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

Beefy78 · 28-10-2014 4:46pm

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.

This is it, exactly. My Dad is the same age as this guy and had a similar experience earlier this year at the same airport and going to the same place too. It definitely wasn't him though

He didn't explicitly mention anything about Muslims but he did say "I don't look like a terrorist do I?" and got a ticking off from security over it.

I said the same thing to him that others have said on here in this thread. Don't say anything at airports, just keep your head down when going through security and get through it. I fly 40+ times a year and security is a pain but you just get on with it.

Some of the older generation don't bite their tongues like the rest of us though.

Lapin · 28-10-2014 5:08pm

darkpagandeath wrote: »

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.

If you have lived a such a sheltered life in which you have never been offended by the comments of others, then, in fairness you are not really qualified to comment on the reaction of other people from any level of experience.

If however, you have being at the receiving end of insulting remarks against you personally, your family, friends or things you hold dear, do you quell your natural reaction and ignore the insults of others because you don't have the right to be offended?

Of course people have the right to be offended if thats how they feel. If you depend on governments and laws to tell you what all your rights are in relation to how you think and feel, you must crave the totalitarian lifestyle whereby others dictate how you can and cannot think and feel.

darkpagandeath · 28-10-2014 5:22pm

Lapin wrote: »

If you have lived a such a sheltered life in which you have never been offended by the comments of others, then, in fairness you are not really qualified to comment on the reaction of other people from any level of experience.

If however, you have being at the receiving end of insulting remarks against you personally, your family, friends or things you hold dear, do you quell your natural reaction and ignore the insults of others because you don't have the right to be offended?

Of course people have the right to be offended if thats how they feel. If you depend on governments and laws to tell you what all your rights are in relation to how you think and feel, you must crave the totalitarian lifestyle whereby others dictate how you can and cannot think and feel.

Nice hyperbole, You cannot make laws about emotions simple as. And I may think it's not me that has lived a sheltered life in regards to offence. In the real world People get offended, Just like they get happy sad It's part of being human you cannot make laws about it. When did sticks and stones and all that change to emotional trauma life crippling life altering emotional problems over a comment.

both examples feel the same level of Offence.

Man feels offence after being called the N word.

Man feels offence over being refused into a nightclub for not wearing correct attire.

Whose offence is less worthy ?

rgmmg · 28-10-2014 5:40pm

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

He's also 75. What's the charge for. The phrase "I am not a Muslim" isn't even sectarian never mind racist. It's a statement of fact. He may have believed that only Muslims were targeted. Or that only Muslims should be ( or targeted more frequently). I mean until about a decade ago Irish people were treated differently. Most people understood this.

Only if you were wearing a balaclava

Lapin · 28-10-2014 5:43pm

darkpagandeath wrote: »

You cannot make laws about emotions simple as.

And by that token, you cannot come out with comments like this.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

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

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.

Do you really and truly believe that rights can only come inro existance through the formulation of laws, and that if there are no laws in place, then people can automatically be denied rights to be insulted by the comments of others?

Do you rely on governments to arrange your moral compass? In saying that people 'don't have the right to be offended' are you suggesting that their feelings and emotions are somehow irrelevant simply because its impossible to legislate for them?

Irish Steve · 28-10-2014 5:45pm

My mother is 90, and has a deep seated and deep rooted dislike for France, the French, and French products, to the extent that she will look closely at apples on sale in the local supermarket and if they are French, she will not buy them, even if they are cheaper and visibly better quality than anything else on offer.

None of the rest of the family understand why she has this particular attitude, but it is there, and immoveable. There are also times when she will make comments that are out and in the open before she's really put her brain in gear, but that is one of the downsides of being 90. In all other respects, if you met her, you'd put her age as closer to 75, and a fit and active 75 at that.

They've stopped travelling from the UK to Ireland by air, simply because they find travelling by train and ferry to be more relaxing and less stressful, and airport security has a lot to do with that, despite the fact that flying is less than 4 hours door to door, and train/ferry is closer to 12.

A lot of that is down to the issues I raised earlier, the older generations expect consistency, and that is one of the aspects of airport security that is lacking.

One trip, it's easy, you go straight through, no hassles, another trip, the security personnel are narky, and get upset because you haven't put your belt in the scanner, or you've not removed your shoes, or both, or your phone is in your coat pocket and not loose in the tray, or some other reason.

As I mentioned, I'm not psychic, and if they didn't ask for belts off, or shoes off, or phones in the tray loose on the previous trip, as it's a PAIN to remove belts or shoes, or a theft risk to put phones loose in a tray, if they didn't ask for it last time I travelled, then I'm not going to do voluntarily the next time, and if they then start snarling at me for "not complying", it's very tempting to tell them that "I did exactly the same last time, and no one had a problem with it", but while that's the absolute truth, it's also likely to increase the delay, and possibly cause even more hassles.

It should be easy, they have enough monitors around the place, if security is being enhanced for some reason, and they want belts off and shoes off, then it's simple, PUT IT ON THE MONITORS, so that we know BEFORE we get to the scanner. I don't think that's an unreasonable request, and it shouldn't compromise security, and it might even reduce the resentment that many people feel towards the whole process, and might even help to reduce the delays at the scanner.

darkpagandeath · 28-10-2014 5:51pm

Lapin wrote: »

And by that token, you cannot come out with comments like this.

Do you really and truly believe that rights can only come inro existance through the formulation of laws, and that if there are no laws in place, then people can automatically be denied rights to be insulted by the comments of others?

Do you rely on governments to arrange your moral compass? In saying that people 'don't have the right to be offended' are you suggesting that their feelings and emotions are somehow irrelevant simply because its impossible to legislate for them?

Jesus wept. You cannot seek redress for an emotion through the courts. Were did I say your not allowed to be offended. I simply said You have no Right to be offended under the law. Care to answer the question on who's offence is more or less worthy.

con___manx1 · 28-10-2014 5:57pm

I got searched for explosives last time i was in heathrow. i reckon for definite the only reason was because the security guard heard my irish accent the bloody racist ; )

Lapin · 28-10-2014 6:12pm

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Jesus wept. You cannot seek redress for an emotion through the courts.

Of course you can. Happens all the time. And quite often the judges decisions are ludicrous.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Were did I say your not allowed to be offended. I simply said You have no Right to be offended under the law.

You said on the three occations I quoted you that people don't have 'the right to be offended'. In neither case did you say it in the context of being 'under the law'.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Care to answer the question on who's offence is more or less worthy.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Man feels offence after being called the N word.

Man feels offence over being refused into a nightclub for not wearing correct attire.

Whose offence is less worthy ?

The gobshíte mouthing off outside the nightclub obviously. If he took the time to check out the club's dress code before heading out, he'd have nothing to worry about. Only has himself to blame and being offended doesn't even come into the equasion.

I don't see what you're getting at here to be honest.

What has this got to do with a security guard overreacting at an airport and police taking a minor issue too far?

liz lemoncello · 28-10-2014 6:45pm

Beefy78 wrote: »

This is it, exactly. My Dad is the same age as this guy and had a similar experience earlier this year at the same airport and going to the same place too. It definitely wasn't him though He didn't explicitly mention anything about Muslims but he did say "I don't look like a terrorist do I?" and got a ticking off from security over it.

That's probably what should have happened here.

Galwayguy35 · 28-10-2014 6:53pm

Old people sometimes say things the rest of us wouldn't because back in the day it was deemed ok to say these things and it's ofton hard to change the habits of a lifetime.

Even people of my age group will remember "eeney meaney miney mo catch a n***** by the toe", we didn't realise we were saying anything wrong at the time.

Bringing older people to court over it is silly.

looksee · 28-10-2014 6:54pm

Going through a UK to Ireland security check I followed a family who were travellers in ever sense of the word and if you saw the performance they put on you would have sympathy for the staff of the airport security desks. They had an older woman in a wheelchair, two small children draped with every form of decorative metal chain, studs in clothing etc, they could manage and three other women. They went through the scanner, set it off several times, one woman was trying to go round the scanner to 'help' sort the children, they milled about and caused confusion, but the staff kept up with them and eventually took them to one side to sort them out. You could almost hear the 'we were picked on' claims.

About the old man though, if anyone here waits till they get to 70 and then has to react to having to remove and replace shoes without benefit of a seat, and with any sort of speed, they might have an idea of his irritation. And we have no idea what level of mental confusion he was at, especially if he was not a frequent traveller. A bit of common sense would have been a good idea.

Irish Steve · 28-10-2014 7:12pm

looksee wrote: »

About the old man though, if anyone here waits till they get to 70 and then has to react to having to remove and replace shoes without benefit of a seat, and with any sort of speed, they might have an idea of his irritation. And we have no idea what level of mental confusion he was at, especially if he was not a frequent traveller. A bit of common sense would have been a good idea.

You don't have to be 70 for that to be a problem, my friend I mentioned earlier has had at least 5 hip replacements now (yeah!), and mobility would not be one of his strong suites at this stage, removing and replacing shoes without a convenient seat ( and there are none before the scanners and precious few after) is a major hassle.

Even more of a risk is asking an elderly frail gentleman to remove the belt from his trousers, there is a severe risk of his trousers ending up around his ankles in zero time flat during that exercise, and while others might find that amusing, the person it happens to will not. Even remaining upright while removing the belt can be a challenge for older citizens, due to all manner of infirmities.

Paco Rodriguez · 28-10-2014 7:20pm

Stupid comment by the pensioner who should count himself lucky he got his holiday.

Let those IS fanatics go to Syria and Iraq. Give them a free ticket. At least they can be gathered there and disposed of instead of hiding among us...which is probably why IS are allowed gather certain amount of leeway.

who the fug · 28-10-2014 7:23pm

Lapin wrote: »

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'.

Please , they are the theatre to appease the Sun and the Mirror, and are EFF all use for security.

RobYourBuilder · 28-10-2014 7:41pm

Paco Rodriguez wrote: »

Stupid comment by the pensioner who should count himself lucky he got his holiday.

Let those IS fanatics go to Syria and Iraq. Give them a free ticket. At least they can be gathered there and disposed of instead of hiding among us...which is probably why IS are allowed gather certain amount of leeway.

The Home Office reckons at least half of the British citizens who went abroad to fight with the ISIS, have already returned. They'll be back!

Earl Turner · 28-10-2014 7:48pm

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Old people sometimes say things the rest of us wouldn't because back in the day it was deemed ok to say these things and it's ofton hard to change the habits of a lifetime.

Even people of my age group will remember "eeney meaney miney mo catch a n***** by the toe", we didn't realise we were saying anything wrong at the time.

Bringing older people to court over it is silly.

Have to admit I laugh when I hear old people being racist. In these highly pc times its the sheer inappropriateness of it that's hilarious. Most of the time their not actually being racist, just from a different era.

Lapin · 28-10-2014 8:50pm

who the fug wrote: »

Please , they are the theatre to appease the Sun and the Mirror, and are EFF all use for security.

I agree that a lot of airport security is simply there to put people's minds at ease rather than actually prevent terrorism.

However, they do remove hundreds of dangerous items from passengers daily and while most people are unaware they even had such potential weapons on their possession, how else can we weed out those who are carrying such items for sinister purposes?

I hate to drag up 911 here, but if the box cutters, knives and other sharp objects were removed from the hijackers before they boarded the plane, would the attacks still of occured when they did? Who knows, and perhaps thats a question for another thread.

But whats the alternative? Have airport security removed altogether and have people bring whatever they want on board aircraft?

28-10-2014 9:11pm

Paco Rodriguez wrote: »

Stupid comment by the pensioner who should count himself lucky he got his holiday.

Let those IS fanatics go to Syria and Iraq. Give them a free ticket. At least they can be gathered there and disposed of instead of hiding among us...which is probably why IS are allowed gather certain amount of leeway.

and cancel their passports while they're away!

end of the road · 28-10-2014 10:15pm

Earl Turner wrote: »

In these highly pc times

which are in your imagination. no such thing as pc.

end of the road · 28-10-2014 10:18pm

Deleted User wrote: »

and cancel their passports while they're away!

can't be done, unless they have dual citizenship, if they are british citizens then britain is responsible for them

Earl Turner · 28-10-2014 10:19pm

end of the road wrote: »

which are in your imagination. no such thing as pc.

Yeah...

the_syco · 28-10-2014 11:07pm

Lapin wrote: »

He removed his shoes as requested, but said: ‘I am not Muslim am I?'

A security guard accused him of racism and called the police, saying he was upset by the remark.

Was the security guard muslim?

Frank Lee Midere · 28-10-2014 11:16pm

end of the road wrote: »

which are in your imagination. no such thing as pc.

So you keep saying. And yet the full force of the law was brought down upon a 75 year old who mentioned he didn't belong to a certain religion and a fair number of posters here, "liberals" all, feel that was a very good thing indeed, he had it coming.

Earl Turner · 28-10-2014 11:21pm

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

So you keep saying. And yet the full force of the law was brought down upon a 75 year old who mentioned he didn't belong to a certain religion and a fair number of posters here, "liberals" all, feel that was a very good thing indeed, he had it coming.

We can't have thought crimes now can we?

Or the abuse case in Rotherham where the authorities wouldn't intervene for fear of being seen as racist.

Frank Lee Midere · 28-10-2014 11:29pm

Number of ISIS members caught by airport security: 0
Number of 75 year olds caught for CrimeSpeak: 1

Earl Turner · 28-10-2014 11:31pm

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Number of ISIS members caught by airport security: 0
Number of 75 year olds caught for CrimeSpeak: 1

The system works!

end of the road · 28-10-2014 11:35pm

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

So you keep saying. And yet the full force of the law was brought down upon a 75 year old who mentioned he didn't belong to a certain religion and a fair number of posters here, "liberals" all, feel that was a very good thing indeed, he had it coming.

they are wrong. but these laws are down to stupidity and nothing else

end of the road · 28-10-2014 11:37pm

Earl Turner wrote: »

the abuse case in Rotherham where the authorities wouldn't intervene for fear of being seen as racist.

that wasn't the reason. they weren't going to simply jump in with no evidence just because foreign people were involved

Lapin · 28-10-2014 11:38pm

the_syco wrote: »

Was the security guard muslim?

I don't know.

It doesn't say in the article and I didn't hear anywhere else.

I hope he is because if there is one thing more tedious than someone getting 'upset' over an innocious remark, it is someone else getting offended on behalf of others.

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

Comments