This príck on the United airlines flight.

[Sir C]

True, but I'd express sympathy for the chap in question (and Charles and V in my scenario) regardless of how they behaved.

Such is the c*ntishness of what United did.

Fúck your sympathy. It's a mild inconvenience. I might travel in less comfort, or I might get bumped and arrive 12 hours late. It's not a fúcking bereavement.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

I believe one of them has been suspended for his use of force in this instance. They are empower to use reasonable force and I think the point is that this does not appear reasonable.

Agreed. The cops are not there to use violence to help a party in a dispute. If you prove you have a legitimate claim to be on board and are not causing a disturbance they should not have intervened to bail out UA's incompetence by beating up an innocent customer.

[Burney]

Agreed. The cops are not there to use violence to help a party in a dispute. If you prove you have a legitimate claim to be on board and are not causing a disturbance they should not have intervened to bail out UA's incompetence by beating up an innocent customer.

But, by not letting the flight take off, he was causing a disturbance.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

No. UA were causing a disturbance by trying to throw a paying customer out for no reason other than their incompetence.

[Burney]

Fúck your sympathy. It's a mild inconvenience. I might travel in less comfort, or I might get bumped and arrive 12 hours late. It's not a fúcking bereavement.

I think what we're all missing here is that there would have been quite a few passengers on that plane inwardly applauding as the polis dragged the fùcker off so that they could get home.

[Burney]

No. UA were causing a disturbance by trying to throw a paying customer out for no reason other than their incompetence.

You seem to think that being 'a paying customer' is some kind of sacrosanct status afforded to one by virtue of handing over some cash in return for goods and services. In fact, in this instance, it was simply a means whereby he entered into a legal contract hedged about by all sorts of clauses and caveats that he clearly didn't read.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

The contract was broken by UA. It cannot be broken for arbitrary reasons which is precisely what they did. You cannot use contract law to justify breaking a contract for no reason other than your incompetence. |UA had an obligation to perform which they were shirking.

[Sir C]

The contract was broken by UA. It cannot be broken for arbitrary reasons which is precisely what they did. You cannot use contract law to justify breaking a contract for no reason other than your incompetence. |UA had an obligation to perform which they were shirking.

How did they break the contract?

[Sir C]

I think what we're all missing here is that there would have been quite a few passengers on that plane inwardly applauding as the polis dragged the fùcker off so that they could get home.

I'd definitely have tried to get a dig in as they dragged him past.

[Peter]

You bought a ticket to travel on an aircraft with a set oif terms and conditions attached

I really can't comprehend why you find this such a difficult concept to grasp.

It isn't remotely difficult to grasp. As far as I am aware those clauses are inserted for legal reasons to cover the airline in the event of genuine emergencies and so forth. THey are not designed to be a convenient fall back to help with their own administrative and operational needs.

Our contracts with students allow us to remove a student from their course at any time without explanation. It goes without saying we have never done it and never will. Falling back on these clauses in a contract is the act of an utter ****.

And I have now used the term plane about 5 times. Will you please take the ****ing bait!