Doug Segar wrote:
> In addition, 1-2 out of ten result in a question from the screener "film?"
>and a
nod OK when you say yes.
>
A typical example of the intelligence of most "security" staff these days -
you're
hardly likely to reply "no its dynamite/a gun" are you!
The real problem is that security firms are chosen on the basis of the lowest
bid for
the contract. So they hire a firm who get staff at the lowest pay, with the
longest
hours and the worst working conditions. Result: they tend to get the "sickos &
thickos" - those who like dressing up in a uniform and throwing their weight
about,
or who are too dense to get a job anywhere else. Also the really desperate, who
only
take this lousy job until they can get a real job.
So you get poor quality staff working long hours, on a job that is basically
mind-numbingly boring for 99% of the time, with occasional brief moments of
terror or
aggression. Is it any wonder that its so easy for crooks or terrorists to dodge
such
controls? And the rest of us have to put up with a gorilla chucking his weight
about
because he is afraid for his job, or just wants to take his frustrations out on
someone?
Brian Rumary, England
