Absolute *** of our time Pt.MXXVI

[FoxyPV]

Michael O'Leary from Ryanair

[stez]

Michael O'Leary from Ryanair

why? he's paying up now he's had his free advertising!

[Guest Bilo]

Agree that Michael O'Leary is a massive twat.

Every single word that comes out of his mouth seems to show nothing but utter contempt for his customers. The tickets may be cheap but everybody deserves a decent level of service, rather than the horrible flying cattle-trucks his firm provides. I've flown Ryanair once in my life and never will again.

If ever a firm deserved to go tits up, it's fucking Ryanair.

[stez]

Agree that Michael O'Leary is a massive twat.

Every single word that comes out of his mouth seems to show nothing but utter contempt for his customers. The tickets may be cheap but everybody deserves a decent level of service, rather than the horrible flying cattle-trucks his firm provides. I've flown Ryanair once in my life and never will again.

If ever a firm deserved to go tits up, it's fucking Ryanair.

surely the massive twats are the people who fly ryanair?

[Webbo]

Agree that Michael O'Leary is a massive twat.

Every single word that comes out of his mouth seems to show nothing but utter contempt for his customers. The tickets may be cheap but everybody deserves a decent level of service, rather than the horrible flying cattle-trucks his firm provides. I've flown Ryanair once in my life and never will again.

If ever a firm deserved to go tits up, it's fucking Ryanair.

Nobody's forced to fly Ryanair. Personally I think it's a bit much when you've probably only paid 7 quid for your ticket to expect 2/3 hundred quid in compensation when it's the govt who mistakenly cancel the flights.

[Daggers]

*wrong thread*

Edited 22 April 2010 by Mario Kempes

[lou]

Agree that Michael O'Leary is a massive twat.

Every single word that comes out of his mouth seems to show nothing but utter contempt for his customers. The tickets may be cheap but everybody deserves a decent level of service, rather than the horrible flying cattle-trucks his firm provides. I've flown Ryanair once in my life and never will again.

If ever a firm deserved to go tits up, it's fucking Ryanair.

Sorry Rob but youre better than that! So everyone who works at Ryanair deserves to lose their jobs?

Why does Ryanair deserve to go tits up? Its an economy Airline and thats exactly what it offers! We flew with them last Summer (not through choice as it was part of a package holiday) and I was dreading the flights after hearing all the scaremongering about them. We had one of the best flight experiences weve ever had, both flights left on time and arrived early, the staff were friendly, polite and efficient and the planes were nice. we didnt have to pay to use the loo and took small cases each that fit into the hand luggage bit but all their charges are clearly visible on the website so its not like they are hiding anything. When you holidaying somewhere hot you dont need a massive suitcase full of stuff. We had plenty of room for all we needed. I wouldnt hesitate to fly with them again. I cant afford to fly with the likes of BA to be honest having checked their fares they are way out of our price range. End of the day its a way of getting where you want to go.... as long as its safe and I get where I need to go I couldnt give a shit to be honest.

surely the massive twats are the people who fly ryanair?

Yeah I must be then

[Guest Bilo]

Fair play, saying they deserve to go tits up is a bit harsh but as soon as things go wrong, Ryanair generally don't give a shit. I'm sure some of the frontline staff are great, but it's a different sotry higher up the chain.

They're a budget airline so you can't expect the same level of service as other airlines, but if some of the things that come from their main man are indicative of the company's attitude towards customers as a whole then they become a hard company to like. My flight with Ryanair was late, refreshments on the plane were overpriced and the staff weren't the friendliest bunch either when I was being charged a stupid amount for being a couple of pounds over my luggage weight allowance. The pitfalls of flying a budget airline I thought but I found a later experience with Easyjet so much better. God knows how bad it would have been if anything particularly bad had actually gone wrong as O'Leary seems to think that anyone who has a flight cancelled through no fault of their own deserves nothing better than sleeping on a plastic bench.

[lou]

Fair play, saying they deserve to go tits up is a bit harsh but as soon as things go wrong, Ryanair generally don't give a shit. I'm sure some of the frontline staff are great, but it's a different sotry higher up the chain.

They're a budget airline so you can't expect the same level of service as other airlines, but if some of the things that come from their main man are indicative of the company's attitude towards customers as a whole then they become a hard company to like. My flight with Ryanair was late, refreshments on the plane were overpriced and the staff weren't the friendliest bunch either when I was being charged a stupid amount for being a couple of pounds over my luggage weight allowance. The pitfalls of flying a budget airline I thought but I found a later experience with Easyjet so much better. God knows how bad it would have been if anything particularly bad had actually gone wrong as O'Leary seems to think that anyone who has a flight cancelled through no fault of their own deserves nothing better than sleeping on a plastic bench.

Most big companies have the same issue with the fat cats attitude to customers as they are so far removed from them.

Well the prices they charged for refreshments were exactly the same on Easyjet when we flew but again everyone knows food and drinks on flights are stupid prices... unless your on a 12 hour flight I guess the answer is eat and drink before you fly?

Also Id argue that its the passengers responsibility to ensure their luggage is under the weight allowance as again, its no secret the charges for excess baggage are astronomical. We didnt have to pay a penny over for our flights as I prepared before I flew so I wouldnt have to

[Guest Bilo]

Most big companies have the same issue with the fat cats attitude to customers as they are so far removed from them.

Well the prices they charged for refreshments were exactly the same on Easyjet when we flew but again everyone knows food and drinks on flights are stupid prices... unless your on a 12 hour flight I guess the answer is eat and drink before you fly?

Also Id argue that its the passengers responsibility to ensure their luggage is under the weight allowance as again, its no secret the charges for excess baggage are astronomical. We didnt have to pay a penny over for our flights as I prepared before I flew so I wouldnt have to

Thing is their weight allowance was tiny compared to bigger airlines, and by the time I'd paid the difference I might as well have flown BA, had a better service, free drinks and landed at an airport that wasn't two hours bus and train ride away from where I wanted to be. Take your points though.

[lou]

Thing is their weight allowance was tiny compared to bigger airlines, and by the time I'd paid the difference I might as well have flown BA, had a better service, free drinks and landed at an airport that wasn't two hours bus and train ride away from where I wanted to be. Take your points though.

Must have been more than a couple of pounds over then

Yes theyre weight allowances are smaller than others but they are clearly visible on their website so Id still argue that its a choice passengers have?

[Guest Bilo]

Must have been more than a couple of pounds over then

Yes theyre weight allowances are smaller than others but they are clearly visible on their website so Id still argue that its a choice passengers have?

Fair.

I suppose they're OK if you're flying to a business meeting with a bag of sugar in the hold 50 miles away from a major European city.

One bitten, twice shy I suppose.

[lou]

Fair.

I suppose they're OK if you're flying to a business meeting with a bag of sugar in the hold 50 miles away from a major European city.

One bitten, twice shy I suppose.

Well yes, you can only go on what youve experienced and I was lucky ours was a great one!

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

Gordon Brown and his ilk.

Edited 23 April 2010 by DANGEROUS TIGER

[davieG]

You get what it says on the Tin, I've used them 3/4 times and never had any problems it's horses for courses. We been to Dinard for short breaks and taken just 'hand luggage' and we're due to go early June ( although our accommodation is looking dodgy ) and it's costing us £75 for two return - that includes all the card charges as well.

There's no way I could afford to even contemplate flying with one of the other airlines even BMi Baby cost significantly more for a similar length journey.

I'm obviously a pauper twat

My hand luggage cost (less than £5) - fine for 3/4 days.

[Jon the Hat]

Until now, Ryanair passengers have got exactly what they deserve. I.e. what they pay for. The EU law is complete utter nonsense expecting airlines to pay compensatio to passengers when the airlines wanted to fly. Anyone see Eurostar getting fleeced like this? No? What about the Ferry companies? No? Again a law brought in for one thing is used to achieve something entirely different. Looks like the EU are just as bad at drafting laws as the UK Government.

[FoxyPV]

The airlines wanted to fly but what if the ash had of jammed one of the engines and the plane hit the earth like a stone? The airlines would have been open to massive amounts of litigation and compensation nevermind the people who would have died. They would have then tried to blame the govts for allowing them to fly.

O'Leary is bitching for the sake of bitching.

[Webbo]

The airlines wanted to fly but what if the ash had of jammed one of the engines and the plane hit the earth like a stone? The airlines would have been open to massive amounts of litigation and compensation nevermind the people who would have died. They would have then tried to blame the govts for allowing them to fly.

O'Leary is bitching for the sake of bitching.

But the ash is still in the air (or was when the ban was lifted). The govt were either being over cautious when they banned flights or they are taking risks with peoples lives now by allowing flights.

As I said earlier it's a bit much to expect £2/300 compensation when you've only paid £7 for your ticket, especially when it's not the airlines fault.

[Guest]

Thing is their weight allowance was tiny compared to bigger airlines, and by the time I'd paid the difference I might as well have flown BA, had a better service, free drinks and landed at an airport that wasn't two hours bus and train ride away from where I wanted to be. Take your points though.

I've flown with BA a few times, and have had some shocking service, and didn't get free drinks or a meal, because it was a scheduled flight that was only a couple of hours. On the other hand, I've been on a similar flight, and the service was great. Like everything, it's not all black and white.

And how much luggage do you need? I went away for three weeks last year, and my case weighed 13kg.

[Webbo]

And how much luggage do you need? I went away for three weeks last year, and my case weighed 13kg.

You only wear dolls' clothes.

Edited 24 April 2010 by Webbo

[Guest]

You only wear dolls' clothes.

I'm not that small!!

[StanSP]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10369277.stm

One of the two killers of Merseyside toddler James Bulger has been charged with possession and distribution of indecent images of children.

Jon Venables, who killed James in 1993, was released from jail in 2001 and given a new identity and anonymity for life under a special court order.

But Venables, now 27, was recalled to prison in February after allegedly breaching the terms of his licence.

He is charged with two offences under the 1978 Protection of Children Act.

It is alleged that he downloaded 57 indecent images of children between February 2009 and February 2010.

He is secondly accused of distributing seven images between 1 and 23 February this year by allowing files on his computer to be available through a peer-to-peer network. Gavin Millar QC, for the Crown, told the judge that there was no evidence that anyone else had acquired the files through that route.

The case is at a very early stage and will return to court on 23 July. That hearing will be the first opportunity for Venables to indicate whether he will be pleading guilty or not guilty to the alleged offences.

Were he to plead not guilty, he would appear before a jury under his new name. If he pleads guilty, the case will move to sentencing before a judge.

Under the terms of Venables' anonymity order, the media is not allowed to report anything about his new identity and a jury would never know who he really is

In March, the then Justice Secretary Jack Straw announced that Venables had been returned to prison but said that it was not in the interests of a fair trial to publicise what had allegedly happened.

Denise Fergus, James's mother, had called for the reason for the recall to be made public, saying as his mother she had "a right to know".

In a statement, read by her spokesman on her behalf on Monday, she said: "It is right that the charges he faces should be made public.

"I have been kept informed to an extent about the legal proceedings in the case over the past few months through the Ministry of Justice, the Merseyside Probation Service and more recently by senior officers from Merseyside police."

She said her solicitor had also been in contact with the ministry about concerns she had over the "way the case is going to be handled".

"We are still awaiting a reply to that formal approach. I am prepared to wait and see what happens. I simply want to see justice done in this case and I don't want to say anything that could affect the proceedings," the statement said.

Speaking outside court on Monday, Robin Makin, solicitor for James's father Ralph, attacked the Ministry of Justice for the way it had handled the case ever since Venables' recall.

"We consider that the way this has been handled since news of Jon Venables being recalled to custody has been a disaster," he said.

"The public authorities ought to behave quite differently and in due course further details are likely to emerge of the mistakes that were made. Ineptitude and incompetence spring to mind."

Venables and his friend Robert Thompson were jailed for life when, as 10-year-olds, they took two-year-old James from a shopping centre in Bootle.

The toddler's body was found on a disused railway line more than two miles away from where he had been taken.

Venables and Thompson were given new identities on their release from prison in 2001 because of the risk that they would be victims of a vigilante attack.

Media law expert Mark Stephens insisted despite the publicity it was "almost certain" that Venables could get a fair trial.

He said: "The judge has gone to extraordinary lengths, as has the prosecution. They have worked with the defence to make sure that a fair trial can happen and that justice will out at the end of the day."

However, BBC legal affairs analyst Clive Coleman says if the case goes to trial, it will be a very difficult one for the authorities to manage.

Defence lawyers could argue there was an "abuse of process" because of the publicity surrounding the case. They would tell the judge that a jury would be able to identify the defendant, and the notoriety of James' Bulger's murder would mean Venables would not be able to get a fair trial, he said.

Edited 22 June 2010 by lcfc30STM

[Bellend Sebastian]

Nearly 2 months between outbreaks of cvntyness. Things aren't so bad

[Zingari]

Nearly 2 months between outbreaks of cvntyness. Things aren't so bad

maybe cvntyness has become the norm and it's hardly worth posting about it

[Bellend Sebastian]

It's true, I hardly get a second glance nowadays