Newsstand - Black flyer's £4K for 'racist treatment'

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=264278&in_page_id=34

A black airline passenger has won £4,000 compensation for all.eged racist treatment after security staff stopped him three times ahead of his flight to the US.
Cedric Stewart said he was 'humiliated' by guards who twice unpacked his bags in front of dozens of other passengers.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=264278&in_page_id=34

A black airline passenger has won £4,000 compensation for all.eged racist treatment after security staff stopped him three times ahead of his flight to the US.
Cedric Stewart said he was 'humiliated' by guards who twice unpacked his bags in front of dozens of other passengers.

What a crock, but how nice for people of color to know that all they have to do to get $8000 is whine loudly and, of COURSE, claim racial discrimination. The corporate cowards at the security agency should be ashamed for caving to extortion.:mad:

"Anything to stop the harassment is fine by me." ;)

(Consider it a smarmy counterpunch to all the idiots who say "anything for security is fine by me.") :mad:

"Security" in general needs a good 2x4 upside the head.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=264278&in_page_id=34

A black airline passenger has won £4,000 compensation for all.eged racist treatment after security staff stopped him three times ahead of his flight to the US.
Cedric Stewart said he was 'humiliated' by guards who twice unpacked his bags in front of dozens of other passengers.

The article quotes this man as describing "almost 40 people in the airport queue." Even with 40 total people, the statistical odds of being chosen for security screening is still 2.5%. If this man could show that this occurred only to a certain group of people over several months or years, then one could entertain a claim.

One incident does not a pattern make. This was merely his perception, and he didn't prove intent but rather just stirred up a media circus. Alas, one needn't prove actual damages but rather just claim victimhood.

At this morning's conversion rate, the settlement came out to $7,489.28 US dollars. Not a bad haul for a few moments inconvenience. If he were a US citizen, he wouldn't even have to pay FICA or Medicare taxes on non-wage income. Unfortunately, I have yet to score a bonanza like this and haven't even managed a VDB in several years.

At this morning's conversion rate, the settlement came out to $7,489.28 US dollars. Not a bad haul for a few moments inconvenience.

"Inconvenience"? :confused:

It's disgusting harassment that should not happen to anyone. :mad:

And you just know that this sort of thing goes on all the time but people are too shy to come forward.

What a crock, but how nice for people of color to know that all they have to do to get $8000 is whine loudly and, of COURSE, claim racial discrimination. The corporate cowards at the security agency should be ashamed for caving to extortion.:mad:

What they should be ashamed of is stopping the same person three times and riffling through his belongings. I for one am glad he stepped forward. If only more people would do so, maybe we might see some sense come to the joke that is "airport security".

What a crock, but how nice for people of color to know that all they have to do to get $8000 is whine loudly and, of COURSE, claim racial discrimination. The corporate cowards at the security agency should be ashamed for caving to extortion.:mad:

If it's not racist discrimination, what is it?

"Inconvenience"? :confused:

It's disgusting harassment that should not happen to anyone. :mad:

I don't agree with harrassing the passenger. Suspension or termination of the security person in question would, however, be more appropriate as it would prevent said person from committing future offenses. Why should this "victim" benefit financially, esp to the tune of such a large amount?

I'm not familiar with the British system, but if it were administered by a public agency, the taxpayers end up footing the bill. Punishing the offending person is more appropriate than shafting the innocent taxpayers.

People are simply too quick to jump to conlusions and make allegations of racism, esp with a potential monetary bonanza. One sample does not make a trend. If a left-handed, green-eyed, red-haired man wearing khakis is stopped and searched, can one prove which factor precipitated the search? One can establish a trend only through diligent monitoring of a controlled situation. Hence, the NJ highway patrol's monitoring of the drivers stopped by officers.

I would mind being take >$7000 US dollars compensation for 20-30 min of my time. I have a reasonaly well-paying job, but not certainly not $14k/hr with FICA or Medicare tax exemptions.

I don't agree with harrassing the passenger. Suspension or termination of the security person in question would, however, be more appropriate as it would prevent said person from committing future offenses. Why should this "victim" benefit financially, esp to the tune of such a large amount?

I'm not familiar with the British system, but if it were administered by a public agency, the taxpayers end up footing the bill. Punishing the offending person is more appropriate than shafting the innocent taxpayers.

People are simply too quick to jump to conlusions and make allegations of racism, esp with a potential monetary bonanza. One sample does not make a trend. If a left-handed, green-eyed, red-haired man wearing khakis is stopped and searched, can one prove which factor precipitated the search? One can establish a trend only through diligent monitoring of a controlled situation. Hence, the NJ highway patrol's monitoring of the drivers stopped by officers.

I would mind being take >$7000 US dollars compensation for 20-30 min of my time. I have a reasonaly well-paying job, but not certainly not $14k/hr with FICA or Medicare tax exemptions.


By what measure is 4,000 quid a large amount for the unpleasantness the passenger experienced? Frankly it's disturbing that the monetary damages were so insignificant.

Personally, I think those involved in the incident should have lost their jobs and steps should have been taken to improve the system so that non-white passengers are no longer humiliated in this manner. Meanwhile, the financial penalty should have been iu.s. style, in the six figure range to ensure such disgusting behaviour isn't repeated.

By what measure is 4,000 quid a large amount for the unpleasantness the passenger experienced? Frankly it's disturbing that the monetary damages were so insignificant.

Personally, I think those involved in the incident should have lost their jobs and steps should have been taken to improve the system so that non-white passengers are no longer humiliated in this manner. Meanwhile, the financial penalty should have been iu.s. style, in the six figure range to ensure such disgusting behaviour isn't repeated.

Perhaps you have enough wealth that >$7000 US dollars is merely pocket change for you, but not everyone is so fortunate. This incident did not cause permanent loss of function, pain or impair plaintiff's ability to work. He was delayed approximately 20-30 minutes. If one is entitled to >$7000 US dollars for 20-30 minute delay at security, most people on FT are eligible for multiple claims.

Again, one person's experience does not make a trend. Did the plaintiff establish that black people passing that checkpoint had been searched in disproportionate numbers as compared to Causasian people? Or did this incident occur to a person who happened to be black? Under the plaintiff's line of logic, security should never search a black person because that would be racist.

My main point is that while inconvenienced, the plaintiff cannot prove this one incident is based on race ALONE. One incident is not a statistical trend. How was the plaintiff behaving or wearing on that particular day? Did his suitcase have an "I love Osama sticker"? What other factors came into play? Did they see anything on the x-ray machine that prompted a search? The article addresses no other confounding factors, not even to state that they didn't exist.

I understand Spiff's antipathy to TSA and other security agencies and sympathsize to some degree. However, the plaintiff is alleging racism as his complaint, and the security measures are therefore of secondary relevance in this particular case.

What they did not report was whether the guy was abusive and caused a commotion when searched. IMO, there is not enough detail in the article (what a surprise!) for any of us to form an opinion of any type. However, it is simply too easy to use the race card these days. No harrassment is tolerable, but we are taking the victimization too seriously.

What they did not report was whether the guy was abusive and caused a commotion when searched. IMO, there is not enough detail in the article (what a surprise!) for any of us to form an opinion of any type. However, it is simply too easy to use the race card these days. No harrassment is tolerable, but we are taking the victimization too seriously.

My point exactly! Perhaps I should summarize in one sentence: bad thing happens to black person equals racism?!!

Statements that are so far removed from reality are scary and exactly the kind of thing that was heard prior to the holocaust. It's fine to be a racism denyer, it's not illegal. However, denying that racism does not play a huge part in the way people are perceived and treated, especially at airports, materially contributes to the ongoing promotion of racism. Racists of course are amazed that those impacted by their behaviour have the gall to complain of racism. "Where's the proof?" they cry, not knowing that their behaviour is proof enough.

While not planning to go within a barge-pole's length of the US, I read the security-related stories with great interest.

It seems lucky this guy was black. Many many many stories on FT pertain to white folks getting harrassment. This guy gets a cash payout.

Are there any airports with a large number of black security staff so a white passenger who's stopped a couple of times can also cash in on the race card?

Just a thought.

Statements that are so far removed from reality are scary and exactly the kind of thing that was heard prior to the holocaust. It's fine to be a racism denyer, it's not illegal. However, denying that racism does not play a huge part in the way people are perceived and treated, especially at airports, materially contributes to the ongoing promotion of racism. Racists of course are amazed that those impacted by their behaviour have the gall to complain of racism. "Where's the proof?" they cry, not knowing that their behaviour is proof enough.

A very convincing argument. I certainly hope you're not a trial lawyer :rolleyes: Perhaps we should starting making scientific and medical decisions based on such logic. Anyone can make an unsubstantiated and blanket claim of racism.

You seem to avoid the fundamental question for this particular situation :rolleyes: Why is that? Perhaps you're afraid the evidence will show that the previous 10 people searched that day were Caucasian and that the previous 100 blacks to pass through the checkpoint were not searched? Again, one person's experience does not make a trend. Although race plays a role in the way people are perceived and treated, how was that established in this specific instance?

The plaintiff has burden of proof here, not the defendent. So far, all we've established is that one black person was searched and felt humiliated. Did the plaintiff establish that black people passing that checkpoint had been searched disproportionately?

I don't know Spiff and don't know his or her race. Do you feel any similar outrage that Spiff has had "humiliating" experiences with TSA? What do you have to say about all the non-blacks searched by TSA?

I don't see it as harassment - Just another race-card playing person of color. He probably was furtive and had other "body language" that raised suspicion.

Why is it so hard to believe that people of color can also be discriminating - also treat persons who are not of color with disdain - I see it every day at the station I work at - Just itching for a fight over perceived harrassment because they show up too late to check in, have overweight bags they don't want to pay for or feel the seats they have been given are too far back in the plane. Yes, this happens to apply to passengers of every race but it seems to be more prevalent among people of color **(usually though they are infrequent flyers). Ironically today's news indicates that by the year 2045 (and probably sooner), the United States' minority population will be white, yet somehow I don't envision the same race card being played. ** This does not refer strictly to African Americans but also includes non-white foreigners. Whether believed or not, not all white people are hateful and discriminatory !!

You seem to avoid the fundamental question for this particular situation :rolleyes: Why is that? Perhaps you're afraid the evidence will show that the previous 10 people searched that day were Caucasian and that the previous 100 blacks to pass through the checkpoint were not searched?

If you think that metric is in anyway relevant, go check it out bubba. Don't forget to report back when you find the answer. I'll be waiting.

The plaintiff has burden of proof here, not the defendent..

LOL. Just for grins, what would you consider to be proof?

What do you have to say about all the non-blacks searched by TSA?

You are barking up the wrong tree. I'm not a racist and I'll tell you what I have told the FBI, TSA, SS and american police when they have asked me questions that I feel are based on racist or religiously biased viiewpoints of the questioner... Namely, "ask someone else"

If you think that metric is in anyway relevant, go check it out bubba. Don't forget to report back when you find the answer. I'll be waiting.

.

LOL. Just for grins, what would you consider to be proof?


See NJ highway patrol's settlement as a standard for proof: rigorous documentation of multiple encounters. Your standard of proof obviously consists of "racism because I say it is." Statistics are gathered for a reason. I certainly hope you don't work in the medical profession. I would have great faith in medications if safety and efficacy didn't have to be statistically documented (this drug is safe and works because Pfizer says so!).

If you had any inkling of how the legal system works, you would understand that in a civil trial, the plaintiff has burden of proof. In a criminal trial, the prosecution has burden of proof. In this circumstance (at least as far as the article cares to detail), the plaintiff's allegation consists of his race and his unhappiness at being searched.

If you think I am a bubba, you are very far off the mark. You are the one accusing others of racism without proof.

To sum up your argument: questioning or accusing a black person of any infraction is racist even when other racial groups are submitted to the same treatment.

See NJ highway patrol's settlement as a standard for proof: rigorous documentation of multiple encounters. Your standard of proof obviously consists of "racism because I say it is." Statistics are gathered for a reason. I certainly hope you don't work in the medical profession. I would have great faith in medications if safety and efficacy didn't have to be statistically documented (this drug is safe and works because Pfizer says so!).

If you had any inkling of how the legal system works, you would understand that in a civil trial, the plaintiff has burden of proof. In a criminal trial, the prosecution has burden of proof. In this circumstance (at least as far as the article cares to detail), the plaintiff's allegation consists of his race and his unhappiness at being searched.

If you think I am a bubba, you are very far off the mark. You are the one accusing others of racism without proof.

To sum up your argument: questioning or accusing a black person of any infraction is racist even when other racial groups are submitted to the same treatment.

ROTFLMAO. That is not my argument at all (and I think you know it). You know very well that the level of proof you are looking for is unattainable and that although many laws/regs/practices are based on racism it is opportunists within organizations that cause problems by externalizing their inner prejudices onto those they are serving or interacting with.

Saying "sorry you don't have proof, we treat everyone equally" is classic denial of racism.

The article quotes this man as describing "almost 40 people in the airport queue." Even with 40 total people, the statistical odds of being chosen for security screening is still 2.5%. If this man could show that this occurred only to a certain group of people over several months or years, then one could entertain a claim.

One incident does not a pattern make. This was merely his perception, and he didn't prove intent but rather just stirred up a media circus. Alas, one needn't prove actual damages but rather just claim victimhood.

At this morning's conversion rate, the settlement came out to $7,489.28 US dollars. Not a bad haul for a few moments inconvenience. If he were a US citizen, he wouldn't even have to pay FICA or Medicare taxes on non-wage income. Unfortunately, I have yet to score a bonanza like this and haven't even managed a VDB in several years.

He wasn't alleging a pattern of abuse against a population, he was alleging a pattern of abuse against him specifically. He did plead actual damages and had the case gone to trial he would have had to prove same.

He is saying, quite directly, that in a queue of 40, only the black guy was repeatedly pulled aside and harassed, seemingly for the amusement of the officers.

The company could have replied with a discussion of why its officers only went after the sole black man, but elected to settle instead. One can reasonably conclude it had no good reason for its acts.

Nothing much to see here, certainly nothing disgusting.

See NJ highway patrol's settlement as a standard for proof: rigorous documentation of multiple encounters. Your standard of proof obviously consists of "racism because I say it is." Statistics are gathered for a reason. I certainly hope you don't work in the medical profession. I would have great faith in medications if safety and efficacy didn't have to be statistically documented (this drug is safe and works because Pfizer says so!).

If you had any inkling of how the legal system works, you would understand that in a civil trial, the plaintiff has burden of proof. In a criminal trial, the prosecution has burden of proof. In this circumstance (at least as far as the article cares to detail), the plaintiff's allegation consists of his race and his unhappiness at being searched.

If you think I am a bubba, you are very far off the mark. You are the one accusing others of racism without proof.

To sum up your argument: questioning or accusing a black person of any infraction is racist even when other racial groups are submitted to the same treatment.

The plaintiff here had proof: in a line of forty, only the sole black man was repeatedly and publicly searched.

He had an argument: having been searched once, the officers knew the man was not a threat. They elected to do the additional searches due to some animus. Given that the sole distinction between him and the others is that he was the only black man, a fair inference is that the animus was race-based.

In short, the plaintiff met his burden of moving forward.

The company could have offered its own proof. It could have made a counter argument. It elected not to so do. Why not? Only it knows for certain, but common sense tells us it had nothing to explain why its employees thought to repeatedly harass the only black man they could find.

I have no opinion on the validity of the man's claims, but think it is silly to immediately presume he is seeing racism where none exists. Racism is real, racists are real. Don't discount the black man just because you would like to pretend otherwise.

I don't see it as harassment - Just another race-card playing person of color. He probably was furtive and had other "body language" that raised suspicion.

Why is it so hard to believe that people of color can also be discriminating - also treat persons who are not of color with disdain - I see it every day at the station I work at - Just itching for a fight over perceived harrassment because they show up too late to check in, have overweight bags they don't want to pay for or feel the seats they have been given are too far back in the plane.

If your presumption is correct, and if that presumption makes the officers' conduct reasonable or explainable, then the company should have made that argument. It elected not to. Shame on the company for missing a slam-dunk rebuttal.

But as you're offering just made-up facts, perhaps we should hypothesize the company didn't want discovery to reveal information that proved the company knew these officers were bad actors ... that's a common enough event.

We're left with a big "dunno" on what really happened, other than the man was repeatedly searched and the company settled his claim. I don't see the outrage.

Shame on you, however, for thinking because you see black people acting a certain way at your station that this man, because he is black, must have acted that way as well. :td:

Saying "sorry you don't have proof, we treat everyone equally" is classic denial of racism.

Airport security treats everyone badly. I've had TSA personnel request their fellow TSO to assist in a search. Can I then claim that I had been searched twice?

The fundamental tenet of the US legal system (albiet this case occurred in UK) is innocent until proven guilty. Yes, this was a civil rather than criminal case, but so are many SEC cases. Your approach to this is chillingly similar to the SEC's approach on securities and exchange fraud. The SEC essentially places burden of proof on the defendant to show he/she did nothing wrong. People who can't afford to litigate (or who wish to avoid the courtroom/media spectacle) settle out of court.

Perhaps the security personnel in question search only blacks. I'm leaving the door open to that possibility, but one needs to closely examine those numbers to prove that point. You, on the other hand, are not even open to the possibility that the plaintiff experienced poor treatment that had nothing to do with his race. The plaintiff may have been the only black person searched that week, that month or that year. Then, the circumstances become much different in the overall picture @:-)

Do a brief search on the forum, and you will find multiple cases of security horror stories. Statistically, most of the posters are likely Caucasian, middle class and educated. These incidents eventually happen to everyone who travels. Belonging to a particular ethnic group, profession, religion, cult, etc does not exempt one from being searched. Whether or not searches are in general acceptable is another matter entirely.

The plaintiff here had proof: in a line of forty, only the sole black man was repeatedly and publicly searched.

He had an argument: having been searched once, the officers knew the man was not a threat. They elected to do the additional searches due to some animus. Given that the sole distinction between him and the others is that he was the only black man, a fair inference is that the animus was race-based.

Ah, but the article doesn't provide any other detail on the plaintiff's behavior. Was he keeping his hands in his pocket (cited as a suspicious behavior by TSA)? Did he fidget? What did they see on the x-ray machine? How did he pruchase his ticket: cash or credit? roundtrip or oneway?

From my experiences with security, all searches are public (I've never been subject to strip-search). Did they actually search the plaintiff repeatedly, or did one lazy security personnel call coworkers for help and proceed with the search together? I've had security personnel call for help because they couldn't make a decision about something in my luggage. Does that count as being searched twice?

Playing the devil's advocate, does being the sole black man in the line confer immunity against search as any such search is racist?

My take on it - and I'm not a lawyer - is that security and customs and police can use racial profiling to stop people provided it is justifiable and reasonable. But stopping someone three times is not reasonable. Therefore, if you were employing some kind of racial profiling and the result was someone getting stopped three times, then they were suffering unfairly as a result of their race. This is an object lesson in that if you have unreasonable security practices, you will probably be committing unfair racial discrimination.

Airport security treats everyone badly. I've had TSA personnel request their fellow TSO to assist in a search. Can I then claim that I had been searched twice?

The fundamental tenet of the US legal system (albiet this case occurred in UK) is innocent until proven guilty. Yes, this was a civil rather than criminal case, but so are many SEC cases. Your approach to this is chillingly similar to the SEC's approach on securities and exchange fraud. The SEC essentially places burden of proof on the defendant to show he/she did nothing wrong. People who can't afford to litigate (or who wish to avoid the courtroom/media spectacle) settle out of court.

Perhaps the security personnel in question search only blacks. I'm leaving the door open to that possibility, but one needs to closely examine those numbers to prove that point. You, on the other hand, are not even open to the possibility that the plaintiff experienced poor treatment that had nothing to do with his race. The plaintiff may have been the only black person searched that week, that month or that year. Then, the circumstances become much different in the overall picture @:-)

Do a brief search on the forum, and you will find multiple cases of security horror stories. Statistically, most of the posters are likely Caucasian, middle class and educated. These incidents eventually happen to everyone who travels. Belonging to a particular ethnic group, profession, religion, cult, etc does not exempt one from being searched. Whether or not searches are in general acceptable is another matter entirely.

I know racism when I see it. The classic argument presented above does not deter me from exposing and fighting racists. The fact remains that the individual who filed the case in the original post was victimized because of the colour of his skin. Case closed.

My take on it - and I'm not a lawyer - is that security and customs and police can use racial profiling to stop people provided it is justifiable and reasonable.

Racist profiling is never justifiable or reasonable. :mad:

I know racism when I see it. The classic argument presented above does not deter me from exposing and fighting racists. The fact remains that the individual who filed the case in the original post was victimized because of the colour of his skin. Case closed.

You did not see anything because YOU WERE NOT PRESENT @:-)

Were you the author of that particular news article? I don't think you exposed or fought for anything :rolleyes:

I love holier than thou people riding their high horses. "Everything is right because I say it is!"

I know racism when I see it. The classic argument presented above does not deter me from exposing and fighting racists. The fact remains that the individual who filed the case in the original post was victimized because of the colour of his skin. Case closed.

Find a new hobby before you wear yourself out superhero. Sign a merchandising agreement with Hasbro before they make your actionfigures.

Accusing others of crime is very easy when one has nothing to lose in doing so. I'm happy to hear that "innocent until proven guilty" is just a "classic argument" rather than the foundation of our justice system. Please tell me that you are not an attorney so that I don't have to feel bad for your clients.

You should discuss your ideas of guilt and innocence with the SEC should they ever investigate your transactions. Then please return here and let us know about the experience of being guilty until proven innocent.

Racist profiling is never justifiable or reasonable. :mad:
That's actually a moot point and I have heard arguments from both perspectives in the UK put forward by both black and white people. Truth is, whether we acknowledge it or not, that it is a waste of police or security resource to stop people totally randomly. It's more efficient to target resources at people who fit likely offender profiles. Unfortunately, that tends to have all sorts of racial, socio-economic, age related and sex related bias. Now in the UK, some leading Muslims (perhaps the older ones who are less likely to be stopped themselves) say it is reasonable to use racial profiling. But others - including, but not exclusively, those who are most likely to be stopped - say no it isn't. This is one of those cases where you have to balance common sense arguments against the rights of individuals, and there's no easy answer. My earlier post wasn't trying to give a view on this, but rather to argue that if you do unreasonable things whilzt using racial profiling, you leave yourself open to legal action.

Racist profiling is never justifiable or reasonable. :mad:

"Racist" profiling is not the same as "racial" profiling. If race is included as one of several factors in a profile, that is perfectly legitimate, in my opinion.

Let's say that a predominantly Jewish neighborhood had been plagued for weeks by attacks on innocent pedestrians. In every case the perpetrators were small groups of 3-5 white males in their 20's with shaved heads and multiple tatoos.

Let's say that the residents of the neighborhood were sick and tired of the situation and the police were under great pressure to catch the perpetrators and put an end to the attacks. Unfortunately, the police had very limited manpower available to work on this, and they had to make the best use of the resources available. They could not possibly question every group people they encountered on the street, so their patrols decided to pay special attention to groups 3 or more young white males with shaved heads and tatoos. They ignored individuals, couples, groups of elderly men, groups of children, groups of women, and groups of children. They ignored Asians, blacks, and hispanics. They also ignored people with full heads of hair. As a result, everyone they selected for scrutiny was white!

Was that racist? I think not. If the same sort of profiling results in the selection of brown, black, yellow, or red people for increased scrutiny in some situations, I see that as perfectly appropriate. If race were the ONLY criterion, you might have a valid argument for "racist" profiling. However, in some situations, even that might be appropriate (when a person of a particular race has perpetrated a crime in an area where a person of that particular race is almost never seen, e.g. a caucasian in a remote rural village in China (I am just trying to make an extreme example).

I am not denying that racism still exists, but every racial group contains at least some racists. I am sick of hearing the cry of racial discrimination being uttered every time someone encounters an unpleasant situation.

It always amazes me how people here read an article or see a television report, and they accept the account as absolute truth. Reporters these days slant their stories any way they choose. And they often simply ignore the follow-on events that might cause public opinion to shift in the opposite direction. The days of consistent, objective reporting are long gone.

Even video of the actual event in question can be used unscrupulously to make it appear that the truth is really something else.

The man in question in this thread may really have been a victim of racial discrimination. But then again, he may not have been. I am not willing to accept that I know all relevant facts just because I followed the link to the news item.

It always amazes me how people here read an article or see a television report, and they accept the account as absolute truth. The man in question in this thread may really have been a victim of racial discrimination. But then again, he may not have been. I am not willing to accept that I know all relevant facts just because I followed the link to the news item.

I'm leaving the door open to the possibility of racism but stated that nothing in the article proves it. PhlyingRPh, on the other hand, is not even open to the possibility that the plaintiff experienced poor treatment that had nothing to do with his race. Fear not, our resident superhero PhylingRPh "will not stop exposing and fighting racists" even without establishing their existence in this incident @:-)

The article essentially describes a black man searched by airport security and was unhappy about the experience. Well, who on FT has been searched by security and been happy about it?!! :rolleyes:

The article did not provide stastics regarding how many people of what race had been searched at that security checkpoint during any previous period. The plaintiff may have been the only black person searched that week, that month or that year. We simply don't know.

If your presumption is correct, and if that presumption makes the officers' conduct reasonable or explainable, then the company should have made that argument. It elected not to. Shame on the company for missing a slam-dunk rebuttal.

But as you're offering just made-up facts, perhaps we should hypothesize the company didn't want discovery to reveal information that proved the company knew these officers were bad actors ... that's a common enough event.

We're left with a big "dunno" on what really happened, other than the man was repeatedly searched and the company settled his claim. I don't see the outrage.

Shame on you, however, for thinking because you see black people acting a certain way at your station that this man, because he is black, must have acted that way as well. :td:
==================================

You're contradicting yourself ...... If we "dunno" and have to hypothesize over the whole matter then no discussion should be taking place here at all. Shame on you, sir, for objecting to others' OPINIONS. If you've never seen or experienced reverse discrimination or people of color discriminating then you must have your head in the sand. I don't.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=264278&in_page_id=34

A black airline passenger has won £4,000 compensation for all.eged racist treatment after security staff stopped him three times ahead of his flight to the US.
Cedric Stewart said he was 'humiliated' by guards who twice unpacked his bags in front of dozens of other passengers.

Does ICTS run the general checkpoint at Bristol or is ICTS just the contract secondary / airline security company for Continental at Bristol?

If you notice, the company who settled was ICTS.

I've seen ICTS work the general security checkpoint at AMS, IIRC, but I am most familiar with them as the company who does the check-in interview, gate or jetway interview (and/or) searches).

I've seen ICTS push many peoples buttons; heck, they've pushed mine on a few occasions. I've seen them do "non-routine, full luggage searches" on specific passengers, generally as a result of the interview session (i.e. a backpacker is likely to be targeted for staying in a youth hostel). Anyone who flies on a US carrier from European destinations on a regular basis has likely dealt with this company. I've dealt with them more times than I can count.

Not a huge ICTS fan myself - but I've seen them engage in effective security at times, but I've also seen them overstep their bounds. I've been harassed by them a couple of times where they over-stepped their boundaries - in one case, an interview went into an area that could easily be considered discriminatory.

I was extremely upset after that incident - personally, I think the ICTS screener had let prejudice influence them to start pushing my buttons. To this day I believe the ICTS screener was either (a) looking for an excuse to deny me boarding or (b) get me to respond in a hostile manner, in which case that would be grounds for denied boarding.

I rolled with it and kept my cool -- I would have loved to sue them, not for money, but to make a point that certain things are illegal. I would have happily donated any monies to a fairness organisation I support... in the end, I made a formal complaint which did get a half-decent response. Things happen and while they crossed the line, I just put it under the "it happens" category and moved on.

Not a huge ICTS fan myself - but I've seen them engage in effective security at times, but I've also seen them overstep their bounds. I've been harassed by them a couple of times where they over-stepped their boundaries - in one case, an interview went into an area that could easily be considered discriminatory.

ICTS nearly always ask "What was the purpose of your trip to ......? as they look through your passport. The countries they always pick are those that racists such as neo-conservatives and political zionists have targetted, so my standard answer is a polite "it's none of your business" and "I do not answer questions that are politically and racially motivated and have no relevance to the security of the flight I am abuot to take".

That usually results in a semi-apology and an inane explanation of why they have to ask such questions, which I also dismiss. Next comes the retaliatory questioning that takes an additional 5 minutes or so to navigate. If you allow these people even the slightest latitude in invading your privacy you will ultimately regret it.

I live very close to Bristol and have used it alot for travelling in Europe (never to the US as LHR is usually much cheaper). Anyway, I thought I'd add my thoughts given that I know the airport.

I've never seen anyone be pulled aside at check-in and have never seen any 'officers' hanging around here. Everything seems to happen when you go upstairs to get through security. I do get the odd question from check-in staff but nothing which is in anyway threatening.

When I go upstairs to go through security, I almost always get my bags searched twice. The first search, they open my hand luggage and examine the contents (to 'look for liquids'). The second time is when the bags through the x-ray and they often open the bags to examine the contents.

In contrast, at LHR, they only ever check the once (at the x-ray). Because Bristol is a relatively small airport, they do seem to take their time and really check everyone's bags. I often have to take my shoes/jacket off and pass them through the x-ray (usually on the days where I'm wearing two random socks with Christmas trees on them).

Equally, I've never seen anyone get searched after security while they're standing at the gate.

I've travelled with friends from Bristol (including black and Indian friends) and never had any trouble. In fact, Bristol has a higher than average (according to the last census) population of black people and my friends have never complained about problems with racism here.

If the guy got search at check-in and at the gate (I've never seen either things happen before) then there's probably more to the story than meets the eye. If the news story is incorrect and all that happened was he got questioned by check-in staff and then had his bags searched twice during security, then this happens to me pretty much every time I fly ... I'll speak to my lawyers about it ...

Al

Truth is, whether we acknowledge it or not, that it is a waste of police or security resource to stop people totally randomly. It's more efficient to target resources at people who fit likely offender profiles.

Efficient - because you manage to cast a net aimed at a large group of easily identifiable people
Inefficient - because 99.999% of those stopped will be no more likely to commit a crime than the general population
Retarded - because in profiling a group of people you will get no help from the majority of them even if they know someone is about to commit a crime.
Result - You are less safe, and deservedly so.