About Me
Clarissa 29 Brighton UK. Atheist asexual cynic. Loves green. Hates kids.
Back home
List 2005-06
List all 2004
List all 2003
List earlier
All By Month
By Categories

My Obsessions
My Atheism
The Guestmap
Contact Form
Chaos 2004
The Plop Forum
Dance Punkin
J's Space
Shazia's Site
Yes I'm obsessed
Mon, Aug 21 2006 @ 21:09   //   Category: Opinionated   //   11 comments

(apologies to Mon)

from the Guardian:

Ryanair today threatened to sue the government for compensation unless airport security measures are returned to normal within seven days.

Michael O'Leary, the outspoken chief executive of Ryanair, described the new restrictions as "farcical Keystone Cops security measures that don't add anything except to block up airports", as he issued the ultimatum.


People say...

*lol* Would you be as annoyed about all this if you hadn't just travelled?

Posted by: BML on Mon August 21, 2006 at 21:23

No probably not, because I wouldn't know how annoying it is. But trust me, it is.

Posted by: Clarissa on Mon August 21, 2006 at 21:35

And there's quite a good chance to receive compensation, I guess.

Posted by: stagiaire on Mon August 21, 2006 at 22:37

You reckon? Somehow I doubt it. But it's still a cool move.

Posted by: Clarissa on Tue August 22, 2006 at 21:23

Probably in the UK they also have laws that say that if governmental measurements limit your business you can receive compensation. But usually you have to really demand it. If those measurements cause financial damage because they have to cancel flights or pay more people to make sure they follow those new restrictions I think there's a chance. I'm curious though. I hope you follow this case.

Posted by: stagiaire on Tue August 22, 2006 at 22:05

Hm. Maybe. I don't think he actually will sue tho tbh. And can't the government say that this is due to actions outside of their influence? Cuz the same would have applied post-9/11, no?

Posted by: Clarissa on Tue August 22, 2006 at 22:14

I doubt it. For every action there needs to be a law. They can't just impose stuff on people just because. For the actions they take they also need to consider commensurability. Is it really necessary what they're doing, or does the measurement really add anything to their goal - more security? There are sure many people who have doubts about that. Today I saw one pretty sane person on TV who said he'd approve measurements if they added more to our security, but due to the fact you can't fully guarantee security with whatever measurement there's no justification to limit people's freedom more and more.

Posted by: stagiaire on Tue August 22, 2006 at 23:13

I couldn't agree more with what you (or the sane person on TV) said.
But legally well ja, I have no idea. I'm no law person.

Does a business get compensation when they tear open the street in front of the shop and they lose customers?

Posted by: Clarissa on Tue August 22, 2006 at 23:18

Yes, they can demand compensation if it's merely impossible to reach them. Eg a petrol station could force the community to pay if it's impossible to reach them by car because they tear open the street. But I guess many people wouldn't try to get compensation, because they don't know they could.

Posted by: stagiaire on Wed August 23, 2006 at 1:33

yeah if they can't reach them at all, but what if it's just difficult to reach them? (as that seems to be more the case here )

Posted by: Clarissa on Wed August 23, 2006 at 12:26


Posted by: stagiaire on Sat August 26, 2006 at 2:27