Manchester Airport Security
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manchester Airport Security
Corrupt police chief handles airport safety
The head of security at Manchester airport, is a former police chief with a criminal conviction for dishonesty.
John Donnison was a former chief inspector with Leicestershire police. Donnison pleaded guilty in January 2000 to 14 charges of false accounting, and ordered to perform 200 hours' community service for fiddling his police expenses over a three-year period.
Unioun leaders accuse the airport of gross hypocrisy in employing him. Security staff have a clause in their contract that allows the airport to summarily sack them if they have a criminal conviction.
Donnison is in charge of up to 700 staff and a total budget of reportedly more than £20m. He is believed to be on a salary of £70,000, £30,000 more than he earned as a police officer.
Phil Craven, Transport and General Workers Union (TGWU) convenor at the airport, said: "Because of his past he has not got the integrity or the ability to build up the trust needed in the security department."
Manchester airport confirmed Donnison is head of security with the job title of fire and security services business manager. A spokeswoman said: "We are not going to talk about it. It's in the past and nothing to do with ability to do the job. I am not going to go there. It's not relevant."
Leicestershire police confirmed Donnison was a chief inspector working in the northern region at the time of the police investigation into his affairs. According to reports, he admitted inventing 236 car journeys to claim £1,200 while serving as an officer. A police spokeswoman said the investigation was taken "very seriously".
The head of security at Manchester airport, is a former police chief with a criminal conviction for dishonesty.
John Donnison was a former chief inspector with Leicestershire police. Donnison pleaded guilty in January 2000 to 14 charges of false accounting, and ordered to perform 200 hours' community service for fiddling his police expenses over a three-year period.
Unioun leaders accuse the airport of gross hypocrisy in employing him. Security staff have a clause in their contract that allows the airport to summarily sack them if they have a criminal conviction.
Donnison is in charge of up to 700 staff and a total budget of reportedly more than £20m. He is believed to be on a salary of £70,000, £30,000 more than he earned as a police officer.
Phil Craven, Transport and General Workers Union (TGWU) convenor at the airport, said: "Because of his past he has not got the integrity or the ability to build up the trust needed in the security department."
Manchester airport confirmed Donnison is head of security with the job title of fire and security services business manager. A spokeswoman said: "We are not going to talk about it. It's in the past and nothing to do with ability to do the job. I am not going to go there. It's not relevant."
Leicestershire police confirmed Donnison was a chief inspector working in the northern region at the time of the police investigation into his affairs. According to reports, he admitted inventing 236 car journeys to claim £1,200 while serving as an officer. A police spokeswoman said the investigation was taken "very seriously".
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well he might have a security pass now, but possibly not for long.
If the rules are followed he will have to provide a basic disclosure by July 2004. Then if he has a disqualifying conviction it is bye bye ID.
If the rules are followed he will have to provide a basic disclosure by July 2004. Then if he has a disqualifying conviction it is bye bye ID.
Manchesters Most Wanted PPRuNer
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taking this away from the actual person in question for the moment as I don't want to get involved with that issue or comment upon it - will this sort of time elapsed conviction not be considered as "spent" -thus meaning a person in this situation would "pass" the Basic Disclosure process?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having this guy as head of security at Manchester Airport is just typical of the management there......
Let's see what the "Disclosure" will do....could be quite amusing !
Does anyone know, by the way, why when you set off the metal detectors at the airport to go airside, you are subjected to what is increasingly becoming a more and more intimate hand search by one of the guys working there.
They do have hand held metal detectors, but just don't seem to use them. Why not?
I have NEVER been hand searched like that when I fly to the states. They all use hand held metal detectors and they work very well; actually pinpointing the metalic object that set off the buzzer in the first place. In Manchester, he frisks you, but probably still doesn't know what set the machine off....
It's PATHETIC !
Let's see what the "Disclosure" will do....could be quite amusing !
Does anyone know, by the way, why when you set off the metal detectors at the airport to go airside, you are subjected to what is increasingly becoming a more and more intimate hand search by one of the guys working there.
They do have hand held metal detectors, but just don't seem to use them. Why not?
I have NEVER been hand searched like that when I fly to the states. They all use hand held metal detectors and they work very well; actually pinpointing the metalic object that set off the buzzer in the first place. In Manchester, he frisks you, but probably still doesn't know what set the machine off....
It's PATHETIC !
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Niteflite:
You are correct about the Disclosure only detailing unspent convictions. The legislation which applies is the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
In this case I believe he was convicted in January 2000. The sentence was community service which becomes spent after 5 years (Jan 2005). As the individual concerned will need to provide a disclosure no later than July 2004, and as the offence (false accounting) is on the DfT list of disqualifying convictions it could, as you say be amusing.
More seriously should this individual be overseeing a department which will be removing Security passes from those who have disqualifying convictions when he himself is now deemed to be unsuitable to hold a pass himself?
Link to Rehabilitation periods
Manchester Evening News Story about his conviction
List of Disqualifying Convictions
You are correct about the Disclosure only detailing unspent convictions. The legislation which applies is the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
In this case I believe he was convicted in January 2000. The sentence was community service which becomes spent after 5 years (Jan 2005). As the individual concerned will need to provide a disclosure no later than July 2004, and as the offence (false accounting) is on the DfT list of disqualifying convictions it could, as you say be amusing.
More seriously should this individual be overseeing a department which will be removing Security passes from those who have disqualifying convictions when he himself is now deemed to be unsuitable to hold a pass himself?
Link to Rehabilitation periods
Manchester Evening News Story about his conviction
List of Disqualifying Convictions
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California USA
Posts: 719
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I clearly don't know enough about this case to say that this individual falls within the precise meaning of the regulation. However, if he does, I'd point out that:
"Dishonesty, fraud, or misrepresentation...in any jurisdiction during the 10 years before the date of the individual's application for unescorted access authority" are also on the list of disqualifying criminal offenses in the US. Clearly, this chap is not applying to the US government for unescorted access authority, but the fact that US airports are reachable via direct flights from Manchester means that, for instance, the airside at JFK is only as secure as the airside at MAN. Same old problem (assuming unescorted access or the ability to approve the unescorted access of others)...
I'd certainly expect the public in the UK to be troubled if the Federal Security Director at JFK was employed despite the fact that he had a disqualifying criminal offense.
Considering the problems surrounding the security issue continues to be a tiring exercise.
Dave
"Dishonesty, fraud, or misrepresentation...in any jurisdiction during the 10 years before the date of the individual's application for unescorted access authority" are also on the list of disqualifying criminal offenses in the US. Clearly, this chap is not applying to the US government for unescorted access authority, but the fact that US airports are reachable via direct flights from Manchester means that, for instance, the airside at JFK is only as secure as the airside at MAN. Same old problem (assuming unescorted access or the ability to approve the unescorted access of others)...
I'd certainly expect the public in the UK to be troubled if the Federal Security Director at JFK was employed despite the fact that he had a disqualifying criminal offense.
Considering the problems surrounding the security issue continues to be a tiring exercise.
Dave
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Up Norf
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frisks
On the subject of being frisked...
I started a few weeks ago working in PAX services, and as they wanted us to start straight away we had to get the "Unescorted" passes, which meant that every time we went through security, whether we set off the detector or not, we were subject to THE most personal frisk I have ever had in my extensive travelling life to date.
I know people need to be searched, but they could use the wand type things instead of feeling right up your inner thigh.
Makes me shudder just thinking about it.
HS
I started a few weeks ago working in PAX services, and as they wanted us to start straight away we had to get the "Unescorted" passes, which meant that every time we went through security, whether we set off the detector or not, we were subject to THE most personal frisk I have ever had in my extensive travelling life to date.
I know people need to be searched, but they could use the wand type things instead of feeling right up your inner thigh.
Makes me shudder just thinking about it.
HS
Manchesters Most Wanted PPRuNer
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On my increasingly infrequent trips airside I don't object to being frisked at all.
I'd rather be thoroughly searched and feel just a little safer that some scumbag hasn't smuggled God-knows what onto an aircraft than get to where I was going a few seconds earlier.
I'm sure we'd all be the first people to complain about the lack of adequate "frisking" should anything like that ever occur (God forbid)
I'd rather be thoroughly searched and feel just a little safer that some scumbag hasn't smuggled God-knows what onto an aircraft than get to where I was going a few seconds earlier.
I'm sure we'd all be the first people to complain about the lack of adequate "frisking" should anything like that ever occur (God forbid)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: If only I could remember
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you'll find that when the time comes,MAPLC will probably change the guys job description so that it no longer requires airside access,and he gets to keep his job.Hope they check his expenses though,once a tealeaf.........
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
niteflite01
I think you have missed my point.
I too do not object, in the slightest, to being searched. I would not expect anything less than an extensive and thorough search if I had set off machine.
What I do object to, though, is being hand searched (which is bordering on invading my own personal privacy) when there is a much more effective device (hand held detector) that would do the job far better without invading my personal space.
I don't object to being searched; I DO object to being touched up.
I think you have missed my point.
I too do not object, in the slightest, to being searched. I would not expect anything less than an extensive and thorough search if I had set off machine.
What I do object to, though, is being hand searched (which is bordering on invading my own personal privacy) when there is a much more effective device (hand held detector) that would do the job far better without invading my personal space.
I don't object to being searched; I DO object to being touched up.
Last edited by mondriver; 27th Sep 2003 at 17:34.
Manchesters Most Wanted PPRuNer
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that, if there's a more effective device available for the task then it should be used so in that respect - point well and truly taken.
On the "bat for the other side" comment - hmmmmmm. I find that a bit stereotypical / worrying to be honest.
Let's hope you meant it in misguided jest
On the "bat for the other side" comment - hmmmmmm. I find that a bit stereotypical / worrying to be honest.
Let's hope you meant it in misguided jest
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you think the searching is not effective and or offensive then file a complaint. And how's about giving the manager a break, one gets use to patronising and arrogant comments on these pages but you guys take the biscuit.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Missive
Sorry, may have missed something then. I haven't seen any patronising or arrogant comments on this thread yet.....
We are just saying that it is kind of ironic that the guy who heads the security department at Manchester airport is a convicted criminal.....
niteflite01
Also, sorry to you. Should have been a bit more PC. I was of course referring (in maybe a rather "stereotypical", but I assure you, in jest) way to security staff who may be homosexual. Personally, being heterosexual, I have a problem with being frisked, in that detail, by someone who maybe homosexual. So, nothing for you to "worry" about...ok?
Sorry, may have missed something then. I haven't seen any patronising or arrogant comments on this thread yet.....
We are just saying that it is kind of ironic that the guy who heads the security department at Manchester airport is a convicted criminal.....
niteflite01
Also, sorry to you. Should have been a bit more PC. I was of course referring (in maybe a rather "stereotypical", but I assure you, in jest) way to security staff who may be homosexual. Personally, being heterosexual, I have a problem with being frisked, in that detail, by someone who maybe homosexual. So, nothing for you to "worry" about...ok?
Registered User **
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: poll position
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mon driver ,stand up staight man. the first hint of PC and you cave. Nothing wrong with the odd euphenism in life and "batting for the other side" is much nicer than "likes to put his @@@k up other mens b@@@@ms " now isnt it.
I'm more concerned about the minority all around us. That is ginger people. They take more abuse than any other group and dont have any support groups. No ginger and burnt orange police association is there.
I have a ginger friend who work sat man airport security and to date he hasnt done more than gently cup, so whats the problem.
I'm more concerned about the minority all around us. That is ginger people. They take more abuse than any other group and dont have any support groups. No ginger and burnt orange police association is there.
I have a ginger friend who work sat man airport security and to date he hasnt done more than gently cup, so whats the problem.
this guy does not deserdve 'a break'. He is a thoroughly unscrupulous, unpleasant person with a serious lack of integrity, who fails to command any respect. He has totally failed to give security staff 'a break' and only continues to make life unpleasant for them. Meanwhile the good guys were made redundant!
Uncle Pete
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Frodsham Cheshire
Posts: 915
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So.....
The police officer resigned in 1999 with a "clean" record and collected his golden hand-shake and pension.
In 2003 he has, as a convicted criminal with a decent pension, presumably his ill gotten gains from his crimes, and in the face of serious oposition secured the top job in security at Manchester.
Nepotism???
MP
The police officer resigned in 1999 with a "clean" record and collected his golden hand-shake and pension.
In 2003 he has, as a convicted criminal with a decent pension, presumably his ill gotten gains from his crimes, and in the face of serious oposition secured the top job in security at Manchester.
Nepotism???
MP
without invading my personal space and giving any security who may "bat for the other side", a quick thrill.
Personally, being heterosexual, I have a problem with being frisked, in that detail, by someone who maybe homosexual.
The jist of the threads argument / comments, for which I completely agree with, could have been made without any of these ignorant comments.
Don't flatter yourself. You imply if homosexuals were banned from security jobs then maybe it wouldn't be too bad after all.
In your comments you imply gays are part of the problem.
If that were not your intention, then I should withdraw those comments.
