Those alleged Celtic fans smoking

[MOL]

I heard a word today that the charges have been dropped. Is it a load of rubbish or has anybody heard anything? Thanks in advance.

[MOL]

Looks like I'm talking to myself here but anyway...... I'm now told the Celtic fans were all told on Friday that no charges will be made against them. It may be announced tomorrow.

[sparkymarky]

The Sunday Times was quoting unnamed sources close to the investigation as saying charges were likely to be brought to make an example of the alleged miscreants.

I'd find that surprising though - having heard an account of goings on aboard the aircraft from what I'd consider to be a very reliable source (who was one of the customers dumped at Cardiff).

[Vizsla]

Whatever the result I hope it will be posted and not forgotten so we can look back to the heated arguements at the time and see who was right.

[Bluelabel]

BBC news tonight. 5 Released. 4 Found guilty and fined in Glasgow courts today.

Sounds about right?

[The Guest]

Nothing on the BBC Website or their news bulletin, and and nothing in any of the press here to say there would be a court case. In any event, Scottish Court would have no jurisdiction as the offences did not occur in Scotland.

I think we need more info

[Captain Airclues]

"Those alleged Celtic fans"

Just to clarify, are these Celtic fans who were allegedly smoking, or some smokers who are allegedly Celtic fans?

Airclues

[Bluelabel]

The full story is here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2838229.stm

[jetstream7]

Will Astraeus be able to get compensation for additional costs incurred (I'm presuming there were some) from the guilty parties?

[Unwell_Raptor]

Hmmmmm.

I am so glad that I have good hindsight.

[mad_jock]

Hows does it al work with banning them from flights in the future?

I take it that Astreus won't be taking them anywhere again, but is there a black list of PAX which other carriers won't take either?

MJ

[sparkymarky]

There are a number of interesting questions raised by this case and the events leading up to it which have not yet been answered. All opinions welcome.....

1. At the time of the event, the press was full of reports of the incident. Suggestions of very serious charges carrying sentences approaching ten YEARS were being bandied about and 'aviation sources' were briefing that a 'riot' had occured on the plane.

What we now have is four passengers from a complement of 148 fined amounts ranging from £100 to a maximum of £200.

After a three month police investigation this seems to be the one and only criminal court case likely to arise from the incident.

This being the facts of the matter, why were phrases like 'riot' being bandied around? Who chose to use these words and what was their justification?

2. It now seems to have been established that 144 of 148 paying customers were harshly treated by both police and airline. My understanding from a very reliable source is they were taken from the aircraft by police armed with guns and alsation dogs, held for 6 hours during which time toilet breaks had to be accompanied by a police guard, and finally released in Cardiff and presented with only one option - a coach journey from Cardiff to Glasgow! Many of the fans chose not to take this option and instead chose to book into hotels close to the airport and fly up the next day with BMI Baby. If a 'riot' had occured, would the police have allowed them to remain in the vicinity, would local hotels have accepted them, and would BMI Baby have allowed them onto an aircraft within 24 hours of the incident?

Do these paying customers have any right to compensation for false imprisonment or breach of contract?

3. It has been presented by the prosecution in this case as a fact that the "The attitude and demeanour of the passengers towards the cabin crew was already hostile because the flight had twice been delayed and was running 12 hours late. When they were told they would be delayed again while staff investigated the smoking in the toilets, the situation degenerated."

How are both cabin and flight crew trained to manage difficult situations - such as a plane load of passengers who are unhappy with being delayed for 12 hours? Did the captain really think it was wise - or did his training dictate - to threaten the entire flight with an (unlawful) detention at Glasgow due to the actions of one individual? What was his assessment of their likely reaction? Is this the reaction of all pilots who are informed of a passenger smoking on the aircraft? Do Astraeus consider this good customer service?

4. After the incident occured, the captain declared a mayday, and descended sharply to land at Cardiff. Entirely appropriate in the circumstances given the feedback he was apparently receiving from the cabin crew. I do wonder though, what are the safety rules regarding emergency landings in any circumstances? One would presume it is in the interests of safety to keep passengers and cabin crew informed wherever possible of any actions being taken? My source tells me no announcements were made, indeed the cabin crew seemed more alarmed by the sharp descent than they were by any dissent from the passengers. According to the prosecutor in the court case the aircraft "fell from the sky" leaving many "fearing the worst". Is this standard behaviour in such circumstances?

As I said earlier, I'd be interested to hear more input on this.

[RatherBeFlying]

My surmise is that the Crown Prosecutor looked over all the available evidence in the statements that were taken and negotiated penalties with the defense counsel that he felt matched the infractions.

The amount of court time and inconvenience to witnesses had any of these cases gone to trial would also be a factor in these negotiations.

Of course, once a cabin crew feels the situation is out of hand, passengers will likely find themselves other than where they planned.

As before said, the 144 other passengers paid a substantial penalty in detention, inconvenience and extra costs on top of an already very long day.

[sweety]

Where did you/they get that number from? Hmmm... :confused:

[newswatcher]

sparkymarky,

A couple of responses to the points you raise. Are you quoting from experience, or from the news?

harshly treated by both police and airline

The Celtic Supporters club have well-documented the fact that - "....at all times the South Wales Police & CID were professional, courteous, polite and eager to provide help whenever possible."

Many of the fans chose not to take this option and instead chose to book into hotels close to the airport and fly up the next day
The supporters club, and other news sources at the time, say that nearly all fans chose to go by coach, arriving at 06:40am the following morning at Glasgow airport.
they were told they would be delayed again while staff investigated the smoking in the toilets in fact supporters club say that this incident occurred in flight, so why would there be a "delay"?

[sparkymarky]

Sweety

The 12 hours number is a direct quote from the prosecutor in the court case taken from the BBC link posted by Bluelabel earlier in this thread.

Newswatcher

I'm quoting partly from news reports on the trial - taking care only to believe the direct quotes in the articles. I'm quoting partly from a well trusted source who was on the aircraft - and who was not a suspect at any stage!

I think I perhaps didn't make myself clear in terms of what I meant by 'harshly treated'. I wasn't saying that they were roughed up by the police or otherwise maltreated in that respect - but I was saying that being detained for 6 hours and escorted to the toilet by a policeman is rather unfair when you are a witness, not a suspect. It also seems unfair that no alternative air transport was arranged. For those readers unfamiliar with UK geography it should be pointed out that a Cardiff - Glasgow coach trip is around 8 - 10 hours, as opposed to just over an hour flying time.

With regard to the supporters flying up next day, my source tells me there were enough of them on the plane for the BMI Baby crew to realise that it was not a 'normal' passenger loading. He tells me there was some light hearted banter with the cabin crew about the circumstances of their travelling - which the crew were aware of before the doors were closed, so giving plenty time to decide to refuse to take them. Are any BMI Baby crew reading this - care to comment on numbers involved, or demeanour of said passengers?

As for the 'delay' that is a direct quote from the prosecutor and tallies exactly with what my source had already told me. The situation on the aircraft was that the captain was notified that an unidentified passenger had been smoking in the toilets; he then made an announcement to the passengers that unless the culprit owned up, all passengers would be detained at Glasgow until either the passenger owned up, or police were involved. Hence the inevitable delay to be added to the already substantial delays caused by technical issues.

It was at this stage that an argument started - with many passengers keen to express their displeasure at yet another threatened delay to their journey. The prosecution explained that it was two of these passengers who had pled quilty to behaving in a threatening, abusive, or disorderly manner.

I hope this clarifies things, and as I said earlier, I'd be interested to hear more opinions on my earlier points?

[MOL]

from www.etims.net

FANS VINDICATED AFTER MEDIA RIOT

Flight AEU308, the follow up
Its been a while coming but the outcome of the case of the Glasgow 9 is now
known and what an outcome it is. While not excusing the behaviour of those
four, yes four, supporters that have been found guilty of a criminal
offence, the charges they faced were a far cry from those trumpeted by the
hysterical media.

For those with Hugh Keevins' type memories when the incident on board flight
AEU308 from Santiago, Spain, was reported it was couched in such terms as to
convey an image of bloody carnage unequalled since Waterloo. The newspaper
reader or television viewer taking in such spine-chilling phrases as "brawl"
, "riot", "fighting", "mayhem", "drunken", "injuries", would have been left
marvelling that no loss of life actually took place. In fact the message
from the media was that it was a close run thing. The ITN news on the night
of 13 December announced on the evening bulletin intro that a "riot" had
taken place onboard the flight, some of the legal people must have jumped on
the phone as this became "alleged riot" during the actual report itself. The
source of the allegations was invariable anonymous "sources" and "insiders"
from the air charter company Astraeus, hardly given the subsequent
revelations a independent source of information but this did not concern the
media.

If the broadcasting media was over the top the printed media was on a
different planet, like their cousins they made full use of the "insiders",
"sources" and "eyewitnesses" without actually naming anyone, quite why there
was such coyness was never explained. Well actually they couldn't explain,
they could not explain because they are liars. The media have been proven
liars on more occasions than can be recalled or recounted, their entire
profession is based on an absence of morality and deceit. When some great
play is made of some unusual moral stance, it is practically without
exception a sham, nothing more than a commercial exercise. Simply look at
the behaviour of the tabloids; when tabloids engage in a bidding war for the
heart rending tale of some attention seeker, the winner will tug the
emotional strings as hard as they can, give a wholly sympathetic ear to any
claims no matter how outlandish, and embark on a huge PR exercise to let us
all know just how good and noble they are. Like the unlucky competitors
though, if the same tabloid had lost out on the story it would have torn the
"unfortunate" media groupie apart and poured scorn on his or her claims
while running interviews with acquaintances who would recount tales of the
story teller filming puppy snuff movies.

So for days after the incident we saw a veritable media holocaust of
unsubstantiated hysteria portrayed as fact. There was no room for doubt, a
disaster had been narrowly averted thanks to a brave pilot, brave flight
crew and no little luck. Here are some of the comments from the press in the
days immediate proceeding the emergency landing at Cardiff International
Airport.
"CELTIC'S FANS ARE RIOTING by Calum Macdonald of the Daily Record. More than
50 police officers were waiting when the Boeing 737 - carrying 142
passengers and six crew - made its unscheduled landing. Three ambulances and
a rapid response unit had rushed to the airport. Police surrounded the plane
and arrested six passengers. The rest were held under armed guard. It was
claimed that one flight attendant was struck on the arm by a fan. And it's
alleged a second may have been hurt during the melee, which was described by
aviation sources as a 'riot'." Another anonymous source from the airline
Astraeus decided to upgrade the previous fracas report: "The incident
involved a passenger smoking. The captain told them this was not acceptable.
A fight ensued and at least one flight attendant was hit on the arm. The
plane landed safely at 3.30pm. We are currently investigating whether there
were any injuries to crew or passengers, or any damage to the plane." Fairly
tame considering what was to follow but MacDonald had jumped the gun a bit.

"Plane yobs riot at 30,000ft by John Coles of the Sun. A TERRIFIED pilot
issued a Mayday alert yesterday fearing his plane would crash as drunken
Celtic soccer fans rioted on board at 30,000ft. Some fans said the jet
dramatically dived during the fracas and many passengers were crying and
praying. The worried pilot put out his distress call saying there was
'serious public disorder on board'. Supporters began brawling an hour into a
flight from Santiago, a girl was attacked and suffered a shoulder injury and
at least one other stewardess was also assaulted." As we reported at the
time, such was The Sun's determination to convey the image it wanted
untroubled by irritating facts, it even carefully edited the quote from
Glasgow travel agent Harry Hynds, who had chartered the flight. In the
Record, Hynds is quoted: "All I know is that one of our flights was diverted
to Cardiff. I can't believe there could have been trouble because this was
not a flight full of thugs, these guys are respectable fans. A lot of people
on the aircraft were regular customers with us for foreign matches. I've
been doing this for 30 years and never had this before. We operate a strict
no alcohol and no smoking policy." In The Sun this was cut down to: "I've
been doing this for 30 years and never had this before."

"Rampage on Jet at 30,000ft. RAF scramble as charter passengers riot." Was
the headline in the Daily Express.

"MILE HIGH RIOT - RAF scrambled as drunken football fans rampage on jet."
Screamed the Daily Mirror. "Violence erupted when boozed-up passengers
started smoking", "Many had gone on an all-day drinking spree," it yelled
making sure to emphasis through the article that the drunken Scots at been
at it again. The Mirror also quoted Superintendent Colin Jones, of South
Wales police who was obviously relishing the unusual national and
international media attention: "The crew were in tears and seriously
traumatised by the serious act of disorderly behaviour."

"Mayday! Mayday! Football fans brought down to earth after fracas at
30,000ft - Charter flight in emergency landing as row over smoking ends with
assault." Jeevan Vasagar and Andrew Clark waded in to show that the
broadsheets too could mix it with the tabloids.
"Fighting fans cause plan to land." - as did Dan McDougall and James Doherty
of The Scotsman. "Brawling Celtic fans yesterday caused a mid-air riot,
forcing the pilot of their chartered aircraft to divert to Cardiff Airport
as they returned from Spain. Six Celtic fans were arrested by South Wales
Police and a further dozen fans detained after riot police stormed the
plane, owned by Astraeus, a British-based airline, after it taxied to an
unscheduled halt on the main runway at Cardiff Airport."

Yes stormed, as each day passed with helicopters scrambled, police storming
the aircraft and flight crew torn limb from limb why drunken rioters, the
story became more and more elaborate. It was fuelled you will remember by a
whole series of unattributable sources, nameless eyewitnesses, and insiders
from various bodies that preferred the cloak of anonymity. The attributable
sources were nearly without exception the passengers on board, each and
everyone refuted the allegations and instead offered another explanation
from the sudden diversion of flight AEU308. Numerous supporters claimed the
same thing, but here is one account from one passenger Linda Merchant: "On
leaving Glasgow on Thursday morning we were all sitting on the plane,
engines going, leaving the stand. The engines stopped and we were taken back
to the stand - we were told there was a slight technical problem with one of
the engines. Engineers etc came on and off the plane and after about an hour
be were told the plane was ready to go.

"Engines going, leaving the stand, the engines stopped and we were taken
back to the stand again - told there was a slight technical problem with one
of the engines. Engineers etc came on and off the plane and after about an
hour we were told the plane was ready to go. Uneventful flight - bit of
banter with cabin crew, all smiles nae problems. Friday morning - we were
all sitting on the plane, engines going, leaving the stand. The engines
stopped and we were taken back to the stand - we were told there was a
slight technical problem with one of the engines. Engineers etc came on and
off the plane and we were told to get off the plane. No problems and after
about two hours be were told the plane was ready to go, everyone got back on
the plane - again no problems. Given that we had now suffered three "'engine
failures' everyone was a bit nervous about getting back on the plane but
eventually we took off." Pat Coogan, who was also sitting at the front of
the flight, backed up Linda's description of the mechanical problems: 'There
were problems on take-off on Thursday morning before we left. The same thing
happened on the Friday when we were flying back. We were on board and then
they disembarked us ... We got back on board about two hours later and the
pilot told us the engines had been tested."
Testimony from passengers on the flight described the flight crew has being
in an agitated state on the return flight. This agitation led to a complete
overreaction to what should have been a trivial incident. Pat Coogan again:
"'There was no riot. People were having a laugh and a joke. I saw no-one
standing up. I saw no-one fighting. I saw no damage to the plane. I was told
that when a stewardess was speaking at the back of the plane to passengers
about smoking in the toilet, someone tapped her on the shoulder to ask her a
question. Is that what they're interpreting as an assault?" David McKenna:
'When we heard someone had been smoking we all agreed it was wrong . We were
told that if the culprit didn't own up that we'd be kept on the plane in
Glasgow until police spoke to us. A Glasgow lawyer then called over a
stewardess and told her she couldn't keep innocent people on a plane and
there was a bit of finger-waving. The guy was just making it clear he knew
his rights. She seemed to take umbrage at this and ran like a crazy woman to
the back of the plane in tears. I was astonished. She called the pilot and
said she'd been assaulted -- but she hadn't been. That's when we veered off
course and nose-dived thousands of feet. We were all frantic."

What happened next was incredible, "Then all hell broke lose - one of the
stewards went running into the pilots cabin, came running back out and then,
in a blind panic, started frantically collecting the remaining trays. The
cabin crew were running about the plane with trolleys etc nearly
hysterical," Linda claims. Others passengers were completely unaware that
any incident at all had occurred and were totally taken aback by the sudden
hysteria of the cabin crew. "'A few minutes later [after the pilot's
announcement regarding the smoker] there was an announcement that the cabin
crew should take up their positions for landing," said Pat Coogan. "There
was a sudden dip and the plane plummeted. The lady opposite me was having a
panic attack and praying . I was terrified. We'd already had delays over the
engines and now we were plummeting out of the sky. We thought the plane was
in trouble. We were scared out of our wits." Whether the overreaction of the
stewardess was enough to induce panic in an already edgy crew, or whether
there was something else that occurred at the time, something unknown and
unreported is anyone's guess. Certainly Astraeus isn't saying but when
sections of the mainstream media, principally Sky News and The Herald/Sunday
Herald began questioning the company's claims there followed a series of
contradictory and puzzling quotes from Astraeus employees.

Ian MacAuley: "A number of passengers at the rear of the aircraft objected
strongly [to the pilot objecting to the smoking incident], one female
passenger becoming particularly agitated, and at least 10 other passengers
became involved. In the ensuing fracas the cabin crew member was struck on
the arm." Notice the careful use of the word "struck" and the reduction in
the numbers to 10. He continues: "The cabin crew felt matters were
threatening the safety of the aircraft and the pilot made the decision to
divert to Cardiff." Remember that comment when we look at the court
judgement later on.
Commercial director of Astraeus, Jonathan Hinkles, waded in after the Sunday
Herald questioned the condition of the aircraft: "I totally refute any
suggestion that technical problems were responsible for the diversion to
Cardiff. The aircraft was serviceable when it left Santiago, remained so
throughout the flight and was serviceable when it arrived at Cardiff."= A
cabin crew member was struck in the arm with sufficient severity to cause
swelling which has now developed into extensive bruising. The cabin crew
member received medical attention airside at Cardiff after landing on Friday
and her injuries form part of the police investigation." Hinkles refers to
the technical problems were experienced at Santiago but avoids any mention
of the problems reported by passengers on the flight to Spain.. He also
insisted that a stewardess was assaulted during the disturbance which
resembled: "the type of rowdy or unruly behaviour to which many people may
turn a blind eye at 23.30 on a Friday evening outside a bar or public
house." Many people turn a blind eye to assault and rioting? Where does
Hinkles stay? Sounds like hell.

Incredibly Hinkles contradicted MacAuley when he stated: "disturbance of any
magnitude aboard an aircraft constitutes unacceptable behaviour on the part
of the initiator(s)." Praising the professionalism of the flight crew he
continued: "[a] difficult situation did not degenerate to the point where it
became a threat to the safety of the aircraft and its occupants." Hold on,
isn't that exactly what we had been told? Wasn't the Mayday call from the
pilot a sign that he believed precisely the opposite? The aforementioned
Superintendent Colin Jones of South Wales police, which dealt with the
incident, said it was 'somewhat unusual' that the pilot made a mayday call.
Remember that a Mayday call is only made when a pilot is convinced that his
aircraft is in imminent danger of crashing. Yet the danger was such that
even Astraeus admitted in a press release that "It has become apparent from
our debriefing of cabin crew that passengers in the forward and centre of
the cabin may not have been aware of the second disturbance." Hinkles also
admitted that such was the slaughter onboard the aircraft, and the brutal
dismemberment of the helpless stewardess, that three male stewards took no
part in any of the disturbances. Presumably these bounders took refuge in
the smoke-filled toilets to the sound of high-pitched screams.

The facts just do not add up, the pilot believes the aircraft will crash
then it isn't, we have a riot, then a fracas then a disturbance that most
passengers, by the company's admission, were totally unaware of. And this
merited media headlines all over the world and the kind of hysterical
reporting that we have quoted. So surely when the condemned men came to
trial then the court would dole out the appropriate sentences? Remember that
in a previous example of so-called "air rage", a flight from London to
Montego Bay in Jamaica was diverted to Virginia in the United States in
1999. The pilot believed that the group of holidaymakers were endangering
the plane and the 326 passengers on board. Hove Crown Court in Brighton
handed out a one year prison sentence to one man and a six month sentence to
another. Curiously the judge Davies Izzard echoed the sentiments of Hickles
when he stated that it was: "bad enough to behave in such a manner in bars
or on the street, but in the crammed confines of a crowded aircraft it was
worse."
So prison sentences all round then? Well no. The court heard "terrifying"
evidence that two teenagers had smuggled vodka on board the aircraft, then
a passenger lit up a cigarette in the toilet...er that's it. THESE ARE ALL
THE CHARGES REGARDING EVENTS WHILE IN FLIGHT. Has that statement sunk in
yet? Incredible isn't it? Despite the claims of the media and the charter
company no supporter was charged with any violent offence on the aircraft -
or off it. Despite all the drunken rioting and fighting that they claimed
had occurred, despite the police taking statements from the crew, despite
Astraeus claiming that AEU308 came within a whisker of disaster, what
occurred was that two supporters smuggled vodka onto the flight and some
idiot defied safety laws by smoking in the toilet! This was enough to spark
a Mayday call by the pilot, a hysterical stewardess to scream into the
intercom that she had lost control of the cabin, a dangerous emergency
diversion, the scrambling of an RAF helicopter and the presence of a
reported 60 police and emergency services - yet Hinkles claimed that the
company staff are top professionals and able to handle such incidents?
Either the incidents never happened at all, or is his employees are nowhere
near as professional as he maintains.

Two other passengers were found guilty of behaving in a threatening, abusive
or disorderly Manner AFTER the aircraft made its emergency landing. The two,
quite understandably objected to the behaviour of Astraeus's employees, the
diversion of the flight for quite inexplicable reasons (remember again that
according to the company two thirds of the passengers were unaware of any
"serious" incident) and the refusal to let them know when they would be
released. The other five passengers arrested were released without charge.
And what was the punishment of the guilty four? A collective fine of £650!
Despite the quite pathetic comment from prosecutor Richard Killick who
claimed that police investigations had failed to identify the passenger who
committed the alleged assault (yes stretch credulity why don't you; probably
abseiled out of one of the emergency doors and had it away into the Cardiff
night totally unnoticed), the sentences handed out indicate that the judge
did not consider the charges of any serious merit, probably with mitigating
circumstances in the case of the two charged after the aircraft landed.
There is no doubting that the supporters found guilty behaved incorrectly,
especially to smoke onboard an aircraft, but the sum total of their guilt
amounts to a piffling sum that can be considered nothing more than a token
fine.

As we reported yesterday: "It is also to be seen whether any of those
journalists who so hysterically condemned the supporters, and reported every
allegation as near proven fact, have the moral integrity to devote similar
column inches to the supporters' vindication." It would appear not, the
Daily Record announced the court judgement as "FLIGHT YOBS PAY PENALTY". Not
one mention of the previous, far more serious, allegations; the BBC followed
a similar line. Such is the morality of the media or rather the lack of it.
As Dave Pinnell, defending one accused stated: "not so much a storm in a
tea-cup as a storm in a Celtic T-shirt".

[Curious Pax]

Good to see Astraeus don't bear grudges - according to a list of footie flights for the UEFA Cup final next week they are operating one of the flights taking Celtic supporters to Seville and back!:D