Nigel won't fly pax with political badge

[Self Loading Freight]

This below is excerpted from an email circulated by John Gilmore, founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and general libertarian activist. The email describes how he was refused a flight on BA from SFO to the UK because of a badge he was wearing, and his subsequent adventures in Customer Serviceland.

Is this company policy? Was Gilmore being a prat, does he have a point, or both? Would you have done the same as Nigel? Were you there?


R

----------------------------------------------------

...you already know about my opposition to useless airport
security crap. I'm suing John Ashcroft, two airlines, and various
other agencies over making people show IDs to fly -- an intrusive
measure that provides no security. (See http://freetotravel.org).
But I would be hard pressed to come up with a security measure more useless and intrusive than turning a plane around because of a political button on someone's lapel.

My sweetheart Annie and I tried to fly to London today (Friday) on British Airways. We started at SFO, showed our passports and got through all the rigamarole, and were seated on the plane while it taxied out toward takeoff. Suddenly a flight steward, Cabin Service Director Khaleel Miyan, loomed in front of me and demanded that I remove a small 1" button pinned to my left lapel. I declined, saying that it was a political statement and that he had no right to censor passengers' political speech. The button, which was created by political activist Emi Koyama, says "Suspected Terrorist". Large images of the button and I appear in the cover story of Reason Magazine this month, and the story is entitled "Suspected Terrorist".

You can see the button at:

http://eminism.org/store/button-racism.html

(Reason hasn't put the current issue online yet, for some reason.)

The steward returned with Capt. Peter Hughes. The captain requested, and then demanded, that I remove the button (they called it a "badge"). He said that I would endanger the aircraft and commit a federal crime if I did not take it off. I told him that it was a political statement and declined to remove it.

They turned the plane around and brought it back to the gate, delaying 300 passengers on a full flight.

We were met at the jetway by Carol Spear, Station Manager for BA at SFO. She stated that since the captain had told her he was refusing to transport me as a passenger, she had no other course but to take me off the plane. I offered no resistance. I reminded her of the court case that United lost when their captain removed a Middle Eastern man who had done nothing wrong, merely because "he made me uncomfortable".
She said that she had no choice but to uphold the captain and that we could sort it out in court later, if necessary. She said that my button was in "poor taste".

Later, after consulting with (unspecified) security people, Carol said that if we wanted to fly on the second and last flight of the day, we would be required to remove the button and put it into our checked luggage (or give it to her). And also, our hand-carried baggage would have to be searched to make sure that we didn't carry any more of these terrorist buttons onto the flight and put them on, endangering the mental states of the passengers and crew.

I said that I understood that she had refused me passage on the first flight because the captain had refused to carry me, but I didn't understand why I was being refused passage on the second one. I suggested that BA might have captains with different opinions about free speech, and that I'd be happy to talk with the second captain to see if he would carry me. She said that the captain was too busy to talk with me, and that speaking broadly, she didn't think BA had any captains who would allow someone on a flight wearing a button that
said "Suspected Terrorist". She said that BA has discretion to
decline to fly anyone. (And here I had thought they were a common carrier, obliged to carry anyone who'll pay the fare, without discrimination.) She said that passengers and crew are nervous about terrorism and that mentioning it bothers them, and that is grounds to exclude me. I suggested that if they wanted to exclude mentions of terrorists from the airplane, then they should remove all the newspapers from it too.

I asked whether I would be permitted to fly if I wore other buttons, perhaps one saying "Hooray for Tony Blair". She said she thought that would be OK. I said, how about "Terrorism is Evil". She said that I probably wouldn't get on. I started to discuss other possible buttons, like "Oppose Terrorism", trying to figure out what kinds of political speech I would be permitted to express in a BA plane, but she said that we could stand there making hypotheticals all night and she wasn't interested. Ultimately, I was refused passage because I would not censor myself at her command.

After the whole interaction was over, I offered to tell her, just for
her own information, what the button means and why I wear it. She was curious. I told her that it refers to all of us, everyone, being suspected of being terrorists, being searched without cause, being queued in lines and pens, forced to take our shoes off, to identify ourselves, to be x-rayed and chemically sniffed, to drink our own breast milk, to submit to indignities. Everyone is a suspected terrorist in today's America, including all the innocent people, and that's wrong. That's what it means. The terrorists have won if we turn our country into an authoritarian theocracy "to defeat terrorism". I suggested that British Airways had demonstrated that trend brilliantly today. She understood but wasn't sympathetic -- like most of the people whose individual actions are turning the country into a police state.

Annie asked why she, Annie, was not allowed to fly. She wasn't
wearing or carrying any objectionable buttons. Carol said it's
because of her association with me. I couldn't have put it better
myself -- guilt by association. I asked whether Annie would have been able to fly if she had checked in separately, and got no answer. (Indeed it was I who pointed out to the crew that Annie and I were traveling together, since we were seated about ten rows apart due to the full flight. I was afraid that they'd take me off the plane without her even knowing.)

Annie later told me that the stewardess who had gone to fetch her said that she thought the button was something that the security people had made me wear to warn the flight crew that I was a suspected terrorist(!). Now that would be really secure.

I spoke with the passengers around me before being removed from the plane, and none of them seemed to have any problem with sitting next to me for 10 hours going to London. None of them had even noticed the button before the crew pointed it out, and none of them objected to it after seeing it. It was just the crew that had problems, as far as I could tell.

John Gilmore

PS: For those who know I don't fly in the US because of the ID demand: I'm willing to show a passport to travel to another country. I'm not willing to show ID -- an "internal passport" -- to fly within my own country.

--------------------------------------------

[Dop]

I've heard about this Gilmore before, and he always strikes me as an arse. One of the "everything should be free on the internet - music, movies, books, etc" brigade who want everything handed to them on a plate. Can't have been told as kids that they can't have their own way 100% of the time...
I suspect what would have made him REALLY pissed off would be if nobody had noticed his stupid badge.
Like to hear the other side of the story. I suspect he was not being as calm and rational as he makes out. Probably screamed and shouted and stamped his foot...

[PAXboy]

How interesting, that Dop should accuse the man of things that are not yet discussed. I am inclined to wait and see who-said-what, rather than 'suspect' him of behaviour that you think he displayed.

You are behaving just like the cabin and flight crew! You are making presumptions about a man with no evidence. It is true that we have heard only one side of the story, it might be an idea to wait for the second side. Because the ENTIRE problem is that too many countries are now making assumptions about what people's intentions are. They are subjecting everyone to 'security' measures that have no chance of making any difference to the security of a flight. That subject has been discussed constantly here since 9/11.

My thanks to SLF for posting and I look forward to hearing the rest of the story before making up my mind.

[openfly]

This Gilmore loves the attention...a ''Merchant Banker'' obviously!

[PaxmanwithInfo]

The individual obviously knew that they were pushing the boundaries and unsurprisingly came a cropper - this played into his hands but to what end? It is a statement moreso than an 'attention seeking' device but it smacks of undergraduate-intansigent-style guerilla tactics that have no great purpose.

Words can't harm people but abnormal behaviour scares and unsettles peope and the captain is within his rights to deny service.

When coloured students crossed the boundaries to enter southern universities in the 1960s they were pushing the boundaries also but with a cause worth fighting for.

However, what is not in Mr Gilmore's favour is the import of his message. We all abhor censorship to a certain extent but there are generally accepted limits.

This is not an important struggle vis-a-vis air travel and personal liberties but rather an intellectual exercise to test boundaries and prejudiced perceptions - somewhat selfishly and publically - not helping the debate at all. Yes it is prejudicial action on the airline's behalf - but with just cause.

I think that the request that he simply put his badge away was reasonable in the same way that you cannot usually be naked on an aircraft (Southwest Flight Deck staff exempted!) or indeed wear a garment with profane statements or smoke cigarettes or do anything that the Captain deems inappropriate within reason.

This lesson is lost on Mr Gilmore - just put it away for the duration of the flight - put it back on once inside the terminal building again. When on an aircraft you follow the rules. Deviate at your peril.

I do not think that anyone was making a judgement that wasn't expressly endorsed by the captain.

It's like wearing a tee-shirt that is deemed grossly offensive - to yer auntie's for dinner. Your parents usually don't let it happen. Then you grow out of that phase.

Perhaps it would have been better to ignore Mr Gilmore as the oxygen of publicity would have been denied.

He obviously feels relatively strongly about his beliefs but succeeded in 'hijacking' the flight and interfering with other people's liberty.

What a useless protest.

The best security does presume that you're a threat whereas you Mr Gilmore, are merely a childish nuisance.

P.S. I don't get the 'Merchant Banker' connection except maybe for its rhyming slang possibilities only. Otherwise one might be offending a large number of city workers - the two meanings are not synonymous!!! Less of the prejudice there chief...

[newswatcher]

John Gilmore is also noted for his support for the liberalisation of the laws on drugs, particularly those in the Ecstasy grouping.

Maybe on this occcasion, he was "enjoying" the two crusades together. :p

Oh and he would like the UN to ask the US to surrender their WMD!

[Training Risky]

I'm sorry but I have to say I think Gilmore was in the right.

I should imagine the chief hostie has a hundred and one other more important things to do, instead of checking all the pax's atttire to make sure they look politically correct.

If Gilmore was just sitting there, minding his own business, I feel sorry for him. This Captain Peter Hughes totally overreacted. You can't just throw someone off because you don't like what they are wearing.

I think BA's pomposity has gone too far this time.

[steamchicken]

So how was the flight "hijacked"? It wasn't. A bit of a serious and libellous accusation to throw around?

[Lord Lucan]

Freedom of expression is the freedom to express unpopular sentiments.

BA (and the captain) are being ridiculous. I trust they be taken to court, and hope they will lose their case and pay a huge fine.

This whole security business has got totally out of hand!

[newswatcher]

This whole security business has got totally out of hand! yeah right. I expect you deplore the actions of the security guard at Orlando last week, for actually daring to suspect that a boy of 9 would have a loaded pistol stuffed inside his teddy bear!

From the "Naples News"(18/7):

"A Transportation Security Administration worker noticed what looked like the outline of handgun when a 9-year-old boy's brown teddy bear passed through the X-ray machine last week at the Orlando International Airport.

When the bear was opened, TSA workers found a loaded .22-caliber gun inside. The boy's family told investigators that the teddy bear was given to their son by a girl at their hotel during their Orlando vacation.

Now the FBI is investigating how the gun got in the teddy bear, and the TSA is using the case as an example of why it searches even the most innocent-seeming objects and people.

"This incident ... underscores the need to screen everyone and everything no matter how innocent the people or their belongings may appear," Robert Johnson, a TSA spokesman in Washington, said Thursday.

The boy, Chase Dodd, two siblings and his parents, Robert and Angela Barry, were passing through the checkpoint to catch a return flight to Grove City, Ohio, last Saturday when the teddy bear aroused suspicions. An Orlando police officer found a half-inch hole in the bottom of the teddy bear and discovered the firearm after ripping a larger hole.

The Barrys were questioned by FBI agents and then released after telling the agents that their son received the teddy bear from a 10-to-14-year-old girl at their hotel two days before. Chase turned 10 on Monday.

"She appeared at their hotel room door and offered them the bear," Johnson said. "The mother said it was OK and so the boy took it."

The Barrys appeared "very calm" while they were being interviewed, according to the police report.

Reached at her home Thursday in suburban Columbus, Angela Barry said she didn't want to talk about what happened until the FBI investigation was finished.

"I want every way possible for them to find out who did this," she said.

The FBI didn't return phone calls"


I think the guard should be sacked and pay a huge fine for his treatment of the 9yo!
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[HotDog]

OK, crew reaction may have been a bit OTT but Gilmore's intransigence not less so. Sounds like a petulant child who has been chastised but needs to have the last word.:rolleyes:

[Big Tudor]

because he believes persons have a right to travel by air without the government requiring that they relinquish their anonymity
Sorry Mr Gilmore but you are obviously not of this planet. Airlines have a right to know who is travelling on their aircraft, even if it is only for "crappy security" purposes. Wearing a badge with the words "Suspected Terrorist" demonstrates at best an immature attitude more at place in a primary school and at worst total disregard for the real secutiry issues which are facing the airlines. BA, and indeed any airline, has the right to refuse carriage, no matter how much money you have paid for your ticket. Travel by air is no a God given right just because you have handed over dollars!:mad:

[airdonkey]

pax have been arrested for so called jokes about whats in their
baggage/ violin cases etc., (whats in the violin case sir ,Oh a machine gun ha ha.) Now thats going to get you arrested.I dont see how these badges are any different.Security is not a joke
and this gilmore is pushing his luck.

[Bodie]

I agree with the general point Gilmore was making, just not the way in which it was made.

His actions have helped no one. We all know exactly what the situation is like at the moment and he must have been well aware of the consequences of his actions. How very selfish to make an aircraft return to the gate just because he was trying to make an issue of it.

I agree with the Captains decision; after all this wasn’t about the "pin" but rather Gilmore’s attitude, which was clearly one of arrogance. I would not like to have taken this potential problem in to the air and had to deal with his lack of co-operation in front of other passengers. Other people had also paid money to board that flight and were every bit entitled to an uneventful journey as Gilmore.

[5milesbaby]

basically a lose/lose/lose situation for BA. Having seen several articles about this person, there would be 3 outcomes:

1: the one that happenned.
2: BA say it is ok for him to wear it, so he tells press that BA have no security issues.
3: no-one notices and when he gets off he says BA's security is appauling as they don't check their pax well enough.

Why on being challenged he just didn't remove it for other passengers and crews comfort explains just who he is. He wanted to create a scene, and he managed it. Any normal person will understand where the crew and captain were coming from and the sensitivity of the issue and would just comply, I think he got just what he deserves, and feel sorry for BA that they had to be his next victim.

[ornithopter]

So, Lord Lucan, what do you do? A passenger is legally required to do what the Captain says, as long as it is reasonable. Being asked to remove a badge, I would say is reasonable. If the passenger refuses, then the Captain has the right to assume that he will not obey other reasonable requests ("Please make sure your seatbelt is fastened sir", "Well why should I, you are tying me to my seat against my will..."), so for the safety of others he removes him. The removal of Mr Gilmore from the aircraft was nothing political or anti free speech, he just failed to respond appropriately to a reasonable request.

I must admit, that I agree that some of the security measures are not actually increasing the level of security (some quite the opposite) and that we have to be careful of some of the schemes people have come up with. Also, I do agree with free speech, but we have to put things in perspective. Mr Gilmore is trying to make a point, when he has made it, there is no sense in pushing it to the limit to drive it home - the point is made.

As for taking BA to court - what a gigantic waste of the public's money. Far better to spend it on a hospital or school. Of course an airline can refuse carriage, just like a pub can refuse to serve you.

[Tinstaafl]

What's reasonable about being asked to remove a badge?

[NigelOnDraft]

We have only heard one side of the story - I can only bet there's more to it, especially from the Crews' point of view.

There is no way any Captain, at the start of a long night flight, is going to turn around and return to the gate, because of a silly small badge, that "nobody has noticed". There will probably have been consultations with BA security, and/or more likely the US authorities.

And I cannot believe the CSD, prior to departure, managed to examine each passengers lapels for "offensive small badges".

Interestingly this chap has a reputation... so presumably he engineered a scene, that led to.... we know the end result - not the "how".

I am curious how the usual culprits here, the TSA, let him anywhere past security, unless of course, he "chose" not to wear it through security?

NoD

[pipersg]

Well done BA! This man is obviously a Grade A F**kwit.

If I was sat next to this guy and noticed his "political statement", I can't say I'd have felt too comfortable.

Safety of an aircraft and the souls on board is paramount, whether that be their bodily or mental safety.

[PaperTiger]

I am curious how the usual culprits here, the TSA, let him anywhere past security, unless of course, he "chose" not to wear it through security?A couple of things could have happened. He took it off as part of the normal 'metal objects' process before going through the arch, or the TSA didn't notice what it said (very small AIUI), or the TSA did notice and read it but did nothing because their 'rules' don't cover the situation.

Crew quite correct to ask for it to be removed if they felt it inappropriate (wouldn't have bothered me), and Capt. also quite correct to turf him for non-cooperation.

Shame really, there are some serious, legitimate (IMO) concerns about security vs. rights, but this kind of publicity does the cause no good at all. Don't know as he's a grade A f***w** though, I'd give him a C.

[604guy]

As much as I hate to wade in based solely on a media report (and we all know the accuracy of those) if in fact the true facts are anything close to what has been represented...then bravo to the BA captain. He/she was left with no other option then having this idiot tossed of the aircraft. I would have dumped him off my aircraft as well. This gentleman did in fact represent a threat to the overall safety of the aircraft and it's passengers and crew. This person refused to comply with a legitimate request by a crew member. Even before 9/11 this would have been a dodgy customer. Since 9/11 then he is either not from this planet or he was pushing for the result that he got. Either way he got what he deserved.

[NoMuff2Tuff]

gilmore is a well known anti-everything *£!@ he really does not deserve are time

[PaxmanwithInfo]

For the sake of clarity, I was using the word 'Hijack' in its general form. Example 'John hijacked the christmas party speeches to push his candidateship for the local elections'. I trust this is satisfactory and was not implying that Mr Gilmore was actually a Hijacker in the terrorist sense. For instance John, at the christams party didn't use a H&K 33 or and AK47 - just 'Freedom of Speech' to monopolise people's time. Mr Gilmore is what I would term more of an eejit who did 'hijack' the flight affecting ERVERYONE else's liberty. A successful hijack.

[Training Risky]

What rubbish about it being a 'reasonable request from the Captain'!

Not taking a badge off and not wearing your seatbelt are two totally different actions altogether. Wearing a badge will not injure you or the passengers next to you in any way.:rolleyes:

If Gilmore was unarmed and not making any verbal or physical threats to the crew or pax, how on earth was he a threat??
If he didn't have the badge, but looked of middle-eastern origin instead, would that have been sufficient grounds to kick him off? (I think not).

The crew and Captain got very touchy about nothing, I think.

Stupid really, if his fellow pax didn't care about the badge.

[604guy]

TR
Actually if it's my post that you are talking about, I suggest that if you are going to put things in quotation marks that you do it accurately. You will note I said "legitimate request from a crew member." That aside, whether other passengers were bothered by the badge or not has absolutely no bearing on anything. It is the crew who is responsible for overall safety not the pax. If this gentleman didn't wear a seatbelt it likely wouldn't bother other pax either but it still would be the responsibilty of the crew members to ensure that this person adhered to all instructions and requests.

Look, this person had an agenda and he got precisely what he was looking for. To this passenger and others who have difficulty with the concept, I understand that train and boat travel can be delightful.

[Training Risky]

604,

Actually I was really referring to ornithopter's comment:
A passenger is legally required to do what the Captain says, as long as it is reasonable

Maybe my quote marks were not 100% accurate, but I think you get my point.

And my point is, that the Captain's request WAS NOT reasonable. The Captain overreacted, the Captain caused the delay by returning to the gate.

Where do you draw the line at dress sense for pax?

No political badges?
No garish T-shirts?
No turbans?
No dish-dashes?

Nothing allowed on the ac that may give the crew the slightest doubt that you are not a 'suspected terrorist'? Would this include bushy beards and copies of the Koran?

So yes, the Captain over-reacted and made a mountain out of a molehill.

[604guy]

TR

Racial profiling is something completely different and should not be tolerated.

If this person had been wearing a shirt that said "suspected terrorist" then they should expect the same consequence. If the shirt said "F@%k You" then they would be displaying poor social skills but not represent a threat in itself. This may be splitting a rather fine hair but is in keeping with the line that crews and operators that I am in contact with seem to be using. This crew would certainly have received my backing as they were demonstrating reasonable judgement given the circumstance.

Now with regards to beards, religious artifacts, head-dress etc. NO NO NO these or examples of the like are not cause to have someone ejected from a flight. That is racial or religious profiling and is wholly unacceptable. You may not understand or accept the difference that I am pointing to here but it is yet one more example of the challanges that we are asking of our flight and cabin crews in todays reality.

[5milesbaby]

As BA and the captain have the final say in who flies onboard their aircraft, they have the power to 'vet' who boards. I'm not saying they can just say "sorry, don't like you", but by asking him to remove the badge IS legitimate. The badge can be considered offensive, especially after the terrorist attacks, just like a f*#k you t-shirt, and a 'polite' request for removal with explaination should be enough. What if this guy had sat next to someone who had lost family or friends in the attacks? Can they get offensive back? NO, they would be removed too. As has been said here already, if a small request cannot be complied with, then who says a bigger and more serious one would be? I'm still in full support of BA.

[Techman]

I can only agree fully with Training Risky here.

It reflects rather poorly the judgement of BA crews if a button, which obviously states a fact, is enough to get you booted of a flight.

[BoeingMEL]

How depressing but predictable that most of those posting criticism of BA and the good Captain have (according to their profiles) no professional licence, public transport or command experience. Maybe they should try flying 122 pax at FL370 with a drunk or psycho running wild in the cabin. As a result of Gilmore's bizarre behaviour the remaining passengers suffered a short delay but were saved from who knows what? It will be a very sad day if airlines and their captains lose the right to refuse to fly a passenger who has shown his/her behaviour to be unusual. Good luck BA and every other airline which deters such strange people from sharing the seat next to mine. bm

[Training Risky]

I may not have carried more than 20 (ish) people on my helicopters, and I may not have been faster than 140kts or higher than 10 000'; but just because I don't hold an ATPL doesn't mean I am not qualified to speak about captaincy and all that good stuff.

Jesus, flying an airliner is not the pinnacle of aviation! :rolleyes:

Your post about drunk and uncontrolled pax is very irrelevant.

He wasn't anything like you describe, and the only bizarre thing he did (admittedly according to his own report) was to wear a small badge that said 'terrorist' - that doesn't make him one!:rolleyes:

I would rather sit next to him any day, than next to a fat woman with bad breath who won't stop talking to me! Maybe the Captain can come back and deal with fellow pax like this for me the next time I fly BA. (Which I don't intend to do).

[simon brown]

Gilmour is an idiot and clearly hasnt thought about the possible consequences of his actions. As someone mentioned in an earlier posting what would have happened if someone sat near him saw his badge and lamped him one for one reason or another, thus causing a scene. Yet someone else in society whom doesnt care or think about the consequences of their behaviour. In my view the Captain was correct in what he did in assessing what may or may not happen and declining to fly him. This is not about wearing a badge, or a political statement, its about the possible consequences and other peoples reactions to his childish behaviour

[Techman]

Am I right in suspecting that a lot of peoples reactions to this, is more about the person, than what actually took place.:rolleyes:

[Onan the Clumsy]

What I don't understand is how come he got on the a/c with the badge in the first place? Didn't it have a big pin on the back?

If you can't take nail clippers with you, how can you take a badge with a big pin on the back regardless of what it says on the front?

[Faire d'income]

Critics of the Captain really should put themselves in the Captain's position at the time.

We know he was asked to make a decision about a 'pain in the ass' with a ridiculous button making a scene. We don't know how the Flight Attendant's attention was drawn to the offending item ( maybe a pax complained ).

He made the reasonable request to remove the item. Fair enough. The Pax refused this 'reasonable' request from the Captain and commenced a lecture on free speech and feeling like a terrorist suspect. I agree with part of what he said but there is a time and a place for everything.

The Captain is legally entitled to remove a pax he believes may upset 'the good order and discipline' of the passengers on board. It appears this gentleman was well capable of doing just that. In this situation I think I would have done the same particularly as:

a. He refused to remove the item and forced a very public show of defiance of the captains authority.

b. They were still on the ground. Easy to just go back and off-load him.

[411A]

Suggest that the concerned individual take the boat next time....then he can discuss at length his 'opinions' with the Master (ie; the Captain) for that is exactly what the Commander of an airliner is...Answers to no one else while in command of the aircraft, a few cabin crews ideas notwithstanding:{ ;)

[Col. Walter E. Kurtz]

Symptomatic of the world in the 21st Century.

Simply put: "Hypnotised and hysterical"

[Captain Airclues]

The decision to return would have been made based on information received from behind a locked flight deck door. The captain would have had many other operational factors to consider, knowing that he would have to take full responsibility for his actions, and face possible litigation from either the gentleman concerned or his fellow passengers. Those of us who have been in that situation know the pressure that he would have been under.
We are all able to sit in front of our computers for hours thinking about our response to this. Captain Hughes did not have that luxury.

Airclues

[Final 3 Greens]

I wish Capt Hughes had been in charge of the 'quiet' coach on the intercity train I was on yesterday.

Despite the PAs and signs a number of pr@ts insisted on using their mobile 'phones extensively. I would have loved to see them offloaded ;)

Well done BA and Capt Hughes.

PS: If GNER ever do decide to train their people in handling the quiet coach, I'll vote for 411A to word the manual :O

[Training Risky]

I really can't figure out why this chap Hughes has earned so much respect.

If I had been sitting next to Gilmore on that flight, clutching my over-priced BA ticket in my sweaty mitt..... I would be livid when the Captain added an extra 1, 2 or 3 hours onto the trip!

More livid with the Captain than with Gilmore, as he was apparently just sitting there peacefully, not posing a threat to anyone.

[Final 3 Greens]

Training R

I can't comment on why the other people respect Capt Hughes' actions, but I travel a lot (average of 2 airline sectors per week) and get really fed up of self centred anti social behaviour by other pax.

This man wasn't sitting there quietly, he was refusing an instruction from the CC member.

Had I been sitting next to him, 'gethomeitis' 'would have been a secondary consideration to 'getridofhimitis.'

As much as I love the US and respect the values and warmth of the vast majority of the citizens, there are a few who don't balance personal rights against social responsibility in the way that most do.

So in conclusion, this gentleman engaged in a deliberately provocative action, which impacted on several hundred other people whom he had not consulted. The captain made a decision, which is what he is paid to do and thatwas that.

That's why I suport the airline and captain .... and would do if it were VS, LH, AA, CO, DL etc etc.

[NW1]

This Captain has earned respect because he has taken a command decision which was not a textbook case read from the flight manual.

If any Captain allows his aircraft do get under way when he is not completely satisfied that the machine is totally secure in every way from nose to tail, then he is doing a disservice to all those within (and without) the aircraft - and failing to discharge his responsibilities.

This idiot was obviously only too ready to compromise those around him for his own pathetic little statement, and make a very public reference to terrorism on a public transport flight. Get off, grow up and pick a different forum. I wasn't there, but from what I've read here I support Capt. Hughes' actions 110%. We must act for the good of all our charges, not the political aspirations of one selfish geek. Thankless task or not, I will do my best to get you all there as safely as possible - that is my job. Here's the deal - cease your silly political display or get off my aeroplane, this isn't the time or the place. A simple ultimatum with a very understandable motive - he wasn't prepared to play so he was offloaded, and all those on the aeroplane could rest easy that their security was being taken seriously.

When my hand baggage gets x-rayed and belongings checked for explosive traces by advanced security technology - I look around me and feel a good deal better that every one else on my aeroplane has jumped the same hurdle. When I am made to sit down on front of passengers in full uniform and have my shoes removed and scanned because the machine went "bing" again, I really don't mind. One day security checks will be less cumbersome - but for now it is the price we must pay to keep those willing to damage others for their own zealous beliefs at bay.

[Self Loading Freight]

Interesting set of responses.

Almost nobody seems to be worried about freedom of speech. Is that because the threat posed by someone wearing a political badge obviously outweighs their right to wear it, or are such freedoms not important enough to intrude on civil aviation in general?

Personally, I think Gilmore was being an unreasonable, bloody-minded arse. I wish there were more like him.


R

[ornithopter]

Have been away, but thought I had better respond to a couple of the comments above.

1. Free speech is very important, many people died so that we could have it, however there is a difference between sharing your opinion or forcing it down someone's throat. Gilmore was going too far (judging by HIS OWN words, which of course is just one side of the argument).

2. Removing a badge is reasonable - why? - because the badge and the words are not the problem, it is the protest that is. If he were asked to remove the badge and said yes and quietly did so, it shows he is making his point, but doing so peacefully. If he says no and causes a scene, it shows he is going to be a pain. If no one else noticed it, then it is not a problem to have it off for the rest of the flight. Just to make it clear I think there is nothing wrong with saying what he said, nor protesting about what he is protesting about, but the manner in which he trys to do things. He has a history and is taking loads of people to court, indicative that he is a trouble maker. The indications to the crew that he was a trouble maker were that he wouldn't do as asked. There are plenty of antisocial/not too bad/seemingly innocuous things that you may be asked to stop doing quite reasonably (PLEASE stop whistling quite so loud sir...) that are in themselves not a problem, but refusing to do so causes just such a problem. Gilmore's badge was knowingly provocative. If it had said something with a similar meaning but less provocative and his protest was not provocative, then there would have been no problem.

[slim_slag]

Since when has an airline been obliged to protect your "freedom of speech"? Does a right to "freedom of speech" exist in the country the plane is registered? Maybe TSA, being a US government agency, has a constitutional obligation to consider freedom of speech, so they let him through. I'm not sure a UK corporation has any obligation. I suspect they cannot discriminate i.e it would be naughty if they made a Moslem looking chap take the badge off but let a Christian looking chap keep it on. Any lawyers?

[PaperTiger]

That's about the gist of it, Slim. The First Amendment proscribes the US government* impinging upon freedom of speech. It does not apply to private or publicly-traded companies, and certainly not to foreign organizations.

* All levels - federal, states, counties etc. Even then the Supreme Court has ruled it is not an absolute protection - the old saw about shouting 'Fire'.

[ft]

Reminds me of the story where two middle eastern men were bumped off a flight by the flight crew (ultimately the captain), right after 9/11. Tabloids blew it up, claimed it was racism, demanded the heads of the captain and crew and so on. Eventually, the true story emerged. These men had been seated some way from each other but had been walking back and forth yapping away in a middle eastern language. This well after they should have been seated. When instructed by CC to remain seated, they had refused to obey. They had also been waving korans around.

Yes, you are free to talk whatever language you want. You are also free to bring pretty much whatever literature you want along, korans are definitely not in any way objectionable. But you are not free of the responsibility to consider the effects your behaviour, however allowable, will have on other passengers. If you act in a way which might scare other passengers, and if you should be aware of this possibility - off you go and good riddance! Not obeying direct CC instruction was just icing on the cake, even though that by itself is well reason enough.

I think common sense prevailed in the end, the crew were told they did the right thing and these characters were not given a refund.


Provocation is great. Yes, he has a point with the “suspected terrorist” pin. He just does not know when to make his point. This particular provocation was more likely to scare Minnie, 87 and traveling by air for the first time, from her wits than achieve anything. Thus, it did not belong.

I’ve been spiky-haired and what not. That kind of appearance is scary to some people, although it shouldn’t be. That, to me, meant taking great care to always act extra-nicely. Especially when crammed up with people who did not have the option of moving away, such as on public transportation. It’s plain common sense and common courtesy!

It is legal to walk around banks at night wearing a black ski mask. That does not mean it is a good idea. And if you do it anyway, be prepared to take the consequences... and don’t come whining about what happened.

Cheers,
Fred

[Headset starter]

Taking this on to a different point of view, I completely agree with what this guy was trying to achieve, however not how he did it. Security is very important onboard any aircraft, however the way the US are treating certain individuals at present is rather annoying.

I was due to go to Savannah for my type rating training just recently, however due to my circumstances as an inexperienced pilot the US Justice Department decided to put pressure on the training provider by suggesting they may be training a "Potential Terrorist". This then fed itself back to certain people in power in the company and decided not to fulfill their offer of employment.

I see the whole background check procedure as being a complete nightmare. I completed a lengthy form for the US Justice Department, I have a current Visa from my training on an integrated flying course and have visited the US on countless occasions. Why in gods name do they have to cause such a fuss about something which can be done with very little pain on their part, other than tapping into some computer and finding details on my background, with the additional information from my company backing it up?

The paranoia created after 9/11 is, I suppose, justified, however why do they have to be so "American" with it. If security needs stepping up, fine; if more thorough background checks have to be completed, fine; but why can't they just get on and do it instead of harming people's careers by getting excited when they find someone has been fortunate to be offered a job flying a complicated aircraft for their first job.


:(

HS

[SuperStreaker]

This ass was not making a political statement, he was telling everyone he was a suspected terrorist, innocent till proven guilty you say, well, how about let the Captain make the decision to carry him or not when there isn't 37,000 feet of fresh air between me and terra firma. I honestly don't care for him making his statement, political or factual.

I'm surprised he made it through security, because of what his button said? no, because of the friggin sharp pointy pin behind it. No mention of what the purpose of his trip to the UK was, was it to prove a point?

Mr. Gilmore, there is a time and a place for everything, I'm sure most of us who post here learned that as children.

[PaperTiger]

he was telling everyone he was a suspected terroristWhich is the point. Everyone who turns up for flight is suspected of being a terrorist. Why else are they subjected to scrutiny and searches of varying degrees ?
I'm surprised he made it through security, because of what his button said? no, because of the friggin sharp pointy pin behind it.I suspect even the TSA does not consider a ¼ inch pin much of a weapon. But he had made his 'statement', not removing it when asked (or told, doesn't matter which) by the FA was simply petulant. But good publicity in his mind, no doubt.

[SuperStreaker]

You and I see the point PaperTiger, but at what point should safety (and this ass being an ass about something as pettey as removing the badge) take a back seat to his constitutional rights? while the statement being quite true, I have to live with the fact, you and anyone else who enters a contract to be carried on an aircraft also undertake to obey the instructions of the crew.

Simple concept, no?

[PaperTiger]

See my post on page 2, SS.

[slim_slag]

PaperTiger, I have to take my jacket off now for X-ray when going through TSA security checks, I don't think those scanners can read, bet they are working on it though :(

[skeptic]

This Gilmore sounds an utter prat. He's probably the sort of whacko that thinks its reasonable to refuse to pay taxes and that owning a driving licence is an infrigement of his personal freedom. Childish and immature, certainly, but so was BA's attitude. How can a badge, no matter how silly, be a reason to offload a pax? Its hard enough to get a drunk offloaded. What about the pax I saw last week wearing a tee shirt reading "P!ssed as a fart"? Should he have been bounced? If so for what? For wearing an offensive slogan, or suspected drunk:well which, for God's sake! If we're twitched that slogans are going to upset Granny then lets do something useful and bounce everyone wearing one of those deliberately offensive "fcuk" logos. That's just plain in yer face nasty. A tee shirt saying "contagious" or a "suspected terrorist" badge is merely bad taste. None of these have any implication whatever with security. Profilers will no doubt pass these guys without a second glance as thay are clearly harmless, I'd be far more concerned at a Koran waving zealot - he would be a far greater statistical risk.
Can a pax be offloaded for wearing a badge that says "Orange" because the catholic skipper objects, despite the fact the guy probably sells mobile phones? This is ludicrous! How about one that says "Bring in the swipe cards"? Does this make him a dangerous fanatic? Maybe it does, to some...
Still. BA seem bent on self destruction this week, so perhaps this is part of a larger master plan. At this rate it will work.

Still, I do hope someone tears Gilmore a new @rsehole, just like that poor teddy bear! If they did I know what they'd find him full of, but I suppose that might stop it pouring from his mouth.

[MikeGranby]

Sorry to jump in here late, but a couple of people have written of the requirement for pax to obey reasonable requests from the captain. As far as I know, the test is whether the request is lawful, not whether it is reasonable. I recall this issue being raised in respect of a goup of pax who wouldn't stop singing Irish folk songs, and who were subsequently arrested when the plane arrived at the gate. When someone in a newsgroup questioned whether this was in fact a reasonable request, it was pointed out that this didn't come in to it, and that they could equally have been arrested for failing to start singing if the captain had commanded them so to do.

[SirFrosty1]

What an arrogant, pompous idiot.
Wearing that badge is down right insensitive and purposefully confrontational, they did well to kick him off the flight. I just feel sorry for all the other passengers who suffered so this little fool could make a show and feel important- I don't suppose he considered the rights of those who he delayed and their feelings about the matter!

I believe it was a reasonable request to ask him to remove his badge, as any reasonable person would have done it! This has nothing to do with freedom and speech anyway, which incidently we don't have. You are only free to express your views if they considered acceptable by society- which isn't neccesarily a bad thing. For example you are not free to be openly racist, it is a crime ( in many countries, my own included ) to make extreme racist statements. Whilst I think this is a good thing it highlights who we do not have freedom of speech.

With regards to everyone being a terrorist thats the only way a security system can work, everyone must be checked ( I refer to the little boy and his teddy bear example ). Rather than being an infringement on our libertys by being subjected to these checks it gives us the freedom to enjoy ( hopefully safely ) air travel. It shows despite the terrorists we will contiue or way of life, the complete opposite of giving in to them I believe ( think of the Berlin airlift ).

[Memetic]

What should the cabin crew & captain have done if I as a passenger spotted a fellow passenger wearing a badge, lets just say written in Klingon, that said the same thing.

I say, "I feel insecure, that passenger has a badge on claiming to be a suspected terroist"

If the crew can't read the badge and neither can anyone else on the aircraft do they ask him to remove the badge? Would it be a legitimate request if they did?

Or should they remove me from the aircraft for making other passengers feel insecure by pointing this badge out?

Afterall if they cannot read Klingon those passengers would not fee insecure would they? Therefore my translation would actually be the cause of the fear - not the passenger sitting quietly wearing a cool looking badge that a star trek crazy friend gave him.

In the real case when commanded to remove the badge the law required compliance and in any case delaying the flight by arguing about it infringed the rights of his fellow passengers, so he should have complied - but then of course this would not have been so newsworthy.

But was wearing the badge really a safety issue to start with?

I agree it can be argued it became one as soon as the crew were not obeyed and we will need to see what is revealed in court to have prompted the removal request before we can really judge why this was considered a safety issue in the first place.

But where do you draw the line?

Would you put on a badge saying suspected terrorist because the captain told you that if you did not you could not fly?


P.S. I cant read Klingon - nor do I want to learn. :D

[Lucifer]

Being on a UK registered aircraft after the doors are shut puts him in a position under UK law, not US law. His arguments of freedom of speech are therefore inapplicable since we have no such laws or Bill of Rights as such, only European Human Rights law.

[PaxmanwithInfo]

Certain of our American cousins would not understand this subtly particularly with an acute aversion to the International Court of Criminal Justice - what - there might be a higher power or different laws that we might have to obey - not on my watch... why I oughtta...

Throw me my sidearm and then we'll decide...

Good point last poster - is it UK or US Federal law that would prevail?

[Cathar]

As the aircraft was in the US, US law will apply. In addition, various articles of the Air Navigation Order will apply to UK aircraft wherever they might be and Section 92 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 applies UK criminal law to UK registered aircraft outside of the UK.

[slim_slag]

I'd always thought that the ultimate authority granted to the pilot in command of an airplane was to ensure the safe completion of the flight. I know this was a BA plane, but in the US the authority is granted by part 91 of the FARs, so applies to small aircraft too.

MikeGranby, what FAR gives the pilot in command the authority over anything that does not affect the operation of the aircraft? What statute (FAR) would the PIC use to justify the forcing of people to sing Irish Folk Songs? If the order given by the pilot doesn't affect the operation of the flight, I'm guessing it is not a lawful order.

Now the captain wears another hat of authority, that of senior management representative of the airline. If he makes a management decision that the airline doesn't want to transport a passenger, then fair enough. In this case I'd expect the airline to pay compensation, but in this case I'd expect the airline to back the captain's management decision.

Any lawyers?

[ATN]

Hi, all,

I think that if the badge is allowed in the streets then it should be in the aircraft, along with f**k tee shirts and so on. Airlines cannot make their own laws, can they ? Here I consider the message on the badge, not the potential danger from the pin.
What is the reason why the FA asked the pax to remove the badge in the first place ? And did he explain him ?
Maybe some overreaction from the CC ?

Second thing is, I think the passenger should have removed the badge without making all this fuss. An airliner cramped cabin at the beginning of a long haul is not the best place to try to make a point on such a touchy matter.

When reported the incident I guess the captain could not disavow the CC and also had to consider the degraded mood in the cabin right before a critical phase of the flight. He had not choice but to go back at the gate and bump off the trouble maker.

Now I think this same trouble maker has a right to demand explanations to the airline, not because he has been offloaded, but because he may have been requested to remove the badge without any substantial reason.

[MikeGranby]

In the UK, it's an ANO which states something about people having to obey any lawful command issued for a variety of purposes. The ANOs are part of the UK's criminal statute, and breaking them can attract the full penalties of the law.

In the US, it's a bit different. You ask about the FARs. Well, there's obviously FAR 91.3(a) and to some extent parts of FAR 121.533 et seq, but remember that the FARs are Administrative Law and thus have both limited scope for penalities (eg. no option for jail) and limited applicability in respect of pax. There have, therefore, to be specific federal or state codes which address particular issues, such as 49 USC 46504 re interferring with aircrew.

Now, whether the comment I referred to about ordering people to begin singing songs would really stand up in court, I don't know, but the point that poster was making remains ie. that, in UK law at least, the test is 'lawful' not 'reasonable', and that the court will be loath to sustitute its judgement for that of the pilot. All this bleating about whether the captain's request was reasonable is thus pointless. If the captian asks you to do something lawful, do it. End of story. You are not in a position to second-guess his decision, and the court won't, either.

[maxy101]

Another aspect is BA´s S.O.P´s don´t allow the Captain to override the in charge cabin crew member if he decides to offload a pax, even if the pax is the Captains´wife. I would imagine that the Captain is merely carrying out company procedures in this case.....

[Celtic Frog]

I have to agree with Big Tudor.
Gilmore obviously is an arse. Besides,..freedom of speech is granted automatically in any public place and quite right too.
But would you you invite a weirdo who openly spoke out about something you strongly disagreed with into your own home?

In your own premises you have the right to insist that your guests don't display or talk about....or use offensive language in front of your family.

Gilmore was deliberately provocative and had taken himself out of what could be called a "public place" and instead entered into someone else's (BA's) premises of which the Captain was in charge.

Captain's the boss there..and when the captain gives a passenger a direct order to be less provocative or whatever, who does Gilmore think he is to refuse?

I agree that some issues of airport security have gone too far, but as an airline industry let's jointly discourage these vermin who deliberately try to intimidate our industry.

Well done to the BA Captain.
:ok:

[Flaps_45]

Difficult question. I think that anyone who thinks that this one is really clear cut is missing the point - a pretty tough balancing of interests is involved.

My opinion, for what it's worth...

1. "It's Nigel's plane and you do what he says". BA's private property has essentially been opened up to the public for the purposes of commercial gain. This immediately places some limitation on what they can prohibit - the state (whichever it may be) has a greater regulatory interest than would be the case if I prohibited certain speech in my own home.

2. "It's like shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater - you can't just say whatever you want and expect it to be protected as free speech". Absolutely correct - the problem is in determining what is legitimate and protected speech and what is tantamount to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. The distinction which Justice Holmes had in mind when he wrote that passage, and indeed the distinction which he never quite got the U.S. Supreme Court to accept, was the distinction between words and action. When someone's words are just words, even if we find them irritating or offensive, we must tolerate them. When they actually cause adverse reactions with real risks, or incite certain undesirable behaviour, it may be legitimate to limit them.

If something is offensive enough or irritating enough, it may upset people so much that it has crossed that boundary, and we can perhaps legitimately limit it. It may even cause certain types of more tangible harm. Hence the legitimacy of prohibiting racist speech.

With this in mind...

3. Asking Gilmore to take off the pin was unnecessary - it had not been noticed and was not inciting any passengers to misbehave. It was not upsetting anyone or making them feel uncomfortable. A little hypersensitive and paranoid, I think. However, if the badge was having such an effect on pax, there might have been a case for making the demand, although only if it was causing *real* concern.

4. Once Gilmore had been asked to remove it, it had been brought to the attention of all and, more importantly, he started behaving like an arse. He could have removed it and complained (in my view legitimately) at a later time, but he chose to misbehave and cause a problem. If the Captain decided to remove him for this reason, well done. His political speech had turned to action which would have got him removed from the flight in any event (i.e. regardless of whether he was engaging in political speech). If he was removed because he refused to conform to the Captain's order to limit his speech, that would be illegitimate.

Of course, there is a fine line between getting thrown off for your behaviour and getting thrown off for expressing a view that leads to that behaviour - this is why it is such a difficult issue.

I admire the point Gilmore was trying to make, but the way he made it affected too many other people, and could have been made in a manner that was less selfish but equally effective. I think that he behaved, if the facts are reported correctly, like a complete arse!

Cheers

Flaps_45

[cdtaylor_nats]

Surely this is just like a Scottish pub with a "No Football Colours" sign up.

It is a private business - open to the public, but the landlord decrees what is acceptable.

Even if the US Laws of free speech protected this idiot at the US airport they could have had him arrested with impunity as soon as they got to London.

[Joe Phoenix]

RE: Celtic Frog's comment about freedom of speach. This is not applicable to BA as Britain does not have a legal right to free speach, we do have law forbidding certain types of statements in public though.
:ooh:

[av8boy]

Here I consider the message on the badge, not the potential danger from the pin.

Hopefully to put the pin thing to rest... I believe that the crew demanded that he remove the button, not surrender it. Seems to me that it wasn't the fact that he had possession of this button, but rather, that he was displaying it.

Just a minor point...

Dave