Naomi Campbell charged with assault Battling Streatham clotheshorse Naomi Campbell has been charged with assaulting two police officers during an incident aboard an LA-bound British Airways flight at Heathrow's T5 last month which saw the supermodel escorted from the aircraft by armed police. She will appear at Uxbridge Magistrates' Court on 20 June on a total …
Quote: Naomi Campbell
"Why can't you do anything right? Get all my bags on this flight. I'm Naomi Campbell."
Ha ha ha ha, a washed up ex celeb is upset that she didnt get her way! Thats hilarious!
Now, I make no excuses for BA/BAA losing her luggage, they are horribly inept, but her attitude takes the cake.
What attack vector is really being addressed here? My bag got lost, so I need to be redirected to a later flight to accompany it. This may stop the terrorists who don't want to get blown up with the plane, but do have both the patience to repeatedly check in an explosive bag until it eventually gets mislaid and transported separately, and the technology to ensure that it's enabled for that flight, but disabled when put in the correct flight. I can understand why the bag needs to come off if I don't show up for the flight, but that's because I can get myself lost on purpose. If I have a colleague in the luggage handlers, surely that person could just move the bomb to somebody else's bag as easily as redirect mine to a later flight.
Couldn't we just say that bags getting lost is sufficiently random that it's not likely to be an important part of the plan? Maybe that and an extra search of redirected luggage would address the (perceived) problem without so much inconvenience to the passengers.
In a shocking case of thug Britain two gang members dressed in bright yellow gang colours dragged a women off a plane at Heathrow and assaulted her as the other passengers looked on.
Said an anonymous passenger "all she did was complain that BA had lost her luggage and insist she would still fly and for this the gang members assaulted her, physically dragged her off the plane and detained her, we were all too afraid to help."
In other news, members of the same gang stole a sign saying "Scientology is a cult" from a protester.
When asked why they do such things, a gang member, who wanted to remain anonymous said "don't point that camera at me or I'll lock you up on terrorism charges".
OK, so if the airline fsks up my checked luggage, I'm forced to take another flight? It sounds like a very bad policy. I am far from certain that my own reaction would not match that of the defendant! My ability to cope with stupidity is reduced with every security precaution put in place after 9/11.
Please can someone explain why BA told her she had to leave the flight? I presume it wasn't because they'd mislaid a bag, was it because she started on the crew when told about it? The way it's reported makes it sound like she was kicked off the flight BECAUSE they'd lost her bag, which frankly would make me a bit irritable too.
There's some more to this than meets the eye, surely.
BA aren't that stoopid to boot someone off the flight 'cos they mislaid one of her *CHECKED* - i.e, accepted by the airline - bags, for chrissake?
Their stupid fault, hope she sues the fuc*k out of 'em. Or, more accurately, joins the orderly queue doing the same.
Oh, shit. I said "orderly". Nah, she'll just toss a few mobiles at 'em.
Can't wait for the court account. Sod my guts, the hearing's on my birthday. Bloody marvellous!
This post has been deleted by its author
I would be seriously pissed of if I was a BA shareholder.
There are few enough suckers willing to fork out the whopping 4 and a half grand for a first class flight to LA and your idiot staff threw her off the plain!
Why this type of incident - people arrested, thrown off planes, refused boarding etc. etc. nearly always involves BA?
I think its time to send all those humorless rule freaks that BA call cabin staff on a "How to be human" course.
I don't blame her snootiness for losing it. 6 hours late, losing your bag (which she wanted to carry with her but wasn't allowed to.) then asked to leave the plane.
I bet its the last time BA sees any of here money.
Here in Canada the mounties & local gendarmes are deep in ass-covering & navel gazing over their unfortunate killing of a traveler at Vancouver Airport. Seems this plays right into their hands: ol' Naomi is more of a threat than most folks, and the police would surely have been justified in using electrical restraint.
Mine's the one with the copper lining.
Sounds like Max Cifford or someone has been manipulating reality. An airline loses your bag and then boots you off your flight to add insult to injury. I'm no fan of emaciated tantrum throwers but I might be tempted to start throwing a wobbler myself in those circumstances.
Sounds like a chunk of spin, can that really be the airlines policy?
For free, if I was a qualified lawyer, and do my best to drag BA, BAA, our bully-boy police and their control-freak bosses through mud so deep it'd be coming out of every orifice. Or just make a laughing stock of them all.
How nice a person, or otherwise, *she* is, has no relevance whatsoever.
Remember we pay them to cart us from point A to B , now it has become customer last on an airline flying questionable planes that crash for reasons unknown , so who indeed would want to fly with them after this incident goes to court with no graphic video showing physical blows or glossy 8X10 pictures showing physical bruises as required in a normal legal case !
At least I know now which airline to avoid like the plague , as they are worse then then the bubonic plague itself !
Alas , as for the police in question in this incident it is part and parcel of the basic job description period !
Mind you it is more like a PR feel good stunt whilst it looks like a good idea at the time but in reality it is a lethal deadly time bomb that will blow up in the Airlines face showing gross incompetence at all executive levels ,since this airline is always on the edge of bankruptcy as the price of aviation fuel increases by leaps and bounds daily runs out of control , any continuing loss of additional passengers generated by adverse publicity thus from any trial , no matter how small will push them over the edge of the abyss into insolvency and ruin !
Remember this inept and incompetently run Airline voluntarily chose this path to self destruction by their own free choice !
"About time the hasbeen drama queen learnt she's not above the law."
No, the law is stupid. Any of us could be found under similar circumstances and would be likewise upset and frustrated by this idiotic law. Only Naomi makes news, the rest of us quietly go to jail for this retarded nonsense.
I like how all of your are like, serves her right. blagh blagh blagh.
Remember that the next time some bureaucrat looses your property tax check then decides to arrest you and take your house for tax evasion. They lost *her* bag, its not like shes Osama Al' Bangya the supermodel terrorist terrorist.
I seem to remember that what really happened was that to avoid losing her luggage, she tried to take everything with her into the cabin.
Obviously this wasn't acceptable to the crew. An argument ensued. She was told to leave the aircraft. She refused. Police arrived, she argued & resisted, and was offloaded.
It would certainly have been a first for an airline to admit to losing luggage *before* the passenger got to the other end.
Or to have offloaded them as a result - it works the *other* way around; if you get off the aircraft, your luggage comes off too, just in case you packed something extra. But you can fly sans luggage with it being shipped on a later flight.
What does the airline/security expect? If I'm in my seat, and I'm approached by airline/security personnel and told I needed to get off and miss my flight because they managed to lose my bag already, I'd throw a shitfit, too! So would 90% of the population.
When this all blows over for her, I think she should start a trend of people filing 6 and 7 figure civil suits against the airlines (and TSA for similar no-fly-list cock-ups) based on damages for lost business, vacations, appointments, and inconvieniences based on the real and genuine loss suffered by passengers. The suits might fail, due to some of the language in the legalese on the ticket, but if someone can manage to prove negligence, they might be able to slip one in. Even if they don't work, the cost of answering the suits may make them start to change their policies a bit.
The Airlines are the only industry that I know that gets away with alienating their clientele to this degree. I understand the need for security, but there's also got to be an assumption of innocent until proven guilty, and basic human respect for your customers.
Tux, 'cause he's got the right idea about being flightless.
If I recall correctly she's currently on probation and I think this is used against her in the dirtiest possible way (no idea why, I guess it's the "setting an example" form of legal abuse).
A couple of interesting facts:
1. She was on her way to a memorial service. Not one of the happiest events to attend, and not one to make you in the mood for parties.
2. BA(A) lose her bag, AFTER SHE HAD BEEN REPEATEDLY ASSURED IT WOULD BE ON THE PLANE. Let's not lose sight of that - think how you would react (especially considering point 1). If she'd been throwing mobile phones I would have given her mine too if I was there. She was flat out lied to by staff, and worse, she only found out AFTER she had boarded the plane.
3. *No* report of this incident carried the suggestion violence was used. Given her previous modus operandi I'd see that as progress - it also showed none had occurred because I really can't image the screech papers such as the Sun missing out on a cover page splash.
4. *No* apology has ever been seen from BA about losing her bag. Just the usual waffle about "having to protect staff" (which wasn't an issue on days 1 & 2 of the T5 opening, strange). Until someone works out what happened there I think an apology would have been a first step. Would also offer Ms Campbell a chance to apologise for blowing her top like any human being would, and then both parties would almost look like adults. Well, not in this case.
5. At least I know know why UK cops will have tasers. Obviously, spitting people of not even half the weight and BMI of your average copper represent a serious threat. This is thus a hugely credible investment of police and court time.
What really happened (IMHO) is that Walsh had to do something fast to divert press attention from just how godawfully bad T5 had worked. Rather than pointing at BAA who, after all, is supposed to run this shop he got his golden chance with Naomi Campbell who is -as a probationer- not in the position to fight back.
Until now.
Because I'm going to hand her the ownership of a domain. She can blog there, with friends. The domain name will say it all - check the date of registration.
I don't equate temperament with evil. I know enough people who have short fuses, it just means they cool down quickly too. But long term plotters who don't think much of inconveniencing thousands of passengers for the glory of meeting a planned opening date, well, they deserve IMHO the sock puppet treatment.
Am I defending Naomi Campbell? No, but I think she's being victimised here, and that's what I hate.
She kicked off at the staff and allegedly refused to sit down until her bag was aboard, preventing the plane from being closed down and made ready to fly. She was then asked to leave and refused. At that point the police were called to remove her from the aircraft.
Other passengers from T5 who have told their bags have not been loaded, who then have decided not to travel without their bags and have wanted to disembark the aircraft before departure have been told they must stay on board! Whilst I can not say why I know this it is documented on the Internet.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3396137.ece
"An Israeli general wanted for alleged war crimes escaped arrest in the UK because police officers feared an armed confrontation with the airline’s armed air marshals."
The sheet hypocrisy of the police here is staggering.
If you're an Israeli general with an arrest warrant against you for war crimes, they will not only leave you on the plane, they'll even give it clearance to fly out of the airport.
If you're a disgruntled passenger whose bags BA lost, you'll get physically dragged off the plane by two officers, then those officers will file assault charges against you.
So in the case of the Israeli genereal, presumably if the police had decided to enter the plane (which they'd been refused entry to, and presumably had to wait for clearance from quite high levels as that would cause a considerable diplomatic incident...) and the air marshalls as well as, potentially, the generals own armed bodyguards had decided to open fire, causing the police to return fire, and a bunch of civilian passengers had been killed (bearing in mind your average aircraft isn't exactly full of clear firing lanes) - you'd have no problem with that and wouldn't be bemoaning the police for entering the plane and putting civilian lives at risk?
Sure, the whole incident smacks of indecision, but bear in mind a) The reason he never got off the flight was because he recieved a tip-off from the Israeli military attache, b) The foreign office profusely apologised to the Israeli government for the incident (which would suggest where the tip off had come from...) and c) The Police can't just storm a packed airliner from one of our allies national airlines without getting permission if they're refused, the situation becomes a diplomatic one which would need clearance from high up. Said clearance wasn't provided.
"the generals own armed bodyguards had decided to open fire,...you'd have no problem with that and wouldn't be bemoaning the police for entering the plane and putting civilian lives at risk?"
So you're suggesting that if the police entered the plane and arrested the general, the Israeli bodyguards would open fire possibly killing passengers? In effect the passengers are hostages?
And did they demand the plane be fueled? or they'd shoot some of these hostages? And did they demand air traffic clearance or the general would kill some women & children like in the movies? NO!
No, the police chose not to enforce the warrant, they did not try to arrest him, they did not stop the plane being refueled, did not stop air traffic clearance to depart, his guards would not have shot police officers trying to enforce an arrest warrant, there would be no deaths and if there was ever the risk that Israeli sky marshalls would kill passengers in the event of a police arrest, then we should not allow Israeli planes to use our airports.
They can enter a plane to perform an arrest, with or without permission there is no off limit area where a someone charged with war crimes is immune from arrest on British soil.
You cannot have a situation where a private army is aboard a plane that would shoot passengers to prevent a legitimate arrest and you cannot have a situation where police officers choose not to enforce a warrant for political ends.
They chose to ignore the court arrest warrant, and they are in dereliction of their duty as officers to answer to the courts and the law, not the politicians.
They didn't ignore the arrest warrent though did they, as per their report their commanding officer chose to wait for clearance to enter the plane from higher ups which wasn't forthcoming. You also seem to be completely ignoring the fact that the guy was tipped off as he was supposed to be arrested off the plane, ergo the tactical situation had changed. Not only that, but OUR Foreign Secretary issued an apology to the Israeli government for ATTEMPTING to arrest him in the first place. Something smells of fish that's for sure.
One thing I can't understand though is why the plane was given clearance to leave in the first place. I mean surely ground control could have stopped it in the first place?
Anyway, nobody here is in possession of all the facts, myself included, and so I guess none of us can make a reasonable assessment. Have to see what the IPCC concludes - but I get the distinct impression that there's more to this than meets the eye. Bear in mind that the Met refused to persue the arrest warrant in the first place and so the charges were bought privately. Which sounds like somebody high up had already intervened once.
Is celebrities being prosecuted when they break the law and generally act like assholes expecting everything on a silver platter and rules to be ignored just for them.
Still can't get over the CPS not prosecuting Amy Whorehouse for smoking crack, when The Sun literally handed them a video of her doing it. Unbelievable.
Someone pays ludicrous amounts of cash to get from London to LA with some bags. The airline can't even get the bags a few hundred yards onto the plane - and we all rag on the person who complains!
Ok, maybe she did hit someone and her behaviour is unacceptable, but lets face it, she wouldn't have put much weight behind a punch!
Mines the one with the blackberry warranty card in the pocket.
She was kicked off the plane for refusing to sit down and becoming abusive (to the crew who would have to be on the plane with her for hours, not the ones who lost her bag). Losing bags TEMPORARILY happens, deal with it. Should it have happened? No, but it did. She's not the only one it happened to at T5 over a period of a few weeks when they admittedly messed up their big opening. So why should 300 odd other people (some who probably had their bags lost) be made to wait all because someone with a bit of a temper kicks off and becomes very abusive over a bit of luggage which would have been delivered to her forwarding address within two days (usually).
In my experience the people who behave the worst on planes are more often than not those in Club (Not First) as they are the managers/people with a bit of money who think the world revolves around them and when they shout jump, who ever you are you should damn well do it. This whole thing has been blown out of all proportions and if you are dumb enough to be on probation for a violence related offence, don't you think you should think before you act and get yourself nicked again? It's a few effing clothes for fuffs sake.
People behaving like this on a plane and causing everyone else to wait while they throw their toys out the pram make me sick. If BA kicked more disruptive passengers off the planes a bit quicker it would make life much easier for the poorly paid crew whose only fault is to be working for an airline. 1000's of bags a day do make it, a few don't. Deal with it!
[quote]"About time the hasbeen drama queen learnt she's not above the law."
No, the law is stupid. Any of us could be found under similar circumstances and would be likewise upset and frustrated by this idiotic law. Only Naomi makes news, the rest of us quietly go to jail for this retarded nonsense.[/quote]
She's going to jail for *assaulting a police officer*, not for protesting about her bags. I'd be pissed off too, but you'd have to be a monumental cretin to try to kick and punch the police officers who are lawfully removing you from private property. Unless you *really* think the laws against assault are stupid and should be amended to allow you to gob on a police officer if you're having a tantrum?
The correct British response would have been to write a stiffly worded letter to the Telegraph.
Shite, fuck and a lot more similar words are very much in order for the whole Heathrow and especially T5 fiasco. What a complete and utter shambles it is and they are. Are they trying to send the air industry the same way as the trains? The sad thing is that they think that the terrible situation is almost normal and we shouldn't complain. Of course if we dare to say anything about the horrible way we are treated when we fly then they consider us as either terrorists or terrorist sympathisers.
I for one personally love Naomi Campbell - so no bias there then.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
