Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
EasyJet And The "Bomb" Word - Overreaction?  
User currently offlineGilesDavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3037 posts, RR: 2
Posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 9364 times:

Im not sure what to think of this, and curious on other peoples opinions...

A man flying to Portugal with easyJet from Luton, was not allowed to fly, was ejected from the airport and given a life time ban by easyJet for using the "bomb" word when at check-in...

From what I can make out of the story, he never actually threatened to blow up or say he was carrying a bomb aboard a flight, but when at the check-in desk, they asked the usual security questions and he commented something along the lines of saying he WASN'T carrying any bombs and did not want to blow himself up.

It seems the check-in staff have then called the police and then got barred from the airport and a life time ban from the airline.

I think it was stupid he even used the word, but think their is an element of overreaction as he did not say he was carrying a bomb or make any threat.

They were discussing this on BBC Three Counties Radio (which is in the area of Luton Airport) this morning on the JVS show about 1hr into the show. I have provided a link below and you can fast forwarded to it. As it is an interactive radio show, where the listeners can call in with their views, the majority of listeners agreed with the view of easyJet. Surely the police coming to over the passenger and stern telling off would have been sufficient?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0142zy3/The_JVS_Show_18_02_2013/

111 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinetonystan From Ireland, joined Jan 2006, 1443 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 9089 times:

In fairness he deserved it just for being that stupid!


My views are my own and do not reflect any other person or organisation.
User currently offlineanstar From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 5263 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 9075 times:

Quoting GilesDavies (Thread starter):
Surely the police coming to over the passenger and stern telling off would have been sufficient?

When it comes to Aviation - security is no joking matter. You'd have to be an idiot to even think about dropping the b word at check in.


User currently offlineBasilFawlty From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 1328 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 9006 times:

Can't believe there are still people who give such stupid answers when serious questions are asked at check-in, very good that he has been banned for life.


'Every year donkeys and mules kill more people than plane crashes'
User currently onlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1627 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 8914 times:

Quoting tonystan (Reply 1):
In fairness he deserved it just for being that stupid!
Quoting anstar (Reply 2):
When it comes to Aviation - security is no joking matter. You'd have to be an idiot to even think about dropping the b word at check in.
Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 3):
Can't believe there are still people who give such stupid answers when serious questions are asked at check-in, very good that he has been banned for life.

           

Using the B-word at an airport is like a white guy using the N-word out loud in the middle of Compton..really really really stupid.

This man should remove himself from the gene-pool for the greater good of our species!



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlines5daw From Slovenia, joined May 2011, 253 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 8860 times:

Uhm... so I'm the only one who finds it unacceptable to limit free speech like this, specifically to tell someone that you are of no threat?

Some of you guys really missed the whole communism experience up close and personal. Because we are heading there, fast.


User currently offlinesebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3681 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 8824 times:

Well, a French guy spent 20 days in the prison of Rikers Island in 2004 to have used the word "explode" in an American Airlines plane ...

Just don't make this type of jokes.

[Edited 2013-02-18 08:39:31]

User currently onlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1627 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 8798 times:

Quoting s5daw (Reply 5):
who finds it unacceptable to limit free speech like this,

Exsqueeze me? Baking powder?!

This has nothing to do with free speech, this is about a very sensitive environment when it comes to security and the common sense of not using terminology that is connected to security threats in that environment.

Long time ago we went on a big family ski-ing holiday in Switzerland by car. One of my stupid nephews thought it would be fun to proclaim out loud that "we did not have any cocaine hidden in our cars" at the Swiss border. We were stuck on the border for a few hours while they strip searched his car. Idiot.

[Edited 2013-02-18 09:14:40]


Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlinedc9northwest From Switzerland, joined Feb 2007, 2298 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 8790 times:

He's stupid.

Big deal.

Check him and his bags thoroughly (do an anal examination if you have to), and let him fly, unless you really do find something.

Innocent until proven guilty, ever heard of that? The only thing he's proven guilty of is stupidity, which doesn't in itself ban anyone from flying or 90% of the human species would be banned from flying.

Cheers.


User currently offlines5daw From Slovenia, joined May 2011, 253 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 8714 times:

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 7):
This has nothing to do with free speech, this is about a very sensitive environment when it comes to security and the common sense of not using terminology that is connected to security threats in that environment.

I see. So when time comes and a young boy arrives to my house to take my daughter on a date, and to break the ice he says "don't worry, I won't make your daughter pregnant", I should beat the hell out of his ass and charge him with rape.

It IS the same.

[Edited 2013-02-18 08:42:29]

User currently offlinebuck3y3nut From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 881 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 8596 times:

What if a person is working and used the word, "BOM" as in the "Bill of Materials"... sounds like 'bomb' doesn't? While I understand it's quite sensitive in nature, surely a simple background check of the person could result in a better judgement. Yes he was stupid, but to me seems like an over-reaction. But my 2 cents cause I'm used to getting 'secondary' screenings because just when i go through security, seems like all the scanners have a 'mal-function' and there is a need for 'pat-down' screening! Whatever...

User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6724 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 8524 times:

If I was him I would be suing. Not to get money but by principle. I'm sure the European court of human rights would have a field day with this.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently onlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1627 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 8526 times:

Quoting s5daw (Reply 9):
I see. So when time comes and a young boy arrives to my house to take my daughter on a date, and to break the ice he says "don't worry, I won't make your daughter pregnant", I should beat the hell out of his ass and charge him with rape.

Apples vs. oranges. Your frontperch is not a prime candidate for terrorist attacks.

Also this guy was not beat up nor charged with anything.



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1454 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 8471 times:

This things get a little stupid. It matters what exactly you say. If you say, "no I have no bomb in my pocket", may be a very stupid joke, but it can be in no way construed as a threat.

Do you want to arrest Spanish speaking people when they talk about a bomba meaning pump in Spanish?

In the USA they managed to throw some people of an aeroplane for the crime of praying in Arabic.


User currently offlineJU068 From Vanuatu, joined Aug 2009, 2691 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 8432 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I feel so happy that I live between two countries which have not embraced this sort of post-9.11 paranoia.

I actually think that saying you have a bomb is quite appropriate, stupid questions deserve stupid answers.


User currently offlineflyboy_se From Sweden, joined Feb 2000, 829 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 8149 times:

The airlines are clear with zero tolerance on jokes about safety, and this reaction is exactly it, zero tolerance no matter how silly the comment was.

Also we were not there and do not know exactly what and how it went. I am sure if he was banned from the airport too,
it couldent have been that harmless.

Also with free speach comes responsability, just because you can say what you want, doesent mean you should.



I prefer to be crazy and happy rather than normal and bitter
User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2807 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7998 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting s5daw (Reply 5):
Uhm... so I'm the only one who finds it unacceptable to limit free speech like this, specifically to tell someone that you are of no threat?

Free speech doesn't necessarily mean you can say whatever you want. You can't cause a panic. Like you can't yell fire in a theatre. He may have tried to prove he was of no threat but you can say you don't have explosives on you without saying I don't have a bomb or I don't want to blow myself up. You just say I don't have anything that is illegal on me.

As for easyjet. I think the ban is a little extreme. Is there a better way this gentleman could have gone about answering those questions? Absolutely. But it doesn't mean he should get banned from the airline. If you really felt uncomfortable letting him fly that day that is completely understandable. His responses were a little strange. But there really is no need to ban him for a lifetime.
Pat



All of the opinions stated above are mine and do not represent Airliners.net or my employer unless otherwise stated.
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5671 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 7829 times:

Quoting s5daw (Reply 5):
Uhm... so I'm the only one who finds it unacceptable to limit free speech like this, specifically to tell someone that you are of no threat?

No, you are not. I am sickened at the first 4 posts, supporting the decision to take punitive actions for one stinking little word used in a non-threatening manner.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 7):
This has nothing to do with free speech,

Bull-excrement. This has everything to do with free speech. Satire (and it's associated sarcastic wit) is one of the oldest and most used forms of dissent in the modern era (and likely before).

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 12):

Also this guy was not beat up nor charged with anything.

So in other words, he had his rights taken away without any hint of due process, but he wasn't physically harmed so it's okay. Lovely. Orwell would be proud.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 16):
Free speech doesn't necessarily mean you can say whatever you want. You can't cause a panic.

I can cause a panic all day long, so long as I a) don't do it intentionally and maliciously and b) the panicking is unreasonable given the circumstances.

The best example is a person boarding an airplane, and recognizes the pilot as an old friend he hasn't seen in years. He walks up to the flight deck and says "Hi, Jack!". While it may cause a panic if someone who isn't Jack hears it, that doesn't mean the person is legally responsible for causing the panic, and should suffer no legal consequences.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 4):


Using the B-word at an airport is like a white guy using the N-word out loud in the middle of Compton..really really really stupid.

I work at an airport. I use the word bomb almost daily, in a far more provocative way than this guy.

Or is it the double standard in the way that if a black person says n*****, it's okay, but when a white guy says it, he gets what's coming to him?

Quoting flyboy_se (Reply 15):
I am sure if he was banned from the airport too,
it couldent have been that harmless.

You should read the comments here. People actively cheering the punishment of someone who they think merely made an otherwise harmless quip, just because it happened at an airport.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlines5daw From Slovenia, joined May 2011, 253 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 7784 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 11):
If I was him I would be suing.

Actually, can a public transport company really deny you their services?
If the man did something wrong - criminally charge him. otherwise it's just nonsense.

Quoting flyboy_se (Reply 15):
The airlines are clear with zero tolerance on jokes about safety

Zero tolerance really works great. It gets you on sex offenders list for peeing in public in the US, for example. Wonderful!

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 16):
Free speech doesn't necessarily mean you can say whatever you want.

You can't tolerate Mohammed's caricatures and ban certain - satirical - wording of plain facts at the same time.

It is interesting though that in general people who think you shouldn't say "no, I did not pack any bombs" have no problem deeply offending Muslims in the name of free speech.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10511 posts, RR: 14
Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 7726 times:

Quoting s5daw (Reply 9):
I see. So when time comes and a young boy arrives to my house to take my daughter on a date, and to break the ice he says "don't worry, I won't make your daughter pregnant", I should beat the hell out of his ass and charge him with rape.

Hardly the same situation, is it? And besides, that is up to you to decide how you want to react, just as it was the airline's decision on what they wanted to do.

Quoting JU068 (Reply 14):
I feel so happy that I live between two countries which have not embraced this sort of post-9.11 paranoia.

This was going on BEFORE 9/11.

Quoting JU068 (Reply 14):
I actually think that saying you have a bomb is quite appropriate, stupid questions deserve stupid answers.

Much like this one ^

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 17):
Bull-excrement. This has everything to do with free speech. Satire (and it's associated sarcastic wit) is one of the oldest and most used forms of dissent in the modern era (and likely before).

How is this "satire"? Satire would, actually, be worse, but saying "bomb" is just plain stupid and has been, for years.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 17):
So in other words, he had his rights taken away without any hint of due process, but he wasn't physically harmed so it's okay. Lovely. Orwell would be proud.

He had no rights taken away. Flying is not a right and the company (although they may have overreacted) can, if they wish, remove his "privileges" to fly. No one is stopping him from travelling to his destination, he should just find another air carrier OR another mode.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1316 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 7694 times:

Blah typical 9/11 paranoia, total madness as usual.

I would be 1000x more concerned about my flight being flown by tired overworked pilots than someone bringing a bomb into the aircraft which is extremely unlikely.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlinerobsaw From Canada, joined Dec 2008, 242 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 7652 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 19):
He had no rights taken away. Flying is not a right and the company (although they may have overreacted) can, if they wish, remove his "privileges" to fly. No one is stopping him from travelling to his destination, he should just find another air carrier OR another mode.

Yes and no. Being "banned" by the airline is a civil matter not a constitutional rights matter. However, flying is most certainly a "right". In fact, you have a general right under the US Constitution to liberty, which in essence and has been supported by the courts, a right to do anything that hasn't been restricted except by due process of law. The list of rights in the constitution is not an enumerated list of ALL the rights a person has. It is but a subset of rights that have been specifically enumerated as specially protected rights. Understanding this point is the key to a truly free and democratic society that sustains itself by avoiding falls into authoritarian and arbitrary denial of fundamental liberty in the false pursuit of security.


User currently offlineBasilFawlty From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 1328 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 7597 times:

Quoting JU068 (Reply 14):
I actually think that saying you have a bomb is quite appropriate, stupid questions deserve stupid answers.

Security questions are stupid questions?

Quoting s5daw (Reply 18):
Actually, can a public transport company really deny you their services?

A public transport company? Probably no. But easyJet isn't a public transport company, it's a private company, so yes, they can deny everyone they want.



'Every year donkeys and mules kill more people than plane crashes'
User currently offlines5daw From Slovenia, joined May 2011, 253 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 7589 times:

Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 22):
A public transport company? Probably no. But easyJet isn't a public transport company, it's a private company, so yes, they can deny everyone they want.

Let me rephrase: any privately owned company that provides public transport.

He could buy the ticket and claim denied boarding under EU rights!


User currently offlinetonystan From Ireland, joined Jan 2006, 1443 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 7574 times:

Quoting s5daw (Reply 18):
Actually, can a public transport company really deny you their services?

Well Easyjet is a private company. As with any company they reserve the right to refuse custom. So in my eyes, if you act the maggot, much like a jerk in a nightclub/bar/restaurant etc you deserve to be refused admission. This guy clearly acted the maggot. They didn't refuse him travel because he was, disabled or of an ethnic minority, they didn't refuse him travel because they could not accommodate his needs, they refused him travel because he clearly antagonised company procedure on security which no airline should compromise on! I imagine that as long as they refund him his ticket then there is little he can do about it other than to think about his future behaviour!



My views are my own and do not reflect any other person or organisation.
User currently offlinetonystan From Ireland, joined Jan 2006, 1443 posts, RR: 2
Reply 25, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 7795 times:

Quoting s5daw (Reply 23):
Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 22):
A public transport company? Probably no. But easyJet isn't a public transport company, it's a private company, so yes, they can deny everyone they want.

Let me rephrase: any privately owned company that provides public transport.

He could buy the ticket and claim denied boarding under EU rights!

Absolutely not. Denied boarding only covers people refused travel due to overbooking,mech problems etc, it doesn't cover individuals who have been denied travel due to threatening behaviour or failing to comply with the airlines conditions of travel!



My views are my own and do not reflect any other person or organisation.
User currently offlines5daw From Slovenia, joined May 2011, 253 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 7777 times:

Quoting tonystan (Reply 25):
Absolutely not. Denied boarding only covers people refused travel due to overbooking,mech problems etc, it doesn't cover individuals who have been denied travel due to threatening behaviour or failing to comply with the airlines conditions of travel!

And what law would that be?
Also, please show me where in EasyJet's conditions it says they can cancel the contract just because you are - at worst - impolite http://www.easyjet.com/terms-and-conditions .

This behaviour was NOT threatening. As someone else said, pilot fatigue or not taking enough fuel on board IS threatening. And even if it was threatening... The proper way is to call the police and let the legal system handle it.


User currently offlineBasilFawlty From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 1328 posts, RR: 1
Reply 27, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 7813 times:

Quoting s5daw (Reply 26):
And what law would that be?
Also, please show me where in EasyJet's conditions it says they can cancel the contract just because you are - at worst - impolite http://www.easyjet.com/terms-and-conditions .

19.1 General Requirements

19.1.1 Passengers are reminded that in accordance with applicable local and foreign laws, the captain is in command of the aircraft and every person on board shall obey his or her lawful commands. All Our captains are given authority to direct Passengers who misbehave, are disruptive, or otherwise cause problems to resolve the issues as best they can in all the circumstances. This may include the use of physical restraint and, where possible, removal from the Flight of such persons.

19.1.2 If You conduct Yourself on board the aircraft or at the airport so as to:

(a) endanger the aircraft or any person or property on board or at the airport; or


(b) obstruct the crew or Airport Staff in the performance of their duties; or

(c) fail to comply with any instruction of the crew or Airport Staff; or

(d) use any threatening, abusive or insulting words towards the crew or Airport Staff or behave in any of these ways towards the crew or Airport Staff; or

(e) behave in a disorderly, unpredictable, unsafe or aggressive manner or in a manner to which another Passenger may reasonably object,


Since he failed to answer the security questions and instead choose to give stupid answers there are various reasons to offload and refuse him for future flights.



'Every year donkeys and mules kill more people than plane crashes'
User currently offlinetonystan From Ireland, joined Jan 2006, 1443 posts, RR: 2
Reply 28, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 7786 times:

S5daw.......did you even get as far as THE WHOLE of section 19????????

Then there is the real world! He was ejected from the airport,,,,airlines can'tdo that, only airport security who have the authority to do that.

Dd you witness this incident? Airline staff aren't in the habit of refusing travel just because they don't like the look of someone. If you honestly believe there is not more to this story so be it! But he made a stupid judgement call and he's been caught out on it! Cannot understand for the life of me why anyone would be defending him for it!



My views are my own and do not reflect any other person or organisation.
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5671 posts, RR: 6
Reply 29, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 7689 times:

Quoting tonystan (Reply 24):
they refused him travel because he clearly antagonised company procedure on security which no airline should compromise on!

Allowing someone to express sarcasm is hardly compromising on security principles. People who get offended or worried by such behavior need to grow up and quit being whiny little babies, scared over a little word.

Quoting tonystan (Reply 28):
Cannot understand for the life of me why anyone would be defending him for it!

I can't understand for the life of me why anyone would be calling for his public flogging and removal from the gene pool over something so incredibly silly.

[Edited 2013-02-18 15:59:17]


"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineUSAIRWAYS321 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1848 posts, RR: 9
Reply 30, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 7642 times:

So much talk about this man's stupidity, and him causing a panic - but not a peep about the stupidity of those who heard "I don't have a bomb" and chose to panic.

User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2112 posts, RR: 2
Reply 31, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 7627 times:

Can't believe what I'm reading here. Some people have internalized the industry paranoia to a ridiculous degree.

Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 3):
very good that he has been banned for life.
Quoting travelavnut (Reply 4):
This man should remove himself from the gene-pool for the greater good of our species!

Yeah right. Never mind actual terrorists who, you know, try to blow up planes... the guy having a bad day and stating that he DOESN'T have a bomb is suddenly the greatest threat to security ever.

Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 22):
Security questions are stupid questions?

Yes, the question "do you carry any bombs sir", if it is ever asked, could easily the most stupid question ever.

Which actual terrorist is going to lay out his plans in detail when asked about it? Is there even ONE example in history? Is there ONE example of a man mumbling about bombs at security, then being let through and blowing up the plane?



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlinevirginblue4 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 912 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 7602 times:

A complete and utter overreaction! He joked that he DIDN'T have a bomb and has been banned for life? Absolutely pathetic.

Things are getting out of control these days. You have to be careful about everything you say now, just incase it offends someone and I'm getting fed up of it.



The amazing tale of flight.
User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1454 posts, RR: 2
Reply 33, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 7547 times:

We have to realize that airport security and also in many countries immigration have become a joke free area, that also does not accept any sarcasm.
Small minded people with lots of power in both cases, working for organizations not answerable to critic.

If this leads to a lifetime airport and flight ban, what do they do to the star struck guys from the vip staff of an airline smuggling two Vips past waiting lines and airport security? Lifetime imprisonment, death penalty?
How often does that happen?

This guy saying: " no i do not have a bomb on me", could have been an Icelander, we are used to making bad jokes and laughing about it regarding everybody and everything in authority, no proper respect at all, very disconcerting to people used to be taken deadly serious.
Very dangerous to do in foreign countries, need special training before aloud to leave Iceland.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7712 posts, RR: 21
Reply 34, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 7507 times:

It was an idiotic thing to say, no more, no less. Being put through the ringer by the Police, having his time wasted for a while and getting a stern bollocking really ought to suffice.

The punishment was over the top, if it really was phrased as the OP said.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineplanesailing From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 816 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 7451 times:

The security questions are outdated and lead to stupid remarks when asking them, which is why they have been/are being removed from use. Airlines wishing to continue asking them now have to have their check-in agents have specific training for it.

Of more importance are the questions on the carriage of dangerous goods in everyday use, such as lithium batteries, which pose a greater risk to the safety of aircraft.


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5671 posts, RR: 6
Reply 36, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 7445 times:

And while we quibble over the merits of asinine "security" policies, a number of people waltz into BRU and steal millions of Euros worth of diamonds.

Armed Robbery On LX789 @ BRU Airport (by Bralo20 Feb 18 2013 in Civil Aviation)



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinebristolflyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 2302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 7415 times:

I remember 25 years ago getting on my first flight as a kid - my parents told me many times not to joke/so anything stupid at check-in. And things have only got 'worse' since then. Idiot, no sympathy.


Fortune favours the brave
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10511 posts, RR: 14
Reply 38, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 7398 times:

As I mentioned before, while this WAS an overreaction on the airline's part, it's not like mentioning words such as bomb, hijack, etc. and getting in trouble for it is a NEW thing. IIRC, it's been taboo at least since the first person tried to hijack a flight to Cuba, etc. To paraphrase a judicial phrase....."Ignorance of the rules is no excuse".

Are there any of us here, except for those that the rules shouldn't apply to them, that would be stupid enough to mention such words to airport security? While it may seem trivial, these things ARE in place at your local airport and will probably remain so for the forseeable future.


If you want to blame someone, blame those that made it necessary to put the security regulations in place, in the beginning......the terrorists.

Quoting USAIRWAYS321 (Reply 30):
So much talk about this man's stupidity, and him causing a panic - but not a peep about the stupidity of those who heard "I don't have a bomb" and chose to panic.

Perhaps their ears are attuned to listen for the "B" word and that's what they picked up on.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 36):
And while we quibble over the merits of asinine "security" policies, a number of people waltz into BRU and steal millions of Euros worth of diamonds.

I can't for the life of me, see how you ever received a SIDA badge and are allowed to work on the ramp.  



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25638 posts, RR: 22
Reply 39, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 7382 times:

Quoting anstar (Reply 2):
When it comes to Aviation - security is no joking matter. You'd have to be an idiot to even think about dropping the b word at check in.

And be careful what you discuss in e-mail. There was a news item in Switzerland a couple of weeks ago about someone who had booked a vacation trip from ZRH to the U.S. He had been there many times and once even worked there several years ago with a major multinational company.

He made his flight and hotel bookings and paid the fee for the ESTA travel authorization and that went through without a problem. A few days later when he checked in for his flight at ZRH airport he was advised that the U.S. government would not permit him to enter the country. Something had changed since he applied for the ESTA authorization and he was now on a no-fly list. And they don't give you a reason.

He thinks the U.S. security agencies (NSA etc.) are monitoring e-mail, especially when the data is held on servers in the U.S. (Gmail etc.)

A couple of days before his trip he had an e-mail exchange with a friend that jokingly used terms like "bomb", "explosives", and "flight" (e.g. "I hope your flight doesn't have a bomb on it.") He believes that exchange was monitored by the U.S. cyberspies and terms like "bomb" and "flight" flagged him as being suspicious and best kept out of the U.S.

In any case, he was out well over $1,000 for his non-refundable fare and hotel bookings.

Found these items referring to the relevant legislation.
http://rt.com/usa/news/surveillance-fisa-supreme-wiretap-324/
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/senate-nsa-monitor-emails-five-years/


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5671 posts, RR: 6
Reply 40, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 7366 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 38):
I can't for the life of me, see how you ever received a SIDA badge and are allowed to work on the ramp.

Because I haven't committed one of the 25 or so crimes in the last 10 years that would prohibit me from getting a SIDA badge.

Quite simple, really.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1454 posts, RR: 2
Reply 41, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 7368 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 38):
As I mentioned before, while this WAS an overreaction on the airline's part, it's not like mentioning words such as bomb, hijack, etc. and getting in trouble for it is a NEW thing. IIRC, it's been taboo at least since the first person tried to hijack a flight to Cuba, etc. To paraphrase a judicial phrase....."Ignorance of the rules is no excuse".

Please show me a law banning using certain words in an airport, or the list of words in the what ever rules.
Perhaps there should be a big sign in front of the airport with a list of banned words.

Quoting mayor (Reply 38):
Perhaps their ears are attuned to listen for the "B" word and that's what they picked up on.

It is the typical way, the terrorist, easily identified by using the word bomb.....?????

Does one feel stupid?


User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 42, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 7342 times:

Quoting GilesDavies (Thread starter):
I think it was stupid he even used the word, but think their is an element of overreaction as he did not say he was carrying a bomb or make any threat.
Quoting travelavnut (Reply 7):
Long time ago we went on a big family ski-ing holiday in Switzerland by car. One of my stupid nephews thought it would be fun to proclaim out loud that "we did not have any cocaine hidden in our cars" at the Swiss border. We were stuck on the border for a few hours while they strip searched his car. Idiot.
Quoting s5daw (Reply 5):
Uhm... so I'm the only one who finds it unacceptable to limit free speech like this, specifically to tell someone that you are of no threat?

My view is similar to yours, s5daw, I think. People who state they are not guilty of an offence should never be penalised. Why are there security chacks at airports? If it is to find items that are intended to cause the destruction of an aircraft (eg bombs), people should not be penalised for volunteering information that thay have no such items.

I think the security services should be less "precious" about the procedure. When being screened for devices intended to destroy an aircraft who is more of a risk - someone who says nothing or someone who declares he has no devices intended to destroy an aircraft? Similarly, if someone declares to customs that they have no contraband is he more likely to have contraband than someone who says nothing?


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10511 posts, RR: 14
Reply 43, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 7328 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 41):
Please show me a law banning using certain words in an airport, or the list of words in the what ever rules.
Perhaps there should be a big sign in front of the airport with a list of banned words.

There may not be a law, per se, but all this has been going on for long enough so that almost everyone knows what can and cannot be said.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 41):
Does one feel stupid?

Not even.....what about you? Having worked at the airport and traveled extensively, I knew what terms were taboo.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 40):
Quoting mayor (Reply 38):
I can't for the life of me, see how you ever received a SIDA badge and are allowed to work on the ramp.

Because I haven't committed one of the 25 or so crimes in the last 10 years that would prohibit me from getting a SIDA badge.

Quite simple, really.


Ok......I'll buy that.....but, IF you worked at the ticket counter or security, would you refuse to ask the security questions and/or just brush off what a customer said? Could you take that chance? Can any of us that signed on and were cleared to receive a security badge, in turn, just flaunt the the rules and regs, no matter how silly they seem?



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1415 posts, RR: 4
Reply 44, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 7309 times:

Quoting robsaw (Reply 21):
Yes and no. Being "banned" by the airline is a civil matter not a constitutional rights matter. However, flying is most certainly a "right". In fact, you have a general right under the US Constitution to liberty, which in essence and has been supported by the courts, a right to do anything that hasn't been restricted except by due process of law.

US ≠ the World.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1327 posts, RR: 52
Reply 45, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 7281 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 27):
19.1.2 If You conduct Yourself on board the aircraft or at the airport so as to:
Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 27):
Since he failed to answer the security questions and instead choose to give stupid answers there are various reasons to offload and refuse him for future flights.

I saw nothing on these items that said,
If I ask you "if you are doing something" and you answer "no I am not doing that" - that I am violating anything.

Quoting Rara (Reply 31):
the guy having a bad day and stating that he DOESN'T have a bomb is suddenly the greatest threat to security ever.

He may not even been having a bad day. He (apparently) was asked did he have a bomb and he said no, I do not have a bomb.

If somebody asked you if you have change for a five and you answered, no, I do not have change for a five, would you think them provocative?

Very likely - there is more to this story than we know - but I find the responses here pretty amazing.

Quoting mayor (Reply 43):
There may not be a law, per se, but all this has been going on for long enough so that almost everyone knows what can and cannot be said.

Oh that is really scary. Let's hold everybody responsible for acting in a way that is perfectly legal but just 'not done'. Throw in a few cultural, educational and language issues...
Autistic people can answer in a very literal way.

oh my....



rcair1
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5736 posts, RR: 5
Reply 46, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 7278 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 44):
US ≠ the World

I was thinking the same. I find US Constitutional Law fascinating, but I couldn't fathom what it had to do with this thread!



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 47, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 7262 times:

I wasn't at the airport, so I don't know what was said or in what tone of voice. Was the man abusive, surly or unco-operative? Did he simply make a flippant remark?

If the latter it is clear that, as somebody once said, the problem with common sense is that it isn't so common. If he did make a flippant remark about not wishing to blow himself up and a petty official chose to take offence and exact revenge, that is sad. Sure, the man was an idiot for not realising the reaction. But equally the reaction is stupid. Banned for life for possibly making a flippant remark?

The silly thing about the security questions is that no self-respecting terrorist would advertise the fact that he/she wishes to blow up or do other harm to the aircraft, so the questions serve little or no useful purpose. Particularly after answering the questions, to prove that nobody actually believes you, you are forced to undergo further screening with metal detectors, trace explosives detectors, 'nudi-scopes" and random bag searches. Yes, the passenger must respond to them but it is sad an airport is no place for any humour whatsoever.

With the hysterical knee-jerk reaction - mainly to make it look as if something is being done - every sentence needs to be thought about. Never have a discussion about human population growth, describing it as a population explosion. You will be considered a risk. Never talk about a movie "bombing it" when it is a flop at the box office. You will be considered a risk. Never talk about somebody organising something and say, "it blew up in his face." All these and many more commonplace expressions are potential security risks.

Give me a break. I call can say is that I am glad that India had the good sense to change Bombay to Mumbai, otherwise a great many more passengers could be on easyJet's unwelcome list.


User currently offlinetonystan From Ireland, joined Jan 2006, 1443 posts, RR: 2
Reply 48, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 7206 times:

Right I'm rounding up my view of all of this!

Basically we have a claim that this man said this idiotic comment and got turfed out of an airport and banned from an airline. We have a claim that he said what he said and it was to deny he had a bomb! Well, I and many people here on this forum are all to well aware of the poor standards of the British Media and how they enjoy taking the side of the poor victimised little guy against a large scary organisation! Sure, lets hark back a few days to the wonderfully insightful reporting of the Daily Mail and its TERRIFYING report of a broken door seal on an EK A380!!!!!!!!

This man in my mind clearly antagonised the situation. There is far more to this than meets the eye and you can all sit here and go hysterical about the "reported" facts or you can like me just realise that this guy is probably no more than an imbecile pushing his luck with staff who's jobs are not worth ignoring a security breach!!!!!

Common sense is a powerful tool.....common sense suggests you don't wander into an airport, government building, police station, army barracks or wherever and utter the word "bomb" regardless of the context! No one could be that stupid, well except those who require signs outside these facilities stating what words are banned from being used inside!!!!



My views are my own and do not reflect any other person or organisation.
User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6357 posts, RR: 31
Reply 49, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 7079 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Rara (Reply 31):
Yes, the question "do you carry any bombs sir", if it is ever asked, could easily the most stupid question ever.

I don´t think the question ist hat stupid, in the sense that there is a reason for it and I believe it has to do wth profiling. My friends have told me that on the USA VISA application there is a question that goes like this "Have you ever had any intent to attack the US" or some sort. Who in its same mind will say yes? So I think this is the case here.

Maybe the intent of the question has actually disappeared and it is just a silly question nowadays. Don´t the EL AL people ask you similar questions?


User currently offlinegabrielchew From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 3311 posts, RR: 12
Reply 50, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 7032 times:

The guy was an idiot for saying "bomb".....he must have known the possible consequences, it's happened enough in the past.

However, I do sympathise with him. Airports nowadays are just completely ridiculous. How is checking in his bag early a "security issue"? It's not. It might be a capacity issue, or a limitation on computing power, or just "rules is rules". The staff lied to him, so he lied back. And a very quick check could verify this.

Last week I transferred in MAN. I had a 5 hour connection, and was through checked. Due to the arrivals arrangements, I was forced to go landside. I asked at the info desk how to get to departures. I was directed, but then told that for "health and safety" reasons, I could only go airside 3 hours before departure as airside is a "confined area". WTF??? What is going on? I thought airports wanted pax in the confined shopping areas to spend money? And it's better for my health to remain landside staring at check in desks? It's no wonder people crack given how "the powers that be" (whoever they are) make up bullsh!t excuses all day long.



http://my.flightmemory.com/shefgab Upcoming flights:LCY-ARN-AMS-LGW,STN-OTP-AMS-YUL,YQB-JFK-LAX-DUS-STN,LGW-DXB-BKK-HKG-
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 51, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 7002 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 47):
I wasn't at the airport, so I don't know what was said or in what tone of voice.
Quoting tonystan (Reply 48):
There is far more to this than meets the eye

Yes indeed. Another version of events appears on the BBC News site.
Here the story is related that he could not check in his suitcase early "for security reasons" and then he claims to have said, "if there was a bomb in [my case] I would blow myself up." He also claims that he was told not to use the word again or security would be called and to have apologised, yet despite this he was approached by security and ejected from the airport.

According to the report:

Quote:
Easyjet confirmed a man was denied boarding due to a comment made about a bomb but he "had not been banned for life".

But it still seems all very silly. We are asked questions and then told we are not to be believed because we have to undergo security checks anyway.


User currently offlineUnflug From Germany, joined Jan 2012, 507 posts, RR: 2
Reply 52, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6853 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 29):
Allowing someone to express sarcasm is hardly compromising on security principles. People who get offended or worried by such behavior need to grow up and quit being whiny little babies, scared over a little word.

Exactly.

Quoting USAIRWAYS321 (Reply 30):
So much talk about this man's stupidity, and him causing a panic - but not a peep about the stupidity of those who heard "I don't have a bomb" and chose to panic.

With such people in charge I actually don't feel very safe...

Quoting Rara (Reply 31):
Can't believe what I'm reading here. Some people have internalized the industry paranoia to a ridiculous degree.

So true.


User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 53, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6827 times:

I don't think that any airline actually asks "are you carrying a bomb?" or "are you a terrorist, Sir?"

It's usually along the lines of:
1) Did you pack this suitcase yourself?
2) Has it been out of your sight at any time?
3) Has anyone asked you to carry something aboard for them? and
4) Does your hand luggage contain any scissors, liquids..."

I can understand that if you answer no to 1 or yes to 2 and 3, then it would either mean a search of the suitcase or refusal to check it in. A reply of yes to 4 would at least give someone the opportunity to move the offending articles to their checked-in luggage.

But again, a terrorist would know what responses to give, while most people are not in the habit of carrying things for total strangers.

[Edited 2013-02-18 23:59:56]

User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5736 posts, RR: 5
Reply 54, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6831 times:

Quoting AR385 (Reply 49):
My friends have told me that on the USA VISA application there is a question that goes like this "Have you ever had any intent to attack the US" or some sort. Who in its same mind will say yes? So I think this is the case here.
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 47):
The silly thing about the security questions is that no self-respecting terrorist would advertise the fact that he/she wishes to blow up or do other harm to the aircraft, so the questions serve little or no useful purpose

Oh yes, US Visa applications are an interesting one. "Have you ever engaged in the commissioning of acts of war crimes or genocide", "Do you intend to come to the United States to engage in the prostitution or the delivery of prostitution services" and so on...

Of course no one ever says yes, but I guess it all comes down to liability. If something goes wrong then they can at least say "we checked, and thought it was ok"

[Edited 2013-02-18 23:55:21]


Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineJU068 From Vanuatu, joined Aug 2009, 2691 posts, RR: 6
Reply 55, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6806 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 53):
I don't think that any airline actually asks "are you carrying a bomb?" or "are you a terrorist, Sir?"

It's usually along the lines of:
1) Did you pack this suitcase yourself?
2) Has it been out of your sight at any time?
3) Has anyone asked you to carry something aboard for them? and
4) Does your hand luggage contain any scissors, liquids..."

In Dublin the check-in agent asked all those questions and then she also asked 'are you carrying a bomb or any other explosive devices?'. I guess they do ask it just not that often... thank God.


User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 56, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6559 times:

Quoting JU068 (Reply 55):
'are you carrying a bomb or any other explosive devices?'

Incredible! I would think that would be likely to cause more alarm in passengers than a passenger making a joke. Did she then ask whether the bomb was in accordance with ISO 71.100.30: Explosives. Pyrotechnics and fireworks?  


User currently offlines5daw From Slovenia, joined May 2011, 253 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6331 times:

I guess they need to expand that questionnaire...

"Do you know about the diamonds cargo on flight xxyyzz? Do you plan to rob it? Are you going to board through the security area or through a whole in the fence?"


User currently onlineal2637 From Ireland, joined Oct 2006, 407 posts, RR: 3
Reply 58, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6306 times:

Passing through LAS 2 weeks ago, the TSA agent who was arranging the security line walked up to the guy in front of me and said (jokingly), 'who dropped a bomb over here'.... the line stood in shocked silence, before he broke into laughter and said 'I'm not really supposed to say things like that'... I think everyone in line smiled  

User currently offlineEIDL From Ireland, joined Apr 2012, 461 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (1 year 8 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5563 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 47):
Give me a break. I call can say is that I am glad that India had the good sense to change Bombay to Mumbai, otherwise a great many more passengers could be on easyJet's unwelcome list.

And that Easyjet haven't ordered any CSeries, or else their F/A doing the safety announcement would be in serious trouble.


User currently offlineskywaymanaz From United States of America, joined May 2012, 538 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (1 year 8 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5512 times:

I had a feeling there had to be more to this story then was initially reported at the beginning of the thread. It may be incredibly foolish to say, "I don't have a bomb." Joke or not you have to deliberately choose to misunderstand him or refuse to clarify what he said to take it as a threat. If that had been what he said and that was the airline reaction I would be upset. Unfortunately what he said after that was what got him in trouble, ". . . or I'd blow myself up." That wording would have resulted in the exact same scenario since the early 70's. This isn't something new in a post 9/11 world. It doesn't matter if he meant it as a joke, you say you have bomb or what you would do with one this will happen. I suspect telling a theater employee, "No I don't have any matches or I'd burn this place down." would likely get you shown to the exits as well and probably the police notified.

Quoting al2637 (Reply 58):
Passing through LAS 2 weeks ago, the TSA agent who was arranging the security line walked up to the guy in front of me and said (jokingly), 'who dropped a bomb over here'.... the line stood in shocked silence, before he broke into laughter and said 'I'm not really supposed to say things like that'... I think everyone in line smiled

I'd probably laugh myself silly and then discreetly request to speak to a supervisor. He needs to find another line of work if he thinks that kind of joke is appropriate. Kind of like the TSA screener some years backed who was "only joking" when he told a young female passenger she had illegal drugs in her luggage. TSA pretends to be a professional well run organization. I think we all respect why they're there and would appreciate professional screening but they do seem incapable of being professional.


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1454 posts, RR: 2
Reply 61, posted (1 year 8 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5321 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 43):
There may not be a law, per se, but all this has been going on for long enough so that almost everyone knows what can and cannot be said.

If it is not the LAW than all of you stop talking about breaking the law or rules.

It is stupid, childish, annoying, unnecessary, bad behavior whatever but not breaking the law.

To say everybody should know the unwritten rules of not using certain words on an airport is a bit far fetched.

And this, you do not joke about authority, is much older than hijacked planes and terrorist bombs.
When I, still on a German passport, traveled 19 years old to the United States, I was questioned if I was or ever had been a member of the NSDAP. I had already answered this question on my visa application and thought it to be a very stupid question as that party stopped existing quite a few years before I was born, so I answered: "that when I wanted to join they had closed down the shop". I spend 24 hours in custody at JFK and it was touch and go if I would be send home.


User currently offlinethrufru From Marshall Islands, joined Feb 2009, 224 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (1 year 8 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5144 times:

I'm sorry, but I think we've gone a bit too far in this era of "zero tolerance". Whether it be schools or airports for example, I think we need to inject a bit of common sense back into the discussion. Prohibiting the gentleman from boarding this particular flight or even from traveling that day might make sense, but enforcing a lifetime ban is assinine. It's really hard to take a lot of this stuff terribly seriously when as an airline pilot, going through security to my own flight, I've been "randomly selected" for additional screening. Okay, granted, that was several years ago, it only happened once and I believe they've since changed the policy, but heck, even the agent thought it was foolish (but he still did it).

Recently I was on a TDY in RIC. My 72 year old father came for a visit for a few days. When he went to leave, I accompanied him to the airport and waited with him at check-in. He made the same type of comments. Fortunately, they were to me, and not a staff member. Needless to say, I was pretty pissed off with my dad, and I made it clear. The agent did overhear it, and supported me in my admonition. What I didn't know, though, was that my dad was sick. He was beginning to exhibit the early stages of Dimentia, and unfortunately, his ability to self-sensor was becoming compromised. He wasn't really even making a joke, but more responding to the absurdity of the questions, a la "Do they really think I'm gonna tell them if I have a G.. D... bomb with me?".

A one sized fits all solution is never really the answer. Every situation should really be looked at on a case by case basis.


User currently offlineskywaymanaz From United States of America, joined May 2012, 538 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (1 year 8 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5013 times:

Quoting gabrielchew (Reply 50):
I could only go airside 3 hours before departure as airside is a "confined area". WTF??? What is going on? I thought airports wanted pax in the confined shopping areas to spend money?

This sounds like a silly TSA rule that made its way across the pond. I'd have to look it up but I think the rule is 4 hours prior in the US. I don't know how rigidly it's enforced. TSA's reason for doing this was it made staffing to unpredictable if people show up to early   Like so many of their silly rules I have a hard time believing there was ever a really serious problem here. Not sure if BAA bought that reasoning or just figured it makes things easier for them too.


User currently offlineBasilFawlty From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 1328 posts, RR: 1
Reply 64, posted (1 year 8 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4530 times:

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 45):
I saw nothing on these items that said,

Ok, here we go:

Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 27):
(b) obstruct the crew or Airport Staff in the performance of their duties; or

By not answering the security questions with a simple yes or no but instead telling stupid things about not having a bomb with him he's obstructing the completion of the check-in procedure.

Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 27):
(c) fail to comply with any instruction of the crew or Airport Staff; or

Security questions can be seen as instructions which you need to answer correctly so your check-in procedure can be completed. He failed to do so.

Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 27):
(d) use any threatening, abusive or insulting words towards the crew or Airport Staff or behave in any of these ways towards the crew or Airport Staff; or

Usings words like 'bomb' at an airport can be seen as threatening.

Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 27):
(e) behave in a disorderly, unpredictable, unsafe or aggressive manner or in a manner to which another Passenger may reasonably object,

Well, no need for explanation anymore for this one.  
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 53):
1) Did you pack this suitcase yourself?

  

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 53):
2) Has it been out of your sight at any time?

  

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 53):
3) Has anyone asked you to carry something aboard for them?

  

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 53):
and
4) Does your hand luggage contain any scissors, liquids..."

In most cases this is combined with the question regarding dangerous goods. A lot of airlines, including easyJet, will ask if you have any dangerous goods items in your suitcase, therefore you will find signs with pictures of the items on most check-in desks, which is brought to your attention when the question is asked.



'Every year donkeys and mules kill more people than plane crashes'
User currently offlineToni_ From Cape Verde, joined Apr 2002, 98 posts, RR: 0
Reply 65, posted (1 year 8 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4467 times:

Quote:

Man banned from Easyjet flight for 'joking' about bomb

A Northamptonshire man barred from boarding a flight at Luton Airport after using the word "bomb" in front of Easyjet staff has said he was "joking".

Brian McColghan, 64, from Duston, said he made a remark when he could not check his luggage in early.

He said he was questioned by police and asked to leave the premises, missing his flight to Lisbon on Friday morning.

Easyjet said security was its "highest priority" and comments were reported to police "where necessary".

Mr McColghan told BBC Three Counties Radio he was travelling to Portugal from London Luton Airport to visit friends, but was told he could not book his case in "for security reasons".

"I said, "if there was a bomb in [my case] I would blow myself up"," he explained.

"It was a joke."

He said he was told that he "could not mention that word" and security would be called if he did it again.

The retired hospital porter said he apologised but a short time later two police officers approached him, questioned him and took his passport.

Boarding denied

He claimed a security guard told him he "would not be travelling with Easyjet again" and he must leave the airport complex.

"To be told in my own country I can't use a word in the English dictionary - it's nonsense," said Mr McColghan.

Easyjet confirmed a man was denied boarding due to a comment made about a bomb but he "had not been banned for life".

"The safety and security of its passengers and crew is Easyjet's highest priority," a statement said.

"We take comments seriously and report them to the police where necessary."

A spokesperson from the airport said passengers "making threats or exhibiting threatening behaviour " would be removed from the airport.

A statement said: "Airport security is of paramount importance and is essential in protecting passengers and staff from malicious harm, crime, terrorism and other threats."


Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-21496635

According this article he can still fly with them.

You can judge the man all you want, but I still think this could've been dealt with in a different way. Too bad the times of common sense and healthy situation assessment are long gone.


User currently offlineweb500sjc From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 749 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (1 year 8 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4385 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 64):
By not answering the security questions with a simple yes or no but instead telling stupid things about not having a bomb with him he's obstructing the completion of the check-in procedure.

he was answering the question in a complete sentence as his 2nd grade teacher taught him:

check-in agent: do you have a bomb sir?

Sir: No mam, I do not have a bomb.

all kiding aside, he did somthing very stupid, that would not be using the word bomb, my guess is that he further incited a tense situation.



Boiler Up!
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9532 posts, RR: 31
Reply 67, posted (1 year 8 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4325 times:

Did you pack this suitcase yourself?

"Answer: No, my valet did, any problems with that?"

Has it been out of your sight at any time?

"Answer: well, I kept looking at it all the times but then I bumped into a lamp post. Since that day I keep looking straight ahead again."

(alternately : "No, it's diificult to look at the luggage when dragging it behind")


Has anyone asked you to carry something aboard for them?

Answer: "Of course not, my mom told me not to take anything from strangers."

Does your hand luggage contain any scissors, liquids...

Answer "of course not, only some adult toys"

End of satirical emarks



as web500sjc correctly stated, some people in our world still have kept the ability to speak in full sentences without adding "you know" to each word they stutter.l

The questions are simply dumb and do nothing to make flying safer.

I once had the neat experience when, at a check-in counter at FRA the young lady replied on my question "will the luggage make the flight" with the word "Bombensicher" which in the context means "sure as a bomb". I laughed and told her that I would not have dared to use that colloquial German word and we both laughed.

We are all individuals and some people express that in their own way. The man negated that he carries a bomb, whoich is a correct answer to the question, at least for people who cannot only speak full sentences but also understand when someone replies correctly.

And, Basil, : Don't mention the war.


.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10511 posts, RR: 14
Reply 68, posted (1 year 8 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4276 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 67):
The man negated that he carries a bomb, whoich is a correct answer to the question, at least for people who cannot only speak full sentences but also understand when someone replies correctly.

According to reply #65, here's how he replied.....a direct quote


"Mr McColghan told BBC Three Counties Radio he was travelling to Portugal from London Luton Airport to visit friends, but was told he could not book his case in "for security reasons".

"I said, "if there was a bomb in [my case] I would blow myself up"," he explained.

"It was a joke."

He said he was told that he "could not mention that word" and security would be called if he did it again."



Not exactly the proper reply to that particular question. Why not reply, "no, I do not", instead?



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7712 posts, RR: 21
Reply 69, posted (1 year 8 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4238 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 61):
And this, you do not joke about authority, is much older than hijacked planes and terrorist bombs.
When I, still on a German passport, traveled 19 years old to the United States, I was questioned if I was or ever had been a member of the NSDAP. I had already answered this question on my visa application and thought it to be a very stupid question as that party stopped existing quite a few years before I was born, so I answered: "that when I wanted to join they had closed down the shop". I spend 24 hours in custody at JFK and it was touch and go if I would be send home.


You were lucky then. Even if it was obviously a joke, if someone is silly enough to say such a thing then who knows what else you might be daft enough to do? Sure you may think it's a dumb question, and it probably was, but sometimes a question like that might be posed to see what the reaction is - and you failed that test right there.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineBasilFawlty From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 1328 posts, RR: 1
Reply 70, posted (1 year 8 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4190 times:

Quoting web500sjc (Reply 66):
he was answering the question in a complete sentence as his 2nd grade teacher taught him:

check-in agent: do you have a bomb sir?

Sir: No mam, I do not have a bomb.

They don't ask it like that, that would be stupid, and you know that.   If you would ask it like that you would get a lot more stupid reactions, like the one were this topic is all about.

They ask:

- Could anyone have put anything into your bag(s) without your knowlegde?
- Do you have anything in your possession given to you by someone else?
- Have you packed safely? Do you have of the above items in your baggage?

Dangerous items plus the important questions on the bottom of the sign:
http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/j...ntierA318/IMG_0507_zpsd86787ca.jpg
And the other side, for those who don't speak English very well:
http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/j...ntierA318/IMG_0509_zps242def49.jpg

So, now we all know the official questions. If you answer any of them with "if there was a bomb in [my case] I would blow myself up" ofcourse you will make yourself a suspect and above all a complete idiot.



'Every year donkeys and mules kill more people than plane crashes'
User currently offlines5daw From Slovenia, joined May 2011, 253 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (1 year 8 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4131 times:

Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 70):
Could anyone have put anything into your bag(s) without your knowlegde?

I always reply with NO, which of course is BS.
But if I said something along the lines... "Well i dunno... there could be a person hidden in the cab trunk and put something in there... Or somebody distracted me and put something in my bag while I had a coffee (my bag has a compartment which has only zip, no lock there)..."

Of course I would ended up the same way this guy has. So I always say "NO", but it's not even remotely true.


User currently offlineflyboy_se From Sweden, joined Feb 2000, 829 posts, RR: 6
Reply 72, posted (1 year 8 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4125 times:

These questions are not only to find the bad guys, but also to protect the passengers.
There are many naive people out there, and someone could take advantage of it.

By asking these question, it makes the person think.
Also it is a way to spot hidden dangerous goods. Even if someone does not intend to do anything bad,
it is easy to put that packet of matches, or ligher or whatever forbidden article in their suitcase.
Plus there are many passengers going on camping trips, hiking trips, diving trips and not knowing all the hidden danger to air travel in the to them harmless equipment.

Not all passengers are airliners.net users and plane geeks, in fact we are minority.

And further, a joke to you may not be a joke to me.



I prefer to be crazy and happy rather than normal and bitter
User currently offlinerampbro From Canada, joined Nov 2012, 241 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (1 year 8 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4083 times:

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 7):
One of my stupid nephews thought it would be fun to proclaim out loud that "we did not have any cocaine hidden in our cars" at the Swiss border. We were stuck on the border for a few hours while they strip searched his car. Idiot.

I don't know who's more stupid, your nephew or the Swiss border guards. A border guard would have to be piss-pants moronic to read a reasonable suspicion out of such a comment, or vindictive that the border-crosser isn't scared/cowed into reverent submission to the great and powerful let-you-in-the-country guy.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 39):
A couple of days before his trip he had an e-mail exchange with a friend that jokingly used terms like "bomb", "explosives", and "flight" (e.g. "I hope your flight doesn't have a bomb on it.") He believes that exchange was monitored by the U.S. cyberspies and terms like "bomb" and "flight" flagged him as being suspicious and best kept out of the U.S.

That will blow a hole in the old 'if you haven't done anything wrong you've got nothing to hide'. Unless, of course, we continue to assume that *saying* bomb *anywhere* is 'wrong'.

Quoting mayor (Reply 38):
If you want to blame someone, blame those that made it necessary to put the security regulations in place, in the beginning......the terrorists.

That's a never-ending pissing match argument between two groups of unruly assholes. 'Terrorists' always have a grievance with a state, who always have a reason for trodding down on the terrorists' ethnic group/social class/religon. There is typically some long-winded component where a selective reading of history is deployed, and excuses made fror brutal acts.

So now we have, in 2013, normal people afraid to use particular words in a public place because of some tribally minded assholes in the distant past.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 54):
Of course no one ever says yes, but I guess it all comes down to liability. If something goes wrong then they can at least say "we checked, and thought it was ok"

Now we are not only beholden to ancient small-minded morons, but to modern small-minded morons who think that if they stop anyone and everyone from saying bomb at an airport their ass is covered. Nevermind the obviousness of a lack of threat!

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 41):
Perhaps there should be a big sign in front of the airport with a list of banned words.

It can go right next to the picture of Big Brother. I suggest we all review the sign after we've calmed down from the Two Minutes Hate.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10511 posts, RR: 14
Reply 74, posted (1 year 8 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3936 times:

Ok, all you geniuses.........lets eliminate ALL the current security regulations, in place and start from scratch. Since you all know so much, you tell US, how you plan to make everything secure, under your plan.......  


"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 75, posted (1 year 8 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3818 times:

These questions may or may not serve any useful purpose but the man wasn't actually asked them. He wasn't allowed to check in early so at no stage was he refusing to comply with orders, rules or regulations by refusing to answer or by giving the wrong answer. He made a silly remark, possibly using an expletive that no television show doesn't include, for which he apologised. Despite that his behaviour was seen as being indicative of being a potential risk (i.e. a smart-arse) and he was escorted from the premises and prevented from flying.

As reported above, easyJet have issued a statement saying that he was not banned for life. The veracity of that statement can be proved if he attempts to fly with them in future.


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5671 posts, RR: 6
Reply 76, posted (1 year 8 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3683 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 74):
Ok, all you geniuses.........lets eliminate ALL the current security regulations, in place and start from scratch. Since you all know so much, you tell US, how you plan to make everything secure, under your plan.......

You're looking at it the wrong way. It's impossible to make everything "secure".

Further, being "secure" from the fear of an attack, or an actual attack, is not a right. Funnily enough, being free from unreasonable searches and seizures, without a warrant or probable cause, is a right.

You keep trying to make things completely secure, meanwhile, I'll continue to fight for my rights and freedoms as a human being and US citizen.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1454 posts, RR: 2
Reply 77, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3624 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 74):
Ok, all you geniuses.........lets eliminate ALL the current security regulations, in place and start from scratch. Since you all know so much, you tell US, how you plan to make everything secure, under your plan.......  

I do not understand this talk about "rules".

There is no law or rule banning to say: "no I do not have a bomb on me"

there is also no rule banning: "are you barmy? then I would blow myself up!"

There are wage worded rules you can stretch very far to be able to cover the above, were you say the guy was causing panic or was threatening.
And you could say everybody should know not to use this words.

Stop making up a rule everybody thinks that exists or should exist.

Easy jet did not ban the guy for live, because that would not stick up in a court of law.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9532 posts, RR: 31
Reply 78, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3608 times:

as a matter of fact, the guy should sue Easyjet.

He said nothing wrong or which could be taken as a thread to other passengers, the airline or it's employees.

No one can bame him that some EZY employees do not understand the meaning of what he said.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 79, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3558 times:

I find it amusing that most people seem to agree that dictators are bad, freedom is great. Yet, in any given situation that does not affect them personally, they are 10 times harsher than Hitler could have ever dreamed to be.

If you want to have sex as a teenager then it would be stupid to legally forbid you from doing it. If you have a teenage daughter, then it is outrageous that such a thing can be legal. You want to wear a jesus cross but forbid people to wear other religious costumes. If the cops pull you over all the time, then that is harrassment. If they pull black people over, then they've probably had a reason. Someone presents you with a list of all phone calls you have made, all websites you have visited and you find that disgustingly invasive. Yet when you're asked if such records should be kept to protect you from terrorists, it's okay as long as they don't keep yours. And so on..

People don't understand the law. They don't understand where our laws are coming from, what they mean and how they're interpreted. And they don't care.

What this man did, does not constitute any kind of infraction under British law - hence no charge. But that doesn't matter to the simple man - what matters to him is what feels right. And he feels that this guy is an idiot who should be slapped in the face.

I guess if you grow up with authoritative parents and you never manage to emancipate yourself from that experience, you'll live your whole life submitting yourself to others. Saying that you should be punished for saying something ''stupid'', is the psychological equivalent of whining ''mommy Sally called me stupidhead''. The rest of us however don't want to live in an authoritative police state. If you want to be allowed to go to airliners.net and regale people with your brilliant thoughts, you have to allow others to do the same.

The law is a legal construct that grants people protection. This man - stupid or not - did at no point present a threat, or cause harm, to anyone. However, when EasyJet can deny people passage because they dislike the sense of humour of them, then that strikes me as so blatantly discriminatory that there should be a law against that.

The safest country on earth will always be a police state. Draconian fines will make people obey the law in most cases. But they will also make you live in a tyranny with zero personal liberties. If you like that, move to Singapore or Brunei. Just remember that next time it may be you who people want to slap in the face for doing something they disagree with.

The law (ideally) looks as things for what they are. It is not the law's intent to make everybody live in a box. It's the law's intent to protect people - in this case, a man said something that may or may not have been misconstrued. End of story.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5727 posts, RR: 19
Reply 80, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3371 times:

I think the morale of this story is: Never underestimate the potential of power-tripping airline employees to make your life miserable.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 69):
Sure you may think it's a dumb question, and it probably was, but sometimes a question like that might be posed to see what the reaction is - and you failed that test right there.

It always help to use a common sense, a commodity in a desperately short supply (not only) in airports these days.
How intellectually challenging is it do the quick math when someone's passport says he or she was born XY years after the end of WW2 has technically no chance to join the NSDAP?
Then why bother asking the question in the first place?


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10511 posts, RR: 14
Reply 81, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3338 times:

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 80):
It always help to use a common sense, a commodity in a desperately short supply (not only) in airports these days.

Apparently, it's in short supply with passengers, too.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 77):
There is no law or rule banning to say: "no I do not have a bomb on me"

It's not the phrase, but the word "bomb" within the phrase.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 77):
There are wage worded rules you can stretch very far to be able to cover the above, were you say the guy was causing panic or was threatening.
And you could say everybody should know not to use this words.

And that's what I've been saying, all along. Various forms of security have been going on for long enough, in the U.S. and thruout the world, that the vast majority of travellers would or should know what not to say and to state them may or may not get them in trouble at the airport. If not, then they have truly been living on another planet.


I'm not saying that this man should lose his flying "privileges" for saying what he did, but I just shake my head at what he did say and when he said it. I wouldn't be too hard on the EZjet employees, either. They are more than likely trained to listen for certain words. I haven't worked the ticket counter, myself, but I did work cargo and we were supposed to be aware of what we heard and what we saw, when accepting cargo for shipment.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1454 posts, RR: 2
Reply 82, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3313 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 81):
And that's what I've been saying, all along. Various forms of security have been going on for long enough, in the U.S. and thruout the world, that the vast majority of travellers would or should know what not to say and to state them may or may not get them in trouble at the airport. If not, then they have truly been living on another planet.

That is not what you were saying all along. Just a few posts above you were talking about rules.

And if you ask me, yes, we should do away with non existing rules.
If the airport authority does not want anybody to use the word bomb they should put up a big sign.

Nobody went into panic, nobody felt threatened, that guy did something worse, he did not pay the proper respect to authority.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10511 posts, RR: 14
Reply 83, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3274 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 82):
That is not what you were saying all along. Just a few posts above you were talking about rules.

I never said there was a rule about it........I said that airport security has been going on long enough that I doubt if there are many passengers that DON'T know what they shouldn't say. Maybe I'm a more experienced traveller than this gentleman......I don't know, but if someone asked me the question the answer would be NO. I would also know, enough, not to even say certain words at the airport.


I did mention that there were rules and regulations that some on here are to quick to disregard or want to ignore. I didn't make any of this stuff up.......I just abided by them, because as an employee, I had to............as a passenger, because I should. I mean, the whole idea of being at the airport is because you want to travel somewhere, right? So, why would you say or do something that could possibly jeopardize your chances of doing that? Unless you're completely ignorant when travelling, why deliberately do something that you KNOW is going to hinder things? If you don't like the current regulations, maybe you should take the bus. You could of course, write to your congressman about the problems, but I don't think writing to anyone in D.C. is going to expedite things.

One other thing...........there are any number of rules and regulations THAT ARE NOT LAWS, that we have to abide by, every day.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinedc9northwest From Switzerland, joined Feb 2007, 2298 posts, RR: 7
Reply 84, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3270 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 83):
You could of course, write to your congressman about the problems, but I don't think writing to anyone in D.C. is going to expedite things.

You mean Reykjavik, in this case? Or London? What does D.C. have to do with anything?

Quoting mayor (Reply 83):
I don't know, but if someone asked me the question the answer would be NO.

It's easier to lie by saying "no" than lying by saying "no, I don't have a bomb". Not that anyone would be able to tell if anyone is lying.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 82):
If the airport authority does not want anybody to use the word bomb they should put up a big sign.

No, no, remember, the point of the rules is for the bad guys to not know the rules so they get caught. It's extremely silly, in fact.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10511 posts, RR: 14
Reply 85, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3262 times:

Quoting dc9northwest (Reply 84):
You mean Reykjavik, in this case? Or London? What does D.C. have to do with anything?

Because, that's who I would write to, if I was so inclined. I would think that anyone else that read what I wrote would know what I meant, unless of course, they just wanted to be a smartass.   



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1454 posts, RR: 2
Reply 86, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3247 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 83):

It gets a bit sticky when we have to abide by rules somebody invented just now. What you do not understand is when there are no rules you can not expect anybody to abide by them.

So airport security is just aloud to make up rules. Where do you stop?

The police can make up rules.
The Government can make up rules.

And the best think is they do not have to tell you about it because you should know them and follow them anyway.


User currently offlinedc9northwest From Switzerland, joined Feb 2007, 2298 posts, RR: 7
Reply 87, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3198 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 85):
Because, that's who I would write to, if I was so inclined. I would think that anyone else that read what I wrote would know what I meant, unless of course, they just wanted to be a smartass.   

It reads like an American not knowing other countries exist... Do you really wanna perpetuate that stereotype?


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1454 posts, RR: 2
Reply 88, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3157 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 83):
I never said there was a rule about it........I said that airport security has been going on long enough that I doubt if there are many passengers that DON'T know what they shouldn't say. Maybe I'm a more experienced traveller than this gentleman......I don't know, but if someone asked me the question the answer would be NO. I would also know, enough, not to even say certain words at the airport.


I did mention that there were rules and regulations that some on here are to quick to disregard or want to ignore. I didn't make any of this stuff up.......I just abided by them, because as an employee, I had to............as a passenger, because I should. I mean, the whole idea of being at the airport is because you want to travel somewhere, right? So, why would you say or do something that could possibly jeopardize your chances of doing that? Unless you're completely ignorant when travelling, why deliberately do something that you KNOW is going to hinder things? If you don't like the current regulations, maybe you should take the bus. You could of course, write to your congressman about the problems, but I don't think writing to anyone in D.C. is going to expedite things.

One other thing...........there are any number of rules and regulations THAT ARE NOT LAWS, that we have to abide by, every day.

I hope that you bang your head long enough to get it into your head.

You accept there is no rule that forbids somebody answering, "no there is no bomb in my suitcase".

But even if there is no rule, you expect people to follow the rule and regulation, that says that it is forbidden even if that rule do not exist?
I would bang my head too.

We can all agree that this guy was stupid and rude, but since when is that a crime?


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10511 posts, RR: 14
Reply 89, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3158 times:

Quoting dc9northwest (Reply 87):
It reads like an American not knowing other countries exist... Do you really wanna perpetuate that stereotype?

Ok.....lets see if this makes you any happier (I doubt it).......I would write to congressman in Washington, D.C. because the U.S. is where I live and I would imagine that those in other countries would write or contact their own authorities to make a complaint. There, is that better?

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 86):
It gets a bit sticky when we have to abide by rules somebody invented just now. What you do not understand is when there are no rules you can not expect anybody to abide by them.

So airport security is just aloud to make up rules. Where do you stop?

The police can make up rules.
The Government can make up rules.

And the best think is they do not have to tell you about it because you should know them and follow them anyway.

What part of what I have said do you not understand? At least in the U.S., we've had airport security of some kind or level for since at least the mid 60s, considering the a/c hijackings that occurred in that time period. SO, airport security has been asking those questions and questioning those passengers who uttered those particular words for at least 40 years. NOW, the news media, television personalities, comedians, etc. have been talking about airport security AND THOSE WORDS, for at least 40 years. I'm thinking that a good portion of travellers would know what words NOT to utter by this time.

I'm not saying that these words are included under any set of rules but they sure are known to the vast majority of passengers. I don't imagine that OTHER countries are all that much different.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10511 posts, RR: 14
Reply 90, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3145 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 88):
You accept there is no rule that forbids somebody answering, "no there is no bomb in my suitcase".

Of course, that's not what this man said, is it?

What he said was this......a direct quote:

Quoting mayor (Reply 68):
"I said, "if there was a bomb in [my case] I would blow myself up"," he explained.

Besides, it's NOT the phrase, it's certain words in that phrase that raises a red flag.


On top of that, several of those of you, that seem to put the blame on the airline personnel, for the simple crime of trying to enforce the rules that the authorities TELL them that they HAVE to enforce have to remember that they are merely doing their jobs.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1415 posts, RR: 4
Reply 91, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3127 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 90):
On top of that, several of those of you, that seem to put the blame on the airline personnel, for the simple crime of trying to enforce the rules that the authorities TELL them that they HAVE to enforce have to remember that they are merely doing their jobs.

Perfectly true.

The airline employees are under no obligation to allow this guy to travel. You might think they were heavy handed; they would probably see it as being cautious.

From the story I have seen (BBC), at the very least this guy is a complete moron. He was told not to mention the "B" word again or security would be called, so he thought "I know- let's say it again so I can look like more of a man". He had his chance, but he chose his own ego. If I was a check-in agent and had the choice between giving a break to a ****head or a 0.0001% chance of losing my job; guess what? Bye bye Mr Hilarious. Same goes for the airline defining their policy to include this guy or a 0.0001% risk of him being mentally unbalanced and causing an incident.

I have no sympathy for him- this is not a human rights issue; if somebody is a cock then they should be treated as such. The fact that he was NOT actually banned for life but claimed he was doesn't help his credibility.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1454 posts, RR: 2
Reply 92, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3127 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 90):
On top of that, several of those of you, that seem to put the blame on the airline personnel, for the simple crime of trying to enforce the rules that the authorities TELL them that they HAVE to enforce have to remember that they are merely doing their job

You are really keeping at it. WHAT RULE?
This happened in the UK not in the USA
There are two rules they can use in this case.

1. the guy produced a panic.
2. he was threatening the airline personal.

Which of the above do you want to apply?

They just refused to check his baggage in because he was to early.
He was therefore not in the progress of answering the standard questions but the explanation given for not accepting the luggage at this time. So the rule of not following instruction does not work in this case.

I readily accept that the guy acted stupid, I would not use the word bomb and several others on an airport and I am usually friendly to the airline personal.

But we are talking about if the reaction was proportional to the threat the man was posing.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7757 posts, RR: 18
Reply 93, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3118 times:

Quoting tonystan (Reply 1):
In fairness he deserved it just for being that stupid!

Should've just kept his trap shut, IMO

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 92):
1. the guy produced a panic.

Well yeah that's also part of it. Can't be saying that kind of stuff.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 92):
2. he was threatening the airline personal.

Wait...where was he threatening? The OP mentioned he said he "WASN"T carrying a bomb"



我思うゆえに我あり。(Jap. 'I think, therefore I am.')
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10511 posts, RR: 14
Reply 94, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3110 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 92):
I readily accept that the guy acted stupid, I would not use the word bomb and several others on an airport and I am usually friendly to the airline personal.

Ok....here's a question.......WHY would you not use the word "bomb" and several others, if they are not harmful?



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1454 posts, RR: 2
Reply 95, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3078 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 94):
Ok....here's a question.......WHY would you not use the word "bomb" and several others, if they are not harmful?

I am 100 % sure that he did not say anything harmful.

But if you read my posts I posted earlier, I learned my lesson travelling to the USA when I was 19 years old.
At that time it was immigrations and customs only than I met your police and the TSA.

when you speak to person in authority:

Unwritten rule number one: no jokes they are not amused
Unwritten rule number two: no sarcasm they feel threatened
Unwritten rule number three: no smiling, than you are not properly intimidated.
Unwritten rule number four: no speaking without being asked something, and than answer yes or no or with a very short sentence.

How am I doing with the "rules"?

I visit today the USA if I have to for business only.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9532 posts, RR: 31
Reply 96, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3043 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 91):
The airline employees are under no obligation to allow this guy to travel.

well, the airline has a contract with the passenger and the written rules are still that contracts are to be fulfilled..

And, again, the passenger has said nothing that would exclude him from carriage. using the B word in a full sentence in which he explained that hoe does not have a B in his suitcase and would not blow himself up is no reason for exclusion.


There are no "unwritten" rules which have to be "obeyed". Even written rules have to make (common) sense. No one is going to read the airport rules and regulations which are posted at the entrances of airports, it would be quite a queue.

In which world do we live when you have to have a scissor in your head to cut out words you are not supposed to say in a positive manner? That is censorship which may basic law rules out simply quoting that censorship does not take place.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10511 posts, RR: 14
Reply 97, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3034 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 95):
But if you read my posts I posted earlier, I learned my lesson travelling to the USA when I was 19 years old.
At that time it was immigrations and customs only than I met your police and the TSA.

Unless the age in your profile is wrong, I don't see how you could have met the TSA when you were 19. They didn't exist until after 2001.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 95):
How am I doing with the "rules"?

You're doing fine.......maybe this man should also have followed your unwritten rules, eh?

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 96):
There are no "unwritten" rules which have to be "obeyed". Even written rules have to make (common) sense. No one is going to read the airport rules and regulations which are posted at the entrances of airports, it would be quite a queue.

In which world do we live when you have to have a scissor in your head to cut out words you are not supposed to say in a positive manner? That is censorship which may basic law rules out simply quoting that censorship does not take place.

If you think there are NO "unwritten rules" in regards to security, the next time you visit the U.S., just drop the "b" work, casually when standing in security. See what the reaction is.

BTW, he wasn't answering the ticket agent's question because they hadn't asked him. They just told him he couldn't check his bag as early as he wanted for "security reasons". He then offered his statement with the word "bomb" in it:



"I said, "if there was a bomb in [my case] I would blow myself up"," he explained.




Anyway, what he said may not have even registered with the ticket agent, EXCEPT for "bomb" as they are attuned to certain words, so everything else he said made no difference to the agent.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9532 posts, RR: 31
Reply 98, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2935 times:

so, what happens if you ask the check-in agent if that plane you are going to fly in is made by Bombardier? Doie they arrest you and put you away for a couple of years? Shouldn't Bombardier be forced to change their (family) name? Should the Spanish language be edited so that people causally talking about that fire last week in their native lagnuage are not arrested because the spoke about los bomberos?

I mentioned "common sense" which is, unfortunately seems not to have a place in senseless PC speech. Even if that man was not asked what his luggage contained, the uninvited statement was not threatening.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlinep201055r From Ireland, joined Sep 2011, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 99, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days ago) and read 2906 times:

Faults on both sides I’d say - the stupidity of the passenger and over-reaction by the airline.

Airlines must be security conscious, that’s a given. But consciousness doesn’t have to become paranoia. And the concept of “security” shouldn’t be the sanctuary for staff who may not have read a situation properly or behave badly themselves. For example, how many horror stories have we read about the antics of some members of the TSA?

Passengers, as human beings (just like airline staff) are driven by many things and often make inappropriate comments in various situations, that’s the nature of personality and being human.
The passenger in this case has received a particularly stiff sentence, certainly some form of censure was necessary, but I wonder if this couldn’t have been better handled?
Though I’m not a fan of informal/non-judicial punishment, could airport police have intervened early, brought the passenger aside for questioning, a full body search, perhaps, fully search his baggage, and cause him to miss his flight?
A good telling-off from someone in authority in either the airport or the airline, maybe?
If the person was really menacing, should he not have been arrested and charged?
Of course none of us was there, we don’t know the exact circumstances, so the wisdom of Solomon is needed. There is, however, a risky precedent in that the airline, apparently without much semi-independent support has acted as judge, jury and executioner - but that’s said in full recognition of its responsibilities to other passengers, flight crews and staff.

I was once asked by an SN Brussels female cabin-crew member while my flight to Kinshasa was being refuelled in Douala if a bag in an overhead bin was mine. Looking at her, I told her “No”. She asked twice more in the next 5 minutes, my response being the same on the first and on the second occasion said to her “I’ve said the bag isn’t mine - twice. I shook my head - twice. Why do you not pay attention and why do you persist in asking when I’ve already answered you”? I was told that I shouldn’t become aggressive (I was sitting reading a book) & that I could be arrested. So, not diverting the thread from the key issue, it is all too easy to mis-apply security as a catch-all for a variety of human short-comings. Those short-comings aren’t in the sole ownership of airline passengers. This EasyJet incident could have been better handled, I think, just as the “victim” could have kept the b-word out of the dialogue.

[Edited 2013-02-21 03:07:11]

User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 100, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days ago) and read 2870 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 97):
BTW, he wasn't answering the ticket agent's question because they hadn't asked him. They just told him he couldn't check his bag as early as he wanted for "security reasons". He then offered his statement with the word "bomb" in it:

"I said, "if there was a bomb in [my case] I would blow myself up"," he explained.

I think this is ridiculous. As far as I can make out, passenger wanted to check his bag in early. Saying he could not because that was the way the system worked would have been a resonable reason for refusing his request. I think that the reason given for refusing his request was spurious. There are no "security reasons" dictating that baggage cannot be checked in more than 2 hours before departure ie that explanation is without substance. If there were a bomb in a bag, the bag is no more of a threat if checked in 2 hours before departure than if it is checked in 1 hour before departure or 3.

I find the passenger's observation "If there was a bomb in [my case] I would blow myself up" to be a perfectly reasonable observation.

[Edited 2013-02-21 03:05:13]

User currently offlineUnflug From Germany, joined Jan 2012, 507 posts, RR: 2
Reply 101, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2820 times:

Many of the opinions in this thread frighten me more than a terrorist attack.

Quoting mayor (Reply 83):
I never said there was a rule about it........I said that airport security has been going on long enough that I doubt if there are many passengers that DON'T know what they shouldn't say. Maybe I'm a more experienced traveller than this gentleman......I don't know, but if someone asked me the question the answer would be NO. I would also know, enough, not to even say certain words at the airport.

I fly enough to be *A Gold since 15 years, but I am not aware of any word that I am not allowed to use at an airport. I fly to the US often and I actually did discuss the nonsense of asking me whether I was a member of NSDAP. Contrary to the experience mjoelnir had, this ended as a polite and funny short conversation.

If someone is happy to know that he may not say certain words because he thinks that this is necessary to preserve the free world he lives in, good for him. I wouldn't be happy.

Quoting mayor (Reply 97):
Anyway, what he said may not have even registered with the ticket agent, EXCEPT for "bomb" as they are attuned to certain words, so everything else he said made no difference to the agent.

If these agents comprehensive capabilties are limited to single words only, they should not have a job at an airport. Such people are a security risk in itself.

Quoting art (Reply 100):

I find the passenger's observation "If there was a bomb in [my case] I would blow myself up" to be a perfectly reasonable observation.

Exactly.


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1454 posts, RR: 2
Reply 102, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2817 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 97):
Unless the age in your profile is wrong, I don't see how you could have met the TSA when you were 19. They didn't exist until after 2001.

You should start reading what you are quoting, I said at that time it was immigration and customs later I met your police and the TSA.

At that time means when I was 19 later means later.

Even sarcasm does not reach you.

To make it simple: THERE IS NO LAW, NO RULE, NO REGULATION BANNING THE WORD BOMB ON AN AIRPORT!!!!!

When you scream BOMB in a group they can tell you that you caused a panic.
When you threaten someone with a BOMB they can take you for threatening.

Quoting mayor (Reply 97):
If you think there are NO "unwritten rules" in regards to security, the next time you visit the U.S., just drop the "b" work, casually when standing in security. See what the reaction is.

As I say I am very careful what I do in your police state. Perhaps a little bit unfair when one has managed to get through immigration and customs. But I also met your police and unfriendlier people are hard to find, especially when one has not done anything, that seems to aggravate them even more.
And on the way out you meet the TSA, nice people.
If you like to life in a police state were immigration, TSA, homeland security and police can make up and enforce rules which do not exist, your problem.


User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1415 posts, RR: 4
Reply 103, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2677 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 96):
well, the airline has a contract with the passenger and the written rules are still that contracts are to be fulfilled..

Airlines can refuse carriage for all sorts of reasons. If he was drunk and violent would you cry "contract breach"?

Quote:

And, again, the passenger has said nothing that would exclude him from carriage. using the B word in a full sentence in which he explained that hoe does not have a B in his suitcase and would not blow himself up is no reason for exclusion.

Section 19.1.2 part "b" (and to a lesser extent parts "d" and "e").

Quote:

There are no "unwritten" rules which have to be "obeyed". Even written rules have to make (common) sense. No one is going to read the airport rules and regulations which are posted at the entrances of airports, it would be quite a queue.

Rubbish- there are tons of unwritten rules. That's why blanket rules must be created- because it's impossible to cover all situations.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5727 posts, RR: 19
Reply 104, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2591 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 81):
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 77):
There is no law or rule banning to say: "no I do not have a bomb on me"

It's not the phrase, but the word "bomb" within the phrase.

Answering in a full sentence is a "security threat"???  
Quoting mayor (Reply 81):

Apparently, it's in short supply with passengers, too.

I am not saying that being ironic or sarcastic in front of often anal retentive airline staff (or the TSA clowns, or immigration officers, etc.) is a particularly good idea, but the issue here is how EZY overreacted to a banal situation.

Quoting Unflug (Reply 101):
Many of the opinions in this thread frighten me more than a terrorist attack.

        

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 103):
Airlines can refuse carriage for all sorts of reasons. If he was drunk and violent would you cry "contract breach"?

Well... he wasn't. He seems to be a victim of some ridiculous semantics test arbitrarily imposed by a power tripping airline employee who can't see the forest for the trees.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 103):
Rubbish- there are tons of unwritten rules. That's why blanket rules must be created- because it's impossible to cover all situations.

That's just absurd and at the same time scary claim to say the least. "Nullum crimen sine lege" anyone?


User currently offlineBasilFawlty From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 1328 posts, RR: 1
Reply 105, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2561 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 102):
To make it simple: THERE IS NO LAW, NO RULE, NO REGULATION BANNING THE WORD BOMB ON AN AIRPORT!!!!!

Ofcourse there isn't a law, and there will never be one because most people use their common sense and know that you don't use certain words at certain places. How hard can it be?!



'Every year donkeys and mules kill more people than plane crashes'
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1415 posts, RR: 4
Reply 106, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2529 times:

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 104):
Well... he wasn't. He seems to be a victim of some ridiculous semantics test arbitrarily imposed by a power tripping airline employee who can't see the forest for the trees.

That's just the narrative you feel like believing- since you weren't there you have no idea how this guy acted. You have his version only, and he still sounds like an idiot. Imagine what the Easyjet employee's version sounds like!

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 104):
That's just absurd and at the same time scary claim to say the least. "Nullum crimen sine lege" anyone?

Rubbish. You can't possibly account for every single specific transgression. Otherwise you'd have:

1) No passenger shall assault the flight attendants with a dead mackerel
2) No passenger shall assault the flight attendants with a dead haddock
3) No passenger shall assault the flight attendants with a dead seabass
4) No passenger shall assault the flight attendants with a dead European wasp
5) No passenger shall assault the flight attendants with a live mackerel
6) No passenger shall loudly sing "God Save The Queen" during checkin
7) No passenger shall loudly sing "God Save The King" during checkin

etc etc.

It's why you have general terms like "assault" (or in this case endanger, obstruct, threatening, abusive, insulting, disorderly, unpredictable, unsafe or aggressive etc). You can argue all you like about whether this case falls under those terms but since you weren't there you have nothing to base your argument on.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 104):
He seems to be a victim

I'll say it again- it is not a human right to get onto an aeroplane. If he wants to sue for breach of contract he can try, but he will fail, and rightly so.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 107, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2525 times:

In airports passengers are screened inter alia for bombs.

In hospitals people are screened inter alia for cancer. Should mention of the word "cancer" result in one being banned?


User currently offlineUnflug From Germany, joined Jan 2012, 507 posts, RR: 2
Reply 108, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2265 times:

Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 105):
Ofcourse there isn't a law, and there will never be one because most people use their common sense and know that you don't use certain words at certain places. How hard can it be?!

You are not asking for common sense. You are asking for a police state with unwritten rules. That is as hard as it ever can be.


User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 109, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2218 times:

How many terrorist attacks have actually been been thwarted due to the vigilance of the the vocabulary-police? Also, what if an actual terrorist didn't know those codewords and ignorantly announced his impending strike not by mentioning the word ''bomb'' but just by describing his plan of action in other words? Would this otherwise flawless and highly effective security mechanism fail and everybody would die? ''He didn't say the codeword, how could we have known what he was on about?'' That would be the logical equivalent of someone using a codeword in a completely unrelated context.

If you think using the word ''bomb'' or whatever should be illegal because you believe it makes the world a safer place, then why don't you call for an outright ban of all words that could be used in a criminal context? Why should I be allowed to use the word bomb (or any other ''threatening word'') in any other environment if just by using the word, I am causing a threat? Should I still be able to get on a bus and say ''I saw a car crash yesterday'', or will I go to jail for that because I said ''crash'' and that can only mean I want to hijack and crash the bus?

The meek subordinance of people, no matter how arbitrary the rule, is staggering. I suppose it's the nature of certain people - don't think, just follow (if you think that following a rule that makes no sense but that feels logical is ''thinking'', you are not thinking). I don't have a problem with that but I also think that those people should not be allowed to vote, or work in any position that would require them to think independently.

It is not dangerous that grown ups with the mentality of children are among us in large numbers. It is dangerous that we don't treat those people accordingly.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 110, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days ago) and read 2188 times:

Quoting something (Reply 109):
How many terrorist attacks have actually been been thwarted due to the vigilance of the the vocabulary-police?

Good, sensible question. If the answer were 20 or 10 or 1 it could be argued that outlawing certain vocabulary ehanced security. I think the answer is 0. I think vocabulary censorship actually impairs security - security personnel waste time on passengers who do not merit investigation.


User currently offlinerutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 3016 posts, RR: 7
Reply 111, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2136 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting art (Reply 110):
I think vocabulary censorship actually impairs security - security personnel waste time on passengers who do not merit investigation.

Very much agreed - Tabooism is NOT bliss !

And agents are acting beyond their powers.

The individual just needs taking aside - stern talking too on the sensitivity by a law officer (There are ALWAYS dozens at airports)and left to be on their way - It's certainly not grounds for preventing travel.

Frankly a mass of historical evidence shows that real and successful threats to aviation are rarely achieved through the passenger terminal.

The major criminal activity (so far successful) at Brussels in the last week further is further proof.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Easyjet And The 742? posted Tue Apr 19 2005 01:58:19 by IslipWN
Any Word On WN And The 738? posted Thu Nov 4 2010 20:33:21 by rj777
What Is The Issue Between Canada And The UAE? posted Mon Feb 18 2013 00:51:22 by mozart
The New American And The New DCA posted Thu Feb 14 2013 17:17:33 by capitalflyer
SA And The 748i posted Tue Feb 5 2013 13:43:11 by TWA772LR
Air NZ And The DC10 posted Sat Jan 26 2013 22:10:13 by Max Q
Republic, UEX And The Q400 posted Fri Jan 25 2013 06:06:58 by infiniti329
Ethiopian And The 787 posted Tue Jan 15 2013 17:07:17 by dkny
Mexicana And The Boeing 727 posted Mon Jan 7 2013 11:49:38 by Mortyman
DL And The A321? posted Tue Jan 1 2013 06:53:30 by bobnwa