Police & pax at EMA
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No one seems to know what the cause of this was
Except the BBC perhaps:
although quite how this was 'spotted' 20 minutes after take off I can't say 
And I think that pretty much rules out 'not knowing what you're dealing with'.
People getting killed so you can enjoy a few 'freedoms'
Do you really think a report from a screener who an hour or so ago may or may not have seen 'something' (not, as it turns out) leads to the conclusion that people will be getting killed in a gate lounge at EMA surrounded by armed police ? Yer helmet's too tight I think.
BTW, interesting that you see the need to put freedom in quotes, but perhaps not surprising.
Except the BBC perhaps:
Armed police were called after a suspicious object was spotted in a passenger's hand baggage.
And I think that pretty much rules out 'not knowing what you're dealing with'.
People getting killed so you can enjoy a few 'freedoms'
Do you really think a report from a screener who an hour or so ago may or may not have seen 'something' (not, as it turns out) leads to the conclusion that people will be getting killed in a gate lounge at EMA surrounded by armed police ? Yer helmet's too tight I think.
BTW, interesting that you see the need to put freedom in quotes, but perhaps not surprising.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
BJCC,
Noted your answer (the tone of which, I must say, I found very pompous), directly following my earlier post.
I too can guess why this particular incident occurred. It isn't, as you put it, "a gut reaction to half a story". Due to the nature of my job, I am personally responsible for the security of my own aircraft and pax, often not helped by security staff. My own recent experiences at airports make me reluctant to fly anywhere as a passenger these days unless I really have to.
From my own experience at that particular airport, there is an ongoing issue with staffing resources. I am not saying the actual security is deficient, but the point is that in these troubled times, sufficient staff must be made available in order to cater for incidents like this, or the public are going to stay away from air travel altogether. My point was that if there had been more staff available to deal with confirmation of security and re-process the passengers, it would surely have resulted in a better outcome for all. As a professional pilot I don't accept the "like it or lump it" attitude. We must NOT allow deficiencies in handling of these situations. The passengers pay my salary.
I, like the average person, have no personal objection to being searched or checked in the name of security, however often, provided that it is done in a professional, considerate and expeditious manner. Unfortunately it appears that these people were not searched or questioned, merely delayed, detained, inconvenienced and denied normal facilities without a satisfactory explanation. I sincerely hope this isn't a glimpse of things to come.
If this story is accurate and I don't disbelieve the first hand accounts, it seems the terrorists have achieved their aim, which is to disrupt our system and way of life.
Your quote:
<Complain to your MP if that makes you feel better, it will be investigated and it will waste a large amount of money (the paperwork and time involved is huge in complaints against police) which could be better employed fighting crime, but then its your money paid out in taxes so think about how you'd like it spent.....You'd be better complaining to the airlines, its thier responsibility to feed you, not the Police.> Unquote.
Totally irrelevant to my post. I never mentioned food or a possible complaint to the police or my MP.
However, if it is true that passengers were aware that the security staff and police were being fed and watered while they themselves were denied the same, it is totally unacceptable.
Noted your answer (the tone of which, I must say, I found very pompous), directly following my earlier post.
I too can guess why this particular incident occurred. It isn't, as you put it, "a gut reaction to half a story". Due to the nature of my job, I am personally responsible for the security of my own aircraft and pax, often not helped by security staff. My own recent experiences at airports make me reluctant to fly anywhere as a passenger these days unless I really have to.
From my own experience at that particular airport, there is an ongoing issue with staffing resources. I am not saying the actual security is deficient, but the point is that in these troubled times, sufficient staff must be made available in order to cater for incidents like this, or the public are going to stay away from air travel altogether. My point was that if there had been more staff available to deal with confirmation of security and re-process the passengers, it would surely have resulted in a better outcome for all. As a professional pilot I don't accept the "like it or lump it" attitude. We must NOT allow deficiencies in handling of these situations. The passengers pay my salary.
I, like the average person, have no personal objection to being searched or checked in the name of security, however often, provided that it is done in a professional, considerate and expeditious manner. Unfortunately it appears that these people were not searched or questioned, merely delayed, detained, inconvenienced and denied normal facilities without a satisfactory explanation. I sincerely hope this isn't a glimpse of things to come.
If this story is accurate and I don't disbelieve the first hand accounts, it seems the terrorists have achieved their aim, which is to disrupt our system and way of life.
Your quote:
<Complain to your MP if that makes you feel better, it will be investigated and it will waste a large amount of money (the paperwork and time involved is huge in complaints against police) which could be better employed fighting crime, but then its your money paid out in taxes so think about how you'd like it spent.....You'd be better complaining to the airlines, its thier responsibility to feed you, not the Police.> Unquote.
Totally irrelevant to my post. I never mentioned food or a possible complaint to the police or my MP. However, if it is true that passengers were aware that the security staff and police were being fed and watered while they themselves were denied the same, it is totally unacceptable.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc:
To which FR might quite reasonably say to the Police: 'Sure - they can buy food on the plane. Or they can buy food in the terminal. You won't let them do either? Oh, well then it's your problem now. You've detained them, you get to feed them.'
Exactly as if they were in the cells.
Wonder if any of them had the nouse to phone for pizza delivery?!
Me neither. Let's face it, we have no clue as to who said what to whom. Perhaps the Police said 'ok, they can be brought food' but see above. Could be any number of screw-ups between Police, FR, airport managment, and caterers. We're guessing. Doesn't matter; the end result was the pax got no food or water, and that's just wrong. And the Police preventing them from leaving the area was the proximate cause of the problem. As for threatening a bit of unoffical 'punishment' if pax insisted on using the bathroom... well that's indefensible.
bjcc, I'm not the enemy - in fact I applied for, and was accepted to, the NYPD equivalent of the Special Constabulary (I didn't complete my training due to moving out of the area). I'd still say that a lot of people were detained for a long time on highly dubious legal grounds (since they were neither searched nor questioned), and the issues with food, water, lack of information, and toiletting, when 99% of the people *must* be innocent, and probably 100% can't be considered genuine suspects - just plain wrong!
R1
The resposiblity to feed pax is the airlines, irrespective of what you may think.
Exactly as if they were in the cells.
Wonder if any of them had the nouse to phone for pizza delivery?!
Backtrack, Why should Police refuse to allow food in? No reason that I can think of.
bjcc, I'm not the enemy - in fact I applied for, and was accepted to, the NYPD equivalent of the Special Constabulary (I didn't complete my training due to moving out of the area). I'd still say that a lot of people were detained for a long time on highly dubious legal grounds (since they were neither searched nor questioned), and the issues with food, water, lack of information, and toiletting, when 99% of the people *must* be innocent, and probably 100% can't be considered genuine suspects - just plain wrong!
R1
Guest
Posts: n/a
BJCC
I must agree with ShyTorque that you post is pompous and would also add patronising.
However, let us deal with the facts, rather than your unsubstantiated opinion.
Firstly, there is no contract with the airline to provide food or drink, the contract makes that clear. After the airborne return, it is doutbful that there was a contract at all, due to the principle of force majeure.
So we have people, detained, who are allegedly given neither food nor water for five hours.
I repeat my assertion that
If you wish to differ, you can have your own opinion. I find your opinion unworthy.
I am not quoting stories, I observed these things in the northern industrial town that I lived in from 1967 to 1983. In this town, the police constables now drive in pairs and wear Kevlar waistcoats.
So please tell me how long you lived in my town? In fact, please tell me the name of my town.
Then you have earned the right to tell me it never happened. Until then, I would prefer if you did not make such comments.
I must agree with ShyTorque that you post is pompous and would also add patronising.
However, let us deal with the facts, rather than your unsubstantiated opinion.
Firstly, there is no contract with the airline to provide food or drink, the contract makes that clear. After the airborne return, it is doutbful that there was a contract at all, due to the principle of force majeure.
So we have people, detained, who are allegedly given neither food nor water for five hours.
I repeat my assertion that
a senior officer should have had the nouse to arrange, at least, supplies of water - five hours is a long time without.
24 years ago, I heard the same stories of how it used to be
So please tell me how long you lived in my town? In fact, please tell me the name of my town.
Then you have earned the right to tell me it never happened. Until then, I would prefer if you did not make such comments.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between The Black Swan & The Swettenham Arms
Age: 69
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Backtrack, Why should Police refuse to allow food in? No reason that I can think of.
You have, however, missed the point; it is not about 'refusing to allow food in', but allowing people out to provide for themselves.
I agree with you that the police are not a division of 'Burger King' - a bit flippant - and , in such circumstances, I'm not sure who is 'responsible' (laws on contract & tort notwithstanding). It doesn't appear to be the airline's fault the flight had to turn back.
Something else that puzzles me. If the a/c had been airborne for 20 mins, why did it have to return to EMA? After this amount of time, it would have been about 100nm from it's departure point, so if there was a serious security breach/suspicion/cock-up etc, why not land at the nearest suitable aiport? I don't know where the flight was heading, but a 100nm radius around EMA brings in a heck of a lot of 'suitable airports'.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Final 3 Greens
Limited access to toilets is refused access is it? Where there is water also perhaps?
Let them out to get thier own food...interesting idea, of course how stupid of the police...detain pax regarding a security incident, then let them wander off looking for food????? I wonder why they didn't do that?
As for guess the northern town, quite honestly I can't be bothered, just ask yourself why what you claim happens doesn't any more...Perhaps if Dixon of Dock Green had had a flack jacket he wouldn't have been murdered in the film 'the blue light'
Unsubstaniated opinon? Well thats all this post is, mostly... The full reeason for this incident have not been revealed, a 'suspcious object' part of the story, but from that point onwards what happens police wise is dependent on wht the object is suspected to be. No one knows...inclucing me. I can see however there would be circumstances depending on what the objects suspected to be when police action would be exactly this...or ven in some cases more dreconian. You can find me pompous over it, tough. unlike you I have had to deal with this sort of thing.
Yes the pax probably do still have a contract with the airlines, they having not forfilled thier side of it. They also have a duty of care towards the pax, which it could be said include the provision of food. The fact that Police made no such arrangements makes me think theat the Police relied on the airline to do it. In any case there is NO contract with Police on the subject. The passengers were detained (as in the old S.66 MPA Stop, search and DETAIN) not arrested.
Ranger One...I'm sorry where does the 'punishment' for visiting the bathroom come into it?
Limited access to toilets is refused access is it? Where there is water also perhaps?
Let them out to get thier own food...interesting idea, of course how stupid of the police...detain pax regarding a security incident, then let them wander off looking for food????? I wonder why they didn't do that?
As for guess the northern town, quite honestly I can't be bothered, just ask yourself why what you claim happens doesn't any more...Perhaps if Dixon of Dock Green had had a flack jacket he wouldn't have been murdered in the film 'the blue light'
Unsubstaniated opinon? Well thats all this post is, mostly... The full reeason for this incident have not been revealed, a 'suspcious object' part of the story, but from that point onwards what happens police wise is dependent on wht the object is suspected to be. No one knows...inclucing me. I can see however there would be circumstances depending on what the objects suspected to be when police action would be exactly this...or ven in some cases more dreconian. You can find me pompous over it, tough. unlike you I have had to deal with this sort of thing.
Yes the pax probably do still have a contract with the airlines, they having not forfilled thier side of it. They also have a duty of care towards the pax, which it could be said include the provision of food. The fact that Police made no such arrangements makes me think theat the Police relied on the airline to do it. In any case there is NO contract with Police on the subject. The passengers were detained (as in the old S.66 MPA Stop, search and DETAIN) not arrested.
Ranger One...I'm sorry where does the 'punishment' for visiting the bathroom come into it?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc:
In the usenet thread (google groups) I quoted in my initial post, a passenger who was on the flight reported:
In other words, it's clear there was a threat - if a passenger insisted on being allowed to use the toilet (reasonable request), the officer would make a point of making things 'difficult' for them (unreasonable).
Note in all this I'm not saying that in detaining the passengers the Police did anything they didn't reasonably feel they had to do. It probably seemed the necessary thing to do at the time, and I'd be wary of second-guessing the Police decisons from my armchair with all the benefit of hindsight. Exactly as I would when people second-guess the actions of an aircraft commander without all the evidence.
The point I AM making is that there seems (from other posts I've read, here and elsewhere) to be at least some degree of doubt as to whether the detentions were lawful. And they certainly weren't pleasant, due to lack of refreshments and difficulty with toiletting.
Perhaps there needs to be a change in the law to make it clear that the police DO have the power to act as they did in such situations, and procedures must be put in place to ensure that the reasonable needs of passengers so detained are met - and to make explicit who is responsible for meeting them - since such situations will undoubtedly occur again.
The industry is in a dire enough situation already without own goals like this!
R1
Ranger One...I'm sorry where does the 'punishment' for visiting the bathroom come into it?
The initial response from the police was " No you cant use the toilet" when this was challenged, the officer said, "if you don't do as I say, I will make sure that you don't fly out of EMA today" In fact none of us flew!
Note in all this I'm not saying that in detaining the passengers the Police did anything they didn't reasonably feel they had to do. It probably seemed the necessary thing to do at the time, and I'd be wary of second-guessing the Police decisons from my armchair with all the benefit of hindsight. Exactly as I would when people second-guess the actions of an aircraft commander without all the evidence.
The point I AM making is that there seems (from other posts I've read, here and elsewhere) to be at least some degree of doubt as to whether the detentions were lawful. And they certainly weren't pleasant, due to lack of refreshments and difficulty with toiletting.
Perhaps there needs to be a change in the law to make it clear that the police DO have the power to act as they did in such situations, and procedures must be put in place to ensure that the reasonable needs of passengers so detained are met - and to make explicit who is responsible for meeting them - since such situations will undoubtedly occur again.
The industry is in a dire enough situation already without own goals like this!
R1
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc
You use the word detain again. There is no such power, other than for the purposes of a stop and search. This was obviously not a stop and search. If it were, the following principles apply.
1 Principles governing stop and search
1.1 Powers to stop and search must be used fairly, responsibly, with respect for people being searched and without unlawful discrimination.
1.2 The intrusion on the liberty of the person stopped or searched must be brief and detention for the purposes of a search must take place at or near the location of the stop.
1.3 If these fundamental principles are not observed the use of powers to stop and search may be drawn into question. Failure to use the powers in the proper manner reduces their effectiveness. Stop and search can play an important role in the detection and prevention of crime, and using the powers fairly makes them more effective.
1.4 The primary purpose of stop and search powers is to enable officers to allay or confirm suspicions about individuals without exercising their power of arrest. Officers may be required to justify the use or authorisation of such powers, in relation both to individual searches and the overall pattern of their activity in this regard, to their supervisory officers or in court. Any misuse of the powers is likely to be harmful to policing and lead to mistrust of the police. Officers must also be able to explain their actions to the member of the public searched. The misuse of these powers can lead to disciplinary action.
And each person detained would have to be informed of
(a) the constable's name and the name of the police station to which he is attached;
(b) the object of the proposed search;
(c) the constable's grounds for proposing to make it
And if there were a power to "detain" other than for the purposes of a brief search, do you seriously suggest that the person detained would not be entitled to an explanation as to why he was being detained, and food and drink and lavatory facilities from the person who was detaining him?
Most importantly, after each person had been detained and searched, he would be free be go about his lawful business. The power cannot be used to detain hundreds of people at a time.
You use the word detain again. There is no such power, other than for the purposes of a stop and search. This was obviously not a stop and search. If it were, the following principles apply.
1 Principles governing stop and search
1.1 Powers to stop and search must be used fairly, responsibly, with respect for people being searched and without unlawful discrimination.
1.2 The intrusion on the liberty of the person stopped or searched must be brief and detention for the purposes of a search must take place at or near the location of the stop.
1.3 If these fundamental principles are not observed the use of powers to stop and search may be drawn into question. Failure to use the powers in the proper manner reduces their effectiveness. Stop and search can play an important role in the detection and prevention of crime, and using the powers fairly makes them more effective.
1.4 The primary purpose of stop and search powers is to enable officers to allay or confirm suspicions about individuals without exercising their power of arrest. Officers may be required to justify the use or authorisation of such powers, in relation both to individual searches and the overall pattern of their activity in this regard, to their supervisory officers or in court. Any misuse of the powers is likely to be harmful to policing and lead to mistrust of the police. Officers must also be able to explain their actions to the member of the public searched. The misuse of these powers can lead to disciplinary action.
And each person detained would have to be informed of
(a) the constable's name and the name of the police station to which he is attached;
(b) the object of the proposed search;
(c) the constable's grounds for proposing to make it
And if there were a power to "detain" other than for the purposes of a brief search, do you seriously suggest that the person detained would not be entitled to an explanation as to why he was being detained, and food and drink and lavatory facilities from the person who was detaining him?
Most importantly, after each person had been detained and searched, he would be free be go about his lawful business. The power cannot be used to detain hundreds of people at a time.
Guest
Posts: n/a
BJCC
I am forced to wonder whether you can read very well?
Where did I mention access to the toilet? Water is drawn from taps, not toilets (at least in the circles I move in) and taps are found in many locations. Jugs and other containers are often used to move water from the location of the tap to other places too, but it does require a degree of common sense and initiative to do this, admittedly.
Do you understand the concept of force majeure? Do you understand what a frustrated contract is?
Please review clause 9.3 of the FR general conditions of carriage, what part of this do you have trouble understanding?
You say "Unsubstaniated opinon? Well thats all this post is, mostly... The full reeason for this incident have not been revealed, a 'suspcious object' part of the story, but from that point onwards what happens police wise is dependent on wht the object is suspected to be. No one knows...inclucing me. I can see however there would be circumstances depending on what the objects suspected to be when police action would be exactly this...or ven in some cases more dreconian. You can find me pompous over it, tough. unlike you I have had to deal with this sort of thing."
I have no comment to make about why the Police took their action and am prepared to believe that it was totally justified.
However:
1) FR do not have a contractual obligation to feed and water the pax IMHO
and
2) I stand by my comment over the alleged lack of provision of water
OK, so you were talking speculativey, you didn't live there.
As I recall, Tom Riley shot George Dixon dead, so presumably would have adjusted his aim, thus rendering the flak jacket ineffective, but as Dixon of Dock Green never happened, neither by implication did the Blue Lamp, from which the series was derived, so your argument is hopelessy illogical
I am forced to wonder whether you can read very well?
Limited access to toilets is refused access is it? Where there is water also perhaps?
Yes the pax probably do still have a contract with the airlines
Please review clause 9.3 of the FR general conditions of carriage, what part of this do you have trouble understanding?
9.3 DIVERSIONS
If, for reasons outside our control, we are unable to land at the airfield at your destination
and are diverted so as to land at another airfield then the carriage by air shall, unless the
aircraft continues to the original destination, be deemed to be completed when the aircraft
arrives at that other airfield. We shall, however, arrange or designate alternative
transportation, whether by our own services or by other means of transportation specified by
us to carry you to the original destination as set out in your Ticket without additional cost.
If, for reasons outside our control, we are unable to land at the airfield at your destination
and are diverted so as to land at another airfield then the carriage by air shall, unless the
aircraft continues to the original destination, be deemed to be completed when the aircraft
arrives at that other airfield. We shall, however, arrange or designate alternative
transportation, whether by our own services or by other means of transportation specified by
us to carry you to the original destination as set out in your Ticket without additional cost.
I have no comment to make about why the Police took their action and am prepared to believe that it was totally justified.
However:
1) FR do not have a contractual obligation to feed and water the pax IMHO
and
2) I stand by my comment over the alleged lack of provision of water
As for guess the northern town, quite honestly I can't be bothered, just ask yourself why what you claim happens doesn't any more...Perhaps if Dixon of Dock Green had had a flack jacket he wouldn't have been murdered in the film 'the blue light'
As I recall, Tom Riley shot George Dixon dead, so presumably would have adjusted his aim, thus rendering the flak jacket ineffective, but as Dixon of Dock Green never happened, neither by implication did the Blue Lamp, from which the series was derived, so your argument is hopelessy illogical
Last edited by Final 3 Greens; 28th Sep 2004 at 21:03.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between The Black Swan & The Swettenham Arms
Age: 69
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to be a pain on this point, Ladies & Gents, but I really am confused.
Having taken a peek at FR's website I can only find 2 services ex EMA, both going to Spain (there may be others, but then I'm not terribly good with my PC.)
This means - assuming the a/c was flying south - that after 20mins, the flight would be in the area of the Channel. On the instructions of ATC it then returned to EMA, where, after coming on chocks, it was not disembarked for a further 30 mins. Then we run into the detention and all the other good stuff previously posted.
JUST HOW SERIOUS WAS THIS THREAT THAT ALLOWED AN A/C TO HAVE PEOPLE ON BOARD FOR THIS LENGTH OF TIME?
Having taken a peek at FR's website I can only find 2 services ex EMA, both going to Spain (there may be others, but then I'm not terribly good with my PC.)
This means - assuming the a/c was flying south - that after 20mins, the flight would be in the area of the Channel. On the instructions of ATC it then returned to EMA, where, after coming on chocks, it was not disembarked for a further 30 mins. Then we run into the detention and all the other good stuff previously posted.
JUST HOW SERIOUS WAS THIS THREAT THAT ALLOWED AN A/C TO HAVE PEOPLE ON BOARD FOR THIS LENGTH OF TIME?
It does seem logical to my mind that if the police have taken charge of the PAX, the airline isn't responsible.
bjcc feels that complaining would be wasting police time and tax payers money. My reaction to that is
GOOD!
Because if they can keep people for four hours without food and water and lavatory access, how much longer can they do it? What about the poor old boy with prostate problems? Is he expected to p** himself?
It's only by complaining loud and long and costing money when authority is misused that it can be stopped. Remember, people in Germany in 1933 didn't see much to complain about at first...........'When they came for me, there was nobody left to speak out'
bjcc feels that complaining would be wasting police time and tax payers money. My reaction to that is
GOOD!
Because if they can keep people for four hours without food and water and lavatory access, how much longer can they do it? What about the poor old boy with prostate problems? Is he expected to p** himself?
It's only by complaining loud and long and costing money when authority is misused that it can be stopped. Remember, people in Germany in 1933 didn't see much to complain about at first...........'When they came for me, there was nobody left to speak out'
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: London,Bucharest...wherever...
Posts: 1,014
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally agree with the above comment;
I do not profess to know the legislation or the procedures but if the police are holding persons under the various anti-terrorist legislations as already covered then surely they should at least be individually notified (possibly both verbally and in writing? cautioned?) that they are being held under these powers?! If not then they have been held unlawfully...
Sadly the whole 9/11 scenario, TSA et al has spawned a bunch of mini hitlers who believe they have absolute powers above and beyond what is legislated/allowed, who believe they are not accountable...the only answer to bring this bunch to task is to make them acutely aware that their position and cushy pensions etc. are/will be at risk should they not act in a more acceptable/professional manner within the confines of their position and the appropriate legislation.
Make them realise they are accountable...complain and embarrass them with the public/press and cost them/their organisation a lot of money in the process
I do not profess to know the legislation or the procedures but if the police are holding persons under the various anti-terrorist legislations as already covered then surely they should at least be individually notified (possibly both verbally and in writing? cautioned?) that they are being held under these powers?! If not then they have been held unlawfully...
Sadly the whole 9/11 scenario, TSA et al has spawned a bunch of mini hitlers who believe they have absolute powers above and beyond what is legislated/allowed, who believe they are not accountable...the only answer to bring this bunch to task is to make them acutely aware that their position and cushy pensions etc. are/will be at risk should they not act in a more acceptable/professional manner within the confines of their position and the appropriate legislation.
Make them realise they are accountable...complain and embarrass them with the public/press and cost them/their organisation a lot of money in the process
Last edited by Boss Raptor; 29th Sep 2004 at 12:24.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Compensation for False Imprisonment guidelines start at #500 for the first hour and slides till it reaches #3000 for 24 hours (The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Thompson and Hsu)
So call it a round thousand pounds for 4 hours unlawful detention, multiply by the reported 190 on the plane and the cops could be in the hole for close on 200k.
Or rather the poor suffering council tax payers would end up paying out, people who (contrary to what bjcc obviously thinks) are entitled to expect the cops are there to make their lives inconvenience free, and also there to protect their 'freedoms' which date back to a long time before Dixon of Dock Green was around.
So call it a round thousand pounds for 4 hours unlawful detention, multiply by the reported 190 on the plane and the cops could be in the hole for close on 200k.
Or rather the poor suffering council tax payers would end up paying out, people who (contrary to what bjcc obviously thinks) are entitled to expect the cops are there to make their lives inconvenience free, and also there to protect their 'freedoms' which date back to a long time before Dixon of Dock Green was around.
Supercalifragilistic
expialidocious
expialidocious
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
although I can't say I find my own views directly aligned with much of the stuff on :
http://www.urban75.com/Action/index2.html
it has some interesting info on rights when being detained.
And anyone actually involved may like to visit:
https://www.secure-website.com/liber...20query%20form
Personally i'm all for effective security and a strong defense for the UK, but a balance must be struck so that the power that WE grant our government is used to protect those freedoms not remove them.
In the above case from the point where the aircraft was not diverted to the nearest suitable airport, or perhaps STN as the "designated" airport for security problems, judgement and balance seem to have started to slip away.
http://www.urban75.com/Action/index2.html
it has some interesting info on rights when being detained.
And anyone actually involved may like to visit:
https://www.secure-website.com/liber...20query%20form
Personally i'm all for effective security and a strong defense for the UK, but a balance must be struck so that the power that WE grant our government is used to protect those freedoms not remove them.
In the above case from the point where the aircraft was not diverted to the nearest suitable airport, or perhaps STN as the "designated" airport for security problems, judgement and balance seem to have started to slip away.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reply to my complaint sent via Newsgroup
"Leicstershire Constabulary, and the Inspector who was in charge at EMA that day was kind enough to offer to speak to me to discuss what happened. The following points emerged:
1. The cause of the incident was a 'security alert' pertaining NOT toa specific flight but to all the passengers who passed through
security during a 'specific time period'. More facts about exactly
what happened will probably emerge in due course as this was a DoT/CAA 'reportable incident'.
2. This resulted in the need to 100% (bag search/pat down) rescreen around 1300 passengers. I think (but cannot recall precisely) it was said that the Ryanair flight was the only one affected that had actually departed - and it was only a few minutes from departure, ten minutes according to the Inspector.
3. The passengers from the Ryanair flight were kept together as a
group, as were the passengers for many other flights in other areas of the terminal. They weren't so much detained as being kept waiting as a group to pass through screening together.
4. With 1300 passengers to 100% rescreen, this process was ineveitably going to take a considerable time. The Police, in co-operation with the airport authority and the security people, tried to do this as expeditiously as possible. In particular, it became evident that some flights, due to takeoff slot availability and crew duty time availabilty, *were* going to be able to depart at something close to their scheduled time, and passengers from those flights were pushed to the front of the re-screening queue. Other flights were never going to make it due to no slot or crew running out of duty time, and were inevitably going to have to be cancelled. The passengers for those flights were delayed longer.
5. Someone was always going to be 'last in the queue' and on this occasion it was the Ryanair flight - bad luck. The Inspector was dubious about the time kept waiting, thought it would have been less than the quoted four hours.
6. The Inspector stated that he had no problem with refreshments being taken in to passengers being kept waiting, if Ryanair or the airport authority decided to do so. He wasn't prepared to let the passengers roam the terminal to get their own food, as it was essential to pushing people through security as fast as possible that the passengers from each flight be kept together. He freely confessed that providing refreshments for the passengers 'wasn't his highest priority', and given the three-ring circus he was running that day, I have some sympathy for him!
7. I still wonder why it wasn't possible, at some stage in the
proceedings, to move the Ryanair passengers, who *had* after all been waiting a long time, to a more central area of the terminal where they could be kept together but still access refreshments.
8. No instruction was issued concerning not allowing passengers to use the bathroom, or requiring them to escorted when doing so. It's possible that this was implemented by a lower-ranking officer in the Ryanair area, in response to a perceived concern that a weapon may have been sneaked through security and could be disposed of in the bathroom.
9. No formal complaints have been received as a result of this
incident.
10. The powers to detain/control the movement of passengers in this situation come from the fact that the passengers were airside, and thus subject to the laws concerning aviation/maritime security, and also were in a Customs controlled area. I'd need to bone up on the actual law to find the specific powers. "
Thoughts?
ShiftZZ
"Leicstershire Constabulary, and the Inspector who was in charge at EMA that day was kind enough to offer to speak to me to discuss what happened. The following points emerged:
1. The cause of the incident was a 'security alert' pertaining NOT toa specific flight but to all the passengers who passed through
security during a 'specific time period'. More facts about exactly
what happened will probably emerge in due course as this was a DoT/CAA 'reportable incident'.
2. This resulted in the need to 100% (bag search/pat down) rescreen around 1300 passengers. I think (but cannot recall precisely) it was said that the Ryanair flight was the only one affected that had actually departed - and it was only a few minutes from departure, ten minutes according to the Inspector.
3. The passengers from the Ryanair flight were kept together as a
group, as were the passengers for many other flights in other areas of the terminal. They weren't so much detained as being kept waiting as a group to pass through screening together.
4. With 1300 passengers to 100% rescreen, this process was ineveitably going to take a considerable time. The Police, in co-operation with the airport authority and the security people, tried to do this as expeditiously as possible. In particular, it became evident that some flights, due to takeoff slot availability and crew duty time availabilty, *were* going to be able to depart at something close to their scheduled time, and passengers from those flights were pushed to the front of the re-screening queue. Other flights were never going to make it due to no slot or crew running out of duty time, and were inevitably going to have to be cancelled. The passengers for those flights were delayed longer.
5. Someone was always going to be 'last in the queue' and on this occasion it was the Ryanair flight - bad luck. The Inspector was dubious about the time kept waiting, thought it would have been less than the quoted four hours.
6. The Inspector stated that he had no problem with refreshments being taken in to passengers being kept waiting, if Ryanair or the airport authority decided to do so. He wasn't prepared to let the passengers roam the terminal to get their own food, as it was essential to pushing people through security as fast as possible that the passengers from each flight be kept together. He freely confessed that providing refreshments for the passengers 'wasn't his highest priority', and given the three-ring circus he was running that day, I have some sympathy for him!
7. I still wonder why it wasn't possible, at some stage in the
proceedings, to move the Ryanair passengers, who *had* after all been waiting a long time, to a more central area of the terminal where they could be kept together but still access refreshments.
8. No instruction was issued concerning not allowing passengers to use the bathroom, or requiring them to escorted when doing so. It's possible that this was implemented by a lower-ranking officer in the Ryanair area, in response to a perceived concern that a weapon may have been sneaked through security and could be disposed of in the bathroom.
9. No formal complaints have been received as a result of this
incident.
10. The powers to detain/control the movement of passengers in this situation come from the fact that the passengers were airside, and thus subject to the laws concerning aviation/maritime security, and also were in a Customs controlled area. I'd need to bone up on the actual law to find the specific powers. "
Thoughts?
ShiftZZ
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: London,Bucharest...wherever...
Posts: 1,014
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rubbish...so they are no longer claiming they were holding you under appropriate Anti Terrorist legislation (as they did not individually notify you that you were being detained/processed under anti terrorist legislation and so therefore you would have been held unlawfully) and as such then they are basically saying you were free to go at any time you chose i.e. return landside...and that they didn't keep you in a secure (locked) area and didnt refuse u access to toilets etc.- well that isn't quite as you experienced at the time was it shiftZZ...
I'd lodge a formal complaint...see how much Police time and individuals pensions that wastes/screws up...sure some Civil Liberties groups or similar will have full chapter and verse on this one and luv every minute of it
They are trying the usual 'we screwed up and we hope u dont know the rules' approach
I'd lodge a formal complaint...see how much Police time and individuals pensions that wastes/screws up...sure some Civil Liberties groups or similar will have full chapter and verse on this one and luv every minute of it
They are trying the usual 'we screwed up and we hope u dont know the rules' approach
Last edited by Boss Raptor; 3rd Oct 2004 at 10:33.
