- All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
Forums > Social Discussion > Airport Security Tightens, UK 10/08/06
Login/Join to Participate
Posted:For those who don't know, or intend on flying out from the UK today...
16 men were arrested in connection with suspected terrorist activities today. The plan as such, to blow up explosives in the hand luggage midflight. Due to that, nearly every UK airport is on max security. Queues, for check-in and going through security gates galour. Also, changes to whats allowed in hand luggage has changed, and only the following items are allowed:
Written by: BTI UK Travel Alert
UK AIRPORTS BAGGAGE POLICY
Bulletin issued by BTI UK Travel Alert Service:
09.05 10 August 2006
Please be advised of the following development(s) that may impact your travel program:
Further to todays national security alert at UK airports, the Department for Transport (DoT) has issued additional security measures. With immediate effect, the following arrangements apply to all passengers starting their journey at a UK airport and to those transferring between flights at a UK airport.
All cabin baggage must be processed as hold baggage and carried in the hold of passenger aircraft departing UK airports.
Passengers may take through the airport security search point, in a single (ideally transparent) plastic carrier bag, only the following items. Nothing may be carried in pockets:
-pocketsize wallets and pocket size purses plus contents (for example money, credit cards, identity cards etc (not handbags));
-travel documents essential for the journey (for example passports and travel tickets);
-prescription medicines and medical items sufficient and essential for the flight (eg diabetic kit), except in liquid form unless verified as authentic.
-spectacles and sunglasses, without cases.
-contact lens holders, without bottles of solution.
-for those travelling with an infant: baby food, milk (the contents of each bottle must be tasted by the accompanying passenger) and sanitary items sufficient and essential for the flight (nappies, wipes, creams and nappy disposal bags).
-female sanitary items sufficient and essential for the flight, if unboxed (eg tampons, pads, towels and wipes).
-tissues (unboxed) and/or handkerchiefs
-keys (but no electrical key fobs)
All passengers must be hand searched, and their footwear and all the items they are carrying must be x-ray screened.
Pushchairs and walking aids must be x-ray screened, and only airport-provided wheelchairs may pass through the screening point.
In addition to the above, all passengers boarding flights to the USA and all the items they are carrying, including those acquired after the central screening point, must be subjected to a secondary search at the boarding gate. Any liquids discovered must be removed from the passenger.
There are no changes to current hold baggage security measures.
Regrettably, significant delays at airports are inevitable. Passengers are being asked to allow themselves plenty of extra time and to ensure that other than the few permitted items listed above; all their belongings are placed in their hold baggage and checked in.
Thoughts anyone?
16 men were arrested in connection with suspected terrorist activities today. The plan as such, to blow up explosives in the hand luggage midflight. Due to that, nearly every UK airport is on max security. Queues, for check-in and going through security gates galour. Also, changes to whats allowed in hand luggage has changed, and only the following items are allowed:
Written by: BTI UK Travel Alert
UK AIRPORTS BAGGAGE POLICY
Bulletin issued by BTI UK Travel Alert Service:
09.05 10 August 2006
Please be advised of the following development(s) that may impact your travel program:
Further to todays national security alert at UK airports, the Department for Transport (DoT) has issued additional security measures. With immediate effect, the following arrangements apply to all passengers starting their journey at a UK airport and to those transferring between flights at a UK airport.
All cabin baggage must be processed as hold baggage and carried in the hold of passenger aircraft departing UK airports.
Passengers may take through the airport security search point, in a single (ideally transparent) plastic carrier bag, only the following items. Nothing may be carried in pockets:
-pocketsize wallets and pocket size purses plus contents (for example money, credit cards, identity cards etc (not handbags));
-travel documents essential for the journey (for example passports and travel tickets);
-prescription medicines and medical items sufficient and essential for the flight (eg diabetic kit), except in liquid form unless verified as authentic.
-spectacles and sunglasses, without cases.
-contact lens holders, without bottles of solution.
-for those travelling with an infant: baby food, milk (the contents of each bottle must be tasted by the accompanying passenger) and sanitary items sufficient and essential for the flight (nappies, wipes, creams and nappy disposal bags).
-female sanitary items sufficient and essential for the flight, if unboxed (eg tampons, pads, towels and wipes).
-tissues (unboxed) and/or handkerchiefs
-keys (but no electrical key fobs)
All passengers must be hand searched, and their footwear and all the items they are carrying must be x-ray screened.
Pushchairs and walking aids must be x-ray screened, and only airport-provided wheelchairs may pass through the screening point.
In addition to the above, all passengers boarding flights to the USA and all the items they are carrying, including those acquired after the central screening point, must be subjected to a secondary search at the boarding gate. Any liquids discovered must be removed from the passenger.
There are no changes to current hold baggage security measures.
Regrettably, significant delays at airports are inevitable. Passengers are being asked to allow themselves plenty of extra time and to ensure that other than the few permitted items listed above; all their belongings are placed in their hold baggage and checked in.
Thoughts anyone?
Delete Topic
Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001
![Doc Lightning]()
HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Total posts: 13920
GOLD Member since May 2001
HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Total posts: 13920
Posted: Written by: coleman
you have quite clearly, and on several occasions in this thread, directly related the additional temporary security measures in uk airports to our general rights to liberty within society and stated that you believe that it signals a slide towards complete erosion of liberty.
I can see how you could have thought that.
Actually what I was trying to illustrate was how the terrorists are getting us to change our way of living, whether it is self-destruction of our basic freedoms and rights or self-destruction of our transport and economic systems.
And perhaps I should have been more clear. bends over backwards, grabs calves, and kisses John Howard's left buttcheek
Written by:
you say: "I realize that the security regulations had nothing to do with security at all and had everything to do with pacifying and placating the flying public. And that's just disgusting."
i say: you realise nothing - you are assuming everything.
if you think that the flying public were 'pacified and placated' by these measures you are completely and totally mad sir!
the security had the opposite effect on most passengers.
'pacified and placated'?
more like 'frustrated and abiding'.
Then explain why they would allow the one thing that they had been planning on blowing up the plane with? I know a bunch of people who felt a lot safer with these restrictions in place.
I just sat there shaking my head and going "where there's a will...a 12-year-old boy can sneak onto the wrong flight."
you have quite clearly, and on several occasions in this thread, directly related the additional temporary security measures in uk airports to our general rights to liberty within society and stated that you believe that it signals a slide towards complete erosion of liberty.
I can see how you could have thought that.
Actually what I was trying to illustrate was how the terrorists are getting us to change our way of living, whether it is self-destruction of our basic freedoms and rights or self-destruction of our transport and economic systems.
And perhaps I should have been more clear. bends over backwards, grabs calves, and kisses John Howard's left buttcheek
Written by:
you say: "I realize that the security regulations had nothing to do with security at all and had everything to do with pacifying and placating the flying public. And that's just disgusting."
i say: you realise nothing - you are assuming everything.
if you think that the flying public were 'pacified and placated' by these measures you are completely and totally mad sir!
the security had the opposite effect on most passengers.
'pacified and placated'?
more like 'frustrated and abiding'.
Then explain why they would allow the one thing that they had been planning on blowing up the plane with? I know a bunch of people who felt a lot safer with these restrictions in place.
I just sat there shaking my head and going "where there's a will...a 12-year-old boy can sneak onto the wrong flight."
-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura
coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
![coleman]()
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Total posts: 7330
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Total posts: 7330
Posted:simian and mike:
your posts seem to suggest that the security measures were put in place solely to stop an attack identical to the one they had just arrested 20 of the (alleged) main conspirators of.
but i do understand wht you're both saying
in response to a few of your 'questions' monkey:
"TATP is a ridiculous explosive to try and take a plane down with"
well, it worked pretty well for taking out tubes and buses...
"why were such rigorous precautions being taken for liquids?"
because, as you know, the plan was to mix them on the planes to create an explosion
everything other than esssential items were banned from flights but some liquids are essential and you can't ban them - hence the rigourous precautions.
"the components of TATP which would be incredibly difficult to mix in sufficient quantity on board the plane without a large amount of specialised equipment for, amongst other things, cooling. Without this equipment and attempt tomix would almost certainly create a "violent reaction" but no explosion. Possibly enough to kill one stupid terrorist and maybe break a window."
as i said, everything other than esssential items were banned - that includes anything that might look like sugar (although you wouldn't want to carry round TATP like it were sugar anyway!).
mixing it on the plane at 10,000 feet would be pretty diasterous whatever happened.
even if they weren't able to position the device near a wing, a weak point on the fusilage or a door, an explosion, big or small would occur and a fire would be pretty much inevitable.
a fire on board a jumbo at full altitude is a very bad thing.
even a window or two being taken out at this height, over the atlantic would be extremely hazardous.
they had targeted nine flights to be taken out in three waves of three.
even taking into account the difficulties of the mixing of tatp on-board, the odds of tham having taken down at least one plane were pretty good i'd say...
"why does every new terrorist plot immediately cause a total change in security policy?Surely that's madness and totally ignores the larger picture?"
could it be that it is us that cannot see 'the larger picture' and thus it is us who ignorant of it?
its not 'every new terrorist plot' anyway - there have been claims that four attacks were thwarted in the past year, with no change public liberty at all
"I don't understand the response on any level other than wanting to look like they're doing something."
i think that's what mike has been trying to say.
with the information accessible to us at the moment, i'd tend to agree with that.
however, taking into account the amount of information that we don't know, which is pretty much 'all the precise details of this particular plan' added to 'all intelligence regarding related and non-related terrorist groups/plots', i prefer to reserve judgement rather than proclaim that it was all for naught.
cole. x
your posts seem to suggest that the security measures were put in place solely to stop an attack identical to the one they had just arrested 20 of the (alleged) main conspirators of.
but i do understand wht you're both saying
in response to a few of your 'questions' monkey:
"TATP is a ridiculous explosive to try and take a plane down with"
well, it worked pretty well for taking out tubes and buses...
"why were such rigorous precautions being taken for liquids?"
because, as you know, the plan was to mix them on the planes to create an explosion
everything other than esssential items were banned from flights but some liquids are essential and you can't ban them - hence the rigourous precautions.
"the components of TATP which would be incredibly difficult to mix in sufficient quantity on board the plane without a large amount of specialised equipment for, amongst other things, cooling. Without this equipment and attempt tomix would almost certainly create a "violent reaction" but no explosion. Possibly enough to kill one stupid terrorist and maybe break a window."
as i said, everything other than esssential items were banned - that includes anything that might look like sugar (although you wouldn't want to carry round TATP like it were sugar anyway!).
mixing it on the plane at 10,000 feet would be pretty diasterous whatever happened.
even if they weren't able to position the device near a wing, a weak point on the fusilage or a door, an explosion, big or small would occur and a fire would be pretty much inevitable.
a fire on board a jumbo at full altitude is a very bad thing.
even a window or two being taken out at this height, over the atlantic would be extremely hazardous.
they had targeted nine flights to be taken out in three waves of three.
even taking into account the difficulties of the mixing of tatp on-board, the odds of tham having taken down at least one plane were pretty good i'd say...
"why does every new terrorist plot immediately cause a total change in security policy?Surely that's madness and totally ignores the larger picture?"
could it be that it is us that cannot see 'the larger picture' and thus it is us who ignorant of it?
its not 'every new terrorist plot' anyway - there have been claims that four attacks were thwarted in the past year, with no change public liberty at all
"I don't understand the response on any level other than wanting to look like they're doing something."
i think that's what mike has been trying to say.
with the information accessible to us at the moment, i'd tend to agree with that.
however, taking into account the amount of information that we don't know, which is pretty much 'all the precise details of this particular plan' added to 'all intelligence regarding related and non-related terrorist groups/plots', i prefer to reserve judgement rather than proclaim that it was all for naught.
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
simian
![simian]()
110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London
Total posts: 3149
110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London
Total posts: 3149
Posted: Written by: coleman
"TATP is a ridiculous explosive to try and take a plane down with"
well, it worked pretty well for taking out tubes and buses...
cos they each had over 4kg of the stuff, ready mixed.
Written by: cole
as i said, everything other than esssential items were banned - that includes anything that might look like sugar (although you wouldn't want to carry round TATP like it were sugar anyway!).
well, thats what the London bombers did. And as I said, TATP would be feasible ready mixed and detonated from the hold.
Written by:
taking into account the amount of information that we don't know, which is pretty much 'all the precise details of this particular plan' added to 'all intelligence regarding related and non-related terrorist groups/plots', i prefer to reserve judgement rather than proclaim that it was all for naught.
i see your point totally. But I just don't have any trust in the judgement of those in authority, or in the system to give adequate weight to the opinions of those who do know what they're talking about (eg. Not us )
"TATP is a ridiculous explosive to try and take a plane down with"
well, it worked pretty well for taking out tubes and buses...
cos they each had over 4kg of the stuff, ready mixed.
Written by: cole
as i said, everything other than esssential items were banned - that includes anything that might look like sugar (although you wouldn't want to carry round TATP like it were sugar anyway!).
well, thats what the London bombers did. And as I said, TATP would be feasible ready mixed and detonated from the hold.
Written by:
taking into account the amount of information that we don't know, which is pretty much 'all the precise details of this particular plan' added to 'all intelligence regarding related and non-related terrorist groups/plots', i prefer to reserve judgement rather than proclaim that it was all for naught.
i see your point totally. But I just don't have any trust in the judgement of those in authority, or in the system to give adequate weight to the opinions of those who do know what they're talking about (eg. Not us
)"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."
Deletecoleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
![coleman]()
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Total posts: 7330
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Total posts: 7330
Posted:this times article was pretty good i thought:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2307951_1,00.html
br>
related science briefing (from 10th august)
unlike most of the other papers, they seem to have bothered to go and source some relevant information
on investigation, i'm not sure what's going on with the 'synthesising taqp on the plane' idea either:
this description of tatp synthesis seems to suggest that you need 24 hours and a fridge to produce anything more than a fire (though a fire is pretty bad news on a plane).
anyone know if its possible to suspend tatp in a liquid/gel and still detonate it, because that would seem like a more viable plan than the in-flight chemistry club...
another reason i realised that i'm pragmatic about this is that, if the measures were unnecessary, it will come to light here in the u.k.
several airlines are considering suing the government (and possibly baa too/instead) for compensation for their losses during the emergency procedures - a court case of this nature would clearly determine how the decision to put those security measures into place was reached.
the airlines are also pushing for a return to the international standard for hand luggage size restrictions and to allow passengers to carry liquid onto flights (though thats probably just because the airlines don't want to have to carry or pay for so much drinking water):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2316645.html
br>
cole. x
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2307951_1,00.html
br>
related science briefing (from 10th august)
unlike most of the other papers, they seem to have bothered to go and source some relevant information
on investigation, i'm not sure what's going on with the 'synthesising taqp on the plane' idea either:
this description of tatp synthesis seems to suggest that you need 24 hours and a fridge to produce anything more than a fire (though a fire is pretty bad news on a plane).
anyone know if its possible to suspend tatp in a liquid/gel and still detonate it, because that would seem like a more viable plan than the in-flight chemistry club...
another reason i realised that i'm pragmatic about this is that, if the measures were unnecessary, it will come to light here in the u.k.
several airlines are considering suing the government (and possibly baa too/instead) for compensation for their losses during the emergency procedures - a court case of this nature would clearly determine how the decision to put those security measures into place was reached.
the airlines are also pushing for a return to the international standard for hand luggage size restrictions and to allow passengers to carry liquid onto flights (though thats probably just because the airlines don't want to have to carry or pay for so much drinking water):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2316645.html
br>
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001
![Doc Lightning]()
HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Total posts: 13920
GOLD Member since May 2001
HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Total posts: 13920
Posted: Written by: coleman
several airlines are considering suing the government (and possibly baa too/instead) for compensation for their losses during the emergency procedures - a court case of this nature would clearly determine how the decision to put those security measures into place was reached.
the airlines are also pushing for a return to the international standard for hand luggage size restrictions and to allow passengers to carry liquid onto flights (though thats probably just because the airlines don't want to have to carry or pay for so much drinking water):
This is a very encouraging move.
If you know me well you know that I am one of the last people to start talking about conspiracy theories. I'm not about to start now.
That said, there are people in positions of power who love that very same power. Constapulatory types and their relatives (security agencies) especially tend to fit the mold. This may well have been motivated in some respects by an over-zealous and politically-minded individual or group of individuals who want to control public opinion. A scared populace is an easy populace to control. That's how every single tyrant and despot from Ghengis Khan to Hitler has gained power -- fear. I am NOT saying that someone in security agency wanted to be the next Hitler, nor am I comparing the UK government to a totalitarian regime.
However, someone may have thought that a scare such as this may have made their politics seem more reasonable. And I hope very much that that person loses his or her job and is stripped of all power now that he or she has abused it.
In medicine we have a philosophy that you do not order tests or give drugs unless you have a specific concern or question that you want answered. You don't load a patient with antibiotics "just in case" without solid evidence that the risks of doing so are worth the benefits.
In this case, the "just in case" precautions were taken without any critical thought and without any solid evidence that such precautions would merit the harm they would cause.
There is a fine line between "protective" and "over-protective" and they crossed WAAAY over that line.
several airlines are considering suing the government (and possibly baa too/instead) for compensation for their losses during the emergency procedures - a court case of this nature would clearly determine how the decision to put those security measures into place was reached.
the airlines are also pushing for a return to the international standard for hand luggage size restrictions and to allow passengers to carry liquid onto flights (though thats probably just because the airlines don't want to have to carry or pay for so much drinking water):
This is a very encouraging move.
If you know me well you know that I am one of the last people to start talking about conspiracy theories. I'm not about to start now.
That said, there are people in positions of power who love that very same power. Constapulatory types and their relatives (security agencies) especially tend to fit the mold. This may well have been motivated in some respects by an over-zealous and politically-minded individual or group of individuals who want to control public opinion. A scared populace is an easy populace to control. That's how every single tyrant and despot from Ghengis Khan to Hitler has gained power -- fear. I am NOT saying that someone in security agency wanted to be the next Hitler, nor am I comparing the UK government to a totalitarian regime.
However, someone may have thought that a scare such as this may have made their politics seem more reasonable. And I hope very much that that person loses his or her job and is stripped of all power now that he or she has abused it.
In medicine we have a philosophy that you do not order tests or give drugs unless you have a specific concern or question that you want answered. You don't load a patient with antibiotics "just in case" without solid evidence that the risks of doing so are worth the benefits.
In this case, the "just in case" precautions were taken without any critical thought and without any solid evidence that such precautions would merit the harm they would cause.
There is a fine line between "protective" and "over-protective" and they crossed WAAAY over that line.
-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura
coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
![coleman]()
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Total posts: 7330
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Total posts: 7330
Posted: Written by: mike
In this case, the "just in case" precautions were taken without any critical thought and without any solid evidence that such precautions would merit the harm they would cause.
you should be the last one to talk about 'solid evidence' mike!
you have none whatsoever but still you draw cast-iron conclusions on how the decisions were reached last wednesday night and are so bafflingly confident in your convictions that you have branded the security measures as overzealous, draconian, over-protective, pointless, useless...
and now you're claiming that they were all those things as well as being implemented primarily to increase the government's hold over the people through the use of fear rather than to placate the public/instill fear in the public/whatever the hell it was you were saying they were implemented for prior to this latest theory
if you still think you are someone that claims they are the 'last person to talk about conspiracies', you should collect together all your posts in this thread and read them back in one go - they build a pretty decent conspiracy theory i'd say!
i found this news story that has pulled together a bunch of comments from those of a similar mind and this website pushes the 'politics of fear' claims even further.
i've tried to force you into discussing the facts rationally, before you draw conclusions but you're blatently not up for it
you seem intent on weighing up options but refuse to entertain any of those that consider the multitude of possibilities that would necessitate measures such as those put in place last week
when a suitable amount of evidence is available to us, i would be happy to discuss this further and to draw some more solid conclusions.
i'm happy to question what went on but i won't continue to argue against your unsupported rhetoric
if at some point in the future there is sufficient information available to make a confident judgement, i would love to do so:
if the time comes that i can clearly show the security measures at airports were unnecessary (or even were put in place to serve another motive entirely), i'll happily come back and say "mike was a bit paranoid and woefully uninformed at the time but his conclusions were totally and utterly right".
cole. x
In this case, the "just in case" precautions were taken without any critical thought and without any solid evidence that such precautions would merit the harm they would cause.
you should be the last one to talk about 'solid evidence' mike!
you have none whatsoever but still you draw cast-iron conclusions on how the decisions were reached last wednesday night and are so bafflingly confident in your convictions that you have branded the security measures as overzealous, draconian, over-protective, pointless, useless...
and now you're claiming that they were all those things as well as being implemented primarily to increase the government's hold over the people through the use of fear rather than to placate the public/instill fear in the public/whatever the hell it was you were saying they were implemented for prior to this latest theory
if you still think you are someone that claims they are the 'last person to talk about conspiracies', you should collect together all your posts in this thread and read them back in one go - they build a pretty decent conspiracy theory i'd say!
i found this news story that has pulled together a bunch of comments from those of a similar mind and this website pushes the 'politics of fear' claims even further.
i've tried to force you into discussing the facts rationally, before you draw conclusions but you're blatently not up for it
you seem intent on weighing up options but refuse to entertain any of those that consider the multitude of possibilities that would necessitate measures such as those put in place last week
when a suitable amount of evidence is available to us, i would be happy to discuss this further and to draw some more solid conclusions.
i'm happy to question what went on but i won't continue to argue against your unsupported rhetoric
if at some point in the future there is sufficient information available to make a confident judgement, i would love to do so:
if the time comes that i can clearly show the security measures at airports were unnecessary (or even were put in place to serve another motive entirely), i'll happily come back and say "mike was a bit paranoid and woefully uninformed at the time but his conclusions were totally and utterly right".
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
Posted: Written by: Doc Lightning
In medicine we have a philosophy that you do not order tests or give drugs unless you have a specific concern or question that you want answered. You don't load a patient with antibiotics "just in case" without solid evidence that the risks of doing so are worth the benefits.
nice use of argument there, but a but of a narrow perspective.... medicine isnt always an exact science based on solid evidence, and many treatments given out are on the basis that the symptoms seem to suggest a certain illness and so on the basis of assumption a medicine is perscribed. obviously youre not loading people with drugs 'just in case' but a solid understanding of the risks? doubtful. most people given medicine dont understand the risks attached to a drug. and its always "if your symptoms havent cleared up, come back and we'll try another drug". tad off topic but hey... life goes on
In medicine we have a philosophy that you do not order tests or give drugs unless you have a specific concern or question that you want answered. You don't load a patient with antibiotics "just in case" without solid evidence that the risks of doing so are worth the benefits.
nice use of argument there, but a but of a narrow perspective.... medicine isnt always an exact science based on solid evidence, and many treatments given out are on the basis that the symptoms seem to suggest a certain illness and so on the basis of assumption a medicine is perscribed. obviously youre not loading people with drugs 'just in case' but a solid understanding of the risks? doubtful. most people given medicine dont understand the risks attached to a drug. and its always "if your symptoms havent cleared up, come back and we'll try another drug". tad off topic but hey... life goes on
did i leave the iron on?
Delete
Posted:Doc, that was a great way to bring up a conspiracy theory, as opposed to stating it as fact. Yes, in a discussion like this it is a topic that needs to be explored and no doubt some of the attitudes you suggested might have come into play when making the decisions to increase security.
I too, don't want to live in a paranoid society. I'll bring up a few examples that happened here, locally after 911 and the anthrax incident.
Children were putting flour on their teachers desks in order to get a day off school, and the threat was taken seriously. Someone spilled coffee creamer on one of our local ferries, the hazmat team was called in to investigate. A local running club has a habit of marking out their running routes with little piles of flour ( and have been doing so for years ), 4 blocks of downtown Vancouver were shut down during rush hour while the authorities investigated these mysterious little piles of white powder.
Children with access to anthrax? a little island hopper ferry as a target for terrorists ? Assaulting an urban population by distributing your "agent" in little piles on the sidewalk? ( come on, at least toss a handful in the air for maximum dispersion )
And this is Canada.
Now I can understand the English reaction, given that the're a lot more "used" to terrorism than we are over on this side of the pond and maybe someday we'll also take extreme security measures in stride too. I sure hope not. I won't accept police dogs and random bag searches on the subway in the name of security ( plus do you know what else those dogs are trained to find ) Coleman, I read somewhere on here that you have first hand experience with this.
I'm going to keep playing the odds, and appreciating the free society that I live in. I refuse to accept the idea that every cigarette smouldering in a garbage can is a potential bomb, and every person of Middle Eastern descent carrying a bottle of Pepsi through an ariport is a "suspect".
I too, don't want to live in a paranoid society. I'll bring up a few examples that happened here, locally after 911 and the anthrax incident.
Children were putting flour on their teachers desks in order to get a day off school, and the threat was taken seriously. Someone spilled coffee creamer on one of our local ferries, the hazmat team was called in to investigate. A local running club has a habit of marking out their running routes with little piles of flour ( and have been doing so for years ), 4 blocks of downtown Vancouver were shut down during rush hour while the authorities investigated these mysterious little piles of white powder.
Children with access to anthrax? a little island hopper ferry as a target for terrorists ? Assaulting an urban population by distributing your "agent" in little piles on the sidewalk? ( come on, at least toss a handful in the air for maximum dispersion )
And this is Canada.
Now I can understand the English reaction, given that the're a lot more "used" to terrorism than we are over on this side of the pond and maybe someday we'll also take extreme security measures in stride too. I sure hope not. I won't accept police dogs and random bag searches on the subway in the name of security ( plus do you know what else those dogs are trained to find ) Coleman, I read somewhere on here that you have first hand experience with this.
I'm going to keep playing the odds, and appreciating the free society that I live in. I refuse to accept the idea that every cigarette smouldering in a garbage can is a potential bomb, and every person of Middle Eastern descent carrying a bottle of Pepsi through an ariport is a "suspect".
Delete
simian
![simian]()
110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London
Total posts: 3149
110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London
Total posts: 3149
Posted: Written by: stout
I won't accept police dogs and random bag searches on the subway in the name of security ( plus do you know what else those dogs are trained to find)
personally i really appreciate there being explosives sniffer dogs on the Tube here (they have them around fairly regularly at the larger stations, and sometimes at some of the smaller ones)
Explosives on the tube are rubbish. The dogs are totally non-intrusive or any kind of affront to my liberties. And they're really cute spaniel type dogs (i think... not a doggie expert), which i much prefer to the alsations.
and i think our ones are only trained for explosives. at least they never react to anything else on my person.
policemen don't like it if you scratch them behind their ears though
(the dogs that is, not the policemen. But they probably wouldn't like that either)
I won't accept police dogs and random bag searches on the subway in the name of security ( plus do you know what else those dogs are trained to find)
personally i really appreciate there being explosives sniffer dogs on the Tube here (they have them around fairly regularly at the larger stations, and sometimes at some of the smaller ones)
Explosives on the tube are rubbish. The dogs are totally non-intrusive or any kind of affront to my liberties. And they're really cute spaniel type dogs (i think... not a doggie expert), which i much prefer to the alsations.
and i think our ones are only trained for explosives. at least they never react to anything else on my person.
policemen don't like it if you scratch them behind their ears though
(the dogs that is, not the policemen. But they probably wouldn't like that either)
"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."
Deletecoleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
![coleman]()
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Total posts: 7330
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Total posts: 7330
Posted: Written by: stout
I won't accept police dogs and random bag searches on the subway in the name of security (plus do you know what else those dogs are trained to find) Coleman, I read somewhere on here that you have first hand experience with this.
police dogs at tube stations then...
i freely admit to having mixed feelings about their efficacy.
but as my experience has shown, they used to do what amounted to random sniffings in public areas anyway.
i personally don't like it but its not too different from the situation at most airports - even if you are not directly checked for funny smells, hold luggage is x-rayed and sniffed randomly and my hand luggage has had an electronic sniffer used on it before (coincidentally, most recently on my way out of canada).
i have said previously that i believe one should carefully study the cjb and know ones rights as far as searches are concerned - the police *must* have a valid reason to be stopping and searching you (i.e. they must have a better than "there are some people in the world that are terrorists").
cole. x
I won't accept police dogs and random bag searches on the subway in the name of security (plus do you know what else those dogs are trained to find) Coleman, I read somewhere on here that you have first hand experience with this.
police dogs at tube stations then...
i freely admit to having mixed feelings about their efficacy.
but as my experience has shown, they used to do what amounted to random sniffings in public areas anyway.
i personally don't like it but its not too different from the situation at most airports - even if you are not directly checked for funny smells, hold luggage is x-rayed and sniffed randomly and my hand luggage has had an electronic sniffer used on it before (coincidentally, most recently on my way out of canada).
i have said previously that i believe one should carefully study the cjb and know ones rights as far as searches are concerned - the police *must* have a valid reason to be stopping and searching you (i.e. they must have a better than "there are some people in the world that are terrorists").
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
Posted:I was just using police dogs at the tube as one example. See thing is, "they" couldn't get away with that sort of behaviour here. The police tried it,,once, and there was such a public outcry that they dare not try it again. It was viewed as an infringement of the publics right to privacy and deemed to be a too heavy handed tactic. Likewise with the system you use in London to track cars coming into the city center, you know the one with the barcode and scanners. Here...no way. We also tried and abandoned photo radar ( for speeding ) for the same reasons.
Personally I'm not fussed about the actual security regulations at airports when it comes to what I may have in my luggage but I am fussed about the resulting paranoia when those regulations hit the media.
Another for instance, I'm at the Vancouver airport,,with a scuba regulator in my hand luggage. Ya, I know, atypical but not only did I get the sniffer, I also had to supply a written statement as to why I was carrying this item in my hand luggage, and almost didn't make it on the flight while they were deciding whether or not to let me fly. Luckily they accepted the truth as to why I was carrying it, see I use soft luggage when I fly and I don't trust the "delicacy" of the baggage handlers. From now on I'll be travelling with a suitcase. or a cardboard box and checking the regulator through. Not that I really mind the inconvienience, it's just that being treated as a potential "threat" bothers me for some reason.
Isn't the dog wagging his tail at you enough of a reason to instigate a search? That's what they told me in Houston when the cocker spaniel gave me the look. They didn't find anything ( like I'm that stupid
) Funny thing is though, they didn't even question the regulator.
Personally I'm not fussed about the actual security regulations at airports when it comes to what I may have in my luggage but I am fussed about the resulting paranoia when those regulations hit the media.
Another for instance, I'm at the Vancouver airport,,with a scuba regulator in my hand luggage. Ya, I know, atypical but not only did I get the sniffer, I also had to supply a written statement as to why I was carrying this item in my hand luggage, and almost didn't make it on the flight while they were deciding whether or not to let me fly. Luckily they accepted the truth as to why I was carrying it, see I use soft luggage when I fly and I don't trust the "delicacy" of the baggage handlers. From now on I'll be travelling with a suitcase. or a cardboard box and checking the regulator through. Not that I really mind the inconvienience, it's just that being treated as a potential "threat" bothers me for some reason.
Isn't the dog wagging his tail at you enough of a reason to instigate a search? That's what they told me in Houston when the cocker spaniel gave me the look. They didn't find anything ( like I'm that stupid
) Funny thing is though, they didn't even question the regulator.Delete
Posted: Written by: simian
Written by: stout
I ... And they're really cute spaniel type dogs (i think... not a doggie expert), which i much prefer to the alsations.
Yes, mostly Springer Spaniels! They are the most lovely, smartest dogs in the world and I want one! Sorry,
Written by: stout
I ... And they're really cute spaniel type dogs (i think... not a doggie expert), which i much prefer to the alsations.
Yes, mostly Springer Spaniels! They are the most lovely, smartest dogs in the world and I want one! Sorry,
Idolized by Aurinoko
Take me disappearing through the smoke rings of my mind....
Bob Dylan
Posted:That damn TSA is getting all facist again.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
Posted:Oh, also, it's when the dog comes and sits down quietly next to your bag that you're in trouble... my mum went up to customs officer in the U.S. and asked lots of questions about what the dogs did when they found someting dodgy! My mum is great.
We've had random sniffings in the UK for quite some time now, is just becoming a bit more prominent in London now. They don't always get it right. Once my friend was 'pulled over' by a dog... he'd been smoking pot the night before and was wearing the same jumper, that's all. The police pulled him to a corner of the station and searched him pretty thoroughly, ended up giving him a little caution type note that said:
'Dog sensed illegal substance. Illegal substance not found'.
I am not convinced you can train a dog to accurately sense several different types of narcotics as well as several different types of explosives, at least not accurately. Anyone know how many substances a dog can be trained to recognise the smell of? Cos I've walked right past dogs with dodgy things on me before and the dog didn't even glance at me.
We've had random sniffings in the UK for quite some time now, is just becoming a bit more prominent in London now. They don't always get it right. Once my friend was 'pulled over' by a dog... he'd been smoking pot the night before and was wearing the same jumper, that's all. The police pulled him to a corner of the station and searched him pretty thoroughly, ended up giving him a little caution type note that said:
'Dog sensed illegal substance. Illegal substance not found'.
I am not convinced you can train a dog to accurately sense several different types of narcotics as well as several different types of explosives, at least not accurately. Anyone know how many substances a dog can be trained to recognise the smell of? Cos I've walked right past dogs with dodgy things on me before and the dog didn't even glance at me.
Idolized by Aurinoko
Take me disappearing through the smoke rings of my mind....
Bob Dylan
)Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001
![Doc Lightning]()
HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Total posts: 13920
GOLD Member since May 2001
HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Total posts: 13920
Posted:Oh wow that's awful. He reminds me of an orthopedics resident I work with.
-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura
Posted:This just in.....
Gel bras, for cosmetic purposes, are banned, however they're ok if they're for prosthetic purposes.
Back to more lingerie research in the name of keeping you safe.
Gel bras, for cosmetic purposes, are banned, however they're ok if they're for prosthetic purposes.
Back to more lingerie research in the name of keeping you safe.
Delete
coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
![coleman]()
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Total posts: 7330
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Total posts: 7330
Posted:at which airpoets stout...?
http://www.baa.com/
br>
cole. x
http://www.baa.com/
br>
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
Posted:OOOPPs, looks like they changed the rules, again. I based my previous statement on a video from MSNBC called " Will My Gel Bra Beep?" but when I went to hunt for it again, I found this this instead.
Delete
Posted:Got it. You are allowed to put explosives in your bra as it would be a civil right infringement not to let you.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
Posted:I think that this discussion really showes the differences between the cultures if the usa and uk.
From what I've read it appears as though most of the comments against the tight security have come from those living in the USA, where as Uk residents have a more get on with life and so what if there's a bit more of a problem with things.
I suspect it comes from the IRA activity of the 80's and 90's, since we had to get used to terrorist activity then. I don't know, it just seemed to be noticable.
From what I've read it appears as though most of the comments against the tight security have come from those living in the USA, where as Uk residents have a more get on with life and so what if there's a bit more of a problem with things.
I suspect it comes from the IRA activity of the 80's and 90's, since we had to get used to terrorist activity then. I don't know, it just seemed to be noticable.
Delete
Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001
![Doc Lightning]()
HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Total posts: 13920
GOLD Member since May 2001
HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Total posts: 13920
Posted:So having now gone to and from Burning Man, this is my take on these rules.
1) On boarding my departure flight I opened my carry-on and discovered... my 1-liter Nalgene bottle was completely full of water.
2) On boarding my return flight I realized I had a tube of toothpaste and bottle of lotion in my carry-on.
So now I'm MORE against these rules. First, the threat seems to have passed but the rules are still in place. Second, would ANYONE please produce the evidence regarding whether airport security has ACTUALLY stopped a terrorist plot?
You see, it is simply not feasable to make airport screening actually effective enough to stop a major terrorist plot. Some mentally ill person with a gun is easy to stop, but a well-thought-out and organized plan can only be caught by intelligence.
And this idiocy about banning all liquids and gels is just that...idiocy. It makes nobody safer, just inconvenienced. Cost >>>>>>>>>> Benefit
1) On boarding my departure flight I opened my carry-on and discovered... my 1-liter Nalgene bottle was completely full of water.
2) On boarding my return flight I realized I had a tube of toothpaste and bottle of lotion in my carry-on.
So now I'm MORE against these rules. First, the threat seems to have passed but the rules are still in place. Second, would ANYONE please produce the evidence regarding whether airport security has ACTUALLY stopped a terrorist plot?
You see, it is simply not feasable to make airport screening actually effective enough to stop a major terrorist plot. Some mentally ill person with a gun is easy to stop, but a well-thought-out and organized plan can only be caught by intelligence.
And this idiocy about banning all liquids and gels is just that...idiocy. It makes nobody safer, just inconvenienced. Cost >>>>>>>>>> Benefit
-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura
squarefish
SILVER Member since Sep 2002
(...trusty steed of the rodeo midget...)
Location: the state of flux
Total posts: 403
SILVER Member since Sep 2002
(...trusty steed of the rodeo midget...)
Location: the state of flux
Total posts: 403
Posted:Total idocy, I agree Mike.
I had the opportunity to pass through the "heightened security checkpoint" at London Gatwick airport on Sunday, and just as an experiment decided to think of all the ways to get weapons or explosives through.
A fun way to pass the hour and twenty minutes that this took:
-Bladed weapons- made of bone or carbon reinforced plastics straped to the sternum.
-Explosives-
-Until full body cavity searches are performed as standard, on all passengers, there will always be the opportunity to bring illicit/dangerous substances on board.
-breast/muscle/other cosmetic implants with explosive composition.
-prosthetic limbs with explosives embedded.
-plaster/resin casts on a limb with sheets of plastic explosive laminated betweem the layers of plaster/resin.
-deeply embedded explosive devices wiythin the body cavity designed to detonate at a particular time or in response to a radio signal eg from a mobile phone to a beeper.
Electronic warfare-
What about having devices that screw with the planes electronics? isn't that why you're not supposed to use mobile phones mid flight, or dicmans/computers during takeoff or landing? build a device to do exactly that. Then switch it on during a night time landing.
Idiocy is right. This just makes the politicians seem as though they know what they're doing.
Undoubtedly, I should be expecting to be kidnapped by the CIA within the next hour or so.
I had the opportunity to pass through the "heightened security checkpoint" at London Gatwick airport on Sunday, and just as an experiment decided to think of all the ways to get weapons or explosives through.
A fun way to pass the hour and twenty minutes that this took:
-Bladed weapons- made of bone or carbon reinforced plastics straped to the sternum.
-Explosives-
-Until full body cavity searches are performed as standard, on all passengers, there will always be the opportunity to bring illicit/dangerous substances on board.
-breast/muscle/other cosmetic implants with explosive composition.
-prosthetic limbs with explosives embedded.
-plaster/resin casts on a limb with sheets of plastic explosive laminated betweem the layers of plaster/resin.
-deeply embedded explosive devices wiythin the body cavity designed to detonate at a particular time or in response to a radio signal eg from a mobile phone to a beeper.
Electronic warfare-
What about having devices that screw with the planes electronics? isn't that why you're not supposed to use mobile phones mid flight, or dicmans/computers during takeoff or landing? build a device to do exactly that. Then switch it on during a night time landing.
Idiocy is right. This just makes the politicians seem as though they know what they're doing.
Undoubtedly, I should be expecting to be kidnapped by the CIA within the next hour or so.
Delete
squarefish
SILVER Member since Sep 2002
(...trusty steed of the rodeo midget...)
Location: the state of flux
Total posts: 403
SILVER Member since Sep 2002
(...trusty steed of the rodeo midget...)
Location: the state of flux
Total posts: 403
coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
![coleman]()
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Total posts: 7330
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Total posts: 7330
Posted: Written by: Doc Lightning
Second, would ANYONE please produce the evidence regarding whether airport security has ACTUALLY stopped a terrorist plot?
there's no such thing as evidence of that nature mike.
there is no basis for comparison and as such, rational evidence is not obtainable.
it comparable to say having preventative drugs that have never been through a trial - its very likely that they do do what they say but without a scientificly sound test, there is no way to ever prove it.
there is some very good circumstatial evidence though:
seven days after the plot was disrupted, explosives of the kind alleged to have been planned to be used in the attack were found dumped in some woods.
now the people in custody couldn't hava dumped them there since they were in police cells.
which means that *after* the arrests had been made, someone still had control of the explosives.
we can fairly safely assume that they had two choices at thi point: continue with the plan or abort it totally and dump the explosives.
with no change in airport security procedures, the first option would have still been viable.
but, since security was changed to nullify any chance of liquid explosives being carried on board a plane, there was absolutely no chance of the bomb plot continuing and so the bomb equipment was dumped.
i am of the mind that (in my uninformed opinion) a long enough time has passed to bring the threat of an attack using liquid explosives pretyy much down to equal that of any other type of attack, and as such, the security levels should probably be lowered again.
but then again, i wasn't aware of the (huge) plot when it was in motion so clearly i'm not really qualified to declare what the risk of any terrorist attack might or might not be...
i still hold out in the hope that the measures will only be in place as long as our security services deem them necessary to dispel a specific, raised threat.
cole. x
Second, would ANYONE please produce the evidence regarding whether airport security has ACTUALLY stopped a terrorist plot?
there's no such thing as evidence of that nature mike.
there is no basis for comparison and as such, rational evidence is not obtainable.
it comparable to say having preventative drugs that have never been through a trial - its very likely that they do do what they say but without a scientificly sound test, there is no way to ever prove it.
there is some very good circumstatial evidence though:
seven days after the plot was disrupted, explosives of the kind alleged to have been planned to be used in the attack were found dumped in some woods.
now the people in custody couldn't hava dumped them there since they were in police cells.
which means that *after* the arrests had been made, someone still had control of the explosives.
we can fairly safely assume that they had two choices at thi point: continue with the plan or abort it totally and dump the explosives.
with no change in airport security procedures, the first option would have still been viable.
but, since security was changed to nullify any chance of liquid explosives being carried on board a plane, there was absolutely no chance of the bomb plot continuing and so the bomb equipment was dumped.
i am of the mind that (in my uninformed opinion) a long enough time has passed to bring the threat of an attack using liquid explosives pretyy much down to equal that of any other type of attack, and as such, the security levels should probably be lowered again.
but then again, i wasn't aware of the (huge) plot when it was in motion so clearly i'm not really qualified to declare what the risk of any terrorist attack might or might not be...
i still hold out in the hope that the measures will only be in place as long as our security services deem them necessary to dispel a specific, raised threat.
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
Posted:squarefish: for bladed weapons use glass, far sharper and far easier to make a better edge. Naturally occuring volcanic glass for the ninja black look.
"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade
I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.
coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
![coleman]()
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Total posts: 7330
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Total posts: 7330
Posted:in line with the reduced liklihood of a liquid explosive attack on airliners, the restrictions are dropping back down closer to the norm (except to u.s. inbound flights of course!):
http://www.itv.com/news/britain_6a475d1bf0931a78b4121c3bface38fa.html
br>
cole. x
http://www.itv.com/news/britain_6a475d1bf0931a78b4121c3bface38fa.html
br>
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001
![Doc Lightning]()
HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Total posts: 13920
GOLD Member since May 2001
HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Total posts: 13920
Posted: Written by: coleman
Written by: Doc Lightning
Second, would ANYONE please produce the evidence regarding whether airport security has ACTUALLY stopped a terrorist plot?
there's no such thing as evidence of that nature mike.
Actually, sure there could be. An airpot security guard finds a man with a box cutter/gun/bottle of baby formula that turns out to be an explosive. They shut down the airport, detain and interrogate the man and discover a plot.
But it's never happened.
Funny that...
Written by: Doc Lightning
Second, would ANYONE please produce the evidence regarding whether airport security has ACTUALLY stopped a terrorist plot?
there's no such thing as evidence of that nature mike.
Actually, sure there could be. An airpot security guard finds a man with a box cutter/gun/bottle of baby formula that turns out to be an explosive. They shut down the airport, detain and interrogate the man and discover a plot.
But it's never happened.
Funny that...
-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura
coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
![coleman]()
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Total posts: 7330
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Total posts: 7330
Posted:why is that funny?
preventative measures were put in place to dissuede people from attempting a specific type of attack (carrying liquid explosives onto an airliner).
an attempt at an attack of that nature has never occurred.
in fact, specific equipment that could be used for exactly that purpose were found dumped a few days after the measures were put into place - just a coincidence i suppose?
thus, the measures can be said to be 100% effective.
your conclusion is no less or more logical than the one above
cole. x
preventative measures were put in place to dissuede people from attempting a specific type of attack (carrying liquid explosives onto an airliner).
an attempt at an attack of that nature has never occurred.
in fact, specific equipment that could be used for exactly that purpose were found dumped a few days after the measures were put into place - just a coincidence i suppose?
thus, the measures can be said to be 100% effective.
your conclusion is no less or more logical than the one above
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [airport security tighten* 100806] we found the following similar topics.1. Forums > Help with school internet security [43 replies]
2. Forums > Airport Security Tightens, UK 10/08/06 [205 replies]
3. Forums > IE security zones hack- cure [10 replies]
4. Forums > Computer Security [19 replies]
5. Forums > Important Security Notice [6 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2017 Home of Poi Ltd,
New Zealand unless otherwise stated.
All rights reserved
*All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com.