• 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
Page: 1...34567
Asena
GOLD Member since Aug 2005

Asena

What a Bummer
Location: Shatfield, Hertfordshire, Unit...

Total posts: 3224
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?


Delete Topic

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Total posts: 607
Posted:Um, if 80% of the population supports something, you could just vote for it. No need to kill the other 20% with a civil war.

It's only when one side won't accept the results of a vote that civil war will break out... as happened in the U.S. civil war.


Delete

Kyrian


Dreamer
Location: York, England

Total posts: 4308
Posted:Most of history involves small groups of people having large groups of people do things which are in the best intrests of the small groups and not of the large. It wouldn't be as simple as "just voting on it" but in theory they could use the institution to change things. In practice, it would depend on a great deal of things which would be hard to predict at this stage.

And having all the people who are used to controlling things on one side can make for a civil war quite quickly if the other side doesn't back down. If I were racing horses, tho, I'd bet the larger group would back down in most cases. If this is starting to branch off into another thread (and it might be) I'd suggest moving it there.

It was a tongue in cheek comment, but for that, I suspect its still true- that 80% of brits could want something and the 20% would have their way if it was the right 20%... true of a lot of nations, actually, I would suspect.


Keep your dream alive
Dreamin is still how the strong survive

Shalom VeAhavah

New Hampshire has a point....

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted: Written by: coleman


back on topic and a constant reminder of the capitalist world we live in...

like mike said, in the end, its all about the money...

so, today's themes are "my finger is bigger than yours and i can point it better" and "won't somebody please think of the precious, precious money?!" rolleyes



I'm hardly the world's most staunch capitolist, but I'm siding with the airlines in this.

To quote Bush in one of his few correct statements: "They aim to destroy our way of life."

Yes, they want to kill us...but more importantly is to remember that this is TERRORISM. Terrorism doesn't kill that many people because it doesn't need to. It only need kill a few. And that makes people...well...terrified.

The result is that we self-destruct when we do this. Oh lordy, Bin Laden (if he's alive) must be having quite the belly laugh at all this. It's like the little kids who start giggling and grabbing their sides when I make like I might possibly tickle them. Here they make like they might possibly blow something up and the next thing you know we're canceling flights, causing significant economic damage to ourselves, and we're doing all the work for them!

They win. frown


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

NYC


NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA

Total posts: 9232
Posted: Written by: Doc Lightning



Yes, they want to kill us...but more importantly is to remember that this is TERRORISM. Terrorism doesn't kill that many people because it doesn't need to. It only need kill a few. And that makes people...well...terrified.




I understand that there's not a high probability of dieing in a terrorist act. But you do understand that OF AIRLINE related deaths, 9/11 was a HUGE deal. It's not like Tens of thousands of people die each year so why is NYC bitching about loosing 3000 on 9/11.

I think you're still misunderstanding the concept of Security. Just because it could be theoretically or even realistically defeated, if security prevents a percent of attacks it's certainly not useless.

How many minutes in line are worth each prevented hijacking?

And that's an honest question.

If each person had to be completely searched including baggage for three hours before they were let on a flight (times that by 200 folks on each flight) and that would prevent one attack a year, is it worth it?

Now change '3 hours' to whatever time you'd like. We all obviously have different limits of what risk we're willing to take as a sacrifice of time and money.


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted:NYC, it isn't about time or money or numbers.

It's about the attitude. It's about feeling that it's justified to economically cripple a nation by crippling its air transport system because people couldn't be bothered to think critically about how to best go about security, so they went for the most extreme solution possible.

IT COULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED DIFFERENTLY with equally good security and much less economic impact.

How many hijackings/bombings were prevented by these security measures? I say ZERO. I say that because 1) they found no explosives and 2) no planes went down. How many hijackings were prevented by Scotland Yard? I'd say all of them.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002

coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kin...

Total posts: 7330
Posted: Written by: Doc Lightning



IT COULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED DIFFERENTLY with equally good security and much less economic impact.





mike, you keep saying this and as long as you do, i'll keep repeating this:



tell us what you think the 'right' course of action would have been in these circumstances.





 Written by: Dco Lightning



How many hijackings/bombings were prevented by these security measures? I say ZERO. I say that because 1) they found no explosives and 2) no planes went down. How many hijackings were prevented by Scotland Yard? I'd say all of them.





this is a crazy argument!

THE SECURITY MEASURES ARE THERE TO DISSUADE.

your reasoning that allowed you to conclude that no attacks were prevented by the extra airport security are faulty:

1) they found no explosives because the security measures were totally successful in making an attack on an inflight airliner impossible

2) no planes went down because the security checks made it impossible for anyone to get a bomb onboard so no-one bothered to try





 Written by: Doc Lightning



The result is that we self-destruct when we do this. Oh lordy, Bin Laden (if he's alive) must be having quite the belly laugh at all this. It's like the little kids who start giggling and grabbing their sides when I make like I might possibly tickle them. Here they make like they might possibly blow something up and the next thing you know we're canceling flights, causing significant economic damage to ourselves, and we're doing all the work for them!





no.



its more than 'make like they might blow something up'.

this was in planning for a long time - they were planning to go ahead with it if they weren't stopped in time.

so, your analogy presented in a more accurate fashion would be:



you make plans to tickle a whole ward of kids until they cry.

the kids find out about your plan and have you brought up before the hospital disciplinary board before you get a chance to tickle them all.

that night, the kids have a nurse sit there with them, all night to make sure you haven't got an accomplice that the kids don't know about that will carry out the tickling in your absence.



we can do silly similies all day but it doesn't really relate the problem any better.





i agree with you that the radical muslim terrorists do indeed ultimately aim to destrroy our way of life and install their way of life in its place.



imo, what they 'achieved' last week was not even a minute move towards that objective.



as long as the airport security goes back to a similar level to that previous to last thursday, i'm happy with the extra temporary security precautions.





i'm sorry mike, but i'm far more of the opinion that killing four thousand people would make a much bigger difference to our way of life than stopping the attack and putting up with some (perhaps overzealous) security precautions for a few days has.





cole. x


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete

artindoril


member


Total posts: 117
Posted: Written by: Doc Lightning


Another quote to illustrate the points I've made:
 Written by: BBC

"The goal of these terrorists and extremists is not just to kill but also to disrupt the economic life of Britain," Ryanair's chief executive Michael O'Leary said.



And yet they've managed to do just that without having to kill a single soul.



I have to point something out there, it was Ryanairs chief exec who said that, and hmmm isn't ryanair one of those that's been financially crippled by these securtiy increases. With numerous of its flights being cancelled and so refunds or replacement seats being given.

So of course he's going to have this view, and whilst yes they may well have damaged the economy of the uk, you have to bear in mind that the quote you provided is going to be highly bias. Especially when the estimated damage to the airline industry is of the order of 30 million.

The main thing is that whilst it may have damaged the economy, and economy can always bounce back. However, it wouldn't be possible to replace the lives of the thousands that would have died if this plot had been allowed to go ahead unhindered.

Surely it is better to go on with our normal lives hindered by increased security and restrictions, than for thousands to die at the hands of these killers?


Delete

coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002

coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kin...

Total posts: 7330
Posted: Written by: artindoril


The main thing is that whilst it may have damaged the economy, and economy can always bounce back. However, it wouldn't be possible to replace the lives of the thousands that would have died if this plot had been allowed to go ahead unhindered.

Surely it is better to go on with our normal lives hindered by increased security and restrictions, than for thousands to die at the hands of these killers?



hear, hear clap


cole. x


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete

mcp
PLATINUM Member since May 2003

mcp

Flying Water Muppet
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom

Total posts: 5276
Posted: Written by: coleman


i agree with you that the radical muslim terrorists do indeed ultimately aim to destroy our way of life and install their way of life in its place.
cole. x



Is that what they really want to do? I thought they just wanted to get the western world to stop interfering in israel / the middle east / whereever they come from.

nobody likes people interfering with them.


"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.

Delete

Birgit
BRONZE Member since Jan 2005

Birgit

had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)

Total posts: 4145
Posted:by the way, they've slackened it again. You can take 1 small bag now (laptop-size), electronic stuff has to be scanned separately and they're still strict on liquids.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4793175.stm
br>


Though I'm still not getting the baby food tasting. Surely if you're willing to blow up yourself, your baby and a few hundred other people you wouldn't mind having stomach cramps while doing so?


"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)

Owner of Dragosani's left half

Delete

coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002

coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kin...

Total posts: 7330
Posted: Written by: mcp


 Written by: coleman


i agree with you that the radical muslim terrorists do indeed ultimately aim to destroy our way of life and install their way of life in its place.
cole. x



Is that what they really want to do? I thought they just wanted to get the western world to stop interfering in israel / the middle east / whereever they come from.

nobody likes people interfering with them.



this is true - let me explain myself a bit better...

take al-qaeda for example.
they seem to be aimed at ending non-muslim 'interference' in muslim countries.
so where does this mission end?
and how do we tell the difference between 'a country resided in by muslims' and 'a muslim country'?

a while back, the u.s. department of defence defined al-qaeda thusly:

"Al Qaeda is a radical Sunni Muslim umbrella organization established to recruit young Muslims into the Afghani Mujahideen and is aimed to establish Islamist states throughout the world, overthrow un-Islamic regimes expel US soldiers and Western influence from the Gulf, and capture Jerusalem as a Muslim city."

that pretty much agrees with what i said, but looking a little closer, we can see how this kind of influence is spreading into our muslim communites.

the general concensus is that british born muslims turned radical must have extremely strong objections to their nation's foreign policy with respect to the islamic nations.
this faction is a tiny minority of the muslim communites (we hope).

however, the support for implementing sharia law in muslim communities is pretty large (around 40% iirc).
this is a law system that supports punishments like stoning and amputation?!
and of course, the laws of islam would be considred to be of the highest order and hence, the laws of the nation would come secondary to them.
a move like implementing sharia law in a british muslim community would massively exacerbate racial tension and would further alienate the communities from the rest of the country, leading to increased radicalism.

so, i would say that its not at all unfair to say that the extremist terrorists are ultimately aiming to destroy our way of life and install their preferred way of life here instead shrug


cole. x


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete

mcp
PLATINUM Member since May 2003

mcp

Flying Water Muppet
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom

Total posts: 5276
Posted:to be fair, if the penalty for stealing was getting a hand cut off, you wouldn't see me stealing traffic cones.

If muslim communities are successful and take over britain, that's fine by me. Some cultures are some successful than others, that's just what happens.

If they want to implement their own law system, that'll be an interesting legal tangle for them. Maybe locking somebody up for many years is just as horrendous and intolerable for them as cutting off body parts is for us. Long term prisoners have huge problems living in the outside world again.

As long as it's within their own communities and not enforced outside that, I'm fine with it. Just like with foreign countries. Sure it might be isolating. But it's probably of considerable importance to them.

I think racial tension is increased by only one thing: that you can distinguish them as different from us (very easily.) We have loads of polish people here in edinburgh, but their is no racial hatred or violence or even bigoted remarks, but polish people look like us. Hell I didn't even know we had lots of polish people.


"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.

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted: Written by: coleman


tell us what you think the 'right' course of action would have been in these circumstances.




1) Find them
2) Temporarily ban gels and liquids if they were still concerned
3) DO NOT cancel significant percentages of flights, or all carry-on baggage
4) DO NOT run around screaming that it's going to happen definately to the flying public.

 Written by: coleman


1) they found no explosives because the security measures were totally successful in making an attack on an inflight airliner impossible
2) no planes went down because the security checks made it impossible for anyone to get a bomb onboard so no-one bothered to try



Incorrect. 1) They found no explosives because the people planning to attack the airliners had been arrested. 2) No planes went down because the people planning to do so were in jail. 3) And anyone who hadn't been caught knew the gig was up.

 Written by:

as long as the airport security goes back to a similar level to that previous to last thursday, i'm happy with the extra temporary security precautions.



That's just it. The head of security in the UK wanted to make the carry-on baggage ban permanent. They still haven't allowed gels and liquids on board. Jaykitty's girlfriend's brother wasn't allowed to bring on anti-itch cream for a rather severe case of poison ivy he had on a flight and so he had to sit there miserable. It'll be YEARS until they allow this again.

 Written by:


i'm sorry mike, but i'm far more of the opinion that killing four thousand people would make a much bigger difference to our way of life than stopping the attack and putting up with some (perhaps overzealous) security precautions for a few days has.



I guess the fundamental difference between you and I is that I draw the line at "99.9999% without disrupting our way of life is safe for me" but you want 100%.

And I'll never be able to talk you out of it.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002

coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kin...

Total posts: 7330
Posted: Written by: mcp


to be fair, if the penalty for stealing was getting a hand cut off, you wouldn't see me stealing traffic cones.



move to iran then tongue

 Written by: mentalmeg


If muslim communities are successful and take over britain, that's fine by me. Some cultures are some successful than others, that's just what happens.



what?
if the terrorists achieve their aim and totally radicalise asnd segregate the islamic people of our nation, to the point of them serving different laws and only interacting with other muslims that's fine by you?!

we have a fundamental disagreement here.
i believe in embracing ethnic diversity within a society but i whole-heartedly disagree with any ideas within that ethos that lead to segregation and separatism.

implementing sharia law 'only within the communities' wouldn't work at all - not when the law of the community and the law of the nation disagree over such fundamental things as punishment suitable for the worst crimes (rape, murder).

 Written by: meg


I think racial tension is increased by only one thing: that you can distinguish them as different from us (very easily.) We have loads of polish people here in edinburgh, but their is no racial hatred or violence or even bigoted remarks, but polish people look like us. Hell I didn't even know we had lots of polish people.



over-simplification on a massive scale there mate.
poles live in almost exactly the same way as we do when they come to this country.
british muslims have a very different way of life to say their jewish, christian or atheist neighbours.
there are also no polish extremeists attempting to bomb civilian targets in the name of their god - i'd say people would soon start noticing them if that happened...


cole. x


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted: Written by: mcp


If muslim communities are successful and take over britain, that's fine by me. Some cultures are some successful than others, that's just what happens.

If they want to implement their own law system, that'll be an interesting legal tangle for them. Maybe locking somebody up for many years is just as horrendous and intolerable for them as cutting off body parts is for us. Long term prisoners have huge problems living in the outside world again.




Um. They want to KILL you.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

mcp
PLATINUM Member since May 2003

mcp

Flying Water Muppet
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom

Total posts: 5276
Posted: Written by: coleman


 Written by: mcp


to be fair, if the penalty for stealing was getting a hand cut off, you wouldn't see me stealing traffic cones.



move to iran then tongue




pointless remark there, thanks.

 Written by: coleman


 Written by: mentalmeg


If muslim communities are successful and take over britain, that's fine by me. Some cultures are some successful than others, that's just what happens.



what?
if the terrorists achieve their aim and totally radicalise asnd segregate the islamic people of our nation, to the point of them serving different laws and only interacting with other muslims that's fine by you?!




I meant normal muslim communities. Like all this talk of muslim kids working harder in schools and such like, then going on to become highly successful. It's only natural.

If normal muslim communities want to change their opinions radically because of a bunch of propaganda, then I don't see why not. I can't stop people voting labour or conservative for example, no matter if I think there might be dire and nasty consequences of doing so. Y'know like kicking out asylum seekers and stuff, or keeping htem in detention camps.

 Written by: coleman


we have a fundamental disagreement here.
i believe in embracing ethnic diversity within a society but i whole-heartedly disagree with any ideas within that ethos that lead to segregation and separatism.

implementing sharia law 'only within the communities' wouldn't work at all - not when the law of the community and the law of the nation disagree over such fundamental things as punishment suitable for the worst crimes (rape, murder).




We make it work between countries already? Other countries have different lawas from us. Someday we're going to have to understand that we all live on the same planet, and it's not naturally broken into these nations. Tekran is already segrageted and seperated from us. Big deal. But suddenly it is if a small group in our own 'country' is segregated from the 'larger' community of britain? Goths are less culturally different to me than muslims, but I don't care if they segregate themselves. It's their choice. You can force people to keep in your community. (Unless your american and fight a civil war to keep the south.)

 Written by: coleman


over-simplification on a massive scale there mate.
poles live in almost exactly the same way as we do when they come to this country.
british muslims have a very different way of life to say their jewish, christian or atheist neighbours.
there are also no polish extremeists attempting to bomb civilian targets in the name of their god - i'd say people would soon start noticing them if that happened...




yeah and it was really enjoyable. Muslims do have a different way of life. But the IRA bombings didn't make me hate and detest irish people and to shun them at every occasion, force them out of jobs and into segregated communities and generally abuse them.

Plus muslims aren't that different, it's only that they have different hair styles, different clothes, different names and are generally very religious. And sometimes none of the above. Obviously they have a tendency to want to live in muslim communities, but real physical communities are so few and far between in modern britain, that I can't begrudge them that. Not much more different than a new age hippy. Or a rational athetist. Or a scientologist. (thou I would shun them) Granted none of them are trying to bomb us, but we're not interfering in their religious homelands...


"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.

Delete

Kieron
GOLD Member since Jul 2005

Member
Location: , United Kingdom

Total posts: 232
Posted:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4796199.stm
br>
"Boy boards plane without tickets
An investigation has been launched after a 12-year-old boy managed to board a plane at Gatwick without tickets during the security alert.

The boy, reported to be from Penrith in Cumbria, but thought to have run away from a care home in Birkenhead, Merseyside, was heading to Lisbon.

He was discovered on Monday's 0600 BST Monarch flight before it took off.

Security officers and Sussex Police were informed after cabin crew found the boy on the plane.

A statement from Gatwick Airport said although the child had passed through a full security screening process, it was "confident that there was no threat to passengers, staff or the aircraft at any time".

"A full investigation is now under way," it said. "

Highly effective security measures.


"I'm quite good at darts, though i often miss" - Kylie

"I'm not a bad driver, I just panic when theres other cars around" - Sarah

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted:There we go. Great security procedures there. 12-year-old boy got through.



See, you have to balance the effectiveness of security (pretty low) against the cost (pretty high...and I don't just mean money).



Cole, our fundamental difference of opinion is that you view it as a victory for the terrorists if they blow up a plane. I view it as a victory for the terrorists if they get us to...well...do what we did.



EDIT:

Oh wow...this is rich! According to the New York Times today, guess what the terrorists were planning on disguising the explosives as?



BABY FORMULA. In fact, a married terrorist couple was planning on bringing their 6mo baby onboard to complete the disguise. How sweet. Family suicide terrorism.
Non-Https Image Link




Either way, very few chemicals are so toxic that simply tasting them will cause significant poisoning. A bit of a bellyache maybe, but how important is that when you're about to blow yourself to bits?



And so all these restrictions would have accomplished... NOTHING!

EDITED_BY: Doc Lightning (1155677181)


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Total posts: 607
Posted:Deregulate the airline industry and get the government bureaucracy out of the airport security business. What we need is to let people decide on how much freedom and convenience they are willing to exchange for security, and what sort of security measures they think are appropriate. Some will fly on the airline that makes everyone leave all personal items behind, including clothes, and fly with nothing other than coveralls that will be provided at the airport. Others will fly on the airline that allows you to carry anything you want on board, but has twelve heavily armed guards scattered about the plane and racially profiles their passengers.

If a plane gets highjacked and people are killed, the airline can get sued and go out of business. A free market is pretty good at finding the place where the needs of all parties intersect. Simply giving airlines the freedom to offer different, innovative security options to their passengers will allow the fittest to survive... and we will reach a much better balance than can be invented by the federal government.


Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted:Actually, Patriarch, that's not a terrible idea.

Problem is that then every airline would need its own screeners and set-up.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

Kyrian


Dreamer
Location: York, England

Total posts: 4308
Posted:Yeah, thats a rub. The only problem I have with that is that an airline with insufficient security measures poses a distinct threat to other people (9/11). Anyone who chooses to get on that flight is taking the risk, thats fine. But the people in the office building (or whatever) arn't really choosing the risk. If we could figure out how to do away with that problem (and the seperate security checks) it'd be cool tho.

But actually in most countries it'd be pretty easy to implement. Prior to this incident, only america and israel seemed to have particuarly restrictive secuirty. In fact, we had to deplane in buenos aires when i was flying back to the US (from uruguay) just so they could inspect the plane and all of our stuff a second time even if we had been on the flight from the begining (what a pain!).


Keep your dream alive
Dreamin is still how the strong survive

Shalom VeAhavah

New Hampshire has a point....

Delete

coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002

coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kin...

Total posts: 7330
Posted: Written by: mcp


 Written by: coleman


 Written by: mcp


to be fair, if the penalty for stealing was getting a hand cut off, you wouldn't see me stealing traffic cones.


move to iran then tongue



pointless remark there, thanks.




you're welcome - it was a retort to your totally pointless comment shrug

maybe it would have been more pertinent to show your comment as pointless by pointing out that under sharia law you wouldn't be stealing traffic cones because:
a) you wouldn't be able to drink alcohol (and everyone knows that only drunks steal traffic cones)
b) you wouldn't have time to steal it because you are female and as such, you would be tasked with looking after the household and your family on top of whatever job you may wish to do.

 Written by: meg


 Written by: coleman


we have a fundamental disagreement here.
i believe in embracing ethnic diversity within a society but i whole-heartedly disagree with any ideas within that ethos that lead to segregation and separatism.

implementing sharia law 'only within the communities' wouldn't work at all - not when the law of the community and the law of the nation disagree over such fundamental things as punishment suitable for the worst crimes (rape, murder).




We make it work between countries already? Other countries have different lawas from us. Someday we're going to have to understand that we all live on the same planet, and it's not naturally broken into these nations. Tekran is already segrageted and seperated from us. Big deal. But suddenly it is if a small group in our own 'country' is segregated from the 'larger' community of britain? Goths are less culturally different to me than muslims, but I don't care if they segregate themselves. It's their choice. You can force people to keep in your community. (Unless your american and fight a civil war to keep the south.)




confused
that's not the way countries work meg.

i'm guessing by 'tekran' you mean 'tehran' in iran?
yes, iran is a different country, yes they have different laws there and yes, there is already lots of segregation between countries.
but no, i do not think we "make it work between countries" very well at all and i certainly don't think that fundamentally different laws applying only to small, isolated communities within a nation is at all viable.

basically all i'm saying is: integration, yes; segregation, no.

i did read your point that one day we will all have to accept each other and live as one big happy family.
but implementing sharia law within specific areas/communities inside non-muslim states is a move *away* from that ideal.

as i said, i'm totally against segregation and even more strongly against religion bound to the state.
imo, the religious beliefs of an individual or group should not dictate their politics.

as such, the idea of the creation of segregated muslim communities within our nation, operating under a religious law over and above the law of our people as a nation is abhorrent to me.

the issue you joined the debate at was my assertion that one of the terrorists' main aims was the radicalisation of western muslim communities and the ultimate aim of a world composed solely of muslim states, a world run according only to their extremist islamic ideals.

 Written by: meg


Is that what they really want to do? I thought they just wanted to get the western world to stop interfering in israel / the middle east / whereever they come from.



yes, i still think that that is what they want to do and no, i don't think they 'just' want us to stop intefering in 'muslim affairs.


cole. x


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete

mcp
PLATINUM Member since May 2003

mcp

Flying Water Muppet
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom

Total posts: 5276
Posted:I must say I think their motives are still mostly to stop the interfering. They must know that attempting to make britain into a muslim country is a) pointless, and b) inefficient. China would be a much better target. It's got more people, and it's vaguely more likely to work. It's quite a funny idea really, didn't they notice that the crusades didn't work?

but we're never going to live as one big happy homogenous family, cos people will always be different. (it would be frankly dull if they weren't)

What I'm trying to say is that I think the segregation of muslim communities is only noticable because of the labelling that is put to them. They're really no different to me. My vaguely racist brother probably has more radically different views to me than many of these muslims as does any new age hippies. But I don't feel the need to try and reintegrate these people into the british community. Nor do I think it's imperative that we change their opinions in order to satisfy my sense of what's right.

If people want to implement sharia law, who are we to stop them? I mean, if people want to smoke recreational drugs, or engage in fetish sex, I don't and nor does the government have any particular right to stop them. Between consenting adults and all that. Obviously when it comes to cutting peoples hands off the consenting bit goes out the window. And I'm sure you could try and argue them into a less restrictive form of the law, but it would probably be like arguing with christians that the bible isn't the literal truth.

and er, stealing traffic cones isn't just fun when you're drunk, it's fun ALL the time! Dude! They're like traffic cones! My comment was pointing out that sharia law is hella effective as a deterent. Something that can't be said to be the case for our form of punishment.


"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.

Delete

coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002

coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kin...

Total posts: 7330
Posted: Written by: Doc Lightning



 Written by: coleman



tell us what you think the 'right' course of action would have been in these circumstances.







1) Find them

2) Temporarily ban gels and liquids if they were still concerned

3) DO NOT cancel significant percentages of flights, or all carry-on baggage

4) DO NOT run around screaming that it's going to happen definately to the flying public.







problem with step one:

how do you know that you've definitely found them all?



our home secretary said:



"We think we have the main suspects in this particular plot. I have to be honest and say on the basis of what we know, there could be others out there ... so the threat of a terrorist attack in the UK is still very substantial,"



when asked about the observer's claim that there are 12 other ongoing investigations of terrorist activities in the uk he said:



"I'm not going to confirm an exact number but I wouldn't deny that that would indicate the number of major conspiracies that we are trying to look at.

"There would be more which are not at the centre of our considerations and there may be more that we don't know about at all."



so, you carry out steps one to four and while the concentration of security checks is centred around gels and liquids, it becomes easier to carry out an attack using another type of innocuous device.



 Written by: Doc Lightning



 Written by: coleman



1) they found no explosives because the security measures were totally successful in making an attack on an inflight airliner impossible

2) no planes went down because the security checks made it impossible for anyone to get a bomb onboard so no-one bothered to try





Incorrect. 1) They found no explosives because the people planning to attack the airliners had been arrested. 2) No planes went down because the people planning to do so were in jail. 3) And anyone who hadn't been caught knew the gig was up.







your conclusions include the following presuppositions which may or may not be true:

1) the people arrested are the only ones that planned to attack airliners [you have absolutely no way of knowing that this assertion is even close to being true]

2) again, this conclusion requires that we know that those arrested are the only people with the capability to carry out such an attack

3) shows that you accept that there may well be others involved that have not been arrested, but that you somehow magically know that their thought process would move from 'we can carry out this attack' to 'the gig is up', and that this attitude has nothing to do with the extra checks implemented at the access point to the targets



that's a lot of assumption there sir - good job you're a doctor and not an intelligence agent wink



i hold that you cannot arrive at those conclusions with any degree of certainty.

if you disagree, i'd welcome a description of the path of reasoning that brought you to those conclusions.



 Written by: Doc Lightning



 Written by: coleman

as long as the airport security goes back to a similar level to that previous to last thursday, i'm happy with the extra temporary security precautions.





That's just it. The head of security in the UK wanted to make the carry-on baggage ban permanent. They still haven't allowed gels and liquids on board. Jaykitty's girlfriend's brother wasn't allowed to bring on anti-itch cream for a rather severe case of poison ivy he had on a flight and so he had to sit there miserable. It'll be YEARS until they allow this again.







the bit in bold (which you said is the point "that's just it") is incorrect as shown by this link to a news story issued on thursday, the day the measures were put into place:



"We hope that these measures, which are being kept under review by the government, will need to be in place for a limited period only,"



admittedly some permanent changes have been made but thankfully these seem to actually be sensible changes (like limiting hand luggage to hand luggage sized bags rather than allowing stupidly large 'hand' luggage that has everything you are travelling with in it).



 Written by: Doc Lightning



 Written by: coleman



i'm sorry mike, but i'm far more of the opinion that killing four thousand people would make a much bigger difference to our way of life than stopping the attack and putting up with some (perhaps overzealous) security precautions for a few days has.





I guess the fundamental difference between you and I is that I draw the line at "99.9999% without disrupting our way of life is safe for me" but you want 100%.



And I'll never be able to talk you out of it.





i disagree with that first bit tongue



the only way to get to 100% safety is to lock ourselves up in bunkers and never leave them.



i think you want desperately to exhibit the 'carry on with life proudly' attitude (like the one touted by the tories throughout the ira's bombing campaign in the 80's and 90's).



that's a commendable attitude but it does not require that we make absolutely no concessions to make it a little more difficult for an attack to be carried out.



i think the main difference we have is that i don't think that our way of life is defined by how detailed the search is before you use an airliner and what you can and can't take on the plane with you whereas you seem to think it is of fundamental importance to our liberty and that it indicates a gradual slide toward totalitarianism/tyrrany.





cole. x


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete

Spanner
BRONZE Member since Feb 2003

Spanner

remembers when it was all fields round here
Location: in the works... somewhere..., ...

Total posts: 2790
Posted: Written by: coleman


the bit in bold (which you said is the point "that's just it") is incorrect as shown by this link to a news story issued on thursday, the day the measures were put into place:

"We hope that these measures, which are being kept under review by the government, will need to be in place for a limited period only,"




Do you mean the head of security in transport, Cole? That statement was issued by the Department of Transport according to the news story you linked to.

Lightning's quote does, however, sound far more typical of Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, head of the UK Security Service (MI5).


"I thought you are man, but
you are nice woman.

yay,

:R"

Delete

coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002

coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kin...

Total posts: 7330
Posted:fair enough.



mine was a quote from the uk government saying that they hoped the additional security measures at airports would not be permanent.



show me where the head of mi5 (or the scotland yard gov'nor would do) said they wanted to permanently ban hand luggage and i'll happily concede that point ubbangel



ultimately, is it not the government and baa who decide on the level of security regarding british air travel?



the government expressed immediately that they hoped the measures would be temporary and baa have stated that the security checks, as they stood last thursday, were unsustainable for any significant length of time...





cole. x


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete

Spanner
BRONZE Member since Feb 2003

Spanner

remembers when it was all fields round here
Location: in the works... somewhere..., ...

Total posts: 2790
Posted: Written by:

show me where the head of mi5 (or the scotland yard gov'nor would do) said they wanted to permanently ban hand luggage and i'll happily concede that point ubbangel



I'm not prompting you to - I'm just asking for clarification smile

 Written by:

ultimately, is it not the government and baa who decide on the level of security regarding british air travel?



As far as I'm aware, BAA only owns and operates some UK airports, so it can only comply with requirements in law and any others they choose to add in contingency plans for their own sites, only as much as any other airport company can for their own.

So it is ultimately the Secretary of State for Transport who decides on the level of that security, but that role is vastly different from that of the head of security in the UK as Lightning indicated.


"I thought you are man, but
you are nice woman.

yay,

:R"

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted: Written by: the tall skinny blonde dude with the funny accent

i think you want desperately to exhibit the 'carry on with life proudly' attitude (like the one touted by the tories throughout the ira's bombing campaign in the 80's and 90's).

that's a commendable attitude but it does not require that we make absolutely no concessions to make it a little more difficult for an attack to be carried out.

i think the main difference we have is that i don't think that our way of life is defined by how detailed the search is before you use an airliner and what you can and can't take on the plane with you whereas you seem to think it is of fundamental importance to our liberty and that it indicates a gradual slide toward totalitarianism/tyrrany.



Neither. I never mentioned "totalitarianism/tyrrany" or anything like with respect to AIRPORT searches. Because airports are not public space and flight is not a fundamental right, the government would have the legal right to make you bend over backwards, scratch your calves, and kiss John Howard's left buttcheek before boarding an airliner if the whim caught them.

HOWEVER, my point is that this reaction is one of fear, ignorance, and self-destruction. Britain's economy will take weeks to months to recover from the damage done by this, and it wasn't even an attack.

Mark my words: A SUCCESSFUL TERRORIST ATTACK WILL HIT EUROPE AGAIN WITHIN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. How the target country responds to it is key. Does it declare martial law and stop all travel in and out and shut down? Or does it pick up the pieces, try to find the responsible parties, and step up intelligence to stop these plots in their inception (as was done in this case)?

There is a happy medium between this sort of over-reaction and doing nothing at all. But now that I learn that the terrorists were planning on disguising the explosives as a permitted substance, 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.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002

coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kin...

Total posts: 7330
Posted: Written by: mike

I never mentioned "totalitarianism/tyrrany" or anything like with respect to AIRPORT searches.





oooooooh, i see now now - i must have just misunderstood you when you said:



 Written by: Doc Lightning



as long as people are willing to tolerate this sort of thing in the name of "safety" then our rights will continue to erode until we come to a point where you can be stopped on the street, searched, and dragged into custody without trial, perhaps even executed, all because someone thought you looked funny.





 Written by: Doc Lightning



Every time one of these things happen they slowly chip away at our rights just a little more. In 50 years at this rate, our societies will resemble no police state to date; they'll be far more draconian. And the terrorists will still be able to figure ways around it.





and WHEN I CHALLENGED THESE POINTS you said:



 Written by: Doc Lightning



Oh no, I stand by this one.



Suddenly in our country it's OK to hold people, even American Citizens, without trial, bond, or charges. It's OK to randomly search people in public spaces (the subway). It's OK for the government to keep track of who is checking out which books from the library.



None of this was OK on Sept. 10 2001. And every time something like this happens they come up with another "it's OK to..."



We'll talk about this in another 10 years, Cole. If talking is still OK then.





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.



for what feels like the 20th time:


the airport security measures were temporary

we can say with no certainty whatsoever whether the security measures were excessive or not, because we have no access to the details regarding the planned attack(s).







i'll have another go at summing up our disagreement doc (cos its quite fun smile ):



i think an important reason that the british don't over-react to measures like those put in place last thursday is that we have seen this type of thing happen many, many times before.



we generally trust that those in charge make the decisions they do because they have access to information that supports the additional security at airports following the arrests.



when mi5, the police, the government and baa agree on a course of action, the people don't immediately assume that it is unnecessary and shout and scream about the eroding of our liberty and our rights.





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'.





imo, the fact that you are making huge assumptions, without even a tiny portion of the facts surrounding the issue, and then procliaming (based on those assumptions) that you know, that the best way to have dealt with the immediate threat to the security of our nation last thursday, was not the one chosen by our security services - that is disgusting.





cole. x


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete

simian


simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London

Total posts: 3149
Posted:i reckon that the way the threat to our security was dealt with was a bit rubbish though.

TATP is a ridiculous explosive to try and take a plane down with. Particularly if you're attempting to mix it on the plane. Totally unworkable. I've no doubt these guys were planning to do it, but think their chances of success were extremely low from the get go.

why were such rigorous precautions being taken for liquids? (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 to mix would almost certainly create a "violent reaction" but no explosion. Possibly enough to kill one stupid terrorist and maybe break a window.)

and none for stuff that looks like sugar? (TATP in it's final, and highly volatile, form.)

although possibly they've enough security on stuff that looks like sugar already...

why does every new terrorist plot immediately cause a total change in security policy?Surely that's madness and totally ignores the larger picture?

And why the hell does it matter what is brought on as hand luggage? Can't you detonate stuff in the hold just as easily with a mobile phone? Of course you could.

I don't understand the response on any level other than wanting to look like they're doing something.


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

Page: 1...34567

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..