[cite]Posted By: North Lower Neil[/cite]Good thing if it stops me being blown up.
That reminds me of something that happened the other week when we broading a plane to Dublin. As the wife was putting her bag into the overhead locker she asked our daughter if she wanted her magazine now? Her words were " Do you want your Dinomite now?"
A big no from me. All these security checks really get my goat especially the confiscation of water and tasting of baby milk. It's a total joke! Innocent people are being treated like criminals.
It's as invalid an argument saying it's a fight against terrorism as the war in Iraq. If someone wants to get water on board a plane then they will. What about the delivery of all that water in the shops after the security checks. Is that all checked? Of course not because it's a money-maker for the airport.
[cite]Posted By: Carter[/cite]I don't care, if it works and means I don't have to smile and do what I'm told by a jumped up traffic warden, then great.
I always get stopped too, it drives me up the wall. I know what these checks are there for so if a naked machine can solve this then bring it on.
It's a f***ing X-ray for Christ's sake. It's a health risk.
Don't forget mobile phones, you know that banging headache you get when you been on the phone for a while? That's not your wife's lament for you. That's your brain slowly cooking.
[cite]Posted By: Carter[/cite]I don't care, if it works and means I don't have to smile and do what I'm told by a jumped up traffic warden, then great.
I always get stopped too, it drives me up the wall. I know what these checks are there for so if a naked machine can solve this then bring it on.
It's a f***ing X-ray for Christ's sake. It's a health risk.
You'd get more background radiation from a toffe crisp fella.
Personally, I couldn't give a f***. To paraphrase Kramer from Seinfeld, I'm not ashamed of my body. If people want to take a peek, my philosophy is: 'Enjoy the Show'
They say you could go through the scanner 5,000 times a year and it wouldnt affect you so unless you are doing 7 odd return flights a day for a whole year you'll be fine
[cite]Posted By: WSS[/cite]They say you could go through the scanner 5,000 times a year and it wouldnt affect you so unless you are doing 7 odd return flights a day for a whole year you'll be fine
Victoria Beckham will be f*cked then, i see a picture of her getting off a plane from somewhere almost every day
[cite]Posted By: Carter[/cite]I don't care, if it works and means I don't have to smile and do what I'm told by a jumped up traffic warden, then great.
I always get stopped too, it drives me up the wall. I know what these checks are there for so if a naked machine can solve this then bring it on.
What he said.
It will speed up the process so I'm in favour of it.
Would it be possible to pose? Wink at the camera and give it a swing?
Will be interesting for us now given Mrs Spectacle has a metal plate and 12 screws in her leg - first time we went away after her op we arrived at Gatwick armed with copies of the X Ray, medical certificates, the lot expecting to be held up, however nothing whatsoever showed up or bleeped and we strolled straight through.
[cite]Posted By: Rock Spectacle[/cite]Will be interesting for us now given Mrs Spectacle has a metal plate and 12 screws in her leg - first time we went away after her op we arrived at Gatwick armed with copies of the X Ray, medical certificates, the lot expecting to be held up, however nothing whatsoever showed up or bleeped and we strolled straight through.
Peacocks in Woolwich however...
A friend of mine has a "Prince Albert" or so he says, I've never seen the evidence and don't wish to, anyway he has to remove it before going through metal detectors at airports. On one occasion he forgot, the detector went off, the customs didn't believe his explanation and he was taken to a cubicle and strip searched.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Chris_from_Sidcup[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: WSS[/cite]They say you could go through the scanner 5,000 times a year and it wouldnt affect you so unless you are doing 7 odd return flights a day for a whole year you'll be fine[/quote]
Victoria Beckham will be f*cked then, i see a picture of her getting off a plane from somewhere almost every day[/quote]
I think that people are missing the point when saying both:
1). It will speed up the process
2). I don't mind if people look at my body.
My replies would be:
1). The process shouldn't be so slow anyway because the lengthy 'security' checks are unnecesary.
2). Irrelevant point.
My argument is that we seem to falling into a society of having to put up with anything in the name of 'security.' Anyone without a criminal record should be allowed to walk freely - no ifs or buts. I object to being treated like a criminal. By all means search those with a criminal record as it is within these ranks that you will surely find what you are looking for. The real problem is having too many criminals on the loose rather than locked up where they should be. Don't punish decent members of society on the grounds of 'security' just because the government can't get law enforcement and the legal system organised properly.
It's always a realistic alternative if you are worried about your right.
Yes it's taking away your choice, the airlines have that ability, to let you on or not let you on their planes at their own descretion. It's not like you have some kind of right to fly.
I'd much rather sit in a queue, have to take my belt of and maybe get my bag searched than get blown up.
As for the only checking those with a criminal record, when you think about it you realise how silly this would be, right...
[cite]Posted By: Stu of HU5[/cite]It's always a realistic alternative if you are worried about your right.
Yes it's taking away your choice, the airlines have that ability, to let you on or not let you on their planes at their own descretion. It's not like you have some kind ofrightto fly.
I'd much rather sit in a queue, have to take my belt of and maybe get my bag searched than get blown up.
As for the only checking those with a criminal record, when you think about it you realise how silly this would be, right...
1.What's always a realistic alternative?
2. I'd like to sit in a queue too. Unfortunately I stand for 30 minutes instead and don't just get my bag searched but have to give demonstrations that my baby is not a terrorist. Quite frankly it all 'terrorizes' the baby. Not to mention the ridiculous confiscations of minor objects. Soon they'll be asking everyone to cut their nails before confiscating the scissors (and no I'm not joking).
3. No, I don't think it's silly at all. A little impractical yes but nowhere near as silly as some of the so called justice and punishments innocent people suffer these days.
4. Of course I have a bloody right to fly. I have the right to do anything and go anywhere I please as long as it's within the law, and I should be treated as innocent until proved guilty not the opposite.
1) Ferry/Car - Yeah sure it takes longer but if all those security checks are that much of a hassle then there is an alternative.
2) Would you feel better if those checks didnt take place a ndsomeone used a pair of scissors to stab your wife in the neck, would that make that few hours a year you'd save in time?
3) What 'punishments' do innocent people exactly go through.
4) Your right to fly only extends as far as the airlines wish to allow it. Of course you have the right to go anywhere and anyhow you please, however until you've earned enough money to buy your own plane you don't have the right to fly at your own convenience under a set of rules that suit you.
The fact that I'm a law student is not really relevent is it, this has more to do with what people consider to be an invasion of their privacy and how much of an invasion each individual considers to be acceptable when weighed against the added security these invasions bring.
[cite]Posted By: Stu of HU5[/cite]1) Ferry/Car - Yeah sure it takes longer but if all those security checks are that much of a hassle then there is an alternative.
2) Would you feel better if those checks didnt take place a ndsomeone used a pair of scissors to stab your wife in the neck, would that make that few hours a year you'd save in time?
3) What 'punishments' do innocent people exactly go through.
4) Your right to fly only extends as far as the airlines wish to allow it. Of course you have the right to go anywhere and anyhow you please, however until you've earned enough money to buy your own plane you don't have the right to fly at your own convenience under a set of rules that suit you.
The fact that I'm a law student is not really relevent is it, this has more to do with what people consider to be an invasion of their privacy and how much of an invasion each individual considers to be acceptable when weighed against the added security these invasions bring.
1. Ferry? To how many places can you go by ferry? Be realistic. I could hardly go from Lyon to London by ferry for the week-end now could I? Not to mention going to Argentina every other year. What about people going on a one day business trip from England to everywhere other than Northern France , The Isle of Wight, or The Isle of Man. The list of non-ferry reaching destinations is endless. I can't believe that you are seriously persuing with this notion of an alternative means of transport.
2. We're more likely to get stabbed in the neck in any large city than on a plane. How many stabbings happen on a plane compared to an average week in London?
3. I'm referring to lack of justice. If a member of your family gets stabbed in London or gets killed by a drunk driver, then the crappy sentences given out these days is a punishment in terms of an insult to injury to the family members of the victim. If they were punished accordingly then we wouldn't need to be having this discussion in the first place.
4. But according to you I don't have the right to go ANYHOW I please (i.e. by plane) without being treated like a criminal.
5. You being a law student could be very relevant if you decide to go on and be a judge, solicitor etc especially regarding your need of explanation to point 3.
6. Please note that I am not talking about an 'invasion of privacy'. I am talking about being treated as a law abiding citizen, and treating those who aren't equally accordingly. This is clearly not happening at present.
Jimmy - I'm finding your reasoning here a little bit odd to say the least . What you;re inferring is that we've caught and convicted everyone who has or will ever commit a crime, so why should we search anyone who hasn't already got a criminal record.
[cite]Posted By: Leroy Ambrose[/cite]Jimmy - I'm finding your reasoning here a little bit odd to say the least . What you;re inferring is that we've caught and convicted everyone who has or will ever commit a crime, so why should we search anyone who hasn't already got a criminal record.
That's absolutely ridiculous.
What is ridiculous is the idea of having your whole body x-rayed if you want to take a plane.
And yes, although I admit perhaps impractical, logically speaking why would you need to search anyone without a criminal record? Their exemplary record speaks for itself and entitles them to the privilege.
As for saying 'everyone who WILL ever commit a crime' I have not said anything of the sort. Now that would be ridiculous.
Generally I disagree wholeheartedly with Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Comments
I always get stopped too, it drives me up the wall. I know what these checks are there for so if a naked machine can solve this then bring it on.
That reminds me of something that happened the other week when we broading a plane to Dublin. As the wife was putting her bag into the overhead locker she asked our daughter if she wanted her magazine now? Her words were " Do you want your Dinomite now?"
It took some explaining.
It's as invalid an argument saying it's a fight against terrorism as the war in Iraq. If someone wants to get water on board a plane then they will. What about the delivery of all that water in the shops after the security checks. Is that all checked? Of course not because it's a money-maker for the airport.
It's a f***ing X-ray for Christ's sake. It's a health risk.
Don't forget mobile phones, you know that banging headache you get when you been on the phone for a while? That's not your wife's lament for you. That's your brain slowly cooking.
Personally, I couldn't give a f***. To paraphrase Kramer from Seinfeld, I'm not ashamed of my body. If people want to take a peek, my philosophy is: 'Enjoy the Show'
Victoria Beckham will be f*cked then, i see a picture of her getting off a plane from somewhere almost every day
It will speed up the process so I'm in favour of it.
Would it be possible to pose? Wink at the camera and give it a swing?
Peacocks in Woolwich however...
A friend of mine has a "Prince Albert" or so he says, I've never seen the evidence and don't wish to, anyway he has to remove it before going through metal detectors at airports. On one occasion he forgot, the detector went off, the customs didn't believe his explanation and he was taken to a cubicle and strip searched.
My god, I suppose I should have known what to expect but there's some strange people out there.
Victoria Beckham will be f*cked then, i see a picture of her getting off a plane from somewhere almost every day[/quote]
she looks like a k'in walking X ray anyway!
Will we end up with the liberals walking through saying, 'look by all means' whilst other sections of society say 'no'.
I wonder if the 'target' group will agree to the scans? Will they say 'no' on 'religious' beliefs?
It may deter suicide bombers from attacking airports - so, what next, tube stations? Will we have x-ray checks there too?
1). It will speed up the process
2). I don't mind if people look at my body.
My replies would be:
1). The process shouldn't be so slow anyway because the lengthy 'security' checks are unnecesary.
2). Irrelevant point.
My argument is that we seem to falling into a society of having to put up with anything in the name of 'security.' Anyone without a criminal record should be allowed to walk freely - no ifs or buts. I object to being treated like a criminal. By all means search those with a criminal record as it is within these ranks that you will surely find what you are looking for. The real problem is having too many criminals on the loose rather than locked up where they should be. Don't punish decent members of society on the grounds of 'security' just because the government can't get law enforcement and the legal system organised properly.
For some trips there are not realistic alternatives.
Besides, if you're telling me 'don't fly' then you're taking away my choice.
Again, it's a case of punish the innocent to fight the criminal - the wrong approach.
Yes it's taking away your choice, the airlines have that ability, to let you on or not let you on their planes at their own descretion. It's not like you have some kind of right to fly.
I'd much rather sit in a queue, have to take my belt of and maybe get my bag searched than get blown up.
As for the only checking those with a criminal record, when you think about it you realise how silly this would be, right...
1.What's always a realistic alternative?
2. I'd like to sit in a queue too. Unfortunately I stand for 30 minutes instead and don't just get my bag searched but have to give demonstrations that my baby is not a terrorist. Quite frankly it all 'terrorizes' the baby. Not to mention the ridiculous confiscations of minor objects. Soon they'll be asking everyone to cut their nails before confiscating the scissors (and no I'm not joking).
3. No, I don't think it's silly at all. A little impractical yes but nowhere near as silly as some of the so called justice and punishments innocent people suffer these days.
4. Of course I have a bloody right to fly. I have the right to do anything and go anywhere I please as long as it's within the law, and I should be treated as innocent until proved guilty not the opposite.
And you're a law student - what hope do we have?
2) Would you feel better if those checks didnt take place a ndsomeone used a pair of scissors to stab your wife in the neck, would that make that few hours a year you'd save in time?
3) What 'punishments' do innocent people exactly go through.
4) Your right to fly only extends as far as the airlines wish to allow it. Of course you have the right to go anywhere and anyhow you please, however until you've earned enough money to buy your own plane you don't have the right to fly at your own convenience under a set of rules that suit you.
The fact that I'm a law student is not really relevent is it, this has more to do with what people consider to be an invasion of their privacy and how much of an invasion each individual considers to be acceptable when weighed against the added security these invasions bring.
1. Ferry? To how many places can you go by ferry? Be realistic. I could hardly go from Lyon to London by ferry for the week-end now could I? Not to mention going to Argentina every other year. What about people going on a one day business trip from England to everywhere other than Northern France , The Isle of Wight, or The Isle of Man. The list of non-ferry reaching destinations is endless. I can't believe that you are seriously persuing with this notion of an alternative means of transport.
2. We're more likely to get stabbed in the neck in any large city than on a plane. How many stabbings happen on a plane compared to an average week in London?
3. I'm referring to lack of justice. If a member of your family gets stabbed in London or gets killed by a drunk driver, then the crappy sentences given out these days is a punishment in terms of an insult to injury to the family members of the victim. If they were punished accordingly then we wouldn't need to be having this discussion in the first place.
4. But according to you I don't have the right to go ANYHOW I please (i.e. by plane) without being treated like a criminal.
5. You being a law student could be very relevant if you decide to go on and be a judge, solicitor etc especially regarding your need of explanation to point 3.
6. Please note that I am not talking about an 'invasion of privacy'. I am talking about being treated as a law abiding citizen, and treating those who aren't equally accordingly. This is clearly not happening at present.
That's absolutely ridiculous.
What is ridiculous is the idea of having your whole body x-rayed if you want to take a plane.
And yes, although I admit perhaps impractical, logically speaking why would you need to search anyone without a criminal record? Their exemplary record speaks for itself and entitles them to the privilege.
As for saying 'everyone who WILL ever commit a crime' I have not said anything of the sort. Now that would be ridiculous.
Generally I disagree wholeheartedly with Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.