'Upset' Stansted Security Staff reaction to Muslim quip. Careful what you say there.

Lapin · 27-10-2014 7:00pm

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Nor should they be. They don't deserve any more privileges than any other cultists.

With some 1.6 billion adherents totalling almost a quarter of the world's population and unfortunately growing, they can hardly be considered as a cult anymore.

Not that that their numbers should qualify them for kid glove treatment ofer any other creed either.

Fuhrer · 27-10-2014 7:02pm

Berserker wrote: »

Ever traveled to the USA or Russia? I travel to the UK very regularly and find them very easy to deal with.

They used to be better,

I can understand a pat down but do they have to shove their hands down into your waistband and have a root around?

I know they're wearing gloves but thats to keep their hands clean, ive never seen them changing them between gropings.

Its Only Ray Parlour · 27-10-2014 7:15pm

Lapin wrote: »

With some 1.6 billion adherents totalling almost a quarter of the world's population and unfortunately growing, they can hardly be considered as a cult anymore.

That's the only difference between a cult and a religion: millions of members. Lots of people criticise the Church of Scientology and no-one passes any remarks (except the members) but if you criticise Islam, you're a racist or a bigot or whatever.

It a joke that one religion gets special treatment over others.

Donkey Oaty · 27-10-2014 7:25pm

Lucky he didn't say "I am a Muslim". :pac:

BlaasForRafa · 27-10-2014 7:32pm

Fuhrer wrote: »

They used to be better,

I can understand a pat down but do they have to shove their hands down into your waistband and have a root around?

There's people would pay good money for that kind of service

Can't say I've ever had that "pleasure", though I have been subject to the "enhanced security" checks before getting on a flight to the states. All it amounted to was the contents of my carry on luggage being dumped onto a table, them having a good rummage and being asked a few questions, no big deal. One benefit of it though was getting to board the aircraft before everyone else, thus getting to get settled into my seat and luggage packed away before the rest of the rabble was left on.

NSAman · 27-10-2014 7:40pm

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

One benefit of it though was getting to board the aircraft before everyone else, thus getting to get settled into my seat and luggage packed away before the rest of the rabble was left on.

Try business or first, you even get away from most of the rabble completely.;)

Egginacup · 27-10-2014 7:51pm

Banjoxed wrote: »

I think the best advice to anyone flying is simply don't be a c*ck to security guards and get on with it.

You're SO right!

And when you travel by train in the US, make sure not to get off before or after everyone else. Don't look around when you're on the phone and don't be nervous:

https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/amtrak_foia_documents.pdf#page=35

You must not do the following, and you'll be fine:

Unusual nervousness of traveler
Unusual calmness or straight ahead stare
Looking around while making telephone call(s)
Position among passengers disembarking (ahead of, or lagging behind passengers)
Carrying little or no luggage
Purchase of tickets in cash
Purchase tickets immediately prior to boarding

Oh....and don't be a cock. Sit down and don't say a word.

Frank Lee Midere · 27-10-2014 8:10pm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

One thing seems plain enough to me: Muslims are not treated with kid gloves in AH.

You seem to be confused about where power lies. It's lies with the state, the security apparatus, the police.

This 75 year old may or may not be advocating different rules for Muslims - if so it's a point of view and one that was used against Irish people in the past - but in this case he merely said he wasn't a Muslim. So he might have thought that such laws already exist. Or maybe he's dotty.

In any case your liberalism is one which supports the right of Muslims to not be selected for screening but falls over when a little old man engages in crime speak. It's the pseud-liberalism of a certain totalitarian mindset, it's not that you want lesser security at airports: you want more security, more police powers, more laws curtailing speech and more curmudgeonry 75 year olds bunged up while a jihadist flutters by because to stop him would be profiling.

Fratton Fred · 27-10-2014 8:11pm

I was boarding an El Al flight from Ovda many years ago. There was a Thomson flight leaving for Luton at about the same time.

We had boarded and just starting to taxi, when we saw everyone on the Thomson flight getting off. Apparently someone had quipped that after all the security they failed to notice the grenade in their hand bag. Security had everyone off the plane and each person was searched, along with their luggage. It meant a nine hour delay.

Israeli airport security does not mess around.

Frank Lee Midere · 27-10-2014 8:14pm

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Regardless of anyones opinion on this case, you, me and everyone else on he knows what he meant. It was clearly "what are you checking me for, I'm not a musim" and not a public service announcement to helpfully inform people of his religion.

You can play the "but he made this statement" card all you like, but you know what he meant and why he said it. Would "I'm not black "be equally acceptable?

Or was he cut short from listing all the religions he isn't for no reason?

How about he can say what the fcuk he likes even if upsets you or any other affected group. Without the law getting involved. He can say. "Why me I'm not Irish" and go on the plane.

Of course on airports security has to react to threats, even joky threats. This wasn't a threat.

_Whimsical_ · 27-10-2014 8:22pm

I remember being told of a similar situation that happened at an Dublin airport. The 78yr granny of a guy I know was on a plane coming from America. The plane stopped in Dublin and was to go on to Shannon where some passengers were to be getting off. His granny had a medical cert saying she was ill and could stay on the plane while the other passengers disembarked for the hour while cleaning staff cleaned the plane. Anyway she's alone on the plane as the staff are cleaning. An air hostess came along looking in overhead compartments and the old lady said to her "i suppose you have to check all these places for bombs do you?", Just making awkward conversation.
5 Mins later airport police arrived and took her off the plane for questioning and frightened the wits out of her. She was not put back on the plane to go to Shannon and the family had to drive up to collect her.Her son went on the radio at the time to complain.

You can't expect the same level of decorum our political correctness from older people who grew up with different mores and understanding of the world. People who didn't get that shouldn't be dealing with the public.

27-10-2014 9:09pm

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

You can't expect the same level of decorum our political correctness from older people who grew up with different mores and understanding of the world. People who didn't get that shouldn't be dealing with the public.

Unfortunately, these are the same people who thought that drink-driving was OK and (insert here) was also acceptable.

Having said that, when has speaking your mind been a crime?

Egginacup · 27-10-2014 9:17pm

md23040 wrote: »

Typical in the PC world we live in that a bunch of young radicals have no problem getting through airport security with the same firm at another London airport heading out to Syria to inflict abhorrent acts of violence and in less than12 months on four out of five of them are justly dead, yet airport security pick on the weak and vulnerable in society whom are meant to be protected under these same security measures - the degree of irony is totally lost on me.

God forbid that anyone would go to Syria or Pakistan or Somalia or Libya or Iran to .... you know....see some friends, maybe go to grandma's funeral, or even check up on their wives (as she dodges the drone attacks) who are at home while the "radicals" are in England LEGALLY working and paying taxes to the government who is dropping bombs on their country.

Streetwalker · 27-10-2014 9:23pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

Stupid comment.

UK airport security people are ignorant fooks to a man though.

Security personnel in Atlanta take the ignorant trophy each and every time.

P. Breathnach · 27-10-2014 9:44pm

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

...
In any case your liberalism is one which supports the right of Muslims to not be selected for screening but falls over when a little old man engages in crime speak. It's the pseud-liberalism of a certain totalitarian mindset, it's not that you want lesser security at airports: you want more security, more police powers, more laws curtailing speech and more curmudgeonry 75 year olds bunged up while a jihadist flutters by because to stop him would be profiling.

I distrust anybody who claims to know my beliefs better than I do, and who ascribes to me views that I don't hold.

Making things up is a dishonest way to argue.

RobYourBuilder · 27-10-2014 10:10pm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I distrust anybody who claims to know my beliefs better than I do, and who ascribes to me views that I don't hold.

Making things up is a dishonest way to argue.

Yet you claim to know this 75 year old mans beliefs and why he said what he did.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Come off it. There was a clear implication about Muslims generally. That sort of speech should not be condoned, or even excused.

Such hypocrisy.

Donkey Oaty · 27-10-2014 10:14pm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I distrust anybody who claims to know my beliefs better than I do, and who ascribes to me views that I don't hold.

Making things up is a dishonest way to argue.

Yes, indeed, isn't it, and all that.

Having read your earlier posts, I got the impression that you thought this incident was handled correctly by the authorities, at least in broad terms.

Am I right, or should I be sent on some sort of course?

Standman · 27-10-2014 10:17pm

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Regardless of anyones opinion on this case, you, me and everyone else on he knows what he meant. It was clearly "what are you checking me for, I'm not a musim" and not a public service announcement to helpfully inform people of his religion.

You can play the "but he made this statement" card all you like, but you know what he meant and why he said it. Would "I'm not black "be equally acceptable?

Or was he cut short from listing all the religions he isn't for no reason?

Do you think he should have been arrested for it?

P. Breathnach · 27-10-2014 10:38pm

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Yes, indeed, isn't it, and all that.

Having read your earlier posts, I got the impression that you thought this incident was handled correctly by the authorities, at least in broad terms.

Am I right, or should I be sent on some sort of course?

I think that what he said was seriously out of order. That doesn't mean that I think that the way it was handled was correct: the very fact that the prosecution failed indicates that it wasn't the appropriate response. But neither do I believe it likely that taking him aside and having a quiet word is sufficient. In an ideal set-up, it would be good if some intermediate mechanism were available.

P. Breathnach · 27-10-2014 10:42pm

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

Yet you claim to know this 75 year old mans beliefs and why he said what he did....

I made an interpretation of what he said, the only interpretation that seems to be reasonable. I don't ascribe views to him based on things that he didn't say.

Mark Tapley · 27-10-2014 10:56pm

I think they need more aggressive security guards, who would tell the horrible old git to shut the **** up and get on with it.

md23040 · 27-10-2014 11:13pm

Egginacup wrote: »

God forbid that anyone would go to Syria or Pakistan or Somalia or Libya or Iran to .... you know....see some friends, maybe go to grandma's funeral, or even check up on their wives (as she dodges the drone attacks) who are at home while the "radicals" are in England LEGALLY working and paying taxes to the government who is dropping bombs on their country.

Sigh face palm sigh

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11177186/British-jihadi-fighter-Manunur-Roshid-killed-in-Syria.html

My case cited how 5 terrotists from Portsmouth and known to police were able to travel through London airports without any hassle. (with over 500 others) without a spot of bother but then some 75 year old gets dealt with in such a manner is an utter disgrace and the opposite of the intended outcome for these security measures.

My mother often at 85 travels through UK airports and has to get out of the wheelchair to go through the metal detector etc, and it is for reasons such as these all encompassing profiling to protect the sensitivities of one religion that makes the whole thing an absolute farce. The UK as mentioned had no problem profiling Irish so why the beef with profiling these people tap dancing there way through airport security whilst others who pose no risk are subject to intrusive hassle.

P. Breathnach · 27-10-2014 11:25pm

md23040 wrote: »

... so why the beef with profiling these people tap dancing there way through airport security whilst others who pose no risk are subject to intrusive hassle.

I know that I am no threat to anybody's security, but when I go through an airport I encounter staff who don't know me, and who don't know that I am no risk. So I comply with the security procedures without complaining.

I can't see a reasonable alternative for them; it's no great burden for me - just a minor inconvenience; and I see no gain to anybody if I offend or upset staff or fellow-travellers in such a situation.

end of the road · 28-10-2014 12:35am

md23040 wrote: »

Sigh face palm sigh

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11177186/British-jihadi-fighter-Manunur-Roshid-killed-in-Syria.html

My case cited how 5 terrotists from Portsmouth and known to police were able to travel through London airports without any hassle. (with over 500 others) without a spot of bother but then some 75 year old gets dealt with in such a manner is an utter disgrace and the opposite of the intended outcome for these security measures.

My mother often at 85 travels through UK airports and has to get out of the wheelchair to go through the metal detector etc, and it is for reasons such as these all encompassing profiling to protect the sensitivities of one religion that makes the whole thing an absolute farce. The UK as mentioned had no problem profiling Irish so why the beef with profiling these people tap dancing there way through airport security whilst others who pose no risk are subject to intrusive hassle.

all types of people are checked, if nothing comes up during those checks that says they need to be stopped then they will be let through

darkpagandeath · 28-10-2014 1:34am

I am not

Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, the list goes on.

Does this make me a Racist now ? considering none of the above are Races. Interesting fact announcing you are not a member of a religion appears to be Racist now. So when they ask you what Religion you are on the Census form do the people getting outraged here get outraged over that too ?

Banjoxed · 28-10-2014 1:37am

Egginacup wrote: »

You're SO right!

And when you travel by train in the US, make sure not to get off before or after everyone else. Don't look around when you're on the phone and don't be nervous:

https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/amtrak_foia_documents.pdf#page=35

You must not do the following, and you'll be fine:

Unusual nervousness of traveler

Unusual calmness or straight ahead stare

Looking around while making telephone call(s)

Position among passengers disembarking (ahead of, or lagging behind passengers)

Carrying little or no luggage

Purchase of tickets in cash

Purchase tickets immediately prior to boarding

Oh....and don't be a cock. Sit down and don't say a word.

I think sitting down and not saying a word in a security queue might not be the most effective way of getting through it. Of course, this depends on whether you wish to fly or instead make a c*cky point to security employees.

Irish Steve · 28-10-2014 1:49am

I don't have a problem with the concept of airport security as such, but what I do have problems with is the consistency of how it is carried out, and that's the case at Dublin and UK airports.

It should be clear now if belts need to be removed from trousers, and if shoes need to be removed, and if it's clear, then SAY SO, clearly, nicely, and BEFORE I GET TO THE SCANNER BELT.

What really grinds my gears and makes me very irritable is when there's no information, and on getting to the scanner, the security people get nasty because today, they've decided they want belts removed, or shoes removed, or both. On another day, they don't want either.

It is that inconsistency, and their expectation that I'm psychic, or a mind reader, that is utterly annoying, and when they then start getting snarly and narky, the strong temptation it to tell them to fcuk off, but that could lead to being denied boarding.

What then makes it even harder is if you are travelling with small children, and have to now try and manage coats, toys, other items and the children, as well as belts, shoes, phones, keys and all the other items that have to go through the scanner, and it's even harder if you're then not wearing shoes, so the floor is slippery, and depending on your build, trousers without a belt can be a distinct hazard.

As far as I'm concerned, where possible, everything (keys, phone, change, wallet) goes in the suitcase, before entering the security line, but it's not always possible to do that, some airports want some items kept separately, which is a total pain from a theft prevention aspect, and keeping track of all the different personal items is not always easy, which just adds to the hassles.

A friend of mine has had 2 metal replacement hips fitted, which means that just about every scanner he goes through throws a massive warning, and there have been occasions where he's wished he had copies of his X-rays with him, as explaining metal artificial hips to someone that can't understand English is at times more than challenging.

In terms of the specific aspects of the thread, a 75 year old pensioner will have lived through WW2, and probably served in the armed forces (without the option) at some stage during his early adulthood, and probably was involved in one or more conflicts as a result.

He's likely to be considerably less than tolerant of "jobsworths" and if that person also does not have a reasonable standard of spoken English, that will probably also provoke a hostile reaction, and it then was blown out of all proportion.

28-10-2014 2:09am

You don't make jokes about terrorism, or the crazies who'd cause it at the airport.

End of discussion.

Want to change that? Arm yourself, seize power, change the rules.

Till then, no jokes. End. Of. F*cking. Discussion.

darkpagandeath · 28-10-2014 2:24am

Deleted User wrote: »

You don't make jokes about terrorism, or the crazies who'd cause it at the airport.

End of discussion.

Want to change that? Arm yourself, seize power, change the rules.

Till then, no jokes. End. Of. F*cking. Discussion.

Equally you don't have the RIGHT to be offended.

Pumpkinseeds · 28-10-2014 12:16pm

The passenger was 75 years old. Anyone with living grandparents knows that most of them are a bit racist and set in their ways. That's not a justification of it, it's just an observation on people of a very different generation. Seriously, if the security guard gets upset over a fairly bland remark from an elderly man then he needs to be relocated. Talk about an overreaction. It must be extremely embarrassing for his employers and I'm guessing that he'll be getting transferred somewhere else.

Calling the police was ridiculous. I'm actually amazed that the police would respond to a time wasting call like that. Surely no crime was commited.

'Upset' Stansted Security Staff reaction to Muslim quip. Careful what you say there.

Comments