Topgate

[Bazile]

Were easy jet right in their decision ?

Perhaps she thought she was still on the beach in malaga

https://www-mirror-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mum-booted-easyjet-flight-after-17280661.amp?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&;ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mirror.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk-news%2Fmum-booted-easyjet-flight-after-17280661

[TonyV]

But at least she got so free (£149) worth of publicity you decide.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=gLAYXcbbHbCPlwS_yY3AAg&q=harriet+osborne&oq=Harriet&;gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0i131l2j0l2j0i131j0l5.3104.9614..13235...0.0..0.211.850.4j3j1......0....1..gws-wiz.....0..35i39.icLY2ssGNIY

[anotheoldgit]

Put on your flying jacket maam, you are misting up my goggles.

[Mamyalynne]

She needs a personal shopper for fashion advice.

[KARL]

Right ? Well, the airline says she was disruptive and (at least bordering on) abusive to cabin staff. If that is true (no witnesses quoted on that) then possibly/probably. As for the attire, I am inclined to agree it was a quite inappropriate air passenger's choice, if only in a practical sense - she was travelling to the UK after all where the weather is punishing to someone so dressed. On the other hand, my reaction purely in the "moral" sense is "What is the fuss about" (these days). Finally, one can only speculate about her motive although she hints at it. Women much older than she is still measure themselves by their looks, which is one of two pillars of a female's self esteem/evaluation. The other is fertility, neither has anything coming anywhere near in importance. On the looks side I have no doubt that she is aware that she is good looking, and that's possibly where all this started.

[andy-hughes]

The lady concerned is very attractive, and clearly aware of it - but it is still not an appropriate way to dress to travel on a plane.

In close proximity to passengers including children, and crew, a more demure outfit, not showing off her admirable and enviable décolletage would have been a smart move.

However, as a result, the lady has been able to ensure a huge audience of people who otherwise probably don't care, to see the offending outfit, and the exposed areas in question.

I wonder though - were there quite enough photos of the lady looking distressed?

[Old_Geezer]

Unspecified disruptive behaviour.
If she covered up such that it fulfilled the airline's rules then that should've been fine; but one wonders it that was the only reason she was refused.

[TonyV]

Lynne IMO doesn't need personnel shopper she needs someone to teach her some common sense. I think in the newspaper article she said something like " I did have tape over my nipples, to stop them showing". Not worrying about what else was on show. lol

[andy-hughes]

Tony - // I think in the newspaper article she said something like " I did have tape over my nipples, to stop them showing".

If you are putting tape on to cover something up, maybe you should consider where and why you are dressing like that?

[TonyV]

IMO Think it was cheap advertising stunt. She just got *** of when the airline wouldn't fly her.
Thats my two pennence.

[agchristie]

AH //maybe you should consider where and why you are dressing like that?//

To leave the other passengers with some lasting mammaries? ;-)

[sanmac]

Well you have to admit that her exposure certainly resulted in her getting a lot of exposure.

[TonyV]

Im in agreement Andy, but need to get back to cricket. lol

[shoota]

Would they have asked a chap in a sheer cheesecloth shirt with a few buttons undone to cover up?
If the answer is 'no' then they wrong to ask her to.
Were they right to refuse to fly a disruptive/aggressive passenger - yes.

[ummmm]

OTT. She would have been chilly before the plane took off.

[andy-hughes]

shoota - // Would they have asked a chap in a sheer cheesecloth shirt with a few buttons undone to cover up?
If the answer is 'no' then they wrong to ask her to. //

That argument is nonsense, and I am sure you know it.

A man can walk shirtless down any high street in this country, and not raise an eyebrow - a woman cannot.

Now the equality of the situation is for another debate on another day, but allowing for the fact that social conventions are in place, and every single adult who has grown up in the UK knows what they are, your argument falls to pieces.

[bookbinder]

As I see it, EasyJet are in the same position as a shopkeeper or an innkeeper: they are entitled to refuse service (or not) to whomsoever they choose, and they don't need to justify their decision.

[shoota]

Get with it Andrew you old fogey.
#freethenipple
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_the_Nipple_(campaign)

[andy-hughes]

Shoota - I am Andy, not Andrew, thanks, and living in a society means accepting that its social conventions, and the consideration not to thoughtlessly offend strangers, often come out above a woman's own need to be attention-seeking in an environment where it is not going to be appreciated.

To put it a little more concisely - if you act like an attention-seeking brat, you may end up being treated like one.

[ummmm]

Oh c'mon. There are 3 seats, not much leg room and she had a friend with her. People would have had to really go out of their way to have a good gawp.

[pixie374]

She isn't breaking any laws and isn't hurting anyone. It is purely a matter of personal taste. I'm reading it as though she was just getting on and "abusive" behaviour, wasn't until after the stewardess' overreaction.
Why are people so offended so easily about harmless things? And what damage does a cleavage to to children?