Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13722 posts, RR: 20 Posted (10 years 3 weeks ago) and read 6083 times:
This is one for Ansett lovers, and Anzett haters!
Helen Clark frisked at Sydney Airport
24 November 2003
By THE AGE'S LOUISE DODSON and NZPA
Prime Minister Helen Clark was frisked at Sydney Airport for explosives in an incident that has embarrassed the Australian Government.
Despite having a NZ security officer with her, Miss Clark was pulled out of a queue on October 28 and given a body scan with a new explosives detection device to make sure she was not a bomb-carrying terrorist, The Age has learned.
Senior Australian Government sources said the incident was an embarrassment. It was not regarded as the right way to treat the leader of Australia's close ally, they said.
"You won't be surprised to hear the New Zealand Prime Minister was not found to be carrying any explosives," a spokesman for Transport Minister John Anderson said.
Manairport From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5978 times:
Greg - it follows then that you believe your own President should have been subject to normal security procedures at LHR on his recent visit to London. I suggest you write a strongly worded protest to the President rebuking him for accepting special treatment from the UK government.
USAFHummer From United States of America, joined May 2000, 10685 posts, RR: 53 Reply 4, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5969 times:
Well it appears Mrs. Clark was traveling on a commercial flight it sounds like...going to DXB perhaps she was traveling on EK? (if she was traveling by private/government jet I retract my previous statement, but given the circumstances I doubt it)...before I go on could someone confirm what type of flight was she on???
Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
Leskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 71 Reply 6, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5940 times:
I thought that most airports actually had special VIP-personnel on staff that would see to it that VIPs - and I'd say that the PM of New Zealand would certainly qualify as such - are brought through security and other areas a bit quicker, or at least with less hassle...
Commercial flight or not - calling this embarrasing would be understating things: just because some countries have elected officials flying on commercial flights (and thus saving huge amounts of money for the tax payer) does not make it OK for them to be treated like potential terrorists...
Somewhat off topic, but out of interest - what plane does GWBush fly on when he goes to Texas for the weekend/holidays? Do they fly him out on one of the 747s for that as well?
USAFHummer From United States of America, joined May 2000, 10685 posts, RR: 53 Reply 8, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5910 times:
Ok Im going to go under the assumption that she was flying commercially, which Im 99.9% sure of...
First off Ill just put a few quotes from those articles:
"The [Australian] Transport Minister's spokesman said if Miss Clark found herself in the public section of airport security she should expect to be treated like all the other travellers."
"It doesn't matter who you are - whether you are a first-class passenger, whether you are a business-class passenger or whether you are a VIP - if your number comes up, you're screened"
-those two quotes essentially sum up my argument here. If the NZ PM elects to travel commercially, why should she get special/preferred treatment at security just because shes a VIP? To do so undermines the whole security process that is there for a reason. Of course the odds of her actually carrying anything forbidden are nil, and everyone knows that, but that's no excuse for her to be exempted from security procedures... Furthermore, the PM herself said that it was no big deal and wasn't causing a stir about it...
Bush was using his own aircraft for that, and private security regulations are much different than commercial security regulations...if by some reason he had flown into LHR on BA or UA or something like that, I do think he should be treated like a normal passenger...alas, that was not the case here...comparing these two occurences is not valid at all...
Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
Qantasclub From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 757 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5794 times:
God, that was funny. To be honest, she's not that well known or recognisable by many Australians. Seriously. I reckon she looks like one of those orks from the Lord of the Rings. You'd DEFINETLY search them, wouldn't you?!
OK-that was a joke, before i get a whole lot of kiwi abuse. Joke!!
Ryanair!!! From Australia, joined Mar 2002, 4706 posts, RR: 26 Reply 11, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5721 times:
C'mon... Even if she found herself in the "public" area of the arrival concourse, she is after all a PRIME MINISTER OF NEW ZEALAND!!!! Why did she end up at a public area anyway? Even if she arrived on a comemercial flight, there should have been provisions to whisk her away from the public (disembark via the stairs at the aerobridge to a waiting convoy, perhaps?)...
Let me see if Sydney Airport would frisk the Queen of England just because she arrived First Class on a QANTAS flight from London via Singapore! On a similar note, I wonder if Prince Harry was frisked when he arrived?
Welcome to my starry one world alliance, a team in the sky!
TG992 From New Zealand, joined Jan 2001, 2910 posts, RR: 11 Reply 12, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5723 times:
Hmm.. a few points here.
1) Ms. Clark was flying Emirates. Apparently she was advised to use a commercial service at the last minute because of security concerns over using a special jet. This switch may well have taken place at the last minute, so that would be why she didn't use the regular VIP area.
2) The Australian officials are failing to get a consistent message across - they say they didn't know she was flying, yet she was met at the aircraft door and escorted to security by airport staff. The Transport Minister has been quoted as saying "I'm not sure what we're meant to say here, whether she should be treated differently than everybody else", while the Tourism Minister has said it was "An embarrassing error that should not happen again."
It's pretty bad that a government that's been in power for quite a long time can't deliver a consistent message by this time!
3) My opinion - Ms. Clark showed dignity and class by agreeing to go through this check. However, every time a head of state, or other such people are singled out for these checks, the chances of detecting a real terrorist decreases - which is a real worry.
WLG-Spotter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5697 times:
Your statement... Seriously. I reckon she looks like one of those orks from the Lord of the Rings. ... Now, was that supposed to be sarcastic (towards HC and her looks) or complimentary (towards the orks in LOTR in that they look like the PM of Middle Earth)?? ...
Bik From New Zealand, joined Mar 2003, 57 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5588 times:
I can not belive what i am hearing in here.
She is a prime minister of a country and it does not matter how small or large that country is she should be trated as a representative of such country and with utmost respect.
I find it very ironical that you, USAFHummer are talkiing about this when your ex ex ex presidents are treated better than Helen Clark was treated at the airport.
Bear in mind that she doe snot know the airport by heart so the only reason she was in the public place was because she was led there.
I cannot believe that there is a discussion about this matter. It is an open and shut case. Aussies made a blunder and they should apologise for it. The only reason they are not doing it is because it is a Kiwi PM so who gives a damn. Righ?
Sydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2566 posts, RR: 20 Reply 20, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5563 times:
I agree it was unfortunate but you can surely see how anyone in the public part of the airport is subject to search.
I think SACL, or whoever was showing the New Zealand PM around, was completely to blame for putting her in the position she was in. The security people were just doing their job and should be commended for doing it properly.
The government shouldn't apologise for a blunder by Sydney Airport, the Airport should apologise and review its procedures for handling VIP's.
USAFHummer From United States of America, joined May 2000, 10685 posts, RR: 53 Reply 21, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5557 times:
Like I said before, if President Bush traveled commercially, I believe he should not be exempted either, but he does not, he travels by non-commercial means and security means for that are entirely different...you cannot compare the two...
Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
Sydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2566 posts, RR: 20 Reply 22, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5550 times:
If President Bush travelled commercially he would have the secret service take over the plane and half the airport and no-one in airport security would even touch him except as a photo opportunity. The British Royals travel commercially and are not subject to searches and the like.
I dont see why the Prime Minister of New Zealand, or of any country, would be the subject of a search unless she was put in the wrong place at the wrong time by someone who was inexperienced at handling VIP's at Sydney Airport.
Qantasclub From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 757 posts, RR: 3 Reply 23, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5516 times:
(seriously, now): I agree that she should not have been searched. We should apologise to the Kiwis. This is not the first time a blunder like that has happened to HC. Her plane 2 years ago from Melbourne (an ANZ commercial 737 flight) was prevented from taking off and she was stranded in Melbourne for quite some time, which caused a monor diplomatic incident.
The TRUTH is, and this IS true, New Zealand is not improtant to Australia, at least from the Australian foreign policy point of view. I'm not saying that I agree with this, but that is what this reflects. I mean, we bend over backwards and shut canberra for Dubbya, and when HC goes through Sydney, she gets felt up! New Zealand rarely gets a mention in our newspapers (except in the sporting section), cabinet ministers have expressed dissapointment that NZ now doesn't even have an airforce and relies on us to protect skies...( ie-she is not pulling her weight in defense), and these reasons are possibly why HC didn't really get the respect she deserves. Now, before you kiwi's go ballistic, I am not saying that i agree that this should be the case, but just highlighting some possible factors as to why it happened.
B-HXB From New Zealand, joined Jan 2001, 745 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5508 times:
So if John Howard's motorcade was going at 82kmh in a posted 70kmh zone in Auckland while on a visit, then they should be pulled over by the police for speeding?
Helen Clark went through the normal security checkpoint. That should be End of Story. Singling out the prime minister of any country for further 'random' security screening should never happen. Aside from the obvious issue that it is a complete waste of time because they won't find anything, it is an issue of respect.
When former President Clinton flew out of Auckland earlier this year on a UA service to Los Angeles, do you think the New Zealand Aviation Security Service would have asked him to remove his shoes and belt?
25 Leskova: Well said, Sydscott - Bush travelling commercially and sitting "with the crowd"? There's even less chance of that happening than him sitting in a comm
26 L-188: Look for New Zealand to send it's fighter planes across the channel to bomb Australia in retailation.... Oh wait.... I guess that isn't an option
27 JGPH1A: Re: She is a prime minister of a country and it does not matter how small or large that country is she should be trated as a representative of such co
28 TG992: JG - New Zealand has 2 Boeing 757 used as VIP transports - if you read my post earlier in the thread, you'll discover why she was travelling commercia
29 Qantasclub: RE: I repeat - every time a head of state, or other such people are singled out for these checks, the chances of detecting a real terrorist decreases
30 TG992: Qantasclub - I have heard many stories about this sort of thing happening - while it's rare for it to happen to a head of state, I believe many other
31 Glennstewart: It's well timed that the NZ Prime Minister got checked for bombs. On the same day I was travelling in Brisbane (Australia) back to Sydney. I was well
32 Mohan: Well this is ridiculous..........You cannot treat any Head of State this way.. Security or no security........... What do you expect she will carry ex
33 Aviasian: This discussion has really taken a bad turn. Insults or sarcasm aimed at PM Helen Clark's look were neither deserved nor appropriate. At the end of th
34 VirginFlyer: I echo the sentiments that while security is foremost in people's minds, a head of government should not be treated in such a manner. Like it or not,
35 JGPH1A: I didn't compare Helen Clark with Saddam Hussein, all I said was that by the arguments present in this forum, his position as head of state (as was) s
36 Adh214: First, we need to consider a few points. New Zealand does not have enemies like the US. Thus they are fortunate in that their elected officials do not
37 Goose: PMs and other government VIPs have special, private government aircraft for this very reason - so that they do not have to endure the same security ch
38 Ryanair!!!: ...especially when this involves the Head of Government of an immediate neighbour - it isn't like she came from an obscure nation from another contine
39 Goose: "Fiasco"..... Sounds like a simple mistake to me. And mistakes happen. It'll blow over.... as I said, the party involved (being the PM of NZ) doesn't
40 WLG-Spotter: Hi people: Must admit I was a little overboard abt the remarks of HC's look. Sorry and I take them back. But, seriously, I think a (large) part of the
41 Sydscott: So in conclusion I was right further up the thread when I said it was Sydney Airports fault entirely for putting Helen Clark in the wrong place at th
42 KaiGywer: If she was unescorted, or, escorted in the wrong direction, it is not the security screeners' fault. If I was a security screener, and any of the Secr
43 Qantasclub: RE:Must admit I was a little overboard abt the remarks of HC's look. Sorry and I take them back I, also feel a bit bad about what I said about HC. Sh
44 PER744: Just out of interest, is Helen Clark actually the Head of State of New Zealand, or do they have a Governor-General like Australia?
45 Qantasclub: She is what Johnny Howard is to Australia. They do have a Governer General as well-can't remember her name. Dame something.
46 WLG-Spotter: Dame Sylvia Cartwright is the Governor General of New Zealand. And to quote the official NZ govt's web site, The Governor-General is the personal repr
47 Motorhussy: Hey, we're used to being treated like this by our Australian brethren. Remember, Australia was a penal colony and they still haven't fathomed the subt
48 ANstar: I'm sure if John Howard had been visiting NZ and got frisked, then a swap for explosives, the Aussie papers would of kicked up a storm. She is the NZ
49 Motorhussy: Qantasclub Just read some of your earlier comments about NZ's PM. While you're wholeheartedly entitled to your opinion (I say with some mirth), I do c
50 USAFHummer: I've just read in a book I got that in fact a sitting US president did in fact travel commercially once...Richard Nixon flew on UA 55 IAD-LAX, DC-10 s
51 PROSA: In the US very few politicians have security services. Most governors, mayors and congressmen just go it alone much like the PM of New Zealand. Not en
52 V2fix: Well, the poor attitude and poor grace of The Aussie has been further enhanced by this event. Given the positive belligerence of John Howard, Australi
53 Sydscott: Grow up V2fix. If you watch the medal presentation again you'll see the guy presenting the medal to the Aussies did exactly the same as what Howard d
54 Sydscott: Enjoy the Rugby World Cup V2fix as well while you've got it. The last time England won a World Cup in anything was 1966 so 37 years of work went into
55 QANTASFOREVER: Ryanair!!!:Let me see if Sydney Airport would frisk the Queen of England just because she arrived First Class on a QANTAS flight from London via Singa
56 CROOKS44: They should have made her wear a paper bag over her head while going through security. I heard that Janet Reno once set off a x-ray machine on her loo
57 Sydscott: Oh dear Crooks44, I fear a Kiwi tirade after that comment!!!!!!! Meanwhile I completely agree with Qantasforever.
58 Qantasclub: Here we go.....trans tasman relations are about to take a plunge. BATTLESTATIONS, everyone....
59 VirginFlyer: Lets try and grow up here, or else perhaps some people should check out http://www.tricycleliners.net. The issue here is that a head of government was
60 Motorhussy: CROOKS44 "They should have made her wear a paper bag over her head while going through security. I heard that Janet Reno once set off a x-ray machine
61 Qantasclub: Motorhussy..cmon. don't take things so seriously. It was clearly a joke. And yes, the criteria you mentioned are definitely more important in selectin