Nigel won't fly pax with political badge
Guest
Posts: n/a
Training R
I can't comment on why the other people respect Capt Hughes' actions, but I travel a lot (average of 2 airline sectors per week) and get really fed up of self centred anti social behaviour by other pax.
This man wasn't sitting there quietly, he was refusing an instruction from the CC member.
Had I been sitting next to him, 'gethomeitis' 'would have been a secondary consideration to 'getridofhimitis.'
As much as I love the US and respect the values and warmth of the vast majority of the citizens, there are a few who don't balance personal rights against social responsibility in the way that most do.
So in conclusion, this gentleman engaged in a deliberately provocative action, which impacted on several hundred other people whom he had not consulted. The captain made a decision, which is what he is paid to do and thatwas that.
That's why I suport the airline and captain .... and would do if it were VS, LH, AA, CO, DL etc etc.
I can't comment on why the other people respect Capt Hughes' actions, but I travel a lot (average of 2 airline sectors per week) and get really fed up of self centred anti social behaviour by other pax.
This man wasn't sitting there quietly, he was refusing an instruction from the CC member.
Had I been sitting next to him, 'gethomeitis' 'would have been a secondary consideration to 'getridofhimitis.'
As much as I love the US and respect the values and warmth of the vast majority of the citizens, there are a few who don't balance personal rights against social responsibility in the way that most do.
So in conclusion, this gentleman engaged in a deliberately provocative action, which impacted on several hundred other people whom he had not consulted. The captain made a decision, which is what he is paid to do and thatwas that.
That's why I suport the airline and captain .... and would do if it were VS, LH, AA, CO, DL etc etc.
Last edited by Final 3 Greens; 26th Jul 2003 at 23:23.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Training Risky
This Captain has earned respect because he has taken a command decision which was not a textbook case read from the flight manual.
If any Captain allows his aircraft do get under way when he is not completely satisfied that the machine is totally secure in every way from nose to tail, then he is doing a disservice to all those within (and without) the aircraft - and failing to discharge his responsibilities.
This idiot was obviously only too ready to compromise those around him for his own pathetic little statement, and make a very public reference to terrorism on a public transport flight. Get off, grow up and pick a different forum. I wasn't there, but from what I've read here I support Capt. Hughes' actions 110%. We must act for the good of all our charges, not the political aspirations of one selfish geek. Thankless task or not, I will do my best to get you all there as safely as possible - that is my job. Here's the deal - cease your silly political display or get off my aeroplane, this isn't the time or the place. A simple ultimatum with a very understandable motive - he wasn't prepared to play so he was offloaded, and all those on the aeroplane could rest easy that their security was being taken seriously.
When my hand baggage gets x-rayed and belongings checked for explosive traces by advanced security technology - I look around me and feel a good deal better that every one else on my aeroplane has jumped the same hurdle. When I am made to sit down on front of passengers in full uniform and have my shoes removed and scanned because the machine went "bing" again, I really don't mind. One day security checks will be less cumbersome - but for now it is the price we must pay to keep those willing to damage others for their own zealous beliefs at bay.
If any Captain allows his aircraft do get under way when he is not completely satisfied that the machine is totally secure in every way from nose to tail, then he is doing a disservice to all those within (and without) the aircraft - and failing to discharge his responsibilities.
This idiot was obviously only too ready to compromise those around him for his own pathetic little statement, and make a very public reference to terrorism on a public transport flight. Get off, grow up and pick a different forum. I wasn't there, but from what I've read here I support Capt. Hughes' actions 110%. We must act for the good of all our charges, not the political aspirations of one selfish geek. Thankless task or not, I will do my best to get you all there as safely as possible - that is my job. Here's the deal - cease your silly political display or get off my aeroplane, this isn't the time or the place. A simple ultimatum with a very understandable motive - he wasn't prepared to play so he was offloaded, and all those on the aeroplane could rest easy that their security was being taken seriously.
When my hand baggage gets x-rayed and belongings checked for explosive traces by advanced security technology - I look around me and feel a good deal better that every one else on my aeroplane has jumped the same hurdle. When I am made to sit down on front of passengers in full uniform and have my shoes removed and scanned because the machine went "bing" again, I really don't mind. One day security checks will be less cumbersome - but for now it is the price we must pay to keep those willing to damage others for their own zealous beliefs at bay.
None but a blockhead
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London, UK
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting set of responses.
Almost nobody seems to be worried about freedom of speech. Is that because the threat posed by someone wearing a political badge obviously outweighs their right to wear it, or are such freedoms not important enough to intrude on civil aviation in general?
Personally, I think Gilmore was being an unreasonable, bloody-minded arse. I wish there were more like him.
R
Almost nobody seems to be worried about freedom of speech. Is that because the threat posed by someone wearing a political badge obviously outweighs their right to wear it, or are such freedoms not important enough to intrude on civil aviation in general?
Personally, I think Gilmore was being an unreasonable, bloody-minded arse. I wish there were more like him.
R
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have been away, but thought I had better respond to a couple of the comments above.
1. Free speech is very important, many people died so that we could have it, however there is a difference between sharing your opinion or forcing it down someone's throat. Gilmore was going too far (judging by HIS OWN words, which of course is just one side of the argument).
2. Removing a badge is reasonable - why? - because the badge and the words are not the problem, it is the protest that is. If he were asked to remove the badge and said yes and quietly did so, it shows he is making his point, but doing so peacefully. If he says no and causes a scene, it shows he is going to be a pain. If no one else noticed it, then it is not a problem to have it off for the rest of the flight. Just to make it clear I think there is nothing wrong with saying what he said, nor protesting about what he is protesting about, but the manner in which he trys to do things. He has a history and is taking loads of people to court, indicative that he is a trouble maker. The indications to the crew that he was a trouble maker were that he wouldn't do as asked. There are plenty of antisocial/not too bad/seemingly innocuous things that you may be asked to stop doing quite reasonably (PLEASE stop whistling quite so loud sir...) that are in themselves not a problem, but refusing to do so causes just such a problem. Gilmore's badge was knowingly provocative. If it had said something with a similar meaning but less provocative and his protest was not provocative, then there would have been no problem.
1. Free speech is very important, many people died so that we could have it, however there is a difference between sharing your opinion or forcing it down someone's throat. Gilmore was going too far (judging by HIS OWN words, which of course is just one side of the argument).
2. Removing a badge is reasonable - why? - because the badge and the words are not the problem, it is the protest that is. If he were asked to remove the badge and said yes and quietly did so, it shows he is making his point, but doing so peacefully. If he says no and causes a scene, it shows he is going to be a pain. If no one else noticed it, then it is not a problem to have it off for the rest of the flight. Just to make it clear I think there is nothing wrong with saying what he said, nor protesting about what he is protesting about, but the manner in which he trys to do things. He has a history and is taking loads of people to court, indicative that he is a trouble maker. The indications to the crew that he was a trouble maker were that he wouldn't do as asked. There are plenty of antisocial/not too bad/seemingly innocuous things that you may be asked to stop doing quite reasonably (PLEASE stop whistling quite so loud sir...) that are in themselves not a problem, but refusing to do so causes just such a problem. Gilmore's badge was knowingly provocative. If it had said something with a similar meaning but less provocative and his protest was not provocative, then there would have been no problem.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since when has an airline been obliged to protect your "freedom of speech"? Does a right to "freedom of speech" exist in the country the plane is registered? Maybe TSA, being a US government agency, has a constitutional obligation to consider freedom of speech, so they let him through. I'm not sure a UK corporation has any obligation. I suspect they cannot discriminate i.e it would be naughty if they made a Moslem looking chap take the badge off but let a Christian looking chap keep it on. Any lawyers?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's about the gist of it, Slim. The First Amendment proscribes the US government* impinging upon freedom of speech. It does not apply to private or publicly-traded companies, and certainly not to foreign organizations.
* All levels - federal, states, counties etc. Even then the Supreme Court has ruled it is not an absolute protection - the old saw about shouting 'Fire'.
* All levels - federal, states, counties etc. Even then the Supreme Court has ruled it is not an absolute protection - the old saw about shouting 'Fire'.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: N. Europe
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reminds me of the story where two middle eastern men were bumped off a flight by the flight crew (ultimately the captain), right after 9/11. Tabloids blew it up, claimed it was racism, demanded the heads of the captain and crew and so on. Eventually, the true story emerged. These men had been seated some way from each other but had been walking back and forth yapping away in a middle eastern language. This well after they should have been seated. When instructed by CC to remain seated, they had refused to obey. They had also been waving korans around.
Yes, you are free to talk whatever language you want. You are also free to bring pretty much whatever literature you want along, korans are definitely not in any way objectionable. But you are not free of the responsibility to consider the effects your behaviour, however allowable, will have on other passengers. If you act in a way which might scare other passengers, and if you should be aware of this possibility - off you go and good riddance! Not obeying direct CC instruction was just icing on the cake, even though that by itself is well reason enough.
I think common sense prevailed in the end, the crew were told they did the right thing and these characters were not given a refund.
Provocation is great. Yes, he has a point with the “suspected terrorist” pin. He just does not know when to make his point. This particular provocation was more likely to scare Minnie, 87 and traveling by air for the first time, from her wits than achieve anything. Thus, it did not belong.
I’ve been spiky-haired and what not. That kind of appearance is scary to some people, although it shouldn’t be. That, to me, meant taking great care to always act extra-nicely. Especially when crammed up with people who did not have the option of moving away, such as on public transportation. It’s plain common sense and common courtesy!
It is legal to walk around banks at night wearing a black ski mask. That does not mean it is a good idea. And if you do it anyway, be prepared to take the consequences... and don’t come whining about what happened.
Cheers,
Fred
Yes, you are free to talk whatever language you want. You are also free to bring pretty much whatever literature you want along, korans are definitely not in any way objectionable. But you are not free of the responsibility to consider the effects your behaviour, however allowable, will have on other passengers. If you act in a way which might scare other passengers, and if you should be aware of this possibility - off you go and good riddance! Not obeying direct CC instruction was just icing on the cake, even though that by itself is well reason enough.
I think common sense prevailed in the end, the crew were told they did the right thing and these characters were not given a refund.
Provocation is great. Yes, he has a point with the “suspected terrorist” pin. He just does not know when to make his point. This particular provocation was more likely to scare Minnie, 87 and traveling by air for the first time, from her wits than achieve anything. Thus, it did not belong.
I’ve been spiky-haired and what not. That kind of appearance is scary to some people, although it shouldn’t be. That, to me, meant taking great care to always act extra-nicely. Especially when crammed up with people who did not have the option of moving away, such as on public transportation. It’s plain common sense and common courtesy!
It is legal to walk around banks at night wearing a black ski mask. That does not mean it is a good idea. And if you do it anyway, be prepared to take the consequences... and don’t come whining about what happened.
Cheers,
Fred
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Up Norf
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US Security Checks
Taking this on to a different point of view, I completely agree with what this guy was trying to achieve, however not how he did it. Security is very important onboard any aircraft, however the way the US are treating certain individuals at present is rather annoying.
I was due to go to Savannah for my type rating training just recently, however due to my circumstances as an inexperienced pilot the US Justice Department decided to put pressure on the training provider by suggesting they may be training a "Potential Terrorist". This then fed itself back to certain people in power in the company and decided not to fulfill their offer of employment.
I see the whole background check procedure as being a complete nightmare. I completed a lengthy form for the US Justice Department, I have a current Visa from my training on an integrated flying course and have visited the US on countless occasions. Why in gods name do they have to cause such a fuss about something which can be done with very little pain on their part, other than tapping into some computer and finding details on my background, with the additional information from my company backing it up?
The paranoia created after 9/11 is, I suppose, justified, however why do they have to be so "American" with it. If security needs stepping up, fine; if more thorough background checks have to be completed, fine; but why can't they just get on and do it instead of harming people's careers by getting excited when they find someone has been fortunate to be offered a job flying a complicated aircraft for their first job.
HS
I was due to go to Savannah for my type rating training just recently, however due to my circumstances as an inexperienced pilot the US Justice Department decided to put pressure on the training provider by suggesting they may be training a "Potential Terrorist". This then fed itself back to certain people in power in the company and decided not to fulfill their offer of employment.
I see the whole background check procedure as being a complete nightmare. I completed a lengthy form for the US Justice Department, I have a current Visa from my training on an integrated flying course and have visited the US on countless occasions. Why in gods name do they have to cause such a fuss about something which can be done with very little pain on their part, other than tapping into some computer and finding details on my background, with the additional information from my company backing it up?
The paranoia created after 9/11 is, I suppose, justified, however why do they have to be so "American" with it. If security needs stepping up, fine; if more thorough background checks have to be completed, fine; but why can't they just get on and do it instead of harming people's careers by getting excited when they find someone has been fortunate to be offered a job flying a complicated aircraft for their first job.
HS
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This ass was not making a political statement, he was telling everyone he was a suspected terrorist, innocent till proven guilty you say, well, how about let the Captain make the decision to carry him or not when there isn't 37,000 feet of fresh air between me and terra firma. I honestly don't care for him making his statement, political or factual.
I'm surprised he made it through security, because of what his button said? no, because of the friggin sharp pointy pin behind it. No mention of what the purpose of his trip to the UK was, was it to prove a point?
Mr. Gilmore, there is a time and a place for everything, I'm sure most of us who post here learned that as children.
I'm surprised he made it through security, because of what his button said? no, because of the friggin sharp pointy pin behind it. No mention of what the purpose of his trip to the UK was, was it to prove a point?
Mr. Gilmore, there is a time and a place for everything, I'm sure most of us who post here learned that as children.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
he was telling everyone he was a suspected terrorist
I'm surprised he made it through security, because of what his button said? no, because of the friggin sharp pointy pin behind it.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You and I see the point PaperTiger, but at what point should safety (and this ass being an ass about something as pettey as removing the badge) take a back seat to his constitutional rights? while the statement being quite true, I have to live with the fact, you and anyone else who enters a contract to be carried on an aircraft also undertake to obey the instructions of the crew.
Simple concept, no?
Simple concept, no?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PaperTiger, I have to take my jacket off now for X-ray when going through TSA security checks, I don't think those scanners can read, bet they are working on it though
Last edited by slim_slag; 29th Jul 2003 at 19:30.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NENA
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This Gilmore sounds an utter prat. He's probably the sort of whacko that thinks its reasonable to refuse to pay taxes and that owning a driving licence is an infrigement of his personal freedom. Childish and immature, certainly, but so was BA's attitude. How can a badge, no matter how silly, be a reason to offload a pax? Its hard enough to get a drunk offloaded. What about the pax I saw last week wearing a tee shirt reading "P!ssed as a fart"? Should he have been bounced? If so for what? For wearing an offensive slogan, or suspected drunk:well which, for God's sake! If we're twitched that slogans are going to upset Granny then lets do something useful and bounce everyone wearing one of those deliberately offensive "fcuk" logos. That's just plain in yer face nasty. A tee shirt saying "contagious" or a "suspected terrorist" badge is merely bad taste. None of these have any implication whatever with security. Profilers will no doubt pass these guys without a second glance as thay are clearly harmless, I'd be far more concerned at a Koran waving zealot - he would be a far greater statistical risk.
Can a pax be offloaded for wearing a badge that says "Orange" because the catholic skipper objects, despite the fact the guy probably sells mobile phones? This is ludicrous! How about one that says "Bring in the swipe cards"? Does this make him a dangerous fanatic? Maybe it does, to some...
Still. BA seem bent on self destruction this week, so perhaps this is part of a larger master plan. At this rate it will work.
Still, I do hope someone tears Gilmore a new @rsehole, just like that poor teddy bear! If they did I know what they'd find him full of, but I suppose that might stop it pouring from his mouth.
Can a pax be offloaded for wearing a badge that says "Orange" because the catholic skipper objects, despite the fact the guy probably sells mobile phones? This is ludicrous! How about one that says "Bring in the swipe cards"? Does this make him a dangerous fanatic? Maybe it does, to some...
Still. BA seem bent on self destruction this week, so perhaps this is part of a larger master plan. At this rate it will work.
Still, I do hope someone tears Gilmore a new @rsehole, just like that poor teddy bear! If they did I know what they'd find him full of, but I suppose that might stop it pouring from his mouth.
Last edited by skeptic; 30th Jul 2003 at 13:17.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: York, Pa.
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lawful, not Reasonable, Request
Sorry to jump in here late, but a couple of people have written of the requirement for pax to obey reasonable requests from the captain. As far as I know, the test is whether the request is lawful, not whether it is reasonable. I recall this issue being raised in respect of a goup of pax who wouldn't stop singing Irish folk songs, and who were subsequently arrested when the plane arrived at the gate. When someone in a newsgroup questioned whether this was in fact a reasonable request, it was pointed out that this didn't come in to it, and that they could equally have been arrested for failing to start singing if the captain had commanded them so to do.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What an arrogant, pompous idiot.
Wearing that badge is down right insensitive and purposefully confrontational, they did well to kick him off the flight. I just feel sorry for all the other passengers who suffered so this little fool could make a show and feel important- I don't suppose he considered the rights of those who he delayed and their feelings about the matter!
I believe it was a reasonable request to ask him to remove his badge, as any reasonable person would have done it! This has nothing to do with freedom and speech anyway, which incidently we don't have. You are only free to express your views if they considered acceptable by society- which isn't neccesarily a bad thing. For example you are not free to be openly racist, it is a crime ( in many countries, my own included ) to make extreme racist statements. Whilst I think this is a good thing it highlights who we do not have freedom of speech.
With regards to everyone being a terrorist thats the only way a security system can work, everyone must be checked ( I refer to the little boy and his teddy bear example ). Rather than being an infringement on our libertys by being subjected to these checks it gives us the freedom to enjoy ( hopefully safely ) air travel. It shows despite the terrorists we will contiue or way of life, the complete opposite of giving in to them I believe ( think of the Berlin airlift ).
Wearing that badge is down right insensitive and purposefully confrontational, they did well to kick him off the flight. I just feel sorry for all the other passengers who suffered so this little fool could make a show and feel important- I don't suppose he considered the rights of those who he delayed and their feelings about the matter!
I believe it was a reasonable request to ask him to remove his badge, as any reasonable person would have done it! This has nothing to do with freedom and speech anyway, which incidently we don't have. You are only free to express your views if they considered acceptable by society- which isn't neccesarily a bad thing. For example you are not free to be openly racist, it is a crime ( in many countries, my own included ) to make extreme racist statements. Whilst I think this is a good thing it highlights who we do not have freedom of speech.
With regards to everyone being a terrorist thats the only way a security system can work, everyone must be checked ( I refer to the little boy and his teddy bear example ). Rather than being an infringement on our libertys by being subjected to these checks it gives us the freedom to enjoy ( hopefully safely ) air travel. It shows despite the terrorists we will contiue or way of life, the complete opposite of giving in to them I believe ( think of the Berlin airlift ).
Supercalifragilistic
expialidocious
expialidocious
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what if...
What should the cabin crew & captain have done if I as a passenger spotted a fellow passenger wearing a badge, lets just say written in Klingon, that said the same thing.
I say, "I feel insecure, that passenger has a badge on claiming to be a suspected terroist"
If the crew can't read the badge and neither can anyone else on the aircraft do they ask him to remove the badge? Would it be a legitimate request if they did?
Or should they remove me from the aircraft for making other passengers feel insecure by pointing this badge out?
Afterall if they cannot read Klingon those passengers would not fee insecure would they? Therefore my translation would actually be the cause of the fear - not the passenger sitting quietly wearing a cool looking badge that a star trek crazy friend gave him.
In the real case when commanded to remove the badge the law required compliance and in any case delaying the flight by arguing about it infringed the rights of his fellow passengers, so he should have complied - but then of course this would not have been so newsworthy.
But was wearing the badge really a safety issue to start with?
I agree it can be argued it became one as soon as the crew were not obeyed and we will need to see what is revealed in court to have prompted the removal request before we can really judge why this was considered a safety issue in the first place.
But where do you draw the line?
Would you put on a badge saying suspected terrorist because the captain told you that if you did not you could not fly?
P.S. I cant read Klingon - nor do I want to learn.
I say, "I feel insecure, that passenger has a badge on claiming to be a suspected terroist"
If the crew can't read the badge and neither can anyone else on the aircraft do they ask him to remove the badge? Would it be a legitimate request if they did?
Or should they remove me from the aircraft for making other passengers feel insecure by pointing this badge out?
Afterall if they cannot read Klingon those passengers would not fee insecure would they? Therefore my translation would actually be the cause of the fear - not the passenger sitting quietly wearing a cool looking badge that a star trek crazy friend gave him.
In the real case when commanded to remove the badge the law required compliance and in any case delaying the flight by arguing about it infringed the rights of his fellow passengers, so he should have complied - but then of course this would not have been so newsworthy.
But was wearing the badge really a safety issue to start with?
I agree it can be argued it became one as soon as the crew were not obeyed and we will need to see what is revealed in court to have prompted the removal request before we can really judge why this was considered a safety issue in the first place.
But where do you draw the line?
Would you put on a badge saying suspected terrorist because the captain told you that if you did not you could not fly?
P.S. I cant read Klingon - nor do I want to learn.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 724
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being on a UK registered aircraft after the doors are shut puts him in a position under UK law, not US law. His arguments of freedom of speech are therefore inapplicable since we have no such laws or Bill of Rights as such, only European Human Rights law.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Certain of our American cousins would not understand this subtly particularly with an acute aversion to the International Court of Criminal Justice - what - there might be a higher power or different laws that we might have to obey - not on my watch... why I oughtta...
Throw me my sidearm and then we'll decide...
Good point last poster - is it UK or US Federal law that would prevail?
Throw me my sidearm and then we'll decide...
Good point last poster - is it UK or US Federal law that would prevail?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montsegur
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the aircraft was in the US, US law will apply. In addition, various articles of the Air Navigation Order will apply to UK aircraft wherever they might be and Section 92 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 applies UK criminal law to UK registered aircraft outside of the UK.