simons1

Something a little more than a letter required there I think. More like a prison sentence. But not really a comparable situation.

Calchas

G-BUSI

Think I understand where bealine is coming from here. Meaning that obviously we were not there and cannot comment, but for a "yellow card" to be issued there must have been some justification on the staff members part as "yellow cards" are only used where there is little other choice.

Oaxaca

And like bealine, you have trotted out the same contradiction of saying you can't comment, immediately followed by commenting that it must somehow be the customer's fault.

Perhaps a more appropriate statement, as you weren't there, would be "yellow cards should only be used where there is little other choice". Unless, of course, you are asserting that staff actions are always right, no matter what.

jacobitetraveller

glad to find that I am not the only person to have found beeline's comments inappropriate on this matter

orbitmic

The problem in those cases is that you can never be sure that the other person won't feel just: "great, at last!!" So in my own case, I sure won't take the chance!

Fruitcake

I am afraid I must disagree. I had never heard of these yellow cards, so have nothing specific to say about them. However, the idea that if some authority, in this case a BA representative, takes an action it must therefore be right, really is rather far fetched. In fact, it's rather dangerous thinking.

Both bealine's and G-BUSI's comments seem to be non sequiteurs.

elitetraveler

Here is how I read Bealine's comments: The BA "training/policy" is that the "yellow card" is only to be given as a truly last resort, and perhaps it is discouraged to be given out, unless there is no other solution. In other words, staff who give out a "yellow card" must justify why they did so.

If that is what Bealine is saying, then his comment makes sense, in that the "giver" of the yellow card will be scrutinized for giving it out, thus it is highly likely there was some type of altercation. Of course, my assumption might be off, but in this context, his comments make sense.

Hoch

I suspect bealinewas merely trying to provide an analogy between two experiences and how a staff member might feel uncomfortable with a passenger. Naturally, the rest of the comment does not match up as no one knows what happened.

I can actually relate to this as several years ago I was assaulted by a client right before trial. From that moment on every time a client of mine made an abrupt motion towards me, I flinched and moved away. It can be rather unnerving. But, every situation is different and we just don't know enough to justify the further commentary

H

Calchas

Why would you assault your own counsel!?!

orbitmic

+1. any claim that (any given) authority is always likely to be right is not only unrealistic and as you point out dangerous, but also counter-productive as it undermines confidence in the system. Moreover it preempts an arbitration that we (as ft) are neither equipped nor (thankfully) responsible to pass.

Op makes a serious accusation against an agent, only possible answer is "here is the proper procedure to have it reviewed" and fair warning that precisely because accusation is serious (and ultimately there was no coercive consequence on the passenger), this will be dealt with with caution. In my view, any other assessment (be it pax was probably wrong, staff was probably wrong, or they were probably both wrong) is baseless and unhelpful.

StuckinITH

+1. I come from a country where there was a military coup when I was a kid. My wife lived as an expat in two countries where there were military coups, one when she was a kid, the other when she was a teenager. The end result is that we both have a serious mistrust of authority especially when people use it to scare you into submission. We both would have been extremely upset to get a yellow card as in the case of the original OP.

IAN-UK

It's a shame your urge to defend The System overcame the wisdom of the first part of your two-handed conclusion.

HighLife

I really couldn't agree more.

And a quick scan of the LHR Byelaws 2014 reveals no mention of photography or filming of anything, let alone staff, BA or otherwise*. Perhaps someone with more time could look into this question properly if they are interested and think it would be useful to get chapter and verse on this?

http://www.heathrow.com/file_source/...elaws_2014.pdf

Nothing irritates me more than people in uniform (whether Police or BA staff) inventing legal-sounding stuff to prevent me from doing something.

*obviously the no photography signs in customs are very clear, but I don't recall seeing any at immigration. There are certainly 'no mobile phone' signs there.

bealine

I can see we're not going to agree here, so maybe the answer is always to simply call the police.

Mind you, in some places around the world, I think the yellow card may be the preferred option!

Hardly a day goes by without an incident involving "customers" losing their temper and abusing staff at Heathrow. Whilst we do try our hardest to ensure there is no threat to aviation by assesssing the behaviour before boarding, there are some which become a serious threat to passengers and crew in-flight. The "Yellow Card" is a warning that further bad behaviour will result in prosecution.

"Ground Rage" and "Air Rage" and ther potential outcomes are very serious. If the OP really feels he is innocent, then let him write to BA's Security Manager at Waterside who will investigate the matter - I'm sure there will be CCTV somewhere.