Different laws in different places

[unbeliever]

He was a drunken yob, I wasnt being serious, he is a over weight fifty something. If the plane is not safe, then they really need to up their game.

He only threatened, he did nothing.

Planes have a different law, perhaps if trains had the same law things would be better, or perhaps we should just have the same law in all places?

Perhaps airline staff should be better trained in dealing with troublesome passengers, instead of being a waiter?

 

---------- Post added 12-08-2016 at 09:45 ----------

 

The Judge said ""I take into account there was no physical violence although the oral threats were bad enough."

 

Or perhaps people should behave.

Threatening people with physical violence is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "nothing".

Many of us would let it go, so such people do not usually end up in prison, but when you threaten hundreds of people at the same time this is what happens.

Also. Drunk or not, people are responsible for their own actions.

No complaints from me.

Edited August 12, 2016 by unbeliever

[Santo]

He was a drunken yob, I wasnt being serious, he is a over weight fifty something. If the plane is not safe, then they really need to up their game.

He only threatened, he did nothing.

Planes have a different law, perhaps if trains had the same law things would be better, or perhaps we should just have the same law in all places?

Perhaps airline staff should be better trained in dealing with troublesome passengers, instead of being a waiter?

 

---------- Post added 12-08-2016 at 09:45 ----------

 

The Judge said ""I take into account there was no physical violence although the oral threats were bad enough."

 

I think you will find next time a plane you are on makes an emergency landing that they are more than waiters.

 

They are trained to deal with troublesome passengers. As well as passengers scared of flying and those that panic in turbulence.

 

I've heard it said that air rage has increased since smoking was banned in planes. Smokers tend to drink more as a result. The air quality is also reduced, believe it or not, because it is recycled less. The airlines saved a fortune in fuel when smoking was banned aboard.

 

He could have smashed a bottle of duty free and used that as a weapon. Have you ever been threatened by someone with a broken bottle? I have. It was as scary as a knife.

Edited August 12, 2016 by Santo

[tzijlstra]

This is why they need to ban alcohol on flights, particularly, and I am sorry to point this out, to Brits who, together with Russians have the worst reputation for bad alcohol-induced behaviour on airplanes.

 

I used to fly every two or three weeks for work and each time there was a problem it was with either a Brit or a Russian boarding the plane completely blotto. I once even saw a man in business class, smart suit and all, hit whisky after whisky and then throw up everywhere. Complete numpty, his excuse was that he was 'afraid to fly'. I am sure being completely soaked in your own vomit is going to help.

[999tigger]

A drunk aeroplane passenger who threatened to stab the pilot and everyone on board has been jailed for eight months.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37047014

 

The man had a very bad day, but because he was on an airplane, and they were serving alcohol, he ended up in jail.

 

He did not have any illegal weapons, I assume that one fat drunken man would not pose a danger, otherwise how would they cope with a terrorist.

 

Surely the air hostesses should have just told him to lighten up and flash a bit of leg. I have seen drunken yobs on TV give the Police more lip then that, and they just brush it off.

 

What is your point?

That its unfair he was jailed or you cnat see the difference on being drunk and making threats to endanger the safety of an aircarft v being drunk on a Saturday night on the town?

Edited August 12, 2016 by 999tigger

[El Cid]

What is your point?

That its unfair he was jailed or you cnat see the difference on being drunk and making threats to endanger the safety of an aircarft v being drunk on a Saturday night on the town?

 

If you accept that the plane was in danger, then they are not safe to travel on.

[Cyclone]

What is your point?

That its unfair he was jailed or you cnat see the difference on being drunk and making threats to endanger the safety of an aircarft v being drunk on a Saturday night on the town?

 

He wasn't prosecuted for being drunk, he was prosecuted for threatening to stab someone.

[Santo]

Why did the plane have to turn around? From reading the article it states that he kicked off after he heard this news.

 

Not according to the Guardian.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/11/drunk-easyjet-passenger-martin-johnson-threatened-to-stab-pilot-jailed

 

Oh, and there aren't different laws for different places. Easyjet are a British registered company, hence any crime that happens aboard their planes is a matter for British law.

 

---------- Post added 12-08-2016 at 14:34 ----------

 

If you accept that the plane was in danger, then they are not safe to travel on.

 

The plane wasn't. The staff and passengers were.

Edited August 12, 2016 by Santo

[monkey104]

A drunk aeroplane passenger who threatened to stab the pilot and everyone on board has been jailed for eight months.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37047014

 

The man had a very bad day, but because he was on an airplane, and they were serving alcohol, he ended up in jail.

 

He did not have any illegal weapons, I assume that one fat drunken man would not pose a danger, otherwise how would they cope with a terrorist.

 

Surely the air hostesses should have just told him to lighten up and flash a bit of leg. I have seen drunken yobs on TV give the Police more lip then that, and they just brush it off.

 

The sentencing under the public order act states that the fear or threat of immediate unlawful violence using a weapon ranges between 6 to 26 weeks custodial sentence.

A weapon does not have to be seen but the fear felt by a person of reasonable firmness can be harassed, alarmed or distressed.

Now, take that scenario and knowing what you have now learned do you think the sentence was appropriate?

[Santo]

The sentencing under the public order act states that the fear or threat of immediate unlawful violence using a weapon ranges between 6 to 26 weeks custodial sentence.

A weapon does not have to be seen but the fear felt by a person of reasonable firmness can be harassed, alarmed or distressed.

Now, take that scenario and knowing what you have now learned do you think the sentence was appropriate?

 

A threat to kill is an either way offence. For Johnson it was heard in Crown Court. The maximum sentence for the same offence in Crown Court, if found guilty, is 10 years. In Magistrate's Court it's 6 months.

Edited August 12, 2016 by Santo

[999tigger]

He wasn't prosecuted for being drunk, he was prosecuted for threatening to stab someone.

 

? I'd already pointed that out and was seeking clarification from el cid what his point was.