Originally Posted by wiggy
So if Jim Fitzpatrick MP is truely happy with security arrangements for Non-UK resident/Foreign Ramp workers and Crewmembers could he tell us what the point is in subjecting UK Nationals/Residents to the extra hassle of the UK CRC process? In some UK airlines it is quite possible to be in a situation where the majority of crewmembers have not been subject to meaningfull Criminal Record Checks, which IMHO renders the whole CRC process utterly pointless - but most of us here probably knew that anyway.
As with others I have to ask why it has taken so long for some in the establishment to cotton on to this debacle?
Jim Fitzpatrick is not only Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, but he is also the MP for an interesting part of East London, and one with an extremely multi-culturally staffed airport in it.
My own take on the messy problem (which actually is NOT the frustrations of aircrews and passengers and staff at airports) is that the Government need to be seen as completely even-handed with the way they apply restrictions, to the point of positively discriminating in favour of minorities (i.e. stopping non-minority groups in overtly inconvenient ways).
Self-evidently there is a high terrorism risk. It has to be managed.
The inconvenience and debacle we all see in the airport perhaps goes some way to balance the occasional instances where East London families are dragged out of bed, shot a bit, bounced down their own stairs backwards by their hair in front of their screaming mothers, locked up for a month and then released without much of an apology).
I have had to endure stop checks in my car and even a set-piece breathalyser standing in the middle of a multicultural London pavement (I had forgotten to fix my new tax disc on that last one) all in the name of even-handedness. I know it because I was told so on the spots, and asked if I minded. I didn't. I have decided that to good humouredly go along with it is for the public good until the balance can be maintained in better ways.
And the balance will not be addressed by another set of numpties. It requires rather more wisdom than that, and one would hope that there is a core of wisdom keeping the flywheels turning, or we have collectively (you me them) mucked things up real good.
It's taken me a while to see the bigger picture, but personally I think everyone in the front line on both sides should descend from high horses and comply good-humouredly.
The guy that refused to take off his shoes three days running risked his job, didn't he? Yet, he took them off eventually because resistance was futile.
I too have been annoyed at the high probability that I have had to remove my shoes, because I have a sore back and need to be careful.
I too have been perplexed at the limited checks on foreign nationals and the high probability that my checks will be 3x as rigorous as theirs, but we have sore minorities in our society and it appears we need to be more careful with some than with others.
I too do not rate Ruth Kelly - in fact I cannot stand listening to anything she says. I usually change channels when she is on tv or radio.
As I said, I am trusting in a core of real wisdom behind the scenes to keep the flywheels turning (call it the establishment if you like, and I do not mean DofT staffers because I've sat in a roomful of middling graders and I didn't like their
me me me attitudes) ...
If THAT is not still the safe thing to do, then we are all lost and in twenty years we can confidently expect China to show us their way is best.