pax were not arrested, mearly detained to establish what they knew about a suspect artical.

The above section says:

89. - (1) An officer may stop a person for so long as is necessary to question him to ascertain-

(a) his identity and movements;
(b) what he knows about a recent explosion or another recent incident endangering life;
(c) what he knows about a person killed or injured in a recent explosion or incident.

As it says above, 'may stop a person for as long as necessary...' the passengers were not as such arrested, just 'stopped'.

I am assuming that this is the power used, in any case it fits the bill...albeit the officer in charge may have had to be shall we say, creative to some extent.

The fact that some of the officers were armed is irelevent, local forces have an obligation to have available an armed response to airports, it follows that they would have therefore attended.

Feeding pax is the airlines responsibility, if they did a runner then thats the airlines fault not the old bill's.


Restricted access to the loo would be fairly normal, in that when going the person would have to be escorted...so having only a few police there would slow the process down.

stagger
21st Sep 2004, 22:29
You missed the second part of that section of the act..

A person commits an offence if he-
(a) fails to stop when required to do so under this section,
(b) refuses to answer a question addressed to him under this section, or
(c) fails to answer to the best of his knowledge and ability a question addressed to him under this section.

So a person who is not suspected of committing any offence at all - can be detained and compelled to answer questions. Refusal to stop, refusal to answer questions and failure to answer to the best of your knowledge are all criminal offences!

bjcc
21st Sep 2004, 22:38
Correct I did miss that out, mostly because its not relevent, the question was what power to detain is there? The power to detain is S. 89(1) as stated.

In actual fact there may be a second power which is contained under the power to establish cordons and prevent people fom crossing them. I think that may have been stretching things a little far!

But yes your assessment is correct you may not be guilty of an offence but by not complying with this act you could become guilty. If you think about it though if you are directed to stop your car by a constable acting under the Road Traffic Act, you may not be guilty of any offence, but if you fail to stop you become so. Same with giving name and address under the same act...the list could go on, so this is nothing new.

Carl Rawson
22nd Sep 2004, 09:16
Emotions aside, I was working there last Thursday.
I have to say that it took a only few minutes for the Police to react and have armed Police in the airport. Full credit to them.
I feel that they did what was necessary and full marks to EMA, sorry NEMA and the other airport staff for what was a hard day. Given the number of people airside at the time I don't think that they were kept unduly as the whole area was secured and searched. The airport Information desk also did a great job in keeping people fully informed of the situation.

shiftzz
22nd Sep 2004, 13:20
Strange, I was one of the passengers that was detained and I was not kept informed!

Ranger One
22nd Sep 2004, 13:34
bjcc:

89. - (1) An officer may stop a person for so long as is necessary to question him to ascertain-

Afraid that won't fly - the pax weren't questioned at all, AFAIK - they were simply detained, eventually reunited with their luggage, and finally sent home - 8 hours after checking-in!

Police and security will do whatever they need to do in a situation like this, within the law. That's a given. But I think there's a serious question as to whether what they did was legal.

And there's no excuse for not providing explanation and refreshments - all it needed was for an FR or airport rep. to come along and say 'We've got a serious suspicion about a piece of checked baggage on this flight. The police will keep you here until we've rescreened etc., this will take at least a couple of hours. We'll send someone in with sandwiches and tea/coffee as soon as possible'.

Would that have been too much to expect? Would have considerably defused the situation. No FR jokes please - this situation was entirely down to airport/security/police, not FR.

Of course, if the *police* were exercising total control of the situation, and they decided to forbid anyone from offering the pax information or refreshments, that's a different chain of command and needs different questions and answers.

R1

shiftzz
22nd Sep 2004, 14:01
The police were fed and watered (along with their dogs)

Regarding:
89. - (1) An officer may stop a person for so long as is necessary to question him to ascertain-

(a) his identity and movements;
(b) what he knows about a recent explosion or another recent incident endangering life;
(c) what he knows about a person killed or injured in a recent explosion or incident.


I donít have an issue, they could have easily identified me (passport in tired hand may have assisted)

b & c canít answer as I was never asked!

I asked for the name of the officer in charge, refused to be supplied.

Strange how the aircrew were not detained?


ShiftZZ

Boss Raptor
22nd Sep 2004, 17:16
S!d the legislation - you hold me for 8 hours with no direct reason and as a pax. I am going to be out to get you - this is not acceptable either from a security or commercial point of view - I would now be a) about to cause hell with the story to the press for both the airline and DTI/Police etc. and b) looking for bloody good explanations/apologies from the airline/DTI/Police and c) speaking with my solicitor to screw all 3 and claim damages

This security is and has been illconcieved and an over reaction - my personal point of view

They cannot refuse you the name of the officer in charge - they are not themselves beyond the law although they, like customs, appear to think they are

Shiftzz - from what you have said you have every reason and every right to register a formal complaint and expect it to be explained/investigated/answered - advice, in parallel make yr complaint very public and be prepared to embarrass them as they deserve

bjcc
22nd Sep 2004, 23:04
Boss Raptor, yes they can refuse to give the NAME of the officer in charge, if you feel that strongly about it, then you find the rest of the answer...(clue ... its all in terrorism legislation and PACE)
As for if its acceptable from a security point of view, I would have thought it obvious it was more than acceptable. From a commercial point of view..Its not a police function to care about it. Its not the airline function (who do care about it) to interfere with Police action.

shiftzz.
Yes Police probably were fed and watered, the repsonsibility to feed and water pax is the airlines...no one elses, address your complaint to them.

How do you know the aircrew were not detained sperate from you? In actual fact I doubt they were, seems little point.

Ranger one,
if in your expert opinon you feel that the Police were not acting legaly then complain. The IPCA have a web site and no doubt they will be only to happy to oversee your complaint. You asked a question, I have given you what I can find. Unfortunatly I left the Police before this act came in, however even before that, I would have detained the lot in order to establish if or by who an offence had been committed.
As for feeding you see above...and blame the airline.

To put this a slightly in a slightly different perspective, and to introduce some common sense, what would you have done, let everyone swan off?

ShyTorque
23rd Sep 2004, 08:03
Are we in a state of emergency in this country? I never heard the government say we were. (No, I haven't had my head in the sand, that was a political rhetorical question).

If the police want to question someone about an alleged offence, fine. Question away.

However, if detaining a large number of people for an alleged offence, it must have been obvious from the start that the majority, if not all, were completely innocent. The greatest effort should have been made to determine their innocence and allow them to be released.

If people were not questioned at all, even to confirm their identity, surely this could be a case of the police exceeding their powers?

The answer, almost as always, is to allocate more resources to the problem. NEMA has a problem with security resources, if you ask the right question you will be told that the airport will not pay for more badly needed security personnel. :(

bjcc
23rd Sep 2004, 21:03
As you are fully aware, there is no state of emergency in the UK.

You do not know the reasons behind the holding of these pax and nor do I. I can guess as to the reasons behind it, based on my previous experience. But at the end of the day I can only guess. The difference is, I am basing that guess on experience, not gut reaction to half a story.

The majority were undoubtadly innocent (if not all) but in order to establish that, everyone gets held. Its tough but its life. Same would apply if you were at a party raided for drugs, you wouldn't be leaving until you had been cleared. So this is nothing new. If you don't like it, then don't fly. If you do fly, then accept it as one of the hazards.

Complain to your MP if that makes you feel better, it will be investigated and it will waste a large amount of money (the paperwork and time involved is huge in complaints against police) which could be better employed fighting crime, but then its your money paid out in taxes so think about how you'd like it spent.....You'd be better complaining to the airlines, its thier responsibility to feed you, not the Police.

Resouces? Has really got nothing to do with what the airport spends on security. I have done exactly the same thing at Heathrow, (only it was a 747 full of pax) the problem had nothing to do with the airport and its security.

B Sousa
24th Sep 2004, 00:13
"You'd be better complaining to the airlines, its thier responsibility to feed you, not the Police."

BJCC, better read the fine print on the ticket. You will likely starve if your betting on that one. They are an Air Carrier, not a Restaurant. If they feed you, its to fend off complaints and PR nothing else.

Final 3 Greens
24th Sep 2004, 07:32
BJCC

Please read the following extract from Ryanair's T&Cs.

Ryanair does not provide meal vouchers or hotel accommodation for delayed or cancelled flights at any time. Therefore the contract betwwen passenger and airline is quite clear, it is not Ryanair's responsibility.

The issue here is quite simple. If the police forces treat people in this way, they will lose their respect and support.

Speed cameras have already impacted the relationshipp between the public and the police and this type of crass behaviour just adds to the problem.

The police are employed with money from the general public and they should remember this in the way they deal with us.

Obviously, an airborne return and cancellation will be annoying for the pax. It may well be an action well justified, but that in itself is no justification to hold people without food and water for 5 hours - a senior officer should have had the nouse to arrange, at least, supplies of water - five hours is a long time without.

When I was a kid many years ago, our town police walked in the community, knew the players and enjoyed the support of all right minded people.

Today, they ride round in cars, wearing kevlar vests and the only experience most of us "middle englanders" have, when meeting them, is a bad one.

There's a mind set issue here, IMHO, what the rules allow them to do and what common sense says would be a better option.

Evil J
24th Sep 2004, 07:44
It is my belief that much of this sort of reaction from the Police?security forces is as a result of media interest if they fail to do something. A few weeks ago their was a stink in the press coz a pax got to Edinburgh with a knife in his bag-so what do you expect the security forces to do when a similar incident occurs when, after the last incident they proabably all got a rocket up their [email protected]!

And sorry but in these cut throat lo-cost times feeding and watering the pax is definately not an airport issue.

shiftzz
24th Sep 2004, 08:03
No Pax,
No flights,
No job!

Shiftzz

Backtrack
24th Sep 2004, 13:14
After that time we were taken off the plane, held for 4 hours in a secure area, full of armed police, refused access to food, drink and only limited access to toilets etc.
Isn't the key word here 'refused'?

Even if the carrier had provided food/water, would the police have allowed it to be brought into the detention area?

If not, the debate about who is responsible for providing refreshments is a complete red herring.

The Disco Volante
24th Sep 2004, 16:47
I think, and I could be wrong on this, that the power is under section 89(1) Terrorism Act 2000.

and

...albeit the officer in charge may have had to be shall we say, creative to some extent

The officer in charge would have had to be very creative. Section 89(1) applies to Northern Ireland, not the mainland.

It seems from what I have read that the pax were not arrested, mearly detained to establish what they knew about a suspect artical.

Under English law, unless there is a stautory exception, you are either under arrest, or you are free to go about your lawful business. There is no inbetween. Being "merely detained" is something that happens in Zimbabwe. A police officer should know this, it is part of his basic training.

As to what power there was to detain these people, the answer is probably none. But if there were, common sense would require that they should be given an explanation, and provided with food, drink and lavatories by the people detaining them. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

In these circumstances, most people would probably be happy to wait and assist the police if the position was explained to them by the police. But ultimately, a passenger in these circumstances would have been entitled to say to a police officer: I now wish to leave; you must let go about my business or arrest me.

PaperTiger
24th Sep 2004, 17:03
"After a thorough search of all areas, no suspicious items were found and no arrests were made"

In other words, a false alarm. No surprise there then, except for Richard Reid hasn't everything since Sept 11/01 been a false alarm ? I suppose it is too much to expect the police etc. to bear this in mind when responding. When a call is received, be prepared for the worst but realise that in all probability it will turn out to be a non-event.

If shiftzz says he wasn't kept informed then I believe him. NO excuse for that IMO, they were in the gate area, there's a P.A. right there. Tell the pax the nature of the 'emergency' and what's going on and how long it's likely to take. I wouldn't expect some adrenalin-pumped, macho, twenty-something poilu in the SRU to do so, but surely there was a senior rank present with some experience and a modicum of PR skills ?

Had this been done there would probably have been no desire to know the name of the officer in charge, although that too should readily have been given.

As to filing a complaint, it is unlikely to have an effect in getting the 'policy' changed, so it becomes a matter of principal. Of course you could end up branded as a troublemaker on some list somewhere. S0d the cost though, there has to be some accountability otherwise it's hard to tell who are the real terrorists.

The police apologists would like you to just sigh, bend over and take it in the Name of Security. Better yet, why don't you all just stay home ?

bjcc
24th Sep 2004, 21:50
Final 3 greens.

I fail to see how it is the Police's responsibility to feed/water if the airline have abdicated it. Your contract with the airline is noted, you of course have no contract with the Police.

Dixon of Dock Green never happened. 24 years ago, I heard the same stories of how it used to be, Police walking not in cars etc. I think you will find that before Police cars there were less Police about, becuase they were at major junctions directing traffic. I accept its a romantic notion that people have, forget it.

The resposiblity to feed pax is the airlines, irrespective of what you may think.

B Sousa sums it up, the airline is an air carrier not a restraunt, the Police are a branch of Burger King now are they?

Is it that reasonable? No probably not, welcome to reality.

Backtrack, Why should Police refuse to allow food in? No reason that I can think of.

The Disco Volante

Yes you are correct 89(1) does apply to NI, my mistake. However try section 43(1) and possibly section 1 PACE. Your opinon that you are either under arrest or free to go is not strictly correct, you can be detained for the purpose of a search.

I have not quoted section 44, as I have no idea if this was specificly authorised by a ACC.

Paper tiger, most things Police attend are false alarms. However not being blessed with ESP there is no way of knowing this until you arrive and deal with it. As for the 20 something etc discription of a police officer you give...interesting but cobblers.
Feel free to rejoin the real world any time you like.

No one seems to know what the cause of this was, therefore speculating as to why this or that could or didn't happen is pointless. There are reasons why it may have not been appropriate to announce what the problem was, it may be that that decision was wrong. I don't know and niether do you.

At the end of the day which would you all rather.....People getting killed so you can enjoy a few 'freedoms' or a a bit of inconvience?

PaperTiger
24th Sep 2004, 23:13
No one seems to know what the cause of this was

Except the BBC perhaps:Armed police were called after a suspicious object was spotted in a passenger's hand baggage.although quite how this was 'spotted' 20 minutes after take off I can't say :hmm:
And I think that pretty much rules out 'not knowing what you're dealing with'.

People getting killed so you can enjoy a few 'freedoms'

Do you really think a report from a screener who an hour or so ago may or may not have seen 'something' (not, as it turns out) leads to the conclusion that people will be getting killed in a gate lounge at EMA surrounded by armed police ? Yer helmet's too tight I think.

BTW, interesting that you see the need to put freedom in quotes, but perhaps not surprising.

ShyTorque
25th Sep 2004, 00:44
BJCC,

Noted your answer (the tone of which, I must say, I found very pompous), directly following my earlier post.

I too can guess why this particular incident occurred. It isn't, as you put it, "a gut reaction to half a story". Due to the nature of my job, I am personally responsible for the security of my own aircraft and pax, often not helped by security staff. My own recent experiences at airports make me reluctant to fly anywhere as a passenger these days unless I really have to.

From my own experience at that particular airport, there is an ongoing issue with staffing resources. I am not saying the actual security is deficient, but the point is that in these troubled times, sufficient staff must be made available in order to cater for incidents like this, or the public are going to stay away from air travel altogether. My point was that if there had been more staff available to deal with confirmation of security and re-process the passengers, it would surely have resulted in a better outcome for all. As a professional pilot I don't accept the "like it or lump it" attitude. We must NOT allow deficiencies in handling of these situations. The passengers pay my salary.

I, like the average person, have no personal objection to being searched or checked in the name of security, however often, provided that it is done in a professional, considerate and expeditious manner. Unfortunately it appears that these people were not searched or questioned, merely delayed, detained, inconvenienced and denied normal facilities without a satisfactory explanation. I sincerely hope this isn't a glimpse of things to come.

If this story is accurate and I don't disbelieve the first hand accounts, it seems the terrorists have achieved their aim, which is to disrupt our system and way of life.

Your quote:
<Complain to your MP if that makes you feel better, it will be investigated and it will waste a large amount of money (the paperwork and time involved is huge in complaints against police) which could be better employed fighting crime, but then its your money paid out in taxes so think about how you'd like it spent.....You'd be better complaining to the airlines, its thier responsibility to feed you, not the Police.> Unquote.

:confused: Totally irrelevant to my post. I never mentioned food or a possible complaint to the police or my MP.

However, if it is true that passengers were aware that the security staff and police were being fed and watered while they themselves were denied the same, it is totally unacceptable.

Ranger One
25th Sep 2004, 01:50
bjcc:

The resposiblity to feed pax is the airlines, irrespective of what you may think.

To which FR might quite reasonably say to the Police: 'Sure - they can buy food on the plane. Or they can buy food in the terminal. You won't let them do either? Oh, well then it's your problem now. You've detained them, you get to feed them.'

Exactly as if they were in the cells.

Wonder if any of them had the nouse to phone for pizza delivery?! :)

Backtrack, Why should Police refuse to allow food in? No reason that I can think of.

Me neither. Let's face it, we have no clue as to who said what to whom. Perhaps the Police said 'ok, they can be brought food' but see above. Could be any number of screw-ups between Police, FR, airport managment, and caterers. We're guessing. Doesn't matter; the end result was the pax got no food or water, and that's just wrong. And the Police preventing them from leaving the area was the proximate cause of the problem. As for threatening a bit of unoffical 'punishment' if pax insisted on using the bathroom... well that's indefensible.

bjcc, I'm not the enemy - in fact I applied for, and was accepted to, the NYPD equivalent of the Special Constabulary (I didn't complete my training due to moving out of the area). I'd still say that a lot of people were detained for a long time on highly dubious legal grounds (since they were neither searched nor questioned), and the issues with food, water, lack of information, and toiletting, when 99% of the people *must* be innocent, and probably 100% can't be considered genuine suspects - just plain wrong!

R1

Final 3 Greens
25th Sep 2004, 07:08
BJCC

I must agree with ShyTorque that you post is pompous and would also add patronising.

However, let us deal with the facts, rather than your unsubstantiated opinion.

Firstly, there is no contract with the airline to provide food or drink, the contract makes that clear. After the airborne return, it is doutbful that there was a contract at all, due to the principle of force majeure.

So we have people, detained, who are allegedly given neither food nor water for five hours.

I repeat my assertion that a senior officer should have had the nouse to arrange, at least, supplies of water - five hours is a long time without.

If you wish to differ, you can have your own opinion. I find your opinion unworthy.

24 years ago, I heard the same stories of how it used to be I am not quoting stories, I observed these things in the northern industrial town that I lived in from 1967 to 1983. In this town, the police constables now drive in pairs and wear Kevlar waistcoats.

So please tell me how long you lived in my town? In fact, please tell me the name of my town.

Then you have earned the right to tell me it never happened. Until then, I would prefer if you did not make such comments.

Backtrack
25th Sep 2004, 14:11
Backtrack, Why should Police refuse to allow food in? No reason that I can think of.
Pleased to hear it, BJCC. Iwas only interpreting what was written which was " refused access to food, drink and only limited access to toilets etc." (N.B.: REFUSED ACCESS).

You have, however, missed the point; it is not about 'refusing to allow food in', but allowing people out to provide for themselves.

I agree with you that the police are not a division of 'Burger King' - a bit flippant - and , in such circumstances, I'm not sure who is 'responsible' (laws on contract & tort notwithstanding). It doesn't appear to be the airline's fault the flight had to turn back.

Something else that puzzles me. If the a/c had been airborne for 20 mins, why did it have to return to EMA? After this amount of time, it would have been about 100nm from it's departure point, so if there was a serious security breach/suspicion/cock-up etc, why not land at the nearest suitable aiport? I don't know where the flight was heading, but a 100nm radius around EMA brings in a heck of a lot of 'suitable airports'.

bjcc
26th Sep 2004, 19:26
Final 3 Greens


Limited access to toilets is refused access is it? Where there is water also perhaps?

Let them out to get thier own food...interesting idea, of course how stupid of the police...detain pax regarding a security incident, then let them wander off looking for food????? I wonder why they didn't do that?

As for guess the northern town, quite honestly I can't be bothered, just ask yourself why what you claim happens doesn't any more...Perhaps if Dixon of Dock Green had had a flack jacket he wouldn't have been murdered in the film 'the blue light'

Unsubstaniated opinon? Well thats all this post is, mostly... The full reeason for this incident have not been revealed, a 'suspcious object' part of the story, but from that point onwards what happens police wise is dependent on wht the object is suspected to be. No one knows...inclucing me. I can see however there would be circumstances depending on what the objects suspected to be when police action would be exactly this...or ven in some cases more dreconian. You can find me pompous over it, tough. unlike you I have had to deal with this sort of thing.

Yes the pax probably do still have a contract with the airlines, they having not forfilled thier side of it. They also have a duty of care towards the pax, which it could be said include the provision of food. The fact that Police made no such arrangements makes me think theat the Police relied on the airline to do it. In any case there is NO contract with Police on the subject. The passengers were detained (as in the old S.66 MPA Stop, search and DETAIN) not arrested.

Ranger One...I'm sorry where does the 'punishment' for visiting the bathroom come into it?

Ranger One
27th Sep 2004, 01:35
bjcc:

Ranger One...I'm sorry where does the 'punishment' for visiting the bathroom come into it?

In the usenet thread (google groups) I quoted in my initial post, a passenger who was on the flight reported:

The initial response from the police was " No you cant use the toilet" when this was challenged, the officer said, "if you don't do as I say, I will make sure that you don't fly out of EMA today" In fact none of us flew!

In other words, it's clear there was a threat - if a passenger insisted on being allowed to use the toilet (reasonable request), the officer would make a point of making things 'difficult' for them (unreasonable).

Note in all this I'm not saying that in detaining the passengers the Police did anything they didn't reasonably feel they had to do. It probably seemed the necessary thing to do at the time, and I'd be wary of second-guessing the Police decisons from my armchair with all the benefit of hindsight. Exactly as I would when people second-guess the actions of an aircraft commander without all the evidence.

The point I AM making is that there seems (from other posts I've read, here and elsewhere) to be at least some degree of doubt as to whether the detentions were lawful. And they certainly weren't pleasant, due to lack of refreshments and difficulty with toiletting.

Perhaps there needs to be a change in the law to make it clear that the police DO have the power to act as they did in such situations, and procedures must be put in place to ensure that the reasonable needs of passengers so detained are met - and to make explicit who is responsible for meeting them - since such situations will undoubtedly occur again.

The industry is in a dire enough situation already without own goals like this!

R1

The Disco Volante
28th Sep 2004, 18:03
bjcc

You use the word detain again. There is no such power, other than for the purposes of a stop and search. This was obviously not a stop and search. If it were, the following principles apply.

1 Principles governing stop and search
1.1 Powers to stop and search must be used fairly, responsibly, with respect for people being searched and without unlawful discrimination.
1.2 The intrusion on the liberty of the person stopped or searched must be brief and detention for the purposes of a search must take place at or near the location of the stop.
1.3 If these fundamental principles are not observed the use of powers to stop and search may be drawn into question. Failure to use the powers in the proper manner reduces their effectiveness. Stop and search can play an important role in the detection and prevention of crime, and using the powers fairly makes them more effective.
1.4 The primary purpose of stop and search powers is to enable officers to allay or confirm suspicions about individuals without exercising their power of arrest. Officers may be required to justify the use or authorisation of such powers, in relation both to individual searches and the overall pattern of their activity in this regard, to their supervisory officers or in court. Any misuse of the powers is likely to be harmful to policing and lead to mistrust of the police. Officers must also be able to explain their actions to the member of the public searched. The misuse of these powers can lead to disciplinary action.


And each person detained would have to be informed of

(a) the constable's name and the name of the police station to which he is attached;

(b) the object of the proposed search;

(c) the constable's grounds for proposing to make it

And if there were a power to "detain" other than for the purposes of a brief search, do you seriously suggest that the person detained would not be entitled to an explanation as to why he was being detained, and food and drink and lavatory facilities from the person who was detaining him?

Most importantly, after each person had been detained and searched, he would be free be go about his lawful business. The power cannot be used to detain hundreds of people at a time.

Final 3 Greens
28th Sep 2004, 18:57
BJCC

I am forced to wonder whether you can read very well?

Limited access to toilets is refused access is it? Where there is water also perhaps? Where did I mention access to the toilet? Water is drawn from taps, not toilets (at least in the circles I move in) and taps are found in many locations. Jugs and other containers are often used to move water from the location of the tap to other places too, but it does require a degree of common sense and initiative to do this, admittedly.

Yes the pax probably do still have a contract with the airlines Do you understand the concept of force majeure? Do you understand what a frustrated contract is?

Please review clause 9.3 of the FR general conditions of carriage, what part of this do you have trouble understanding?

9.3 DIVERSIONS
If, for reasons outside our control, we are unable to land at the airfield at your destination
and are diverted so as to land at another airfield then the carriage by air shall, unless the
aircraft continues to the original destination, be deemed to be completed when the aircraft
arrives at that other airfield. We shall, however, arrange or designate alternative
transportation, whether by our own services or by other means of transportation specified by
us to carry you to the original destination as set out in your Ticket without additional cost.

You say "Unsubstaniated opinon? Well thats all this post is, mostly... The full reeason for this incident have not been revealed, a 'suspcious object' part of the story, but from that point onwards what happens police wise is dependent on wht the object is suspected to be. No one knows...inclucing me. I can see however there would be circumstances depending on what the objects suspected to be when police action would be exactly this...or ven in some cases more dreconian. You can find me pompous over it, tough. unlike you I have had to deal with this sort of thing."

I have no comment to make about why the Police took their action and am prepared to believe that it was totally justified.

However:

1) FR do not have a contractual obligation to feed and water the pax IMHO

and

2) I stand by my comment over the alleged lack of provision of water

As for guess the northern town, quite honestly I can't be bothered, just ask yourself why what you claim happens doesn't any more...Perhaps if Dixon of Dock Green had had a flack jacket he wouldn't have been murdered in the film 'the blue light' OK, so you were talking speculativey, you didn't live there.

As I recall, Tom Riley shot George Dixon dead, so presumably would have adjusted his aim, thus rendering the flak jacket ineffective, but as Dixon of Dock Green never happened, neither by implication did the Blue Lamp, from which the series was derived, so your argument is hopelessy illogical :}

Backtrack
28th Sep 2004, 20:53
Sorry to be a pain on this point, Ladies & Gents, but I really am confused.

Having taken a peek at FR's website I can only find 2 services ex EMA, both going to Spain (there may be others, but then I'm not terribly good with my PC.)

This means - assuming the a/c was flying south - that after 20mins, the flight would be in the area of the Channel. On the instructions of ATC it then returned to EMA, where, after coming on chocks, it was not disembarked for a further 30 mins. Then we run into the detention and all the other good stuff previously posted.

JUST HOW SERIOUS WAS THIS THREAT THAT ALLOWED AN A/C TO HAVE PEOPLE ON BOARD FOR THIS LENGTH OF TIME?

radeng
29th Sep 2004, 10:42
It does seem logical to my mind that if the police have taken charge of the PAX, the airline isn't responsible.

bjcc feels that complaining would be wasting police time and tax payers money. My reaction to that is

GOOD!

Because if they can keep people for four hours without food and water and lavatory access, how much longer can they do it? What about the poor old boy with prostate problems? Is he expected to p** himself?

It's only by complaining loud and long and costing money when authority is misused that it can be stopped. Remember, people in Germany in 1933 didn't see much to complain about at first...........'When they came for me, there was nobody left to speak out'

Boss Raptor
29th Sep 2004, 12:07
Totally agree with the above comment;

I do not profess to know the legislation or the procedures but if the police are holding persons under the various anti-terrorist legislations as already covered then surely they should at least be individually notified (possibly both verbally and in writing? cautioned?) that they are being held under these powers?! If not then they have been held unlawfully...

Sadly the whole 9/11 scenario, TSA et al has spawned a bunch of mini hitlers who believe they have absolute powers above and beyond what is legislated/allowed, who believe they are not accountable...the only answer to bring this bunch to task is to make them acutely aware that their position and cushy pensions etc. are/will be at risk should they not act in a more acceptable/professional manner within the confines of their position and the appropriate legislation.

Make them realise they are accountable...complain and embarrass them with the public/press and cost them/their organisation a lot of money in the process :E

slim_slag
29th Sep 2004, 19:15
Compensation for False Imprisonment guidelines start at #500 for the first hour and slides till it reaches #3000 for 24 hours (The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Thompson and Hsu)

So call it a round thousand pounds for 4 hours unlawful detention, multiply by the reported 190 on the plane and the cops could be in the hole for close on 200k.

Or rather the poor suffering council tax payers would end up paying out, people who (contrary to what bjcc obviously thinks) are entitled to expect the cops are there to make their lives inconvenience free, and also there to protect their 'freedoms' which date back to a long time before Dixon of Dock Green was around.

Memetic
29th Sep 2004, 20:15
although I can't say I find my own views directly aligned with much of the stuff on :

http://www.urban75.com/Action/index2.html


it has some interesting info on rights when being detained.


And anyone actually involved may like to visit:

https://www.secure-website.com/liberty-human-rights.org.uk/Liberty%20query%20form

Personally i'm all for effective security and a strong defense for the UK, but a balance must be struck so that the power that WE grant our government is used to protect those freedoms not remove them.

In the above case from the point where the aircraft was not diverted to the nearest suitable airport, or perhaps STN as the "designated" airport for security problems, judgement and balance seem to have started to slip away.

shiftzz
30th Sep 2004, 20:54
Reply to my complaint sent via Newsgroup

"Leicstershire Constabulary, and the Inspector who was in charge at EMA that day was kind enough to offer to speak to me to discuss what happened. The following points emerged:

1. The cause of the incident was a 'security alert' pertaining NOT toa specific flight but to all the passengers who passed through
security during a 'specific time period'. More facts about exactly
what happened will probably emerge in due course as this was a DoT/CAA 'reportable incident'.

2. This resulted in the need to 100% (bag search/pat down) rescreen around 1300 passengers. I think (but cannot recall precisely) it was said that the Ryanair flight was the only one affected that had actually departed - and it was only a few minutes from departure, ten minutes according to the Inspector.

3. The passengers from the Ryanair flight were kept together as a
group, as were the passengers for many other flights in other areas of the terminal. They weren't so much detained as being kept waiting as a group to pass through screening together.

4. With 1300 passengers to 100% rescreen, this process was ineveitably going to take a considerable time. The Police, in co-operation with the airport authority and the security people, tried to do this as expeditiously as possible. In particular, it became evident that some flights, due to takeoff slot availability and crew duty time availabilty, *were* going to be able to depart at something close to their scheduled time, and passengers from those flights were pushed to the front of the re-screening queue. Other flights were never going to make it due to no slot or crew running out of duty time, and were inevitably going to have to be cancelled. The passengers for those flights were delayed longer.

5. Someone was always going to be 'last in the queue' and on this occasion it was the Ryanair flight - bad luck. The Inspector was dubious about the time kept waiting, thought it would have been less than the quoted four hours.

6. The Inspector stated that he had no problem with refreshments being taken in to passengers being kept waiting, if Ryanair or the airport authority decided to do so. He wasn't prepared to let the passengers roam the terminal to get their own food, as it was essential to pushing people through security as fast as possible that the passengers from each flight be kept together. He freely confessed that providing refreshments for the passengers 'wasn't his highest priority', and given the three-ring circus he was running that day, I have some sympathy for him!

7. I still wonder why it wasn't possible, at some stage in the
proceedings, to move the Ryanair passengers, who *had* after all been waiting a long time, to a more central area of the terminal where they could be kept together but still access refreshments.

8. No instruction was issued concerning not allowing passengers to use the bathroom, or requiring them to escorted when doing so. It's possible that this was implemented by a lower-ranking officer in the Ryanair area, in response to a perceived concern that a weapon may have been sneaked through security and could be disposed of in the bathroom.

9. No formal complaints have been received as a result of this
incident.

10. The powers to detain/control the movement of passengers in this situation come from the fact that the passengers were airside, and thus subject to the laws concerning aviation/maritime security, and also were in a Customs controlled area. I'd need to bone up on the actual law to find the specific powers. "

Thoughts?


ShiftZZ

Boss Raptor
2nd Oct 2004, 22:18
Rubbish...so they are no longer claiming they were holding you under appropriate Anti Terrorist legislation (as they did not individually notify you that you were being detained/processed under anti terrorist legislation and so therefore you would have been held unlawfully) and as such then they are basically saying you were free to go at any time you chose i.e. return landside...and that they didn't keep you in a secure (locked) area and didnt refuse u access to toilets etc.- well that isn't quite as you experienced at the time was it shiftZZ...

I'd lodge a formal complaint...see how much Police time and individuals pensions that wastes/screws up...sure some Civil Liberties groups or similar will have full chapter and verse on this one and luv every minute of it

They are trying the usual 'we screwed up and we hope u dont know the rules' approach