News0 min ago
She Should Have Been Given A Parachute ...
Then arrested, what a total tool !
https:/
https:/
Answers
Your quite right people do have rights and one of those rights is not to have a drunken woman roaming up and down the aisle demanding more wine and random sex wherever available. Insulting behaviour as well. The airline should have landed at the nearest airport had her offloaded, cancelled her air ticket and told her to make her own way home. They should then...
15:40 Wed 08th Jan 2020
"one of those rights is not to have a drunken woman roaming up and down the aisle demanding more wine and random sex wherever available. "
That seems bizarre to me personally. I don't think they'd be that specific in the humans rights act.
Regarding the manhandling from randomers on the flight.. That strips the lady of her "Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment". It is also punishment without law.
That seems bizarre to me personally. I don't think they'd be that specific in the humans rights act.
Regarding the manhandling from randomers on the flight.. That strips the lady of her "Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment". It is also punishment without law.
I have been on an aircraft where a passenger got so drunk ( on booze they had sneaked on board) and started causing trouble that they had to make an emergency landing at the nearest airport . This was in Iran when it was still a 'closed' state ! But we were given free food, while the aircraft was refueled , then sent on our way ! The drunken passenger was not so lucky, he ended up in an Iranian Jail ! 6 to one cell !!!
Passengers are restrained when they are a threat to themselves, the crew, other passengers or the aircraft. The woman wasn't able to be calmed down so she was restrained which would have involved cuffing her and securing her to the seat. Other passengers offered to help as people can become extremely violent when being restrained. All text book stuff really.
"She was NOT assaulted!"
Read the article carefully.
Attempts were made to calm her down (ie they patronised her)
She shook her fist at someone at the other end of the plane, and then the flight attendants and 6 passengers decide it was time for things to get physical. So they did and it sounds like she won, with all those injuries she managed to inflict whilst being dominated by staff and random passengers.
It just doesn't seem just.
Read the article carefully.
Attempts were made to calm her down (ie they patronised her)
She shook her fist at someone at the other end of the plane, and then the flight attendants and 6 passengers decide it was time for things to get physical. So they did and it sounds like she won, with all those injuries she managed to inflict whilst being dominated by staff and random passengers.
It just doesn't seem just.
//Prosecuting Miss Claire Brocklebank, said: "It appears she was drunk before getting on the flight and she started making a number of inappropriate sexual comments to a number of male passengers on the flight.//
The airline has a duty of care and well being for all passengers.She should not of passed the departure gate if drunk ,as alleged, and refused entry to the aircraft.
There are 200 odd other passengers who have paid for a flight and expect the services of the cabin crew if required. What if a decent passenger had a medical emergency whilst this disgusting moron kicked off. She was a potential danger to all souls on board and the cabin crew would of been within their rights to restrain her with quick cuffs. 6 months is not long enough and she should be blacklisted from all airlines for life. Obviously she is not mature enough to go anywhere un escorted.
The airline has a duty of care and well being for all passengers.She should not of passed the departure gate if drunk ,as alleged, and refused entry to the aircraft.
There are 200 odd other passengers who have paid for a flight and expect the services of the cabin crew if required. What if a decent passenger had a medical emergency whilst this disgusting moron kicked off. She was a potential danger to all souls on board and the cabin crew would of been within their rights to restrain her with quick cuffs. 6 months is not long enough and she should be blacklisted from all airlines for life. Obviously she is not mature enough to go anywhere un escorted.
//Worse case scenario is she died from alcohol poisoning and that still wouldn't reflect onto the airline.//
No? Let's imagine.
--------------------------
The scene: A courtroom somewhere in the High Court. The case for compensation is being brought against EasyAir Ltd by the deceased's family for its failure to ensure the safety of one of its passengers to such a degree that it contributed to her death
M'Learned Friend, (Sir Hartley Redface, QC, for the deceased's family): "So, Ms Stewardess, you were confronted with a passenger who was so intoxicated that she was out of control and was threatening other passengers and the crew?"
Ms Stewardess: "Yes, that's right."
Sir Hartley: "So what did you do to try to calm her down?"
Ms Stewardess: "I gave her another bottle of wine."
Sir Hartley: "Why did you do that?"
Ms Stewardess: "Because it's company policy to serve people more drink when they are drunk and agitated. It's what I was trained to do."
Sir Hartley: "The Court has heard that the passenger subsequently died from alcohol poisoning. Do you think your actions and the Company's policy may have contributed to that?"
Ms Stewardess: Er...er…
Sir Hartley: No more questions, My Lord. I know it's almost half past eleven and we've all had a gruelling morning but if I could call my next witness before we retire for some well earned refreshments.
Lord Justice Cocklecarrot, QC: Oh very well, if you must.
Sir Hartley: I'm extremely grateful for your Lordship's kind indulgence. I call Mr Jason Spiv, the Chief Executive Officer of EasyAir Ltd.
----------------------
People have to behave themselves when on board an aircraft. If they cannot because of fear, anxiety or just general slobbishness, then they shouldn't fly. Your suggestion that they should be served more booze in such circumstances is as incredible as my sketch, above.
No? Let's imagine.
--------------------------
The scene: A courtroom somewhere in the High Court. The case for compensation is being brought against EasyAir Ltd by the deceased's family for its failure to ensure the safety of one of its passengers to such a degree that it contributed to her death
M'Learned Friend, (Sir Hartley Redface, QC, for the deceased's family): "So, Ms Stewardess, you were confronted with a passenger who was so intoxicated that she was out of control and was threatening other passengers and the crew?"
Ms Stewardess: "Yes, that's right."
Sir Hartley: "So what did you do to try to calm her down?"
Ms Stewardess: "I gave her another bottle of wine."
Sir Hartley: "Why did you do that?"
Ms Stewardess: "Because it's company policy to serve people more drink when they are drunk and agitated. It's what I was trained to do."
Sir Hartley: "The Court has heard that the passenger subsequently died from alcohol poisoning. Do you think your actions and the Company's policy may have contributed to that?"
Ms Stewardess: Er...er…
Sir Hartley: No more questions, My Lord. I know it's almost half past eleven and we've all had a gruelling morning but if I could call my next witness before we retire for some well earned refreshments.
Lord Justice Cocklecarrot, QC: Oh very well, if you must.
Sir Hartley: I'm extremely grateful for your Lordship's kind indulgence. I call Mr Jason Spiv, the Chief Executive Officer of EasyAir Ltd.
----------------------
People have to behave themselves when on board an aircraft. If they cannot because of fear, anxiety or just general slobbishness, then they shouldn't fly. Your suggestion that they should be served more booze in such circumstances is as incredible as my sketch, above.
-- answer removed --
NJ, if you read the article, the airline decided not to serve her anymore, but one attendant didn't get this message so they served her more. Maybe this attendant should be bought into question then as it wasn't until after this bottle that things kicked off for the worse.
Evidently the attendant felt she was OK at the time to get her another. A passenger who wasn't even sat too close to her has no right to decide that the airline should stop serving her.
I'm sure he was first to get involved when things got physical, having a cheeky shot here but that's just speculation.
Evidently the attendant felt she was OK at the time to get her another. A passenger who wasn't even sat too close to her has no right to decide that the airline should stop serving her.
I'm sure he was first to get involved when things got physical, having a cheeky shot here but that's just speculation.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.