Security Personnel
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Belgium
Age: 62
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find the sentiments expressed by the OP to be offensive. Ethnocentric comments like this should not be tolerated on this or any other public forum, and I am surprised that the thread continues to exist.
Whether or not Espada should be allowed to use this forum to make racial slurs, because it is his/her opinion, is academic. The fact remains that to brand all security personnel of certain race(s) as a security risk is just plain wrong, is without foundation, and smacks of an attempt to incite racial conflict.
Whether or not Espada should be allowed to use this forum to make racial slurs, because it is his/her opinion, is academic. The fact remains that to brand all security personnel of certain race(s) as a security risk is just plain wrong, is without foundation, and smacks of an attempt to incite racial conflict.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Donalk that's taking it a little far. I tend to think of the sensible profiling by El-Al which is deemed necesary for reasons we are afraid to discuss in the UK for fear of someone screaming "RACIST!" just like you just did right there.
Given the admission this week that dangersous and non checked people have been given UK Residency on Home Office advice, I guess there is nothing to prevent them going to work for airport security. The system is not remotely joined up and there is, I regret, a danger of something happening right under our noses.
Given the admission this week that dangersous and non checked people have been given UK Residency on Home Office advice, I guess there is nothing to prevent them going to work for airport security. The system is not remotely joined up and there is, I regret, a danger of something happening right under our noses.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Belgium
Age: 62
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have introduced a level of reason to this thread skipness. However my issue is with the OP whose language is clearly defamatory. Sweeping comments like 'such people' has failed to distinguish between the overwhelming majority of people from all ethnic backgrounds who are law abiding citizens and those who may harbour extreme views.
Espada has demonstrated a dangerously myopic view and has dismissed all those of a certain ethnicity as 'a bigger risk than the passengers they seek to check'.
This is wrong on so many levels. Security is a global concern and we are cursed to suffer increased levels of personal intrusion and curtailment of previous priviledges in the common good.
Like it or not this is unlikely to change in the near future.................and yes I do regard the OP's original comments as racist.
Espada has demonstrated a dangerously myopic view and has dismissed all those of a certain ethnicity as 'a bigger risk than the passengers they seek to check'.
This is wrong on so many levels. Security is a global concern and we are cursed to suffer increased levels of personal intrusion and curtailment of previous priviledges in the common good.
Like it or not this is unlikely to change in the near future.................and yes I do regard the OP's original comments as racist.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Donalk
I think you are incorrect to use the term racist, since Espada is more concerned by the activities of diverse people who share a religion (athough regarding islam as a single religion is simplistic IMHO), not by a race.
Taking on board Tightslot's comments, I really do not want to write any more.
I think you are incorrect to use the term racist, since Espada is more concerned by the activities of diverse people who share a religion (athough regarding islam as a single religion is simplistic IMHO), not by a race.
Taking on board Tightslot's comments, I really do not want to write any more.
Some religious groups are more of a threat than others, based purely on past history, and currently stated aims of some fundamental groups. We can argue how useful past statistics are in predicting future behaviour, but the point still stands.
This is fact - some people are scared of facts that don't strike them as PC, but it doesn't make them any less true.
It is also all relative, and there are factors other than religion that greatly outweigh it in terms of added risk (a history of odd trips to Pakistan, for example). The added risk over another religious group, across the population at large, is without doubt so tiny as to be completely irrelevant to the travelling public.
Some airlines refuse to seat men next to unaccompanied minors, because there is a greater chance that they are sex offenders. The chance is still absurdly tiny, but it seems that the PC crowd don't get up in arms about it because it isn't a currently fashionable thing to moan about, like race and religion are.
This is fact - some people are scared of facts that don't strike them as PC, but it doesn't make them any less true.
It is also all relative, and there are factors other than religion that greatly outweigh it in terms of added risk (a history of odd trips to Pakistan, for example). The added risk over another religious group, across the population at large, is without doubt so tiny as to be completely irrelevant to the travelling public.
Some airlines refuse to seat men next to unaccompanied minors, because there is a greater chance that they are sex offenders. The chance is still absurdly tiny, but it seems that the PC crowd don't get up in arms about it because it isn't a currently fashionable thing to moan about, like race and religion are.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Isle Dordt
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the US Army psychiatrist: there were signals that this person was functioning badly and suffering from stress; but the organisation did not do anything about it. (BTW, what was race and religion of the Florida shooter, same day?)
Back to the security checkpoint. We have background checked security checkers, both the Muslim and the Anglican will have lived most of their life in Britain and "enjoyed" British education. Who of the two will be a bigger risk for the safety of my flight? (The Anglican can have a hangover...)
And when I am scanning my fellow passengers, I do see a group of drunk youth as the most likely threat to a smooth flight. Muslims don't drink.
Back to the security checkpoint. We have background checked security checkers, both the Muslim and the Anglican will have lived most of their life in Britain and "enjoyed" British education. Who of the two will be a bigger risk for the safety of my flight? (The Anglican can have a hangover...)
And when I am scanning my fellow passengers, I do see a group of drunk youth as the most likely threat to a smooth flight. Muslims don't drink.
