Airport worker sacked botched screening of Julie Bishop

[Skyring]

How the heck to they randomly select people anyway...at some point someone makes a decision to target an individual for screening. We are not allowed to object of we are selected, let alone question whether it was random or not, so I don't see why a minister is any different.

If it was random, that's fine. But there must have been some "tell" that indicated that it wasn't random. A few people grinning, body language. There'd be some giveaway.

One would expect a security officer randomly directed to search a VIP to be embarrassed and full of apologies, blaming the system and hoping they understood. If instead the job was done with a degree of smugness and an eye to cause the maximum delay and inconvenience to the passenger, well, you don't need to be Einstein to figure out what just happened.

 

[turtlemichael]

The reality is that it has not been made public as to what actually occurred. I am not sure how anyone can reach a decision on whether the sacking of this man was justified or not without knowing the facts. in the meantime we rely on the integrity of the authorities who acted in response to a complaint from Canberra. Make of that what you will.

 

[RooFlyer]

That's just the point. She wasn't treated like everyone else. She was selected, not a random choice.

It is the dumbest argument that she wasn't random as it is still if you have nothing to hide don't worry and unless she was stripped searched who cares. I am explosive tested most times after x-ray and not great but who cares.

So sorry my argument isn't up to intellectual standards .

I suggest you are still missing the point. If the security people have discretion as to who gets screened, then its not who they choose to screen, but who they choose not to screen. Do I need to explain what the implication of that is?

 

[SeatBackForward]

If it was random, that's fine. But there must have been some "tell" that indicated that it wasn't random. A few people grinning, body language. There'd be some giveaway.

One would expect a security officer randomly directed to search a VIP to be embarrassed and full of apologies, blaming the system and hoping they understood. If instead the job was done with a degree of smugness and an eye to cause the maximum delay and inconvenience to the passenger, well, you don't need to be Einstein to figure out what just happened.

Agreed that the selection process ought to be random. But my point was, how would you or I, the average traveller ever know the basis for selection, other than being told it is a random selection. If we suggested it was anything other than random, we'd get into a world of trouble.

 

[Skyring]

If the security people have discretion as to who gets screened, then its not who they choose to screen, but who they choose not to screen. Do I need to explain what the implication of that is?

Security cannot screen everybody, otherwise the process would either be impossibly slow or impossibly expensive. In fact, I'm looking at Woolworths-style self-screening gates being brought in soon.

Screening can't be completely random, otherwise people acting nervous, with odd bulges, etc. would get through. So there must be someone in the process with discretion to select passengers for screening. And, as you point out, to not select passengers.

If we can identify the security staff who don't follow procedure, either way, then we can remove them from the process.

The obvious danger, to my mind, is a security officer who can be bought off enough to let a drug courier through, but it ain't drugs he's smuggling after a test run or two.

 

[jb747]

Given that it's supposed to be random, then that's how it should be. Not picking crew (or politicians) because you don't like them, etc. Think about it. One classic way of making it non random is to simply walk up to the checker and offer to be done. You have, at that point circumvented the system, and in checking you someone else (your mate) may get through without being looked at.

Of course it should NOT be random. That's only our silly PC world that has security wasting their time on theatre.

 

[dajop]

Going off topic, but surely for additional security screening to be effective it should involve both random screening and screening that targets those exhibiting potentially suspicious behaviour. In either event picking out a foreign minister specifically because who she is, is abuse of process ... and probably a waste of resources ... as she would have the sort of power and national security clearance that would give her much more opportunity to wreak havoc than bombing a plane ....

 

[jgm]

There isn't much point in not screening the suspicious person who carries the suicide bomb onto the aircraft until he gets to the destination - it's now probably at the bottom of the ocean. And I have no problems with DYKWIA politicians who make the rules for others having to go through the same procedure themselves. In fact if they were ALL screened EVERY time, we just might get some sensible procedures.

 

[Skyring]

And I have no problems with DYKWIA politicians who make the rules for others having to go through the same procedure themselves. In fact if they were ALL screened EVERY time, we just might get some sensible procedures.

Yes, that'd be a good rule. Now, who makes the rules…?

 

[PLANT]

Every time I'm selected it's random..... Let's see the stats for politicians and me on same amount of flights over different parts of Australia in same time period..... Random pft.
If they rubber gloved then that's worth a review....
Otherwise who will get the story women day, new idea, 60 minutes or Sunday night.
Actually 2016 special for THE VERDICT!

 

[Foreigner]

What's the big deal? I've seen foreign dignitaries subject to security checks in Australian airports.

 

[whatmeworry]

I probably get more checked or randomly picked for bomb tests then most. 6 foot one, Caucasian and clean shaven, so am I probably selected for being a single male of certain age. Travel with my mother and didn't get selected. Doesn't bother me but even politicians should get 'randomly' selected just to keep everybody honest.

 

[Hvr]

And here starts the political games:

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop's department may have misled the Senate over the departure gate screening incident that resulted in three workers at Melbourne Airport being suspended and one later sacked.


Tasmanian Labor Senator Catryna Bilyk has called for an investigation into whether the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade gave "false and misleading evidence" earlier this month when it told the Senate Ms Bishop had not been involved in any screening-related incident, altercation or complaint.


Specifically, the department was asked on notice in November by Senator Bilyk: "Has the Foreign Minister ever been involved in any incidents, altercations or complaints relating to directions to subject herself to security screening at Australian ports, in relation to body scanners or other devices or procedures?"

Senator Catryna Bilyk Photo: Supplied

DFAT responded: "No."

Read more: Labor senator calls for investigation into Julie Bishop departure gate incident
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook
​

 

[UP4014]

Julie Bishop doing a Bronnie Bishop , I would have thought her AFP personal protection could have flashed a badge and said nothing to see here.

Julie Bishop may not like but the rest of us suffer this small minded big power trip issues every day.

Matt

 

[Happy Trails]

FWIW (maybe not much), I was once behind Julie Bishop at Perth domestic security.
She was a model passenger with no airs or graces.
A few years ago though and I think she would still have been in opposition at the time.