EXCLUSIVE: Dentist mother is locked up for three days with daughter, four, in Dubai jail for having glass of wine on Emirates flight from Gatwick - and now could be detained in UAE for a year

A mother has told of her terrifying ordeal of being locked up in a filthy Dubai jail for three days with her four-year-old daughter for drinking a glass of wine on a flight from London. Ellie Holman, 44, was arrested after being asked by an immigration official at Dubai International Airport if she had consumed alcohol on the eight-hour flight.

The mother-of-three, a dentist, from Sevenoaks, Kent, says she was held in a 'baking hot and foul smelling' airport detention centre – and not allowed to call her husband, Gary.

Now Dr Holman faces spending up to a year in the strict Arab state for her case to be settled.

Speaking exclusively to MailOnline, she said: 'My little girl had to go to the toilet on the cell floor. I have never heard her cry in the same way as she did in that cell.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6044095/Mother-locked-three-days-daughter-sweltering-Dubai-jail.html

And we do business with these backward savages !

nicko wrote:And we do business with these backward savages !

What gets me is why anyone would even want to go on holiday there. When i continually read such horror stories?

I agree why do people go there.
Why does the airline serve alcohol in that case if you get arrested for having drunk it before you set foot on Dubai soil?

This is so ridiculous. She's been served wine on the flight, not at the airport in their country.

I would never step foot in Dubai

Only had 'a glass' of wine...?


How big was the glass...!?

As the official became more agitated, Dr Holman started filming him on her mobile phone so that she had some evidence of his rude behaviour.

Within seconds she was surrounded by a dozen armed police and told filming airport officials was a criminal offence.

Oh dear. She found out that filming people is not a great idea over there.

There was also some issue over the visa.

It sounds like the issue over a glass of wine was a bit incidental to the rest of it.

Yes Rags more is coming out now. She got stroppy with the official, oh dear!

Raggamuffin wrote:

As the official became more agitated, Dr Holman started filming him on her mobile phone so that she had some evidence of his rude behaviour.

Within seconds she was surrounded by a dozen armed police and told filming airport officials was a criminal offence.

Oh dear. She found out that filming people is not a great idea over there.

There was also some issue over the visa.

It sounds like the issue over a glass of wine was a bit incidental to the rest of it.

You're absolutely right. Whipping out a mobile phone and trying to look like Cecil B DeMille filming The Ten Commandments now appears to be an almost obligatory reaction when confronted by an official such as a cop or parking warden.

The problem is, as this woman has found out, such officials are not usually intimidated at the prospect of appearing on someone's Facebook page or even U-Tube and are far more likely to take a "fuck you then" attitude rather than suddenly becoming obsequious and polite.

I knew the OP article 'all over a glass of wine' claim was bullshit...!!!


Typical main stream media 'lies & spin waffle' that we are fed so much these days... and with so many gullible people believing without question...!!!


And this woman was displaying an ugly sort of selfish/self important/self righteous arrogance and ignorant stupidity that is (unfortunately) far to common among people with degrees!

Tommy Monk wrote:I knew the OP article 'all over a glass of wine' claim was bullshit...!!!


Typical main stream media 'lies & spin waffle' that we are fed so much these days... and with so many gullible people believing without question...!!!


And this woman was displaying an ugly sort of selfish/self important/self righteous arrogance and ignorant stupidity that is (unfortunately) far to common among people with degrees!

1)How is it bullshit?

2) She has been arrested and over what, filming? or alcohol on a plane?

What do you back here tommy?

3) A women arrested defending herself defending her rights in a land that denies rights

And yet you back the rights of a Muslim nation that denies rights to women?

Come again?

I think you need to get your priorities straight mate

I mean how bad is this?

I have now ides whether who was right or wrong here

We do know how bad the laws in Totalitarian countries abuse women

Though, without any acts that people take the view point of the most backward and illiberal country over the woman wronged here. based on a percieved view of women?

Means to me, many have already bent over to islamism

I ask again, what did she do wrong here?

Frted thinks people should not film and back up a wrong happerning to them

Well this is what I say to fred

Yoi8u have no idea what you are talking about and that you empower dickheads here

According to the officials, filming airport officials is a criminal offence, so that's probably why she was arrested. It's just not a good idea to do that, even if it is quite common over here. It's an arrogant thing to do - I've said quite often that I don't approve it over here. She can't just behave like that in another country.

They'll probably give a slapped wrist and send her home soon anyway.

Raggamuffin wrote:According to the officials, filming airport officials is a criminal offence, so that's probably why she was arrested. It's just not a good idea to do that, even if it is quite common over here. It's an arrogant thing to do - I've said quite often that I don't approve it over here. She can't just behave like that in another country.

They'll probably give a slapped wrist and send her home soon anyway.

How fucked up is that?

Evidence is now a criminal offense?

I mean are you seriously defending against people recording a defense?

Wait until you are denied rights, as she was here.

How is it arrogant to defend yourself?

Lets make a bold view here

Dyou think filming her defense is a criminal offense?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:According to the officials, filming airport officials is a criminal offence, so that's probably why she was arrested. It's just not a good idea to do that, even if it is quite common over here. It's an arrogant thing to do - I've said quite often that I don't approve it over here. She can't just behave like that in another country.

They'll probably give a slapped wrist and send her home soon anyway.

How fucked up is that?

Evidence is now a criminal offense?

I mean are you seriously defending against people recording a defense?

Wait until you are denied rights, as she was here.

How is it arrogant to defend yourself?

Lets make a bold view here

Dyou think filming her defense is a criminal offense?

I don't think it's fucked up. I think there should be a law against it here actually. It's a form of intimidation. It's clearly a criminal offence there, and people should check the laws in the country they're going to.

Perhaps she appeared intoxicated because she was arguing with the official or being abusive.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

How fucked up is that?

Evidence is now a criminal offense?

I mean are you seriously defending against people recording a defense?

Wait until you are denied rights, as she was here.

How is it arrogant to defend yourself?

Lets make a bold view here

Dyou think filming her defense is a criminal offense?

I don't think it's fucked up. I think there should be a law against it here actually. It's a form of intimidation. It's clearly a criminal offence there, and people should check the laws in the country they're going to.

Perhaps she appeared intoxicated because she was arguing with the official or being abusive.

Okay, so you back the view not of the deendent on no evidence and back the view of those criminalizing her?

I call that very fucked up

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think it's fucked up. I think there should be a law against it here actually. It's a form of intimidation. It's clearly a criminal offence there, and people should check the laws in the country they're going to.

Perhaps she appeared intoxicated because she was arguing with the official or being abusive.

Okay, so you back the view not of the deendent on no evidence and back the view of those criminalizing her?

I call that very fucked up

Evidence of what exactly? What was she going to do with the footage? It's a form of blackmail IMO.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Okay, so you back the view not of the deendent on no evidence and back the view of those criminalizing her?

I call that very fucked up

Evidence of what exactly? What was she going to do with the footage? It's a form of blackmail IMO.

Its called evidence

How is filming what happens to yourself a criminal offense in a free society?

Maybe you want to live in a Toitalitarian society

I mean seriously, Only a Commie or Nazi would bemoan someone filiming evidence to back their situation

Come on, what the fuck is wromng with filming to back up a claim?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Evidence of what exactly? What was she going to do with the footage? It's a form of blackmail IMO.

Its called evidence

How is filming what happens to yourself a criminal offense in a free society?

Maybe you want to live in a Toitalitarian society

I mean seriously, Only a Commie or Nazi would bemoan someone filiming evidence to back their situation

Come on, what the fuck is wromng with fiming to back up a claim?

I've always spoken out against this trend of filming anyone who disagrees with you - shop assistants, traffic wardens, random people in the street, train guards. They don't film it for evidence, they threaten to put it on social media. It's blackmail, it's rude, and it's arrogant.

What was she filming the official for anyway?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Its called evidence

How is filming what happens to yourself a criminal offense in a free society?

Maybe you want to live in a Toitalitarian society

I mean seriously, Only a Commie or Nazi would bemoan someone filiming evidence to back their situation

Come on, what the fuck is wromng with fiming to back up a claim?

I've always spoken out against this trend of filming anyone who disagrees with you - shop assistants, traffic wardens, random people in the street, train guards. They don't film it for evidence, they threaten to put it on social media. It's blackmail, it's rude, and it's arrogant.

What was she filming the official for anyway?

So you would be agaimst a jewish survivor filming the Holocaust?

I am sure you want to hide secrets, that is what people do, when they want to hide something

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I've always spoken out against this trend of filming anyone who disagrees with you - shop assistants, traffic wardens, random people in the street, train guards. They don't film it for evidence, they threaten to put it on social media. It's blackmail, it's rude, and it's arrogant.

What was she filming the official for anyway?

So you would be agaimst  a jewish survivor filming the Holocaust?

I am sure you want to hide secrets, that is what people do, when they want to hide something

I don't approve of people picking on those who are doing their jobs and trying to blackmail them into backing down by threatening to put the video on social media. You have a problem with that? Do you think that people doing their jobs should be intimidated in that way?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

So you would be agaimst  a jewish survivor filming the Holocaust?

I am sure you want to hide secrets, that is what people do, when they want to hide something

I don't approve of people picking on those who are doing their jobs and trying to blackmail them into backing down by threatening to put the video on social media. You have a problem with that? Do you think that people doing their jobs should be intimidated in that way?

Well I am sure the Nazis in the death camps wil argue they were doing their jobs

I approve of anyone picking on those doing their jobs, when they abuse every singke human rights

At least we now know the difference between us Rags

i will challenge any hateful Nazi and you it seens, will look for an excuse to defend them

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't approve of people picking on those who are doing their jobs and trying to blackmail them into backing down by threatening to put the video on social media. You have a problem with that? Do you think that people doing their jobs should be intimidated in that way?

Well I am sure the Nazis in the death camps wil argue they were doing their jobs

I approve of anyone picking on those doing their jobs, when they abuse every singke human rights

At least we now know the difference between us Rags

i will challenge any hateful Nazi and you it seens, will look for an excuse for them

People didn't have mobile phones then, and it's a stupid example. Shop keepers, airport officials, and train guards aren't trying to gas a whole bunch of people are they?

Only you could start banging on about nazis in a thread about a woman who was unwise in another country.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Well I am sure the Nazis in the death camps wil argue they were doing their jobs

I approve of anyone picking on those doing their jobs, when they abuse every singke human rights

At least we now know the difference between us Rags

i will challenge any hateful Nazi and you it seens, will look for an excuse for them

People didn't have mobile phones then, and it's a stupid example. Shop keepers, airport officials, and train guards aren't trying to gas a whole bunch of people are they?

Only you could start banging on about nazis in a thread about a woman who was unwise in another country.

I see the point went over your head

Actually such communication did have such communication

Its how we won the war with breaking the codes with Egnima

The reality is here, you are a Christian apologist

You deflect so badly, i am able to tie you up in knots

This couple neglected their child and yet you defend them not based on what they did, but based on Christian beliefs

That makes you a sheep

bbaaa

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

People didn't have mobile phones then, and it's a stupid example. Shop keepers, airport officials, and train guards aren't trying to gas a whole bunch of people are they?

Only you could start banging on about nazis in a thread about a woman who was unwise in another country.

I see the point went over your head

Actually such communication did have such communication

Its how we won the war with breaking the codes with Egnima

The reality is here, you are a Christian apologist

You deflect so badly, i am able to tie you up in knots

This couple neglected their child and yet you defend them not based on what they did, but based on Christian beliefs

That makes you a sheep

bbaaa

None of that is anything to do with a dentist being arrested in Dubai.

You'll just to accept that I don't approve of people using their mobile phones to film people who are just doing their jobs.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

I see the point went over your head

Actually such communication did have such communication

Its how we won the war with breaking the codes with Egnima

The reality is here, you are a Christian apologist

You deflect so badly, i am able to tie you up in knots

This couple neglected their child and yet you defend them not based on what they did, but based on Christian beliefs

That makes you a sheep

bbaaa

None of that is anything to do with a dentist being arrested in Dubai.

You'll just to accept that I don't approve of people using their mobile phones to film people who are just doing their jobs.

Okay, why should a dentistry be arrested filiming their confrontation in Dubai

Explain to me, how that is a criminal offense?

Then expolain how you believe in free speech?

I dont give a flying fuck what you approve of, what you should do is condemn people being arrestd for fimling or having one glass of wine


Yet you defend their arrest

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

None of that is anything to do with a dentist being arrested in Dubai.

You'll just to accept that I don't approve of people using their mobile phones to film people who are just doing their jobs.

Okay, why should a dentisty be arrested filiming their confrontation in Dubai

Explain to me, how that is a criminal offense?

Then expolain how you believe in free speech?

I dont give a flying fuck what you approve of, what you should do is condemn people being arrestd for fimling or having one glass of wine


Yet you defend their arrest

The official said it was against the law. They can make what laws they like in their country. I'm not going to condemn them at all, so shove off with your arrogant demands.

As I said, they'll probably send her home soon anyway.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Okay, why should a dentisty be arrested filiming their confrontation in Dubai

Explain to me, how that is a criminal offense?

Then expolain how you believe in free speech?

I dont give a flying fuck what you approve of, what you should do is condemn people being arrestd for fimling or having one glass of wine


Yet you defend their arrest

The official said it was against the law. They can make what laws they like in their country. I'm not going to condemn them at all, so shove off with your arrogant demands.

As I said, they'll probably send her home soon anyway.

Talk about moving the goal posts

Okay, what should the law be here rags?

Do you defend faith over medical help?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The official said it was against the law. They can make what laws they like in their country. I'm not going to condemn them at all, so shove off with your arrogant demands.

As I said, they'll probably send her home soon anyway.

Talk about moving the goal posts

Okay, what should the law be here rags?

Do you defend faith over medical help?

Wrong thread Didge.

I already said, it should be against the law to film anyone with a view to putting it online to intimidate or "shame" them.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Talk about moving the goal posts

Okay, what should the law be here rags?

Do you defend faith over medical help?

Wrong thread Didge.

I already said, it should be against the law to film anyone with a view to putting it online to intimidate or "shame" them.

Correct thread

Why should it be against the law have evidence?

You seem to back the view to defend people that do wrong????

You think ity should be against the law that Bill Clintomn should not have been exposed.

You want to hide lies

Go figure

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Wrong thread Didge.

I already said, it should be against the law to film anyone with a view to putting it online to intimidate or "shame" them.

Correct thread

Why should it be against the law have evidence?

You seem to back the view to defend people that do wrong????

You think ity should be against the law that Bill Clintomn should not have been exposed.

You want to hide lies

Go figure

People are entitled to privacy - nobody should be allowed to splash footage of them all over social media without permission. You approve of intimidation, arrogance, and blackmail but I do not.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Correct thread

Why should it be against the law have evidence?

You seem to back the view to defend people that do wrong????

You think ity should be against the law that Bill Clintomn should not have been exposed.

You want to hide lies

Go figure

People are entitled to privacy - nobody should be allowed to splash footage of them all over social media without permission. You approve of intimidation, arrogance, and blackmail but I do not.

Really?

based on what rational reason?

Okay , lets have Rags reason here and lets relgate watergate to the backburners

Again you are why people are allowed to spy on us

Show me where I ever usesd indintimidation, arrogance, and blackmail?

I never did, you are simple a chicken clucking

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

People are entitled to privacy - nobody should be allowed to splash footage of them all over social media without permission. You approve of intimidation, arrogance, and blackmail but I do not.

Really?

based on what rational reason?

Okay , lets have Rags reason here and lets relgate watergate to the backburners

Again you are why people are allowed to spy on us

Show me where I ever usesd indintimidation, arrogance, and blackmail?

I never did, you are simple a chicken clucking

I said you approve of it, I didn't say you'd done it, so you're introducing another red herring.

What it boils down to is this: If people don't like the laws in Dubai, they shouldn't go there.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Really?

based on what rational reason?

Okay , lets have Rags reason here and lets relgate watergate to the backburners

Again you are why people are allowed to spy on us

Show me where I ever usesd indintimidation, arrogance, and blackmail?

I never did, you are simple a chicken clucking

I said you approve of it, I didn't say you'd done it, so you're introducing another red herring.

What it boils down to is this: If people don't like the laws in Dubai, they shouldn't go there.

So what you are saying is if people dont like women being subjected to stonning.

Dont go there

WTF

That means you approve of their ways rags

I suggest you think agauin

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I said you approve of it, I didn't say you'd done it, so you're introducing another red herring.

What it boils down to is this: If people don't like the laws in Dubai, they shouldn't go there.

So what you are saying is if people dont like women being subjected to stonning.

Dont go there

WTF

That means you approve of their ways rags

I suggest you think agauin

Yes, if people don't like women being stoned, don't go to a country where they do it. You seem to have got a bit mixed up there Didge.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

So what you are saying is if people dont like women being subjected to stonning.

Dont go there

WTF

That means you approve of their ways rags

I suggest you think agauin

Yes, if people don't like women being stoned, don't go to a country where they do it. You seem to have got a bit mixed up there Didge.

So you dont want to change that barbaric law then?

You say dont go there and say fuck the women stonned to death then?

Which translates as fuck them

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, if people don't like women being stoned, don't go to a country where they do it. You seem to have got a bit mixed up there Didge.

So you dont want to change that barbaric law then?

You say dont go there and say fuck the women stonned to death then?

Which translates as fuck them

You're not going to change it by going there on holiday. I can't change what they do, I can only stay away.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

So you dont want to change that barbaric law then?

You say dont go there and say fuck the women stonned to death then?

Which translates as fuck them

You're not going to change it by going there on holiday. I can't change what they do, I can only stay away.

So how did women win the vote then?

By going on holiday?

They changed what you claim cannot be changed

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You're not going to change it by going there on holiday. I can't change what they do, I can only stay away.

So how did women win the vote then?

By going on holiday?

They changed what you claim cannot be changed

Eh? They weren't on holiday here.

Are you suggesting that this woman went to Dubai to change the laws? She went there on holiday. If you don't approve of their laws, perhaps you should have a go at her for going there and therefore condoning their lawsy.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

So how did women win the vote then?

By going on holiday?

They changed what you claim cannot be changed

Eh? They weren't on holiday here.

Are you suggesting that this woman went to Dubai to change the laws? She went there on holiday. If you don't approve of their laws, perhaps you should have a go at her for going there and therefore condoning their lawsy.

What does ikt matter what country it is?

Seriously?

You are arguing in favour of islamic law

When i go to a country that has barbaric laws, I stand against it. You though support it. A system that degrades women

wow

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eh? They weren't on holiday here.

Are you suggesting that this woman went to Dubai to change the laws? She went there on holiday. If you don't approve of their laws, perhaps you should have a go at her for going there and therefore condoning their lawsy.

What does ikt matter what country it is?

Seriously?

You are arguing in favour of islamic law

When i go to a country that has barbaric laws, I stand against it. You though support it. A system that degrades women

wow

I'm not arguing in favour of it at all. Are you drunk again?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

What does ikt matter what country it is?

Seriously?

You are arguing in favour of islamic law

When i go to a country that has barbaric laws, I stand against it. You though support it. A system that degrades women

wow

I'm not arguing in favour of it at all. Are you drunk again?

Do you think i am drunk?

Or is that an excuse to avoid my points?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm not arguing in favour of it at all. Are you drunk again?

Do you think i am drunk?

Or is that an excuse to avoid my points?

I've addressed your points - they were all shite.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Do you think i am drunk?

Or is that an excuse to avoid my points?

I've addressed your points - they were all shite.

Okay

If you think so rags

they are still there unanswered

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I've addressed your points - they were all shite.

Okay

If you think so rags

they are still there unanswered

You can rant about nazis all you like, but I'm getting into another off-topic "debate" with you. Go and argue with the two other people who agreed with me on this thread.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Okay

If you think so rags

they are still there unanswered

You can rant about nazis all you like, but I'm getting into another off-topic "debate" with you. Go and argue with the two other people who agreed with me on this thread.

I am not ranting about anything

i asked for evidence

You had none and now accuse me of things I never stated

That means you triggered youself rags

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You can rant about nazis all you like, but I'm getting into another off-topic "debate" with you. Go and argue with the two other people who agreed with me on this thread.

I am not ranting about anything

i asked for evidence

You had none and now accuse me of things I never stated

That means you triggered youself rags

Evidence of what? You're making no sense now.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

I am not ranting about anything

i asked for evidence

You had none and now accuse me of things I never stated

That means you triggered youself rags

Evidence of what? You're making no sense now.

Evidence for th Christian radicals to be innocent here

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Evidence of what? You're making no sense now.

Evidence for th Christian radicals to be innocent here

You're in the wrong thread again.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Evidence for th Christian radicals to be innocent here

You're in the wrong thread again.

Its very right here based on your beliefs swaying your view

How is that wrong to say?