Jeremy Clarkson on Airport Immgration Delays

[the sicilian]

I think a lot of the time the so called ethnic minorities are the ones who do not wish to intergrate into our society.. they often choose to isolate themselves within their own community...

Integration works both ways as does racism I'm afraid... ignorance and stupidity is and always will be prevalent in all communities whatever race creed or colour and it is this that causes racism, for hating someone because of the colour of their skin can only be perpetrated by the ignorant and stupid.

[MintTrav]

Can't really speak for anybody else but I'll take the security over the education please.

It isn't security - that's the point. It's making people feel safer when they are not actually any safer. It's an illusion to pander to an irrational fear, and an expensive one. The cost of the airport nonsense isn't just the staff, etc on the enforcement side - it is also the considerable cost in time wasted by passengers going through the charade.

The main non-medical causes of death in the UK are transport accidents, suicide, accidental poisoning (incl drugs & alcohol) and falls. We would be better spending money trying to prevent those instead of wasting it on airport non-security.

Take motor accidents. Until recently, 3,000 people a year were being killed - the equivalent of terrorists blowing up an airliner every month. It has now come down to 2,000, which is a dramatic improvement, but it is still carnage out there on the roads and most people seem blissfully unafraid of the possibility of being in a motor accident. In 2010, the number of people killed by terrorism in the UK was zero, yet people are worried about it. It would take a hell of a lot of terrorism to approach the numbers being killed year after year on the roads; or the number of suicides (consistently about 3,400/yr).

We are worried about the wrong things. Worse than that, we are spending our money trying to counteract the wrong things.

[Woodsey]

Can't really speak for anybody else but I'll take the security over the education please.

It isn't security - that's the point. It's making people feel safer when they are not actually any safer. It's an illusion to pander to an irrational fear, and an expensive one. The cost of the airport nonsense isn't just the staff, etc on the enforcement side - it is also the considerable cost in time wasted by passengers going through the charade.

The main non-medical causes of death in the UK are transport accidents, suicide, accidental poisoning (incl drugs & alcohol) and falls. We would be better spending money trying to prevent those instead of wasting it on airport non-security.

Take motor accidents. Until recently, 3,000 people a year were being killed - the equivalent of terrorists blowing up an airliner every month. It has now come down to 2,000, which is a dramatic improvement, but it is still carnage out there on the roads and most people seem blissfully unafraid of the possibility of being in a motor accident. In 2010, the number of people killed by terrorism in the UK was zero, yet people are worried about it. It would take a hell of a lot of terrorism to approach the numbers being killed year after year on the roads; or the number of suicides (consistently about 3,400/yr).

We are worried about the wrong things. Worse than that, we are spending our money trying to counteract the wrong things.

What a load of old bollocks. If the security was a lot lower are you telling me that the risk of terrorism would not increase?

[the sicilian]

Mintrav id laugh but i think you're serious

[MANTIS01]

Sure but the objective of any law abiding society is to detect crime. If the stopping and searching of Gypsies is successfully detecting crime then society is achieving that objective. But that's good news for everybody including Gypsies. Detection and eradication of crime in the society we all share is something we all should welcome. I think a lot of very serious issues like racism are diluted by sensitivity and other agendas that don't actually tackle the heart of the matter. If when stopped Gypsies are handled with less respect than other folk then that is racism. But if when more Gypsies are respectfully stopped more crime is detected then the act of stopping more Gypsies is justifiable isn't it? If no more crime is detected when more Gypsies are stopped then frequently stopping Gypsies would be pointless. It is solely dependant upon the integrity of the purpose and the validity of the results. Because I'm romantic about equality I don't really understand this ethnicity of crime and why it matters so long as crime is being detected.

Wholly disagree. We live in a multicultural-multiethnic-multireligiousbackground society. There are plenty of crimes that are either motivated by (eg) racial hatred or where such hatred plays a significant part. Some people are assaulted/shunned/etc because they are gypsy/black/gay/catholic/protestant/muslim and the perpetrator believes that this gypsy/black etc quality in them makes them a worse person/worthy of hatred/more prone to crime. If the authorities are seen to preferentially arrest members of these groups then it can reinforce or promote these erroneous and dangerous prejudices. This can lead to a societal breakdown with consequences more serious than the crime which you were initially seeking to address.

The more that people feel part of a group, the less likely they are to commit crimes against that group. Your message seeks to promote the treatment of Gypsies as a separate group. Good luck with that.

I think perhaps you have misunderstood. My message sought to promote one society, the complete opposite of what you think I said.

Let's take Sicilian's Jamaican flight example. He says that Rastas have a culture of smoking ganja so flights from Jamaica should be more closely scrutinised. Yo, but just because Rastas smoke does that mean they are more likely to smuggle drugs across international borders than anyone else? Smoking and smuggling are nowhere near the same thing. Yet I would still agree with him.

If you had three flights landing from Belgium, Austria and Jamaica but only had the resources to check one for drugs which one would YOU choose and why? The Jamaicans could take offence and argue that the Austrians are equally likely to break the law and smuggle drugs and by checking the Jamaica flight you are insinuating they are a more likely race of people to smuggle drugs. They could also complain that by checking the Jamaica flight you send out a message to other travellers that Jamaicans are the most likely group to be criminals.

My point is that if all three plane loads of people are united in not wanting drugs to be smuggled what is the big deal about Jamaicans opening their bags at customs and assisting the authorities in achieving that objective? All the racial insinuations about why they are the ones being stopped is just bollocks imo. Nobody is saying the Jamaicans are less equal in the scheme of humanity or that they aren't welcome in the UK. Just in an imperfect system with limited resources they are the ones the authorities have plumped for. Trying to detect crime based on a hunch isn't racism and saying it is cheapens what is a serious issue.

[Woodsey]

Sure but the objective of any law abiding society is to detect crime. If the stopping and searching of Gypsies is successfully detecting crime then society is achieving that objective. But that's good news for everybody including Gypsies. Detection and eradication of crime in the society we all share is something we all should welcome. I think a lot of very serious issues like racism are diluted by sensitivity and other agendas that don't actually tackle the heart of the matter. If when stopped Gypsies are handled with less respect than other folk then that is racism. But if when more Gypsies are respectfully stopped more crime is detected then the act of stopping more Gypsies is justifiable isn't it? If no more crime is detected when more Gypsies are stopped then frequently stopping Gypsies would be pointless. It is solely dependant upon the integrity of the purpose and the validity of the results. Because I'm romantic about equality I don't really understand this ethnicity of crime and why it matters so long as crime is being detected.

Wholly disagree. We live in a multicultural-multiethnic-multireligiousbackground society. There are plenty of crimes that are either motivated by (eg) racial hatred or where such hatred plays a significant part. Some people are assaulted/shunned/etc because they are gypsy/black/gay/catholic/protestant/muslim and the perpetrator believes that this gypsy/black etc quality in them makes them a worse person/worthy of hatred/more prone to crime. If the authorities are seen to preferentially arrest members of these groups then it can reinforce or promote these erroneous and dangerous prejudices. This can lead to a societal breakdown with consequences more serious than the crime which you were initially seeking to address.

The more that people feel part of a group, the less likely they are to commit crimes against that group. Your message seeks to promote the treatment of Gypsies as a separate group. Good luck with that.

I think perhaps you have misunderstood. My message sought to promote one society, the complete opposite of what you think I said.

Let's take Sicilian's Jamaican flight example. He says that Rastas have a culture of smoking ganja so flights from Jamaica should be more closely scrutinised. Yo, but just because Rastas smoke does that mean they are more likely to smuggle drugs across international borders than anyone else? Smoking and smuggling are nowhere near the same thing. Yet I would still agree with him.

If you had three flights landing from Belgium, Austria and Jamaica but only had the resources to check one for drugs which one would YOU choose and why? The Jamaicans could take offence and argue that the Austrians are equally likely to break the law and smuggle drugs and by checking the Jamaica flight you are insinuating they are a more likely race of people to smuggle drugs. They could also complain that by checking the Jamaica flight you send out a message to other travellers that Jamaicans are the most likely group to be criminals.

My point is that if all three plane loads of people are united in not wanting drugs to be smuggled what is the big deal about Jamaicans opening their bags at customs and assisting the authorities in achieving that objective? All the racial insinuations about why they are the ones being stopped is just bollocks imo. Nobody is saying the Jamaicans are less equal in the scheme of humanity or that they aren't welcome in the UK. Just in an imperfect system with limited resources they are the ones the authorities have plumped for. Trying to detect crime based on a hunch isn't racism and saying it is cheapens what is a serious issue.

+ 1 Better than I could have written, I'll just stick with the simple stuff like 'your talking a load of old bollocks' 

[ManuelsMum]

Sure but the objective of any law abiding society is to detect crime. If the stopping and searching of Gypsies is successfully detecting crime then society is achieving that objective. But that's good news for everybody including Gypsies. Detection and eradication of crime in the society we all share is something we all should welcome. I think a lot of very serious issues like racism are diluted by sensitivity and other agendas that don't actually tackle the heart of the matter. If when stopped Gypsies are handled with less respect than other folk then that is racism. But if when more Gypsies are respectfully stopped more crime is detected then the act of stopping more Gypsies is justifiable isn't it? If no more crime is detected when more Gypsies are stopped then frequently stopping Gypsies would be pointless. It is solely dependant upon the integrity of the purpose and the validity of the results. Because I'm romantic about equality I don't really understand this ethnicity of crime and why it matters so long as crime is being detected.

Wholly disagree. We live in a multicultural-multiethnic-multireligiousbackground society. There are plenty of crimes that are either motivated by (eg) racial hatred or where such hatred plays a significant part. Some people are assaulted/shunned/etc because they are gypsy/black/gay/catholic/protestant/muslim and the perpetrator believes that this gypsy/black etc quality in them makes them a worse person/worthy of hatred/more prone to crime. If the authorities are seen to preferentially arrest members of these groups then it can reinforce or promote these erroneous and dangerous prejudices. This can lead to a societal breakdown with consequences more serious than the crime which you were initially seeking to address.

The more that people feel part of a group, the less likely they are to commit crimes against that group. Your message seeks to promote the treatment of Gypsies as a separate group. Good luck with that.

I think perhaps you have misunderstood. My message sought to promote one society, the complete opposite of what you think I said.

Let's take Sicilian's Jamaican flight example. He says that Rastas have a culture of smoking ganja so flights from Jamaica should be more closely scrutinised. Yo, but just because Rastas smoke does that mean they are more likely to smuggle drugs across international borders than anyone else? Smoking and smuggling are nowhere near the same thing. Yet I would still agree with him.

If you had three flights landing from Belgium, Austria and Jamaica but only had the resources to check one for drugs which one would YOU choose and why? The Jamaicans could take offence and argue that the Austrians are equally likely to break the law and smuggle drugs and by checking the Jamaica flight you are insinuating they are a more likely race of people to smuggle drugs. They could also complain that by checking the Jamaica flight you send out a message to other travellers that Jamaicans are the most likely group to be criminals.

My point is that if all three plane loads of people are united in not wanting drugs to be smuggled what is the big deal about Jamaicans opening their bags at customs and assisting the authorities in achieving that objective? All the racial insinuations about why they are the ones being stopped is just bollocks imo. Nobody is saying the Jamaicans are less equal in the scheme of humanity or that they aren't welcome in the UK. Just in an imperfect system with limited resources they are the ones the authorities have plumped for. Trying to detect crime based on a hunch isn't racism and saying it is cheapens what is a serious issue.

Do you believe that by preferentially stopping Gypsies over your average other group, that police crime detection will be greater? And by inference, that Gypsies are more likely to be criminals than your average other group? Because I cannot find any other way of reasonably interpreting your first paragraph. Do you have any evidence that Gypsies are more likely to be criminals? And if you do, would those that distrust/prejudge Gypsies more than your average other group have an objective basis for their discrimination, one that they presumably share with the police in this instance?

[the sicilian]

can we make a distinction between travellers and gypsies as they are not the same...

[MANTIS01]

Sure but the objective of any law abiding society is to detect crime. If the stopping and searching of Gypsies is successfully detecting crime then society is achieving that objective. But that's good news for everybody including Gypsies. Detection and eradication of crime in the society we all share is something we all should welcome. I think a lot of very serious issues like racism are diluted by sensitivity and other agendas that don't actually tackle the heart of the matter. If when stopped Gypsies are handled with less respect than other folk then that is racism. But if when more Gypsies are respectfully stopped more crime is detected then the act of stopping more Gypsies is justifiable isn't it? If no more crime is detected when more Gypsies are stopped then frequently stopping Gypsies would be pointless. It is solely dependant upon the integrity of the purpose and the validity of the results. Because I'm romantic about equality I don't really understand this ethnicity of crime and why it matters so long as crime is being detected.

Wholly disagree. We live in a multicultural-multiethnic-multireligiousbackground society. There are plenty of crimes that are either motivated by (eg) racial hatred or where such hatred plays a significant part. Some people are assaulted/shunned/etc because they are gypsy/black/gay/catholic/protestant/muslim and the perpetrator believes that this gypsy/black etc quality in them makes them a worse person/worthy of hatred/more prone to crime. If the authorities are seen to preferentially arrest members of these groups then it can reinforce or promote these erroneous and dangerous prejudices. This can lead to a societal breakdown with consequences more serious than the crime which you were initially seeking to address.

The more that people feel part of a group, the less likely they are to commit crimes against that group. Your message seeks to promote the treatment of Gypsies as a separate group. Good luck with that.

I think perhaps you have misunderstood. My message sought to promote one society, the complete opposite of what you think I said.

Let's take Sicilian's Jamaican flight example. He says that Rastas have a culture of smoking ganja so flights from Jamaica should be more closely scrutinised. Yo, but just because Rastas smoke does that mean they are more likely to smuggle drugs across international borders than anyone else? Smoking and smuggling are nowhere near the same thing. Yet I would still agree with him.

If you had three flights landing from Belgium, Austria and Jamaica but only had the resources to check one for drugs which one would YOU choose and why? The Jamaicans could take offence and argue that the Austrians are equally likely to break the law and smuggle drugs and by checking the Jamaica flight you are insinuating they are a more likely race of people to smuggle drugs. They could also complain that by checking the Jamaica flight you send out a message to other travellers that Jamaicans are the most likely group to be criminals.

My point is that if all three plane loads of people are united in not wanting drugs to be smuggled what is the big deal about Jamaicans opening their bags at customs and assisting the authorities in achieving that objective? All the racial insinuations about why they are the ones being stopped is just bollocks imo. Nobody is saying the Jamaicans are less equal in the scheme of humanity or that they aren't welcome in the UK. Just in an imperfect system with limited resources they are the ones the authorities have plumped for. Trying to detect crime based on a hunch isn't racism and saying it is cheapens what is a serious issue.

Do you believe that by preferentially stopping Gypsies over your average other group, that police crime detection will be greater? And by inference, that Gypsies are more likely to be criminals than your average other group? Because I cannot find any other way of reasonably interpreting your first paragraph. Do you have any evidence that Gypsies are more likely to be criminals? And if you do, would those that distrust/prejudge Gypsies more than your average other group have an objective basis for their discrimination, one that they presumably share with the police in this instance?

I think you would need to define what an 'average group' is as I'm not sure what that is. Even then I wouldn't have any data to answer your questions with any great accuracy, but I reckon stopping groups like OAPs would be less likely to improve crime detection figures. Just to be clear though I don't really view the world in terms of 'groups'. I think the world is full of one group of people, all of which are equal. Putting an individual into a 'group' and judging them that way makes little sense to me. However, our resident Gypsy elder Tom has brought to the table that more Gypsies are stopped by police than this average group. Why do YOU think that is so? Are you saying that another group, namely the police, are institutionally racist and pick on Gypsies just for kicks? If you said that I'm sure you'd offend plenty of police who'd say 99% of them are good honest people and the merri-go-round would continue. But Tom said crime is detected when Gypsies are stopped and hence why the police have their justification for their hunch to stop. But it's just a hunch to stop, it isn't a conviction crime has been committed.

I don't know why police have a mind to stop Gypsies more. Perhaps it's because they move around and are strangers in a community or perhaps they aren't in 9-5 office jobs so are out there in the world more. This is why I asked Tom if he got stopped and searched a lot. Tom is a Gypsy but he has resided in a community for some time and is trusted, although I do remember him being the subject of suspiscion when he first arrived. Hence is it really being a Gypsy that gets you stopped or is it the lifestyle that gets you stopped?

Back to the planes though. Which plane would you choose to target for the drug search Mum? And if you choose the Jamaican flight are you saying Jamaicans are more likely to be criminals?

[Geo the Sarge]

See Swordpoker viewing........hi Mark, where you been?

Geo

[Swordpoker]

Err...I've been around. Here and there, thanks. Been coaching poker more than playing lately.

Thoroughly enjoying this thread. Great open and rational arguments about a taboo subject without anything offensive. I'm proud of blonde.

[Geo the Sarge]

Err...I've been around. Here and there, thanks. Been coaching poker more than playing lately.

Thoroughly enjoying this thread. Great open and rational arguments about a taboo subject without anything offensive. I'm proud of blonde.

Agree,

It's one of those subjects I could make so much comment about but others are doing it so much better that it allows me to enjoy it more

Geo

[tikay]

+1 - or is it +2? - to the last two Posts.

Great read.

[outragous76]

worst thread on blonde this year

[redarmi]

Wouldn't profiling by nationality be better than by skin colour?

Less subjective too.

This was more my point, i think it was RedArmi who made reference to a Jamaican traveller. As i understand it Jamaican flights/passangers are the most likely to be carrying drugs, i remember seeing this in a documentary a while back. If i am border control i am probably going to be checking people from Jamaica.

There is no doubt that Jamaicans are more likely to be drug smugglers than other nations but I am not sure this is because an intrinsic

Seeing as smoking marijuana is an intrinsic part of the Rasta and jamaican belief system i dont think its unreasonable to target Jamaican flights for drugs..

There is no doubt that Jamaicans are more likely to be drug smugglers than most other nations but I am not sure this is because of an intrinsic racial reason.  It is probably because its geographic location makes it an ideal transhipment point and economic profile means there are more desperate people willing to do something as stupid as take drugs through an airport.  In the States you also get a lot of smugglers from the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico for similar reasons and neither of them have black majorities.  Incidentally it is a very lazy stereotype to describe smoking marijuana as an intrinsic part of the Jamaican belief system.  It is an intrinsic part of the Rastafarian belief system and I would be surprised if Rastas number more than about 5% of the population.  Of course there are other Jamaicans that smoke weed but they are nothing like as prevalent as popular culture would have you believe and it is considered a much worse thing in normal society there than it would be here generally.