T Shirts now terrorist devices

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dave Noble

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Posts
6,419
Qantas bans Bush T-shirt passenger

An Australian who lives in Britain has threatened legal action against Qantas for barring him from a Melbourne-to-London flight wearing a T-shirt depicting US President George Bush as a terrorist.

.
.
.

Airline staff argued the T-shirt, which bears an image of the US President with the slogan "World's number 1 terrorist", was a security risk or an item likely to upset passengers.

Full story - Qantas bans Bush T-shirt passenger - National - smh.com.au

Dave
 
kyle said:
So what's your opinion?

That to ban the person from wearing it is completely stupid and that it is not a security risk , nor have any reason to upset other passengers unduly

Dave
 
Dave Noble said:
That to ban the person from wearing it is completely stupid and that it is not a security risk , nor have any reason to upset other passengers unduly

Dave

Agreed

If they have gone through the metal dectors & had there bags scanned and even consumed the water in their bottle to prove it is not dangerous. Then I struggle to see the security risk.

In fact it seems that they are hiding behind that excuse as a means of enforcing a dress code.

What next, banning kid's who wear a "Tonk-A-Pom" T-shirt as it may intimidate BA codeshare passengers & English passport holders?
 
Don't airlines have in the conditions of carriage (I know Virgin Blue do) that you are not allowed to wear any clothing with Words/Symbols/pictures that may be offensive to Staff/Other Passengers.
 
tassiedude said:
Don't airlines have in the conditions of carriage (I know Virgin Blue do) that you are not allowed to wear any clothing with Words/Symbols/pictures that may be offensive to Staff/Other Passengers.

Not only do I find people who wear flags as shirts (invariably American) offensive, I think they may as well paint a bullseye on their front!

But who is to decide what is offensive? Some gate-jockey?

Isn't leather offensive to some vegatarians? Should we ban that?
 
So if I wore a TShirt on a Qantas flight that had a photo of Bin Laden with "World's #1 Terrorist" Would I be allowed on or not?

How about "Bush is a Legend".

Hmmm. This "security" malarkey is becoming more and more of a joke.

Should we ban people who wear "Wife Beaters" or have unruly long hair.

How about we ban turbans too. Then we can really get into the American spirit of kicking passengers off planes because someone thought they looked suspicious.
 
Whether or not the shirt is offensive, the guy was obviously trying to provoke a reaction from the airline. In the article posted, it states he was previously refused carried for wearing that same shirt, not one but twice.
SMH said:
The airline earlier prevented him from flying to Melbourne for Christmas with relatives on December 2 until he removed the shirt.

Domestic carrier Virgin Blue took the same action when Mr Jasson tried to catch a connecting flight to Adelaide, but on a return flight to Melbourne with Qantas on Friday, he successfully wore the shirt.
So why, after being told by two airlines on two different occasions that his shirt is unacceptable, would be wear the same short again for another flight, unless he is seeking a confrontation. Perhaps a good way to get some media coverage for his cause?

I am in not way defending the airlines as I don't know the full circumstances. But I don't believe this person was the innocent victim being picked on by a rogue airline employee. There is a definitely more to this story than we know.
 
Saw the guy on ABC news late last night; He's in IT and needs to get to the UK to work and this is costing him "thousands of dollars" by "not being able to travel". He is refusing to travel unless he can use the t-shirt.

Here's a video report: News Video - 22-Jan-2007

I'm quite apolitical, however being in IT myself, I have to say I get the impression this guy's a W@nker ... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
serfty said:
I'm quite apolitical, however being in IT myself, I have to say I get the impression this guy's a W@anker ... :rolleyes:

I was going to make a lengthy comment however think that serfty has summed it up completely. :rolleyes:
 
straitman said:
I was going to make a lengthy comment however think that serfty has summed it up completely. :rolleyes:

I agree, and now that he has made his point he should change his shirt and get back on a flight to England where he can earn money, and not lose thousands of dollars as he alleges. I think the airlines have made the right decision and I also think he is going about his cause the wrong way and that a psychological assessment might be in order.
 
serfty said:
Saw the guy on ABC news late last night; He's in IT and needs to get to the UK to work and this is costing him "thousands of dollars" by "not being able to travel". He is refusing to travel unless he can use the t-shirt.

Here's a video report: News Video - 22-Jan-2007

I'm quite apolitical, however being in IT myself, I have to say I get the impression this guy's a W@nker ... :rolleyes:

Even the 'W's of this world are entitled to make a stand. Best of luck to him - I just hope he doesn't sit next to me :)

mt
 
The point here is that it is not the message that the person carries on his/her chest but for QF’s need to anticipate what reaction this could generate from even one aggrieved traveller. Sure, here on this site we would argue we are seasoned and relatively tolerant FFers, but we aren’t the ones in the sights of the airlines. For God’s sake, I have been on domestic flights where the colour of someone’s football team antagonises another passenger to the point where a punch-up could occur. The mitigating factor here is that the journey is only a couple of hours and the angst may not develop into anything.

The tyranny of distance is a unique factor for most international flights from Australia. Both QF flights from Melbourne leave in the pm, one at 5:10 and the other a minute before midnight. This means that passengers have either the opportunity to have a few drinks on board or quite a number before departure. Qantas are nothing if not quite generous when it comes to slinging the grog. Both flights are via Bangkok meaning that the duration of the trip from origin to London is about 24 hours, a hell of a long time in a steel cylinder with limited air, squashed seating and pretty foul toilet facilities towards the end of each sector. People are stressed and legally medicate to ease it. If someone is on board who could agitate simply by the message on his shirt then it is for the staff to decide how it should be dealt with before he boards. They take a step that is much more prudent than naz_. We all take flights like that on a couple of occasions per year and I for one would prefer not to have an incident occur on my flight. Play by the rules set down by the carrier and grow up.


The bloke is an idiot.
 
sully said:

The bloke is an idiot.

Well of course he is, but he's not as big an idiot as the media that provide him with endless publicity. At my age, I'm allowed to be intolerant of both forms of idiocy.
 
If he must wear the shirt in order to travel, then he can save all the problems by just wearing it inside-out :rolleyes: .
 
The Frequent Flyer Concierge team takes the hard work out of finding reward seat availability. Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, they'll help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top