Right - but this isn't a courtroom or a personal accusation. Airline security is a serious matter as it very well should be.
Reading and watching the various reports there is no consensus from the statements of the passengers as to what or when or now even where events happened that raised someone's suspicions.
Which "ensuring madness"?
Remember the differing accounts don't add up. Some say suspicions were raised because they were wearing the wrong clothes, some say because they were speaking Arabic, some say because they looked "Arabic", some say because they were overheard in English (not Arabic) to say something suspicious. There is also now an apparent inconsistency regarding even where suspicions were first raised - from the last report it appears to be not in the terminal but once they were on the plane
Who has labeled all the passengers bigots and racists?
My comments regarding that have been:
... that the flight was full of racist, bigoted fools!...
and
... Er not quite it comes from reading many accounts of the incident, including interviews with some of the passengers, quotes from the pilot, quotes from the airline, quotes from the Spanish civil police and so on. Obviously my conclusions about the racism and bigotry shown by some of the above may be wrong however so far the evidence shows that some of the passengers acted in racist and bigoted manner and the airline allowed those racist bigots to determine who could fly with "them".
Obviously if you have evidence to the contrary I am happy to change my conclusion. ...
Is there any evidence that the two passengers not allowed to fly had circumvented or otherwise avoided the airport and airline security checks?
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
I don't know about that. If passengers panic and start others panicking, it could cause some serious problems. In this instance, some passengers managed to get the others into a stew. Next time, it might be fullblown hysteria, and people might get hurt.
Perhaps a sign reading "NOTIFY SECURITY OR AIRLINE PERSONNEL OF SECURITY CONCERNS. DO NOT DISCUSS THEM PUBLICLY, TO AVOID CAUSING PANIC."
I have to say that if I saw something suspicious, I wouldn't start talking about it to total strangers who might well be in on it. "Say, does that guy look like a terrorist?" "No, I'm pretty sure my comrade-in-jihad looks quite normal. We spent all morning on the disguise!...Whoops!" The proper course of action would seem to be quietly notifying someone in authority. That way if you're wrong, you haven't caused any trouble. If you're right, you'll be out of the line of fire, unlike screaming "OH MY GOD! HE'S GOT A BOMB!!!!"
Right, but this is a bit of a lower threshold. I've flown with friends who have slight fear-of-flying (pre-911) who have said something to the effect of this plane will be the one that crashes. Certainly after 9-11 (and now the Sky Bomb plot) those comments could be interpreted very differently.
RyanRoberts
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2005
- Messages
- 308
Splossy said:
Hate to rain on your slating of the working class, but this BBC report from a lawyer on the flight begs to differ:
Here
So, if you believe this report rather than fantasising about an airborne BNP rally, it looks like at worse chinese whispers were responsible. Saying things like that, while being beardy and Muslim looking before boarding a flight in those circumstances is just plain stupid.
Last edited:
On the flip-side, if you were right, you could very well prompt a detonation then and there. I agree with discreet. Not everyone is as smart as you, though - even well-intentioned and fair people. I guess that's what I'm saying.
Which is totally unfair - and somewhat understandable.
Totally agree - I would state that is the rational response.
But apart from report you've just linked to there is no evidence that there was any reason to be suspicious of these two British passengers.
That's a strawman - no one has even suggested that.
The major criticism in this thread is that the two passengers after being re-checked were still not allowed to continue on with their journey. That was wrong.
No. I also don't think security ends at the x-ray machine.
If this was the case why after confirming that was the sort of remark they had actually made weren't they allowed to continue on their journey?
So you agree we have an instance in which two passengers that were subject to all the appropriate security checks and found not to be doing or planning to do anything dangerous were not allowed to continue on their journey?
RyanRoberts
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2005
- Messages
- 308
I certainly agree with that. It was the knee jerk accusations of racism on a flight likely to contain large numbers of working class people I disliked. I felt jumpy flying around that time, fear spreads. I'm pretty certain the dialogue I heard from some quarters (not from you) would have been different if that flight had been from Tuscany.
That fairly sums my opinion of the matter as well.
Statements from one of the passengers not allowed to travel:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/5278210.stm
ETA - The original Mirror article: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_obj...pair-s-shock-at-plane-ejection-name_page.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/5278210.stm
ETA - The original Mirror article: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_obj...pair-s-shock-at-plane-ejection-name_page.html
Last edited:
Nothing in that article about the alleged "thirty minutes to live" remark. Excellent job of reporting, to fail to ask the guys about one of the most pertinent allegations in the whole story.
Nothing in that article about the alleged "thirty minutes to live" remark. Excellent job of reporting, to fail to ask the guys about one of the most pertinent allegations in the whole story.
Depends when they were interviewed for the newspaper. The hearsay of the "30 minutes to live" only appeared late yesterday evening.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
This sounds like a classic case of terrible reporting...
I conclude the following from the snippets we have:
Someone overheard them say something before boarding, and as a result 6 people refused to board the aircraft. Once on the aircraft, an elderly woman had suspicions and talked to them, asking additional questions.
Once she was convinced (in her own strange mind) that they were terrorists, she discreetly told the crew (right thing to do). By now word had spread around the plane (surprise, surprise). It seems to have been fueled by older children (also, no surprise). A young child was upset enough to begin crying (not surprised, children are very sensitive to mood changes). Some people exited the plane (we don't know how many, it is suggested it was a family).
The pilot checked the two "suspect"'s passports, and a while later the aircraft was evacuated and the two men were detained at gunpoint, in an orderly fashion.
Upon determining there was no threat, the flight resumed, sans the two men.
I only see two mistakes in this sequence.
1) The elderly woman obviously has some issues
2) The two men should have been allowed back on the plane
Other than that, based on the evidence at hand (slim as it is) I think every step was pretty reasonable and understandable. Incidentally, I notice only one of the two men mentions racism as a post-event comment "I've never been subject to racism before". Seems to be this was not a case of racism.
Seems to be the sum of adding one crazy person to the tense atmosphere of aviation travel re: terrorism.
-Andrew
I conclude the following from the snippets we have:
Someone overheard them say something before boarding, and as a result 6 people refused to board the aircraft. Once on the aircraft, an elderly woman had suspicions and talked to them, asking additional questions.
Once she was convinced (in her own strange mind) that they were terrorists, she discreetly told the crew (right thing to do). By now word had spread around the plane (surprise, surprise). It seems to have been fueled by older children (also, no surprise). A young child was upset enough to begin crying (not surprised, children are very sensitive to mood changes). Some people exited the plane (we don't know how many, it is suggested it was a family).
The pilot checked the two "suspect"'s passports, and a while later the aircraft was evacuated and the two men were detained at gunpoint, in an orderly fashion.
Upon determining there was no threat, the flight resumed, sans the two men.
I only see two mistakes in this sequence.
1) The elderly woman obviously has some issues
2) The two men should have been allowed back on the plane
Other than that, based on the evidence at hand (slim as it is) I think every step was pretty reasonable and understandable. Incidentally, I notice only one of the two men mentions racism as a post-event comment "I've never been subject to racism before". Seems to be this was not a case of racism.
Seems to be the sum of adding one crazy person to the tense atmosphere of aviation travel re: terrorism.
-Andrew
I don't think there is enough evidence to be able to conclude that.
You can listen to the passengers themselves here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/...m=1&bbwm=1&nbram=1&nbwm=1&nol_storyid=5280556
And they state that the Spanish police said there was no reason to stop them flying it was at the request of the pilot.