However, we reserve the right to remove any comment considered inappropriate.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Put a Sock in it Rufus
.................
10 comments:
Ziggy
said...
As much as Bousquet is to be blamed the airport officials have a responsibility. There is no way someone should board an plane if they are not sceened first no matter who that are. There should be someone in the VIP lounge to screen individuals at all times.Although the minister should have known better i understand how he felt to be called off the plane. Anyone would have been embrassed.
Agree with you 100% Ziggy. I mean I have little respect for Rufus Bousquet, I don't even know if his story is the correct one seeing we have YET to hear officially from SLASPA as to the precise details of the chain of events, but clearly SLASPA (who is also responsible for the Port Police) must take some part of the blame in this whole fiasco. It does represent a lapse, and given what happened at Sangster Airport in Jamaica with the hostage situation, we need to be on our p's and q's given that we depend so heavily on air transport for our economic activity.
It is very clear to me that Rufus did not care one whit that there was no one to screen him in the VIP lounge. How do I know this? He walked onto the plane without being screened!
If he had cared, he would have insisted that everyone on the plane be re-screened; the lapse in the VIP lounge should have alerted him to the possibility that others on the plane may have not been screened via similar lapses; a breach which might have been led to everyone on that plane losing their lives.
He showed willful disregard for his own life, which shows that he cared even less about the lives of others. Obviously, this guy is unfit to be a steward of the public trust.
I believe that Bousquet should have known better than to behave the way he did. Screening is a requirement which simply cannot be overlooked and the fact that he says that in the past he has observed persons from the VIP lounge boarding airplanes without being screened suggests that he has no regard for this law and appears to think that his status as a minister frees him from this obligation. What a way to lead by example! I agree with the previous commenter that he has demonstrated that he is unfit to be a steward of the public trust.
This is just anouther example of how things are done in an unprofessional manner in St. Lucia. For Rufus, by his own account, to be aware of persons going onto a aircraft without being screened puts his leadership in disrepute. For the individual who is the leading officail responsible for foreign affair to be aware of this security issue and not take any steps to correct is appauling. What makes it worse is that, he thinks because he sees other persons go through unscreened it is fine for hime to do it too. What would happen if he saw other ministers commiting fraud? Would it be fine for him to do it as well?
It is sad to say that for a minister that was involved in illegal activity and claims that it is in his past, behaving in a manner that shows lack of respect for the laws of the land is not the best way to go.
It is easy to say that it is politically motivated. Politics appear to detract people from the real issues. One of those issues is that there is a security problem within the customs and excise department. I would think that the first thing persons would want to do is resove this issue, as it has far reaching implication.
I believe the auther is correct in pointing out that Rufus should simply had returned to the lounge, get screened, and when returned to the island launch and investigation. That is at least one approach that would allow the inccidence to be handled professionally and respectfully. Note I am by no means letting the customs department off the hook, they should have ensured that all personnel is in place.
I have been listening to many persons state their sentiments over the airwaves and other medium.
So far all have been dancing around the critical issues of security and loading the pan with symantics and innuendos.
As one who has a very good grasp of security, and some may want tto challenge this, there are issues which concern me.
When SLASPA can admit that they did receive the letter of notification yet there was not preparations done to deal with the minister's departure, that is a sad state of affairs.
An independent investigation should be carried out with a view to righting the wrongs of security at the airport, and an audit carried out at all of our air and sea ports to determine the manner in which persons carry out their duties.
the incident involving the minister has many more issues yet t surface and if we think and deal with them in an open-minded manner, then the politics will be left out, and the corrective measures be put in place.
Man, you board a plane with a mix of international peoples. People you are extremely unlikely to ever see again, only to flip out? Get embarrassed? For what? Who's going to know? Bousquet's a minister of governement what's the worst people can suspect you of if you accidentally missed a screening? Everyone knows how airport security has become an exercise in tension and anxiety. You get a little embarrassment shrug it off and move on.
December last year, Barbados airport put me in their detention centre, why? Because I got to Customs before the Air Jamaica CSR who was supposed to see to my accommodations for the night. Was I embarrassed? Yes. I was made to sit with persons suspected of other travel violations. Did I flip out? No. The CSR cleared things up and I spent the evening in a semi-posh hotel. :7 Have I seen any of the persons from that Air Jamaica flight since? No.
10 comments:
As much as Bousquet is to be blamed the airport officials have a responsibility. There is no way someone should board an plane if they are not sceened first no matter who that are. There should be someone in the VIP lounge to screen individuals at all times.Although the minister should have known better i understand how he felt to be called off the plane. Anyone would have been embrassed.
Agree with you 100% Ziggy. I mean I have little respect for Rufus Bousquet, I don't even know if his story is the correct one seeing we have YET to hear officially from SLASPA as to the precise details of the chain of events, but clearly SLASPA (who is also responsible for the Port Police) must take some part of the blame in this whole fiasco. It does represent a lapse, and given what happened at Sangster Airport in Jamaica with the hostage situation, we need to be on our p's and q's given that we depend so heavily on air transport for our economic activity.
It is very clear to me that Rufus did not care one whit that there was no one to screen him in the VIP lounge. How do I know this? He walked onto the plane without being screened!
If he had cared, he would have insisted that everyone on the plane be re-screened; the lapse in the VIP lounge should have alerted him to the possibility that others on the plane may have not been screened via similar lapses; a breach which might have been led to everyone on that plane losing their lives.
He showed willful disregard for his own life, which shows that he cared even less about the lives of others. Obviously, this guy is unfit to be a steward of the public trust.
I believe that Bousquet should have known better than to behave the way he did. Screening is a requirement which simply cannot be overlooked and the fact that he says that in the past he has observed persons from the VIP lounge boarding airplanes without being screened suggests that he has no regard for this law and appears to think that his status as a minister frees him from this obligation. What a way to lead by example! I agree with the previous commenter that he has demonstrated that he is unfit to be a steward of the public trust.
This is just anouther example of how things are done in an unprofessional manner in St. Lucia. For Rufus, by his own account, to be aware of persons going onto a aircraft without being screened puts his leadership in disrepute. For the individual who is the leading officail responsible for foreign affair to be aware of this security issue and not take any steps to correct is appauling. What makes it worse is that, he thinks because he sees other persons go through unscreened it is fine for hime to do it too. What would happen if he saw other ministers commiting fraud? Would it be fine for him to do it as well?
It is sad to say that for a minister that was involved in illegal activity and claims that it is in his past, behaving in a manner that shows lack of respect for the laws of the land is not the best way to go.
It is easy to say that it is politically motivated. Politics appear to detract people from the real issues. One of those issues is that there is a security problem within the customs and excise department. I would think that the first thing persons would want to do is resove this issue, as it has far reaching implication.
I believe the auther is correct in pointing out that Rufus should simply had returned to the lounge, get screened, and when returned to the island launch and investigation. That is at least one approach that would allow the inccidence to be handled professionally and respectfully. Note I am by no means letting the customs department off the hook, they should have ensured that all personnel is in place.
I have been listening to many persons state their sentiments over the airwaves and other medium.
So far all have been dancing around the critical issues of security and loading the pan with symantics and innuendos.
As one who has a very good grasp of security, and some may want tto challenge this, there are issues which concern me.
When SLASPA can admit that they did receive the letter of notification yet there was not preparations done to deal with the minister's departure, that is a sad state of affairs.
An independent investigation should be carried out with a view to righting the wrongs of security at the airport, and an audit carried out at all of our air and sea ports to determine the manner in which persons carry out their duties.
the incident involving the minister has many more issues yet t surface and if we think and deal with them in an open-minded manner, then the politics will be left out, and the corrective measures be put in place.
I totally disagree with you Micay, one sock alone will not do the job, perhaps a pair or two?
Why is SLASPA afraid to release the report from the investigation? I smell a rat!
I don't smell a rat. I smell politics on the part of the SLP and denial from the UWP.
The SLP and their supports are intent on doing everything possible to derail Rufus and the government.
Then you have the UWP refusing to come to terms with the fact that they are approching irrelevance.
Man, you board a plane with a mix of international peoples. People you are extremely unlikely to ever see again, only to flip out? Get embarrassed? For what? Who's going to know? Bousquet's a minister of governement what's the worst people can suspect you of if you accidentally missed a screening? Everyone knows how airport security has become an exercise in tension and anxiety. You get a little embarrassment shrug it off and move on.
December last year, Barbados airport put me in their detention centre, why? Because I got to Customs before the Air Jamaica CSR who was supposed to see to my accommodations for the night. Was I embarrassed? Yes. I was made to sit with persons suspected of other travel violations. Did I flip out? No. The CSR cleared things up and I spent the evening in a semi-posh hotel. :7 Have I seen any of the persons from that Air Jamaica flight since? No.
Post a Comment