web analytics


By Pete Moore On July 17th, 2019

A woman who allegedly caused a flight to be diverted due to “extremely disruptive behaviour” has been given an £85,000 bill by an airline.

The flight to Dalaman in Turkey was redirected back to Stansted Airport on 22 June.

A 25-year-old woman from Maidenhead in Berkshire was arrested on suspicion of common assault, criminal damage and endangering an aircraft.

Airline Jet2 said she has been billed £85,000 and given a lifetime ban.

I have no problem with this. We need to be responsible for our actions and also for the consequences of our actions. If Jet2 can prove its losses then she should have to stump up.

I particularly commend this course of action to anyone troubled by the ongoing actions of the economic terrorist group “Extinction Rebellion”.

29 Responses to “GOOD”

  1. No mention of any ethnic or religious information about this woman. No code words like “enrichment” to alert us to the fact that the subject of the post is from some group thet Pete doesn’t like. We can therefore assume that she is white.

  2. Of course she’s white. A muslim woman would be traveling with her man and he’d slap her one if she piped up.

  3. She’s not going to be required to pay that £85000 . That’s just a gimmick. But yes in general much tougher penalties need to be imposed on yobs who disrupt aircrafts in flight.

  4. I must live a charmed life.

    I’ve never seen anyone seriously drunk or in any way troublesome on a flight, or at an airport.

    Yes, punishment for those who disrupt aircraft in any way should be very harsh.

    A lifetime ban is correct, but I bet that there will be some professional complainers who say that it is unfair in some way. Other airlines should also ban a person who disrupts flight.

  5. Colm,
    //She’s not going to be required to pay that £85000 . That’s just a gimmick. But yes in general much tougher penalties need to be imposed on yobs who disrupt aircrafts in flight.//

    I agree, I doubt she’ll end up paying the £85,000. She probably just declare herself bankrupt.

    I also agree with the tougher penalties. Navage us need for the penalties on drunk drivers, speeding motorists and drivers who kill due to negligence.

  6. *There’s also a need

  7. I particularly commend this course of action to anyone troubled by the ongoing actions of the economic terrorist group “Extinction Rebellion”.

    I’d be careful about that Pete. The fossil fuel industry has successfully stalled effective action on CO2 emissions for decades, but Exxon was fully aware (and accepting) of the science as early as 1990. That could justly be called climate terrorism.

  8. Sorry Exxon, I did you an injustice. You were well aware of the science as early as 1977, my bad:

    “Exxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it became a public issue, according to a recent investigation from InsideClimate News. This knowledge did not prevent the company (now ExxonMobil and the world’s largest oil and gas company) from spending decades refusing to publicly acknowledge climate change and even promoting climate misinformation—an approach many have likened to the lies spread by the tobacco industry regarding the health risks of smoking. Both industries were conscious that their products wouldn’t stay profitable once the world understood the risks, so much so that they used the same consultants to develop strategies on how to communicate with the public.

    Experts, however, aren’t terribly surprised. “It’s never been remotely plausible that they did not understand the science,” says Naomi Oreskes, a history of science professor at Harvard University. But as it turns out, Exxon didn’t just understand the science, the company actively engaged with it. In the 1970s and 1980s it employed top scientists to look into the issue and launched its own ambitious research program that empirically sampled carbon dioxide and built rigorous climate models. Exxon even spent more than $1 million on a tanker project that would tackle how much CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. It was one of the biggest scientific questions of the time, meaning that Exxon was truly conducting unprecedented research.”


  9. co2 does not cause the Earth to heat….. it does feed the crops and trees though that keep us alive.

  10. co2 does not cause the Earth to heat

    It’s a greenhouse gas so it causes warming. Simples.

  11. wrong….

    more from the cult……

    The Prince of Wales has warned global leaders that if we don’t tackle climate change in 18 months the human race will go extinct in a speech in London yesterday to foreign ministers from the Commonwealth. “I am firmly of the view that the next 18 months will decide our ability to keep climate change to survivable levels and to restore nature to the equilibrium we need for our survival,” Prince Charles said.

  12. Patrick Van Roy,

    co2 does not cause the Earth to heat….. it does feed the crops and trees though that keep us alive.

    It’s a demonstrable fact that CO2 and other greenhouse gases cause the Earth to heat.
    Even most at the climate change denies don’t disagree with this fact.

  13. wrong….

    It’s a greenhouse gas so it causes warming. Simples.

  14. 0.04 percent carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doesn’t warm anything.

    The Earths Climate is controlled by the Sun, the Earths orbit, and the fact that 2/3rds of our planet is covered in water.

    Everything else is bull.

  15. It’s a greenhouse gas so it causes warming. Simples.

  16. lmao….. after these conversations I have to change from a belt to suspenders…. I have no ass left from laughing so hard.

  17. It’s a greenhouse gas so it causes warming.

  18. nope sorry wrong….. the math just doesn’t work.

  19. It’s a greenhouse gas so it causes warming. The maths were predicted in the 1890s and have been proved remarkably accurate. But you know this, you are just in denial. Check out cognitave dissonance syndrome.

  20. so if I fill an airtight enclosed room with the gases that make up our atmosphere and keep adding CO2 at a higher saturation level the temperature in the room will rise…

    That’s what you’re selling?

  21. No idea Patrick, never tried it. And I’m not selling anything.

    But I suspect that Earth’s atmosphere is not the same as an airtight room, just a wild guess.

  22. The Earth’s atmosphere is dominated by the Sun, as you have pointed out many times. The greenhouse effect is to trap that heat and prevent it escaping from our atmosphere. I see this happening in my greenhouse every day of the year. It is always warmer than the temperature in the garden from January to December.

  23. you’re right it’s not and you are selling something…. World domination by wackos.

    You keep repeating yourself Peter…. It’s a greenhouse gas so it causes warming.

    It’s an inert gas that I could fill the whole room with and the temperature would not change a single degree. Any person in the room would die, but it wouldn’t be from heat.

    The suns radiation heating those gases is what effects them. When the Earth rotates closer to the sun that radiation heats ALL the gasses and the Earth warms, when we drift further out in our orbit the gases cool and the ball of water we live on freezes.

    Those two effects happen no matter what level of CO2 is in the Atmosphere.

  24. Yawn.

    I can’t be bothered to argue further. You reject Darwin so you cannot be taken seriously on any other scientific issue. You think that Adam and Eve existed at the same time as the dinosaurs, LOL.

  25. Peter I don’t reject Darwin I just state the fact that it is a theory and not proven fact.

    You push theories that no one has proven as fact, they are not fact. A good theory is still just a good theory until it can be proven. You can not prove either.

  26. I don’t reject Darwin

    LOL. You are a Creationist, why not just admit it like Pete Moore and Allan have? It’s like believing in the Tooth Fairy, but WTF? We are not living in Iran, you can believe in goblins if you want to and you will not get arrested.

  27. Jesus…… talk about stepping over the edge.

  28. Lets see am I a creationist….. ? The answer to that question is not as simple as you think Peter. As a man of Science and a man of Faith what I call creationism I really don’t think you’ll understand.

    Ok let me try to explain. All life is the result of chemistry. As planets form they are seeded with building blocks of life by solar dust and meteor strikes. If the planet is in the goldilock zone and has water life as we know it develops. And it develops according to Darwin’s THEORY of Evolution.

    Life like ours is according to the numbers actually very common in our Universe. That however is a THEORY. At our current level of technology it can’t be proven just as Darwin can’t be proven with our current level of technology. Both THEORIES are probably correct. They are sound. Yet both unproven.

    The largest obstacle that we have in proving Darwin planetside is the fact that the majority of our physical record of development is under water. A catastrophic event occurred on this rock that physically shifted it’s mass off it’s axis. The areas of the planet where your evidence resides is on the bottom of the ocean.

    What was once covered with water is now land and vice versa what was once dry land is now covered by water. Until we master undersea archaeology you’ll never find what you are looking for.

    I also believe in GOD it is he who created the heavens and the conditions for life. Our job as human beings is to unravel how he did it. God did not play dice with the Universe.

    Everything that exists has a mathematical equation that explains everything about it. We have just barely scratched the surface. As the math is revealed so is the face of GOD.

    Now does that make me a Creationist ?

  29. Here is another THEORY I subscribe to.

    Drake Equation

    What do we need to know about to discover life in space? How can we estimate the number of technological civilizations that might exist among the stars? While working as a radio astronomer at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in Green Bank, West Virginia, Dr. Frank Drake conceived an approach to bound the terms involved in estimating the number of technological civilizations that may exist in our galaxy. The Drake Equation, as it has become known, was first presented by Drake in 1961 and identifies specific factors thought to play a role in the development of such civilizations. Although there is no unique solution to this equation, it is a generally accepted tool used by the scientific community to examine these factors.
    — Frank Drake, 1961


    N = The number of civilizations in the Milky Way Galaxy whose electromagnetic emissions are detectable.

    R* = The rate of formation of stars suitable for the development of intelligent life.

    fp = The fraction of those stars with planetary systems.

    ne = The number of planets, per solar system, with an environment suitable for life.

    fl = The fraction of suitable planets on which life actually appears.

    fi = The fraction of life bearing planets on which intelligent life emerges.

    fc = The fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space.

    L = The length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.

    Within the limits of our existing technology, any practical search for distant intelligent life must necessarily be a search for some manifestation of a distant technology. In each of its last four decadal reviews, the National Research Council has emphasized the relevance and importance of searching for evidence of the electromagnetic signature of distant civilizations.

    Besides illuminating the factors involved in such a search, the Drake Equation is a simple, effective tool for stimulating intellectual curiosity about the universe around us, for helping us to understand that life as we know it is the end product of a natural, cosmic evolution, and for making us realize how much we are a part of that universe. A key goal of the SETI Institute is to further high quality research that will yield additional information related to any of the factors of this fascinating equation.