I agree that there should be profiling, but making the profiling so obvious that a casual observer can spot it and failing to acknowledge that such an approach carries risk is simply foolish.
I agree that it would be quite difficult for ISIS to recruit a fat woman carrying a stuffed donkey with 3 snotty nosed kids, but on the flights that I have been on, there hasn't been a simple dichotomy between such people and people who could be described as being 'Muslim looking people'.
As for the concept of 'Muslim looking people', I'm intrigued. What do they look like exactly? I agree that is possible to make a well informed guess about the religion of
some people, but how about the child that is the subject of this report:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ers-Syria.html
And what of Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, who was born to a white British mother and a father who had a Jamaican father. Was he of Muslim appearance? He was a convert to Islam, and, as I'm sure you'd agree, converts can be the most religiously dedicated (which is predictable given that they have chosen their faith rather than being born into it. Perhaps Reid was not searched when he boarded his flight from Paris to Miami (of all places), because he didn’t fit the profile being used that day?
It was not a fear of investigating Muslims that allowed the Rotherham abuse to continue as it did, or at least that is what Professor Jay concluded. In most instances, it was a failure to recognise the abuse for what is was rather than seeing it as being consensual behaviour by children that the police had difficulty engaging with.
Insofar as much of the abuse in Rotherham was perpetrated by Taxi drivers and fast food workers, it is important that the police be aware that such people have proved to be high risk groups for offending of that type. The same applies for anybody of people that have contact with children, however, because it is that contact that allows abuse to take place.