Riobard

They couldn’t have gotten far.

It is expected that your intense surveillance will influence the outcome. RPReplay_Final1730848621.mov

But this consolation possibility if you look at it from both sides now.

Since monarchy is not super popular their super complicated bind requires putting a super level of thought into whether to put in a showing, however super appropriate or super inconsiderate such is labelled according to the super polarized expression of public opinion. Super damned if they did or super damned if they didn’t. Either way they’d take a super drubbing on the chin, in a super literal manner as it happens. The king actually speaks for renewable energy at meetings related to challenging climate change. But I guess he used his paper towel roll to wipe his face rather than toss it in a super insensitive way to the mob.

https://www.minsalud.gov.co/salud/Documents/FIEBRE AMARILLA(ANTIAMARILICA).pdf

Or at the very least present at Brazilian check-in the summary statement from the Colombia health ministry that suggests contraindication over age 60, although discretionary vaccination age 60-65. (Link embedded, less blurry, in following post.)

It’s a precaution or relative contraindication as opposed to absolute contraindication. I received my vaccination over the age of 60 even though it was to satisfy the requirement rather than anticipating the likelihood of yellow fever exposure. I wouldn’t risk travel to Colombia from Brazil without a contraindication certificate.

And he does so insistently.

Just imagine the tightwads here frantically clutching one of these single deuces for dear life when paying their tricks, desperate to keep the maned wolf from the door. Sad for them but no violin small enough.

Hanoiing if you can’t, as the trip will have been pho nothing.

Hmmmm. Wonder what Project 0850 underwear line had in mind for chest harnesses. I believe that this is a prime example of wearer-worn dissonance. It would indeed be an audacious floor captain daring to quote 850 baht ST. Swiping west.

I also recall there being a thread on personal injury due to not being buckled in during an unexpected altitude change. I think that any congregate activity that involves a group standing as opposed to secured in seats where possible is going to be frowned upon and the crew potentially backed into a corner regarding what exceptions are legitimate. The general rule seems to be to approximate vehicle seatbelt compliance short of inhibiting necessary movement in practical terms. The seatbelt sign activation differentiates obligation to safety from preferred behaviour that unambiguously promotes good measure safer-than-sorry security notwithstanding the outlier rarity of mishaps.

I certainly don’t mind the phenomenon of structured prayer in flight and I agree based on the photo image that it was neither unacceptable nor disruptive in this case. It doesn’t nearly make the list of passenger behaviours that invoke in me homicidal fantasies that typically involve a garrotte from behind, there being obvious limits to methods on a plane. Indeed, there may be some tension between a practice that is religiously obligatory and a context in which dispensation or improvisation is warranted due to obvious obstacles. It turned out to be not a good idea due to the discriminatory profiling of an identifiable yet innocuous and improvising homogeneous group that ensued. Granted, the gathering would not have forecasted such a ridiculous consequence. I think that the threshold for common sense rule violation is lower in flight. I expect that I’m not the only one with an urgent bladder waiting in line for the toilet and being snapped at if not immediately complying with a seating command due to spontaneous turbulence. The crew constantly making judgement calls. It can go one way or another depending on the attendant, and I won’t back down, but I’m trading off compliance for a need out of my control that must be satisfied. However, the etiquette of structured group prayer is not without precedence because accommodation is made in most large airports and on some airlines inflight. I think that the rule of thumb in the absence of structured in-flight accommodation is to pose the request to a crew member for improvised dedicated space accommodation, or at the very least communicate the intent to gather unobtrusively for formal prayer and alert the crew member regarding the playbook details. It would be impossible to determine whether the request, if in fact denied, or responded to with “we’d prefer not due to safety considerations”, was tinged with discrimination. But the group would have a solid secularly governed basis for a hall pass and would not be restricted from substituting an improvised version of the religious observance, probably seated. It appears (not sure) in this case a complaint made it to the cockpit and a compliance order was made regarding seating, perhaps unheeded, or the profiling had already been irreversibly anchored. Surely any revision in airline best practices, while condemning the unique cascade effect in this case based on the incontrovertible discrimination on the part of a few rigid and stupid staff, would need to consider complex decision-making regarding such structured subgroup prayer gathering. It’s not just preventing recurrence but I would think need to formalize inflight religious practice terms of reference. That’s the $4,000,000 question. All I ever had to do was not eat meat on Friday and not suck cock without the subsequent sacrament of confession. With veg meal options only the second urge must be subdued inflight.

It gets even better. YouTube had apparently banned the video because it interpreted the content as disallowed “hate speech” rather than seeing it as an example of discrimination that should be aired. Brilliant. It’s obvious the airline representative was being called out.

https://www.dansdeals.com/more/news/airline-news/outrageous-german-airline-bans-jews-flying-lufthansa-supervisor-jewish-people-mess-made-problems-everyone-pay-couple/

The fine is a later chapter in a story about outrageous treatment. Trying to put the pieces together. It appears that the crew reported to airline security that there were some passengers exhibiting noncompliance in that they congregated standing up as opposed to the crew preference that they be seated, and there may have been some noncompliance with respect to a mask mandate at the time. No acting out as such, though I’m not sure that grouping in the exit space whether it be prayer, cheerleading practice, or hopscotch is a very good idea. Most of the large number of Jewish passengers on the short-haul flight were headed to a pilgrimage. Story at the time posted below. RPReplay_Final1729014981.mov

The usual, meet & greet with meat in the Aegean.

You might provide more detail. Was it a fingerprint scan on an external gate and the camera picks up the registered face linked to the fingerprint? That’s how I envision it. Unless you simply buzz and your face is scanned at that point based on check-in biometrics. In either case you can possibly let yourself in and your guest can be hovering out of range nearby but outside the gate and let in by you … but give it a minute … swinging the gate the opposite direction how you had entered, once you are inside. That would be how some deliveries are made to occupants going down to accept, say, a DoorDash meal order, typically not letting the deliverer in any further but that does not mean they couldn’t be spirited in. Obviously tourism unit guests accept such deliveries too. Unless you have to scan to leave the courtyard opening the gate to exit to the street and the camera is activated, but that might just be picking up your face scan from the opposite direction camera. Depends. You may be able to circumvent the guest scan procedure depending on the setup. If you are dealing with a mechanical setup there may be a workaround. If it’s more ironclad and also possibly requires facial recognition for elevator access you may be out of luck. However, it’s unlikely a full-time resident hosting a social event would need every guest registered. I do believe that these systems are sophisticated enough to be set up to distinguish permanent occupant units’ security details from tourist rentals. Additionally, if you had a phone conversation as opposed to platform text you really have little basis to make a formal complaint. However, I would contact Airbnb to get ahead of it seeing as you may get a negative review, to try to pre-empt such. Explain what was imputed by the host to you by bringing in a local friend the host asserted represented homosexual or sex work activity. You have the greater plausible deniability. Try to block the reciprocal post-checkout review to avoid a big hit to your star rating if that is of relevance. The host can absorb a zero-star rating into their composite better than you unless you have dozens yourself. You evidently took a rubber bullet while the host employed a decision in which he/she combined risk management in the interests of you dodging a bullet, that cannot be entirely considered a judgement not in your favour considering bad outcomes, albeit good security intentions watered down by the expressed element of homonegativity. The least they could have done was send you a list of love motels in the area.

Sounds like one for Erin. It not right. Fight fight fight.

1 + 69.

1+ 68. Please ensure this rolls into October or at the very least the topic is re-initiated.

I may occasionally validate but I wouldn’t anoint.