Police Officer in gun "joke" at MAN
Guest
Posts: n/a
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the issue is not so much what he said (which in any case makes him a tw@t) but rather the fact that he's one of the thin blue line that's supposed to be protecting us from the bad guys and that he - more than anyone - should be aware that (a) it's not funny and (b) an offence under the Aviation and Maritime Security Act.
I note too that GMP - who are not infrequently a dirty dark grey shade when it comes to matters of honesty and probity - are saying that the officer concerned will not be prosecuted. Why not? I agree that it's a relatively minor thing but in this case it's the principle.
Send him down!
I note too that GMP - who are not infrequently a dirty dark grey shade when it comes to matters of honesty and probity - are saying that the officer concerned will not be prosecuted. Why not? I agree that it's a relatively minor thing but in this case it's the principle.
Send him down!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Hertfordshire UK
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Julian, I think the point Harpy is making is that we might actually all be safer from terrorists planning to hijack an aircraft, if we, the pilots, cabin crew and fare-paying passengers were permitted to carry on to aircraft certain household items such as pen-knives, nail-clippers and syringes which could, in extremis, be used as offensive weapons. I'd personally feel a lot safer knowing most passengers were thus "armed" in the event that a group of nutters on board decided to try to take over the aircraft. At least we've got something to fight with.
I fear that in our feminised and nanny society, it's only the criminals allowed to proceed unhindered, as we've seen recently with the introduction of new gun laws in the UK. All very emotionally correct, though.
Gumshoe, and others who think the pax should "wind their necks in", I cannot think of a more arrogant attitude towards our customers - in case you hadn't noticed, these people directly pay our salaries. Let's face it, as industry "pros" we're all up our own a*ses with the delights of aviation, but it will probably come as a shock to you that most people find flying one of the least pleasant ways of travelling, uncomfortable and de-humanising as it is. A lot of flyers are about to lose their jobs in the coming slump and we need to keep every customer we can. Your attitude does not help.
I fear that in our feminised and nanny society, it's only the criminals allowed to proceed unhindered, as we've seen recently with the introduction of new gun laws in the UK. All very emotionally correct, though.
Gumshoe, and others who think the pax should "wind their necks in", I cannot think of a more arrogant attitude towards our customers - in case you hadn't noticed, these people directly pay our salaries. Let's face it, as industry "pros" we're all up our own a*ses with the delights of aviation, but it will probably come as a shock to you that most people find flying one of the least pleasant ways of travelling, uncomfortable and de-humanising as it is. A lot of flyers are about to lose their jobs in the coming slump and we need to keep every customer we can. Your attitude does not help.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: on a pavement outside the Red Lion
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max Cont'
I don't think there NEEDS to be a 'sense of proportion' in these cases. Aviation is a bloody serious buisiness and anyone who can't except that should p*** off. Even if they do directly pay the wages. If anyone can't see that to make a joke of the "I've got a gun/bomb" nature isn't going to seriously upset everyone concerned then they're a compete idiot. Who needs it?
Incidently, when I was out in Melbourne, Florida, at the beginning of this year, when I got to the airport there was a DC-9 or MD80 of Spirit Airlines sitting on the end of the runway with all the doors open (no slides) and a lot of emergency and airport police around it. Turned out that during the taxi one of the pax said to his neibour "I've got a bomb in my bag." Delayed the aircraft by about two hours. I bet the other pax and the crew (and anyone else effected) didn't have much sense of proportion left afterwards.
I don't think there NEEDS to be a 'sense of proportion' in these cases. Aviation is a bloody serious buisiness and anyone who can't except that should p*** off. Even if they do directly pay the wages. If anyone can't see that to make a joke of the "I've got a gun/bomb" nature isn't going to seriously upset everyone concerned then they're a compete idiot. Who needs it?
Incidently, when I was out in Melbourne, Florida, at the beginning of this year, when I got to the airport there was a DC-9 or MD80 of Spirit Airlines sitting on the end of the runway with all the doors open (no slides) and a lot of emergency and airport police around it. Turned out that during the taxi one of the pax said to his neibour "I've got a bomb in my bag." Delayed the aircraft by about two hours. I bet the other pax and the crew (and anyone else effected) didn't have much sense of proportion left afterwards.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: SCOTLAND
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max
Glad someone at last has raised the issue of paxs' reactions. Flying is for the majority of people a nail biting experience and increased security, essential as it is, doesn't help. I speak as someone who refuses to drive from Scotland to any of the other big cities in the UK because of the mayhem on the motorway system and refuses to use trains because of their unreliabilty, I take coaches instead and use taxis. I've also cancelled two non-business jaunts since WTC....one to Los Angeles and one to Portugal....I don't need the hassle of three hour check-ins and hanging about crowded airsides bored witless (s***less?). Admittedly I'd have a hell of a job finding a Scotland-Lax or Scotland-Lisbon coach service service but what the hell there are other things to do . Airline Marketing people ....note. And watch what the take up of RyanAir's £10 go-anywhere offer is.
Regards
PeterJ
Glad someone at last has raised the issue of paxs' reactions. Flying is for the majority of people a nail biting experience and increased security, essential as it is, doesn't help. I speak as someone who refuses to drive from Scotland to any of the other big cities in the UK because of the mayhem on the motorway system and refuses to use trains because of their unreliabilty, I take coaches instead and use taxis. I've also cancelled two non-business jaunts since WTC....one to Los Angeles and one to Portugal....I don't need the hassle of three hour check-ins and hanging about crowded airsides bored witless (s***less?). Admittedly I'd have a hell of a job finding a Scotland-Lax or Scotland-Lisbon coach service service but what the hell there are other things to do . Airline Marketing people ....note. And watch what the take up of RyanAir's £10 go-anywhere offer is.
Regards
PeterJ
Perhaps,,,,,, Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the reason he hasn't been charged is that he hasn't committed an offence. It's not yet a crime to make a flippant remark. And we don't know whether the security officer provoked the remark by an excess of officiousness. Some of them (but by no means all) are very officious.
And how did the gentlemen of the press get his name? Could it be that a security officer made a nice little earner?
Julian.
I meant that H M Customs are not required to go through security when they go airside. That makes a joke of a security regime that confiscates miniature pen knives and nail files from pilots. If a pilot can't be trusted, should we trust a Customs Officer?
And how did the gentlemen of the press get his name? Could it be that a security officer made a nice little earner?
Julian.
I meant that H M Customs are not required to go through security when they go airside. That makes a joke of a security regime that confiscates miniature pen knives and nail files from pilots. If a pilot can't be trusted, should we trust a Customs Officer?
Am I correct in my understanding that at all UK airports, neither local airport security staff, customs personnel or uniformed police officres, are subject to any of the security measures and checks at all.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kaikohe76 you are not correct. At least not where Gatwick is concerned. At Gatwick all the flatfoots go through the security checks and then all of their knives, guns and other weapons are handed back to them.
Its a funny old world!
Its a funny old world!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southern england
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harpy, try section 21a of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act.
False statements relating to baggage, cargo etc.
21A. — (1) Subject to subsection (3) below, a person commits an offence if, in answer to a question which—
(a) relates to any baggage, cargo or stores (whether belonging to him or to another) that is or are intended for carriage by a civil aircraft registered or operating in the United Kingdom, and
(b) is put to him for purposes to which this Part of this Act applies— (i) by any of the persons mentioned in subsection (2) below, (ii) by any employee or agent of such a person in his capacity as employee or agent, or (iii) by a constable,he makes a statement which he knows to be false in a material particular, or recklessly makes a statement which is false in a material particular.
..........................................
(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale
[ 28 September 2001: Message edited by: newswatcher ]
False statements relating to baggage, cargo etc.
21A. — (1) Subject to subsection (3) below, a person commits an offence if, in answer to a question which—
(a) relates to any baggage, cargo or stores (whether belonging to him or to another) that is or are intended for carriage by a civil aircraft registered or operating in the United Kingdom, and
(b) is put to him for purposes to which this Part of this Act applies— (i) by any of the persons mentioned in subsection (2) below, (ii) by any employee or agent of such a person in his capacity as employee or agent, or (iii) by a constable,he makes a statement which he knows to be false in a material particular, or recklessly makes a statement which is false in a material particular.
..........................................
(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale
[ 28 September 2001: Message edited by: newswatcher ]
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Newswatcher
As far as we are aware, the remark by the passenger was not in answer to a question. This might seem like hair-splitting but, in law, hair-splitting is allowed. No one has suggested that it was anything other than a joke, possibly in answer to an officious security officer. If I am ever hijacked, I would rather have him on board than the security officer who reported him.
As far as we are aware, the remark by the passenger was not in answer to a question. This might seem like hair-splitting but, in law, hair-splitting is allowed. No one has suggested that it was anything other than a joke, possibly in answer to an officious security officer. If I am ever hijacked, I would rather have him on board than the security officer who reported him.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Harpy & Max Cont' - Are you serious? you both sound incredibly stupid to me! I would not hesitate to offload any pax that made any hoax type comments - even before the tragedies in New York and Washington; yet to do so after these events is crass in the extreme - I hope never to have to rely on your judgement ever. 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: here to eternity
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to agree with that last posting.
When I was PV'ed, I was warned not to make any "joking" responses to anything. What I said had to be taken at face value.
The same goes here. There are no jokes in Aviation Security. There is nothing funny about having a gun or a bomb on board an aircraft. This policeman should have known better, and should have displayed better judgement. If, as captain, I knew about such an incident, and was asked if I was willing to carry him, my answer would have been firmly in the negative.
Perhaps we can understand why he is only a traffic cop.
When I was PV'ed, I was warned not to make any "joking" responses to anything. What I said had to be taken at face value.
The same goes here. There are no jokes in Aviation Security. There is nothing funny about having a gun or a bomb on board an aircraft. This policeman should have known better, and should have displayed better judgement. If, as captain, I knew about such an incident, and was asked if I was willing to carry him, my answer would have been firmly in the negative.
Perhaps we can understand why he is only a traffic cop.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Manchester
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To detain someone under the Aviation & Maritime act the 'person' concerned must say his 'alleged' comment twice. In this case Mr.Orr said his unfortunate remark to the security officer, who then asked him what he had said and Mr.Orr,alleegedly and stupidly repeated his remark. The Police were called and Mr.Orr was detained.
To say it once was stupid, to say it twice, in his position,beggars belief....
To say it once was stupid, to say it twice, in his position,beggars belief....
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: At the foot of the Lammermuirs
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Insensitive? Yes
Stupid? Yes
Deserved to be offloaded/arrested/charged? No
Bollocked publically/privately? Yes
For many people going to their two weeks in the sun is the only time they are on an aircraft. We have no idea what was actually said and the tone it was said in. As well as being demob happy he may well have had a couple of beers. As most pax check their brains in with their luggage he probably spoke first then thought later.
Would the same fuss have been made if his occupation was different?
Stupid? Yes
Deserved to be offloaded/arrested/charged? No
Bollocked publically/privately? Yes
For many people going to their two weeks in the sun is the only time they are on an aircraft. We have no idea what was actually said and the tone it was said in. As well as being demob happy he may well have had a couple of beers. As most pax check their brains in with their luggage he probably spoke first then thought later.
Would the same fuss have been made if his occupation was different?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Near Stalyvegas
Age: 78
Posts: 2,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaza,
No, it would not make any differece if he had had a different job. 3-4 times a year at MAN people are "done" for this sort of remark, and there have been at least one "holiday" courtesy HMP
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy
No, it would not make any differece if he had had a different job. 3-4 times a year at MAN people are "done" for this sort of remark, and there have been at least one "holiday" courtesy HMP
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out Of Trim
Yes I am serious. It wasn't a hoax. He didn't attempt to deceive the security officer into believing he had a gun. He made a flippant remark, possibly under provocation. He didn't expect to be taken seriously.
We won't combat the hijack menace by cowing the passengers before they get on the aeroplane. We might even make it easier for the hijackers. Our best defence against the sort of hijacks we have seen recently is the passenger who is prepared to speak up and if necessary take action to help us. So in the unlikely event I find myself in the dire position the pilots found themselves in on 11th, the more passengers like Mr Orr down the back the better.
I am not saying we should tolerate disruptive behaviour. I would like to see the courts deal far more severely with it than they do. But I hope I have enough common sense to distinguish between real disruption and an unfortunate remark born of frustration.
And if some bright spark at DTLR thinks he's improving security by confiscating nail files from pilots, he's taking his salary under false pretences.
Yes I am serious. It wasn't a hoax. He didn't attempt to deceive the security officer into believing he had a gun. He made a flippant remark, possibly under provocation. He didn't expect to be taken seriously.
We won't combat the hijack menace by cowing the passengers before they get on the aeroplane. We might even make it easier for the hijackers. Our best defence against the sort of hijacks we have seen recently is the passenger who is prepared to speak up and if necessary take action to help us. So in the unlikely event I find myself in the dire position the pilots found themselves in on 11th, the more passengers like Mr Orr down the back the better.
I am not saying we should tolerate disruptive behaviour. I would like to see the courts deal far more severely with it than they do. But I hope I have enough common sense to distinguish between real disruption and an unfortunate remark born of frustration.
And if some bright spark at DTLR thinks he's improving security by confiscating nail files from pilots, he's taking his salary under false pretences.