| Submit your comments on this article |
| Down Under |
| Prince not so charming about being searched |
| 2005-10-05 |
| Prince Andrew has been accused of arrogance after refusing to go through an airport security check. He was prevented from boarding a Qantas jet to New Zealand because he would not be screened by guards at Melbourne Airport. After a tense stand-off, he reluctantly agreed to be searched with a hand detector. This incident just shows what is wrong with the West's response to the WOT. We have known knowns and known unknowns, to paraphrase Rumsfeld, and Prince Andrew is not a known unknown. so we have the stupid situation where scarce resourses are being wasted on unnecessary searches like 90 year old grand-mothers, because we don't want to appear politically incorrect by "profiling", which good policing methods dictates. However if it was his bro "Bigears" there would be a case for screening. Airport and security officials expressed surprise at the Prince's actions. They believed he would have understood the importance of security in the wake of the London bombings. A Group 4 security worker at the airport said: "Who does he think he is? What a pompous p----. Everyone has to go through security screening. He should be happy to do so." Officials said last Wednesday's incident showed no one was exempt from Australia's airport security procedures. It followed a minor diplomatic incident in March, when Papua New Guinean Prime Minister Michael Somare was required to remove his shoes for a security check at Brisbane Airport. Anti-monarchists have had a field day with the latest incident. Australian Republican Movement spokesman Rod Kendall said: "We love stories like this. It highlights how the royal family think they are different from the rest of us. The law is the law, no matter who you are. Prince Andrew, nicknamed Air Miles Andy for his love of travel freebies, was on a private trip to Melbourne where he attended the opening of a global conference on schools. He was about to leave for a four-day official tour of New Zealand when officials met him at a special gate at Melbourne Airport and told him he needed to pass a security check. He refused. A source said: "There was a bit of consternation on both sides. Managers and security were called and it was suggested to the Prince that he sit down in the next room and think about it for a while. "He was told he would not be allowed to board the flight unless he agreed to be screened because it was the law. Eventually he reluctantly agreed." A Melbourne Airport spokesman confirmed a short delay in the Prince boarding the plane because of a security incident. A Buckingham Palace spokesman said: "We don't make any comment about security matters." Prince Andrew left New Zealand on Sunday night. |
| Posted by:Phereger Unimble9361 |
| #19 Ok, Cyber Sarge, but there may be another reason. The ever-popular CYA....as in, "No, we're not picking on you....we did the same bloody thing to Prince Andy...now shut up & spread 'em!" Just in case the NZ version of CAIR gets their panties in a wad over the Kiwis searching a Mr. Osama bin Laddin who just flew in from Kabul.... |
| Posted by: Desert Blondie 2005-10-05 22:42 |
| #18 Prince was carring drugs, his royal entourage negotiated a wand [singolo] test before he agreed. |
| Posted by: Matt Drudge 2005-10-05 15:40 |
| #17 Why isn't he flying Air RAF? |
| Posted by: mojo 2005-10-05 14:23 |
| #16 Welcome...... ....to the real world. Do they still give airlines a heavy fine if they search too many middle-eastern looking people? |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-10-05 13:44 |
| #15 Uh, spoiled brat, prince, frog or toothfairy if you wish but at the end of the day he ain't nothing special outside of his imaginary kingdom and given that has no grounds for complaint and obstinancy. |
| Posted by: MunkarKat 2005-10-05 13:34 |
| #14 I travel a lot and I am very suspicious of everybody, particularly those that stick out as eastern or middle-eastern stock. If Al Gore and I were flying on the same plane I would have no problem with him bypassing security. If Osama Bin Butthead and I were on the same flight I would expect the security personnel to give Mr. Butthead some scrutiny before they let him fly. A little common sense is all it takes and we can stop terrorism. If the cops were given a description of crime suspect of White/Middle Age/6â2â/Mustache and they made a point to look for an equal amount of Hispanics or Blacks we would fire them for inefficiency, stupidity, or both. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-10-05 13:30 |
| #13 The prince is obviously not a threat, but the security people did the right thing. We don't want them to have (and they propbably don't want) the authority to waive rules. Once they have that, the quality of security is dependent upon the discretion of the individual screeners. Giving screeners the ability to grant exceptions reduces security and makes their jobs more difficult. |
| Posted by: DoDo 2005-10-05 12:40 |
| #12 I get confused. Are these folks the Kennedy's of Great Britain or are the Kennedy's the Royal Family of America? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2005-10-05 11:55 |
| #11 There is a difference in reaction between what might be called an "unrevealed known" and the "true unknown". For the former, say you walk into a room and see a revolver lying on a table. You know it can be dangerous; you also known its general parameters, that is, *how* it can be dangerous. So it, by itself, is not particularly menacing. It is an "unrevealed known". You are not threatened by it, you just don't know why it is there. For the "true unknown", say you walk into a strange, pitch black room. The door slams shut behind you and locks. Then you hear the unfamiliar growl of a large, angry animal, of unknown type. Now *that* is scary, because you do not have enough information on which to act in any way. So this makes *four* possibilities: the known, the unrevealed known, the true unknown, but also the unknowable. So, in the case of airplane security, you need to prioritize: 1) The known: HRH Andrew. Not a threat. 2) The unrevealed known: Drunk soccer fan. May be a threat, but not a terrorist threat. 3) The true unknown: Arab guy wearing a heavy coat in summer. Serious threat. 4) The unknowable: Allah himself, in disguise, planning to blow up the plane. Not a threat, since you can't see him coming anyway. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-10-05 11:51 |
| #10 Cyber, But where does the "Royal" treatment end? Should we let the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia get through because he is personally not a know n threat? Kudos to the security folks. Terrorism is everyone's game...everybody plays by the rules..I'd much rather piss off a blue blood than be responsible for a lot of spilled red |
| Posted by: Warthog 2005-10-05 11:50 |
| #9 e man is Heir to the British throne and very unlikely to cause a security threat. *cough*DukeofHamilton*cough* |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2005-10-05 10:44 |
| #8 At first I am thinking âGood for the Security peopleâ but then I have to question what they expected? The man is Heir to the British throne and very unlikely to cause a security threat. Reminds me of the story of Al Gore and grandmothers getting screened, but I think a case can be made against the ex-VP. Common sense needs to take hold or we will lose the WOT. Little old ladies, former VPs, heads or state, and dare I say British Royalty shouldnât warrant as much scrutiny as some named Acmed, Ali, or Mumar. Since we donât have infinite resources lets try to focus them on the threat. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-10-05 10:34 |
| #7 Who does the Group 4 security worker think he is? Himmler? These pompous, useless, ineffective farts need to be gotten rid of, and guns made required equipment in the cockpit and optional in the passenger cabin. As the heros of Flight 93 demonstrated, this weapon can be denied our enemies. |
| Posted by: Flosh Thins9351 2005-10-05 08:00 |
| #6 Wasted effort on a non threat. Shows how far we have to go on the learing curve. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet O´ Doom 2005-10-05 07:11 |
| #5 He clearly doesn't understand that the modern role of royalty is figure-heading, tourism promotion, and ribbon-cutting. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2005-10-05 07:03 |
| #4 He doesn't have a diplomatic passport? |
| Posted by: gromky 2005-10-05 02:08 |
| #3 What's good for grandma is good for Royals. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-10-05 02:04 |
| #2 It really is telling, isn't it? I guess he's got the hang of being Royalty, now. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-10-05 01:24 |
| #1 kudos to the security personnel for standing up to these pompas asses. That's a hard situation to have to deal with. How dare they put themselves above the law. |
| Posted by: Jan 2005-10-05 01:16 |