An Independent Constabulary?

I want to declare upfront that I don’t like British Airways. Like most state protected monopolies they forgot who their customer was and engaged in cartel behaviour for many years with other state protected airlines to screw the customer with high fares and ridiculous conditions to protect their cosy monopoly. Once they kept me in Dublin airport for 3 days because their “condition” on their euro budget ticket called for the return leg to be re-endorsed by a travel agent. On a Sunday I went out to Dublin Airport to the BA desk to have the ticket “re-endorsed.” They told me they couldn’t do it as “travel agent” meant one of their agents not their own ticket counter. So I had to wait until travel agents were open on a Monday, miss my flight on Monday morning and pay extra to eventually go back on a Wednesday because of the silly restrictions they used to put on budget tickets. When competitors like Laker and Virgin started to take their market they fought back illegally with dirty tricks, having to pay compensation to Virgin and the liquidator of Laker Airlines. God knows what they go away with that we never heard about.

But even by their own standards they have taken the biscuit with their treatment of Nigerian passengers in an incident which also calls into question whether we should continue to pay a huge premium in our taxes to maintain an Independent Police Force, a question I have asked before.( http://daithaic.blogspot.com/2008/04/up-up-and-away-with-baa-no-2.html) More than 1,000 Nigerians have backed a call to boycott British Airways unless it apologises to 136 passengers who were ordered off a flight to Lagos after they complained about the forced deportation of a man on board.

A British Airways captain made the extraordinary decision to clear the whole of economy class on an aircraft due to take off from Heathrow in response to concern from travelers that security men were manhandling a man who was pleading not to be removed from the UK. The man, who was thought to be about 30, was being held down in his seat by four or five police officers as the other passengers filed on board, and was crying out in broken English that he was afraid he would die if he were sent back to Nigeria.

The officers took him off the plane, then returned and arrested Ayodeji Omotade, one of the passengers who had complained vociferously about his treatment. When others on board protested noisily about Mr. Omotade's detention, the captain ordered them all off the flight. The only person who eventually flew economy class on flight BA0075 was the unidentified deportee who did not want to go. Mr. Omotade – who pleaded tearfully with officers not to prevent him travelling to Nigeria, where he was due at his brother's wedding – was held in custody for 10 hours, accused of causing an affray, and banned by British Airways from travelling with them again.

Ayodeji Omatade


The police also confiscated all the money he was carrying, which came to £1,600 in notes, plus three £1 coins he had in his pocket, and abandoned him, penniless, in Heathrow airport. He was spotted there by one of his fellow passengers, who was waiting for the next flight to Lagos and loaned him the money to get home.

Mr. Omotade, an IT contractor from Chatham, Kent, who is married with a five-year-old daughter, said: "£1,603 is not a lot of money to some people, but to me it's a lot, and most of it wasn't mine. I told them I had letters written in English to show them why I was carrying the money, but they said they had strong reason to believe it was the proceeds of crime.

"By the time I got to the magistrates' court, the police had already applied for an extra 90 days to investigate. I still don't know whether they are going to charge me, or not charge me. I didn't even get my luggage back until a week later. They flew my luggage to Lagos. I need a public apology that I can get framed and hang in my living room."

The incident, on 27 March 2008, has created outrage among expatriate Nigerians in the UK, who have called on the Lagos government to intervene. A protest letter, signed by more than 1,000 Nigerians, has been sent to the country's President, Umaru Yar'Adua, and senior members of the Nigerian parliament.

It calls for a front-page apology in a national Nigerian daily newspaper to all passengers on flight BA0075, a written apology and appropriate compensation to Mr Omotade, lifting of the life ban which Mr Omotade says has been imposed on him by British Airways, and the dropping of any criminal charges against him. They say the airline has until 30 April to respond.

Nigeria's Favourite Airline?

"Failure on the part of the British Airways to comply with the above demands will result in us calling for worldwide boycott of British Airways by Nigerians," the petition warned. British Airways said: "Police were called to the BA75 service to Lagos on 27 March after a large number of passengers became disruptive. Many were removed. We take any threats against our crew or passengers very seriously and this kind of behaviour will not be tolerated."

Now I have many Nigerian colleagues and friends and I am sure they felt a great deal of solidarity with their compatriot who was being forcibly deported. After all this is a country which deported a terminally ill women to Ghana to die and is deporting a Filipino Man whose wife a nurse was, in the verdict of a Coroner’s Court, was “unlawfully killed” in the same hospital she worked in whilst given birth. Her husband has now lost his right to remain in the UK because the UK unlawfully killed his wife. The spirit of Frank Kafka is alive and well and living in the Home Office in Marsham Street, London.

Now as I said British Airways has an impressive track record in customer abuse but you may ask again why do the Police, who we pay for out of our taxes, see themselves as uncritical attack dogs for the transport industry not doubt using and abusing the many laws applying in airports and to “protect” us from terrorists. So why did they intervene in a civil dispute between BA and its passengers? If you paid £700 to go to Lagos would you expect the in-flight entertainment to be a distressed Nigerian deportee surrounded by 5 heavies? What was the threat to national security which required Ayodeji Omotade to be stripped of his money and possessions and abandoned at Heathrow? I confidently predict if the “case” against Ayodeji Omotade sees the inside of a court room it will be thrown out the same day. The independence of the Police Service and their duty in law to form an “independent mind” is fundamental to the contract they have with society to have the powers of a Constable vested in them. Every Police Officer has to make the following oath before becoming a constable.

“I do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law."

The Police Reform Act 2002

Ayodeji Omotade and his 135 compatriots who were removed by the Police and treated like criminals could well ask where was the “fairness, integrity, diligence, impartiality, upholding of human rights …….and according equal respect……….” on the 27 March 2008 at Heathrow on flight BA0075 to Lagos, Nigeria. Indeed on the latter point of “ ..equal respect..” would the Captain of that flight and the obedient Constabulary have behaved with such uncaring arrogance to 136 white passengers in similar circumstances?

Up, up and away with BAA No. 2?

Cardboard City at Heathrow Teminal 5

Well following on from my Blog of 14th March last;

http://daithaic.blogspot.com/2008/03/up-up-and-away-with-baa.html

Terminal 5 has opened with a bang, but not the one its exclusive user British Airways, expected. In fact passengers at Heathrow's Terminal 5 have been reduced to sleeping in cardboard boxes as British Airways' woes intensified and the papers have carried Third World (or Waterloo subway) scenes of an impromptu cardboard city at Terminal 5 as disgruntled passengers camp out as flight upon flight gets cancelled. The flagship £4.3 billion building began to resemble a shanty town after the cancellation of more than 100 flights at the weekend left thousands of passengers stranded. The image of people huddling for warmth beneath the boxes, as snow and a technical fault with airport operator BAA's luggage system grounded the planes, was the latest embarrassment for both the airport and airline since the opening of Terminal 5.

Even British Airway’s own pilots have decided to kick them when they are down. Jim McAuslan, the general secretary of the pilots' union, BALPA, rounded on British Airways in an open letter.

"Banks, institutional investors and analysts need to wake up to the fact that there is something very wrong right at the heart of this company that is making our once great brand a laughing stock," he wrote.

Individual pilots have also started to voice their disquiet - at times on the public address system to passengers. One is understood to have said he was "ashamed" to work for the airline and another has urged passengers to email Willie Walsh, the chief executive, with their complaints. A BA spokesman defended the airline's chief executive. He said: "Willie Walsh said he will not resign and is determined to resolve the problems associated with the initial move to Terminal 5." A man of steel is our Willie who left Aer Lingus when the possibility of gaining a small fortune in a management buy out evaporated. The former Aer Lingus chief appeared to come from nowhere when he took over at the Irish airline in 2001. He joined the company in 1979 as a cadet pilot and gradually worked his way up through the ranks into flight operations management in the mid-1990s. In 1998, he became chief executive of Futura - the company's chartered airline in Spain - then was named chief finance officer in 2000.

Willie Walsh

Perhaps his claim that "a reasonable man gets nowhere in negotiations" - made in a staff publication when he represented pilots during their row with managers - was a hint of the man to come, as his tough decisions at the top made him few friends.

In 2004, he made it known that he wanted to explore the possibility of a management buy-out. Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern attacked him from the floor of the Dail, the Irish parliament, for trying to cash in on the airline. He left the airline in January 2005, four months ahead of schedule, amid reports that he was in talks about setting up a rival airline.

In fact British Airways has been so bad that they have succeeded in generating sympathy for Supermodel Naomi “Anger Management” Campbell who was led off one of their planes by Police called by BA staff after she paid £6,000 for a First Class fare to Los Angeles and BA lost one of her bags which contained an outfit for a memorial service she was attending. Naomi, with the BA Lottery, you pays your money and takes your chances - surely you didn't believe the publicity on their website about the "First Experience" giving you "Effortless Travel" and "Choice and Control" not to mention the clincher "A queue-less, personalised and stress free environment to check in your baggage."? What did you expect from British Airways for a mere six thousand pounds? Respect? Efficiency? Your baggage back? Keeping their promises to you? Oh Naomi, to think you used to be streetwise!! Heathrow Terminal 5 to Heathrow Central Police Station in only 10 hours!!

The Stress Free First Experience


It is notable that as Customer Service has deteriorated in the Transport industry fashionable posters have appeared saying something to the effect “Our Staff will not be abused” and threatening dire sanctions and Police action to those in Cattle (and First) Class who make outrageous demands to be treated with respect and civility on the unreasonable grounds that they have paid for a ticket. As Airport Operators and Airlines routinely abuse passengers, flaunt the Disability Discrimination Act and ignore EU Law No. 261 on the rights of airline passengers the Police (Security is paramount in the current climate!) seem entirely content to become attack dogs for an increasingly abusive and uncaring transport industry. It is for such Independence of Mind that we have a Police Service to apply the Law without fear or favour and 46 highly paid Chief Constables and one Metropolitan Commissioner who, by law, must be unfettered and independent in their operational responsibilities. You may not find this at your local airport Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly, where staff (often Agency badly trained minimum wage types) use the posters and Police to say Foxtrot Oscar to the old, the disabled and those with children.

Independent Constables of the Realm keeping the Queen's Peace and applying the Law without Fear or Favour

These are the rights the UK SHOULD be enforcing at UK airports for people with reduced mobility from the EU’s website:

Around 10% of the EU population is affected by reduced mobility – these are mainly disabled and elderly people, while others are unable to walk long distances as often required in modern airports. Most airlines and airports make genuine efforts to offer the necessary assistance. However, not all of them provide comprehensive assistance, free of charge. These problems are addressed by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006, adopted by the Parliament and the Council on 5 July 2006, which provides for persons with reduced mobility to travel by plane without difficulty. The Regulation’s provisions cover three areas; those covering the first area are entering into force tomorrow.

Equal treatment of persons affected by reduced mobility.
For flights from airports in the EU, the Regulation prohibits the refusal by airlines and tour operators to carry passengers, or to take bookings, on the basis of reduced mobility. Exceptions can be made only for duly justified safety reasons. This should put an end to (generally unintended) instances of discrimination.

Free assistance in all EU airports.
As from 26 July 2008, airports will have to provide a specific set of services for persons with reduced mobility.

Assistance on board.
On flights from EU airports, airlines will be obliged to provide certain services, such as the carrying of wheelchairs or guide dogs, free of charge. These rules will also enter into force on 26 July 2008.

The EU’s Member States, for their part, have to set up enforcement bodies responsible for ensuring that the Regulation is applied on their territory. Any person affected by a disability or by reduced mobility who considers that these rights have not been respected can bring the matter to the attention of the management of the airport or the airline in question. In case of an unsatisfactory response, a complaint can be made to the national enforcement body designated by the Member State.
For further information, go to:

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_portal/passenger_rights/prm/index_en.htm

The link to this site also gives you access to the general rights you have at EU airports when flights are delayed, cancelled or you are denied boarding;

“Denied boarding.
The new regulation will dramatically reduce the frequency of denying boarding against a passenger's will, by a combination of two measures. First, when expecting to turn passengers away, and before doing anything else, airlines will be obliged to call for volunteers to surrender their seats in exchange for advantages; in other words they would try to strike a deal with passengers interested in giving up their seats. Only if insufficient volunteers came forward, would they be allowed to deny passengers boarding against their will. Second, if after all airlines or tour operators do deny passengers boarding, they would have to pay compensation at a dissuasive level:

• € 250 for flights of less than 1500 km
• € 400 for intra-Community flights of more than 1500 km and for other flights 1500 and 3500 km
• € 600 for all other flights.

This will create a strong incentive to make volunteering attractive and a powerful deterrent to deny boarding. In addition to financial compensation, passengers denied boarding will continue to enjoy these rights:

• the choice between reimbursement of their ticket and an alternative flight, and
• meals, refreshments and hotel accommodation.
• Minimise the inconvenience of cancellations.

When airlines or tour operators cancel flights on their own responsibility, passengers will have the right to compensation at the rate fixed for denied boarding, unless:

they are informed two weeks before the scheduled time of departure, or

they are informed on due time and re-routed at a time very close to that of their original flight.

In addition, in case of cancellations, passengers will receive three other rights:

• meals and refreshments, and
• hotel accommodation, when a cancellation obliges a passenger to stay overnight, and
• Reimbursement, when a cancellation delays a passenger for at least five hours.
• Assist passengers facing long delays.

When airlines reasonably expect a long delay, they will be obliged to give passengers:

• meals and refreshments, and
• hotel accommodation, when a delay obliges a passenger to stay overnight, and
• Reimbursement, when a delay delays a passenger for at least five hours.

Your rights are summarised on the poster (see link) which should be displayed at every UK Airport but those who DEMAND RESPECT often hide them around corners and in stairwells;

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_portal/passenger_rights/doc/2008_apr_poster/aff_apr_a4_en.pdf

The European Union provide a Freephone Helpline Number: 00800 678 91011 which is staffed 09.00 to 18.30 CET Weekdays.

By contrast the National Enforcement Body for the UK, the Civil Aviation Authority and its totally toothless passenger watchdog, The Air Transport Users Council, provide nothing because being British, they rely on everybody being good chappies!

Disabled Friendly?

We have seen what has happened in Terminal 5 – Elsewhere Ryanair’s respect for the law extends to NOT having the EU leaflets which should be available from all carriers and giving you a one page summary saying they disagree with the Law therefore they won’t apply it. Try this argument with the Police at a UK Airport the next time you receive the FOXTROT OSCAR treatment from the Oh, so law abiding, Airport Operators and Airlines. And Finally – The EU is prosecuting National Enforcement Authorities, including the CAA in the United Kingdom, for NOT ENFORCING EC LAW ON PASSENGER RIGHTS. Somebody should explain to people who do not pay for their flights, such as the Secretary of State for Transport and the Government’s “Respect Czar” that respect is a TWO WAY PROCESS. Let’s stand up for respect for Disabled People and Passengers in general. Indeed the UK Border Agency (Leadership by example?) could comply with the Disability Discrimination Act at entry points and so could Airport Security checks so I wouldn’t have to witness, as I did at Birmingham’s miserable airport, an elderly passenger tottering taking off a leg brace without even a chair being provided and being ignored by staff and a manager with no disability awareness training.

Perhaps the Constabulary could turn its attention to such illegality and stop helping badly run profit hungry private Airlines and Airports bully and intimidate passengers? Now there is a respectful thought?

A Policeman's Lot?

Shy Andy

If you have the misfortune to be arrested by the police in England you will be read the following statement:

“You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

The implication is clear, that an innocent person wants to proclaim their innocence and speak in their own defence. Indeed under the same Act (Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994) a judge in their charge to a jury may instruct them to draw an unfavourable inference from a defendant’s refusal to testify or their refusal to make a statement to the police.

Consider then the contrast in the case of Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman of Scotland Yard responsible for the Metropolitan Police’s unit in charge of the fight against terror, who has decided to retire immediately as the £180,000-a-year post, thereby avoiding a disciplinary inquiry or other action in relation to a number of matters. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) examined Mr Hayman's conduct after the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell Tube station and later accused the Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner of misleading colleagues and the public. Mr Hayman, who has spearheaded the fight against Islamic extremism since 2005, has also been questioned over allegedly “inflated” expenses claims and trips abroad with Sergeant Heidi Tubby, his staff officer.

His decision to step down is yet another blow for Sir Ian Blair who recruited Mr Hayman after taking over as Metropolitan Police Commissioner in February 2005. Mr Hayman's former colleagues have rallied to his support, claiming he had been the victim of a 'dirty tricks campaign' at Scotland Yard.

This is where the Yardies live - A Male Gang obsessed with guns and "Respect"

Channel 4 News claimed Mr Hayman was in very close contact with the complaints commission official, who worked for the watchdog's communications department. The pair's exchanges came when the commission was drafting its report into how the Met handled the aftermath of the shooting of Mr de Menezes in South London in July 2005. Channel 4 alleged the “communications risked compromising the integrity and authority of the IPCC inquiry”. The female official at the centre of a row which led the Met's anti-terror chief to quit is named today as 36-year-old Nicki Redmond. She received hundreds of calls and texts from Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman while on the staff of the Independent Police Complaints Commission investigating the Stockwell shooting. After leaving the commission, Ms Redmond was at the centre of a probe into alleged "inappropriate contact". Ms Redmond worked for the Independent Police Complaints Commission while it was compiling its damning report into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell Tube station.


Andy Hayman with "friend" Nikki Redmond

The UK's former top anti-terror officer is to be given "advice" after breaking the police code of conduct following the Jean Charles de Menezes shooting. A report said Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman "misled" the public. Now the Independent Police Complaints Commission has ruled he should not face disciplinary proceedings but should be advised about future conduct.

In a statement, the IPCC said: "On 6 November, the MPA recommended that Mr Hayman receive advice because he had broken Code 5 of the Police Code of Conduct that says officers should be conscientious and diligent in the performance of their duties.

"After taking legal advice, the three IPCC Commissioners, who oversaw the investigation, have decided to accept the MPA's recommendation." The IPCC also said it would pursue the MPA's recommendation that it undertake an "in depth" review of the lessons to be learnt from Mr de Menezes's death.

Mr Hayman, a 48-year-old married father of two, has been caught up in two internal investigations this year. The first was sparked after complaints that information about a series of anti-terror raids in Birmingham last February was leaked to the media in advance. Mr Hayman's telephone records for the months before and after the raids were scrutinised and he was cleared of any blame. Investigators did, however, find details of the hundreds of “unexplained” calls between Mr Hayman and the complaints commission official. She has now left the police watchdog and works for the Association of Chief Police Officers.

In a separate inquiry, Yard auditors raised concerns over the £15,000 spent by Mr Hayman on drinks, restaurants, hotels and foreign travel. He strenuously denied the expenses allegations and vowed to clear his name when details of the financial probe emerged last month. Mr Hayman vigorously rejected the claims but, after a reported fiery meeting with Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair decided to take early retirement. He issued a statement saying the “unfounded allegations” had taken their toll. The former Norfolk chief constable will spend the next four months on paid leave before officially retiring in April. By then he will have served 30 years in the police and be entitled to a full pension.

In a statement, Mr Hayman said the time was right to leave the high-profile job after a string of hurtful accusations. “This role requires total commitment in both time and effort and has a considerable impact on your personal life, your family and friends,” he added.


Sgt Heidi Tubby

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said: 'Andy Hayman has been at the forefront of the police's work to protect our country from the terrorist threat. “I am very grateful for his immense contribution to counterterrorism and to British policing.” Mr Hayman was awarded a CBE last year for his outstanding work after the London bombings of July 2005 and for his role in rounding up the failed July 21 gang. He is said to have impressed Tony Blair and leading Government figures with his calm demeanour and factual briefings to the Cobra emergency security committee that month.

Last year he made a humiliating apology to two brothers arrested and later released after a high-profile anti-terror raid on their house in Forest Gate, East London. One of the men was shot during the operation which involved a search for a “chemical device”. No such device was found.

In December last year, Hayman was found to have been in command of an "unlawful" investigation into one of his own colleagues, Ali Dizaei, who was then a Met police superintendent. Hayman was in overall command of an operation that included tapping Dizaei's phones, something the investigatory powers tribunal declared unlawful. The investigation took four years and cost £4m, but ended with Dizaei's acquittal on corruption charges at the Old Bailey. The Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Ian Blair admitting it had caused "considerable damage" to relations between the force and its black officers.


Ali Dizaei

He was instrumental in government attempts to extend the period for which terror suspects can be held without charge to 90 days. MPs were unconvinced by the proposal, and Tony Blair's government suffered its first Commons defeat over the issue in November 2005.

So who is this shrinking violet who is resigning because he finds the “unfounded accusations” hurtful. Well as the former Chief Constable of Norfolk and Head of the Anti-Terrorist squad he probably doesn’t meet the normal profile of a sensitive soul. Mr Hayman joined Essex Police in 1978 where he served as a uniformed officer and in the Criminal Investigation Department (CID). In November 1998 Mr Hayman was appointed Commander in the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and given responsibility for drugs, crime and complaints investigations. In this role he commanded Operation Trident an investigation into drug-related murders in the capital. In September 1999 he was appointed Director of the Anti-Corruption and Complaints Investigation Department, which became the Directorate of Professional Standards, responsible for discipline and anti-corruption.

From April 2001 to December 2002 he was Deputy Assistant Commissioner, retaining responsibility for professional standards and assuming extra responsibilities as deputy to the Deputy Commissioner.

So as a former Chief Constable, Commissioner responsible for discipline and anti-corruption and head of the anti – terrorist squad making life and death decisions (not necessarily a metaphor) why has he suddenly become bashful, sensitive and upset? The assumption of the Law in England is that innocence seeks to proclaim itself and be heard but Andy Hayman has made a decision to resign, to not square up to the allegations made and to not answer them. Is this the behaviour and example expected from a senior police office honoured with a CBE and the Queen’s Police Medal, paid generously over 30 years from the public purse and expected to be held accountable to that same public for his actions.

Indeed is this the same silence which would draw an “unfavourable inference” if you or I were being questioned by Andy Hayman’s erstwhile colleagues or appeared in court on the basis of evidence presented by them?