I would like to ask a question relating to law and procedure dealing with diabetics under influence of hypoglucoma.
In essence, an incident passed without accident however UK border police did not respond to a member of the public who's acquittance [not english] pointed out to the duty officers that the strange behaviour and responses to serious questions were being marred by a hypo on no more than 3 occasions. Even after seeing the diabetic equipment and having seen the a medic alert neck-chain, the enforcement officers did not respond to super strange actions of someone who by normal measures was acting out of sorts.
They ignored the warnings and continued in their duties without calling for medical aid to access if this person was indeed fit for travel or to confirm that he was indeed out of sorts. Viewing it from a distance and overhearing the conversation was bizarre. No translator was called to help the non-fluent english translator while the glucose needle and other sugar was being held by the officials [as metal wrapping sets off all alarms through UK metal scanners.
The diabetic was english, but well out of it.
One could argue that its plain to see that this person might not be fit to fly [drunk], under influence of a substance. That advice was given on 3 occasions and this was not accepted without owing duty of care for the well being of the effected individual. The individual posed no threat and had nothing on them that was taken as not allowed or illegal.
The question is, for negligence in the duty of an elected officer is there cause for complaint when the well being of a member of the public was not acted upon. Secondly once an officer has been alerted to the situation, then not to confirm that the situation that the person is indeed in peril?
In essence, an incident passed without accident however UK border police did not respond to a member of the public who's acquittance [not english] pointed out to the duty officers that the strange behaviour and responses to serious questions were being marred by a hypo on no more than 3 occasions. Even after seeing the diabetic equipment and having seen the a medic alert neck-chain, the enforcement officers did not respond to super strange actions of someone who by normal measures was acting out of sorts.
They ignored the warnings and continued in their duties without calling for medical aid to access if this person was indeed fit for travel or to confirm that he was indeed out of sorts. Viewing it from a distance and overhearing the conversation was bizarre. No translator was called to help the non-fluent english translator while the glucose needle and other sugar was being held by the officials [as metal wrapping sets off all alarms through UK metal scanners.
The diabetic was english, but well out of it.
One could argue that its plain to see that this person might not be fit to fly [drunk], under influence of a substance. That advice was given on 3 occasions and this was not accepted without owing duty of care for the well being of the effected individual. The individual posed no threat and had nothing on them that was taken as not allowed or illegal.
The question is, for negligence in the duty of an elected officer is there cause for complaint when the well being of a member of the public was not acted upon. Secondly once an officer has been alerted to the situation, then not to confirm that the situation that the person is indeed in peril?
