Mum accused of trafficking daughter in airline blunder

Mark Hewitt wrote:
Sure, you know that, I know that. But the average bod in the street isn't
going to think to look at the Italian consulate or FCO websites, how do you
know she even had a computer? For most people the reasonable course of
action is to call the airline, and if they give her certain advice (which
they did, twice) then she cannot reasonably be blamed for acting upon it.


Thanks.. you got me to reread the story.

1. She went to Italy without a passport or birth certificate for the child.

2. She was interogated by the Italian police for hours

3. She was "deported" because the baby didn't have a "passport".
She was told by the Italians that she needed a passport for the baby.

4. She went back to the UK and was questioned by the police for more
than 8 hours.

5. So far, she had been told by the Italians that she needed a passport,
she has been questioned for hours by the Italians, then questioned for
hours by the British police.

At this point, she AGAIN relied on Ryanair telling her she didn't need a
passport for the baby.. She relied on Ryanair telling her, despite the
Italians telling her she needed a passport. After the ordeal of the
first trip, do you think that maybe she should have verified what
Ryanair said?

I am not saying that Ryanair should have some of the blame, but why
would you rely on their advice for the second trip, since she knew she
got bad advice on the first trip?

"mrtravel" wrote in message
. net...

Thanks.. you got me to reread the story.

1. She went to Italy without a passport or birth certificate for the
child.

Yes, on the advice of Ryanair.

2. She was interogated by the Italian police for hours

3. She was "deported" because the baby didn't have a "passport".
She was told by the Italians that she needed a passport for the baby.

4. She went back to the UK and was questioned by the police for more than
8 hours.

5. So far, she had been told by the Italians that she needed a passport,
she has been questioned for hours by the Italians, then questioned for
hours by the British police.

At this point, she AGAIN relied on Ryanair telling her she didn't need a
passport for the baby.. She relied on Ryanair telling her, despite the
Italians telling her she needed a passport. After the ordeal of the first
trip, do you think that maybe she should have verified what Ryanair said?

Yup, she was indeed stupid at this point!

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:38:42 +0100, "tim \(in Sweden\)"
wrote:


"B Vaughan" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:48:57 -0000, "Miss L. Toe"
wrote:

Monday, 27th February 2006, 10:02
Category: Crime and Punishment

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
LIFE STYLE EXTRA (UK) - A horrified mum missed her own daughter's
christening and was arrested as a baby trafficker after a blunder by
budget
airline Ryanair, it was claimed today.

I don't know why this is considered a blunder by Ryanair. I think it
was a blunder by the family to ask an airline ticket clerk what travel
documents they needed for an infant. As I understand the article, the
child had no documents at all and was not on either of the parents'
passport. There has been a good deal of infant trafficking in Italy
recently and the Italian police were justifiably suspicious of a
totally undocumented baby being brought into the country.

Of course, they never should have been allowed to board the plane, but
the parents bear a greater responsibility than Ryanair in this matter.

I'm with the others who don't agree.

It's the check-in (or departure lounge) clerk's job to be sure
that everyone who boards the plane has the correct
documentation.

If they don't do this, then they are at fault.

Having said that, if they had been blocked from travelling
at that point the family would still (with Ryanair) have lost
the cost of the flights.

I just looked on the UK passport website. No where could I find a
statement that said all children have to have their own passports
nowadays, which I think is the case. In the old days they could be on
a parent's passport, until they really needed one of their own.
--


Look at http://www.ukpa.gov.uk/passport_child_law.asp

JohnT

In message , at
07:50:47 on Tue, 28 Feb 2006, mrtravel remarked:
Since the baby wouldn't have gotten the passport in time, they would
have still been out the money for the plane tickets and the other
expenses.
The American Embassy in London will issue an emergency passport
same day, in the situation described. I have no reason to believe the
Australians wouldn't.

Same day doesn't mean it would have been in time for the trip.

I think the child was more than a day old. That means there was plenty
of time to visit the Embassy.
--
Roland Perry

george wrote:

Mark Hewitt wrote:

snipped
Sure, you know that, I know that. But the average bod in the street isn't
going to think to look at the Italian consulate or FCO websites, how do you
know she even had a computer? For most people the reasonable course of
action is to call the airline, and if they give her certain advice (which
they did, twice) then she cannot reasonably be blamed for acting upon it.


It was stated elsewhere that the mother was Australian. Living in
another country she certainly should be aware of embassies and
consulates. The correct thing would have been for her to contact the
Australian consulate and embassy if she and the baby are to be
travelling on Australian documents to check what was needed. The other
countries (UK and Italy) have then little to do with the matter if the
Ausgtralian passport requirements are met.

Not true. If she is traveling to Italy, it is up to the Italian
government to determine what is required for her to enter the country.

She might not (or might) be blamed for acting on the airline's advice,
but she certainly had to pay the consequences for it. Therefore, if
something is important enough, it should be checked from multiple
sources.

Not only did she rely on it for the first trip, but after being told by
the Italians she needed a passport, and hours of interogation by the
Italians and Brits, she asked Ryanair again, and went back with only a
birth certificatae. So, after being given incorrect info by the airline
and going through hours of interogations, she relied on the same people
AGAIN

Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at
07:50:47 on Tue, 28 Feb 2006, mrtravel remarked:

Since the baby wouldn't have gotten the passport in time, they would
have still been out the money for the plane tickets and the other
expenses.

The American Embassy in London will issue an emergency passport
same day, in the situation described. I have no reason to believe
the Australians wouldn't.


Same day doesn't mean it would have been in time for the trip.


I think the child was more than a day old. That means there was plenty
of time to visit the Embassy.

I was referring to the amount of time between the first and second trip,
after she was told by the Italians that she needed to get the baby a
passport.

The odd part of this is that her husband was already in Italy, and it is
possible that the baby might actually be an Italian citizen.

In message , at
09:33:19 on Tue, 28 Feb 2006, mrtravel remarked:

The correct thing would have been for her to contact the
Australian consulate and embassy if she and the baby are to be
travelling on Australian documents to check what was needed. The other
countries (UK and Italy) have then little to do with the matter if the
Ausgtralian passport requirements are met.

Not true. If she is traveling to Italy, it is up to the Italian
government to determine what is required for her to enter the country.

It would be unusual for a country like Italy to decide, unilaterally,
not to accept a passport from a country like Australia (if the passport
was a parent+child one) on the grounds that Italy required passports for
children. Not even the USA is that picky.

(OK, the lady didn't have the child on her passport, but your assertion
goes further than that).

She might not (or might) be blamed for acting on the airline's advice,
but she certainly had to pay the consequences for it. Therefore, if
something is important enough, it should be checked from multiple
sources.

Not only did she rely on it for the first trip, but after being told by
the Italians she needed a passport,

She was detained by the Italians because the baby "didn't have a
passport". But that doesn't rule out the possibility that some other
form of ID would be acceptable.

I've been in situations where someone has demanded a passport, and got
into a stalemate - until I offered an alternative ID. You just have to
know what kinds of alternate ID might be acceptable (the people asking
will rarely volunteer information about alternatives).
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 09:41:07
on Tue, 28 Feb 2006, mrtravel remarked:
Same day doesn't mean it would have been in time for the trip.
I think the child was more than a day old. That means there was
plenty of time to visit the Embassy.

I was referring to the amount of time between the first and second
trip, after she was told by the Italians that she needed to get the
baby a passport.

See my other posting. It's not clear that they said a passport was
required.

The odd part of this is that her husband was already in Italy, and it
is possible that the baby might actually be an Italian citizen.

Indeed. She was headed for "husband Massimo Guglielmi's home town".
--
Roland Perry

Calif Bill a écrit :

"Runge" wrote in message
...
US US US you can only talk about that country in this group????


And you talk about what country? At least the US hubs for Foreign Travel,
Europe included, the agents are taught what is needed/

Runge is jealous because he is not American.

Martin wrote:

Read the section on valid passport photos, especially those of babies.
Somewhere in a ministry building Monty Python lives.

Brings back memories of when The Teenager was a Sweet Little Baby. Her
passport photo was taken when she was 3 months old, in winter in
Scotland, so she was bundled up against the cold, and when we got
inside the photographer's shop she fell fast asleep in the warm. The
photo showed a small face appearing out of a pile of blankets, eyes
tight shut.

(Say "aaaaah".)

Of course the passport was valid until she was 5.

Mr B;