Ryanair flight: 'Racial abuse passenger' referred to police
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Nihon
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed, totally unacceptable behaviour but I can’t help wondering if there’d still be such a fuss being made if the races of those involved were reversed.
The Tokyo convention of 1963 covers incidents occurring on board aircraft. If the aerobridge was still attached and the door was open then I believe local authorities have jurisdiction, but I’m not a lawyer.
The Tokyo convention of 1963 covers incidents occurring on board aircraft. If the aerobridge was still attached and the door was open then I believe local authorities have jurisdiction, but I’m not a lawyer.
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: UK
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not commenting on the incident itself, since others have covered that, but if the lady was immobile to the degree reported, should she have been seated in the aisle, potentially blocking two seats in the event of an evac?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not entirely convinced that the claimed racial slurs really existed. I watched the video before reading any thing more specific than "racist rant" and "slurs". The audio is poor quality, and I certainly didn't catch everything, but it certainly seemed to me like he called her a "blasted" bas***d. Subsequently, I read articles which claimed that he called her a "black bas***d, after reading that I went back and listened again, and it still sounded like "blasted" to me. Obviously he was belligerent and insulting and I'm certainly not excusing that, but try as I might to hear the word before bas***d as "black", it always seems to be distinctly 2 syllables to my ear.
Last edited by A Squared; 23rd Oct 2018 at 17:38.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Around and about
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The laws in most jurisdictions says.
It is generally illegal to film or record on private property without permission. I cannot look it up now but I know it is in the terms of carriage for at least three international airlines and is written clearly in their in flight magazine with other "fine print". You agree to their terms and conditions when you purchase a ticket.
An aircraft is not deemed "a public place", it is private property, just like a shopping centre. Many people mistakenly believe this is "public" and therefor they can record video but that is not the case.
However it is a moot point.
It is generally illegal to film or record on private property without permission. I cannot look it up now but I know it is in the terms of carriage for at least three international airlines and is written clearly in their in flight magazine with other "fine print". You agree to their terms and conditions when you purchase a ticket.
An aircraft is not deemed "a public place", it is private property, just like a shopping centre. Many people mistakenly believe this is "public" and therefor they can record video but that is not the case.
However it is a moot point.
What jurisdictions are you referring to? Specific examples please...
”I cannot look it up now” = “I’m making this up”
Terms of carriage are not legislation, and don’t trump legislation.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point, a squared. He looked more mentalist than racist; the racial angle, if there was one, was an afterthought. To listen to the media though, that was the only issue. Thought to ponder: if the victim had called him a WHITE stinky man, does she then get referred to CPS?
...the thin end thereof
Join Date: Jun 1998
Location: London
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Tokyo convention of 1963 covers incidents occurring on board aircraft. If the aerobridge was still attached and the door was open then I believe local authorities have jurisdiction, but I’m not a lawyer.
1. Spain; where the aircraft was parked on the ground when the incident happened; 2. Ireland; where the aircraft is registered and 3. The UK, (actually England and Wales in this case, not Scotland or NI) where the aircraft was heading to (although as I've learnt from this thread, the jurisdiction of England and Wales doesn't 'kick in' until full power is applied on the runway in Barcelona). And that's just the English law. Legal jurisdiction on international flights is a bit of a minefield.
I did watch the whole video and it looks like it was the old lady who insulted the man telling him " he stinks" . Again ,we have a good example of the PC propaganda
Thought to ponder: if the victim had called him a WHITE stinky man, does she then get referred to CPS?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ban Chiang,Thailand
Age: 67
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO, ATNotts was bang on the money in his post. The states of eastern Europe have a less enlightened attitude to people from certain parts of the world. This attitude may have been reflected In how the cabin crew dealt with this incident.
Last edited by Thaihawk; 25th Oct 2018 at 15:48. Reason: The letter 'n' missed out in my post.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by A Squared; 24th Oct 2018 at 08:34.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolute rubbish. It is not, and never has been, an offence to record audio or video without permission.
What jurisdictions are you referring to? Specific examples please...
”I cannot look it up now” = “I’m making this up”
Terms of carriage are not legislation, and don’t trump legislation.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the police can come and arrest you for trespassing
A Sydney, Australia lawyer, told me very recently that it is an offence to photograph someone without their permission, being careful to draw the line between deliberately taking a persons picture, without their permission and taking a picture that included a person but who was not the object of the picture. This was all related to drones but the lawyer did say that certain laws about taking a persons picture applied across the board . The photographer on the Ryan Air aircraft was, I think, without a doubt, photographing the man who was engaged in the dispute. IF the audio and visual here is illegal would it be inadmissible too? As soon as the defence can get two or three witnesses contradicting each other the case would surely be lost?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that's a different rules in different countries thing. Seems like there was another thread here recently in which this was discussed, and my recollection was that the law in the UK was similar to what you describe, which as far as i know, is not the case in the US. If you're on my property, and I've told you to leave, and you don't, you're trespassing. You may very will be correct for Oz.
A Sydney, Australia lawyer, told me very recently that it is an offence to photograph someone without their permission,
Have you seen all those photos outside of court with people trying to hide their face?
In a public place, where there is no expectation of privacy it is not illegal. In a public place where there is an expectation of privacy e.g. public toilet, change rooms at public pool, it can be illegal. In a private place it is generally illegal but even this has limits. So a rock star wedding outdoors on a private estate, media hire a helicopter to shoot photos, is technically illegal but they get very good lawyers to argue "public interest" and say there was no attempt to cover up the function etc.
If this stuff was absolute then you would not need courts to decide. That does not mean that there are not some strong precedents and laws in place.
PS I am talking Australian rules here.
Right, you didn't use the word "crime", but "illegal", still means against the law, and contrary to a contract is not the same as being a violation of the law.
If you look at his body language - generally hunched and turning away rather than squaring-up aggressively - I think this was a mental health issue. I am afraid that everyone yelling and shouting at him made it worse. I don't think he was processing what was happening and I suspect that he should have been quietly led away.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Saigon
Age: 44
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm getting increasingly uncomfortable with the media coverage - specifically, the media coverage here in the UK - about this incident, but more especially into the man in question.
Firstly we had the (mainly tabloid) media almost gleefully reporting it as a racist incident. There now appears to be significant doubt about that. Worse, there are now personal insults splashed across the public domain about the man himself without knowing his mental capacity. One of our (here in the UK) magazine television morning TV show hosts, which airs to millions, called him "this half-wit". Today, most tabloid press are naming him, with his "neighbours" - in his home city, which again they have identified - labelling him as a "wierdo."
No. Yes, he did an horrific thing in verbally abusing the lady BUT - big "but" - IF he is mentally unstable then having his name and location reported openly in the national press AND having his character slurred so publicly then we are into territory that I find verging on dangerous for him.
I think a little calming of the waters on this is needed until the full facts are known. Else we could drive him into a pretty dark place, which nobody wants.
Firstly we had the (mainly tabloid) media almost gleefully reporting it as a racist incident. There now appears to be significant doubt about that. Worse, there are now personal insults splashed across the public domain about the man himself without knowing his mental capacity. One of our (here in the UK) magazine television morning TV show hosts, which airs to millions, called him "this half-wit". Today, most tabloid press are naming him, with his "neighbours" - in his home city, which again they have identified - labelling him as a "wierdo."
No. Yes, he did an horrific thing in verbally abusing the lady BUT - big "but" - IF he is mentally unstable then having his name and location reported openly in the national press AND having his character slurred so publicly then we are into territory that I find verging on dangerous for him.
I think a little calming of the waters on this is needed until the full facts are known. Else we could drive him into a pretty dark place, which nobody wants.