Airport Security, Immigration & Border Control

[lysander]

The man , as I understand things, had made a threat ( false as it turns out) to the airport. Quite rightly, the airport authorities took the matter seriously and I am not criticising them at all. Presumably, the police investigated and must have realised the man had acted foolishly and out of anger They then, presumably, after consultation with the C P S chose to bring the case to Court. All I am saying is that a check on his background might have revealed that he wasn't a serious threat and he could have been dealt with accordingly and saved £000's in Court costs....My point is that an example was made which, in the end, after appeal, made the authorities look a little silly. They might be less keen to deal with something similar in the future when the culprit has more serious intentions and with dire results.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Fair enough.

I don't consider the CPS or the police have been made to look silly but I accept entirely that other people may hold a different view.

To confirm, it is the CPS, not the police, who decide to charge or not to charge. The police investigate and forward a file to the CPS. Sometimes the CPS requires further enquiries and at other times doesn't always give any weight to the police view.

Down the years there have been many cases that found their way into the press (no doubt leaked) where the CPS and police views of prosecuting (or not prosecuting) have been at odds.

You might gather from this that I have some experience in this field, though I've been retired for a few years.

I have no sympathy whatsoever with the man. His tweet was something that might be expected of an immature adolescent and he would have wasted police time looking into his 'threat' even if the matter had not finished in court.

 

[lysander]

I actually do know that, strictly speaking it's the CPS who make the recommendation to prosecute and I also know something of the process. I also know that human input and opinions also count in making a decision to prosecute. I hasten to add that I also have some experience in this field...and have my opinion as to why this case was prosecuted...so let's leave it by agreeing to differ!

 

[TheLocalYokel]

so let's leave it by agreeing to differ!

Agreed. That's what Forums4Airports is all about - contributors having differing opinions about subjects and being able to debate them courteously.

A belated welcome from me to F4A by the way.

 

[Aviador]

I have absolutely no idea how the CPS or the Police force works but I believe a common sense approach is needed, but common sense on who's behalf, the defendant or the prosecution?

An adult saying they will "blow Robin Hood airport sky high" clearly has no common sense in my view and if he was the witty and clever man he professes to be, he could have said something that was actually funny. On the otherhand we could argue the case shouldn't have got this far.

I know at most airports there are signs saying bomb hoaxes and things said in jest will be taken seriously and quite rightly so in my opinion. How would people here feel if similar was said about the airport you were due to fly from, especially if you are a nervous flyer?

In this day and age when so many people use the internet and social networking media, this has to be taken into consideration. Just because he wasn't in the airport at the time he said he wanted to "blow Robin Hood airport sky high", doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken seriously.

Was it the right outcome? Who knows. I assume because his case has been quashed he will get any fines back that he has paid? In my view the fines should stand so he understands the severity of what he said. This kind of so called 'humour' isn't and shouldn't ever be acceptable just because it's on the internet.

Needless to say, Forums4airports is part of global social networking, had something similar being said on here the comment would at the very least have been swiftly removed and a warning sent out to the individual about their conduct.

 

[News Guru]

[textarea]Robin Hood Airport explosive failings 'risked safety'

The UK Border Agency (UKBA) has been criticised for safety failings which could have caused an explosion at Robin Hood Airport.

UKBA staff unsafely unloaded and examined explosives at the airport despite being warned not to, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) said.

The HSE said if the ammunition had been dropped it may have detonated.

UKBA has accepted a Crown Censure, the equivalent of a prosecution of a government body, from the HSE.

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote

Members of the public, airport workers and nearby aircraft were all put at risk on that day”

HSE spokesman
The HSE said 10 people were present and other aircraft nearby when the incident happened at the airport near Doncaster, South Yorkshire, in November 2009.

'Significant risk'
A flight carrying anti-tank ammunition had landed at the airport and UKBA workers were told by their manager to carry out checks on the load.

The aircraft pilot warned UKBA staff the crates of ammunition were explosive and should not be examined, the HSE said.

Full Story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-so ... e-20788239[/textarea]

 

[stars&sids]

Amazing… - not the fact that Ukba seems to employ such idiots, but the fact that it took 3 years to investigate and report. Can't we do ANYTHING quickly in good old GB ?