Police Officer in gun "joke" at MAN

[newswatcher]

From the London "Evening Standard":

"A senior police officer was barred from boarding a plane after joking to airport staff that he had a gun.

Insp John Orr made the comment as officials at Manchester airport searched his hand luggage during increased security checks following the US terror attacks.

When they confiscated a penknife they found in his case, he joked: "Watch it, I've got a gun".

A heated exchange followed in which he produced his warrant card and airline officials eventually called in police, who escorted him from the building.

Insp Orr and his wife Linda were heading for a holiday in Crete and passengers on the flight were held up for 40 minutes as a result of the fracas.

Greater Manchester Police has confirmed that an investigation into the alleged incident was under way.

A police source said: "I'm not sure what comment he made but with the current heightened state of alert any form of comment is inappropriate."

Insp Orr, who works in Greater Manchester Police's traffic division, is now at home on leave while an investigation is carried out."


:mad: :mad: :mad:

[The Guvnor]

Six months in Strangeways would be about right for such asinine behaviour. It doesn't matter who you are, it's an offence under the Aviation and Maritime Security Act to make a false declaration about such matters.

Next case please!

[swashplate]

Would you trust his judgement as a Police Officer?

What a crass remark - at any time!!!

Bue esp now!!!!! :mad:


Dunno about Strangeways 4* hotel, but def sack the ******......

[Wycombe]

What a very stupid man

[GonvilleBromhead]

Is it not clear to pax that such remarks at anytime never mind now, are just a) not funny and b) completely not on.

I may be being naive, but these sort of comments are made frequently by the "joking public" who do see them as "jokes" (God only knows why).

What does it take to get it through their idiotic skulls that this is serious ? I know to the vast majority of the travelling public comments like this are completely crass, but for the minority of idiots can it not be highlighted by bloody big posters at airports if necessary, that comments like this WILL lead to IMMEDIATE arrest and possible banning orders from future flights ??

Or as I say, am I being naive....

As for this policeman, I sincerely hope his superiors throw the bloody book at him !!!

:mad:

[JAGS2]

Was this guy not in charge of glasgow constabulary at one time or was it someone of the same name ?

[Gaza]

Was this guy not in charge of glasgow constabulary at one time or was it someone of the same name ?

Sir John Orr was the Chief Constable of Lothian and Borders Police. Don't think it's the same person!!

[Julian]

I would have thought by now that even us lowly pax, not just Police officers, should know by now that you NEVER joke with airport security/customs officers! They take (and quite rightly too), every comment seriously!

Julian.

[Eff Oh]

Govnor....For once I totally 100% agree with you!
Silly, silly man!
As posted, not the same guy as Sir John Orr. :)
Eff Oh.

[exeng]

I see he worked (or did work) in 'Traffic'. Perhaps that would go some way to explain the mentality behind his little 'joke'.


Regards
Exeng

[harpy]

Have you all lost your sense of proportion? The worst he can be accused of is making an unwise remark out of frustration at having his pen knife confiscated. Hardly a reason for refusing him boarding. I suspect he might be a good man to have on board during an attempted hijack.

[GonvilleBromhead]

Harpy, and what happens when something does kick off on board when all the arses out there are making these crass remarks ?? Security are hardly likely to say "Doh ! Hey guys he wasn't kidding, ****** !"

Yes ok, but when talking of sense of proportions, you don't mess around at airport security, full stop. May seem draconian, but anything less is irresponsible to the remaining pax and crew.

If I was behind this arse or persons like him at security, I wouldn't want to sit next to that type of person on board. His attitude at security would typify him as a complete wan*er anyway. And if as you suggest he was getting arsey and frustrated about having his penknife confiscated in the current climate, what type of idiot are we dealing with here ???

[Max Continuous]

Harpy, couldn't agree with you more. All sense of proportion has disappeared with regards to security. Comments above such as "NEVER joke with security...." "the joking public" etc. play into the hands of jobsworths everywhere whose increased sense of power makes all our lives more miserable.

Let's face it, 99.999999999% of all flights are unaffected by terrorism. All the security in the world wouldn't have helped prevent the recent atrocities. It's just like saying if speed cameras round every corner in the land prevented the loss of just one life it would be worth installing them everywhere. Crap! Life is risky. Without actually banning ban all cars then some people will still be killed on the road, whatever preventive measures you take.

You have to balance the loss of 3,000 odd lives lost on the roads each year in the UK with which society considers acceptable (or else it would ban all cars) against the inconvenience of a disrupted lifestyle.

Same with terrorists. If you rubber-gloved every single passenger going anywhere by air, (leading, incidentally, to a massive reduction in passengers because of the hassle and huge delays, and therefore a lot of us losing our jobs as a direct consequence, which is probably already happening),you still won't be helping to prevent terrorism. These guys aren't just going to say "Fair cop, guv, we'll be nice world citizens from now on", they're going to go on and bomb the crap out of other targets, such as trains, cruise ships and city centres maybe with biological and chemical weapons.

So, following this logic,in the end we'll all be rubber-gloved the minute we step outside our homes. And what do security people know, anyway? After all, it was them telling everyone in the second WTC tower that the building was "secure" and people should return to their desks......

[Gumshoe]

I prefer this sort of puplicity.

Hopefully all the would be thugs that get pissed and shout at the crew with impunity will realise that the game has changed and we are going to play hard ball with anyone who even comes close to threatening our A/c.

The days of air rage resulting in a slap on the wrist at least are over.... hopefully.

If we can get the pax to wind their necks in we shall stand a better chance of telling the difference between them and terrorists.

[harpy]

Gumshoe

Quote:
"If we can get the pax to wind their necks in we shall stand a better chance of telling the difference between them and terrorists."

I don't think so. A hijacker is unlikely to make a joke at a security officer's expense. That would draw attention to him. He will be very well behaved until the moment comes to act.

Julian

Quote:
"I would have thought by now that even us lowly pax, not just Police officers, should know by now that you NEVER joke with airport security/customs officers! They take (and quite rightly too), every comment seriously!
Julian."

Did you know that Customs Officers still bypass security? That IS a joke.

[Keg]

In a former life I worked on a passenger screening point at a terminal in Australia.

This bloke in shorts and a T-shirt sets off the metal detector and I call him over. Wave the wand over him and it goes off about where his buckle would have been. I ask if he has a buckle and he says 'no but I have this' and lifts up his shirt to reveal the butt of a '38 Special sticking out.

I took a half step back and was about to clock the bloke as hard as I could when I notice a bright police badge in my face and his smiling face behind it.

After telling the (off duty) prat what a w@nker he was he started getting uppity and at one stage tried threatening me because I was 'making trouble'.

He quietened down conisderably when I used his name that I had observed on his warrant card and took him around to the front of the machine and showed him the sign where it said that it was an offence to NOT declare those items (and it didn't matter if he was a cop or not).

After explaining the penalty unit system for such a transgression and the fact that he certainly wouldn't be able to be a cop anymore I suggested that he take his funny (also off duty) mate (who had put his bumbag through the x-ray machine with his gun in it and also didn't mention anything about it) and p!ss off before I arrested them!

Some people are just dickheads with too much power!

[rnobson]

wonder if anyone needs "evidence" any furriners with a $3 an hour job who takes a dislike to anyone just needs to comment to his buds " HE said Gun" and the poor pax is a dead duck

[airbuddie]

Extracted from The Manchester Evening News 28-09-2001

Cop Jokes " I've got a bomb"

A POLICE officer caused a security alert at Manchester Airport and was barred from a holiday jet after joking that he had a bomb in his luggage.
Inspector John Orr was told he would not be allowed on the plane after the ''flippant and insensitive'' comment to security staff.

Today, the motorway patrol officer, who has served in Greater Manchester for 28 years, is under investigation by the force.

Airport bosses have branded Insp Orr ''irresponsible'', while a police colleague described his remarks as ''unbelievable'' in light of the terrorist attacks on America.

Police were called to Ringway's Terminal 2 on Tuesday night by a security guard amid claims that Insp Orr, who was heading to Crete with his wife, made a remark about a bomb.

Staff later told bosses that he said: ''I have a bomb in my bag.''

Apology

He apologised for the joke, but was not allowed on the Excel Airways flight to Heraklion.

It is believed the incident occurred at 8.45pm when the officer, a father in his mid-40s, had a verbal exchange with a security guard who found a small penknife when checking his hand-luggage.

It is unlikely that Insp Orr, based at Birch Services near Oldham on the M62, will be charged with a criminal offence, but he could face disciplinary action.

A Ringway insider said: ''He made a flippant and insensitive remark about a bomb. In the current climate it was sheer madness.''

An airport spokeswoman said: ''It is highly irresponsible for anyone to make threats about security while going through airport procedures and, in certain circumstances, false statements about luggage can constitute an offence.''

She added: ''Any remark made by a passenger which suggests a threat to security at the airport is taken seriously.''

Senior officers - said to be furious at the incident - have now been called in to investigate the allegations, which come amid heightened security at Ringway. Last night there was no reply at Insp Orr's home in Tameside.

A senior police officer said: ''It is unbelievable that anyone could find such a remark funny after the terrible tragedy in America.''

A Greater Manchester Police spokesman confirmed: ''An investigation has been launched.''

stupid fool!!

[Julian]

Max - I still stand by my comments, I dont know how you can call security 'jobsworth'! I am sure if a arab guy was stood in front of you in the queue having his penknife confiscated and he said 'Hey I have a bomb too' you would want guy the drag him aside and give in a once over, or maybe he was only joking........

Harpy - Not sure what you mean by your comment, could you expand please.

Julian.

[Wycombe]

No matter how stupid we think they are, it is a sad fact that there are some people in this World who think it's funny to cause unnecessary worry to others at times like this.

Last Friday evening I was pax'ing TFS-LGW on JMC772L.

After security, whilst waiting to board, my mother (whilst taking my young kids for a pre-flight visit to the loo) spotted a guy
(not Brit, but possibly Continental European)sitting "playing" with a penknife in the departure lounge.

She was quite worried by this, and we decided that we would try to find someone from security/police to tell - trouble was that in the 10 mins we had before boarding we couldn't find anyone!!

In fact, the airport security in TFS seemed no different to normal (no bag searching, no armed police) - which was in complete contrast to what we found on arrival at LGW.

Having said all this - full marks to JMC, who had a polite, but firm lady (just what's needed in the circumstances) advising us all of all the items we needed to remove from our hand baggage if necessary. I'm pleased to report that my fellow pax took it seriously and a lot of them also checked-in bags that they might otherwise have carried on.

[The Guvnor]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the issue is not so much what he said (which in any case makes him a tw@t) but rather the fact that he's one of the thin blue line that's supposed to be protecting us from the bad guys and that he - more than anyone - should be aware that (a) it's not funny and (b) an offence under the Aviation and Maritime Security Act.

I note too that GMP - who are not infrequently a dirty dark grey shade when it comes to matters of honesty and probity - are saying that the officer concerned will not be prosecuted. Why not? I agree that it's a relatively minor thing but in this case it's the principle.

Send him down!

[Max Continuous]

Julian, I think the point Harpy is making is that we might actually all be safer from terrorists planning to hijack an aircraft, if we, the pilots, cabin crew and fare-paying passengers were permitted to carry on to aircraft certain household items such as pen-knives, nail-clippers and syringes which could, in extremis, be used as offensive weapons. I'd personally feel a lot safer knowing most passengers were thus "armed" in the event that a group of nutters on board decided to try to take over the aircraft. At least we've got something to fight with.

I fear that in our feminised and nanny society, it's only the criminals allowed to proceed unhindered, as we've seen recently with the introduction of new gun laws in the UK. All very emotionally correct, though.

Gumshoe, and others who think the pax should "wind their necks in", I cannot think of a more arrogant attitude towards our customers - in case you hadn't noticed, these people directly pay our salaries. Let's face it, as industry "pros" we're all up our own a*ses with the delights of aviation, but it will probably come as a shock to you that most people find flying one of the least pleasant ways of travelling, uncomfortable and de-humanising as it is. A lot of flyers are about to lose their jobs in the coming slump and we need to keep every customer we can. Your attitude does not help.

[aidybennett]

Max Cont'
I don't think there NEEDS to be a 'sense of proportion' in these cases. Aviation is a bloody serious buisiness and anyone who can't except that should p*** off. Even if they do directly pay the wages. If anyone can't see that to make a joke of the "I've got a gun/bomb" nature isn't going to seriously upset everyone concerned then they're a compete idiot. Who needs it?
Incidently, when I was out in Melbourne, Florida, at the beginning of this year, when I got to the airport there was a DC-9 or MD80 of Spirit Airlines sitting on the end of the runway with all the doors open (no slides) and a lot of emergency and airport police around it. Turned out that during the taxi one of the pax said to his neibour "I've got a bomb in my bag." Delayed the aircraft by about two hours. I bet the other pax and the crew (and anyone else effected) didn't have much sense of proportion left afterwards.

[PETERJ]

Max
Glad someone at last has raised the issue of paxs' reactions. Flying is for the majority of people a nail biting experience and increased security, essential as it is, doesn't help. I speak as someone who refuses to drive from Scotland to any of the other big cities in the UK because of the mayhem on the motorway system and refuses to use trains because of their unreliabilty, I take coaches instead and use taxis. I've also cancelled two non-business jaunts since WTC....one to Los Angeles and one to Portugal....I don't need the hassle of three hour check-ins and hanging about crowded airsides bored witless (s***less?). Admittedly I'd have a hell of a job finding a Scotland-Lax or Scotland-Lisbon coach service service but what the hell there are other things to do . Airline Marketing people ....note. And watch what the take up of RyanAir's £10 go-anywhere offer is.

Regards
PeterJ :confused:

[Ontheairwaves]

If that was anybody else they would have had them in court already,yet this guy is ONLY on leave......throw away the Key and make sure an example is made :mad: :mad: :mad:

[chiglet]

I have "heard" that a "furriner", aka an American did the same....and got 18 months at HMP! :D Perhaps,,,,,, :rolleyes:
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

[harpy]

Perhaps the reason he hasn't been charged is that he hasn't committed an offence. It's not yet a crime to make a flippant remark. And we don't know whether the security officer provoked the remark by an excess of officiousness. Some of them (but by no means all) are very officious.

And how did the gentlemen of the press get his name? Could it be that a security officer made a nice little earner?


Julian.

I meant that H M Customs are not required to go through security when they go airside. That makes a joke of a security regime that confiscates miniature pen knives and nail files from pilots. If a pilot can't be trusted, should we trust a Customs Officer?

[fudpucker]

Actually Harpy, as The Guv says(about the only time I've ever agreed with anything he's said) it is an offence.

[Bealzebub]

I hope he din't speed through a camera on the way home, otherwise he might have to forget who was actually driving the car. No wait that was another senior police officer.

[kaikohe76]

Am I correct in my understanding that at all UK airports, neither local airport security staff, customs personnel or uniformed police officres, are subject to any of the security measures and checks at all.

[harpy]

fudpucker

If it is an offence, would you mind if I ask you to quote me line and verse from the relevant statute?

I hope you're wrong, perhaps we're not as free as I thought.

[bbrown]

kaikohe76 you are not correct. At least not where Gatwick is concerned. At Gatwick all the flatfoots go through the security checks and then all of their knives, guns and other weapons are handed back to them.

Its a funny old world!

[newswatcher]

Harpy, try section 21a of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act.

False statements relating to baggage, cargo etc.

21A. — (1) Subject to subsection (3) below, a person commits an offence if, in answer to a question which—
(a) relates to any baggage, cargo or stores (whether belonging to him or to another) that is or are intended for carriage by a civil aircraft registered or operating in the United Kingdom, and
(b) is put to him for purposes to which this Part of this Act applies— (i) by any of the persons mentioned in subsection (2) below, (ii) by any employee or agent of such a person in his capacity as employee or agent, or (iii) by a constable,he makes a statement which he knows to be false in a material particular, or recklessly makes a statement which is false in a material particular.
..........................................
(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale

[ 28 September 2001: Message edited by: newswatcher ]

[harpy]

Newswatcher

As far as we are aware, the remark by the passenger was not in answer to a question. This might seem like hair-splitting but, in law, hair-splitting is allowed. No one has suggested that it was anything other than a joke, possibly in answer to an officious security officer. If I am ever hijacked, I would rather have him on board than the security officer who reported him.

[Out Of Trim]

Harpy & Max Cont' - Are you serious? you both sound incredibly stupid to me! I would not hesitate to offload any pax that made any hoax type comments - even before the tragedies in New York and Washington; yet to do so after these events is crass in the extreme - I hope never to have to rely on your judgement ever. :rolleyes: :eek: :confused:

[HugMonster]

I have to agree with that last posting.

When I was PV'ed, I was warned not to make any "joking" responses to anything. What I said had to be taken at face value.

The same goes here. There are no jokes in Aviation Security. There is nothing funny about having a gun or a bomb on board an aircraft. This policeman should have known better, and should have displayed better judgement. If, as captain, I knew about such an incident, and was asked if I was willing to carry him, my answer would have been firmly in the negative.

Perhaps we can understand why he is only a traffic cop.

[Silkman]

To detain someone under the Aviation & Maritime act the 'person' concerned must say his 'alleged' comment twice. In this case Mr.Orr said his unfortunate remark to the security officer, who then asked him what he had said and Mr.Orr,alleegedly and stupidly repeated his remark. The Police were called and Mr.Orr was detained.
To say it once was stupid, to say it twice, in his position,beggars belief....

[Gaza]

Insensitive? Yes
Stupid? Yes
Deserved to be offloaded/arrested/charged? No
Bollocked publically/privately? Yes

For many people going to their two weeks in the sun is the only time they are on an aircraft. We have no idea what was actually said and the tone it was said in. As well as being demob happy he may well have had a couple of beers. As most pax check their brains in with their luggage he probably spoke first then thought later.

Would the same fuss have been made if his occupation was different?

[chiglet]

Gaza,
No, it would not make any differece if he had had a different job. 3-4 times a year at MAN people are "done" for this sort of remark, and there have been at least one "holiday" courtesy HMP
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

[harpy]

Out Of Trim

Yes I am serious. It wasn't a hoax. He didn't attempt to deceive the security officer into believing he had a gun. He made a flippant remark, possibly under provocation. He didn't expect to be taken seriously.

We won't combat the hijack menace by cowing the passengers before they get on the aeroplane. We might even make it easier for the hijackers. Our best defence against the sort of hijacks we have seen recently is the passenger who is prepared to speak up and if necessary take action to help us. So in the unlikely event I find myself in the dire position the pilots found themselves in on 11th, the more passengers like Mr Orr down the back the better.

I am not saying we should tolerate disruptive behaviour. I would like to see the courts deal far more severely with it than they do. But I hope I have enough common sense to distinguish between real disruption and an unfortunate remark born of frustration.

And if some bright spark at DTLR thinks he's improving security by confiscating nail files from pilots, he's taking his salary under false pretences.

[anawanahuanana]

A comment like that deserved nothing less than a particularly extensive full cavity search.

[Max Tout]

Well said Harpy, Max Continuous, Gaza .. Nice to see a sense of proportion being expressed with well considered and articulate comments amongst the predictable 'Send him down' vindictive clamour.

[fudpucker]

Somebody has kindly answered for me, Harpy, I forget their "handle", but thanks.
The point here, I think, is that a police officer, and a reasonably senior one at that,should A) know the law, and B)in the present circumstances have enough sense not to break the law.
I would accept that 99.99% of pax would not know that they are actually committing an offence by "joking" about having a weapon etc etc in their possession, and under those circumstances a private bollocking by a uniform might suffice~if they continued to be unrepentant, then being denied boarding would probably prove both a sufficient and salutary lesson.
In this case, the individual most certainly should have known better. Even if he had a couple of pre-hol drinks, the fact that he was asked to repeat his remarks should have been sufficient warning that he had overstepped the mark. If he had enough alcohol to impair his judgement, then he should have been denied boarding anyway.
Sorry to drone on, but we in the industry are already suffering enough from "knee-jerk" reactions of various sorts, and writing this as an airline captain, I and the rest of my colleagues already see enough mindless behaviour by pax without having officialdom adding to it.

[deconehead]

Max Continuous - quote 'All the security in the world wouldn't have helped prevent the recent atrocities'.

If there had been the same level of security over there as there is here in the UK then I feel sure that the terrorists would not have been so able to have achieved what they did.

The security at USA airports, internal or international has always been a poor joke and because of it the whole world now suffers.

Harpy - quote 'Have you all lost your sense of proportion? The worst he can be accused of is making an unwise remark out of frustration at having his pen knife confiscated. Hardly a reason for refusing him boarding. I suspect he might be a good man to have on board during an attempted hijack'.

There are signs at most if not all check in desks that state 'no jokes'etc, it is an offence'. No thank you there is no way on this earth that I would want a d--- head like him sat on the same airplane as me thank you very much.

A traffic cop, well that says a lot, there's a light on but nobody's home. A snior traffic officer in Brum recently got away with doing 45 in a 30 limit cus it was a medical emergency (he was going to the doctors). Yep he'll get away with it too.

[SPIT]

If this so called POLICE OFFICER had been stationed at Mcr Airport I wonder how he would insturuct his fellow officers and the security men/women to act if Mr Average had done this??There seems to be one law for them and one for any others.

Do unto others as they would do to you, BUT DO IT FIRST :eek: :rolleyes: :confused:

[Right Way Up]

I'm sorry, but in a time where nearly 7000 people have lost their lives, 150,000 people have lost their jobs and the world waits with bated breath, because of security breaches, I think that this person deserves what he gets.
p.s. I seriously hope that those people who think he should have flown after such a comment are NOT airline pilots!

[ 29 September 2001: Message edited by: Right Way Up ]

[Mount'in Man]

Would a traffic cop be aware of the laws of international navigation? I don’t think so. You guys are being somewhat tough on a cop who made an idle remark after he was harassed over his pocketknife. Sure, the remark was tactless but he did square-off by producing a valid police ID. That should have ended the incident.

One can only assume a breakdown in CRM between two law enforcement agencies ensued. That breakdown delayed a flight by forty minutes and stopped the cop and his wife from undertaking a vacation that was obviously overdue.

When you read the comments by “KEG”, a tale that is obviously colored with plenty of fictional license, it appears to reinforce the tacit suggestion of rivalry between the security guard and the cop. I guess this rivalry is based on the professional training that a cop undertakes in comparison to that afforded a ‘bouncer’ wielding a metal detector.

I would ask Keg – who are the…dickheads with too much power…? Sounds like the bouncer in this case.

[Curious Pax]

Isn't the point being missed a little here? With some jobs, a sense of responsibility even when not actually in work is needed - like it or not it goes with the territory. A 15,000 hour pilot with the greatest flying skills in the world would expect to get the book thrown at them if they buzzed Buckingham Palace at 200 feet - the argument that they were no threat (in that case due to their ability to do it safely) would cut no ice. Likewise a police officer, particularly a senior one has a responsibility even when off duty not to ignore laws when they feel like it - or face the consequences. As others have said, saying it once is stupid, but to repeat it, and then to try and initimidate the security guard into backing off by flashing his warrant card is gross professional misconduct in my view.

PS: The point about wanting all pax to carry weapons to tackle hijackers is an interesting one. Presumably this will necessitate 2 channels at each security checkpoint, one marked for ordinary passengers ("is that Uzi part of your anti hijack equipment Sir? Yes - no problem, please proceed"), and one channel for terrorists ("I'm sorry sir, you will have to leave your nail clippers behind"). Hmmm - that could work!!!

[Mount'in Man]

Curious pax,

There is a big difference between a premeditated action – flying in a no-fly zone – and an idle comment made on the spur of the moment. My point was that the cop was just letting off a little steam (in a misguided sense) and he probably regretted it almost as quickly.

We all say things that we regret a little later and I feel that in this instance the outcome was an over-reaction. The more level headed replies from the likes of ‘harpy’ and ‘Max Continuous’ support this. And after all the issue has been further blown up by the media who would no doubt like to have a traffic cop on toast!

[Julian]

Max Continouus - I had to read your comment twice just to make sure I wasn't still asleep!! Arm everyone on the plane, including would be hijackers???? I think if I had a choice of being sat on a plane with everyone armed or everyone having gone through security checks and any weapons removed I would go for the latter. I am starting to think that the only reason you work at an airport is it gives you somewhere to park your spaceship...

Harpy - Agreed, they can. On the other hand though, a mate of mine used to work in Customs and to get the job he underwent very stringent proceedures - he was PV'd, neighbours, friends interviewed etc. He was also subject to random checks, although admittedly not as stringent as getting checked every time you walk in or out.

Julian.

[roundwego]

I can't believe the amount of comment on this subject without knowing the facts. What exactly did he say? Was it for example "If you touch that pen knife I will shoot you". Or maybe it was "You will certainly find my gun with this good security you have here". If it was the former, he should have been given the full works. If it was the latter, the security officer should have replyed with an equally flipant remark and ignored it. Lets face it, being processed through the cattle market of todays air travel preliminaries with all the hassle it entails (and yes all of it is necessary) is pretty stressful and lets face it, if you find your nose hair clippers being confiscated by some little hitler behind a desk (which some of them are - yes we all have them) it is very easy to make a sarky remark and no doubt regret it immediately after. Allowances should be made by everyone in these stressful times.

[newswatcher]

Roundwego,

He is alleged to have said - "Watch it, I have got a gun".

Mount'in Man suggests that it should have been OK because he showed a valid police ID card. Guess it would have been lower profile if he hadn't done that! Why was he carrying his ID on a vacation? Do police have to carry an ID at all times?


:confused: :confused:

[VNEandG]

Max,
Are you serious? As "customers" we expect safe flights. That pays the airline industries wages. Agreed, been treated olike crap by security staff and crew is not on, but joking with someone about a gun, is not part of customer care. Let's see if Scotland Yard has a sence of humour if you walk in there, and announce you have a gun! As part of our fare should the passengers all have a go at flying the thing as well.
Get real!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

[The flying gunman]

As a serving police firearms officer who tries to show the public how professional we are I say this to Insp Orr" Thank you sir,you f****** ****!"

Now that isn't professional!

[Max Continuous]

Curious pax, Julian, who's talking about arming passengers? We're not talking about hoisting guns and daggers on unsuspecting passengers and crews, just allowing people to retain household implements that anyone might reasonably be carrying around on a day-to-day basis. Nail clippers, for instance. Bit of an over-reaction removing those, just possibly?

A colleague had a penknife removed from his flight bag going through security just minutes before being approached on the flight deck by a despatcher bearing an envelope containing five similar "offensive weapons" for safe-keeping on the flight deck for the duration of the flight.

As we're reminded above, flying is a "bloody serious business". There's no room any more for humour, or attempted humour, a smile, a giggle, a laugh, a titter, or a joke with an official within ten miles of any airport in the world. Just sad people everywhere going around with the weight of the world on their shoulders, scowling and casting suspicious glances at their fellow travellers. Heavy hearted, humourless souls. Pilots locked away in reinforced flight decks. Fear everywhere.

So we're all agreed. The terrorists have won.

[Per Ardua Ad Asda]

Gents,

From a previous post in the "confiscated crew items" thread ....

By removing all sharp and pointy objects from the cabin and/or preventing pax from bringing ANYTHING onboard that could conceivably be used as a weapon, we are, in a stroke, also removing any means of defence that either the flight crew, cabin crew or pax have of defending themselves and wresting control back from the hijackers.

From yesterdays news it is apparent that there was only one hi-jacker pilot per aircraft - the rest were the musclemen to prevent him being rushed by anyone else. Far easier for the pax/cabin crew to overpower the henchmen if they were in possession of something other than their fists n' feet, I would suggest.

A desperate shame that the poor souls onboard the Pittsburgh flight didn't have just a little more time available to them....

[Julian]

Max - you were talking about arming passengers.
if we, the pilots, cabin crew and fare-paying passengers were permitted to carry on to aircraft certain household items such as pen-knives, nail-clippers and syringes which could, in extremis, be used as offensive weapons. I'd personally feel a lot safer knowing most passengers were thus "armed" in the event that a group of nutters on board decided to try to take over the aircraft. At least we've got something to fight with.

Personally I would rather have everything taken off passengers then there is nothing to worry about in the first place.

And yes I do agree with you that taking a pen knife off a college then giving it him back in a brown ebvelope for safe keeping is a bit of a Homer Simpson. I don't think they had their 3 weetabix that morning.

[Max Continuous]

Julian,

Without wishing to slide into pedantry here, there's a subtle difference between arming passengers and passengers being "armed". If we're not allowed a sense of humour any more, surely to God we can keep a sense of irony.

[ironbutt57]

Years ago a man ex governor of Massachusets was at boston logan boarding a flight when he made a joke about having a bomb....he was detained 30 mins....i was in the security queue behind him and heard the whole thing...some people are not serious about anything...hope they get the picture now

[flugpants]

What the hell does it matter whether this guy was a Cop, Dentist, Pilot or the cleaner from the local bank? Anyone who makes threatening comments or "jokes" regarding any security issues should be dealt with in the same way.....point blank refusal to fly, arrested and dealt with accordingly.

Some people happen to take airline & airport security very seriously, and if you think that the odd joke here and there is acceptable - think again about what has just happened, and could happen again at any airport, anywhere, anytime if we let it!

The same rule has applied for years in the UK - anyone who mentions they have bombs/guns etc as a joke or otherwise, do not travel.

Get real :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Julian]

Max - armed is armed whatever way you look at it, don't forget that the hijackers were carrying box cutters, not something you would normally give a second thought to. You are advocating passengers taking on board syringes, etc!

I think flugpants sums it up, there is a time and a place for humour and in front of airport security when they have a very serious role to carry out, especially these days, is not the time to try and crack a 'weapons' related joke!

Call me grannified, humourless, whatever - but I wouldn't want to see another Sept 11th happen because someone brought a penknife, syringe, etc on board and used it on the cabin crew.

Julian.

[Max Continuous]

Julian,

I don't think anyone wants to see another Sept, 11th period, howsoever caused. Since these awful events I venture to suggest that passengers are much more likely now to take matters into their own hands should there be the slightest possibility of such a happening ever again. Maybe the terrorists of the future won't need anything sharp or pointy to instigate their plans to take over the aircraft, rendering conventional security impotent, and in that situation wouldn't you feel safer knowing that your fellow passengers might have a fighting chance of staving off disaster by attacking the hijacker(s) with whatever they had to hand, just stuff people normally carry around with them, yes including penknives?

Would you, as a passenger, in the light of the WTC attack, be content to sit and freeze if someone tried to take over your aircraft, or would you fight like hell to save your life? Mightn't a penknife come in handy in that situation? There's a lot more passengers than hijackers, after all.

Otherwise, security guards might as well truss us all up in strait-jackets before boarding and have done with it!

[HugMonster]

Max, you clearly don't get the point that people are making.

If you allow passengers to have penknives, then you are allowing potential hijackers to have penknives. If you allow passengers to have hypodermics, you are allowing potential hijackers to have hypodermics. etc. etc.

If you allow any passengers to have a potential weapon that could be used to overpower a hijacker, you are allowing hijackers a potential weapon that could be used to overpower aircrew.

That having been said, as has already been pointed out, almost anything could be used as a weapon - a pen, a bunch of keys, a rolled-up newspaper with a few coins, etc. etc.

It is the height of stupidity to say that passengers should be allowed to carry these in order to attack hijackers. You either allow them to have them because they are lawful items to have in your possession, or you disallow them all and, as has been suggested, we admit that the terrorists have won this battle. But you do not "arm" (or allow to go "armed") passengers because they can overpower hijackers. That's the straight-line assumption of the gun lobby in the USA that says that criminals are armed, so everyone should be armed. There is no end to the madnes in that direction. That way there'll be an aircraft downed by breakup following explosive decompression within a year.

My personal opinion (for what it's worth) is that passengers should be allowed to have nail scissors, penknives, etc. since that is a normal item of hand baggage. Anything out of the ordinary such as stanley knives, screwdrivers, chisels, etc. shold either have to check them in hold baggage of have them confiscated.

As for overpowering hijackers, let's have no more talk of passengers being "armed". Whatever you think they might be able to take on board, you can assume they've got more of and more deadly than you happen to have mixed up with your toothbrush and make-up. The best weapon after Sept. 11th. is the will to live and overwhelming numbers.

[Julian]

Well put Hugmonster.

If Max needs any more proof - just seen on the BBC that apparently someone in the US calmly walked upto the front of a Greyhound bus and slit the drivers throat. Bus left the road and several dead.

Julian.

[throttleback]

Granted guys, but I bet he didn't slit his throat with a pair of Nail Clippers!

No-one believes security is not a serious business, but there are DEFINATELY a bunch of power-crazy "security" officials (the ones that last week they were working for B&Q) out there at the moment with no sense of importance at all.

Yesterday was classic; while going to great lengths to take a pair of sissors from a Canin Crew's personal first aid kit, NONE of the crew's ID were checked nor was the crew bus even looked at. This is LUDICROUS and DANGEROUS.

The REAL danger here is that all this petty squabling over bomb jokes and nail scissors lures people into a FALSE sense of improved security when really key issues - vehicle checks, proper ID checks etc - are being overlooked.

This does not apply ALL the time - mostly ID's etc are checked - but surely the KEY measures like these have first to be achieved 100% of the time before we worry about plastic cutlery and nail scissors??

[Max Continuous]

Throttleback - exactly!

Julian - No further proof is needed at all! The extra security at airports just helps to make travelling by air even more ghastly and dehumanising than it is already, and by implication you're now suggesting that these security checks should apply to all other forms of public transport as well.... buses, coaches, trains, at this rate the whole world is going to grind to a halt!

We have to face the fact that life is a very risky business despite our mummies trying to wrap us up in cotton wool and protect us from all the dangers lurking out there in the big bad world. You're talking about one coach trip out of all the millions which take place every day of the week. You just cannot legislate for everything, or we'd all be conscripted as security guards.......

There's most certainly a balance to be struck between curtailment of liberty and the convenience of the public.

[Julian]

Max - No implication at all, just making the point of what happens when you put sharp objects in everyones hands. Maybe if everyone on the bus had them as per your argument they could go round in turn and do each other by your implication!!!

I hardly think you can call air travel dehumanising. Its just a fact of life that if travelling on a flight you will have to go through security. Yes, there will porbably be jobs worths sometimes but, maybe I am lucky here, I have yet to really encounter one that really hacked me off. If you dont want to go through the screening then:

a) Drive - although you will have those nice border guards with machine guns to deal with.

b) Stay at home and watch Eastenders with a mug of Horlicks.

Julian.

[Mr Chips]

I can't believe some of the posts i am reading. This police officer broke the law. He acted like a complete idiot. People were arrested for this kind of thing long before Sept 11. As for calling security guards "Hitlers" - he was a traffic cop....

Lets get it straight. Do you want security or not? It seems to me that guards are wrong if they do their job, and wrong if they don't. I have NEVER met a "Hitler" as a security guard. Someone suggested the police officer was provoked - ever thought that your own attitude might provoke a security guard (who is terrified of headlines like "Hitler missed my nail file")

Main question that the anti-security brigade have missed is: Why did he even have a penknife? Doesn't he read the papers?

As for Max Continuous' comment about WTC security - how do you sleep at night? That was the most insensitive thing i have ever heard

[Max Continuous]

Julian - the dehumanising aspects of flying are many and varied and do not just concern security screening, but that's best left to another thread. Seems to me that very many passengers are doing exactly what you suggest and sticking to Eastenders and a mug of Horlicks.....and an awful lot of us are going to be without jobs before long.

Mr. Chips - sorry to offend your sensitivities, my point regarding the security people inside the WTC was made purely to show that even security people don't always know what's going to happen next or what's best for everyone else, albeit through no fault of their own. The essential point is that, however stringent security checking becomes, you cannot always prevent this kind of atrocity being committed by totally ruthless and uncompromising criminals.

[Julian]

Max - You are bound to get people taking alternative forms of transports after a major incident, it is not something unique to flying. People get worried when things like this happen. I think if they had a choice of everyone going through security and being held up for a few moments or just whisked through they wouldn not mind the wait.

Maybe you should start up a thread on how dehumanising air travel is as I would be interested to hear your points.

Julian.

[Den_Dennis]

Spot on there Mr Chips. People are talking about proportion, well it was a proportioned response to barr the man from the flight. Furthermore, he is a policeman and should know better, and therefore they should investigate him and see if this is the type of officer that they want in the force.

Granted, security procedures need to be improved when it comes to checking ID's and such (I think they are installing a imaging scan at a major US airport for that very thing) but to joke around about security anytime is bad, and after recent events, is just plain stupid.
I always listen to security, sometimes you do come across a jobsworth - well complain through the proper channels, but these people have a huge extra burden just added to their jobs - cut them a little slack and for heavens sake, don't try any wisecracks.

: DD :

[Beausoleil]

Transatlantic passengers seem to be mostly journalists, armed to the teeth to show how useless airline security is. Perhaps they should be trained to disable hijackers.

Hard to have much sympathy with an industry that can't get its act together. Why confiscate stuff that can be bought after the security check? (I've seen that happen recently.) Airports still allow small stuff to be passed round the metal detectors without being checked (take a bow, Heathrow). And how many of those X-ray machine screens are actually being monitored these days? Makes you wonder what happens to hold luggage , where the public are't even there to be impressed.

I'll keep flying because the odds are still good. But not because I think improved security is now in place - it clearly isn't. Except that punters have to show up an hour earlier, presumably to force them to spend more time loitering in duty free shops in an attempt to make the whole shambles profitable.

I certainly feel safe from being trapped on a plane with some idiot running off at the mouth. But that's not really the point, is it?

[HugMonster]

To continue on the ID theme and the worry about cards getting stolen from hotel rooms etc., is it not about time that all airport that subscribe to the NASP had a coherent ID card system, so that a card that is good for doors @ LHR is also good @ ABZ and NWI, and these doors are backed up by a computer system so that when a card is reported stolen from a hotel room in London can't be used within a few hours to get through the gate at, say, Manchester without alarm bells ringing?

The added advantage would be that you CAN get back on board via the airbridge stairs after doing a walkround at an airport that isn't your home base, very little more expense than airports are committed to already, added security, etc. etc.

[harpy]

Deconehead
< If there had been the same level of security over there as there is here in the UK then I feel sure that the terrorists would not have been so able to have achieved what they did. >

I have positioned as pax from UK airports for many years (domestic and international - in uniform and plain clothes). Until 11th September, I usually carried a penknife. I never attempted to hide it and the security officers never once remarked on it. I have no doubt whatsoever that the terrorists could have succeeded here. The security authorities also have no doubt which might explain their over-reaction.

During the same period on numerous occasions I have been handed plastic toy pistols, water pistols etc that have been taken from passengers at check-in to be returned at destination. It was acceptable for the pax to carry small knives but not water pistols. I don’t blame the individual security officers for this as they are allowed little or no discretion.

Since 11th, not only have passengers been prevented from carrying anything that could be used as an offensive weapon but so have pilots who can no longer carry nail files, scissors etc. Several correspondents have already mentioned that we carry a crash axe on board. Perhaps the sight of a pilot with grubby fingernails, rampant nasal hair and wielding an axe will deter any would-be hijackers. Let’s hope so because the DTLR has not yet offered us any fresh advice on how else to deal with them.

The treatment meted out to Inspector Orr has done nothing to increase security. It might suggest to the less intelligent members of the travelling public that something is being done but it was an issue of passenger misbehaviour not security. And as far as pax misbehaviour goes it was a non-event. Any pilot reading this thread will remember numerous occasions when drunken or otherwise disruptive pax have been allowed through the gate by ground staff who lacked the courage to deny them boarding. By the time they are on board and the crew notices their condition, their bags are in the hold and the slot time is near. The captain then has to decide whether to off-load them and their bags, which will result in missing the slot, or take them and hope for the best. It would be a mistake to think that all captains would always off-load them. The problem of disruptive behaviour is serious and it needs to be dealt with but it is totally separate from terrorism. We don’t serve the cause of in-flight security by confusing the two issues. Inspector Orr was not a security risk. He had a bad day, he said the wrong thing and he suffered for it out of proportion to the offence.

Keg
< I took a half step back and was about to clock the bloke as hard as I could when I notice a bright police badge in my face and his smiling face behind it. >

Was it standard procedure to hit a passenger who was carrying a gun before asking him to explain? He wasn’t on board an aircraft and he wasn’t threatening you so why hit him? Why not just ask him to explain?

Julian
Positive vetting is no guarantee. A customs officer could be blackmailed into taking a weapon through security for someone else.

The Flying Gunman
Since you have resorted to personal abuse towards this unfortunate passenger, may I remind you that police firearms officers have been responsible for the untimely death of a number of innocent people over the last few years? I just thought you’d like to know.

[Beausoleil]

"Since 11th, not only have passengers been prevented from carrying anything that could
be used as an offensive weapon but so have pilots who can no longer carry nail files,
scissors etc."

Sorry, this is not true. We're asked if we have them, but would they catch us in a lie? - mostly no. Changes in actual monitoring of passengers and carryon items are at best haphazard, some people are well briefed and have adapted. They get to the airport or gate to find other passengers still lugging huge carry on bags that are not searched.

If we do thwart a hijacking in the UK (and elsewhere), it will be because passngers fight knowing the alternative - not because security is suddenly able to combat a determined terrorist.

[The flying gunman]

Oh really Harpy...Give me ONE example

[harpy]

The flying gunman
Here are two examples. More are available if required.

James Ashley, 39, was shot dead at point-blank range in front of his 18-year-old girlfriend by a police marksman during a raid on his flat in St Leonards, East Sussex, in January 1998.

In September 1999, Harry Stanley, 46, was shot dead as he was carrying a wooden chair leg in a plastic bag in Hackney, East London. The police had been tipped off that he was an Irish terrorist armed with a sawn-off shotgun.

[deconehead]

The flying gunman:
This time I am forced to agree with Harpy. I believe that James Ashley was the poor guy in London who was B------ naked and unarmed at the time.

Do I trust a copper, not many these days, do I trust a traffic cop, even less. Just imagine, a traffic cop with a gun, NEVER.

A few years back at BHX airport an armed cop shot a female cop while pra----- about in the crew room-----rrrrrrrisky.
:D :D :D

[bjcc]

Another point which seems to have been missed. Someone earlier quoted the Aviation and Maratime Security Act. Read it again, it clearly states that to commit the offence the person has to falsly answer a question put to him by certain classes of people. so for instance if you are carring something for someone else and denie it when asked at check-in then offence commited. So far no one has suggested he was asked anything to prompt the comment about the gun. It would appear to be a response to a pen knife being found. Please remember that up until the events in the US you could buy one in the duty free shops Airside at Heathrow...that is AFTER the security checks. He hasn't made any form of threat, mearly made a coment. So what criminal offence has been commited??? None as far as I can see. Now before everyone leaps on thier horses and starts having a go, I don't condone what was said. This all does however seem to be an over re action to a silly comment that 6 months ago and in 6 months time would have been ignored. Another thing to bear in mind is if it were any of you making the comment the whole thing would have ended there and then. Because this chap was a police officer, it will be investigated, with far more resourses used than would be if it were your 90 year old grans house that had been burgled and her beaten up. The end result will probably be a discipline board which could result in him losing his job for bring the force into distrupute. Would your union stand for that happening to you?

[Mr Chips]

Not sure how we got on to this, but..

The guy who was shot carrying a chair leg, was carrying an object of the same size and sahpe as a sawn off shotgun. he was challenged by armed police and told to put it down. He didn't. I truly believe that the police are trained to tell the difference.

The other case quoted I belive involved a suspect firearms officer (previously suspended) and a very dodgy hierachy. Heads have rolled.

[Julian]

Harpy - Not exactly the best reason I have heard :rolleyes:

If the guy was susceptible to that he would be found out under PV - dont forget that it doesn't stop just because you made it over the first hurdle.

Me thinks you are clutching at straws now.... :confused:

[sapco2]

Deconehead,
You may well imagine a traffic cop with a gun. I am reliably informed that the Rapid Response Firearm teams are in fact more often than not - "traffic cops"!

[Miles High]

I dont normally bother with the ignorant posts that we sometimes get on these forums but the level of some of the anti-authority, anti-police posts is so low it beggars belief. I cannot believe professionals can have such opinions and the view given in recent threads that pprune is becoming a turn off becomes more and more understandable.

Spouting off about very serious subjects (e.g. police shootings) in obvious ignorance is reprehensible.

Some of you should be very ashamed. I sincerely hope you are non-aviation infiltrators.

All professions have a few idiotic people - police included. This is because they are human beings like eveyone else.

[deconehead]

sapco2, thanks for enlightening me, a whole new world has opened up to me.

:rolleyes:

[harpy]

Julian
You have a touching faith in positive vetting. I dare say Burgess, McLean & Philby were positively vetted. And how many bank managers have been forced to open the safe for the crooks while their wives & children were held hostage? I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the customs officers to have to undergo the same routine checks as the rest of us.

[SKYROGUES]

OH PLEASE!! LET'S LIGHTEN UP A LITTLE BIT, HUH? THIS IS ONE OF "OUR" GUYS. THE GOOD GUYS. AN INSPECTOR IS A HIGH RANKING OFFICIAL WHO IS WAY ABOVE THE "LITTLE PEOPLE" AT THE CHECKPONTS. MIGHT AS WELL PUT A LEASH AND MUZZLE ON EVERYONE

[Julian]

Thats what I am trying to get through to Harpy, I think its a losing battle though. He would be better off as one of the Lone Gunmen from the X-files as according to him no one is safe.

Better not give the pilots a gun then Harpy mate the pilots could be blackmailed into doing things they shouldn't like the bank managers eh??? - you never know, with your level of paranoia, they be an alien conspriracy from another world :D :D :D

[pdashley]

I've read a lot of posts on this subject regarding the fact that the comment was a 'joke'. My point being is at the time how does the security guy know that it's a 'joke' the moment it's said?. From his point (as I understand the story) he finds a penknife in the police officers bag, the next thing the person in front of him, who he doesn't know from Adam, says something to the affect that 'careful you might find my gun'. Confronted with that kind of statement at anytime, not just post the events of the 11th of September he has to take it seriously. As for wether the comment was made as the result of a question, thus constituting an offence, it's conceivable that the security guy asked him something along the lines of 'is there anything else I might find in your bag?'. If the 'I've got a gun comment' was made as a result of that sort of question then I would contend that an offence has been commited. Also just because the officer produced a warrant card to somehow justify his comments is irrelevant as again at the time the comment was made the security guy didn't know (or shouldn't care) that the persons bag he was searching is/was a police officer. Also it's not unknown for hijackers to use fake documents, so why not a fake warrant card. Taking all things into account I feel the security guy acted correctly in refusing to allow the passenger to proceed until the facts could be verified.

[bjcc]

Pash,

On the 'evidence' produced in this post, no offence! You can speculate all you like about what he was asked, however it will be just that, speculation. At the end of the day, having been a policeman at an airport, and dealt with the so called jokes, I have to say there is good and bad on both sides. No pax should not make funnies, but then there is such a thing as over reaction, which this quite frankly appears to have been. Now as I said I was a policeman, and nailing my colours to the mast, I would probably let my opinons sway towrds him, except I had no love for 'senior' police officers, nor for traffic officers who seemed to take great delight in causing bad feeling with the public. As i said I have dealt with hundreds of these jokes, from pilots, from cabin crew, from solicitors and most other proffessions, the end result for them, a minor B*****ing. Why should any other proffession be treated differnatly from them?
As regards to the very silly comments about Police shootings. Try this one for size...Its dark, you have reliable information that a man has a gun, you see the man in question who has a long object in his hand, its wrapped in a plastic bag, he is about 30 yards away from you ...you shout at him 'Armed Police Drop the bag!' You are in uniform, you are standing by a large white car marked with the words POLICE in flourencent letters...The man raises the object towards you...You have 1 second to decide what to do...!

Think that over before you make any more silly comments!

[chiglet]

bjcc
I concur 100 per chuffin' cent
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

[harpy]

Julian
I didn’t know you were an X-Files enthusiast. I had been getting an overwhelming feeling that fantasists were taking over the forum but I had put it down to paranoia. It now seems I’m not going mad after all. You should add it to your list of interests as a warning to others.

[The flying gunman]

Guys,
This is an aviation forum and not the place to discuss the politics of police shootings but as a police firearms officer who is just about to finish my ATPL(f) I have to reply to Harpy.

You have given two examples of 'innocent' people being shot by police.
The first example in Brighton..Mr Ashley.a fine upstanding member of the commumity who had only 86 convictions for mainly violence ,firearms and drugs including killing another human being.
A highly trained firearms team entered the flat that morning,the first officer in being PC Chris Sherwood a fine honourable family guy doing the right thing because he believed in right and wrong. The team attempts to enter by stealth but the door has been barricaded with steel bars(as you do) so has to be broken open.(The following is from PC Sherwoods statement)PC Sherwood is then greeted by a naked Mr Ashley who has his hands behind his back.PC Sherwood issues a challenge of armed police to Ashley and Ashley points his hands towards Sherwood as if holding a gun.Sherwood in the half light shoots Ashley once in the chest which proves fatal.
There are two witnesses to this..The 18 year old girlfriend in bed with Ashley and the firearms officer behind Sherwood.Predictably you might say the other firearms officer coroborates Sherwood and the 18 year old girl states that Ashley raised his hands above his head and Sherwood executed him.On the basis of what she said Sherwood was charged with murder.
The pathologist assigned to this case was Dr Ian West(the pathologist from the Fred and Rose West trials). His evidence was that the only way that Ashley could have been standing when he was shot was with his arms held out in front of him and that the girlfriends evidence was lies.On the first day of the trial the judge stated that there was no case to answer after 18 months of hell for PC Sherwood...would you do this job???.The reason that heads rolled on this was because the firearms team were given false information by the management(ie there was good information that a firearm was in the premises when this was utterly false)
Thankfully Chris is getting his life back together again and has moved back in with his wife and children and will hopefully one day return to being the man he was( Sorry Harpy who was the innocent victim in this)

As regards the shooting of Harry Stanley in Hackney with the chair leg I am involved in this ongoing case and cannot comment further except to say read bjcc's post

Ps I really wanna fly planes for a living instaed of this

[Malteser]

You know - I read the first page of this thread, then skipped to the last, and still the same old diatribe ... with the exception of some confusing references to police shootings....

My point - we are all very quick to jump on journalists' representations of events when they are about our business. They get it wrong. They take things out of context. They make it up. They misquote. And yes, they also get it right.

Yet as soon as it comes to this incident - everyone believes the report word for word, and the next thing I see is a virtual lynch mob, baying for the end of this man's career.... a man who's history or life is unknown to you. No question of the integrity of the report!! Unbelievable!!

My guess is that this was taken out of context, out of character, maybe... in the heat of the moment, tempers rising a little, a fragment of a longer discussion?

I only hope that if I, and I touch wood I wont, ever get involved in an incident at work, I never have any of you lot trying to lynch me before you even know what happened.

Speculation, fine, but come on guys!!

[deconehead]

The flying gunman.
Thank you for giving us a clearer understanding of the Ashley case, I now withdraw some comments based on your facts. However, I will still never trust a traffic cop, they do cause a lot of mistrust and ill feeling towards your profession.

I wish you well with the ATPL, let's hope it isn't too long before we need more pilots again. :) :)

[Julian]

Harpy I am quite happy and not paranoid. Have a read back through your posts where apparently everyone is going to be blackmailed into bringing firearms onto planes for terrorists.

BTW, writing this from CA. Although enhanced security was in effect no part of getting out of the the UK or into the US was dehumanising - everything professionally done. So maybe it could be your paranoia about being a pax or maybe you just wind the security staff up!

Julian.

[radeng]

A point that hasn't been covered is the problem of language misunderstanding. Yes, it's stupid to joke, but let's suppose we have a security officer with a broad accent questioning someone whose command of English (or whatever the local language) is dubious. A classic example of this was a few years back where a German on a plane from Miami (IIR American Airlines) was bursting for a pee. The seatbelt sign was on and he used the German expression 'I am exploding'- because his English wasn't very good... The FA thought he was making a bomb threat, the flight returned and he was in jail for some time. IIR, the judge threw the case out.....

Now consider the passenger travelling with professional equipment - say a bomb calorimeter, or even someone taking an ice cream bombe - correct terms, but not necessarily in everyday English. Declaration of these in checked baggage, especailly by a non native English speaker could well lead to all sorts of problems, so in the end security people need a lot of training in the sort of things they need to meet. Could easily lead to them thinking something is a threat or joke when it isn't.

The problem of hypodermics is another one that can't be readily answered. Or do you tell people needing injections that they can't fly?

BTW, are there still scissors in the on board first aid kits?

[newswatcher]

To supplement what TFG has said, PC Sherwood should never have been put into this position on what, in some accounts, may have been his first ever armed raid. I was also surprised to read that each raid member had been issued with 55 rounds of ammunition. I wonder what they were expecting. The Kent Police inquiry into the shooting concluded there had been "a complete corporate failure in duty to society" in Sussex. Police inspectors doing a "risk assessment" found Sussex Police fell below the standard in 18 out of 19 performance indicators. Yet apart from Mr Whitehouse, it is not clear if anyone has suffered as a result,apart from PC Sherwood.