rockingrobin

42 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Only once have I been made aware my flight was over-booked. 

 

I was offered money and a hotel to take the following days flight. I can't remember the amount, but I refused. 

This was before Check-In... 

 

So.. IF they knew this flight was overbooked before boarding - how did this guy get on the flight ?

IF they only found out that the flight was overbooked after boarding, my question is <deleted> is the airline playing at !!!

 

Handled extremely poorly...  This may cost United in a law suit, it will cost them in revenue. I'll avoid them like I avoid budget carriers. 

 

 

 

I dont think the the flight was overbooked before boarding.

According to the CEO, the flight was fully boarded when crew members approached the gate staff and said they needed to be on the flight

1 hour ago, Johpa said:

 

Again, I have only seen wording noting the denial of boarding , and that without even to have any justification.  But although there maybe something in the fine print somewhere, I've yet to be shown anything about removing an already boarded and seated passenger apart from security or health.  This will head to the courts for final determination, perhaps to determine whether operational necessity goes beyond the necessity of the flight in question.  But the real question is whether the clear right to deny boarding can be retroactively applied to those already boarded and seated.  Whose to say that United didn't just go Thai to get some favored VIP somewhere for a party?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/250.1

Confirmed reserved space means space on a specific date and on a specific flight and class of service of a carrier which has been requested by a passenger, including a passenger with a “zerofare ticket,” and which the carrier or its agent has verified, by appropriate notation on the ticket or in any other manner provided therefore by the carrier, as being reserved for the accommodation of the passenger.

Zero fare ticket means a ticket acquired without a substantial monetary payment such as by using frequent flyer miles or vouchers, or a consolidator ticket obtained after a monetary payment that does not show a fare amount on the ticket. A zero fare ticket does not include free or reduced rate air transportation provided to airline employees and guests.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/250.2a

In the event of an oversold flight, every carrier shall ensure that the smallest practicable number of persons holding confirmed reserved space on that flight are denied boarding involuntarily

34 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

The guy absolutely refused to get off the plane, what were they to do?

 

Outrage means nothing nowadays, it's the usual knee-jerk reaction of social justice warriors who have no grasp of the full facts of a situation. And of course the media are always keen to build up a scandal, and you've all fallen for it.

 

The guy proved himself to be a nutcase and should have been dragged off. I support the airline on this.

The flight was not overbooked/oversold and thus the use of federal law on involuntary denied boarding is not justified. 

6 hours ago, shunter said:

All well and good,  but it was a Labour government under the tyranny of Tony Bliar that went to the European court and won  the day  by  being  given a verdict that  gave the  U K government the mandate to continue freezing U K pensions.

 

Certainly  if Labour has a conscience its M P's must  vote Aye for the resolution

 

Mind you how many may or will be in the chamber at the time of the vote is yet to be seen.

This is incorrect , the claimants went to the European court , having lost  at the national domestic courts

5 minutes ago, sujoop said:

Called it correctly yesterday (below):
 

------------
Assad has the upper hand now so did not need to risk a renewed backlash. So, who besides Assad has free range of air space in Syria? Trump's pal, comrade Putin (Russia also has monitor control over Syria's chemical weapons).  This despicable act comes as Russia-Gate was dominating and increasingly revealing complicit ties between Trump's Whitehouse & Russia. But now, suddenly Trump & Putin appear on opposite sides. (pure theatre)

The situation in Syria could now make for a mutually convenient, distracting, 'theatre' of faux confrontation between Russia and the Whitehouse. Trump could order a couple strategic air strikes on Syrian bases or chemical targets, with Russia threatening back but it's only theatre. Meanwhile all the steam behind Whitehouse/Russia-Gate evaporates ...
--------------
 

Doubters, one logical question: Since Russia defacto controls Shayrat Airbase and also monitors Syria's chemical weapons, how did the chemical attack happen in the first place if not under direction of Putin and for what purpose?

 

Next up, onto N Korea for even more wag-the-dog dangerous distractions.

 

 

In 2013 it was reported the Syrian regime had no chemical weapons, whilst it is known some rebel factions are in possession 

29 minutes ago, overherebc said:

The problem with trying to answer your question lies in the fact that the law is open to interpretation by the person enforcing at the time.

Your interpretation will be very different from the interpretation made by the official.

eg. You have 5 thai people building a garage at your home and although you are not doing any physical work you might be accused of working if you are seen supervising, telling them what to do or how to do it. That would/could be classed as work if the official decides you were actually involved in using 'effort' even if you are not being paid.

You can argue all day on it

The issue is not really about if you work elsewhere, but when completing the extension of stay form it requests , the reason for extension. I presume the response is retirement, which cant be correct if the applicant is intending to carry on working.

I am aware that people do successfully conduct such activities but to me it would appear an abuse of the system

1 hour ago, PREM-R said:

Quote referring to Katie Hopkins

 

"She is distinguished by her tactless, insensitive  and undiplomatic opinions"

 

 She should join TVF, she'd fit right in.

Did K.Hopkins propose that ice cream vans could be used for old people euthanasia  because there was to many of them

8 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Maybe, but they need to know the impact and for that they need details of any final deal.

The no deal bit can be done I suppose, but it can't be compared to anything at the moment.

' It uses a computable general equilibrium model to assess the potential impact of tariff reductions and liberalisation of non tariff barriers'

From UK impact assessment of TTIP in 2013,

 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/trade-and-investment-agreement-between-eu-and-usa-estimated-impact-on-uk

To me it seems absurd that no such assessment of a 'no deal' as not been carried out, that I wonder what it contains for the government to deny its existence 

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

They can't really quantify this until they know the final offer. Oh well!

But they can do impact assessments, as evidenced by the proposed TTIP

28 minutes ago, sandyf said:

You are obviously entitled to put you opinion any way you choose. One of the reasons NS wants the referendum as early as possible is she is perfectly aware that an application to join the EU would take at least 2 years, even if looked upon favourably. To anyone who wants to belong to the EU, the UK's relationship with the UK is immaterial.

 

Many on this forum continue to make derogatory comments regarding the SNP.  Those that are on a frozen UK pension should bear in mind that of the 28 MP's that supported EDM 767, 18 were from the SNP.

with reference to frozen pensions currently 31 MPs from the SNP are supporting EDM 1097 , 

10 hours ago, jimmybkk said:

"I haven't ignored your post, anyone with a basic understanding of UK politics knew that Cameron was going if he lost that vote but you now attempt to dismiss it as a rant."

 

Here are a few quotes from recent posts you've made regarding Cameron's departure: "...knew that Cameron was going..." ,"Cameron wouldn't survive an out vote",  "But everyone knew that in the event of an OUT vote Cameron was also out...", "... they knew Cameron was out in the event he lost the vote.", "...he knew that Cameron wouldn't survive an out vote and as it turns out he was right Cameron was out only hours after the vote was annouced", "... in the event of losing the vote Cameron was out..."

 

The subtle nuances of your posts are not lost on me. Why are you diligently avoiding the word "resign" in any of these posts? Because try as you may to avoid making mention of the fact, anyone with a basic understanding of the way things went after the results of the Brexit vote were announced is aware that Cameron and Osborne both resigned. They weren't pushed, they weren't outed, and they didn't fail to survive. You're refraining from using the word "resign" in favour of words and phrases that suggest Cameron's departure was anything other than of his own doing and his own choosing, when in fact it wasn't. He could've stayed, just as he had publicly promised the people of Britain that he would stay:"And they can either choose to stay in a reformed European Union, or to leave a European Union. And, come what may, I will continue to lead the government in the way I have.”  (Source:)

 

There were no back-benchers plotting to overthrow Cameron if the Brexit vote went the wrong way, so I suspect what you may be alluding to is that Cameron had already pledged his loyalty to the EU in return for a place amongst the 10,000+ EU employees earning more than Cameron earned during his time as British PM, and due to this commitment to the EU and the promise of lucrative future employment, to remain as PM (as he had promised the people he would do) was likely to jeopardize his future employment prospects with the EU and so he decided to step down.

A letter of no confidence had been lodged in may , with 50 MPs ready to move against  D Cameron

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-toast-within-days-if-britain-votes-to-leave-european-union-says-tory-mp-a7054696.html

13 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Yes...  done....again... CBP-7212 (2).pdf

 

Like I said before: P2 is contents and P3 is summary with no reference to legal or constitutional obligations.

 

 

This is old ground,

Look up D Lidington response to amendment 16 whilst the act was going through parliament

13 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

              Are you insinuating that Flynn or his attorney have a modicum of dignity - and would be concerned about 'misrepresentation.'   

 

             By asking for immunity, Flynn is essentially saying he will lie (and continue lying) or stay silent (plead the 5th) if he doesn't get immunity.  How did a guy like that every get promoted to a US military General? Standards appear low.  

 

                Earlier Flynn was espousing a ridiculous claim that there are signs along the Texas border with Mexico, written in Arabic, which tell Islam terrorists where the safe houses are.   Neither he nor anyone else has seen them, but redneck Trump fans love hearing stories like that, so they can fired up to go out and buy more guns.

 

                   It may prevent others from prosecuting, because the FBI and Justice Dept are joined at the hip.  The word is 'wary', but 'weary' could fit.  It must make a person weary to break laws and lie so sustainedly.  Pence and everyone else in the Oval Office must be getting weary of lying also, that's if they had one scintilla of moral fiber among them.  They've got as much morality as a jackal eating an elk, starting from the groin.      

 

                  It's good to hear Roger Stone will be put on the hot seat by at least one of the 3 committees looking into treason by Trump and associates.  Stone and/or Manafort are probably standing in the wings hoping to also get immunity.  Perhaps even more than Flynn, Stone and Manafort have/are the evidence that Trump defenders keep bleating doesn't exist.  There are more 'smoking guns' due to come out of this imbroglio, unless Trump and Republicans can continue to derail the investigative processes.

 

 

 

 

misrepresentation to FBI would be regarded as a felony

10 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 Like everything else in this administration , the offer to testify under immunity was idiotic.

I would not want to testify also with out some assurance that I would not inadvertently incriminate my self and get my self in a world of trouble. So IMO the way to approach this would have being, " my client wants to testify but...."

let the investigating agencies make the immunity offer if they need you, then either way you have political cover.

 

A profer ?

Flynn needs a blanket immunity, obtaining immunity from the FBI doesnt prevent others from prosecuting. He also has to be weary about others cutting a deal , 

2 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

 

                       I doubt Flynn can add anything useful. Investigators either already know, and/or they can readily find things.  Flynn is gaming the investigators.   Flynn is already in deep shit for supposedly lying to Pence - tho personally, I don't think Flynn lied to Pence.  I think he told Pence what was going on (with Russian contacts)  but Pence needed deniability at the time.  In so doing, Pence lied, and therefore Flynn had to also lie ("I didn't tell Pence......") in order to back up Pence's lie.   Also, the President lied (Trump knew for 3 weeks that Pence and Flynn lied, but didn't correct any of it) when he didn't correct Pence's statement, so they're all 3 implicated in the lie.  That, and many other cover-up attempts will come tumbling down like a house of rotten cards.

 

 

Flynn immunity request must be for crimes not yet known

If Flynn has no further knowledge then his attorney/Flynn would be guilty of misrepresentation

16 hours ago, evadgib said:

Latest from the Consortium:

 

 

I think this is due 20th April 

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmagenda/OP170418.pdf

( page 22)

33 minutes ago, nontabury said:

I seem to recall the Conservatives giveing a promise or a pledge to hold a referendum before 2015. In fact one year  D.C promised a cast iron guarantee to hold a referendum. Admittedly not in this interview,but he certainly did in another.

 

 

Statements and commitments are meaningless until they come to fruition,

A bill to hold a eu referendum was defeated in 2012

January 2013 D Cameron promised the referendum

1 hour ago, Flustered said:

This actually destroys any credibility the "victim"  may have been able to claim.

 

Despite constantly baiting and flaming others he cries and runs to mummy as soon as he feels he is loosing. Absolutely pathetic.

 

Theresa May has constantly been misquoted and her remarks spun by other FMs as well as the BBC and lefty politicians.

 

No where has she made any remark that could be taken to be blackmail. To simply say that if we come away with no deal, security could be weakened is nothing more than the truth.

 

it's about time the remain brigade started realising that we all need the best deal possible as there is no going back. To constantly talk down the UK helps no one.

From the Art 50 letter

'If, however, we leave the European Union without an agreement the default position is that we would have to trade on World Trade Organisation terms. In security terms a failure to reach agreement would mean our cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be weakened. '

The use of ' our cooperation' could be regarded as an implicit threat. If the UKs intention was to merely make a statement then simply  the term 'our cooperation'  could have been omitted.   

10 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I raised this in another thread a long time ago, but was assured that the auditors had 'passed' EU accounts.

 

Presumably the 'truth' is a compromise - EU accounts have been given a 'pass', whilst auditors were critical of certain aspects?

You are correct

https://fullfact.org/europe/did-auditors-sign-eu-budget/

34 minutes ago, MartinL said:

Didn't Theresa may offer a deal on the rights of EU citizens in the UK, in exchange for a similar deal re. UK citizens in the EU, some months ago? The proposal appeared to be that this was agreed before any other negotiations even began.

 

If I remember rightly, the EU/Merkel refused to even discuss it before A50 was activated. 

 

The OP makes it sound as though it's the UK that won't move on this rather than the EU.

I have not seen the UK letter , but here is the EU response, 

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/11/29-tusk-letter-uk-mps/

5 hours ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

You just totally ignored what I said. All of that is fact, not "alternative" fact, just fact. Look it up!

If you had bothered to read what invoking Article 50 means you would know there is NO turning back, or are you that much in denial?

All that remains is negotiating the terms of leaving. The EU know that, the media have said that time and time again but you still don't believe it.

Wake up. Wednesday is the start of a new era.

Article 50 is silent on issue of the UKs ability to revoke the notice.

There is a court case in progress which may clarify the position.However if UK parliament at some point in the future wishes  to withdraw the notification there is nothing in law preventing the EU from accepting the notice being withdrawn

36 minutes ago, shanesox said:

Really? They don't accept the result! Calling for 2nd ref ,In fact they typify the EU in all its Undemocratic forms and it's history! When you don't accept the result of any referendum keep having more, by changing the words, until you get the result you want!


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

the surest guarantee of the health of a democracy is opposition.

There is merit in opposition for its own sake. No case is so virtuous it cannot benefit from testing. There is nothing wrong, and much to be said, for issuing a simple warning against a clearly disastrous course. On one level it is enough simply to counsel against a clearly disastrous course. The best alternative to joining the Gadarene swine is simply to say no. But there is also an obligation on those providing that opposition to offer a positive alternative.

Statement by M.Gove in 2000

1 hour ago, KunMatt said:

 

You voted for no change.  Why are you now suddenly so concerned that perhaps nothing might change??

Please explain, 

5 minutes ago, KunMatt said:

 

A suggestion cannot be a lie.  Also, we are still paying into the EU so that suggestion cannot have happened yet according to the Gospel on the side of the bus.

 

Who wouldn't want to fund the NHS?  Oh that's right, Remoaners because you used your vote to make sure that the NHS got zero extra funding.  You voted for no change.  Only now are you all so concerned about the NHS.  Total hypocrites who don't care about the NHS, you just don't like to not get your own way so you bring up "the bus" on every Brexit discussion.

It was not exclusively on the bus, it appeared on vote leave website

7 minutes ago, KunMatt said:

Boris Johnson wasn't the PM during the referendum campaigns.  The guy was who the PM stated several times that voting to leave the EU meant voting to leave the single market.

 

All of this "soft Brexit" nonsense only started after the vote by Remoaners desperate to keep us in the EU as much as possible.

This is missing the point.

D Cameron who stated leave meant leaving the SM is no longer in position to influence that choice.

The Brexit campaigners who stated leaving did not mean leaving SM are now in a position to fulfill that claim