So one thing I can't help but wonder, is why they would choose to fly through Heathrow on the way to Rio, when there are any number of more convenient airports to fly through.
There's the obvious Lufthansa/Frankfurt connection he could have used, or the almost pleasant KLM/Schiphol route (which also seems the quickest from a cursory glance at hipmunk).
All of the other saturday/sunday flights that seem to pass through Heathrow to Rio are several hundred dollars more expensive and/or a five or six hour longer journey.
I suspect they were baiting the UK government, and were expecting this kind of retaliation. While it worked, it still feels kind of 'daily mail' of them.
Obviously it's circumstantial, and it could simply be that the Guardian had an existing account with BA or something as innocuous as that.
All I know is that you couldn't pay me enough to endure the horrors of Heathrow unless there was absolutely no other way to avoid it. And that's without the threat of the UK government possibly detaining me.
There is the slight possibility that since The Guardian was footing the bill, they may have placed restrictions on the choice of flights and or airlines.
You assume they are living like fugitives, not like simple folks that just picked the cheapest flight available on the day/time they wanted. like, you know, you and me?
what I am saying is that, unless the prices for flights were WILDLY different last week, the flights that don't go through heathrow are both cheaper and faster than the ones that do.
There are several other factors normal people take into account. Maybe they didn't want to route trhu a country they do not have an entry visa already in case they are delayed more than a day? Maybe they were taking a day long connection to visit some friends?
British security agents lowered themselves to the level of "thug" when they confiscated David Miranda's property. Sadly, this event has reshaped my thoughts on what role government should play in our lives.
"You must answer all questions and hand over any data or documents requested" and
"If you fail to comply you could be prosecuted under ..Terrorism Act."
Wow. No right to a lawyer. Who wouldn't be scared enough to tell them anything they wanted to know, lest you wind up in a very deep, dark hole a la Manning.
Who made this kind of crap into law? We need to reverse these laws, ASAP.
9 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 37.5 ms ] threadThere's the obvious Lufthansa/Frankfurt connection he could have used, or the almost pleasant KLM/Schiphol route (which also seems the quickest from a cursory glance at hipmunk).
All of the other saturday/sunday flights that seem to pass through Heathrow to Rio are several hundred dollars more expensive and/or a five or six hour longer journey.
I suspect they were baiting the UK government, and were expecting this kind of retaliation. While it worked, it still feels kind of 'daily mail' of them.
Obviously it's circumstantial, and it could simply be that the Guardian had an existing account with BA or something as innocuous as that.
All I know is that you couldn't pay me enough to endure the horrors of Heathrow unless there was absolutely no other way to avoid it. And that's without the threat of the UK government possibly detaining me.
"If you fail to comply you could be prosecuted under ..Terrorism Act."
Wow. No right to a lawyer. Who wouldn't be scared enough to tell them anything they wanted to know, lest you wind up in a very deep, dark hole a la Manning.
Who made this kind of crap into law? We need to reverse these laws, ASAP.