Tiger Air has been blacklisted
by a significant amount of the public for an unspecified period of time, over its actions.
We can but hope
If you plan to fly in Australia, at least try to act as if you take the threat of terrorism seriously, or you might get hauled off the plane, handed over to the cops, and banned from an airline. It's with some incredulity that The Register reports that one Oliver Buckworth, who doodled that “In a land of melting ice-cream, …
"Was he presenting his images/thoughts to fellow passengers like some kind of infomercial?"
The linked article states that another passenger was reading his notebook over his shoulder, and made a complaint to the flight attendants. Presumably the accuser felt that the victim was being disruptive because he was talking up valuable leg/elbow room.
Couple of points:
What kind of petty minded think of the children nanny statist arsehole makes such a complaint in the first place?
What kind of an airline actually does this rather than tell the aforementioned tool to STFU and sit down?
Being blacklisted by Tiger is a form of salvation not punishment - in a land of poor customer service there are few that can surpass the inadequacies of Tiger airlines.
I hadn't a clue that the Australian authorities had jumped on the 'terrorism' bandwagon to control their citizens. I thought it was a land of sunshine, sandy beaches, sheilas, Castlemaine XXXX, cool surfers, koalas, kangaroos, crocodiles and venomous spiders. I was obviously wrong...this terrorism business is obviously too good an opportunity to be true, so nobody's safe from their government's threat of terror, wherever they live, even in supposed paradises like Australia.
I wonder, do the Taliban & co. use a 'terrorist threat' to keep their subjects under control? Or perhaps they just use more direct means of enforcement....
Bandwagon firmly jumped on, with no recorded terrorist attack on Australian soil, that nice Mr Abbot has informed us that we'll just have to give up 'some' of our freedoms in order to shift the 'delicate balance' more towards security, for a time. What was it someone said about deserving neither?
Fuckers. But that's just an opinion, which will soon become a criminal offence in the name of protecting us from the terry wrists
Presumably he will be able to take legal action against these idiots - or are the dice so very heavily loaded against law abiding citizens?
The idiots who draft the laws that permit businesses to act ever more stupidly would do well to remember that government is by consent - even in the most draconian dictatorships. Once the people have had enough there is nothing that can be done to stop them getting their way and the revolution will come.
TERROR<IS>MADEUP would look good on a T Shirt though.
"TERROR<IS>MADEUP would look good on a T Shirt though."
So would an image of sticks of dynamite, but if you can be arrested for having a picture of Optimus Prime, then a picture of a suicide jacket might not go down too well.
Perhaps a protest where the uniform is a t-shirt like that plus a guy-fawkes mask by the general public might get some attention to all this over-reaction - but I doubt enough people care.
I always thought the IRA were making a strategic mistake in targeting civilians with their bombing campaign. If they had targeted power lines instead there would have been just as much impact over time, and they might have gained a lot more sympathy for their cause too.
You are correct, and in fact the IRA rarely targeted civilians. And please people, pay attention to the wording here before downvoting: *Targeted*. Civilians could and did get caught up, but they were not the targets per se. The IRA "spectaculars" series of attacks were in fact intended to be exactly what you suggest: strategic attention seeking bombings demonstrating ability and expensive disruptions, but civilian death was not the strategy (unlike for example, bombings of crowded markets in Iraq, which shows the horrors that might have been in the UK).
Taken to the conclusion: if you intend on waging a campaign of violence from within a country, do it without bloodshed but at high financial cost to your opponent.
You are correct, and in fact the IRA rarely targeted civilians.
Do remind me to tell that to all the families and surviviors of the IRA bombing of the pubs/clubs (the Hole in the wall club comes to mind) in birmingham, I feel sure they would have no problem in agreeing with you
Please sense the obvious sarcasm in that, placing a bomb in a pub/club/school/hospital like many IRA bombs were placed is about one thing & one thing only, trying to kill innocent people/civilians.
Yes sometimes the IRA did place a phonecall and warn people, but many times they did not & sometimes the phonecalls were either not taken seriously (in a case of 'cried wolf' type of scenario) or the phone system at the time couldnt place the call.
Dont rewrite history & remove all the deaths the IRA senselessy caused in their campaign of bombing on the UK mainland! But be proud that throughout it all the British response was to ignore the cowards for what they are/were > spineless gits.
"But be proud that throughout it all the British response was to ignore the cowards for what they are/were > spineless gits."
Proud to be British: Bloody Sunday.
I don't agree with a lot of what the IRA did, but I don't think the actions of our armed representatives on that particular day is anything to be proud of, do you?
Bloody Sunday was not a response to the IRA bombings on the UK mainland, it was a response to a specific protest march & since you brought it up I have to ask, what do you expect soliders to do when they feel threatened?? Stand there & die?
We shouldnt have used soldiers as a police force no, but then neither should the residents of NI made it untenable for us to use anything else by their violent actions
they might have felt threatened but:
"The firing by soldiers of 1 PARA on Bloody Sunday caused the deaths of 13 people and injury to a similar number, none of whom was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury,"
"The overall assessment". Report of the The Bloody Sunday Inquiry. 15 June 2010. Retrieved 15 June 2010
Soliders know only one way to respond when threated, its how they are trained to respond ie to bring lethal force against the threat. Especially at the time when it happened as well soliders were expected to essentially shoot first & ask questions later if anyone survived. Blaming them when in reality it is the fault of succssive politicians on all sides to deal with the situation is just scape-goating soliders who did as they were told
And I noticed that you have quielty ignored the rather important fact that its the violent behaviour of NI citizens which lead to the armed forces been used a police force, instead of having a civilian police force.
And this lil side track into Bloody Sunday which has nothing to do with rewriting history to say the IRA was not targetting civilians (which lest anyone forget was already happening by the time of Bloody Sunday) in their bombing campaign while interesting is waaaaaaaaaaay off the point
History Lessons for all I think!
And I noticed that you have quielty ignored the rather important fact that its the violent behaviour of NI citizens which lead to the armed forces been used a police force, instead of having a civilian police force.And what you seem to have forgotten is that initially the army were sent in because of the violence by the unionist side. The "civilian" police force were seen as part of the problem, not the solution. (Remember the B specials?)
"Proud to be British: Bloody Sunday.
I don't agree with a lot of what the IRA did, but I don't think the actions of our armed representatives on that particular day is anything to be proud of, do you?
1 thumb up & 8 thumbs down " <- as of 15:20
Well, it looks like there are at least 8 people who are proud that we (The British) shot civilians.
From the wiki:
"British paratroopers "lost control", fatally shooting fleeing civilians and those who tried to aid the civilians who had been shot by the British soldiers. The report stated that British soldiers had concocted lies in their attempt to hide their acts. Saville stated that the civilians had not been warned by the British soldiers that they intended to shoot. The report states, contrary to the previously established belief, that none of the soldiers fired in response to attacks by petrol bombers or stone throwers, and that the civilians were not posing any threat"
Remember the events at Kent State University where they called out the state troopers to shoot unarmed students with NO history of bombs and shootings? Both marches may have originally been 'peaceful' events but one was in support of a far from peaceful group. At least there was 'history' in Northern Ireland.
>And I noticed that you have quielty ignored the rather important fact that its the violent behaviour of NI citizens which lead to the armed forces been used a police force, instead of having a civilian police force.
As a point of fact, the army were called in to protect the Catholic minority from Protestant mobs. They quickly 'went native', siding with the RUC.
To defend an organization that like to kill people (think Jean McConville), merely on hearsay then someone who self identifies as,
'I work in a complex field, and there are things I can do without much thought that others have a struggle to do at all (I have severe ADHD-combined).'
should be able to resist a knee jerk reaction to a complex situation. But remember that for 10 kids their mother never came home, because of hearsay and no evidence. Also please remember if you don't want to be British then leave, if the relationship causes you that much pain then end the relationship.
>> But be proud that throughout it all the British response was to ignore the cowards for what they are/were > spineless gits.
And now, possibly to return the balance to the mean, we have gone in the absolutely opposite direction. Peaceful, normal day to day activities get the "OMFG T3rr0ist!!!!!!!" treatment.
*Targeted*. Civilians could and did get caught up, but they were not the targets per se
Really? I must have missed that bit. Civilians were frequently an aspect of the target. Birmingham Pub bombings, Kings Cross and Euston Station bombings, Harrod bombings, The bombings/assassinations of individuals such as Ian Gow MP, Ross McWhirter and others.
if "civilian death was not the strategy" why bomb civilian targets such as shopping centres, hotels and crowded streets?
You seem to be confusing "Target", "Goal" and "Strategy". Their goal was to get their own way, their strategy was terror and they sure as hell did target civilians. I can't disagree with the last comment, but then the best way to fight any war is to make it so damn expensive for the enemy to continue, but frankly the rest of your stuff smacks of revisionist historian and consequently sucks so much that it blows.
If the purpose of the attacks was to kill civilians, then one doesn't give warnings, and we see this at present in bombings in Iraq and Nigeria. According to CAIN, the Provisional IRA was responsible for the deaths of 1,823 people between 1968 - 2001, or about 4 per month. The death tolls when civilian casualties are the goal are two to three orders of magnitude higher, peaking at 3,000 PER MONTH to take Iraq as an example.
Stop letting your emotions drive you, try some thinking for a change. None of this is apologist, simply an observation that civilian body count was obviously not the goal of the Provisional IRA.
You are absolutely correct - the IRA could probably had far more effect - the odd power line, railway line and motorway plus threats. Either fortunately or unforttunately they were driven by a group of people who enjoyed seeing direct human suffering and even more so inflicting it. The bastards are still there - unionist and republican.
But we have given up.
The governments of all the countries that use to fight against the Axis Of Evil in WWII have gone and adopted whole sections of the very things that they were telling our fathers to fight against, and we have sat and taken it as the price of our TV programs and the choice in our supermarkets.
We have not stood up for Freedom because we, as a population, are much more interested in Facebook, Twitter and the latest results of our favourite sports club. But as long as we have those, the government can force ID cards and "biometric" passports down our throats and we don't complain because we don't travel all that often.
And we will continue to sit and let our freedoms be eroded because they are less important to us than seeing the latest nude pic of some twit that will be forgotten in three months.
We get the country we deserve.
Your NI number is effectively your National ID card now. The new voter registration system requires that your council sends off your "record" to the DWP where they match it with your NI number. Once that happens, you are registered to vote. If a discrepancy is reported back to your council they then get back in touch with you demanding proof of ID.
In particular, women who have married and changed their surname but for whatever reason have forgotten to inform DWP, eg such as my wife who doesn't work (no "recent P60 or P45), doesn't claim benefits, doesn't drive, doesn't have a passport and isn't named on any of the utility bills will have problems registering to vote.
Out of the entire list of of "acceptable" documents, she couldn't manage to scrape together 3 documents to prove who she is since her birth certificate is currently hiding. Unless it turns up in the next few days she has fill in another form and get a " responsible person" to sign it, eg doctor, nurse, teacher etc.
Terrorism works when the target society ratchets up the State's actions to such an oppressive level that the citizens turn on the State. Once this occurs, it is then that the terrorists step out of the shadows to (hopefully) hijack the Revolution. I first learned of it several (4? 5?) decades ago. It's not even original if you examine the long span of history (millenia).
Congratulations, al Queda, ISIS/ISIL, ..., you've made your point although if you come around here to hijack the revolution we'll be waiting.
I feel like we do not have all of the facts here. He was thrown off the flight for being a disruptive passenger. Writing in a notebook hardly seems like that would count. I have no doubt once the cops got him THEY probably looked at his notebook sure, and probably asked him some hard questions. But as they have released him without charge then they didnt take that stuff seriously (well done the plod for not being stupid!).
BUT we seem to be missing the information as to what he was doing that was disruptive and why he was thrown off the flight. Airlines dont throw people off a plane for writing in a book. More info please El Reg, otherwise it feels like your going for clickbait.
They did state they had zero tolerance for antisocial behaviour and sitting quietly in your allotted chair writing in a notebook instead of merrily romping around guzzling down Fosters (or other alcoholic beverage of your choice) is surely antisocial.
Read the original article, it clearly says this gentleman was sitting writing in his book and a fellow passenger called a flight attendant over to see what he was writing.
I'd like to hear from an independent witness to be sure, but it is totally plausible in a world where you can't get on a plane while wearing t-shirt with a drawing of a gun on the front of it.
From the quoted article:
"Oliver Buckworth, 28, claims he was removed from a Gold Coast-bound flight after a fellow passenger saw the contents of his notebook over his shoulder and informed Tiger staff."
I imagine it was the other passenger who actually caused the 'disruption', but it was his 'fault'.
I suspect there's a little more to it than that. From the linked article:
"Mr Buckworth said a neighbouring passenger told a flight attendant: "Look what he's writing." "I turned to him and said, 'Yes, look what I'm writing. Read the whole sentence. I'm just writing some notes.' "
What's not explained is the tone of that retort - it may have come across as snappy, or angry - or if there was any further exchange (and there almost certainly will have been) between that point, and the point where he was being escorted off the plane, of which the guy explained:
""My concern is what it looked like to the rest of the people on the plane. I did tell them as I was leaving, 'I'm not a criminal. This man simply took something out of context that I was writing in my book. Just so you know and this whole fear thing isn't instilled even further.'"
So, yeah, I think he was probably removed from the flight for what happened and/or was said after the other passenger remarked to the flight attendant about what he was writing - details of which he has chosen not to share - rather than for what he'd written.
> I wonder, do the Taliban & co. use a 'terrorist threat' to keep their subjects under control? Or perhaps they just use more direct means of enforcement....
No doubt they consider the US armed forces to be terrorists, though a bit more organized than most.
Not that they're overly shy of the hands-on approach of keeping folks in line...
Well, up until the drone assassination program was forcibly turned over to the DoD, it was the CIA that were the terrorists. Pretty much everyone that I've known to wear a uniform, which are a lot given my family background and life history, loathes injuring non-combatants. And the same group, myself included, doesn't have a real problem if the Taliban et al. go after us. We loathe them that harm non-combatants as well.
Now, I don't know. I'd have to re-poll family, friends and service members about having that "in-house." It's still the CIA & NSA picking targets, frequently off just meta-data. (Excuse me?!!!)
I lived through the IRA 'campaigns' here in London. I was mere feet away from the van used to deliver primitive mortars on Downing Street. At NO time did I ever see anyone running around screaming and trying to tear their hair from their heads, so no panic, thus no terror. Just a very deep-seated anger at the f***wits who instigated the attacks. Terrorism my ass. It's just a PC label for a bunch of violent malcontents who were never properly spanked as naughty kids.
"but ordering three times as many F-35s (if they ever work)."
There's no real doubt the F35A and C will work (but just not very well and they're vastly overpriced)
It's the F35B which is under a cloud.
The F111B used to be known as the Aardvark because of its nose.
I nominate the F35 (all versions) for the title of "Potbellied Pig" for obvious reasons (although "pregnant whale" might be more appropriate, given its handling characteristics)
Terrorism is probably a very real threat, even Down Under. These morons have made the threat worse.
What Tiger Airlines have done by overreacting to a doodle is to tell the public that they can’t tell the difference between real and imagined terrorist acts. That way, nobody will take real threats seriously since they react the same way as with doodles.
Oh well, who wants to fly Tiger anyway?
is a lazy and stupid excuse used by uncaring morons who don't want to decide whether there is any real reason for concern or whether it's a total waste of time.
The man did nothing to cause them to throw him off besides write comments in a notebook.
There was no threatening behaviour at all. How then is he guilty of ANYTHING?
Terrorism IS made up for the most part. It's how the uneducated, ignorant mind reacts. That is what true terrorists want, an overreaction that makes life more difficult for the enemy without having to lift a finger. Zero tolerance plays right into that fallacy.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019