Airport Security, Immigration & Border Control

[Aviador]

Related topics can be posted here. Please be reminded that this is a public forum. Do not post things that could hinder airport or airline security.

 

[Aviador]

[textarea]Man arrested and banned from Robin Hood Airport over online bomb ‘joke’

A man was arrested under the Terrorism Act and issued with a lifetime ban from Robin Hood Airport after joking on Twitter that he would blow it ‘sky high’ if his flight was delayed, the Independent reports. Paul Chambers made the comment on January 6 after snowfall threatened to delay his plans to travel to Ireland on January 15. He wrote: ‘Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your sh*t together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!’

But while his friends may have enjoyed the joke, someone alerted the police, who arrived on Mr Chambers' doorstep on January 13. He told the newspaper: ‘My first thought upon hearing it was the police was that perhaps a member of my family had been in an accident. Then they said I was being arrested under the Terrorism Act and produced a piece of paper. It was a print-out of my Twitter page. That was when it dawned on me.’

He was arrested under the Terrorism Act on suspicion of conspiring to create a bomb hoax in my opinion and taken into police custody where he was questioned for 7 hours. He said: ‘I had to explain Twitter to them in its entirety because they'd never heard of it. Then they asked all about my home life, and how work was going, and other personal things. The lead investigator kept asking, 'Do you understand why this is happening?' and saying, 'It is the world we live in'.’

Mr Chambers was eventually released on bail until February 11 pending further enquiries. His Twitter post was deleted and his laptop, iPhone and home computer confiscated. He was also banned from Robin Hood airport for life. He is thought to be the first person in this country to have been arrested for comments on Twitter, although cases have been reported in the United States.

Source[/textarea]

 

[Aviador]

A very clever comment! He wont feel so clever now though will he?

 

[TheLocalYokel]

A bit of comment on this on the Fruit board with a number of posters believing the police over-reacted and should have had a sense of humour.

I don't agree with those posters.

 

[Aviador]

A bit of comment on this on the Fruit board with a number of posters believing the police over-reacted and should have had a sense of humour.

I don't agree with those posters.

I did read it as a joke but in the current world climate where the fear of flying is becoming more prevalent because of the threat to aviation security, I found his joke no better than telling a joke about an earth quake victim after the recent events in Haiti. Had his words been told to has friends in person in a joking manner he would probably have got away with it but writing comments like that onto a public viewable website is distasteful to say the least. I wonder how those people effected by the Glasgow airport bomb attack would have felt had they read his comments.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Is this any different to a numpty telling a check-in agent he has a bomb in his suitcase at an airport? The check-in agent probably thinks it's a loud mouth acting as two-year old but can't be sure so contacts the security authorities and the matter almost always becomes a police one, not infrequently finishing in a court room.

The same principle applies here in my view.

The police couldn't be sure he wasn't, if not a terrorist, an odd ball who was prepared to set off some sort of explosion at the airport with the added 'satisfaction' of telling the world about it first. In those circumstances those who are condemning the police action would be shouting from the rooftops at the police failure to properly investigate when the 'threat' first surfaced on Twitter - hindsight is a near exact science.

 

[News Guru]

[textarea]Twitter Robin Hood Airport bomb ‘threat’ guilty; fined £1000

A man who posted a message on Twitter saying he was going to blow Robin Hood Airport ‘sky high’ has been found guilty of sending a menacing electronic communication. Paul Chambers, 26, claimed he sent the Tweet in a moment of frustration after the airport was closed by snow in January. A district judge ruled the Tweet was ‘of a menacing nature in the context of the times in which we live’. Mr Chambers, a trainee accountant from Balby, Doncaster, who has lost his job as a result of the incident, was fined £385, a £15 victims surcharge and £600 costs.

The Tweet he sent to his 600 followers in the early hours of 6 January said: ‘C---! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your sh-- together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!’ Airport staff were alerted to the message when off-duty manager Shaun Duffield searched for ‘Robin Hood Airport’ using the Twitter search facility a few days after it was posted, the judge heard. Mr Duffield told the court he was looking for a new airport Twitter page. He alerted airport security who graded the threat level of the message as ‘non-credible’ but had to pass it on to police Special Branch. The court heard the Tweet had no operational effect on the airport.

Mr Chambers was arrested at his workplace at a car distribution firm in Sandtoft, near Doncaster, where he was a finance supervisor. The court heard he had now lost his job because of the prosecution. He said he had no idea anyone at Robin Hood Airport would see the Tweet and explained how it never crossed his mind anyone might take it seriously. He told the court: ‘I was disappointed and frustrated that the airport had been closed. I just sent out a message to Twitter. My followers had been following how I was going to fly out to Northern Ireland and knew how much I was looking forward to it.’

He was asked if he understood the airport had to take threats seriously, whatever the context, and replied: ‘I do now. I apologise for whatever consequences have happened but at the time that was not my intention at all. It did not cross my mind that Robin Hood would ever look at Twitter or take it seriously because it was innocuous hyperbole.’

Richard Haigh, defending, told the court the Tweet about the airport had to be seen in the context of the language and styles of the social networking world. He described it as a ‘Fawltyesque’ outburst - referring to the rants of the TV hotelier Basil Fawlty. He said the message could possibly be seen as ‘immature’, ‘tasteless’ or ‘unacceptable’, but not criminal.

But district judge Jonathan Bennett found Chambers guilty of sending a message by means of a public electronic message that was grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character contrary to the Communications Act 2003. He said: ‘I am satisfied the defendant was, at the very least, aware that this was of a menacing nature and I find him guilty of the offence.’

Mr Chambers said after that he did not want to comment but confirmed he was considering an appeal. He told his followers via Twitter: ‘Currently considering an appeal. Half of me just wants it to be over, the other half is indignant.'

Source[/textarea]

 

[News Guru]

[textarea]Twitter bomb ‘threat’ man to appeal

Paul Chambers, the former trainee accountant who was fined £1000 after posting a message on Twitter about blowing up an airport, is to appeal against his conviction. He was found guilty in May of sending a message of a ‘menacing character’ under the Communications Act 2003 after he tweeted in frustration in January at the closure of Robin Hood airport by snow.

He wrote: ‘Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your sh*t together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!’, as he was frustrated that his plans for a flight to Ireland to see a girl he had met online looked like being thwarted.

The appeal, which is likely to be heard next month or August, is being coordinated by Allen Green, a prominent lawyer who writes the Jack of Kent blog, and will be led by Stephen Ferguson, a leading defence barrister who is being paid from a defence and appeal fund started on Twitter for Mr Chambers.

His solicitor in the initial case argued that the tweet was a ‘Basil Fawlty’ outburst – immature, tasteless, unacceptable, but not criminal. The airport itself described the message as ‘not credible’ as a threat, and its operations were not disrupted, but it was obliged to tell South Yorkshire police. They took a different view.

After the initial verdict at a magistrates' court, Chambers admitted that his tweet was ‘silly’ but called the police reaction ‘absurd’, saying his tweet was ‘like having a bad day at work and stating that you could murder your boss’ and that ‘I didn't even think about whether it would be taken seriously.’

He was due to fly over to Belfast to meet a girl he met online (@crazycolours), who he has since begun dating.

Source[/textarea]

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I feel sorry for the Police at times.

They investigate and send the file to the Crown Prosecution Service.

The decision whether or not to prosecute is entirely that of the CPS, who sometimes go against Police wishes.

The CPS has two main criteria in deciding on prosecution: the sufficiency of evidence and the public interest.

In this case the CPS clearly decided that there was sufficient evidence to put before a court and that it was in the public interest to do so.

Just because an idiot puts something stupid on a site like Twitter doesn't mean he is never going to carry out his threats. Had the Police ignored it and a bomb had gone off all those criticising the police 'over-reaction' would have been lining up to hang the constabulary out to dry.

And as I say, the decision is not that of the Police, yet they always seem to get the blame.

 

[Aviador]

Even after reading his comments in the press when the story broke I thought it was a daft hoaks. The problem arises when people think they can just write whatever they want. You have to draw the line somewhere especially when we live in a world where someone could actually carry it through.

 

[News Guru]

[textarea]Councillor's tweet leads to arrest as airport joker loses appeal

A Conservative councillor has been arrested over a Twitter post that called for the stoning of a journalist, while another Twitter user has lost his appeal over a conviction for a message that said he would blow up an airport.

Birmingham councillor Gareth Compton posted a message after hearing journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown claim on the radio that Prime Minister David Cameron did not have the moral authority to chastise the Chinese government about its human rights record because of the torture allegations surrounding the behaviour of the forces which invaded Iraq.

His message said: "can someone please stone Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to death? I shan't tell Amnesty if you don't. It would be a blessing, really".

Compton was arrested for an offence under the Communications Act, according to news service the Press Association. The arrest reportedly was for breach of the section of the law which says that it is an improper use of a public electronic communications network for someone to send "by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character".

Compton, a barrister, has been suspended from the Conservative Party.

Paul Chambers has lost an appeal against a conviction handed down earlier this year for a joke he made on Twitter in frustration at the closing of an airport he was due to fly out of because of snow.

"Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your sh*t together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!" said the message.

The men in both cases claimed that their messages were jokes.

The judge in Chambers' appeal said that he should have been aware that his message would be taken seriously in the context of increased fears about airplane attacks in recent years.

"Anyone in this country in the present climate of terrorist threats, especially at airports, could not be unaware of the possible consequences," said the judge, according to The Guardian newspaper.

The judge said the message was "menacing in its content and obviously so. It could not be more clear. Any ordinary person reading this would see it in that way and be alarmed".

Chambers' case has become a rallying point for protesters who think that laws are being misused in a way that infringes on people's rights to free speech. Chambers's supporters have included Stephen Fry, who previously said he would pay his fine.

The message was spotted by an off-duty member of airport staff and was reportedly not treated as a serious threat to the airport by security staff at the time. But the court has ruled that it was menacing.

Source[/textarea]

 

[pilot_737]

What a joke! Why not do a criminal check and investigate this fella and see if he does pose any threat.
We are talking about a criminal conviction here, all for typing something on a social website! It was intended as a joke, why can't this judge use his bloomin common sense!

 

[Aviador]

I disagree folks sorry. This poem sums up how I feel about it.

[textarea]Matilda,
Who told Lies, and was Burned to Death.

Matilda told such Dreadful Lies,
It made on Gasp and Stretch one's Eyes;
Her Aunt, who, from her Earliest Youth,
Had kept a Strict Regard for Truth,
Attempted to Believe Matilda:
The effort very nearly killed her,
And would have done so, had not Show
Discovered this Infirmity.
For once, towards the Close of Day,
Matilda, growing tired of play,
and finding she was left alone,
Went tiptoe to the Telephone
And summoned the Immediate Aid
Of London's Noble Fire-Brigade.
Within and hour the Gallant Band
Were pouring in on every hand,
From Putney, Hackney Downs, and Bow
With Courage high and Hearts a-glow
They galloped, roaring through the Town,

"Matilda's House is Burning Down!"
Inspired by British Cheers and Loud
Proceeding from the Frenzied Crowd,
They ran their ladder through a score
of windows on the Ball Room Floor;
And took peculiar Pains to Souse
The Pictures up and down the House,
Until Matilda's Aunt succeeded
In showing them they were not needed;
And even then she had to pay
To get the Men to go away!
. . . . . .
It happened that a few weeks later
Her Aunt was off to the Theatre
To see and Interesting Play
The Second Mrs. Tanqueray.

She had refused to take her Niece
To heat this Entertaining Piece:
A Deprivation Just and Wise
To Punish her for Telling Lies.
That Night a Fire did break out--
You should have heard Matilda Shout!
You should have heard her Scream and Brawl,
And throw the window up and call
To People passing in the Street--
(The rapidly increasing Heat
Encouraging her to obtain
Their confidence)--but all in vain!
For every time She shouted "Fire!"
They only answered "Little Liar!"
And therefore when her Aunt returned,
Matilda, and the House, were Burned. [/textarea]

 

[muddycoffee]

Without wishing to compromise UK airport security, Does anyone know any details of the power and wavelength of the new Xray systems which are coming into use in the airport industry. Sometimes nicknamed "naked body scanners" these new pieces of equipment can see through clothing so that it is possible to detect hidden weapons or bombs.
I come to this after hearing an american anti-establishment radio presenter going bananas about this, but also I am an engineer who often works on x-ray equipment in the NHS.
Radiologists are very cautious when operating x-ray equipment, they are generally trained to degree level and stand behind x-ray shields or wear lead lined protective aprons which shield the soft tissues of their own bodies. Because continuous doses of this radiation causes cancer.
If these "naked body scanners" deliver large doses of x-ray radiation to give clear pictures then regular travellers ought to be aware of the danger to their health. Are the airport security officers trained to appreciate these dangers ?

 

[News Guru]

[textarea]Thousands retweet Robin Hood Airport bomb threat

Thousands of people from around the UK have been retweeting a message threatening to blow up Robin Hood Airport in support of Paul Chambers who lost his appeal on Thursday against his conviction for sending the original tweet, CNN reports. The online campaign to support him has been one of the most popular subjects or trends on Twitter since his appeal was dismissed.

Mr Chambers, 27, originally from Doncaster but now living in Belfast, had originally sent the following tweet on January 6: ‘Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your sh*t together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high.’ He had been planning to go to Belfast to meet a woman he had met through Twitter (which obviously went well).

The case highlight the arguments for and against the limits of free speech on the internet. Mr
Chambers' supporters include the actor, comedian and prolific tweeter Stephen Fry, who while not retweeting the original message, has offered to pay his court fines.

Fry's sentiments are shared by the thousands of tweeters using the #IamSpartacus hashtag (if you have seen the film, you will understand), who have been retweeting the original message and variations on its theme. One tweeter, calling himself DrSamuelJohnson tweeted: ‘Ordure! Robin Hood's Port is clos'd! Seven Days hence I shall run you through with a PIKESTAFF!’ Another named yonmei wrote: ‘Crap! Conservative Party HQ is closed. You've got a week to get a haircut, otherwise I'm blowing my garden shed sky high.’

Source[/textarea]

 

[Aviador]

Without wishing to compromise UK airport security, Does anyone know any details of the power and wavelength of the new Xray systems which are coming into use in the airport industry. Sometimes nicknamed "naked body scanners" these new pieces of equipment can see through clothing so that it is possible to detect hidden weapons or bombs.
I come to this after hearing an american anti-establishment radio presenter going bananas about this, but also I am an engineer who often works on x-ray equipment in the NHS.
Radiologists are very cautious when operating x-ray equipment, they are generally trained to degree level and stand behind x-ray shields or wear lead lined protective aprons which shield the soft tissues of their own bodies. Because continuous doses of this radiation causes cancer.
If these "naked body scanners" deliver large doses of x-ray radiation to give clear pictures then regular travellers ought to be aware of the danger to their health. Are the airport security officers trained to appreciate these dangers ?

The new type scanners use what is known as backscatter x-ray and gamma ray which are generally regarded as harmless. The amount of radiation produced in general everyday life far exceeds the radiation produced by both backscatter x-rays and gamma rays.

Gamma rays image.

Back scatter x-ray image

 

[muddycoffee]

Thanks for that Aviador, I will use that info to ask further questions when I am next with some radiologists.

 

[Aviador]

The chap that tweeted he would "blow Robin Hood airport sky high" has been let off at the high court today. Many people would argue that it was said in a joking manor but this does raise the question at what point does freedom of speech go too far? Unfortunately we live in a world where many people would actually carry through such atrocities.

 

[lysander]

It was a stupid thing to do but wouldn't a simple check on the bloke have revealed that he was scarcely a threat to anyone's security...excepting his own. Methinks this was as much about 'teaching a lesson' as about justice

 

[TheLocalYokel]

It was a stupid thing to do but wouldn't a simple check on the bloke have revealed that he was scarcely a threat to anyone's security...excepting his own. Methinks this was as much about 'teaching a lesson' as about justice

The same could be said about the idiots who think it funny at check-in to say they have a bomb in their suitcase. Airlines rightly give these people short shrift and there have been successful prosecutions.

How can anyone be sure that anyone else is not a threat without a thorough check which can eat up a lot of time and effort?

Having been appraised of the incident the police would have done more than a 'simple check' to try to ensure the man was neither a potential terrorist nor a nutter who might in fact try to do something stupid at the airport.

Had they done nothing or very little to follow it up and a serious incident had occurred the criticism from the media and public would have been overwhelming.

For the avoidance of doubt it is the Crown Prosecution Service, not the police, who decide on prosecution. The CPS has two tests:

1. Sufficiency of the evidence.

2. Public interest.

In this case the CPS clearly decided there was sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction and that prosecution was in the public interest.

They were vindicated in the sense that the magistrates convicted and a crown court judge agreed when he dismissed the defendant's first appeal.

The High Court's decision to ultimately allow the appeal was based on the context of the remark.

The Judges said: "If the person or persons who receive or read it, (the message) or may reasonably be expected to receive, or read it, would brush it aside as a silly joke, or a joke in bad taste, or empty bombastic or ridiculous banter, then it would be a contradiction in terms to describe it as a message of a menacing character."

It seems that the tweet was not noticed by 'authority' until five days after it was posted when it was spotted by an airport manager.

The crown court judge who dismissed the first appeal found the tweet to be 'clearly menacing' and that airport staff were sufficiently concerned to report it.

The High Court judges took a contrary view.

I've read of no High Court criticism of the decision to prosecute and a message which is intended to, and does in fact, create fear or apprehension in those who read it will still be regarded as criminal.

I hope the publicity surrounding this case will act as a deterrent to anyone else thinking of publishing similar foolish utterances in the public domain. The police and security service have enough to do combatting terrorism without having to waste time on people acting as idiots.