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

darkpagandeath

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

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.

Hate crime, Racial abuse, Religious hatred take your pick far to many laws and jobs worth / PC brigade to jump on the whole but it was offensive. Wonder if there was a claim put in on the companies insurance for compensation for emotional trauma and time off. Guard does not seem suited for the job. What would he do if a person ran in shouting Anti British sentiments ? I would assume the person was born in the UK and take the same offence as the religious comment.

Pumpkinseeds

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Hate crime, Racial abuse, Religious hatred take your pick far to many laws and jobs worth / PC brigade to jump on the whole but it was offensive. Wonder if there was a claim put in on the companies insurance for compensation for emotional trauma and time off. Guard does not seem suited for the job. What would he do if a person ran in shouting Anti British sentiments ? I would assume the person was born in the UK and take the same offence as the religious comment.

He's 75 years old. An elderly man, hardly a serious threat. Perspective is everything.

BizzyC

Surprised by how many people going with the defence of "it's not bigoted to say you're not a member of a religion".

That's correct, it's not a bad thing to say you're not part of a religion.
But you all seem to be ignoring the context.

He was declaring that he couldn't possibly be a security threat since he wasn't muslim, which is a derogatory thing to say in relation to muslims.

Regardless of how it was handled from that point on, imo it did go overboard, really shocked that a lot of people seem to see no problem with what he said.

darkpagandeath

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

He's 75 years old. An elderly man, hardly a serious threat. Perspective is everything.

Yes I was talking about the Guard not the old man

darkpagandeath

BizzyC wrote: »

Surprised by how many people going with the defence of "it's not bigoted to say you're not a member of a religion".

That's correct, it's not a bad thing to say you're not part of a religion.
But you all seem to be ignoring the context.

He was declaring that he couldn't possibly be a security threat since he wasn't muslim, which is a derogatory thing to say in relation to muslims.

Regardless of how it was handled from that point on, imo it did go overboard, really shocked that a lot of people seem to see no problem with what he said.

You must not leave the house then if you may get shocked over a single comment.

BizzyC

darkpagandeath wrote: »

You must not leave the house then if you may get shocked over a single comment.

Didn't say I was shocked by the comment, old men say dodgy things all the time.

Shocked that so many people who are not old men seem to be endorsing it.

Pumpkinseeds

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Yes I was talking about the Guard not the old man

Sorry, I'm shattered and a bit hacked off listening to the next door nightmare who doesn't seem to realise that her singing sounds like a dog howling, so I'm a bit snappy today.:o

darkpagandeath

BizzyC wrote: »

Didn't say I was shocked by the comment, old men say dodgy things all the time.

Shocked that so many people who are not old men seem to be endorsing it.

This may refresh the memory

Regardless of how it was handled from that point on, imo it did go overboard, really shocked that a lot of people seem to see no problem with what he said

BizzyC

darkpagandeath wrote: »

This may refresh the memory

wow , that's some great reading skills.
Feel like reading the rest of that sentence attached to those two words?

No?
Here's the rest of it

that a lot of people seem to see no problem with what he said

darkpagandeath

BizzyC wrote: »

wow , that's some great reading skills.
Feel like reading the rest of that sentence attached to those two words?

No?
Here's the rest of it

that a lot of people seem to see no problem with what he said

So hang on now your not shocked, You are shocked that people are not shocked about the comment the guy made ?

BizzyC

darkpagandeath wrote: »

So hang on now your not shocked, You are shocked that people are not shocked about the comment the guy made ?

How many ways do you need this explained to you?

I never said his comment shocked me.
I said I was shocked to see so many people on here who had no problem with the comment.

Based on your obvious issue with my statement, I assume you agree with the old man's sentiment that muslims are the only security risk in airports?

whisky_galore

Stupid comment with equally stupid reaction.

darkpagandeath

BizzyC wrote: »

How many ways do you need this explained to you?

I never said his comment shocked me.
I said I was shocked to see so many people on here who had no problem with the comment.

Based on your obvious issue with my statement, I assume you agree with the old man's sentiment that muslims are the only security risk in airports?

Yes Yes I do :rolleyes:.... Where do I apply for the "I'm a Racist now" card for not agreeing to be outraged by a comment.


And I guess you would have to ask the security guys who Racially profile in that airport.



And if you cant tell my first comment was sarcasm

timetogo

whisky_galore wrote: »

Stupid comment with equally stupid reaction.

Yeah, that's it in a nutshell.

If somebody said that to me (or changed the muslim bit to catholic or atheist, or some other grouping that I might be a member of) I'd think he was an idiot. I wouldn't call the guards.

I understand that airports require security. I don't see how this enhanced security. Probably the opposite with more people thinking that the security guy was an idiot.

Hoop66

Next time you're in an airport, take a good look at the people operating the security systems/searching.

Do they look like the brightest bunch? Or do they look like those that were just smart enough to pass whatever training they have to do?

P. Breathnach

Hoop66 wrote: »

Next time you're in an airport, take a good look at the people operating the security systems/searching.

Do they look like the brightest bunch? Or do they look like those that were just smart enough to pass whatever training they have to do?

And then look at the people with whom they are dealing. They are (inevitably) inconvenienced by the operation, and some feel that they are entitled to take out their annoyance or frustration on the people whose job is to make their journey safer.

When somebody has to do a job that most of us would hate to have to do, it's not good to treat them like crap.

darkpagandeath

P. Breathnach wrote: »

And then look at the people with whom they are dealing. They are (inevitably) inconvenienced by the operation, and some feel that they are entitled to take out their annoyance or frustration on the people whose job is to make their journey safer.

When somebody has to do a job that most of us would hate to have to do, it's not good to treat them like crap.

I don't recall anywhere in that article the guard being abused, He found a comment Racist and blew the situation out of all proportion. If I was a Tax payer in the UK and this kind of carry on was being paid for out of the public purse I would be making noise. Would you stand for that happening in Dublin Airport ?

P. Breathnach

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I don't recall anywhere in that article the guard being abused, He found a comment Racist and blew the situation out of all proportion. If I was a Tax payer in the UK and this kind of carry on was being paid for out of the public purse I would be making noise. Would you stand for that happening in Dublin Airport ?

I was responding to Hoop66's comment, which was of a general nature.

In the case under specific discussion here, there has been speculation that the staff member involved was Muslim. If that is so, then a suggestion that only Muslims are security threats could be considered offensive to that person. It's also potentially offensive to anybody else within earshot.

darkpagandeath

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I was responding to Hoop66's comment, which was of a general nature.

In the case under specific discussion here, there has been speculation that the staff member involved was Muslim. If that is so, then a suggestion that only Muslims are security threats could be considered offensive to that person. It's also potentially offensive to anybody else within earshot.

You/me do NOT have the Right to be offended, The case was dropped probably due to that reason. It was not inciting any hatred it's was a stupid comment, That aside again you/me do not have the right to be offended.

RobYourBuilder

An Austrian man has been fined for yodelling while mowing his lawn because it caused offence to his Muslim neighbours.



Helmut Griese, 63, was found guilty of "ridiculing" their religious beliefs and fined nearly £700 by a court in Graz. Rather than face a protracted court case, with all its attendant legal costs, Mr Griese agreed to pay.

The court heard how the Muslim family regarded Mr Griese as a "grumpy old man" whose open-air Alpine chanting was intended as a taunt aimed at their religion. The retiree was accused trying to "mock and imitate" the call of the Muezzin, who calls the faithful for prayer in mosques. They alleged that he always began his yodelling just as they knelt down to pray.

Mr Griese, however, told the Austrian newspaper Kornen that "it was not my intention to imitate or insult them. I simply started to yodel a few tunes because I was in such a good mood."

The court heard how things came to a head late in the summer when Griese was both mowing his lawn and yodelling as the Muslim family were praying. Police were called, and he was served with a summons.

Mr Griese was charged the "disparagement of religious symbols" - an offence usually used to prosecute for neo-Nazis who desecrate Jewish graves - and hindering religious practice.

This is nuts. Thou shalt not do anything that might offend muslims.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/austria/8207015/Austrian-man-convicted-for-yodelling-while-Muslim-neighbours-prayed.html

end of the road

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

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.

they arrest you for anything over there

end of the road

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Hate crime, Racial abuse, Religious hatred take your pick far to many laws and jobs worth / PC brigade to jump on the whole but it was offensive. Wonder if there was a claim put in on the companies insurance for compensation for emotional trauma and time off. Guard does not seem suited for the job. What would he do if a person ran in shouting Anti British sentiments ? I would assume the person was born in the UK and take the same offence as the religious comment.

pc doesn't exist. stop using it

P. Breathnach

darkpagandeath wrote: »

You/me do NOT have the Right to be offended, The case was dropped probably due to that reason. It was not inciting any hatred it's was a stupid comment, That aside again you/me do not have the right to be offended.

Bollocks. You are effectively saying that everybody has an unqualified right to be offensive. That's patently not true.

Lapin

end of the road wrote: »

they arrest you for anything over there

end of the road wrote: »

pc doesn't exist. stop using it

Are you capable of backing up anything you say ?

Lapin

darkpagandeath wrote: »

You/me do NOT have the Right to be offended..................................... That aside again you/me do not have the right to be offended.

Very naive comment.

While its true that 'rights' are established by laws and conventions and there are none that I know of that cover specifically the 'right to be offended', that does not mean that people should not be permitted to take offence whether the 'right' to do so exists or not.

Saying people don't have the 'right to be offended' is effectively advocating carte blanche for people to openly insult others for the sake of it under the pretence that their victim has no right to recourse.

The state of being offended is a natural emotion which cannot be measured or governed and therefore 'rights' don't come into dictating whether one can experience that feeling or not.

And while I agree the the 'offended' and 'upset' card is being played far too frequently now as a weapon of political correctness, I think its dangerous to dismiss others simply by saying they don't have the right to feel haw they do as this could be used in genuine cases where real offence is actually caused.

We don't need to refer to 'rights' to determine every aspect of our lives.

cerastes

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

This is nuts. Thou shalt not do anything that might offend muslims.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/austria/8207015/Austrian-man-convicted-for-yodelling-while-Muslim-neighbours-prayed.html

This seems wrong, how would he know they were praying?

Rubberchikken

the same type of airport security clown lets muslim radicals through security every day probably, yet doesn't have the cop on to understand that an elderly person sometimes doesn't think before they speak.

P. Breathnach

Rubberchikken wrote: »

the same type of airport security clown lets muslim radicals through security every day probably, yet doesn't have the cop on to understand that an elderly person sometimes doesn't think before they speak.

Airport security is concerned with making the flight safe; a radicalised Muslim tring to get to the Middle East to join a jihad is not an obvious candidate for trying to bring down the plane in which he travels.

Lapin

True.

Airport security are only responsible for those passing through their gates and boarding the aircraft behind them and have a handful of seconds to make a judgement on someone.

But I would like to think that intellegence agencies are in constant liason with them regarding possible suspects who may be travelling to join terrorist groups after their flight, even if they pose no immediate threat to the airport or flight itself.

Difficult job too however, given that many of the terrorist's own families aren't even aware that their sons and daughter are in ISIS until they hear their names mentioned on the news.

But getting back to the topic, the security guard may well have been upset but he obiously didn't feel Griffith was a threat to the safety and comfort of others as he was permitted to travel. Getting the police involved and allowing a six month period to elapse pending a court appearance is a heavy handed reaction by someone simply claiming to be 'upset'.

darkpagandeath

Lapin wrote: »

Very naive comment.

While its true that 'rights' are established by laws and conventions and there are none that I know of that cover specifically the 'right to be offended', that does not mean that people should not be permitted to take offence whether the 'right' to do so exists or not.

Saying people don't have the 'right to be offended' is effectively advocating carte blanche for people to openly insult others for the sake of it under the pretence that their victim has no right to recourse.

The state of being offended is a natural emotion which cannot be measured or governed and therefore 'rights' don't come into dictating whether one can experience that feeling or not.

And while I agree the the 'offended' and 'upset' card is being played far too frequently now as a weapon of political correctness, I think its dangerous to dismiss others simply by saying they don't have the right to feel haw they do as this could be used in genuine cases where real offence is actually caused.

We don't need to refer to 'rights' to determine every aspect of our lives.

Not really, You cannot make laws about being offended hence that's why there are none. Offense is subjective, What offends you may not offend me. Offence is subjective to groups, family, social behaviour. Offence is cultural part of a collective moral code. You cannot make laws for it that is why there are none. How would a judge rule on the level of offence what redress was sufficient, when unable to feel said offence.