As usual with this kind of programmes, in my personal opinion, they seek out the bad points but ignore the overall good points. From probably hours and hours of filming, they only show a couple of minutes of lapses of security.

Whilst this can't be condoned of course, I always remember that this kind of programme is set out to sensationalise matters.

Mark

For those interested in this programme, it is shown on ITV at 21:00 this evening.

Mark

Having seen the programme, it was interested to learn that the British government doesn't want to adopt the USA way of securing airports by getting rid of private security firms and replacing them with their own staff on better pay and terms- and conditions.

It was also interested to note the statement of Birmingham airport declaring that the appointed security firm was the second defence with the primary line of defence being their own appointed staff.

Mark

I watched this prog. tonight, and I was more disgusted than anything with the lowlife that are employed at that airport. What kind of people lie about snoring during their day's work? I think the lot of them should lose their jobs. As for the guy taking drugs into tne country and the guy who drinks all the time, they are a danger to themselves and others. Most of us who do a day's work and who get fed up sometimes would be sacked if we treated our employers like them. Hope the guy who was snoring his head off feels suitably embarrassed. They were a disgrace, and as a nervous flier I am angry that these people should be able to put our lives in danger. I bet any aircrew watching this programme are furious.

I also noted that the company who employs these guys also have contracts with other Airports, so my guess is that this is probably happening all over. Karen

Whilst I certainly don't condone the irresponsible actions by some of the staff, we need to remember that the producers of the programme set out to show these irresponsible actions. It took them - most probably - hours of filming to show us just a few incidents.

Their programme doesn't show a balanced view. It doesn't show all those instances that staff do their job correctly or perhaps do more than their job description describes.

The Company I work for (a leading supermarket) was subjected to a similar programme shown on the BBC and whilst some of the bad practices shown do perhaps exist, the majority of our staff don't entertain them and perform their duties in line with Company procedures.

It was good for the programme to highlight the problem areas, but it is a shame that the good points where not shown at all. It would make the programme more balanced in my opinion and perhaps get the message across better.

Mark

Mark I understand your points but wasn't it an employee who was undercover at first, because he was so concerned, that after informing his managers and others in the airport,of what was going on and nothing was done about it and so he filmed everything himself. Karen

Mark, you highlight a very valid point in getting rid of private security firms, this is obviously the way forward but it comes down to money as usual!
We have an airport operator in this country that employs security on good pay, terms & conditions and trains its staff properly and values it customers, its responsible for running the two busiest airports in this country , yet this government is happy for this company to be referred to the Competition Commission and Monopolies and Mergers because of the constant whingeing of BA (who stand accused of price-fixing) and Ryanair (who compromise safety on quick turnarounds) who complain about airport charges.
The key issue here is if you cut corners to save money you ultimately cannot achieve what is desired.

Its interesting to see that last time the airport under the microscope was Manchester, this time Birmingham , can it be a coincidence that local councils are involved with both?

Also , what exactly are the DfT doing!! if the standards at Birmingham are so poor surely they should have picked this up? No comment from them was there as it would implicate them in failing to do their job properly!

Digby, the people most upset from watching this programme are the good, hard-working and diligent security personnel, they get tarred with the same brush as these low-life second-rate pretend security.

I believe this to be indeed the case. The "whistle blower" alerted ITV and the filming began.

If lessons are going to be learned from the programme it has achieved its goal.

But, as I have stated before, if the government is not prepared to take responsibility for the security of our airports, I don't believe anything will change. Business is cut throat. Take the business out of the security of airports, and things might improve.

Just my humble opinion.

Mark

Sorry Andy, but we posted at the same time.

Totally agree with your comments.

Mark

Mark, as you also say these type of programmes are sensationalistic in their approach and prey on the minds of the average person who doesn't know the ins and outs of the subject. Ok some of the things were bad and there were a couple of lazy idiots who gained the spotlight, but i don't think there were major breaches of security except for the ramp agent not looking after the plane!! all passengers would have gone through central search and been searched properly including their hand luggage.

I differ to agree on the government being involved and taking responsibility, its best leaving them out of it as they are inherently useless at running any type of business.

Get companies like BAA to run the airports they know the business, they are tightly regulated by the CAA and DfT and have to re-invest profits to improve facilities and infra-structure. Just look at the T5 programme, ahead of time and on budget, can you remember any government achieving that criteria?

OK i know that the charges at Stansted have subsidised T5, and this is Ryanairs bugbear, But Heathrow is special and important and needs that type of investment.

I agree with the comments made. I'm sure that the programme probably makes things appear worse than they are. However the 'whistle blower' wasn't the only member of staff to express concern during the making of it and things obviously need sorting out from the top down. To see the attitude of certain senior members of staff towards drug taking etc was shocking.

I do feel for the many people employed by the company who are conscientious and hardworking, but there are obviously many rotten apples in there, some of whom should never have got through the interview process in the first place. Again most of the fault seems to lie firmly at the feet of the management.

Hopefully the programme despite being unbalenced, will kick start action not only at Birmingham but in the company as a whole. It is just a shame that it could take another major tragedy for the government to even consider taking over control of security as in the US.

Pam

I saw on teletext news last night that because of the programme on t.v. that 16 people have been suspended. It also said that when their investigations are finished they will probably be sacked.

I saw on teletext news last night that because of the programme on t.v. that 16 people have been suspended. It also said that when their investigations are finished they will probably be sacked.

Probably a good thing, but part of me thinks its the management that have to take account here. Its no surprise the £6 an hour staff acted like they did, the managers just let them get away with it. I do hope managers are included in this, in fact all the managers at ICTS should be, they are all accountable.

The most worrying thing is, they were so short staffed anyway, whats security like now, when they are a further 16 staff down?!?!

Mark, I also appreciate your comments, but the point of the programme was to actually highlight the lapses in Airport Security. And this the programme makers accomplished.

My only concern was that it only included Birmingham Airport. Are we to take it from that, that all other UK Airports' Security is up to scratch?

I think we need to remember the one comment made that the security company was the secondary defence and the first defence was their own employees who were not involved in any of the problems shown in the documentary.

This does, of course, not excuse their actions but I'm for one will not be put off flying in the future.

Mark