Police & pax at EMA

[Ranger One]

Some discussion on Usenet about the way a planeload of FR pax were treated at EMA during a 'security alert' last week... sounds well out of order to me:

"...we were met by armed police, held on the plane for a
further 30 mins.

After that time we were taken off the plane, held for 4 hours in a secure area, full of armed police, refused access to food, drink and only limited access to toilets etc.

We were not given any indication as to why we were held.

Eventually, we were advised that our luggage had been taken off our flight, the flight cancelled and we were re-checked by security, only to be re-united with our luggage. At that time we were 8 hours into our travels."

See the full discussion:

http://tinyurl.com/46luf

OK... whinging pax... should be happy to co-operate... 'if you think security is trouble, try the alternative'..., etc. etc. - I can hear the arguments already. But I think the complainer has a point - how much longer can our industry survive fiascos like this?

R1




My question is this, are the police legally allowed to keep 190 people
captive for over 5 hours?

[bjcc]

I think, and I could be wrong on this, that the power is under section 89(1) Terrorism Act 2000.

It seems from what I have read that the pax were not arrested, mearly detained to establish what they knew about a suspect artical.

The above section says:

89. - (1) An officer may stop a person for so long as is necessary to question him to ascertain-

(a) his identity and movements;
(b) what he knows about a recent explosion or another recent incident endangering life;
(c) what he knows about a person killed or injured in a recent explosion or incident.

As it says above, 'may stop a person for as long as necessary...' the passengers were not as such arrested, just 'stopped'.

I am assuming that this is the power used, in any case it fits the bill...albeit the officer in charge may have had to be shall we say, creative to some extent.

The fact that some of the officers were armed is irelevent, local forces have an obligation to have available an armed response to airports, it follows that they would have therefore attended.

Feeding pax is the airlines responsibility, if they did a runner then thats the airlines fault not the old bill's.


Restricted access to the loo would be fairly normal, in that when going the person would have to be escorted...so having only a few police there would slow the process down.

[stagger]

You missed the second part of that section of the act..

A person commits an offence if he-
(a) fails to stop when required to do so under this section,
(b) refuses to answer a question addressed to him under this section, or
(c) fails to answer to the best of his knowledge and ability a question addressed to him under this section.

So a person who is not suspected of committing any offence at all - can be detained and compelled to answer questions. Refusal to stop, refusal to answer questions and failure to answer to the best of your knowledge are all criminal offences!

[bjcc]

Correct I did miss that out, mostly because its not relevent, the question was what power to detain is there? The power to detain is S. 89(1) as stated.

In actual fact there may be a second power which is contained under the power to establish cordons and prevent people fom crossing them. I think that may have been stretching things a little far!

But yes your assessment is correct you may not be guilty of an offence but by not complying with this act you could become guilty. If you think about it though if you are directed to stop your car by a constable acting under the Road Traffic Act, you may not be guilty of any offence, but if you fail to stop you become so. Same with giving name and address under the same act...the list could go on, so this is nothing new.

[Carl Rawson]

Emotions aside, I was working there last Thursday.
I have to say that it took a only few minutes for the Police to react and have armed Police in the airport. Full credit to them.
I feel that they did what was necessary and full marks to EMA, sorry NEMA and the other airport staff for what was a hard day. Given the number of people airside at the time I don't think that they were kept unduly as the whole area was secured and searched. The airport Information desk also did a great job in keeping people fully informed of the situation.

[shiftzz]

Strange, I was one of the passengers that was detained and I was not kept informed!

[Ranger One]

bjcc:

89. - (1) An officer may stop a person for so long as is necessary to question him to ascertain-

Afraid that won't fly - the pax weren't questioned at all, AFAIK - they were simply detained, eventually reunited with their luggage, and finally sent home - 8 hours after checking-in!

Police and security will do whatever they need to do in a situation like this, within the law. That's a given. But I think there's a serious question as to whether what they did was legal.

And there's no excuse for not providing explanation and refreshments - all it needed was for an FR or airport rep. to come along and say 'We've got a serious suspicion about a piece of checked baggage on this flight. The police will keep you here until we've rescreened etc., this will take at least a couple of hours. We'll send someone in with sandwiches and tea/coffee as soon as possible'.

Would that have been too much to expect? Would have considerably defused the situation. No FR jokes please - this situation was entirely down to airport/security/police, not FR.

Of course, if the *police* were exercising total control of the situation, and they decided to forbid anyone from offering the pax information or refreshments, that's a different chain of command and needs different questions and answers.

R1

[shiftzz]

The police were fed and watered (along with their dogs)

Regarding:
89. - (1) An officer may stop a person for so long as is necessary to question him to ascertain-

(a) his identity and movements;
(b) what he knows about a recent explosion or another recent incident endangering life;
(c) what he knows about a person killed or injured in a recent explosion or incident.


I don’t have an issue, they could have easily identified me (passport in tired hand may have assisted)

b & c can’t answer as I was never asked!

I asked for the name of the officer in charge, refused to be supplied.

Strange how the aircrew were not detained?


ShiftZZ

[Boss Raptor]

S!d the legislation - you hold me for 8 hours with no direct reason and as a pax. I am going to be out to get you - this is not acceptable either from a security or commercial point of view - I would now be a) about to cause hell with the story to the press for both the airline and DTI/Police etc. and b) looking for bloody good explanations/apologies from the airline/DTI/Police and c) speaking with my solicitor to screw all 3 and claim damages

This security is and has been illconcieved and an over reaction - my personal point of view

They cannot refuse you the name of the officer in charge - they are not themselves beyond the law although they, like customs, appear to think they are

Shiftzz - from what you have said you have every reason and every right to register a formal complaint and expect it to be explained/investigated/answered - advice, in parallel make yr complaint very public and be prepared to embarrass them as they deserve

[bjcc]

Boss Raptor, yes they can refuse to give the NAME of the officer in charge, if you feel that strongly about it, then you find the rest of the answer...(clue ... its all in terrorism legislation and PACE)
As for if its acceptable from a security point of view, I would have thought it obvious it was more than acceptable. From a commercial point of view..Its not a police function to care about it. Its not the airline function (who do care about it) to interfere with Police action.

shiftzz.
Yes Police probably were fed and watered, the repsonsibility to feed and water pax is the airlines...no one elses, address your complaint to them.

How do you know the aircrew were not detained sperate from you? In actual fact I doubt they were, seems little point.

Ranger one,
if in your expert opinon you feel that the Police were not acting legaly then complain. The IPCA have a web site and no doubt they will be only to happy to oversee your complaint. You asked a question, I have given you what I can find. Unfortunatly I left the Police before this act came in, however even before that, I would have detained the lot in order to establish if or by who an offence had been committed.
As for feeding you see above...and blame the airline.

To put this a slightly in a slightly different perspective, and to introduce some common sense, what would you have done, let everyone swan off?

[ShyTorque]

Are we in a state of emergency in this country? I never heard the government say we were. (No, I haven't had my head in the sand, that was a political rhetorical question).

If the police want to question someone about an alleged offence, fine. Question away.

However, if detaining a large number of people for an alleged offence, it must have been obvious from the start that the majority, if not all, were completely innocent. The greatest effort should have been made to determine their innocence and allow them to be released.

If people were not questioned at all, even to confirm their identity, surely this could be a case of the police exceeding their powers?

The answer, almost as always, is to allocate more resources to the problem. NEMA has a problem with security resources, if you ask the right question you will be told that the airport will not pay for more badly needed security personnel.

[bjcc]

As you are fully aware, there is no state of emergency in the UK.

You do not know the reasons behind the holding of these pax and nor do I. I can guess as to the reasons behind it, based on my previous experience. But at the end of the day I can only guess. The difference is, I am basing that guess on experience, not gut reaction to half a story.

The majority were undoubtadly innocent (if not all) but in order to establish that, everyone gets held. Its tough but its life. Same would apply if you were at a party raided for drugs, you wouldn't be leaving until you had been cleared. So this is nothing new. If you don't like it, then don't fly. If you do fly, then accept it as one of the hazards.

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.

Resouces? Has really got nothing to do with what the airport spends on security. I have done exactly the same thing at Heathrow, (only it was a 747 full of pax) the problem had nothing to do with the airport and its security.

[B Sousa]

"You'd be better complaining to the airlines, its thier responsibility to feed you, not the Police."

BJCC, better read the fine print on the ticket. You will likely starve if your betting on that one. They are an Air Carrier, not a Restaurant. If they feed you, its to fend off complaints and PR nothing else.

[Final 3 Greens]

BJCC

Please read the following extract from Ryanair's T&Cs.

Ryanair does not provide meal vouchers or hotel accommodation for delayed or cancelled flights at any time.

Therefore the contract betwwen passenger and airline is quite clear, it is not Ryanair's responsibility.

The issue here is quite simple. If the police forces treat people in this way, they will lose their respect and support.

Speed cameras have already impacted the relationshipp between the public and the police and this type of crass behaviour just adds to the problem.

The police are employed with money from the general public and they should remember this in the way they deal with us.

Obviously, an airborne return and cancellation will be annoying for the pax. It may well be an action well justified, but that in itself is no justification to hold people without food and water for 5 hours - a senior officer should have had the nouse to arrange, at least, supplies of water - five hours is a long time without.

When I was a kid many years ago, our town police walked in the community, knew the players and enjoyed the support of all right minded people.

Today, they ride round in cars, wearing kevlar vests and the only experience most of us "middle englanders" have, when meeting them, is a bad one.

There's a mind set issue here, IMHO, what the rules allow them to do and what common sense says would be a better option.

[Evil J]

It is my belief that much of this sort of reaction from the Police?security forces is as a result of media interest if they fail to do something. A few weeks ago their was a stink in the press coz a pax got to Edinburgh with a knife in his bag-so what do you expect the security forces to do when a similar incident occurs when, after the last incident they proabably all got a rocket up their ar@es!

And sorry but in these cut throat lo-cost times feeding and watering the pax is definately not an airport issue.

[shiftzz]

No Pax,
No flights,
No job!

Shiftzz

[Backtrack]

After that time we were taken off the plane, held for 4 hours in a secure area, full of armed police, refused access to food, drink and only limited access to toilets etc.

Isn't the key word here 'refused'?

Even if the carrier had provided food/water, would the police have allowed it to be brought into the detention area?

If not, the debate about who is responsible for providing refreshments is a complete red herring.

[The Disco Volante]

I think, and I could be wrong on this, that the power is under section 89(1) Terrorism Act 2000.

and

...albeit the officer in charge may have had to be shall we say, creative to some extent

The officer in charge would have had to be very creative. Section 89(1) applies to Northern Ireland, not the mainland.

It seems from what I have read that the pax were not arrested, mearly detained to establish what they knew about a suspect artical.

Under English law, unless there is a stautory exception, you are either under arrest, or you are free to go about your lawful business. There is no inbetween. Being "merely detained" is something that happens in Zimbabwe. A police officer should know this, it is part of his basic training.

As to what power there was to detain these people, the answer is probably none. But if there were, common sense would require that they should be given an explanation, and provided with food, drink and lavatories by the people detaining them. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

In these circumstances, most people would probably be happy to wait and assist the police if the position was explained to them by the police. But ultimately, a passenger in these circumstances would have been entitled to say to a police officer: I now wish to leave; you must let go about my business or arrest me.

[PaperTiger]

"After a thorough search of all areas, no suspicious items were found and no arrests were made"

In other words, a false alarm. No surprise there then, except for Richard Reid hasn't everything since Sept 11/01 been a false alarm ? I suppose it is too much to expect the police etc. to bear this in mind when responding. When a call is received, be prepared for the worst but realise that in all probability it will turn out to be a non-event.

If shiftzz says he wasn't kept informed then I believe him. NO excuse for that IMO, they were in the gate area, there's a P.A. right there. Tell the pax the nature of the 'emergency' and what's going on and how long it's likely to take. I wouldn't expect some adrenalin-pumped, macho, twenty-something poilu in the SRU to do so, but surely there was a senior rank present with some experience and a modicum of PR skills ?

Had this been done there would probably have been no desire to know the name of the officer in charge, although that too should readily have been given.

As to filing a complaint, it is unlikely to have an effect in getting the 'policy' changed, so it becomes a matter of principal. Of course you could end up branded as a troublemaker on some list somewhere. S0d the cost though, there has to be some accountability otherwise it's hard to tell who are the real terrorists.

The police apologists would like you to just sigh, bend over and take it in the Name of Security. Better yet, why don't you all just stay home ?

[bjcc]

Final 3 greens.

I fail to see how it is the Police's responsibility to feed/water if the airline have abdicated it. Your contract with the airline is noted, you of course have no contract with the Police.

Dixon of Dock Green never happened. 24 years ago, I heard the same stories of how it used to be, Police walking not in cars etc. I think you will find that before Police cars there were less Police about, becuase they were at major junctions directing traffic. I accept its a romantic notion that people have, forget it.

The resposiblity to feed pax is the airlines, irrespective of what you may think.

B Sousa sums it up, the airline is an air carrier not a restraunt, the Police are a branch of Burger King now are they?

Is it that reasonable? No probably not, welcome to reality.

Backtrack, Why should Police refuse to allow food in? No reason that I can think of.

The Disco Volante

Yes you are correct 89(1) does apply to NI, my mistake. However try section 43(1) and possibly section 1 PACE. Your opinon that you are either under arrest or free to go is not strictly correct, you can be detained for the purpose of a search.

I have not quoted section 44, as I have no idea if this was specificly authorised by a ACC.

Paper tiger, most things Police attend are false alarms. However not being blessed with ESP there is no way of knowing this until you arrive and deal with it. As for the 20 something etc discription of a police officer you give...interesting but cobblers.
Feel free to rejoin the real world any time you like.

No one seems to know what the cause of this was, therefore speculating as to why this or that could or didn't happen is pointless. There are reasons why it may have not been appropriate to announce what the problem was, it may be that that decision was wrong. I don't know and niether do you.

At the end of the day which would you all rather.....People getting killed so you can enjoy a few 'freedoms' or a a bit of inconvience?