Mintchip Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 My worse experience with Ronaldsway security was one Christmas when I was flying home to see my family. Had a handbag and a carry-on filled with candy I had purchased as treats for the children. The surly security woman scolded me for having two bags and insisted I stuff my handbag into the carry-on. Of course, there was no room so I had to hand the candy off to my husband who was staying behind. It was extremely disappointing. Up until then, they hadn't counted a handbag as a carry-on and it was an unpleasant way to learn that lesson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manx-person Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I gotta go against the flow with this one. I agree that Bin Laden probably doesn't have a UK hideout however the Shoe Bomber did as did those guys with the exploding sports drinks. UK aviation security is there to protect us all and acting like a dickhead at an airport isn't clever. Yeah. UK aviation security is - but have you been through this airport lately its well above the UK average? They do what the IoM Government does best - petty mindedness and burocracy overload. It is without doubt one of the worst airports in the UK to use because it goes out of its way to inconvienience the traveller with pure arsey-ness because it can. I have lots of business clients who travel between London / Jersey / Guernsey who dread coming here because they feel that the security staff go out of the way to be a pain in the arse just because they can. They say that they have never seen such over zealous processes and procedures in any other offshore airport. I agree that the staff are a bit over zealous, but jokes about bombs arent funny. i doubt the effectiveness of the gamut of security procedures, but if jokes about security and bombs were brushed off then their job would be more difficult. I also imagine that the security arrangements at UK gateway airports are "mystery shopped" by the CAA and if we were lacking then this could have ramifications for general movement between the IoM and UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Aviation security is a necessary evil but needs to be applied in a way which would not alienate the people it is designed to protect. The IOM security is heavy handed, rude most of the time and applied in a manner which conveys a sense of power to the staff. It is not necessary under any act recommendation or otherwise to remove everyones shoes, the directress has said that she believes the rule to be that random people should occasionally be asked to remove shoes she stated one in five, but that security in the IOM do everyone to be sure. I have been embarrassed by watching them force a very disabled old lady remove her shoes with great difficulty. Sadly air travel is necessary and if there was a viable alternative these pedantic fools would cripple the industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 security industry ... driven by procedures ... sod all commonsense ... MHKs should be asking serious questions about how this incident was treated and escalated. Security Maxims - http://www.ne.anl.gov/capabilities/vat/seals/maxims.html Voltaire’s Maxim: The problem with common sense is that it is not all that common. Comment: Real world security blunders are often stunningly dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 The reason Granny Tatlock was searched is because of profiling. Or more accurately "not to be seen profiling". We all know that the terrorist of this day and age is most likely a male, aged between 18-50, of middle eastern ethicity, usually travelling in ones and twos, with no main hold luggage. We also know that most terrorists aren't white, female pensioners witha purse full of sweets. But if they only stopped and searched people of that first profile there would be out cry of racism and anti-muslim policies. I believe in the States most airports and other transport hubs have signage stating that possesion of/or joking about being in the possesion of bombs, guns, knives etc will dealt with in the harshest manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Hedgehog Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 People are ignoring the major fact here THE MAN WAS WEARING SANDALS He deserves to be locked up for that alone. Seriously though a prosecution and exclusion order for that is a joke. By all means refuse to allow him through security but prosecution and then conviction is absolutely fucking ridiculous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 There are two further important issues here imho. Firstly how many folks actually complain about OTT security goons? I suspect it's only me. The reason I've been given in the past is that "It's for your own security" which elicited a reply from me that "Being rude has nothing whatsoever to do with my security". The British don't like complaining about anything and will stoically put up with all sorts of crap. Security personnel can do an effective job without being rude, surely and generally unpleasant. If they are then complain. If you don't complain then nothing will change so continuing crap service will then be your own fault. Secondly security goons have no powers of arrest or detention. So the Island's Finest would have been next in line in this particular food chain. IMHO it should have resulted in a caution and that would have been the end of it. It wasn't. Someone should be asking why not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monasqueen Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 He wasn't thrown in Jail. Where was he held overnight, then, if he wasn't banged up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monasqueen Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Quite apart from any other considerations, why does security here have to be so bloody minded over shoes, when in Canada (and presumably numerous other countries) there is no requirement for them to be screened for anything other than international flights? (And I do hope that they regularly disinfect that carpet - yuck) "Canada's airport security agency has issued a bulletin to front-line officers instructing them they cannot require domestic or international passengers to doff footwear before walking through metal detectors. “Never suggest, ask or demand that passengers remove footwear prior to entering the WTMD [walk-through metal detector],” says the one-page directive, issued in April. “This bulletin is effective immediately.” In a major exception, however, officers can still order passengers heading for the United States to remove their shoes, consistent with higher air-security standards set by Washington. As well, if a hand-held metal detector signals an alarm for shoes after the walk through, a passenger can be required to remove footwear for examination." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Maybe if he'd just taken his shoes off like asked none of this would have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I've bossed a few dogs about in my time! Your Mrs told me she was always in charge...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I gotta go against the flow with this one. I agree that Bin Laden probably doesn't have a UK hideout however the Shoe Bomber did as did those guys with the exploding sports drinks. UK aviation security is there to protect us all and acting like a dickhead at an airport isn't clever. If you don't like IOM airport security - catch the boat and preferably take a car. You've got a much better chance of getting your naughties onto a public passenger vessel that way. He didn't have any naughties though. He wasn't a terrorist, just a fucking idiot. If it had turned out that his sandals were made of semtex then i could understand the reaction. Do you agree with the prison sentence then? I feel it was a little harsh... What annoys me, though is the guy get a right slamming for his joke... yet i seem to remember a "artist" using the airport to display a "bomb" all in the name off art... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doofus Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 People are ignoring the major fact here THE MAN WAS WEARING SANDALS He deserves to be locked up for that alone. Seriously though a prosecution and exclusion order for that is a joke. By all means refuse to allow him through security but prosecution and then conviction is absolutely fucking ridiculous He probably had socks on with them as well, heinous crime. They should have given him hard labour breaking rocks at the roadside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Aviation security is extemely important and this idiot was out of order but the security response and Moyle's judgement are a huge over-reaction. If he had just been detained for a bollocking long enough to miss his flight, that would have been enough but no, we have to make a big song and dance about it. Getting the travelling public's back up does nothing to increase security, probably the opposite. I had to travel to/from the US the week after 9/11 and the security at Chicago wasn't as draconian as it is here. I am not daft enought to rise to the bait if my luggage is searched like it was when travelling a few weeks ago. I certainly would have been justified in challenging the over-zealous rude middle aged woman ordering me about in a completely empty search area. But no, just make them think they are in charge and doing you a favour by letting you through and life will be easier. React like you would if this happened anywhere else and you might give Moyle another opportunity at making the Island appear ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
%age Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 There are two further important issues here imho. Firstly how many folks actually complain about OTT security goons? I suspect it's only me. The reason I've been given in the past is that "It's for your own security" which elicited a reply from me that "Being rude has nothing whatsoever to do with my security". The British don't like complaining about anything and will stoically put up with all sorts of crap. Security personnel can do an effective job without being rude, surely and generally unpleasant. If they are then complain. If you don't complain then nothing will change so continuing crap service will then be your own fault. Secondly security goons have no powers of arrest or detention. So the Island's Finest would have been next in line in this particular food chain. IMHO it should have resulted in a caution and that would have been the end of it. It wasn't. Someone should be asking why not... The Isle of Man can be a very oppressive place. Most of us daren't complain about anything in case we somehow get reprisals from the establishment. Let's get something absolutely in the open here, there is a large element of our society that will gain extreme pleasure by metaphorically shagging you well and truly up the arse. Because they can. I've known that for a fact for over 40 years. Why are so many people on manxforums 'anonymous'? OK there are a number of reasons but if you look at other local forums in the UK then you find a lot more people openly expressing their opinions without fear of the big boys shitting all over them. This matter surprises me none. There are far worse cases than this that don't get publicity. Far worse. To be fair, I suppose High Bailiff Michael Moyle was not able to be seen in any way condoning what the bloke said. But I think he could have made an utter cunt of the guy without making one of himself as well, along with the thin blue line that is at the forefront of holdiing together our very liberty and freedom down there at the airport and them too in the police station and also the wigs in the Attorney General's offices. What a fucken farce. I wonder do the police involved, Attorney General's office, airport security staff and High Bailiff feel they have done a fine day's work here. I see them as utter cunts. Perhaps they will appear on Manx Radio to justify their work here. It will be a reet good laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.