Forums > Social Discussion > Airport Security Tightens, UK 10/08/06
Login/Join to ParticipateGOLD Member
What a Bummer
3,224 posts
Location: Shatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
What a Bummer
3,224 posts
Location: Shatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
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:
Thoughts anyone?
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 today’s 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?
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
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.
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.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
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
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
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
member
37 posts
37 posts
Posted:
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
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
did i leave the iron on?
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
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".
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".
110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
3,149 posts
Location: London
3,149 posts
Location: London
Posted:
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)
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)
"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
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
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 see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
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.
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. SILVER Member
old hand
853 posts
Location: Behind you...
old hand
853 posts
Location: Behind you...
Posted:
Written by: simianWritten 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
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
That damn TSA is getting all facist again.
That damn TSA is getting all facist again.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
SILVER Member
old hand
853 posts
Location: Behind you...
old hand
853 posts
Location: Behind you...
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.
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.
Idolized by Aurinoko
Take me disappearing through the smoke rings of my mind....
Bob Dylan
SILVER Member
15,417 posts
Location: South Wales
15,417 posts
Location: South Wales
Posted:
Usually either drugs or explosives, not both.
(I've wanted to know that for aaages
)
Usually either drugs or explosives, not both.
(I've wanted to know that for aaages
) BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
Speaking of paranoia
Speaking of paranoia
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Oh wow that's awful. He reminds me of an orthopedics resident I work with.
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
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
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.
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.
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
at which airpoets stout...?
https://www.baa.com/
cole. x
at which airpoets stout...?
https://www.baa.com/
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
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.
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.
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
Got it. You are allowed to put explosives in your bra as it would be a civil right infringement not to let you.
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.]
member
117 posts
117 posts
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.
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.
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
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
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
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
SILVER Member
(...trusty steed of the rodeo midget...)
403 posts
Location: the state of flux, Ireland
(...trusty steed of the rodeo midget...)
403 posts
Location: the state of flux, Ireland
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.
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.
SILVER Member
(...trusty steed of the rodeo midget...)
403 posts
Location: the state of flux, Ireland
(...trusty steed of the rodeo midget...)
403 posts
Location: the state of flux, Ireland
Posted:
theyre hered
sdat
afa80
theyre hered
sdat
afa80
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
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
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
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
PLATINUM Member
Flying Water Muppet
5,276 posts
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom
Flying Water Muppet
5,276 posts
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom
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.
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.
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
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!):
https://www.itv.com/news/britain_6a475d1bf0931a78b4121c3bface38fa.html
cole. x
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!):
https://www.itv.com/news/britain_6a475d1bf0931a78b4121c3bface38fa.html
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
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: colemanWritten 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
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
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
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
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Cole - I like to question the coincidence in the event that such substance has been found dumped, shortly AFTER the measure was inplemented.
To carry explosive liquids is not a new idea, it simply has never been used - maybe for a reason. People carry liquified drugs over the borders every day, so what's the big news?
All this is due to insurance companies, nothing more/ less. Airliners are expensive and ALL NECESSARY MEANS have to be taken in order to avoid claims.
You wanna attack an airliner? How simple. Just get yourself a "Stinger" or any ground-air missile and you will not have to worry about "tightened airport security"... fire and forget...
But maybe the western brainwashing propaganda thingy "yes, this 'war on terrorism' is serious and we're producing results: the world is getting safer" simply works well... wonder who's winning the next election with what kind of arguments...
Cole - I like to question the coincidence in the event that such substance has been found dumped, shortly AFTER the measure was inplemented.
To carry explosive liquids is not a new idea, it simply has never been used - maybe for a reason. People carry liquified drugs over the borders every day, so what's the big news?
All this is due to insurance companies, nothing more/ less. Airliners are expensive and ALL NECESSARY MEANS have to be taken in order to avoid claims.
You wanna attack an airliner? How simple. Just get yourself a "Stinger" or any ground-air missile and you will not have to worry about "tightened airport security"... fire and forget...
But maybe the western brainwashing propaganda thingy "yes, this 'war on terrorism' is serious and we're producing results: the world is getting safer" simply works well... wonder who's winning the next election with what kind of arguments...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
yep, its that simple tom.
they sell surface to air missiles in supermarkets nowdays and the intelligence services don't even bother stopping you to ask ask what you're planning to use it for
i don't believe that "all this is due to insurance companies".
whether or not i agree with the measures is irrelevant - i think they were put in place for several reasons:
1. to allay the fears of foreign countries receiving flights from the uk
2. as a preventative measure to nullify the possibility that there might be cell members that had not been apprehended and were considering attempting to carry out the attack as planned
3. to pacify the moral majority who, if no measures had been put in place and an attack had occurred, would have condemned those in charge for 'doing absolutely nothing' to protect the public despite all the intelligence they had gathered suggesting that an attack of that specific nature was immenent.
look how many people knew 9/11 was going to happen but did nothing to prevent it:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=911+knew&btnG=Search&meta=
cole. x
Written by: FireTom
You wanna attack an airliner? How simple. Just get yourself a "Stinger" or any ground-air missile and you will not have to worry about "tightened airport security"... fire and forget...
yep, its that simple tom.
they sell surface to air missiles in supermarkets nowdays and the intelligence services don't even bother stopping you to ask ask what you're planning to use it for
i don't believe that "all this is due to insurance companies".
whether or not i agree with the measures is irrelevant - i think they were put in place for several reasons:
1. to allay the fears of foreign countries receiving flights from the uk
2. as a preventative measure to nullify the possibility that there might be cell members that had not been apprehended and were considering attempting to carry out the attack as planned
3. to pacify the moral majority who, if no measures had been put in place and an attack had occurred, would have condemned those in charge for 'doing absolutely nothing' to protect the public despite all the intelligence they had gathered suggesting that an attack of that specific nature was immenent.
look how many people knew 9/11 was going to happen but did nothing to prevent it:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=911+knew&btnG=Search&meta=
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
1) they usually don't sell C4 or NitroGlycerin over the counter either
2) IF you have been to an international airport in, for say Goa, or let's name Georgia, or maybe let's take Cabo Verde and take a flight to Europe - THEN fear is adequate, due to very lax security... There are NO de facto international standards, except for monitoring. BEHIND the monitors are PEOPLE, who decide what they regard as suspicious and what not.
Therefore your nailclippers certainly go bust at JFK, but most likely NOT in DEL
What you take into consideration to be likely and what not is a matter of taking a look at the world. "Object may be closer than they appear" has been placed into rear mirrors because of....? Another example "Do not attempt to dry your pet in this microwave oven"... do you think "they" are woried even an inch over your pet? IMHO they are simply not keen to pay a $ 10O.000 compensation, because they HAVEN'T mentionend it... hence they knew... "common sense" you may claim... don't.
But what the *&%$§ do I know, anyways?
Cole, I do not even know whether those "cell members" have been/ are not (in)directly linked to the CIA... Do you believe, all ties of CIA to extremist (terrorist) cells have got cut, because and after 9/11?
1) they usually don't sell C4 or NitroGlycerin over the counter either
2) IF you have been to an international airport in, for say Goa, or let's name Georgia, or maybe let's take Cabo Verde and take a flight to Europe - THEN fear is adequate, due to very lax security... There are NO de facto international standards, except for monitoring. BEHIND the monitors are PEOPLE, who decide what they regard as suspicious and what not.
Therefore your nailclippers certainly go bust at JFK, but most likely NOT in DEL
What you take into consideration to be likely and what not
is a matter of taking a look at the world. "Object may be closer than they appear" has been placed into rear mirrors because of....? Another example "Do not attempt to dry your pet in this microwave oven"... do you think "they" are woried even an inch over your pet? IMHO they are simply not keen to pay a $ 10O.000 compensation, because they HAVEN'T mentionend it... hence they knew... "common sense" you may claim... don't.But what the *&%$§ do I know, anyways?
Cole, I do not even know whether those "cell members" have been/ are not (in)directly linked to the CIA... Do you believe, all ties of CIA to extremist (terrorist) cells have got cut, because and after 9/11?
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
Written by: FireTom
To carry explosive liquids is not a new idea, it simply has never been used - maybe for a reason. People carry liquified drugs over the borders every day, so what's the big news?
Actually, liquid explosives have been used in just this type of scenario.
And, Coleman's mention of finding dumped liquid explosives has caused me to rethink my opinion on airport security. I still don't like it, but I'm willing to endure it as a necessary evil.
© 1998 - 2025 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com