if london airports make this the rule then that is their perogative.that's their rule, if they say you can't wear trainers like some clubs do,well that is their right and you would wear the appropriate attire when travelling.
if you need to go to argentina,well it may be bit of an inconvienience but find another airport where the rules suit you better and you don't have to go through an x-ray machine saving you loads of time,like paris or wherever.
[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.
But... don't you realise how utterly ridiculous your statement is? Completely ignoring the fact that your suggestion doesn't actually border on fascism - it actually IS fascism - it's entirely illogical to say that people who haven't already GOT a criminal record won't get one in the future, ergo they need to be searched when boarding an enclosed space which, by its very nature is always going to be a target for people wanting to make a political statement. How many of the people who flew planes into the World Trade Centre had criminal records before getting on the planes, do you think? Or should they have been subjected to a different search policy because they were Arabic-looking, and therefore more likely to commit the criminal act of flying a plane into a building?
[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.
But... don't you realise how utterly ridiculous your statement is? Completely ignoring the fact that your suggestion doesn't actually border on fascism - it actually IS fascism - it's entirely illogical to say that people who haven't already GOT a criminal record won't get one in the future, ergo they need to be searched when boarding an enclosed space which, by its very nature is always going to be a target for people wanting to make a political statement. How many of the people who flew planes into the World Trade Centre had criminal records before getting on the planes, do you think? Or should they have been subjected to a different search policy because they were Arabic-looking, and therefore more likely to commit the criminal act of flying a plane into a building?
You are taking this totally out of context. How can you say that my opinions are fascist?
There is a difference between making a separation of people based on their race, and separating criminals from non-criminals.
If you want to discuss this then do so without slurring my character - out of order there Leroy.
I'm simply saying that ordinary citizens should not be treated like criminals.
And regarding race: if anyone is racist then it's the whole passport checking process. Treatment of non-EU citizens in some airports is well over the top.
Not in the slightest. You are suggesting that you, and anyone else without a criminal record, should not be subject to security checks on planes because, up until this moment, you either haven't committed a criminal offence, or haven't been caught committing one. Other members of society, because they don't fit into your narrow-minded views of what constitutes acceptable behaviour, should be subjected to security checks, and have their journeys delayed as a result.
Take a look at any article detailing the dogma of fascism... read it carefully, and then come back and tell me that what you've postulated isn't fascist.
Don't you understand? The ridiuclousness of what you're saying is not in the sentiment (people shouldn't be delayed unnecessarily when going about their daily business), but in the complete impossibility of actually enforcing that by not subjecting people with no criminal record to searches when boarding aircraft. I say again to you - what would you do about the 20-odd arabs who boarded planes in the US and blew up the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon - presumably without criminal records? What about people who have their bags tampered with without their knowledge?
What you're suggesting is utterly ludicrous - it deserves a ludicrous response!
[cite]Posted By: jimmymelrose[/cite]This is a typical response these days:
'Find another airport'
'Travel by another means'
It is not their right to tell me what I can wear or do. I is my right to do as I please (within the law).
Are you seriously suggesting that I should be forced to travel to Paris to get a plane if I live in London or Lyon?
Anyway, who's talking about clubs and trainers?
I'm pretty sure it is their right to dictate under what terms you can use their plane. I really don't get why this is so hard to understand.
They make the rules, you follow them or make alternative arrangments.
I'm not saying what they do is right, needed or fair, however it is what they are choosing to do, if all those checks mean there is even a 1% chance of something happening to my plane then I'm happy to do it.
Is there any point to the scanners being so strong at airports? I'm serious. Why is it that you can buy razorblades in the shops at Duty Free, but you can't bring them through the scanners. I've heard anecdotal evidence of airports selling banned bottles of spirits to raise money for charity. If they weren't safe enough to take through security, then why are they safe enough to sell on to punters? And if people are able to put bad things into unopened bottles and jars, we should be worried about more than airport security.
Also, bring back bins in train stations - the IRA are gone and the stations are heavily supervised anyway, it doesn't really affect safety and is just a nuiscance that might result in littering.
Agree with Leroy, by the way. Bizzarre revival of a thread.
Don't see that 'reviving' a thread is bizarre. That's what 'bookmarks' are for, aren't they? You bookmark a discussion that interests you, in order to check up on it every month or so. There's no stipulated shelf-life for a thread is there?
We had another ridiculous search at the airport last week. We had to open up baby food bottles and prove they were edible by tasting them, drink a bit of the water in the baby's milk bottle etc etc. Meanwhile in another bag we had a bottle of water that they didn't notice (and that we'd forgotten about). Also they randomly select people to take off their shoes but I've learnt how to dodge being selected - it's so easy.
All sorts of possibilities exist in the duty free shops after the search.
[cite]Posted By: Ken Dunlap, security director of the International Air Transport Association[/cite]We’ve spent eight years looking for little scissors and toenail clippers. . . Perhaps the emphasis should be looking for bad people.
[cite]Posted By: Ken Dunlap, security director of the International Air Transport Association[/cite]We’ve spent eight years looking for little scissors and toenail clippers. . . Perhaps the emphasis should be looking for bad people.
[cite]Posted By: jimmymelrose[/cite]Don't see that 'reviving' a thread is bizarre. That's what 'bookmarks' are for, aren't they? You bookmark a discussion that interests you, in order to check up on it every month or so. There's no stipulated shelf-life for a thread is there?
We had another ridiculous search at the airport last week. We had to open up baby food bottles and prove they were edible by tasting them, drink a bit of the water in the baby's milk bottle etc etc. Meanwhile in another bag we had a bottle of water that they didn't notice (and that we'd forgotten about). Also they randomly select people to take off their shoes but I've learnt how to dodge being selected - it's so easy.
All sorts of possibilities exist in the duty free shops after the search.
Airport searches are bogus.
Disgraceful. Utterly ridiculous and abhorrent that your liquids should be subjected to the same searches as everyone else on your plane. Also utterly repellent that you should be asked - at random - to (shock, horror) remove your shoes! I tell you what, that marks nothing less than the breakdown of civilised society. Good on you for 'getting one over on the man' by sneaking your bottle of highly explosive liquid (sorry - 'water') onto the plane without them catching it though - that would have shown them (had you been a terrorist intent on blowing the plane to kingdom come, like)
Anyone else think that all this 'security' nonsense on aircraft is a disgraceful impingement on our human rights? I vote that we all flat out refuse to be searched completely next time we fly. That'll show 'em.
Leroy, I happen to know that airport personal, what with their bulging Terminator style suits, semi-automatic weapons and dogs twice the size of Rob Elliot are quite sympathetic of the plight of the flyer now faces whenever he embarks on the travesty that is the security system in our country, and in fact will be quite willing to simply adhere to your requests on your arrival and wish you on a safe journey. If only it were so simple in all walks of life eh?
I know you will never be able to shift your stance now Leroy (Harry Enfield and all that), but JM does have a point.
This national hysteria the UK population has recently taken up is ludicrous, and it plays into the hands of the big brother stance taken by western Governments.
Some people will not be happy until we are caught on CCTV fifty times a day in the interests of security...
I personally don't care if I have to go through one of these scanners but I completely understand JM's point of view that we are all made to feel like criminals just for getting on a plane and subject to an incredible amount of inconvenience which is making the whole experience of travelling worse every time.
See, IMO the problem with all this is that no one in authority is prepared to address the issue of targeted searches and everyone is treated the same. We all know that the vast majority of young, muslim, men getting on planes are probably as pee'd off with the security process and situation as we are, perhaps more so, but unfortunately that is the profile for a high risk passenger. When middle aged, white, women or toddlers start trying to smuggle explosives on board maybe we'd need to rethink but at the moment, I think the question is, why are we not putting our resources into doing more to target those higher risk profiles for additional security procedures rather than adopting a 'one size fits all' approach?
[cite]Posted By: Bournemouth Addick[/cite]I personally don't care if I have to go through one of these scanners but I completely understand JM's point of view that we are all made to feel like criminals just for getting on a plane and subject to an incredible amount of inconvenience which is making the whole experience of travelling worse every time.
See, IMO the problem with all this is that no one in authority is prepared to address the issue of targeted searches and everyone is treated the same. We all know that the vast majority of young, muslim, men getting on planes are probably as pee'd off with the security process and situation as we are, perhaps more so, but unfortunately thatisthe profile for a high risk passenger. When middle aged, white, women or toddlers start trying to smuggle explosives on board maybe we'd need to rethink but at the moment, I think the question is, why are we not putting our resources into doing more to target those higher risk profiles for additional security procedures rather than adopting a 'one size fits all' approach?
You're right i suppose, but also so un-pc for saying it. Its a very difficult issue
It is very annoying but unfortunately if the powers that be didn't do this and a terrorist blew up a British flight the same people moaning about the searches would then be moaning that not enough was being done to protect them and that the powers that be are to blame. I don't really see what alternative they have at the moment.
Damned that they do, will be damned if they don't and something happens.....Human nature.
It doesn't have to be this way. Ben-Gurion is the safest airport in the world and it's in Jerusalem. How long does it take you to get through it, including check-in and everything? About 25 minutes. On average. Why? They use human security measures, making use of instinct, specialist training and profiling. You can read about it here: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1261364564590&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Leroy, what people like you fail to take into account is that just because you have no problem with a cavity search doesn't mean it doesn't make other people feel very uncomfortable. Why should I treated like a suspected murderer when I'm not one. Especially when there are other, more effective alternatives that mean I'm not stripped off by a machine, told to remove my shoes, drink my baby's milk, surrender dna or sit a lie detector test to see if i ever downloaded music illegally?
What's truly abhorrent is your attitude towards people who simply experience different emotions under these scenarios than you do. I don't think I've ever read anything so frighteningly arrogant in all my life.
You know what? Fuck it - don't bother with any of it. Let everyone on, don't search anyone. I'm sure the convenience of being able to rock up to an airport and stroll straight onto a plane five minutes before departure far outweighs the need to attempt to provide a detterent to people who are willing to blow themselves up in an effort to get their point across.
Attempting to draw a correlation between the safety of four hundred people and the recording industry's attempts to lobby government to put measures in place to prevent illegal downloading of copyright material is as utterly ludicrous as the earlier suggestion on this thread that only people with criminal records need be considered candidates for performing terrorist atrocities when boarding planes.
Some of you people need to get a poxy grip here. You're talking about a slightly longer wait whilst extra security checks are performed before you board an aircraft. It's hardly the thin end of a wedge that will lead to anal probes, EEGs, Polygraphs and mind readers every time you go on public transport. And who the fuck mentioned anything about a cavity search? We're talking about body scanners here - not some moody customs bod sticking his hand up your arris.
What 'people like you' fail to take into account is that the safety of air travellers, rather than the convenience of them, is, always has been and always HAS to be the number one priority for airlines, the BAA and those tasked with protecting their security.
And the Jerusalem airport isn't exactly the best example to give, for several reasons. What that article doesn't tell you is that there are hundreds of thousands of armed people in Jerusalem that any would be suicide bomber would have to get through before they even approached the airport, and that 'instinct, specialist training and profiling' basically means surrounding anyone in the airport who's brown and isn't wearing a skullcap with about twenty Mossad agents. What you're talking about is the age-old chestnut of 'threat profiling', so why not come out and say it? Yes, it certainly makes plenty of sense to target arabs and people from the subcontinent, doesn't it? Since the most recent nutnut was African, and the previous suicide bomber from thie country who tried to blow up a transatlantic flight was a mixed-race bloke from Bromley.
Lord have mercy this thread has some utter foolishness on it.
Actually, you know what? I've thought of a better solution! It works! It won't exactly do much for global warming (but then, of course, that's all a myth dreamed up by liberal wooly jumper wearers and runw ith by neo-conservative oligarchs intent on raking more money out of the taxpayers, so that doesn't matter)
What we do is - wait for it here, wait for it... have TWO flights to each destination every time instead of one. That way, everybody who wants to have the convenience of not being searched can board instantly - but take the chance that some loon with a brain the size of a walnut but cojones the size of watermelons will stroll on with an improvised explosive device and drop them into the mid-Atlantic. The sane, sensible people can take the inconvenience of the security measures and be safe in the knowledge that no imbecile will be likely to target them because there are other, lower-hanging fruit to pick on.
I don't agree with targetting certain races (though thanks for the assertion that I do) because as you said, it could be literally anyone. And again, it's still putting innocent people through the experience. I don't care if it means it's not me and someone else.
I wasn't attempting to draw a correlation, it was hyperbole that was meant to hint that with things like this, we are never just talking about airport security.
Suggesting that armed civilians in the city act as another form of airport security is a pretty silly thing to say. They're all on a mission to protect the airport are they? Bag checks at the cafe?
The system at the Jersusalem airport works and I'm not convinced it's because of racial profiling. If you're suggesting that it's safe because they pick just on brown people, then you're completely contradicting yourself and saying it's just brown people carrying bombs. There's several examples of them finding suspect material on people of all different 'profiles'. How open minded of you to just come and out say it's entirely race based, though. All them Jews are racists anyway, right?
Personally, I don't feel majorly aggrieved when I have to go through airport security. Maybe a little peeved at having to queue, but then again I get pissed off waiting four minutes for a bus. The difference between me and you is: just because I don't mind the invasion of security doesn't mean I can't understand people who do. You're so stuck inside your own head Leroy, being 'alpha' and all that the human race should try and emulate, that you wouldn't even dream to think that for some people the invasion is an entirely uncomfortable experience and hence their complaint. No, they're all just plebs and morons who don't have a clue. Plebs and morons who anger you to the point of an overblown rant.
[cite]Posted By: Leroy Ambrose[/cite]Actually, you know what? I've thought of a better solution! It works! It won't exactly do much for global warming (but then, of course, that's all a myth dreamed up by liberal wooly jumper wearers and runw ith by neo-conservative oligarchs intent on raking more money out of the taxpayers, so that doesn't matter)
What we do is - wait for it here, wait for it... have TWO flights to each destination every time instead of one. That way, everybody who wants to have the convenience of not being searched can board instantly - but take the chance that some loon with a brain the size of a walnut but cojones the size of watermelons will stroll on with an improvised explosive device and drop them into the mid-Atlantic. The sane, sensible people can take the inconvenience of the security measures and be safe in the knowledge that no imbecile will be likely to target them because there are other, lower-hanging fruit to pick on.
I'm a genius.
Brilliant idea Leroy. You wouldn't have to do it indefinately - I bet if you trialled it for just a couple of days, these idiots would soon change their minds when actually confronted with the responsibility for making their own decisions, rather than just moaning about those who do so professionally.
Comments
if you need to go to argentina,well it may be bit of an inconvienience but find another airport where the rules suit you better and you don't have to go through an x-ray machine saving you loads of time,like paris or wherever.
'Find another airport'
'Travel by another means'
It is not their right to tell me what I can wear or do. I is my right to do as I please (within the law).
Are you seriously suggesting that I should be forced to travel to Paris to get a plane if I live in London or Lyon?
Anyway, who's talking about clubs and trainers?
You are taking this totally out of context. How can you say that my opinions are fascist?
There is a difference between making a separation of people based on their race, and separating criminals from non-criminals.
If you want to discuss this then do so without slurring my character - out of order there Leroy.
I'm simply saying that ordinary citizens should not be treated like criminals.
And regarding race: if anyone is racist then it's the whole passport checking process. Treatment of non-EU citizens in some airports is well over the top.
Take a look at any article detailing the dogma of fascism... read it carefully, and then come back and tell me that what you've postulated isn't fascist.
Don't you understand? The ridiuclousness of what you're saying is not in the sentiment (people shouldn't be delayed unnecessarily when going about their daily business), but in the complete impossibility of actually enforcing that by not subjecting people with no criminal record to searches when boarding aircraft. I say again to you - what would you do about the 20-odd arabs who boarded planes in the US and blew up the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon - presumably without criminal records? What about people who have their bags tampered with without their knowledge?
What you're suggesting is utterly ludicrous - it deserves a ludicrous response!
I'm pretty sure it is their right to dictate under what terms you can use their plane. I really don't get why this is so hard to understand.
They make the rules, you follow them or make alternative arrangments.
I'm not saying what they do is right, needed or fair, however it is what they are choosing to do, if all those checks mean there is even a 1% chance of something happening to my plane then I'm happy to do it.
Well, so you agree that your response is ludicrous. Good.
Also, bring back bins in train stations - the IRA are gone and the stations are heavily supervised anyway, it doesn't really affect safety and is just a nuiscance that might result in littering.
Agree with Leroy, by the way. Bizzarre revival of a thread.
We had another ridiculous search at the airport last week. We had to open up baby food bottles and prove they were edible by tasting them, drink a bit of the water in the baby's milk bottle etc etc. Meanwhile in another bag we had a bottle of water that they didn't notice (and that we'd forgotten about). Also they randomly select people to take off their shoes but I've learnt how to dodge being selected - it's so easy.
All sorts of possibilities exist in the duty free shops after the search.
Airport searches are bogus.
Plane safety?
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/206031
LOL
Anyone else think that all this 'security' nonsense on aircraft is a disgraceful impingement on our human rights? I vote that we all flat out refuse to be searched completely next time we fly. That'll show 'em.
This national hysteria the UK population has recently taken up is ludicrous, and it plays into the hands of the big brother stance taken by western Governments.
Some people will not be happy until we are caught on CCTV fifty times a day in the interests of security...
Oh... hang on...
See, IMO the problem with all this is that no one in authority is prepared to address the issue of targeted searches and everyone is treated the same. We all know that the vast majority of young, muslim, men getting on planes are probably as pee'd off with the security process and situation as we are, perhaps more so, but unfortunately that is the profile for a high risk passenger. When middle aged, white, women or toddlers start trying to smuggle explosives on board maybe we'd need to rethink but at the moment, I think the question is, why are we not putting our resources into doing more to target those higher risk profiles for additional security procedures rather than adopting a 'one size fits all' approach?
You're right i suppose, but also so un-pc for saying it. Its a very difficult issue
Damned that they do, will be damned if they don't and something happens.....Human nature.
Leroy, what people like you fail to take into account is that just because you have no problem with a cavity search doesn't mean it doesn't make other people feel very uncomfortable. Why should I treated like a suspected murderer when I'm not one. Especially when there are other, more effective alternatives that mean I'm not stripped off by a machine, told to remove my shoes, drink my baby's milk, surrender dna or sit a lie detector test to see if i ever downloaded music illegally?
What's truly abhorrent is your attitude towards people who simply experience different emotions under these scenarios than you do. I don't think I've ever read anything so frighteningly arrogant in all my life.
Attempting to draw a correlation between the safety of four hundred people and the recording industry's attempts to lobby government to put measures in place to prevent illegal downloading of copyright material is as utterly ludicrous as the earlier suggestion on this thread that only people with criminal records need be considered candidates for performing terrorist atrocities when boarding planes.
Some of you people need to get a poxy grip here. You're talking about a slightly longer wait whilst extra security checks are performed before you board an aircraft. It's hardly the thin end of a wedge that will lead to anal probes, EEGs, Polygraphs and mind readers every time you go on public transport. And who the fuck mentioned anything about a cavity search? We're talking about body scanners here - not some moody customs bod sticking his hand up your arris.
What 'people like you' fail to take into account is that the safety of air travellers, rather than the convenience of them, is, always has been and always HAS to be the number one priority for airlines, the BAA and those tasked with protecting their security.
And the Jerusalem airport isn't exactly the best example to give, for several reasons. What that article doesn't tell you is that there are hundreds of thousands of armed people in Jerusalem that any would be suicide bomber would have to get through before they even approached the airport, and that 'instinct, specialist training and profiling' basically means surrounding anyone in the airport who's brown and isn't wearing a skullcap with about twenty Mossad agents. What you're talking about is the age-old chestnut of 'threat profiling', so why not come out and say it? Yes, it certainly makes plenty of sense to target arabs and people from the subcontinent, doesn't it? Since the most recent nutnut was African, and the previous suicide bomber from thie country who tried to blow up a transatlantic flight was a mixed-race bloke from Bromley.
Lord have mercy this thread has some utter foolishness on it.
What we do is - wait for it here, wait for it... have TWO flights to each destination every time instead of one. That way, everybody who wants to have the convenience of not being searched can board instantly - but take the chance that some loon with a brain the size of a walnut but cojones the size of watermelons will stroll on with an improvised explosive device and drop them into the mid-Atlantic. The sane, sensible people can take the inconvenience of the security measures and be safe in the knowledge that no imbecile will be likely to target them because there are other, lower-hanging fruit to pick on.
I'm a genius.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Air-Security-US-Reportedly-Tightens-Checks-On-Passengers-Flying-In-From-Abroad/Article/201001115513620?f=rss
I wasn't attempting to draw a correlation, it was hyperbole that was meant to hint that with things like this, we are never just talking about airport security.
Suggesting that armed civilians in the city act as another form of airport security is a pretty silly thing to say. They're all on a mission to protect the airport are they? Bag checks at the cafe?
The system at the Jersusalem airport works and I'm not convinced it's because of racial profiling. If you're suggesting that it's safe because they pick just on brown people, then you're completely contradicting yourself and saying it's just brown people carrying bombs. There's several examples of them finding suspect material on people of all different 'profiles'. How open minded of you to just come and out say it's entirely race based, though. All them Jews are racists anyway, right?
Personally, I don't feel majorly aggrieved when I have to go through airport security. Maybe a little peeved at having to queue, but then again I get pissed off waiting four minutes for a bus. The difference between me and you is: just because I don't mind the invasion of security doesn't mean I can't understand people who do. You're so stuck inside your own head Leroy, being 'alpha' and all that the human race should try and emulate, that you wouldn't even dream to think that for some people the invasion is an entirely uncomfortable experience and hence their complaint. No, they're all just plebs and morons who don't have a clue. Plebs and morons who anger you to the point of an overblown rant.
Brilliant idea Leroy. You wouldn't have to do it indefinately - I bet if you trialled it for just a couple of days, these idiots would soon change their minds when actually confronted with the responsibility for making their own decisions, rather than just moaning about those who do so professionally.