Ryanair flight: 'Racial abuse passenger' referred to police [Archive]

a330pilotcanada

21st Oct 2018, 14:51

Good Morning All:
Just read this disgusting news on BBC.
In the old days I would have personally got out of my seat gone back and told the s.o.b. he had two choices one apologize to the lady in question two if he did not, to get off of the airplane. If he refused have the appropriate authorities remove him from the aircraft.
The incident was badly handled by the Ryanair back end and one could never accuse the front end of having "intestinal fortitude" .

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-45932027

Ryanair has been criticized for apparently failing to remove a passenger from a flight after racial abuse of a woman in her 70s.The incident, on a flight from Barcelona to Stansted on Friday, was recorded by a fellow passenger and shared on social media.Many people said Ryanair should have removed the man from the flight and threatened to boycott the airline.Ryanair said it "will not tolerate unruly behaviour like this". It has referred the matter to Essex Police.

'Loud and aggressive'In the film - viewed on Facebook more than 1.8 million times - the man can be heard being racially abusive to the woman and threatening to "push" her to another seat. He also shouts at her: "Don't talk to me in a foreign language, you stupid ugly cow." After a flight attendant intervenes, the woman says she wants to sit with her daughter and tells the man he "stinks". She says of the passenger: "Kick him out". Her daughter has told The Huffington Post the row started because her mother, 77, has arthritis and it took some time for her to move out of the way for the man to get into his seat. David Lawrence, who filmed what happened, told BBC Radio 5 Live: "Everything was calm, we were getting ready to take off. And then a man came on board and arrived at his seat, then spoke very harshly to a woman sitting in the aisle seat. "That was what got my attention as it was very loud and very aggressive. He started to shout at the woman, saying 'get out of the way', 'move your feet', 'you shouldn't be sitting here'." Mr Lawrence said no attendants initially came over. The woman's daughter, who had been sitting elsewhere, arrived and "an argument started", he said. "He pushed past the woman and went to his seat," he said, adding that what's seen in the video then unfolded - describing it as the "most disgusting exchange of racial slurs and foul language".The woman's daughter said she had taken her mother, a Windrush Generation migrant who came to the UK from Jamaica in the 1960s, on holiday to mark a year since the death of her husband. She told The Huffington Post: "I know that if I was behaving like he was - or any other black person for that matter - police would have been called and we would have been kicked off the flight."She added: "Mum's really feeling upset and very stressed about this situation, on top of the grief she's already experiencing. As for me, I'm upset about the whole thing too - the fact that the passenger wasn't taken off the plane and how the situation was dealt with." 'Horrible situation'One young man, seated in the row behind the people filmed in the video, intervened by telling the man who was shouting to stop. He has been praised for his actions. A Ryanair attendant says to the man: "Don't be so rude, you have to calm down." He then tells the older man he is going to refer the incident to his supervisor, to which the man replies: "I'm alright." "I am so shocked," Mr Lawrence said. "There was no response [from most other passengers]. No-one said anything. The young man who actually intervened... he was compelled to step forward." Mr Lawrence said it was a "horrible, horrible situation" and that he was "shocked" that Ryanair "allowed something like this just to go unchecked". BBC presenter Jeremy Vine was among those saying the incident was "beyond belief", saying Ryanair "need to explain how this man's disgusting racial abuse of the black lady in the seat next to him ends up with HER being asked to move". Shadow transport minister Karl Turner was among those to tweet about the incident, saying he would raise "the tendency of airlines to ignore this kind of behaviour". He also said "he should have been removed from the flight and handed over to the police". Critics of the incident and how it was handled said the man should have been removed - rather than the woman herself moving seats. Ryanair told the BBC: "We operate strict guidelines for disruptive passengers and we will not tolerate unruly behaviour like this. "We will be taking this matter further and disruptive or abusive behaviour like this will result in passengers being banned from travel." Essex Police said on Sunday: "This incident, which we were made aware of this morning, is believed to have taken place on a plane at Barcelona Airport. "Essex Police takes prejudice-based crime seriously and we want all incidents to be reported. We are working closely with Ryanair and the Spanish authorities on the investigation."

DogSpew

21st Oct 2018, 15:23

Just watched the video on FB. Unbelievable! What cave did this neanderthal crawl out of? Best he crawl back IMO.

If I'd have been the CMDR on that flight, no way would that asshole be travelling anywhere but off my airplane.

Thaihawk

21st Oct 2018, 15:26

Ryanair is the go-to airline of this type of racist knuckledragger. Said knuckledragger should have been removed from the flight and served with a lifetime ban on any airline.

Hopefully m'learned friends will become involved, and criminal proceedings will ensue against this vile individual.

A shocking affair.

Edit, would the Essex Police have any jurisdiction over an incident on an Irish registered airplane at a Spanish airport?.

Kerosine

21st Oct 2018, 15:26

We don't know whether this was an example of disgusting racism or mental illness but in any case it's unacceptable. Was the captain informed about the nature of the problem? Regardless of the distasteful views of this person there's a further risk of confrontation/escalation during the flight.. one I would not be willing to take. Offload is the only sensible response to a situation like this, whether it be initiated by CM or CPT.

Glad to see further answers being demanded by the authorities. Shocking.

737 Jockey

21st Oct 2018, 21:02

This is a shocking incident and I’m sure the said Knuckledragger will be brought to book, and rightly so. However, I’m sadly not surprised the crew did not take the correct action. I once witnessed a jumped up base supervisor ‘briefing’ new Cabin Crew that they were expected to take abuse from passengers as part of their job, and should never offload anyone as it caused delays. Truly shocking and one of the many many reasons I moved on a long time ago.

Tee Emm

21st Oct 2018, 23:02

I once witnessed a jumped up base supervisor ‘briefing’ new Cabin Crew that they were expected to take abuse from passengers as part of their job, and should never offload anyone as it caused delays
On a more cheerful note with a happy ending. My former airline operated a 727 Hong Kong to Taipei - Guam and onwards to various Central Pacific atolls. This was back in the early 1980's. On board one flight were several Pacific island seamen returning home after a shipping contract. One was a real nuisance, continually touching up one of the shy Pacific island air hostesses. She tearfully complained to the captain, a no-nonsense character who was a former Kittyhawk fighter pilot during the Pacific war against the Japanese.

Top of descent into Taipei, the captain handed control to the first officer, left his seat and went down the back and ordered the bloke to desist or face the consequences. The seaman considered himself a bit of a bush lawyer and argued with the captain. The captain gave him two choices. Either behave himself or the captain would arrange for him to be off-loaded at Taipei where arrangements would be made to have him tortured by the police before being thrown into indefinite jail. The seaman sat back cowed in his seat and was a model passenger all the way back to Tarawa (Republic of Kiribati).

iggy

22nd Oct 2018, 01:26

FR plane so it is EI registered, but what about the flight crew? Spain based Spaniards? CC Spaniards as well? The PIC can't step out of the cockpit to call the guy into order or offload him, is that how things are in Ryanair nowadays?

Just watched the video and with language there is no doubt the pax's intention was to offend and disturb. Can the Jamaican lady sue FR for moral damages due to its inaction?

I'm Spaniard myself and in Spanish society this is neither accepted not tolerated...

Buzzing

22nd Oct 2018, 02:46

I'm just stunned that the PIC didn't come out to stop this nonsense.

krismiler

22nd Oct 2018, 03:02

parabellum

22nd Oct 2018, 03:15

Lots of different instructions around about FD crew getting involved in passenger disputes, not sure what the Ryan Air policy is. The idea is to avoid the possibility of any physical contact between disruptive pax, (who may be on Ice), and crew, whose job it is to fly the aircraft. In this instance I would have expected the cabin manager to report to the Captain who, in turn, would call the ground handling agent and ask for police to the aircraft immediately, to remove a disruptive pax. When the police are on board and the disruptive pax is restrained then, by all means, go back, thank the police and apologise to the ladies involved in this unfortunate incident. Charging into the fray like Batman only to get injured to the point you can't operate is not a desired outcome!

crewmeal

22nd Oct 2018, 05:30

His dudeness

22nd Oct 2018, 07:11

It does make you wonder why the crew did not take further action by removong this character. It gives Ryanair a bad name through inaction and many will now think that condoning this inaction that racism is ok onboard.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong!

I do too, although I dislike Ryanair very much, I do it for different reasons. And further more, while it might be true that this guy is just a damn racist, there might be also more to the story, things we have not heard and seen that happened before.

RickNRoll

22nd Oct 2018, 07:59

I'm just stunned that the PIC didn't come out to stop this nonsense.

I knew a QANTAS pilot who lost a kidney dealing with a problem passenger.

Flyingmac

22nd Oct 2018, 08:18

EIFFS

22nd Oct 2018, 08:29

Always best to deal with problems on the ground rather than in the air.

Of course cabin crew are there for the safety of passengers, but if your airline doesn’t care for your welfare you’re hardly like to care for their customers are you? In any event from what I’ve seen on board the many FR flights I’ve been on the primary function appears to flog cheap tat.

Just how much authority does a FR skipper have? can he sanction free water/soft drinks let alone a diversion to off load toads like this.

As an aside the best story I ever heard was of some guys complaining about a Muslim passenger sat next to them and asking to be upgraded or for him to be moved, the Captain was called by the cabin chief and he came down to listen to the point these guys where making and said if I move him will you be happy, yes they replied, the Captain said to the Asian gent “sorry about this please follow me” and moved him to the business class section saying you don’t really want sit near retards like that.

Kerosine

22nd Oct 2018, 09:33

Frankly, if I'd been a passenger and suffered a delay due to him being removed, I would not have been pleased.
The incident was over and there was no danger to the aircraft. Punishing everyone on board would not be a popular move.
Blacklist him. No more flying with Ryanair. Job done.

Leave all the high horse, PC comments to the Daily Wail.

PS. No offence intended by my use of the term 'Blacklist'.

You would rather accept an abusive passengers presence in a tin tube for 2 hours rather than arrive 10 minutes late? If he's mentally unstable and/or drunk and gets violent in flight, would you also refuse to divert for the same reasons? As the captain, YOU are responsible for your crew. Good luck justifying your decision should anyone get injured.

Without wishing any offense, I hope for passengers and cabin crews' sakes you're not making the decisions up front. As a captain you're the only one legally able to take the decision to eject a potential threat to everyone else on the other side of that comfortably locked door. A confident CM will tell you needs ejecting, and a competent CM you can trust to make this decision even though you action it. If your CM is not either of these it's up to you to take the initiative.

Kerosine

22nd Oct 2018, 09:35

......

Just how much authority does a FR skipper have? can he sanction free water/soft drinks let alone a diversion to off load toads like this.

.....

That authority is given by the law. Regardless of commercial pressure, as the cap you are legally obliged to take any course of action required to ensure the safety of your crew, passengers and aircraft.

IcePack

22nd Oct 2018, 09:53

Not a lot of authority in law for the Captain prior to door closure.

Kerosine

22nd Oct 2018, 10:11

Not a lot of authority in law for the Captain prior to door closure.

I absolutely will not be obliged to wait until a door closure to eject a passenger I think is a threat.

You are correct in terms of the Tokyo convention (https://www.mcgill.ca/iasl/files/iasl/tokyo1963.pdf) and it's specific definition of 'in flight':

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 1, paragraph 3, an aircraft shall for the purposes of this Chapter, be considered to be in flight at any time from the moment when all its external doors are closed following embarkation until the moment when any such door is opened for disembarkation.

That being said I am satisfied that I am legally responsible and authorised to make that decision even with the door open or airbridge attached (until someone expressly tells me otherwise).

Taken from our Operations Manual A:
Regulatory Responsibilities of the Commander

1.The commander, in addition to complying with Regulatory Authority of the Commander shall:

a. Be responsible for the safety of all crew members, passengers and cargo on board, as soon as the commander arrives on board the aircraft, until the commander leaves the aircraft at the end of the flight
IATA guidance on disruptive passengers: (https://www.iata.org/policy/Documents/2015-Guidance-on-Unruly-Passenger-Prevention-and-Management.pdf)
When an incident occurs on board an aircraft, the Pilot-in-Command has the ultimate authority on how to address the situation.

IcePack

22nd Oct 2018, 10:23

Hence getting the police is the best policy. Ejecting pax without legal authority, you may find yourself defending your action in court. I agree with kerosine, but be prepared to have a year or so of your life ruined. The law is quite “an ass” around the commanders authority on ground due to various cases in the past.

Kerosine

22nd Oct 2018, 11:06

Ejecting pax without legal authority
Can you be more specific?

The Tokyo convention states that, from door closure:

1. The aircraft commander may, when he has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed, or is about to commit, on board the aircraft, an offence or act contemplated in Article 1, paragraph 1, impose upon such person reasonable measures including restraint which are necessary:

(a) to protect the safety of the aircraft, or of persons or property therein; or

(b) to maintain good order and discipline on board; or

(c) to enable him to deliver such person to competent authorities or to disembark him in accordance with the provisions of this

Chapter. 2. The aircraft commander may require or authorize the assistance of other crew members and may request or authorize, but not require, the assistance of passengers to restrain any person whom he is entitled to restrain. Any crew member or passenger may also take reasonable preventive measures without such authorization when he has reasonable grounds to believe that such action is immediately necessary to protect the safety of the aircraft, or of persons or property therein.

So if the doors are open, you are not legally allowed to impose 'restraints' directly on the passenger, nor ask anyone else to do it. The correct course of action is to notify the state's authorities to perform this function. The Article simply gives you additional powers to restrain a passenger when the state authorities may be unable to do so themselves.

It does not suggest you are unable to 'refuse carriage' however. The actual 'ejection' is done by the state authorities while the doors are open. I can't see a grey area, though I would appreciate someone more educated in aviation law to expand/contradict my interpretation!

Hogg

22nd Oct 2018, 11:14

IcePack

22nd Oct 2018, 11:22

As I said Kerosine "Not a lot of authority in law for the Captain prior to door closure."

Kerosine

22nd Oct 2018, 13:05

As I said Kerosine "Not a lot of authority in law for the Captain prior to door closure."
No authority to eject the person directly, but still has the authority to refuse carriage and call the police to have the person removed. I get what you're saying, just trying to nail down the particulars.

ciderman

22nd Oct 2018, 13:17

Me thinks the fact that Ryanair have referred it to the Essex police and not either the Spanish or Irish police is an attempt to kick this into the long grass. The engines were not turning, the aircraft was parked in Spain. What authority do the boys in blue at Stansted have. None I suspect. I hate Ryanair with a passion but only for the way they treat their passengers and employees. I can't legislate for behaviour like this. I wonder if an on time departure was more in the crew's minds than doing the right thing and throwing this guy off the flight.

Skyjob

22nd Oct 2018, 13:20

Article 11 of the Ryanairs Terms/Conditions clearly states.
He should have been removed. IMHO
Article 11 - Conduct aboard aircraft
11.1 General
If, in our reasonable opinion, you conduct yourself aboard the aircraft so as to endanger the aircraft or any person or property on board, or obstruct the crew in the performance of their duties, or fail to comply with any instructions of the crew including but not limited to those with respect to smoking, alcohol or drug consumption, or behave in a manner which we reasonably believe may cause or does cause discomfort, inconvenience, damage or injury to other passengers or the crew, we may take such measures as we deem reasonably necessary to prevent continuation of such conduct, including restraint. You may be disembarked and refused onward carriage at any point, and may be prosecuted for offences committed on board the aircraft.
Agreed 100%

However, question is, was the captain in this case informed and also to the extent of proceedings in the rear.
In other words, would he have been made aware of the reasons for incident, explained what was said by whom and when in response to initial moments.
Only then would he have been in a position to do so, and even then it is subjective as to whether he would believe one person over another.
As it appears, even cabin crew did not see and hear initial issue at hand, nor words said, therefore they too cannot be relied upon in this matter.
You have one passenger vs another passenger...
And before flight, he would not have the time to look at all evidence of videos on different mobile devices to make such a decision having (re)viewed the evidence.

sonicbum

22nd Oct 2018, 14:57

Can you be more specific?

The Tokyo convention states that, from door closure:

So if the doors are open, you are not legally allowed to impose 'restraints' directly on the passenger, nor ask anyone else to do it. The correct course of action is to notify the state's authorities to perform this function. The Article simply gives you additional powers to restrain a passenger when the state authorities may be unable to do so themselves.

It does not suggest you are unable to 'refuse carriage' however. The actual 'ejection' is done by the state authorities while the doors are open. I can't see a grey area, though I would appreciate someone more educated in aviation law to expand/contradict my interpretation!

As a Captain You are fully entitled (and obliged btw) to offload any passenger that may represent a threat to the safety of the flight in conjunction with rules laid out in your Operator Security Program.

Kerosine

22nd Oct 2018, 15:15

As a Captain You are fully entitled (and obliged btw) to offload any passenger that may represent a threat to the safety of the flight in conjunction with rules laid out in your Operator Security Program.
I didn't know it was in the operator security program, I'll see if I can get my hands on a copy for our company.

pineteam

22nd Oct 2018, 15:33

I'm just stunned that the PIC didn't come out to stop this nonsense.
Some airlines, like the one I work for it’s forbidden for the cockpit crew to interfere and we must make sure the cockpit door is locked. You never know, it can be a ruse to hijack the plane.

Kerosine

22nd Oct 2018, 16:24

Some airlines, like the one I work for it’s forbidden for the cockpit crew to interfere and we must make sure the cockpit door is locked. You never know, it can be a ruse to hijack the plane.

The problem occurred on the ground where the cockpit door would likely have been open.

Strumble Head

22nd Oct 2018, 16:36

Looks like the usual Ryanair logic - path of least resistance allied with keeping costs down at all costs. As already mentioned, what if any jurisdiction do Essex Police have in relation to an offence committed in an Irish-registered aircraft sitting on the ground at a Spanish airport with the doors open? Various PPruNE members with legal expertise pop up in other groups so I hope someone can provide informed comment on that one.

Legalapproach

22nd Oct 2018, 16:46

The Essex police have no jurisdiction to deal with this incident. It occurred on Spanish soil in an Irish registered aircraft. Had the incident occurred in flight whilst en route to Stansted then they would have jurisdiction - s92 Civil Aviation Act 1982. In flight is defined in the Act as For the purpose of this section the period during which an aircraft is in flight shall be deemed to include any period from the moment when power is applied for the purpose of the aircraft taking off on a flight until the moment when the landing run (if any) at the termination of that flight ends, similarly had the incident occurred on a British registered aircraft then jurisdiction would apply.

ShotOne

22nd Oct 2018, 16:48

“Stunned PIC didn’t come out...”. My understanding is PIC wasn’t made aware until well after the event. In any case, much as I loathe Ryanair it can be very hard to know what’s gone before when confronted with a full-blown shouting match. If this had happened in a bar/shop/bus/train/taxi/tube would we be blaming the staff -or, rightly, the person who misbehaved?

Kerosine

22nd Oct 2018, 18:15

If this had happened in a bar/shop/bus/train/taxi/tube would we be blaming the staff -or, rightly, the person who misbehaved?
I don't think any of us are in disagreement over whether the guy was an a*sehole for the way he was behaving. Agreeing on that point doesn't stop us discussing whether the person should have been allowed to travel. The airline has a duty of care for passengers and staff which is delegated to the commander for the period of time he is on board the aircraft. The question is whether this duty of care was carried out or whether an unnecessary risk was taken in allowing this person to travel.

The AvgasDinosaur

22nd Oct 2018, 18:46

Learned contributors,
Do cabin crew receive any training initial or recurrent on dealing with aggressive, abussive, intoxicated or violent pax ?
Be lucky
David

Flyingmac

22nd Oct 2018, 19:34

He called her ugly. She told him he stank. Maybe they should both have been ejected.

airpolice

22nd Oct 2018, 19:57

It gives Ryanair a bad name

That made me larf out loud!

ShotOne

22nd Oct 2018, 20:36

“Maybe they should both...”. Someone coming in midway would have seen an old man trying to take his seat in a two-way shouting match with a younger women from another part of the plane. It’s not impossible the wrong person could have been kicked out.

lomapaseo

22nd Oct 2018, 20:46

“Maybe they should both...”. Someone coming in midway would have seen an old man trying to take his seat apparently being harangued by a younger women. It’s not impossible the wrong person could have been kicked out.

Finally a "could of" :ok:

Too many of us react to "claims" of racism and other hot button items right or wrong..

I see nothing wrong in having an opinion, but are we truly being played by the media etal.

In forums like this we need to stick to the rules that govern our jobs and not opinions of who is right or wring in their claims

Meester proach

22nd Oct 2018, 20:51

It would be stupid for P1/2 to get involved even if it’s on the ground. You get knocked out in a fight, the flights cancelled, the schedules shafted and there is thousands of pounds down the tube.

let senior crew deal with it and radio for police assistance as necessary

Icarus2001

23rd Oct 2018, 01:27

The airline has a duty of care for passengers and staff which is delegated to the commander for the period of time he is on board the aircraft. The question is whether this duty of care was carried out or whether an unnecessary risk was taken in allowing this person to travel.

So you seem to be saying that the PIC has a duty of care to ensure that a passenger does not have their feelings hurt because that is all that occurred. The guy's ranting was appalling, we do not know what provoked it, the video does not show that but the result is hurt feelings that is all. The threat to push her would constitute a threat and as such may be actionable but otherwise...

krismiler

23rd Oct 2018, 01:49

Do cabin crew receive any training initial or recurrent on dealing with aggressive, abusive, intoxicated or violent pax ?

Yes, unfortunately it's part of the job for them these days. De-escalation techniques and even physical restraint are regularly practised during training. This incident was at the lower end of the spectrum involving only insults, no serious threats were made or physical violence occurred, and neither of them was likely to attack anyone else.

An actual fist fight involving younger males is another matter.

Kerosine

23rd Oct 2018, 01:55

So you seem to be saying that the PIC has a duty of care to ensure that a passenger does not have their feelings hurt because that is all that occurred. The guy's ranting was appalling, we do not know what provoked it, the video does not show that but the result is hurt feelings that is all. The threat to push her would constitute a threat and as such may be actionable but otherwise...
See my earlier post :
https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/614592-ryanair-q-racial-abuse-passenger-referred-police.html#post102 (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/614592-ryanair-flight-racial-abuse-passenger-referred-police.html#post102)

I think you're being deliberately obtuse. Someone who is willing to verbally and racially abuse another passenger whilst refusing to be seated near them poses risk to the passenger and thereby the crew should the situation escalate in flight. Where you draw the line is up to you as the captain. I know where I do so.

ShotOne

23rd Oct 2018, 05:01

Kerosine

23rd Oct 2018, 08:30

“I know where I do so”. But do you? In this case we’ve seen the video, which the cabin crew hadn’t. If you come across an argument in full flow how do you know who’s to blame or what started it?

You don't know all the details first hand, so in practise you may delegate that to your CM where you can. If you're told there's an aggressive man shouting racial abuse at a passenger unable to calm down or act in a civil manner, I know where I stand.

The question over whether the captain had enough information vs how you interpret someone's actions are different questions.

groundbum

23rd Oct 2018, 08:48

if someone comes into an argument half way through they will issue instructions to de-escalate the situation and to comply with the need to get the cabin ready for takeoff. If anyone needs offloading, it's the parties that don't comply with these instructions and settle down. Who started the argument, and how it got to where it is,is almost irrelevant It's the willingness of the parties to comply which determines whether they stay on-board or not.

G

Icarus2001

23rd Oct 2018, 10:10

If you're told there's an aggressive man shouting racial abuse at a passenger unable to calm down

That is the key, again a short illegally shot phone video does not tell the whole story but at the end I would say he looked calmed down, shocked probably that the bloke behind called him on his bad behaviour. I am trying to imagine how the cabin crew would relate what happened to me if that was on one of my flights, what words they may use because ultimately as PIC I would have to be guided by them.

Wedge

23rd Oct 2018, 10:49

LegalApproach - interesting jurisdictional issues here. Clearly England and Wales jurisdiction would only start to apply once the plane is on its takeoff roll under s92 CAA 1982.....

So who does have jurisdiction? In theory both the Spanish and Irish authorities? Presumably the 'default' for an aircraft still on the ground is the local authorities i.e. in this case the Spanish?

Planemike

23rd Oct 2018, 11:12

That is the key, again a short illegally shot phone video does not tell the whole story but at the end I would say he looked calmed down, shocked probably that the bloke behind called him on his bad behaviour. I am trying to imagine how the cabin crew would relate what happened to me if that was on one of my flights, what words they may use because ultimately as PIC I would have to be guided by them.

Who says it was "shot illegally" ?? Did not know there were any restrictions on photography aboard Ryanair A/c.

oldpax

23rd Oct 2018, 11:28

I thought verbal abuse was an "assault"on the person and a chargeable offence?

wiggy

23rd Oct 2018, 11:34

I thought verbal abuse was an "assault"on the person and a chargeable offence?

Given the circumstances that’s probably a question best answered by someone familiar with Spanish law and the Spanish legal system.

cee cee

23rd Oct 2018, 12:18

at the end I would say he looked calmed down, shocked probably that the bloke behind called him on his bad behaviour.

From the video, it does not look like he calmed down because of the bloke behind him. He was telling that bloke that "I will carry on" when told to stop. He only calmed down because he got his way - he managed to intimidate the woman to change seats away from him.

A personal observation: I noticed that some elderly folks tend to get cranky and quarrelsome when they feel that they are disrespected.and will start scolding or audibly grumbling at strangers over trivia issues. I have had to intervene very recently on two different occasions when travelling with two different very elderly relatives after they started scolding strangers on pubilc transport. I suggest a similar mechanism is at play in this event.

A Squared

23rd Oct 2018, 12:35

A personal observation: I noticed that some elderly folks tend to get cranky and quarrelsome when they feel that they are disrespected.and will start scolding or audibly grumbling at strangers over trivia issues.

That could be said about both participants. As has been mentioned by others, the video doesn't show the beginning of the conflict. By the time the video starts, the daughter has already arrived from another section of the plane, and is already yelling at the guy. The only description I have seen of the start of the conflict is from the Mother. She can hardly be described as a disinterested observer.

Icarus2001

23rd Oct 2018, 12:58

Who says it was "shot illegally" ?? Did not know there were any restrictions on photography aboard Ryanair A/c.
The laws in most jurisdictions says.

It is generally illegal to film or record on private property without permission. I cannot look it up now but I know it is in the terms of carriage for at least three international airlines and is written clearly in their in flight magazine with other "fine print". You agree to their terms and conditions when you purchase a ticket.

An aircraft is not deemed "a public place", it is private property, just like a shopping centre. Many people mistakenly believe this is "public" and therefor they can record video but that is not the case.

However it is a moot point.

His dudeness

23rd Oct 2018, 13:22

What an ignorant and unpleasant fool you are.

Why do you think that ? Are cultural differences and thus different views ESPECIALLY on things like P/C and racism an urban legend now ?

cee cee

23rd Oct 2018, 13:27

That could be said about both participants [being old and cranky].

That could be true, however,

As has been mentioned by others, the video doesn't show the beginning of the conflict. By the time the video starts, the daughter has already arrived from another section of the plane, and is already yelling at the guy. The only description I have seen of the start of the conflict is from the Mother. She can hardly be described as a disinterested observer.

We do have a description of the start from the person who took the video in the first post. I will quote his recollection below:

David Lawrence, who filmed what happened, told BBC Radio 5 Live: "Everything was calm, we were getting ready to take off. And then a man came on board and arrived at his seat, then spoke very harshly to a woman sitting in the aisle seat. "That was what got my attention as it was very loud and very aggressive. He started to shout at the woman, saying 'get out of the way', 'move your feet', 'you shouldn't be sitting here'." Mr Lawrence said no attendants initially came over. The woman's daughter, who had been sitting elsewhere, arrived and "an argument started", he said. "He pushed past the woman and went to his seat," he said, adding that what's seen in the video then unfolded - describing it as the "most disgusting exchange of racial slurs and foul language".

I will also point out that the man in the next row who intervened continually told the elderly man to stop. Look at where he put his hands to block, and who he looked at when he said that. He had a front row seat for the whole affair.

So while I agree that the elderly woman's grumblings and scoldings did inflame the situation somewhat, if I were a betting man, I will put my money on the elderly man starting the whole affair.

Legalapproach

23rd Oct 2018, 14:02

Wedge
The Spanish Authorities would have jurisdiction and possibly the Irish if they have a similar provision to that under the UK Civil Aviation Act but I am not familiar with Irish legislation.

Planemike

23rd Oct 2018, 15:09

The laws in most jurisdictions says.

It is generally illegal to film or record on private property without permission. I cannot look it up now but I know it is in the terms of carriage for at least three international airlines and is written clearly in their in flight magazine with other "fine print". You agree to their terms and conditions when you purchase a ticket.

An aircraft is not deemed "a public place", it is private property, just like a shopping centre. Many people mistakenly believe this is "public" and therefor they can record video but that is not the case.

However it is a moot point.

Yes, indeed..............and virtually unenforceable.
Seems the badly behaved gentleman will not be prosecuted so what chance prosecuting someone taking some images.
Nearly everyone possesses one of these recording devices.

JumpJumpJump

23rd Oct 2018, 15:54

The laws in most jurisdictions says.

It is generally illegal to film or record on private property without permission. I cannot look it up now but I know it is in the terms of carriage for at least three international airlines and is written clearly in their in flight magazine with other "fine print". You agree to their terms and conditions when you purchase a ticket.

An aircraft is not deemed "a public place", it is private property, just like a shopping centre. Many people mistakenly believe this is "public" and therefor they can record video but that is not the case.

However it is a moot point.

The airlines would be in a really tricky spot to punish this as they would hapiliy share scenes that are filmed of the airline doing good, however horrendously cringey "funny/cute" PAs or worse... Any video of Phil Shaw of GB/EZY fame..... are, the airlines are more than happy to publish them over social media for the fre advertising... They can't have it both ways

2unlimited

23rd Oct 2018, 16:14

There seems to be an aspect here none of touched on, and this is in no way an excuse for this man, but from the conversation / behavior this would not surprise me.

I have had a few dealings with elderly people, including own family and strangers. The way responded and behaved, it could be that he is not 100% there, in the sense that there could be some dementia in play.
I have seen elderly people go of on others, also on my for no reason at all, simply because they are suffering from mental health / dementia due to their age.
This was more based on the observation of his demeanor. This does not excuse the situation, but it does make it more complicated.

kimono1950

23rd Oct 2018, 16:16

Agreed, totally unacceptable behaviour but I can’t help wondering if there’d still be such a fuss being made if the races of those involved were reversed.

The Tokyo convention of 1963 covers incidents occurring on board aircraft. If the aerobridge was still attached and the door was open then I believe local authorities have jurisdiction, but I’m not a lawyer.

I did watch the whole video and it looks like it was the old lady who insulted the man telling him " he stinks" . Again ,we have a good example of the PC propaganda.

Final 3 Greens

23rd Oct 2018, 17:16

Not commenting on the incident itself, since others have covered that, but if the lady was immobile to the degree reported, should she have been seated in the aisle, potentially blocking two seats in the event of an evac?

A Squared

23rd Oct 2018, 17:20

I'm not entirely convinced that the claimed racial slurs really existed. I watched the video before reading any thing more specific than "racist rant" and "slurs". The audio is poor quality, and I certainly didn't catch everything, but it certainly seemed to me like he called her a "blasted" bas***d. Subsequently, I read articles which claimed that he called her a "black bas***d, after reading that I went back and listened again, and it still sounded like "blasted" to me. Obviously he was belligerent and insulting and I'm certainly not excusing that, but try as I might to hear the word before bas***d as "black", it always seems to be distinctly 2 syllables to my ear.

Chipzilla

23rd Oct 2018, 19:35

The laws in most jurisdictions says.

It is generally illegal to film or record on private property without permission. I cannot look it up now but I know it is in the terms of carriage for at least three international airlines and is written clearly in their in flight magazine with other "fine print". You agree to their terms and conditions when you purchase a ticket.

An aircraft is not deemed "a public place", it is private property, just like a shopping centre. Many people mistakenly believe this is "public" and therefor they can record video but that is not the case.

However it is a moot point.

Absolute rubbish. It is not, and never has been, an offence to record audio or video without permission.

What jurisdictions are you referring to? Specific examples please...

”I cannot look it up now” = “I’m making this up”

Terms of carriage are not legislation, and don’t trump legislation.

ShotOne

23rd Oct 2018, 19:44

Good point, a squared. He looked more mentalist than racist; the racial angle, if there was one, was an afterthought. To listen to the media though, that was the only issue. Thought to ponder: if the victim had called him a WHITE stinky man, does she then get referred to CPS?

Nemrytter

23rd Oct 2018, 20:59

Oh good, the racism apologists have arrived. Took longer than expected, to be honest - PPRuNe standards are apparently slipping!

Wedge

23rd Oct 2018, 21:12

The Tokyo convention of 1963 covers incidents occurring on board aircraft. If the aerobridge was still attached and the door was open then I believe local authorities have jurisdiction, but I’m not a lawyer.

I am a lawyer and I don't know the answer in this case: that's because there is almost certainly more than one correct answer - as LegalApproach alludes to above there are three possible legal jurisdictions which could apply to a criminal offence being committed on this flight:

1. Spain; where the aircraft was parked on the ground when the incident happened; 2. Ireland; where the aircraft is registered and 3. The UK, (actually England and Wales in this case, not Scotland or NI) where the aircraft was heading to (although as I've learnt from this thread, the jurisdiction of England and Wales doesn't 'kick in' until full power is applied on the runway in Barcelona). And that's just the English law. Legal jurisdiction on international flights is a bit of a minefield.

I did watch the whole video and it looks like it was the old lady who insulted the man telling him " he stinks" . Again ,we have a good example of the PC propaganda

In English law, any racist or racial epithet / reference intended to cause harassment/alarm/distress is a more serious offence (and rightly so IMO) - "you stink" is about as mild an insult as you can get, whereas "you black bastard" is a direct reference to this woman's ethnicity. And there is a distinct power dynamic at work when a white man calls a black woman a "black bastard". Even so if she had called him a 'white bastard', which she didn't, the same laws would apply. Call that 'PC' if you want, she should not have told him "you stink"; but quite clearly what he said was more serious and the law (of England and Wales at least) recognises that. However unless the plane had already taken off, that law doesn't apply here.

Thought to ponder: if the victim had called him a WHITE stinky man, does she then get referred to CPS?

If he makes a complaint to the Police of a racially aggravated public order offence, absolutely. Except not in this case, for the jurisdictional reasons above. I don't know the Spanish/Irish law on these matters.

Thaihawk

23rd Oct 2018, 21:54

What an ignorant and unpleasant fool you are.

IMHO, ATNotts was bang on the money in his post. The states of eastern Europe have a less enlightened attitude to people from certain parts of the world. This attitude may have been reflected In how the cabin crew dealt with this incident.

A Squared

24th Oct 2018, 02:35

Oh good, the racism apologists have arrived. Took longer than expected, to be honest - PPRuNe standards are apparently slipping!

Well, if you're referring to me, I'm not sure that pointing out that he doesn't appear to have said what he is accused of having said is being an apologist. Have a listen for yourself.Here's the clip on you tube. comment in question is at about 1:26. You tube is nice in that you can slow down the playback rate to 3/4 or 1/2 speed to listen to audio more carefully. 3/4 playback speed seems to be the clearest, but in either, he is very clearly saying "blast-ed" and not "black". So if he didn't say "black" and so far that is the only specific "racist" term any article I have read has alleged was used, to support the allegation that this was a racist tirade ... then what makes this racist? If you're going to accuse me of bigotry, wouldn't basic decency suggest that you at least ought to take a look at what I'm commenting on, before jumping straight to the insults? Seems that it would,

A Squared

24th Oct 2018, 04:43

And there is a distinct power dynamic at work when a white man calls a black woman a "black bastard".

Except that it appears that he actually *didn't* say "black bastard", that's an invention of the news articles.

A Squared

24th Oct 2018, 04:49

Absolute rubbish. It is not, and never has been, an offence to record audio or video without permission.

What jurisdictions are you referring to? Specific examples please...

”I cannot look it up now” = “I’m making this up”

Terms of carriage are not legislation, and don’t trump legislation.

Also, having something like that in the contract of carriage deosn't make it a crime, at least not where I am (US) Something like that would be a civil issue. If it's prohibited in the contract of carriage, they can demand that you stop, and if you refuse, they can demand that you leave their property, and if you refuse to do that, the police can come and arrest you for trespassing, but they're arresting you for trespassing, refusing to leave when requested to. You're not being arrested for the act of recording video. I realize that this all took place in other jurisdictions than the US, so it may be different, but I'm skeptical that recording video is a crime on an airplane.

Icarus2001

24th Oct 2018, 05:35

I did not say it was a crime, I said it was "shot illegally", read my post.

parabellum

24th Oct 2018, 05:49

the police can come and arrest you for trespassing Quite possibly wrong but I have always thought that one had to prove damage for a trespassing charge to stick?

A Sydney, Australia lawyer, told me very recently that it is an offence to photograph someone without their permission, being careful to draw the line between deliberately taking a persons picture, without their permission and taking a picture that included a person but who was not the object of the picture. This was all related to drones but the lawyer did say that certain laws about taking a persons picture applied across the board . The photographer on the Ryan Air aircraft was, I think, without a doubt, photographing the man who was engaged in the dispute. IF the audio and visual here is illegal would it be inadmissible too? As soon as the defence can get two or three witnesses contradicting each other the case would surely be lost?

Espada III

24th Oct 2018, 06:09

I did not say it was a crime, I said it was "shot illegally", read my post.

Which is still wrong. Illegal means contra to the law. There is no law about filming a public matter in a private place.

What you mean to say is unauthorised; i.e, without permission.

A Squared

24th Oct 2018, 06:39

I did not say it was a crime, I said it was "shot illegally", read my post.

Right, you didn't use the word "crime", but "illegal", still means against the law, and contrary to a contract is not the same as being a violation of the law.

A Squared

24th Oct 2018, 06:42

Quite possibly wrong but I have always thought that one had to prove damage for a trespassing charge to stick?

I think that's a different rules in different countries thing. Seems like there was another thread here recently in which this was discussed, and my recollection was that the law in the UK was similar to what you describe, which as far as i know, is not the case in the US. If you're on my property, and I've told you to leave, and you don't, you're trespassing. You may very will be correct for Oz.

Icarus2001

24th Oct 2018, 06:54

A Sydney, Australia lawyer, told me very recently that it is an offence to photograph someone without their permission, If that were the case the news media would be without photos and video a great deal of the time!!!
Have you seen all those photos outside of court with people trying to hide their face?
In a public place, where there is no expectation of privacy it is not illegal. In a public place where there is an expectation of privacy e.g. public toilet, change rooms at public pool, it can be illegal. In a private place it is generally illegal but even this has limits. So a rock star wedding outdoors on a private estate, media hire a helicopter to shoot photos, is technically illegal but they get very good lawyers to argue "public interest" and say there was no attempt to cover up the function etc.

If this stuff was absolute then you would not need courts to decide. That does not mean that there are not some strong precedents and laws in place.

PS I am talking Australian rules here.

Right, you didn't use the word "crime", but "illegal", still means against the law, and contrary to a contract is not the same as being a violation of the law. For goodness sake, I meant illegal in the literal sense, without legal authority. Go and see Cirque de Soleil and try taking a photo on their private property and argue the difference with them.

double_barrel

24th Oct 2018, 07:05

If you look at his body language - generally hunched and turning away rather than squaring-up aggressively - I think this was a mental health issue. I am afraid that everyone yelling and shouting at him made it worse. I don't think he was processing what was happening and I suspect that he should have been quietly led away.

ex-XL-in-exile

24th Oct 2018, 08:02

I'm getting increasingly uncomfortable with the media coverage - specifically, the media coverage here in the UK - about this incident, but more especially into the man in question.
Firstly we had the (mainly tabloid) media almost gleefully reporting it as a racist incident. There now appears to be significant doubt about that. Worse, there are now personal insults splashed across the public domain about the man himself without knowing his mental capacity. One of our (here in the UK) magazine television morning TV show hosts, which airs to millions, called him "this half-wit". Today, most tabloid press are naming him, with his "neighbours" - in his home city, which again they have identified - labelling him as a "wierdo."

No. Yes, he did an horrific thing in verbally abusing the lady BUT - big "but" - IF he is mentally unstable then having his name and location reported openly in the national press AND having his character slurred so publicly then we are into territory that I find verging on dangerous for him.

I think a little calming of the waters on this is needed until the full facts are known. Else we could drive him into a pretty dark place, which nobody wants.

vctenderness

24th Oct 2018, 08:47

Apparently the man worked for the railways in the ticket office for 30 years. That probably explains a lot!

wiedehopf

24th Oct 2018, 08:54

IMHO, ATNotts was bang on the money in his post. The states of eastern Europe have a less enlightened attitude to people from certain parts of the world. This attitude may have been reflected I how the cabin crew dealt with this incident.

That's very racist of you towards the people of Poland for example.
Seems like the state of Thailand has a less than enlightened attitude to people from Eastern Europe.
That may have reflected in how useless your post on the topic is.

Most i could understand was "Don't talk to me in a foreign language".
Seems like a reasonable request but "I can't understand you" might have been more appropriate.

Anyway no matter race or anything he is being loud and sure seems aggressive yet not physically.

Who changes seat is not an indication of who "got his way". It is just the best solution if there is a disagreement for whoever of the parties is willing to change seats to do so.
It is in their best interest.
And judging from the video the passenger does not make the impression he is going to go on a rampage but that's not my call to make it was the cabin crews.
They decided the problem was solved for the time being.

If this verbal aggression deserves time in court is not my decision to make.
I probably wouldn't like to fly with this guy but to deny him transportation for life seems a bit harsh but it may very well be appropriate but also that is for Ryanair to decide.

nuisance79

24th Oct 2018, 08:54

Could not agree more ex-XL-in-exile (https://www.pprune.org/members/297019-ex-xl-in-exile).

We do live in some very confused era of humanity.

PA28161

24th Oct 2018, 09:20

“I know where I do so”. But do you? In this case we’ve seen the video, which the cabin crew hadn’t. If you come across an argument in full flow how do you know who’s to blame or what started it?

I agree. We have no idea, from the video posted on YT, how this unseemly incident kicked off. The video picks up on the vitriolic barrage of abuse from the man and more or less ends with him.

Just a Grunt

24th Oct 2018, 09:31

Quite possibly wrong but I have always thought that one had to prove damage for a trespassing charge to stick?

A Sydney, Australia lawyer, told me very recently that it is an offence to photograph someone without their permission, being careful to draw the line between deliberately taking a persons picture, without their permission and taking a picture that included a person but who was not the object of the picture. This was all related to drones but the lawyer did say that certain laws about taking a persons picture applied across the board . The photographer on the Ryan Air aircraft was, I think, without a doubt, photographing the man who was engaged in the dispute. IF the audio and visual here is illegal would it be inadmissible too? As soon as the defence can get two or three witnesses contradicting each other the case would surely be lost?

If he told you that, he was quite wrong. In Australia, there is no right to privacy under the general law. Anyone can take your picture, whether on private property or otherwise. The only carve outs from that general proposition are places where you can reasonably expect to have privacy, such as a change room or toilet. in NSW there is an offence of “voyeurism”. Using a drone to film someone might - depending on the circumstances - amount to voyeurism, public nuisance or stalking, but it’s not prima facie unlawful.

The idea that that evidence obtained in breach of a contract of carriage would not be admissible in a criminal proceeding seems pretty unlikely. Even if it was obtained in breach of the criminal law, the courts (at least in the UK and Oz) have a discretion to admit it.

krismiler

24th Oct 2018, 23:16

There's plenty of videos on YouTube regarding the legality of filming in a public place. Usually they involve police or security guards objecting to being filmed during their interactions with the public. In the UK it is allowed and they can't stop it.

This incident is hardly worth police attention, I'm sure there are more important things they can do, such as dealing with moped crime in London.

parabellum

24th Oct 2018, 23:23

If he told you that, he was quite wrong.

Fair enough, I'll blame me rather than the lawyer. The subject arose when my neighbour complained that drone pictures of my property, which was going on the market, also included much of his property too. I was talking to a law firm who specialise in drone litigation but I (mis)undertood her to say that it was an offence to deliberately takes a persons picture without their permission, she then went on to cover the case for 'intrusion' etc.

Wedge

24th Oct 2018, 23:44

I listened to it several times. He very clearly says "ugly black bastard". If you listen very carefully - the confusion comes from another passenger saying "listen" the moment he says "black" which makes it harder to discern the word and for some to incorrectly (and very generously) infer he's saying "blasted bastard". But he says "black". It's clearly a racist insult.

Asturias56

25th Oct 2018, 12:19

It's very easy to start throwing labels around and often they just make the situation worse.

This guy was guilty of appallingly bad manners and should be ashamed of himself.

If people behaved decently the world would be a better place....

racedo

25th Oct 2018, 13:40

You don't know all the details first hand, so in practise you may delegate that to your CM where you can. If you're told there's an aggressive man shouting racial abuse at a passenger unable to calm down or act in a civil manner, I know where I stand.

The question over whether the captain had enough information vs how you interpret someone's actions are different questions.

IF you do not have enough information then best to remove BOTH parties and let Police handle it, delay flight and request anybody with evidence to come forward.

If both parties held overnight and Police are clear who the culprit is then ensure the innocent party gets returned home PDQ including if necessary sending whole aircraft just
to bring said person back.

It looks like CC did not have enough information to go on, which makes this a difficult call, which is which best referring it and getting PIC involved with Police and Ground Handling.
Probably a bit of refresher training needed but if CC did not see or hear ANYTHING then they rely on Pax to provide evidence, this can be difficult in a fraught situation like this.

Thaihawk

25th Oct 2018, 15:55

That's very racist of you towards the people of Poland for example.
Seems like the state of Thailand has a less than enlightened attitude to people from Eastern Europe.
That may have reflected in how useless your post on the topic is.

Most i could understand was "Don't talk to me in a foreign language".
Seems like a reasonable request but "I can't understand you" might have been more appropriate.

Anyway no matter race or anything he is being loud and sure seems aggressive yet not physically.

Who changes seat is not an indication of who "got his way". It is just the best solution if there is a disagreement for whoever of the parties is willing to change seats to do so.
It is in their best interest.
And judging from the video the passenger does not make the impression he is going to go on a rampage but that's not my call to make it was the cabin crews.
They decided the problem was solved for the time being.

If this verbal aggression deserves time in court is not my decision to make.
I probably wouldn't like to fly with this guy but to deny him transportation for life seems a bit harsh but it may very well be appropriate but also that is for Ryanair to decide.

From what's been published about this individual in the British tabloid media - and I won't go into details, a life ban on any airline would seem to be quite appropriate.