Nigel won't fly pax with political badge
None but a blockhead
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London, UK
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel won't fly pax with political badge
This below is excerpted from an email circulated by John Gilmore, founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and general libertarian activist. The email describes how he was refused a flight on BA from SFO to the UK because of a badge he was wearing, and his subsequent adventures in Customer Serviceland.
Is this company policy? Was Gilmore being a prat, does he have a point, or both? Would you have done the same as Nigel? Were you there?
R
----------------------------------------------------
...you already know about my opposition to useless airport
security crap. I'm suing John Ashcroft, two airlines, and various
other agencies over making people show IDs to fly -- an intrusive
measure that provides no security. (See http://freetotravel.org).
But I would be hard pressed to come up with a security measure more useless and intrusive than turning a plane around because of a political button on someone's lapel.
My sweetheart Annie and I tried to fly to London today (Friday) on British Airways. We started at SFO, showed our passports and got through all the rigamarole, and were seated on the plane while it taxied out toward takeoff. Suddenly a flight steward, Cabin Service Director Khaleel Miyan, loomed in front of me and demanded that I remove a small 1" button pinned to my left lapel. I declined, saying that it was a political statement and that he had no right to censor passengers' political speech. The button, which was created by political activist Emi Koyama, says "Suspected Terrorist". Large images of the button and I appear in the cover story of Reason Magazine this month, and the story is entitled "Suspected Terrorist".
You can see the button at:
http://eminism.org/store/button-racism.html
(Reason hasn't put the current issue online yet, for some reason.)
The steward returned with Capt. Peter Hughes. The captain requested, and then demanded, that I remove the button (they called it a "badge"). He said that I would endanger the aircraft and commit a federal crime if I did not take it off. I told him that it was a political statement and declined to remove it.
They turned the plane around and brought it back to the gate, delaying 300 passengers on a full flight.
We were met at the jetway by Carol Spear, Station Manager for BA at SFO. She stated that since the captain had told her he was refusing to transport me as a passenger, she had no other course but to take me off the plane. I offered no resistance. I reminded her of the court case that United lost when their captain removed a Middle Eastern man who had done nothing wrong, merely because "he made me uncomfortable".
She said that she had no choice but to uphold the captain and that we could sort it out in court later, if necessary. She said that my button was in "poor taste".
Later, after consulting with (unspecified) security people, Carol said that if we wanted to fly on the second and last flight of the day, we would be required to remove the button and put it into our checked luggage (or give it to her). And also, our hand-carried baggage would have to be searched to make sure that we didn't carry any more of these terrorist buttons onto the flight and put them on, endangering the mental states of the passengers and crew.
I said that I understood that she had refused me passage on the first flight because the captain had refused to carry me, but I didn't understand why I was being refused passage on the second one. I suggested that BA might have captains with different opinions about free speech, and that I'd be happy to talk with the second captain to see if he would carry me. She said that the captain was too busy to talk with me, and that speaking broadly, she didn't think BA had any captains who would allow someone on a flight wearing a button that
said "Suspected Terrorist". She said that BA has discretion to
decline to fly anyone. (And here I had thought they were a common carrier, obliged to carry anyone who'll pay the fare, without discrimination.) She said that passengers and crew are nervous about terrorism and that mentioning it bothers them, and that is grounds to exclude me. I suggested that if they wanted to exclude mentions of terrorists from the airplane, then they should remove all the newspapers from it too.
I asked whether I would be permitted to fly if I wore other buttons, perhaps one saying "Hooray for Tony Blair". She said she thought that would be OK. I said, how about "Terrorism is Evil". She said that I probably wouldn't get on. I started to discuss other possible buttons, like "Oppose Terrorism", trying to figure out what kinds of political speech I would be permitted to express in a BA plane, but she said that we could stand there making hypotheticals all night and she wasn't interested. Ultimately, I was refused passage because I would not censor myself at her command.
After the whole interaction was over, I offered to tell her, just for
her own information, what the button means and why I wear it. She was curious. I told her that it refers to all of us, everyone, being suspected of being terrorists, being searched without cause, being queued in lines and pens, forced to take our shoes off, to identify ourselves, to be x-rayed and chemically sniffed, to drink our own breast milk, to submit to indignities. Everyone is a suspected terrorist in today's America, including all the innocent people, and that's wrong. That's what it means. The terrorists have won if we turn our country into an authoritarian theocracy "to defeat terrorism". I suggested that British Airways had demonstrated that trend brilliantly today. She understood but wasn't sympathetic -- like most of the people whose individual actions are turning the country into a police state.
Annie asked why she, Annie, was not allowed to fly. She wasn't
wearing or carrying any objectionable buttons. Carol said it's
because of her association with me. I couldn't have put it better
myself -- guilt by association. I asked whether Annie would have been able to fly if she had checked in separately, and got no answer. (Indeed it was I who pointed out to the crew that Annie and I were traveling together, since we were seated about ten rows apart due to the full flight. I was afraid that they'd take me off the plane without her even knowing.)
Annie later told me that the stewardess who had gone to fetch her said that she thought the button was something that the security people had made me wear to warn the flight crew that I was a suspected terrorist(!). Now that would be really secure.
I spoke with the passengers around me before being removed from the plane, and none of them seemed to have any problem with sitting next to me for 10 hours going to London. None of them had even noticed the button before the crew pointed it out, and none of them objected to it after seeing it. It was just the crew that had problems, as far as I could tell.
John Gilmore
PS: For those who know I don't fly in the US because of the ID demand: I'm willing to show a passport to travel to another country. I'm not willing to show ID -- an "internal passport" -- to fly within my own country.
--------------------------------------------
Is this company policy? Was Gilmore being a prat, does he have a point, or both? Would you have done the same as Nigel? Were you there?
R
----------------------------------------------------
...you already know about my opposition to useless airport
security crap. I'm suing John Ashcroft, two airlines, and various
other agencies over making people show IDs to fly -- an intrusive
measure that provides no security. (See http://freetotravel.org).
But I would be hard pressed to come up with a security measure more useless and intrusive than turning a plane around because of a political button on someone's lapel.
My sweetheart Annie and I tried to fly to London today (Friday) on British Airways. We started at SFO, showed our passports and got through all the rigamarole, and were seated on the plane while it taxied out toward takeoff. Suddenly a flight steward, Cabin Service Director Khaleel Miyan, loomed in front of me and demanded that I remove a small 1" button pinned to my left lapel. I declined, saying that it was a political statement and that he had no right to censor passengers' political speech. The button, which was created by political activist Emi Koyama, says "Suspected Terrorist". Large images of the button and I appear in the cover story of Reason Magazine this month, and the story is entitled "Suspected Terrorist".
You can see the button at:
http://eminism.org/store/button-racism.html
(Reason hasn't put the current issue online yet, for some reason.)
The steward returned with Capt. Peter Hughes. The captain requested, and then demanded, that I remove the button (they called it a "badge"). He said that I would endanger the aircraft and commit a federal crime if I did not take it off. I told him that it was a political statement and declined to remove it.
They turned the plane around and brought it back to the gate, delaying 300 passengers on a full flight.
We were met at the jetway by Carol Spear, Station Manager for BA at SFO. She stated that since the captain had told her he was refusing to transport me as a passenger, she had no other course but to take me off the plane. I offered no resistance. I reminded her of the court case that United lost when their captain removed a Middle Eastern man who had done nothing wrong, merely because "he made me uncomfortable".
She said that she had no choice but to uphold the captain and that we could sort it out in court later, if necessary. She said that my button was in "poor taste".
Later, after consulting with (unspecified) security people, Carol said that if we wanted to fly on the second and last flight of the day, we would be required to remove the button and put it into our checked luggage (or give it to her). And also, our hand-carried baggage would have to be searched to make sure that we didn't carry any more of these terrorist buttons onto the flight and put them on, endangering the mental states of the passengers and crew.
I said that I understood that she had refused me passage on the first flight because the captain had refused to carry me, but I didn't understand why I was being refused passage on the second one. I suggested that BA might have captains with different opinions about free speech, and that I'd be happy to talk with the second captain to see if he would carry me. She said that the captain was too busy to talk with me, and that speaking broadly, she didn't think BA had any captains who would allow someone on a flight wearing a button that
said "Suspected Terrorist". She said that BA has discretion to
decline to fly anyone. (And here I had thought they were a common carrier, obliged to carry anyone who'll pay the fare, without discrimination.) She said that passengers and crew are nervous about terrorism and that mentioning it bothers them, and that is grounds to exclude me. I suggested that if they wanted to exclude mentions of terrorists from the airplane, then they should remove all the newspapers from it too.
I asked whether I would be permitted to fly if I wore other buttons, perhaps one saying "Hooray for Tony Blair". She said she thought that would be OK. I said, how about "Terrorism is Evil". She said that I probably wouldn't get on. I started to discuss other possible buttons, like "Oppose Terrorism", trying to figure out what kinds of political speech I would be permitted to express in a BA plane, but she said that we could stand there making hypotheticals all night and she wasn't interested. Ultimately, I was refused passage because I would not censor myself at her command.
After the whole interaction was over, I offered to tell her, just for
her own information, what the button means and why I wear it. She was curious. I told her that it refers to all of us, everyone, being suspected of being terrorists, being searched without cause, being queued in lines and pens, forced to take our shoes off, to identify ourselves, to be x-rayed and chemically sniffed, to drink our own breast milk, to submit to indignities. Everyone is a suspected terrorist in today's America, including all the innocent people, and that's wrong. That's what it means. The terrorists have won if we turn our country into an authoritarian theocracy "to defeat terrorism". I suggested that British Airways had demonstrated that trend brilliantly today. She understood but wasn't sympathetic -- like most of the people whose individual actions are turning the country into a police state.
Annie asked why she, Annie, was not allowed to fly. She wasn't
wearing or carrying any objectionable buttons. Carol said it's
because of her association with me. I couldn't have put it better
myself -- guilt by association. I asked whether Annie would have been able to fly if she had checked in separately, and got no answer. (Indeed it was I who pointed out to the crew that Annie and I were traveling together, since we were seated about ten rows apart due to the full flight. I was afraid that they'd take me off the plane without her even knowing.)
Annie later told me that the stewardess who had gone to fetch her said that she thought the button was something that the security people had made me wear to warn the flight crew that I was a suspected terrorist(!). Now that would be really secure.
I spoke with the passengers around me before being removed from the plane, and none of them seemed to have any problem with sitting next to me for 10 hours going to London. None of them had even noticed the button before the crew pointed it out, and none of them objected to it after seeing it. It was just the crew that had problems, as far as I could tell.
John Gilmore
PS: For those who know I don't fly in the US because of the ID demand: I'm willing to show a passport to travel to another country. I'm not willing to show ID -- an "internal passport" -- to fly within my own country.
--------------------------------------------
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Croydon (but really from Barnsley)
Age: 64
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've heard about this Gilmore before, and he always strikes me as an arse. One of the "everything should be free on the internet - music, movies, books, etc" brigade who want everything handed to them on a plate. Can't have been told as kids that they can't have their own way 100% of the time...
I suspect what would have made him REALLY pissed off would be if nobody had noticed his stupid badge.
Like to hear the other side of the story. I suspect he was not being as calm and rational as he makes out. Probably screamed and shouted and stamped his foot...
I suspect what would have made him REALLY pissed off would be if nobody had noticed his stupid badge.
Like to hear the other side of the story. I suspect he was not being as calm and rational as he makes out. Probably screamed and shouted and stamped his foot...
Paxing All Over The World
How interesting, that Dop should accuse the man of things that are not yet discussed. I am inclined to wait and see who-said-what, rather than 'suspect' him of behaviour that you think he displayed.
You are behaving just like the cabin and flight crew! You are making presumptions about a man with no evidence. It is true that we have heard only one side of the story, it might be an idea to wait for the second side. Because the ENTIRE problem is that too many countries are now making assumptions about what people's intentions are. They are subjecting everyone to 'security' measures that have no chance of making any difference to the security of a flight. That subject has been discussed constantly here since 9/11.
My thanks to SLF for posting and I look forward to hearing the rest of the story before making up my mind.
You are behaving just like the cabin and flight crew! You are making presumptions about a man with no evidence. It is true that we have heard only one side of the story, it might be an idea to wait for the second side. Because the ENTIRE problem is that too many countries are now making assumptions about what people's intentions are. They are subjecting everyone to 'security' measures that have no chance of making any difference to the security of a flight. That subject has been discussed constantly here since 9/11.
My thanks to SLF for posting and I look forward to hearing the rest of the story before making up my mind.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The individual obviously knew that they were pushing the boundaries and unsurprisingly came a cropper - this played into his hands but to what end? It is a statement moreso than an 'attention seeking' device but it smacks of undergraduate-intansigent-style guerilla tactics that have no great purpose.
Words can't harm people but abnormal behaviour scares and unsettles peope and the captain is within his rights to deny service.
When coloured students crossed the boundaries to enter southern universities in the 1960s they were pushing the boundaries also but with a cause worth fighting for.
However, what is not in Mr Gilmore's favour is the import of his message. We all abhor censorship to a certain extent but there are generally accepted limits.
This is not an important struggle vis-a-vis air travel and personal liberties but rather an intellectual exercise to test boundaries and prejudiced perceptions - somewhat selfishly and publically - not helping the debate at all. Yes it is prejudicial action on the airline's behalf - but with just cause.
I think that the request that he simply put his badge away was reasonable in the same way that you cannot usually be naked on an aircraft (Southwest Flight Deck staff exempted!) or indeed wear a garment with profane statements or smoke cigarettes or do anything that the Captain deems inappropriate within reason.
This lesson is lost on Mr Gilmore - just put it away for the duration of the flight - put it back on once inside the terminal building again. When on an aircraft you follow the rules. Deviate at your peril.
I do not think that anyone was making a judgement that wasn't expressly endorsed by the captain.
It's like wearing a tee-shirt that is deemed grossly offensive - to yer auntie's for dinner. Your parents usually don't let it happen. Then you grow out of that phase.
Perhaps it would have been better to ignore Mr Gilmore as the oxygen of publicity would have been denied.
He obviously feels relatively strongly about his beliefs but succeeded in 'hijacking' the flight and interfering with other people's liberty.
What a useless protest.
The best security does presume that you're a threat whereas you Mr Gilmore, are merely a childish nuisance.
P.S. I don't get the 'Merchant Banker' connection except maybe for its rhyming slang possibilities only. Otherwise one might be offending a large number of city workers - the two meanings are not synonymous!!! Less of the prejudice there chief...
Words can't harm people but abnormal behaviour scares and unsettles peope and the captain is within his rights to deny service.
When coloured students crossed the boundaries to enter southern universities in the 1960s they were pushing the boundaries also but with a cause worth fighting for.
However, what is not in Mr Gilmore's favour is the import of his message. We all abhor censorship to a certain extent but there are generally accepted limits.
This is not an important struggle vis-a-vis air travel and personal liberties but rather an intellectual exercise to test boundaries and prejudiced perceptions - somewhat selfishly and publically - not helping the debate at all. Yes it is prejudicial action on the airline's behalf - but with just cause.
I think that the request that he simply put his badge away was reasonable in the same way that you cannot usually be naked on an aircraft (Southwest Flight Deck staff exempted!) or indeed wear a garment with profane statements or smoke cigarettes or do anything that the Captain deems inappropriate within reason.
This lesson is lost on Mr Gilmore - just put it away for the duration of the flight - put it back on once inside the terminal building again. When on an aircraft you follow the rules. Deviate at your peril.
I do not think that anyone was making a judgement that wasn't expressly endorsed by the captain.
It's like wearing a tee-shirt that is deemed grossly offensive - to yer auntie's for dinner. Your parents usually don't let it happen. Then you grow out of that phase.
Perhaps it would have been better to ignore Mr Gilmore as the oxygen of publicity would have been denied.
He obviously feels relatively strongly about his beliefs but succeeded in 'hijacking' the flight and interfering with other people's liberty.
What a useless protest.
The best security does presume that you're a threat whereas you Mr Gilmore, are merely a childish nuisance.
P.S. I don't get the 'Merchant Banker' connection except maybe for its rhyming slang possibilities only. Otherwise one might be offending a large number of city workers - the two meanings are not synonymous!!! Less of the prejudice there chief...
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southern england
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Gilmore is also noted for his support for the liberalisation of the laws on drugs, particularly those in the Ecstasy grouping.
Maybe on this occcasion, he was "enjoying" the two crusades together.
Oh and he would like the UN to ask the US to surrender their WMD!
Maybe on this occcasion, he was "enjoying" the two crusades together.
Oh and he would like the UN to ask the US to surrender their WMD!
I'm sorry but I have to say I think Gilmore was in the right.
I should imagine the chief hostie has a hundred and one other more important things to do, instead of checking all the pax's atttire to make sure they look politically correct.
If Gilmore was just sitting there, minding his own business, I feel sorry for him. This Captain Peter Hughes totally overreacted. You can't just throw someone off because you don't like what they are wearing.
I think BA's pomposity has gone too far this time.
I should imagine the chief hostie has a hundred and one other more important things to do, instead of checking all the pax's atttire to make sure they look politically correct.
If Gilmore was just sitting there, minding his own business, I feel sorry for him. This Captain Peter Hughes totally overreacted. You can't just throw someone off because you don't like what they are wearing.
I think BA's pomposity has gone too far this time.
Freedom of expression is the freedom to express unpopular sentiments.
BA (and the captain) are being ridiculous. I trust they be taken to court, and hope they will lose their case and pay a huge fine.
This whole security business has got totally out of hand!
BA (and the captain) are being ridiculous. I trust they be taken to court, and hope they will lose their case and pay a huge fine.
This whole security business has got totally out of hand!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southern england
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This whole security business has got totally out of hand!
From the "Naples News"(18/7):
"A Transportation Security Administration worker noticed what looked like the outline of handgun when a 9-year-old boy's brown teddy bear passed through the X-ray machine last week at the Orlando International Airport.
When the bear was opened, TSA workers found a loaded .22-caliber gun inside. The boy's family told investigators that the teddy bear was given to their son by a girl at their hotel during their Orlando vacation.
Now the FBI is investigating how the gun got in the teddy bear, and the TSA is using the case as an example of why it searches even the most innocent-seeming objects and people.
"This incident ... underscores the need to screen everyone and everything no matter how innocent the people or their belongings may appear," Robert Johnson, a TSA spokesman in Washington, said Thursday.
The boy, Chase Dodd, two siblings and his parents, Robert and Angela Barry, were passing through the checkpoint to catch a return flight to Grove City, Ohio, last Saturday when the teddy bear aroused suspicions. An Orlando police officer found a half-inch hole in the bottom of the teddy bear and discovered the firearm after ripping a larger hole.
The Barrys were questioned by FBI agents and then released after telling the agents that their son received the teddy bear from a 10-to-14-year-old girl at their hotel two days before. Chase turned 10 on Monday.
"She appeared at their hotel room door and offered them the bear," Johnson said. "The mother said it was OK and so the boy took it."
The Barrys appeared "very calm" while they were being interviewed, according to the police report.
Reached at her home Thursday in suburban Columbus, Angela Barry said she didn't want to talk about what happened until the FBI investigation was finished.
"I want every way possible for them to find out who did this," she said.
The FBI didn't return phone calls"
I think the guard should be sacked and pay a huge fine for his treatment of the 9yo!
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, crew reaction may have been a bit OTT but Gilmore's intransigence not less so. Sounds like a petulant child who has been chastised but needs to have the last word.
Alba Gu Brath
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Merseyside
Age: 55
Posts: 738
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
because he believes persons have a right to travel by air without the government requiring that they relinquish their anonymity
Join Date: May 2003
Location: guernsey
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pax have been arrested for so called jokes about whats in their
baggage/ violin cases etc., (whats in the violin case sir ,Oh a machine gun ha ha.) Now thats going to get you arrested.I dont see how these badges are any different.Security is not a joke
and this gilmore is pushing his luck.
baggage/ violin cases etc., (whats in the violin case sir ,Oh a machine gun ha ha.) Now thats going to get you arrested.I dont see how these badges are any different.Security is not a joke
and this gilmore is pushing his luck.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: England
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with the general point Gilmore was making, just not the way in which it was made.
His actions have helped no one. We all know exactly what the situation is like at the moment and he must have been well aware of the consequences of his actions. How very selfish to make an aircraft return to the gate just because he was trying to make an issue of it.
I agree with the Captains decision; after all this wasn’t about the "pin" but rather Gilmore’s attitude, which was clearly one of arrogance. I would not like to have taken this potential problem in to the air and had to deal with his lack of co-operation in front of other passengers. Other people had also paid money to board that flight and were every bit entitled to an uneventful journey as Gilmore.
His actions have helped no one. We all know exactly what the situation is like at the moment and he must have been well aware of the consequences of his actions. How very selfish to make an aircraft return to the gate just because he was trying to make an issue of it.
I agree with the Captains decision; after all this wasn’t about the "pin" but rather Gilmore’s attitude, which was clearly one of arrogance. I would not like to have taken this potential problem in to the air and had to deal with his lack of co-operation in front of other passengers. Other people had also paid money to board that flight and were every bit entitled to an uneventful journey as Gilmore.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greystation
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
basically a lose/lose/lose situation for BA. Having seen several articles about this person, there would be 3 outcomes:
1: the one that happenned.
2: BA say it is ok for him to wear it, so he tells press that BA have no security issues.
3: no-one notices and when he gets off he says BA's security is appauling as they don't check their pax well enough.
Why on being challenged he just didn't remove it for other passengers and crews comfort explains just who he is. He wanted to create a scene, and he managed it. Any normal person will understand where the crew and captain were coming from and the sensitivity of the issue and would just comply, I think he got just what he deserves, and feel sorry for BA that they had to be his next victim.
1: the one that happenned.
2: BA say it is ok for him to wear it, so he tells press that BA have no security issues.
3: no-one notices and when he gets off he says BA's security is appauling as they don't check their pax well enough.
Why on being challenged he just didn't remove it for other passengers and crews comfort explains just who he is. He wanted to create a scene, and he managed it. Any normal person will understand where the crew and captain were coming from and the sensitivity of the issue and would just comply, I think he got just what he deserves, and feel sorry for BA that they had to be his next victim.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, Lord Lucan, what do you do? A passenger is legally required to do what the Captain says, as long as it is reasonable. Being asked to remove a badge, I would say is reasonable. If the passenger refuses, then the Captain has the right to assume that he will not obey other reasonable requests ("Please make sure your seatbelt is fastened sir", "Well why should I, you are tying me to my seat against my will..."), so for the safety of others he removes him. The removal of Mr Gilmore from the aircraft was nothing political or anti free speech, he just failed to respond appropriately to a reasonable request.
I must admit, that I agree that some of the security measures are not actually increasing the level of security (some quite the opposite) and that we have to be careful of some of the schemes people have come up with. Also, I do agree with free speech, but we have to put things in perspective. Mr Gilmore is trying to make a point, when he has made it, there is no sense in pushing it to the limit to drive it home - the point is made.
As for taking BA to court - what a gigantic waste of the public's money. Far better to spend it on a hospital or school. Of course an airline can refuse carriage, just like a pub can refuse to serve you.
I must admit, that I agree that some of the security measures are not actually increasing the level of security (some quite the opposite) and that we have to be careful of some of the schemes people have come up with. Also, I do agree with free speech, but we have to put things in perspective. Mr Gilmore is trying to make a point, when he has made it, there is no sense in pushing it to the limit to drive it home - the point is made.
As for taking BA to court - what a gigantic waste of the public's money. Far better to spend it on a hospital or school. Of course an airline can refuse carriage, just like a pub can refuse to serve you.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have only heard one side of the story - I can only bet there's more to it, especially from the Crews' point of view.
There is no way any Captain, at the start of a long night flight, is going to turn around and return to the gate, because of a silly small badge, that "nobody has noticed". There will probably have been consultations with BA security, and/or more likely the US authorities.
And I cannot believe the CSD, prior to departure, managed to examine each passengers lapels for "offensive small badges".
Interestingly this chap has a reputation... so presumably he engineered a scene, that led to.... we know the end result - not the "how".
I am curious how the usual culprits here, the TSA, let him anywhere past security, unless of course, he "chose" not to wear it through security?
NoD
There is no way any Captain, at the start of a long night flight, is going to turn around and return to the gate, because of a silly small badge, that "nobody has noticed". There will probably have been consultations with BA security, and/or more likely the US authorities.
And I cannot believe the CSD, prior to departure, managed to examine each passengers lapels for "offensive small badges".
Interestingly this chap has a reputation... so presumably he engineered a scene, that led to.... we know the end result - not the "how".
I am curious how the usual culprits here, the TSA, let him anywhere past security, unless of course, he "chose" not to wear it through security?
NoD
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done BA! This man is obviously a Grade A F**kwit.
If I was sat next to this guy and noticed his "political statement", I can't say I'd have felt too comfortable.
Safety of an aircraft and the souls on board is paramount, whether that be their bodily or mental safety.
If I was sat next to this guy and noticed his "political statement", I can't say I'd have felt too comfortable.
Safety of an aircraft and the souls on board is paramount, whether that be their bodily or mental safety.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am curious how the usual culprits here, the TSA, let him anywhere past security, unless of course, he "chose" not to wear it through security?
Crew quite correct to ask for it to be removed if they felt it inappropriate (wouldn't have bothered me), and Capt. also quite correct to turf him for non-cooperation.
Shame really, there are some serious, legitimate (IMO) concerns about security vs. rights, but this kind of publicity does the cause no good at all. Don't know as he's a grade A f***w** though, I'd give him a C.