Getting trapped airside - when does it become "false imprisonment"?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An airline or security person (except in some European countries where security is carried out by police officers) is not such a person.
With that in mind, it's probably best to put the attitude in check and cooperate. Nobody's rights, nor freedoms were denied, and nobody made anybody enter the airport terminal area. That was done by free will. Upon exercising one's free will to enter such an area, one voluntarily subjects one's self to the conditions set forth for being there...which includes the terms and requirements of entry and exit, as well as an implicit agreement to be subject to both search, and where appropriate, seizure.
That didn't happen here. Just a brief delay. No imprisonment, nothing untoward. While it's unfortunate that the original poster (and perhaps others) felt or feel slighted, it's over, it's been handled, and each of you now have the same choices you had before...enter and accept being subject to the operating rules and regulations of both the airline and the airport, or don't enter.
There's no force involved, and the choice, as always, is yours.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Both Emispheres
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SNS3Guppy, nice story and lecturing. Now, what it has exactly to do with one being delayed for 90 minutes, actually restricting a basic freedom ?
Would you have tolerated that if that happened to you in civil clothes, you know what, I believe you haven't ever considered that, as your pilot ID/airside clearance would possible get you a different treatment.
Unless you've again misread, CirrusF never said to have lost composture. The aggressive ones, if we want to believe him, were Airport security. Let me also add that one's access to a basic right is not subject to attitude!
What would be the cooperation that one should show? Wait silently for a dysfunctional, farcical organization to arrange for your basic right of movement?
Please.. again.. go read the "frsutrated pilots and secuirty"... are all these colleagues just a bunch of whiners ?
Would you have tolerated that if that happened to you in civil clothes, you know what, I believe you haven't ever considered that, as your pilot ID/airside clearance would possible get you a different treatment.
Unless you've again misread, CirrusF never said to have lost composture. The aggressive ones, if we want to believe him, were Airport security. Let me also add that one's access to a basic right is not subject to attitude!
What would be the cooperation that one should show? Wait silently for a dysfunctional, farcical organization to arrange for your basic right of movement?
Please.. again.. go read the "frsutrated pilots and secuirty"... are all these colleagues just a bunch of whiners ?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Both Emispheres
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With that in mind, it's probably best to put the attitude in check and cooperate. Nobody's rights, nor freedoms were denied, and nobody made anybody enter the airport terminal area. That was done by free will. Upon exercising one's free will to enter such an area, one voluntarily subjects one's self to the conditions set forth for being there...which includes the terms and requirements of entry and exit, as well as an implicit agreement to be subject to both search, and where appropriate, seizure.
That didn't happen here. Just a brief delay. No imprisonment, nothing untoward. While it's unfortunate that the original poster (and perhaps others) felt or feel slighted, it's over, it's been handled, and each of you now have the same choices you had before...enter and accept being subject to the operating rules and regulations of both the airline and the airport, or don't enter.
That didn't happen here. Just a brief delay. No imprisonment, nothing untoward. While it's unfortunate that the original poster (and perhaps others) felt or feel slighted, it's over, it's been handled, and each of you now have the same choices you had before...enter and accept being subject to the operating rules and regulations of both the airline and the airport, or don't enter.
Finally saying that accepting to enter a place (airport) makes you subject to accept whatever "rule" can be in act in there, is ridiculous. Nobody in the UK (or any other country) has the right to suspend or modify law and basic rights, even if it's private property in which one have agreed to enter. If any rule or action is taken to the contrary, that is ILLEGAL.
All in all, you're just chanting the same mantra: "We run the show. You just pay and sit quiet. Also not raise any problem since this will put you automatically at fault.". Now for you information that doesn't always work, as some people actually have an idea about what a "basic right" is. Seemingly you don't, or care only about "your" rights.
Only one small amendment to what SXB is correctly stating: basic human rights are not only applicable in Europe. Also many Latin American (and other) countries explicitly recall these right in their Constitution.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Human rights is one of those things that often gets trotted out as an argument when all other arguments have failed. In the United Kingdom the Human rights act 1998 is descibed as follows:
Which of these was violated by the original posters 90 minute delay in waiting for somebody to escort him out of the airports secure zone ?
Human Rights Act
The Human Rights Act 1998 gives legal effect in the UK to the fundamental rights and freedoms contained in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). These rights not only affect matters of life and death like freedom from torture and killing but also affect your rights in everyday life: what you can say and do, your beliefs, your right to a fair trial and many other similar basic entitlements.
The rights are not absolute – governments have the power to limit or control them in times of severe need or emergency. You also have the responsibility to respect the rights of other people – and not exercise yours in a way which is likely to stop them from being able to exercise theirs.
Your human rights are:
the right to life
freedom from torture and degraded treatment
freedom from slavery and forced labour
the right to liberty
the right to a fair trial
the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it
the right to respect for private and family life
freedom of thought, conscience and religion
freedom of expression
freedom of assembly and association
the right to marry or form a civil partnership and start a family
the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
the right to own property
the right to an education
the right to participate in free elections
If any of these rights and freedoms are abused you have a right to an effective solution in law, even if the abuse was by someone in authority, for example, a policeman.
The Human Rights Act 1998 gives legal effect in the UK to the fundamental rights and freedoms contained in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). These rights not only affect matters of life and death like freedom from torture and killing but also affect your rights in everyday life: what you can say and do, your beliefs, your right to a fair trial and many other similar basic entitlements.
The rights are not absolute – governments have the power to limit or control them in times of severe need or emergency. You also have the responsibility to respect the rights of other people – and not exercise yours in a way which is likely to stop them from being able to exercise theirs.
Your human rights are:
the right to life
freedom from torture and degraded treatment
freedom from slavery and forced labour
the right to liberty
the right to a fair trial
the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it
the right to respect for private and family life
freedom of thought, conscience and religion
freedom of expression
freedom of assembly and association
the right to marry or form a civil partnership and start a family
the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
the right to own property
the right to an education
the right to participate in free elections
If any of these rights and freedoms are abused you have a right to an effective solution in law, even if the abuse was by someone in authority, for example, a policeman.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,097
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now that we have an official list of the individual's human rights can we also have a list of their responsibilities please? I think they should go hand in hand and not be separated, ever!
Bealzebub
I'd say his basic
from what I read.
Guppy (in his long speel) describes 90 minutes as:
90 (ninety minutes) a "brief delay"?!! You're having a laugh aren't you 
Which of these was violated by the original posters 90 minute delay in waiting for somebody to escort him out of the airports secure zone ?
freedom of expression
Guppy (in his long speel) describes 90 minutes as:
Just a brief delay
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All in all, you're just chanting the same mantra: "We run the show. You just pay and sit quiet. Also not raise any problem since this will put you automatically at fault.". Now for you information that doesn't always work, as some people actually have an idea about what a "basic right" is. Seemingly you don't, or care only about "your" rights.
When one accuses the airport personnel of unlawful imprisonment and demands to know by what authority one has been imprisoned, one may fully understand that one is no longer being reasonable and has clearly copped an attitude.
Abuse others, and don't expect stellar service. This thread serves as case in point.
You don't have a basic right to do whatever you please in the terminal. I don't have that "basic right" either. Being in the terminal is not a right. It's a privilege for which you pay admittance, and for which you are expected to exercise decorum and abide the rules.
If a flight is cancelled, you are not free to do as you please simply because you assert that a contract has been broken. It doesn't work that way.
If the poster truly believes he or she has been imprisoned illegally, then I would think he or she has a duty to approach the press and expose this problem, because that would indeed be a very big problem.
Not long ago a passenger on a Delta flight in Guyana decided he'd had enough delays. He removed an exit hatch, popped the emergency slide, and left the airplane, on the tarmac. He believed much the same...nobody was going to tell him what to do, and he thought he had rights, too. He was arrested, incidentally.
When you undertake a flight, whether you actually get on the flight or not, you also undertake certain responsibilities. These don't just start when you set foot on board the airplane. They start before you ever arrive at the airport, and they continue to become more important the closer you get to the airplane. Freedom of expression is all good and well, and if you want to wear a shirt that proclaims "sponge bob lives," by all means do so. Accusing the personnel who are helping you out of taking you prisoner and breaking the law may not be in your best interest. If you find that advice offensive, then by all means, insult the airport personnel and accuse them of illegal acts...see how much mileage it buys you.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Both Emispheres
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bealzebub, perhaps you're more familiar with airplane manuals than law, let me help you a little with the Human Rights Act of 1998. Indeed, "right to liberty" is more completely defined as:
ARTICLE 5
1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
(...)
Without doubt, you know that in English, liberty means "moving around freely". Among cases lawfully limiting this liberty, there is no provision for being an airport or other organization.
ARTICLE 5
1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
(...)
Without doubt, you know that in English, liberty means "moving around freely". Among cases lawfully limiting this liberty, there is no provision for being an airport or other organization.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Both Emispheres
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Woops, seems I've touched a nerve with you, sorry to say your long post is full again of inapplicable, erroneous and biased misinformation. Let's go for one at the time:
Where is demonstrated that the original poster ever abused anybody? You weren't there, but for coincidence, you never considered that HE may have beed abused. Beside, please leave the "good behavior" lessons for any minor on which you can exercise an influence.
Where exactly a basic right to do a one please is reclaimed? What the heck decorum has to do with that? This is about a person that had waiting 90 minuts to return to his business, isn't ?
At this point you really convinced me that for you, "leaving premises" is the same as "one pleases".
The press ??? Actually a reasonable person would write a complaint letter to the airport before anything else.
Sorry, inapplicable example again, as HE WAS NOT ON BOARD OF ANY AIRPLANE. Seems hard for you to grasp that ?
Understand you might be a little territorial on you airplane, but fortunately for the human kind, your airplane does not extends indefinitely.
In a legal sense, you should know what determines begin of a flight, certainly hanging around in an airport due to a canceled flight isn't that. Then if you wanted to lecture further about "responsibilities" according your own judgment, for as good it can be, honestly it doesn't belong to this discussion so please spare us that.
What a condescending piece of insinuating half wit prose. Really can be summarized as I did before: "beware... or else!".
You really belong to the rank of those that having picked the undefendable side of an argument, see no other exit that extenuating the interlocutor emitting more of the same triteness. Be welcome in having the last word, as I feel you also have a need for that.
When one accuses the airport personnel of unlawful imprisonment and demands to know by what authority one has been imprisoned, one may fully understand that one is no longer being reasonable and has clearly copped an attitude.
Abuse others, and don't expect stellar service. This thread serves as case in point.
Abuse others, and don't expect stellar service. This thread serves as case in point.
You don't have a basic right to do whatever you please in the terminal. I don't have that "basic right" either. Being in the terminal is not a right. It's a privilege for which you pay admittance, and for which you are expected to exercise decorum and abide the rules.
If a flight is cancelled, you are not free to do as you please simply because you assert that a contract has been broken. It doesn't work that way.
If the poster truly believes he or she has been imprisoned illegally, then I would think he or she has a duty to approach the press and expose this problem, because that would indeed be a very big problem.
Not long ago a passenger on a Delta flight in Guyana decided he'd had enough delays. He removed an exit hatch, popped the emergency slide, and left the airplane, on the tarmac. He believed much the same...nobody was going to tell him what to do, and he thought he had rights, too. He was arrested, incidentally.
Understand you might be a little territorial on you airplane, but fortunately for the human kind, your airplane does not extends indefinitely.
When you undertake a flight, whether you actually get on the flight or not, you also undertake certain responsibilities. These don't just start when you set foot on board the airplane. They start before you ever arrive at the airport, and they continue to become more important the closer you get to the airplane.
Freedom of expression is all good and well, and if you want to wear a shirt that proclaims "sponge bob lives," by all means do so. Accusing the personnel who are helping you out of taking you prisoner and breaking the law may not be in your best interest. If you find that advice offensive, then by all means, insult the airport personnel and accuse them of illegal acts...see how much mileage it buys you.
You really belong to the rank of those that having picked the undefendable side of an argument, see no other exit that extenuating the interlocutor emitting more of the same triteness. Be welcome in having the last word, as I feel you also have a need for that.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
False imprisonment is a common law offence involving the unlawful and intentional or reckless detention of the victim. An act of false imprisonment may amount in itself to an assault. If a separate assault accompanies the detention this should be reflected in the particulars of the indictment. If the detention was for the purpose of committing another indictable offence, and such an offence was committed, a count for the substantive offence will usually be enough. Where the detention was for a period of several hours, or days, then it will be proper to reflect the unlawful detention with a count for false imprisonment.
The offence of False Imprisonment did not take place.
The OP Asked to leave. He was not told he could not, he was just informed he needed an escort.. He waited for 90 minutes for an escort. (Maybe he should have asked them a few more times). The Escort eventually led him to another area as requested.
I can't even believe the discussion is even taking place....
The offence of False Imprisonment did not take place.
The OP Asked to leave. He was not told he could not, he was just informed he needed an escort.. He waited for 90 minutes for an escort. (Maybe he should have asked them a few more times). The Escort eventually led him to another area as requested.
I can't even believe the discussion is even taking place....
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Artcle 5 is in fact from the Euopean convention on human rights and it states:
The poster was not unlawfully arrested or detained. His security and that of others was being excercised under the lawful terms imposed on the airport operator by statutes and instructions of HM government. His right to liberty was not supreme to others right to security so in this circumstance he could not do as he wished immediately and in the circumstances.
Article 5
Right to liberty and security
1 Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
(a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;
(b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;
(d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;
(e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants;
(f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.
2 Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.
3 Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.
4 Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.
5 Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
Right to liberty and security
1 Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
(a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;
(b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;
(d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;
(e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants;
(f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.
2 Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.
3 Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.
4 Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.
5 Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: East Anglia.
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You see it every time you travel, the drama queen. A delay occurs and somebody is for the high jump, it matters little whom it is as long as the spleen is vented.
A storm in a teacup. Chill out, sh1t happens.
A storm in a teacup. Chill out, sh1t happens.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South of France
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure I have much to add on the semantics here...I always thought if you wanted to leave, you just did..
However, I was amused to see that Flying Lawyer has apparently moved onto better things as a "UK Magistrate" whatever that is.....
Whilst the magistracy is indeed a worthy cause, His Honour may feel he is being ever so slightly demoted by that description. Of course, gentleman that he is, he would never say so.
However, I was amused to see that Flying Lawyer has apparently moved onto better things as a "UK Magistrate" whatever that is.....
Whilst the magistracy is indeed a worthy cause, His Honour may feel he is being ever so slightly demoted by that description. Of course, gentleman that he is, he would never say so.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Both Emispheres
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The poster was not unlawfully arrested or detained.
I never said so. He was however unnecessarily and unreasonably delayed, a small and simple thing that you refuse to admit, like if you was paid to be Airport advocate. In fact hundreds of your colleagues are subject daily to mistreatment, like the thread on "R&N" clearly shows. Only, you're too chicken to write anything of your monotonous rant in there, while you don't have a problem in exercising an misplace authority here in the passengers forum. What a great example you are.
His security and that of others was being excercised under the lawful terms imposed on the airport operator by statutes and instructions of HM government. His right to liberty was not supreme to others right to security so in this circumstance he could not do as wished immediately and in the circumstances.
More pompous BS. You see it in the best form when the HM acronym is pulled in to defend 'status quo' and impose authority. No circumstance shall delay a citizen leaving an airport on a normal day. it never crosses you mind that is the airport that did as they wished. You evidently belong to the ludicrous circle of "everything in name of security" that trades people's fears and foolishness for power and money.
I never said so. He was however unnecessarily and unreasonably delayed, a small and simple thing that you refuse to admit, like if you was paid to be Airport advocate. In fact hundreds of your colleagues are subject daily to mistreatment, like the thread on "R&N" clearly shows. Only, you're too chicken to write anything of your monotonous rant in there, while you don't have a problem in exercising an misplace authority here in the passengers forum. What a great example you are.
His security and that of others was being excercised under the lawful terms imposed on the airport operator by statutes and instructions of HM government. His right to liberty was not supreme to others right to security so in this circumstance he could not do as wished immediately and in the circumstances.
More pompous BS. You see it in the best form when the HM acronym is pulled in to defend 'status quo' and impose authority. No circumstance shall delay a citizen leaving an airport on a normal day. it never crosses you mind that is the airport that did as they wished. You evidently belong to the ludicrous circle of "everything in name of security" that trades people's fears and foolishness for power and money.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Both Emispheres
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The OP
Let us know because it seems to me you little technical acronym is actually a short form of contempt and falseness.
Don't you guys never get off you parade horse? It must be very addictive, that's good for troubled egos.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It looks like English is not your first language and your experience of forums limited?
OP means Original Poster. Used to guide browsers back to the first question when a thread has drifted slightly...
An apology would be accepted graciously.......
OP means Original Poster. Used to guide browsers back to the first question when a thread has drifted slightly...
An apology would be accepted graciously.......
You could always complain that you have severe chest pains and feel unwell, especially if you are sweating from being hot and bothered - and if nothing happens very quickly, dial 999 and ask for an ambulance.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
el hash,
You do seem to spend an inordinate amount of time baiting, insulting and arguing vacuously? However I have noticed that the more irate you seem to become, the better your English becomes?
This thread was borne out of the authors annoyance at being delayed airside at Gatwick airport. He isn't the first and won't be the last. He wasn't unlawfully imprisoned, a point I believe he recognises.
Your ranting and railing whilst amusing and erroneous, and despite your attempts at provocation, could perhaps be better channeled into a focused advocacy. So far the most accurate thing you have said is:
You do seem to spend an inordinate amount of time baiting, insulting and arguing vacuously? However I have noticed that the more irate you seem to become, the better your English becomes?
This thread was borne out of the authors annoyance at being delayed airside at Gatwick airport. He isn't the first and won't be the last. He wasn't unlawfully imprisoned, a point I believe he recognises.
Your ranting and railing whilst amusing and erroneous, and despite your attempts at provocation, could perhaps be better channeled into a focused advocacy. So far the most accurate thing you have said is:
Yep... I have misread a sentence, and lost the argument.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have read this thread and am somewhat surprised at the comments of some.
The OPs flight was cancelled, which is bad enough, but these things sometimes happen.
He was then forced to remain in the airport for 90 minutes, due to the lack of an escort to landside.
This strikes me as being completely unacceptable treatment, especially as he had paid a security charge in the price of his ticket.
Had this happened to me, on a business trip, the airport authority would have received a bill for 90 minutes at my professional hourly rate, with a reminder letter after 7 days and a final notice after another 7, following which I would issue a summons in the small claims divison of the county court, where the administrators take a dim view of unreasonable behaviour in my personal experience.
We are talking about someone being escorted a matter of 50-100 yards, due to their flight being cancelled and the airport cannot find someone to fo that for 90 minutes.
Its just ridiculous.
The OPs flight was cancelled, which is bad enough, but these things sometimes happen.
He was then forced to remain in the airport for 90 minutes, due to the lack of an escort to landside.
This strikes me as being completely unacceptable treatment, especially as he had paid a security charge in the price of his ticket.
Had this happened to me, on a business trip, the airport authority would have received a bill for 90 minutes at my professional hourly rate, with a reminder letter after 7 days and a final notice after another 7, following which I would issue a summons in the small claims divison of the county court, where the administrators take a dim view of unreasonable behaviour in my personal experience.
We are talking about someone being escorted a matter of 50-100 yards, due to their flight being cancelled and the airport cannot find someone to fo that for 90 minutes.
Its just ridiculous.