« French Health Care | Main | The Decline of Science »
August 17, 2006
Sue the Bastards!
I, for one, would welcome such a suit:
The legal action being considered focuses on Section 93 of the Transport Act 2000, under which the Government can be liable to pay compensation for losses resulting from its emergency directions. Ryanair made the strongest threats against the Government yesterday but British Airways and easyJet also said that they were con-sidering legal action.
Sue the Government for the 300 million these new security rules have cost the airlines. Ooooh, yes Missus. Not just for the reason that government, just like everyone else, should be responsible for the consequences of their actions. Rather, all sorts of things come out in court cases. We might actually find out who knew what, when, and whether there really was an imminent or immediate threat: whether the restrictions were in fact justified or are part of Reid’s plan to scare the bejazus out of us all so that he can get 90 detention through Parliament.
Plus whichever of our freedoms and liberties he judges unnecessary this week.
August 17, 2006 in Your Tax Money at Work | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d3e53ef00d834de61ec69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sue the Bastards!:
Comments
Given O'Leary's latest nonsensical outburst, you may want to reconsider the advisability of anything he suggests:
""Surely common sense would suggest that if the safety and security of British citizens is under threat, why has the government not banned luggage, liquids and gels on the London Underground or on the Eurotunnel?" he said."
Yes, Mr O'Leary, because we all remember that in the 7/7 terrorist attacks on the Tube, the explosions pierced the trains' outer hulls and sent them tumbling 30,000 feet to the ground in flames....
Perhaps, given his woeful lack of knowledge of the business he's in (to the point that he can't see some of the vital differences between Tube trains & the big metal birds outside his window), the shareholders of RyanAir might want to bear in mind his position at the next shareholders meeting, instead of pouring more money down the train in an unsuccessful attept to sue.
Posted by: JuliaM | Aug 17, 2006 11:02:03 AM
I've been thinking along similar lines, but unfortunately Easyjet won't have anything to do with such a lawsuit and BA is lukewarm to say the least. Virgin are slightly more interested but Richard Branson wants to play the role of mediator from what I've been hearing.
I can't help thinking that the Government will easily stop this getting anywhere near a court just by screaming "security" ad nauseum, but I do hope I'm wrong. on that.
Posted by: Davide Simonetti | Aug 17, 2006 11:10:55 AM
What does plummeted to the ground have to do with it? People are still being killed. Just because it is more dramatic, why is it worse? Why is it alright for terrorists to bomb trains and buildings, but not alright to bomb aircraft?
Posted by: Josh | Aug 17, 2006 12:58:38 PM
Josh,
He is trying to get the security measures relaxed because he is losing business, and he is doing this by claiming parity between the threat to aircraft and the threat to ground based methods of transport, and saying that his method of transport is somehow being penalised.
They are not the same, and he should not be allowed to get away with saying that they are.
Posted by: JuliaM | Aug 17, 2006 1:21:10 PM
Why not? We should terrorists be allowed to carry liquid explosives to blow up people on trains, but not on trains?
Posted by: Josh | Aug 17, 2006 3:44:07 PM
"Yes, Mr O'Leary, because we all remember that in the 7/7 terrorist attacks on the Tube, the explosions pierced the trains' outer hulls and sent them tumbling 30,000 feet to the ground in flames...."
If I'm sitting next to a guy with a case full of explosives, it's not going to make a heap of difference whether I fall 30,000 ft or not.
So, whilst a plane is not a train, they are the same from a terror point of view.
Posted by: Tim Almond | Aug 17, 2006 4:27:50 PM
"Why not? We should terrorists be allowed to carry liquid explosives to blow up people on trains, but not on trains?"
No, and I didn't say that. If you wish to disagree with an opinion I expressed, please make sure it is one I actually expressed, not one you made up....
"If I'm sitting next to a guy with a case full of explosives, it's not going to make a heap of difference whether I fall 30,000 ft or not.
So, whilst a plane is not a train, they are the same from a terror point of view."
It's not going to make a difference to you, on this hypothetical train, but the guy five carriages away will likely be ok.
So, a train & a plane are not the same mode of transport - one is subject to far more risk in an explosion than the other.
Mr O'Leary is therefore arguing from what he must realise is a nonsensical position.
Posted by: JuliaM | Aug 17, 2006 5:07:18 PM
The BBC news on Thursday night does provide prima facie grounds for concern about potential bomb threats:
"Police probing an alleged plot to bring down an airline have found a suitcase containing items which could be used to construct a bomb, the BBC has learned. Officers have been searching a piece of land called King's Wood in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5261086.stm
But besides that, there is plenty of previous linking Jihadists to terrorist outrages on planes, trains and jewish targets in Europe. Apart from the Madrid train bombings in March 2004, there was also this in France in 1995:
"In 1995, the GIA Islamist militant group staged a series of attacks against the French public, targeting public transportation. These attacks killed 8 and injured more than 100. Apparently, the attacks were designed to be a broadening of the civil war in Algeria, a former French colony.
"On July 25, 1995, a gas bottle exploded in the Saint-Michel - Notre-Dame station of line B of the RER (Paris regional train network). 8 were killed and 80 wounded.
"On August 17, a bomb at the Arc de Triomphe wounded 17 people. On August 26, a huge bomb was found on the railroad tracks of a high-speed rail line near Lyon. On September 3, a bomb malfunctioned in a square in Paris, wounding 4. On September 7, a car bomb at a Jewish school in Lyon wounded 14. . . "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_bombings_in_France
Posted by: Bob B | Aug 17, 2006 9:34:13 PM
"So, whilst a plane is not a train, they are the same from a terror point of view."
Are you calling for the introduction of baggage scanning on domestic trains and tubes, or its scrapping on flights?
Posted by: Matthew | Aug 17, 2006 10:02:57 PM
"Are you calling for the introduction of baggage scanning on domestic trains and tubes, or its scrapping on flights?"
Good lord, another one with reading comprehension difficulties....
No, and no.
I'm pointing out that Mr O'Leary's pleading for the relaxation of the restrictions on the grounds that other, different, forms of transport are not subjected to them (so that his planes can take off and he can make more money) is ludicrous; for the specific reason that planes are at greater risk of complete destruction by a small explosive charge than those other forms of transport. I can't really make it any clearer, but I've added some formatting that may help.
I didn't see the point in claiming that the corollary to his demands (that we subject trains & LUL to the same restrictions) would be unworkable, because it's fairly self evident....
Posted by: JuliaM | Aug 18, 2006 6:56:58 AM
O'Leary increased all baggage charges to 7 quid and lowered the permitted weight to 15kg. He now charges for every bag twice, on outbound as well as inbound flights. He will profit from this as well as the lawsuit if he gets anywhere with it. As a result his customer will now pay him twice. I hope all respectable airlines will give O'Leary and his least favourite airline a wide berth if they are sane.
Posted by: Martin Hadek | Sep 20, 2006 6:18:49 PM
