Were They Right To Object?
 

We all know about the recent incident where some passengers on an aeroplane demanded that they be allowed to leave the plane because of the actions of two men, who just happened to be of Asian extraction or have those men removed?

Without a shadow of a doubt – YES! They were right to object but not, as has been suggested, because they were Asian or Muslim but because of their behaviour prior to boarding and on board.

According to an eye witness who was on the same flight, they spent most of the time prior to boarding wandering around and starring at the other passengers. As the passengers started to board they hung back so that they were the last two to board. They spoke to each other bilingually both off and on the plane.

Once on board, again according to an eye witness and a RAF pilot, the two men had no hand luggage but wore heavy coats fully buttoned up. In short they were inappropriately dressed for the warmth of an aeroplane cabin.

Prior to take off they both visited the toilets and when finally seated they continued their bilingual conversation in a rowdy manner kept looking under the seats and behaving rather oddly.

No terrorist is going to draw attention to himself by such actions, as he would try to appear as normal as everyone else, so I think that these two guys’ actions were a deliberate attempt to disrupt the flight.

Their actions were the modern equivalent of the UXB in WWII.

As someone wrote to the Ceefax letters pages, on the one hand we are asked to be vigilant and report any suspicious packages or actions yet now when the general public do just that the PC brigade are up in arms.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

It should never be up to the passengers to decide who is or is not allowed on an aircraft.

Passengers know nowt abaout aviation security (ok 99.999% of the time)

That would be one step off "mob rule" and all the perfectly innocent asians would be quite rightly furious at such levels of idiocy.

If individuals are acting suspiciously (but proven to be innocent) it is up to the captain of the plane to decide who is allowed on or not.

A counter argument here is that the compaining passengers should have been booted off the plane for being bigots and the suspects given an upgrade to business class to compensate for the emotional turmoil of mob rule.

Maybe they were acting suspiciously *because everybody was staring at them*





I'm a qualified pilot btw so I'd like to think my opinion has some validity!

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Well.. if it was me who'd just boarded a plane and I thought certain individuals were being suspicious I would deffinently make my feeling aware to the cabin crew, and if not, the majority of the passengers in the same cabin. Id rather scare them to death forcing them to leave the plane, than actually leaving it and them actually facing death.

:/

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

True.. but they are allowed to refuse to go on themselves..


did you read jambuttys question all the way through? he said certainly not just because they where asians but because of there actions... so lets get off the asian point eh.

the above point is exactly the same as your first point... and your right.. but again the other passenders are allowed to do what they did and its up to the captain or whoever to decide what action to take..

Again you are not talking about the same thing jambutty is.


silly comment


Given the above post I would dissagree

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

As you've agreed with the principle point here that it should never be up to the passengers so there's no need to disagree on the rest.

I'm equally happy to drop the Asian point and concentrate purely on the actions of the individuals involved, but the nexus or the argument remains the same. (although last remark, I have no doubt that plenty of the concerns by the other passengers had their basis in ethnicity at best or racism at worst)

My last comment was certainly a little flippant, but based upon many years of global frequent flier miles and frequent meetings with airlines and airport authorities I don't think it's silly. I've seen some pretty awful things happen due to misunderstandings.

As I'm fairly new around here it's interesting to see my post being dissected so much, but not that well given the fundamental agreement :p

Anyway I'm off for lunch now so tatty bye, I'll no doubt encounter you again before long:)

PS just been looking at your website Kipax - Good work!

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

I would not have flown with those guys either......and not because they were asian, but because of their suspect behaviour. We are all asked to be vigilant and these passengers were reporting their observations and noting their reluctance to travel with these men. I too, would have walked off the plane and organised another means of transport. I value my life too much to take such a risk in such troubled times.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

This affair wasn’t about Asians or Muslims CusCus although some of the media is desperately trying to make it so. It was about two passengers behaving suspiciously and in light of recent events as far back as 9/11 the other passengers were right to voice their concern.

You may be a qualified pilot CusCus, we have no way of knowing other than your word, but are you’re an airline pilot who regularly pilots a passenger plane?

If you are, then you would know that the pilot is God on a plane and he or she can remove any passenger if she or he deems it to be the right thing to do and does not have to justify his or her actions to the other passengers.

Someone please remind me when was the last time that a Caucasian blew himself and others up in a suicide bombing. You get loud mouthed and violent drunks creating mayhem and they get treated just the same. If the crew don’t instigate it passenger complaints will get the drunk removed from the plane.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

I'n not an airline pilot (too dull, underpaid, interferes with boozing:cool: ) but the point that the pilot is God on a plane is true across the board, so yes I am aware of this (should have said so in my 1st post!)

Yes, the passengers were right to voice their concerns and refuse to fly if they want, but I'm not happy with the "either they go off the plane or we do" attitute which seems to have prevailed. Very much in agreement with your comment about the press.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

One point with JB's post, I find aircraft cabins to generally be quite cold rather than hot. If it was a night flight I always take my jacket on so I can be warm.

as for them acting starngely, the human mind is quite strange, remember after the bloke who got shot on teh underground, dozens of 'eye witnesses' came forward believing they saw all sorts of things that simply weren't true yet these rational people really believed they saw what they thought they saw.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Quote:

I'n not an airline pilot (too dull, underpaid, interferes with boozing )

Are you implying that you fly a plane whilst under the influence of alcohol CusCus?

The pilot could have refused to remove the two ‘suspects’ thus leaving the objectors free to leave. But what if the complainers were right and there was a tragic incident? He could not afford to take the chance so the two guys had to go. As someone has already pointed out – better to be dead wrong than plain dead.

However the two ‘suspects’ after being cleared by the airport security authorities behaved in exactly the same manner whilst waiting for the next plane and after boarding it. According to an eye witness there were comments from other passengers only this time they were reassured that there was no cause for alarm.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Only if the stewardesses have run out of drugs:eek:
How else do you think they manage to smile all day



..kidding, obviously

Minor thread hijack ended
CC

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

They were lucky the plane was in Malaga and not London.

Wearing leather jackets on a hot day, they would probably have been shot.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

You really are a total ****** at times, Rindy. Do you know how many people were shot by the cops in Britain last year? About half a dozen - with only two or three fatally. This contrasts with a ten times that number in Spain, France and Germany.

I suspect your not-so-subtle reference is to that dodgy Brazilian, who no doubt had he been in this country legally would not have struggled when confronted by armed police and thus would still be alive today.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Er..... did they know that he was an illegal immigrant at the time? I suspect not, because they thought he was a terrorist, when infact he wasn't, when they shot to kill on a crowded tube at Stockwell.

His crime?

Wearing a leather jacket and being a bit dusky skinned on a warm day. A bit like the two men who were asked to leave the plane in Malaga.

It takes a ****** to know a ****** old boy.;)

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

You'd better pray thay Jim Bowen doesn't turn to terrorism by throwing about poisened darts...otherwise you may find yourself shunned by the general public.:D

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Otherwise known as the garinda backpeddle... maybe a smile in the first one wouldn't then need to pretend its all a joke in this one :)

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

My first comment in this thread wasn't a joke, but a serious observation about how everyone can be mistaken, hence no smiley.

The second post had one because Tealeaf is infact young enough to be Jim Bowen's son despite the striking similarity.:D (Smiley.)


Apparently the two men asked to leave the flight have taken it all in good grace according to the press.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Bollocks.

a) The tube was not crowded. He had a seat and a surveillance officer took the seat next to him

b) When his watcher saw his armed colleagues follow through the tube door, he reached back and grabbed Menzies from behind, at the same time as he and his colleagues shouted warnings to the Brazilian

c) Menzies decided to ignore the warnings and struggle, assuming that the cops would not shoot. Well, it was not his lucky day. If he had gone quietly no doubt he would have been charged with no more than being an illegal, let loose after 2 hours and would probably be sunning himself now on the Coppa Cubanna, having spent a couple of years in the UK earning on the lump and paying no tax.

d) I seem to recall that shortly after the news breaking, stating on here that it would not take more than a few hours for the trendy civil rights shoot-to-kill mob to emerge from their slimey pits. Of course, I was right, but little did I expect them still to be rabbiting on about it over a year later.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Not wanting to get dragged into this too much, but I think you are being harsh on the Brazilian.
The cops in his country shoot young men a LOT. I'm not surprised he ran away at all and expect he would have done so if he was a fully paid up member of society, especially given how the Met are prone to react to things (I live in London and am happy to give examples of over zealous armed police. Two weeks after the poor Brazilian I had 4 SO-19 goons pointing guns at me.)

It's an interesting contrast with other European countries, but their even worse performances should not be used as justification for poor policing on our doorstep. (Well, in that case MY doorstep, 4 balaclavad cops pointing an assortment of firearms at my head):eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The simple fact is the cops in this country do not shoot people 'alot'. The stats show that for themselves. we may well see more armed cops on the streets, but unless you want to pick a fight with 'em or violently resist arrest in the middle of an anti-terrorist operation, you are unlikely to be shot.

Brazilian cops shoot thousands each year, many just unarmed children.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

:D
Read, read, read,.....
I said HIS country not THIS country................feel free to re-read my post and retract your wrongwrongwrong! I never said anything about the cops in this country shooting people a lot. So, nowt to argue about!
:D :D

ps the pass mark for SO-19 is 70%........I really hope they don't get things wrong 30% of the time.

There were 5 police shootings (ie shooting at other people) since the IPCC was set up (april 04) to the IPCC meeting the family of the poor lad in August 2005. At least one was in error, so that's 20%. The stats and simple facts show that for themselves, as you say:)

Brazilian cops shoot thousands each year, many heavily armed children (doesn't make it right, obviously)

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Ooops.......there was a bit of mushy pea on the screen before the 'h'.I thought it was a T..:)

Anyway, 70% is X amount within the chest at 30 metres, within a set time frame; the odd ones astray don't rally matter, providing they hit nowt else.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

There were forty eight people in the carriage when he was shot at Stockwell station, including a woman in the next seat who gave evidence that he wasn't warned by the people who were following him, or the man that shot him.

Fact is so much more interesting than supposition.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Have we all got off the plane and now on a train ? Old argument surely.. Can't we have fun with the new one?

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Its hardly fact just because you wrote it on accyweb.. if anyone wants to state something is fact then they should show it is fact... play fair rinders :)

Ding dong....

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Although the people were frightened by the two men on the plane, the fact is they were wrong, they weren't terrorists.


All I can say is that I'm glad I'm ruddy faced and fair haired as I too am about to go on holiday, and have often been observed acting 'weirdly'.:D

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

I would argue that they where not wrong.. They formed an opinion that was wrong.. But there actions based on that opinion is the point surely.. and there actions based on that opinion I would say was right and one I would take.. IF the pilot or whoever told us all no.. the two men are not being asked to leave then its my choice to carry on traveling or leave.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Having just read the question again it states the passengers demanded they be allowed to leave.. Not the two men not allowed to fly... Which was it?

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Would you ever take your family to London, or Madrid on that same proviso?

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Unfair... If in London or Madrid and saw someone acting suspicious etc then you have same scenario... You can argue would you step foot out of the house on the same proviso ... What happened on the plane was real to those that where present... You can't then say to them why where you going on holiday or leaving the safety of your own home...... take it all the way.. home isn't safe blah blah

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

These two were obviously two wind up merchants seeking attention and meaning to cause disruption for the 'hell' of it. Well, it worked, would have worked with me too ... these nutters could have done anything on the flight, although not actually intended to blow it to smithereens.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

It's not at all unfair. Ask anyone who has to use the transport systems in those two cities every day. The same fears, often unfounded, surface every day.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

I am off to Spain in a couple of weeks and am happy to fly with my daughter.These 2 lads may have been wind-up merchants but at the end of the day the passengers on the plane overreacted. I fully understand the heightened awareness on transport at the moment but surely this is going too far;would the same have happened if a Sikh or an Arab had been on a plane,wearing a jacket and speaking his mother tongue ? I think not.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

A question for you in the 70's, 80's and 90's how many of you got on a plane with a person with an irish accent? Everybody did. How many of them do you think were members of the UVF, INLA and IRA etc? You dont know you might have been sat next to IRA chief of staff or the top bomber you just dont know but how many times did people refuse to get on a flight because there was someone with an irish accent sat next to them?

By the way about the 2 asian lads if theyd took their jackets off when they got on the plane and put them in the overhead lockers would the people have not objected? You will have had to have been there to see it first hand before you could really say yes i would have objected or no i wouldnt. We can only surmise from what the people have said in the papers and on the news when they came back.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

My shop is full of these "terrorists" on a daily basis. Should I ask all males of asian origin between the ages of 19-40 who speak in their own language and wear a jacket to leave the store? Let's get a grip here.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Lindsey, what I was trying to say was that they 'meant' to create an image of being terrorists, it was engineered for a 'thrill'; that is the difference, and anybody who would do that is obviously mentally disturbed and would create further mayhem on the flight to receive attention which could be dangerous, and quite rightly evicted from the flight.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Haha. I did laugh at the original post about the being shot thing.. BUT I have to disagree with you on this post. And agree with Tealeaf.

His crime wasnt wearing a leather jacket and being a bit dusky skinned. His crime was, aswell as a suspect of terrorism, jumping the barriers of the Tube station, a WEEK after the 7/7 attacks.. running from Police, when instructed to stop. Running onto a Tube train attempting to escape. Not only that, but he wasnt even supposed to be in this country.

It was his OWN fault he was shot if you ask me. Or this country will never crack down on terrorism. Brazillian or not, a week after the 7/7 attacks, you do NOT act like that, jumping barriers etc. What do you think will happen!? If I was the officer giving the autority to shoot to kill that day. I would of give it without a second doubt in my mind.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

You are wrong on lots of accounts.

It wasn't a week after the London bombings, it was fifteen days.

According to leaked witness statements from the enquirey he didn't jump the ticket barrier, but went through with his tube pass AFTER picking up his free copy of the Metro newspaper.

Also according to other eye witnesses on the escalator down to the platform, the people following him never issued any warnings telling the man, wrongly suspected of being a suicide bomber, to stop.

Seconds later on a crowded carriage a shoot to kill policy was implemented. Why there, and not anywhere else on the two mile journey from his home is still unclear.

Back to the thread topic.

I have no fear of catching a plane with any Asian, wearing unseasonal clothing and talking bi-lingually or not. What has made me fearful in the past about air travel, is catching planes with the shell suited trash, who are loud and obnoxious, after spending all their time before boarding on the p*ss in the bar.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

I appologise for the 7 day error.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Also, like I said before, I used this tube station every day for sixteen years.

Trust me, with all the nutters there, if someone in plain clothes spoke to you and tried to stop and talk to you, you'd run too if you had any sense.;)

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

If he was pointing a gun at me shouting 'Police.. Stop'.

I think Id stop. Like himself.. if he stopped. He wouldnt have been shot.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Like I said, according to eye witnesses on the escalator and in the carriage, they didn't say anything of the sort.

Sadly we can't ask Jean Charles de Menezes.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Oh well. Life goes on. Im sure his parents will get over it. Like everyone else in the UK =]

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

That's so sweet, showing your charitable side.

I sincerely hope tradgedy never befalls your family young man.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

I know it was harsh.. but seriously. There was no-one to blame other than himself. It served the illegal immigrant right.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Again despite what Tealeaf keeps saying it's not proven that he was an illegal immigrant.

Like I said I hope your parents never have to face what his have.

Wrong place, wrong time.

Whoosh, no Morgan_brotherz.

Oh well, they'll get over it.;)

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Interesting point well done
In the 70's,80's,90's, there were posters telling everyone to look out for suspect items that could be bombs all over the railways and transports system, rubbbish bins were removed too. Be safe, be alert to bombs.
Thing is if they were irish you'd notice, this would put you on alert, even though they maybe innocent, you'd watch to check. This is the being alert bit.
If they started messing about going into the train toilets and looking under the seats , you'd think that was suspicious and you'd say something. As I'm sure people did.
It's all to do with the suspicious behaviour and being safe not sorry. It's like the stop and seach policy, it's all the same thing.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Yeah.. im in agreement there.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

I have a friend who is Muslim, he works for a company that has a slightly dodgy alarm system in that it's quite tricky to set and sometimes goes off when you're setting it - he refuses to be the last person out of the building because he doesn't want to accidentally set the alarm off because the police would come along and he knows that they would not begin their conversation with 'oops'.

My point is that people immediately make judgements about other people which then have to be proven wrong or right. So, the passengers on the plane saw some Asian guys and some of the passengers connected the sight of them with the things that had happened a few days earlier. Then the Asian guys appeared to prove them right by acting strangely.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Wrong. It was engineered in order for them to receive an out-of-court settklement of £25, 000 each from Monarch Airline.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Just out of interest, You may want to raed teh following

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08...t_terror_labs/

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Very interesting entwisi.

If our security services KNEW (and one must assume that they had at least an inkling of an idea) that liquid bombs are to all intents and purposes not practical for an attack on an aeroplane then what was all that shemozzel about?

A public display of being ‘on the ball’ so to speak?

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

propaganda?

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

very true

i saw a program on the bbc where the brazilian police rather than arrest and process a suspect dragged them man around the back of their car and executed him in the street infront of everyone but the camera crew and drove off leaving his body to be picked up by somone else

to the point of these 2 asians not speaking english at the airport and it worrying the other passengers , i have a firends who are of asian desent but not practicing muslims and they have told me that it is considered ignorant and rude to speak in their other language infront of peopel who do not understand it and to be quite honest when i am in teh same room as 2 asians who i know can speak english perfectly but choose to talk non english i get the suspision i am been talked about and i think these passangers paranoia was well justified, you dont have to understand a language to know you are been talked about other things can tip you off like voice tone , the way they look at you when talking etc

i am not racist but like somone sated earlier at this moment terroism is been done by muslims so when a muslim starts acting or been protrayed as acting dodgy at an airport people are going to have doubts about them

i would rather run the risk of been seen as a bigot and a racist than find myself blown up in midair

perhaps if these muslim extreemists stopped blowing up and beheading civilians there wouldnt be such paranoia about muslims , if they want to get their point across they shoudl blow up downing street because to put it simple polititians couldnt care less if UK citizens get slaughtered or blown up , hit the people who make the decisions that you are upset about and leave the innocent peopel alone

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Thats four questions but happy to give my thoughts!


1. Yes, but depends completely if "airside" or not
2. No (why should I potentially scare people who know less than nothing about aviation security?)
3. No
4. No

5. If "airside" and very suspicious, I would report to staff and see what happens. If the staff come back and say "yes we have investigated the individuals and have cleared them for flight, the captain is happy"
Then that's the end of it, get on the plane.

I would suggest that anybody who is suspicious of anybody purely because they are speaking in a different language is at least a bigot.

I fail to see why so many parents think they know more about the safety of their families whilst on aircraft than aviation professionals.

it's basic fear of what people don't understand, like foreign languages!

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

I saw that programme too chav1 but tragic as their scenario is we are talking about the UK not Brazil.

I agree with you chav1 that it is ignorant and down right rude to converse in public in a foreign to English language if that same conversation can be made in English. Or if you like speaking in English in a foreign land when you have the ability to speak in that language. Such conversations can lead to suspicions especially in an airport or on a plane or even bus or train.

This whole affair is beginning to look like a put up job to either create disquiet, disruption and concern without actual harm to life and limb or to try and gain a pecuniary advantage in the form of compensation.

I can’t help but feel that this affair is just the tip of a forthcoming iceberg until the novelty wears off and vigilant Joe Public gets tired of being the victim of someone crying wolf, just ignores them. That is until another actual atrocity takes place.

The terrorist has got us by the short and curlies and they know it.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Being an illegal immigrant does not deserve the death penalty.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

As somebody who speaks foreign, let me disagree(and agree)!
Yes, you are right I think, it causes fear and suspicion, but it should not. Fear and suspicion of people speaking foreign is a negative character trait, but very common.
If I go to France with a bunch of my bilingual mates, I fail to see why we should have to talk amongst ourselves when in France. In fact, I fail to see why talking in english to somebody else who speaks English is rude.

I would suggest that people who are offended by foreign speak need to get out more and be less insular. If you are not part of a conversation, what do you care what language it is in!

In my office at any one time there are about 5 or six languages being spoken at any one time. I'm not remotely offended by it. (and that's not including the Eastern European cleaners:p )

I fail to see why people hold foreign speak in fear.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

*applause*

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Please read my post on WHY he was shot. Im not repeating myself.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

My mistake CusCus. I should have specified STRANGERS and the way they were acting at the time. This isn’t about just a foreign language but how the speakers are behaving and where.

But talking about many languages in your office is just a red herring. You KNOW the foreign speakers. No one KNEW the two men on that plane.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Well, there is something certainly odd about these two characters. It would appear that their trip to Malagar was a £300 day trip....a "recce" for a forthcoming holiday. They claim they had just finished exams and were stressed out, and wanted to check out this holiday destination.

As far as I am aware, Universities and Colleges finished exam sittings at least 6 weeks ago....so what were these two really up to? And what students can these days aford 300 quid for a day trip, with at most a few hours on location?

Anyway, read further in this bit from the The Guardian. This "newspaper" is, of course, the biggest apologist for terrorist attrocities in the UK, so if its coming from them, then summat was definatly up...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/...857082,00.html

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

£300 to malaga return, that must be on a private jet lol i have never paid more than £104 and go out 2/3 times a year, just booked for jan 07 this week £53 return. goin out in approx 5 weeks £98, not very bright students. must say though i always wear a big coat/jacket on return journey, wonder if they will throw me off.;)

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Since when did students give a monkeys about money. A piece of paper saying that you are clever dosnt mean you are. :p

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

One other point...we've seen these two jokers interviewed on TV. Have we seen any of the frightened passengers interviewed on TV? The flight crew? I think not. Where is their side of the story? Its all very reminisent of Northern Ireland in the 70's & 80's, is it not? People just to afraid to speak out.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Excellent news.

I can speak in tongues and look odd.

You only get a measley ten quid per day if they lose your luggage, so this is definetely woth a go.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Another devil's advocate bit coming up here -

What if these two men were perfectly safe and were not a threat but the aim was to deliberately get thrown off the plane? They may get compensation, they may get the politically correct brigade saying that they were treated wrongly, etc. However, the next time that two men get on a plane and behave suspiciously the pilot may have less conviction to throw them off - the next time they may be carrying a bomb. In other words, they might be deliberately crying wolf.

As it happens I don't believe that for a moment, I think mass hysteria and paranoia sunk in and the pilot responded badly. He should have sent them through more security checks and got the police to conduct interviews with them and he should have got the police to reassure the passengers.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Sounds a little bit like the government and police we have installed in Iraq. A government British men and women have, and are, dieing to support as we speak.

An eleven year old child kidnapped and then killed by police for being forced to work as a prostitute.

A very civilised State of affairs we've introduced there.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gayrights/...ticle_continue

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

treat like animals and they will behave like animals regardles of being so called "civillized people" anywere in the world.