[国际新闻] 布莱尔夫人机场耍大牌 机场人员让步

日月光

英国首相布莱尔的夫人切丽23日因行李数量超过规定和伦敦一家机场的工作人员发生争执，大耍首相夫人威风。最后机场方面不得不做出让步，让切丽携带三个行李箱登机，引起伦敦市民的争议。1 U5 t9 Z; m* z3 d( y

+ X0 A, b7 y* m1 L　　现年52岁的切丽想携带三个手提箱在伦敦城市机场登机，但是英国政府出于反恐需要规定一名乘客只能携带一个手提箱登机，因此切丽和机场工作人员发生了争吵。一名目击者称，“她（切丽）携带有一个手提箱、一个旅行包以及一个大的旅行箱。她十分激动，但是执意闯关。”机场工作人员并没有认出切丽，切丽对此十分恼火，对机场工作人员喊道，“你们不知道我是首相夫人吗？”切丽和机场工作人员的僵持导致了其后旅客的登机被延误了八分钟。后来机场负责人员不得不出面，做出让步，让切丽携带这些手提箱登机，问题才得以解决。
# y5 z/ |. A+ i% K; |人在德国 社区
* U) w& H2 c8 ?) a　　但是紧接着切丽登机的一名旅客想携带两件行李箱登机，而机场方面只允许他带一件。该名旅客愤怒地说，“为什么对她(切丽)实行一套规则，对我实行另一种规则？我并不比切丽更像恐怖分子。”! [2 U' z4 O7 L) x
, }# D+ d. P7 O
　　消息曝光后，切丽被指滥用首相夫人权力。但是唐宁街10号对此予以否认，称切丽并没有违反规则。唐宁街10号一名女发言人说，“切丽及其随行人员共三人，携带三件行李，正好符合规则。”唐宁街10号称切丽和机场人员没有发生争吵，只是说双方“交谈时间过长”。
) a% p7 @) P- w8 k  [
4 J/ Y4 c6 K6 @/ ?- y5 p人在德国 社区　　2006年8月，英国当局称，他们挫败了一起企图用液体炸弹引爆数架从希思罗机场出发飞往美国的飞机。这次事件直接导致英国开始执行新的更加严格的登机行李规定。2006年11月英国交通部出台规定，只允许旅客携带一件小型行李登机。% e1 G2 j4 |* r9 X

  D( M/ P9 f7 _# B3 ?. @8 m0 NCherie Blair’s Bad Air(port) Day
/ b! O" `9 q0 w( m+ fcsuchen.de3 b! j" q) Z2 _
“I AM no more a terrorist than Cherie Blair is.”
' n1 [( m0 y1 A人在德国 社区  H$ G0 L% m/ v4 @6 G
So says the unnamed passenger waiting to board a flight at London City Airport.人在德国 社区" o  f% ^2 i3 k8 _- J
. |" o# l1 o! @) w8 m
No-one can be above suspicion in the ensuing war on terror. And certainly not the Prime Minster’s wife, who has voiced an opinion on the matter of suicide bombing.
& X# B7 D5 {: {) x/ p1 t) x3 {# Y0 l% J- J
In such a climate, the Sun looks on as Cherie Blair approaches the border guards.人在德国 社区* N# }& l) D3 |: b' \0 j2 H, L
7 |7 P4 Y5 F- [' u
The paper reports that she has in her possession three pieces of hand luggage.
! }* o( v, x+ _, j. ncsuchen.de+ k2 M/ _7 g3 C- |
This is in clear breach of Blair’s Terror Laws No.3208a that states no passengers shall have on their person any more than one item of luggage.
# n' `8 `. p( T' `9 [2 y* l- x+ [8 y+ M* N# m: E" f" H
But Cherie will not be denied. As the Sun says, for a full eight minutes she puts her case to the hapless airport worker.
. z3 c5 @8 }9 C# i7 D& f
9 w' X- A; C0 U, Z$ L& k# Tcsuchen.deThis is a war of attrition. There can be only one winner. And Cherie is allowed to pass with all bags intact and about her person.
8 F: g4 k2 @( @8 Q
' K0 c3 d! \/ I) c! e4 K& L; w人在德国 社区The passenger behind is outraged. They ask the aforesaid question. And they put forward another puzzler: “Why should there be one rule for her and one for me?”
- L8 u( o! ^& p( [+ ~! g+ g) t
4 y5 C) {9 P3 U/ w% |6 Z, bcsuchen.deThe simple answer is that it is because Cherie’s husband and his coterie make the laws. Tough luck that this passenger married badly. Dim foresight dictates they must place one of their two bags in the hold.
& T" G8 c$ A* H0 J/ v2 }
2 y" D7 o. z1 X7 D: Q& T人在德国 社区As another witness says: “She had a handbag, another bag and quite a large holdall. She was becoming agitated, but determined to get her way.”
, f2 J% q- ?* t6 M7 X& E
7 u/ e) i4 ]+ X; |1 o: I  LHad Cherie been a terrorist this would have been the time to panic, or else detonate the explosives.人在德国 社区& d/ _4 s* k) z( f  B+ U9 t

3 f# ]7 k; u4 J1 c* e$ A7 g: i1 r8 cBut it turns out that  beardless Cherie was not packing an explosive device. And she was not travelling alone. Her spokeswoman tells us: “There were three people in Mrs Blair’s party and three pieces of hand luggage. The rules were met. We rest our case.”) j4 W- h- F- c
$ ~6 s& ]* t% D5 T
Pity that the language of the courtroom should infiltrate everyday life. But this is Blair’s Britain.
% y8 L) S& R9 o* ^+ W  j  ~# l( U  ?+ ~5 s0 r
There was no argument. There was no hissy fit. Asked if there was an “extended talk” with staff beyond normal safety questions, Cherie’s spokeswoman confirmed: “That is my understanding.”csuchen.de( B+ e5 ], s& h+ ]* O* n6 X

$ j: m# x. _/ L" X. z" M: n. ]At least it is to the best of her recollection.
  C0 N' U" v4 e: j. ]7 D* R0 x- u3 j/ k4 |2 v& w; S8 |7 i4 a, W( ^
The matter of Cherie's carbon footprint will appear before the jury at a later date...