[cite]Posted By: Floyd Montana[/cite]It doesnt have to be simply suspected Muslim profiling does it?
But how many millions of obviously innocent peopoe have been inconvenienced in every airport all around the world by these few murdering demented gits?
Why should a family with three children boarding a flight in Iquitos bound for Manaus be treated like criminals becasue of Lockerbie (the innocent man thanfully being released) or 9/11?
Rhetorical questions are nice and all, but what is your alternative?
It's the same with anything. Shops for example have barriers that scan everyone as they go out, technically treating everyone like a shoplifter even though the huge majority aren't. But it's there because there are shoplifters and there's no way of identifying who specifically is one.
Until there is a nice and simple way of identifying bad people (which there never will be) then everyone is under suspicion.
Sussex Do you really equate an inert scanner to pick up stolen goods with the humiliation and considerable inconvenience suffered by millions every day all around the world? bizarre
I botice you dont answer my question about Iquitos. Do you think its right this type of scenario is played out every day around the world?
Who has won. The two dozen suicide terrorists who have inflicted misery on countless millions? I guess you are a supporter of ID cards, a DNA database and full cavity searches for obviously innocent travellers?
[cite]Posted By: Floyd Montana[/cite]Sussex
Do you really equate an inert scanner to pick up stolen goods with the humiliation and considerable inconvenience suffered by millions every day all around the world?
bizarre
I botice you dont answer my question about Iquitos. Do you think its right this type of scenario is played out every day around the world?
Who has won. The two dozen suicide terrorists who have inflicted misery on countless millions?
I guess you are a supporter of ID cards, a DNA database and full cavity searches for obviously innocent travellers?
I guess you dont travel much?
I agree with you Floyd, but I don't think SA was condoning the scanners, but just that whatever security measures are in place must be subject to all, equally.
I agree that this must be the case, but that scanners take the security process (for all) too far.
[cite]Posted By: Floyd Montana[/cite]Sussex
Do you really equate an inert scanner to pick up stolen goods with the humiliation and considerable inconvenience suffered by millions every day all around the world?
bizarre
I botice you dont answer my question about Iquitos. Do you think its right this type of scenario is played out every day around the world?
Who has won. The two dozen suicide terrorists who have inflicted misery on countless millions?
I guess you are a supporter of ID cards, a DNA database and full cavity searches for obviously innocent travellers?
I guess you dont travel much?
OK - now I'm starting to get annoyed. 'Misery'? Are you taking the piss here? 'Misery' is what the people who lost loved ones in the World Trade Centre bombings feel. 'Misery' is what the families of fallen soldiers and innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan feel. Try and use words that are appropriate to the discussion at hand - 'inconvenience' is appropriate when discussing increased security precautions that are for the good of all air travellers. 'Misery' is not.
[cite]Posted By: Floyd Montana[/cite]Sussex
Do you really equate an inert scanner to pick up stolen goods with the humiliation and considerable inconvenience suffered by millions every day all around the world?
bizarre
I botice you dont answer my question about Iquitos. Do you think its right this type of scenario is played out every day around the world?
Who has won. The two dozen suicide terrorists who have inflicted misery on countless millions?
I guess you are a supporter of ID cards, a DNA database and full cavity searches for obviously innocent travellers?
I guess you dont travel much?
You misunderstand my point Floyd. The comparison was to highlight that any system of security must treat everyone equally, as there are no good alternatives. It's interesting you speak of humiliation, considering there's little humiliation in routinely going through the same checks as everyone else, but extreme humiliation in being an Asian separated from the white folk to get individually security checked.
Your own moralising also creates problems for yourself. Imagine the family returning from Iquitos are a Muslim family with 3 kids, do you suddenly find it ok that they're checked? Despite this being due to events plotted tens of thousands of miles away, involving a handful of individuals that merely happen to believe in the same God? And in a far more awful way ('Mummy, why do we have to go a separate way to the other people?' asks little Anwar).
If you have a good suggestion as to how a system other that treating everyone the same could work, I'm open to it. But I just don't see how it could.
On your other points, I'm not sure where all these wild suppositions about my views on what security should be are coming from; all I was saying is that if there's security (and inevitably post 9/11 there will be)then it has to be applied to everyone.
I can't personally have an opinion on what level of airport security there should be, because I'm not in MI5 and have no idea of the level of terrorist threat. I suspect a lot of the security is show to make customers feel safe, but equally a lot of it derives from genuine worry about terrorism. Without knowing the balance between the two I'm be uncertain about making a judgement.
As a side note, I have no idea what sort of airports you've been to Floyd, but are security measures really 'inflicting misery'?
Interesting exchange of views chaps. Good to hear your input.
My misplaced view is that for a tiny number of plane bombings a very very large number of people are being inconvenienced (points taken Leroy, Sussex!). Is this really the best system we can come up with?
Personally I dont have a problem if the only people checked are those that are either on a watch list or who match the profiles of those who have previously bombed planes.
Security checking an 80 year old white granny flying to Australia to see her son seems a pointless target and the efforts could be more usefully employed.
As a side note I am still mystified by the removal of eyebrow tweezers, then as we sat down to dinner on the plane, steel cutlery was handed out. Whats that all about?
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]Much better to make all muslims wear a clearly identifiable symbol - say a green crescent armband and in case they take that off they should get a tattoo as well.
[cite]Posted By: jimmymelrose[/cite]Getting back to body scanners: I think people are missing the point.
They are very very likely a health risk.
I will believe arguments to the contrary with the some scepticism that I hold for mobile phone companies who dispute health risks for their products. The difference is that I don't have to use a mobile phone to make a phone call but I would have to go through an X-ray scanner no matter who I fly with.
Its possible that the new scanners pose a health risk although I doubt it very much but I can say that they use what I believe are called Terahertz rays (T- Rays) which are not anywhere near x-rays in the spectrum but close to micro waves. These rays are unlike x-rays being non ionising and use electrons which at the energies used for these machines cannot penetrate the skin.
[cite]Posted By: Floyd Montana[/cite]Personally I dont have a problem if the only people checked are those that are either on a watch list or who match the profiles of those who have previously bombed planes.
Exactly, because there is never a first time for anything.
If people honestly believe that everyone is currently treated equally I suggest you might want to consider what happens with the example of retail theft. Yes there's a scanner by the front door to stop everybody nicking stuff but in addition there's store detectives operating who, using their experience, training and skills of observation are targeting potential lifters for additional security every minute they're in the shop. If targeting in that situation is acceptable to everybody why isn't is even more so when we are talking about the deaths of 100's people and not just someone pinching a packet of razor blades?
Why does everyone against profiling assume that the only factor that will be taken into consideration is the colour of the persons skin? It's a factor, given the profile of those who's commited these things before, but there are plenty of others along with it too.
[cite]Posted By: Bournemouth Addick[/cite]If people honestly believe that everyone is currently treated equally I suggest you might want to consider what happens with the example of retail theft. Yes there's a scanner by the front door to stopeverybodynicking stuff but in addition there's store detectives operating who, using their experience, training and skills of observation are targeting potential lifters for additional security every minute they're in the shop. If targeting in that situation is acceptable to everybody why isn't is even more so when we are talking about the deaths of 100's people and not just someone pinching a packet of razor blades?
Why doeseveryoneagainst profiling assume that theonlyfactor that will be taken into consideration is the colour of the persons skin? It's a factor, given the profile of those who's commited these things before, but there are plenty of others along with it too.
Yes that is true, and who's to say a similar profiling doesn't actually go an airports. In fact, I'd be surprised if it doesn't.
But it's the visible signs of this profiling. You can't visibly be seen to discriminate, which is what subjecting certain profile types to certain security measures would do. That isn't fair, and doesn't promote good relationships between 'profile types', esepcially where relationships are already strained.
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]Much better to make all muslims wear a clearly identifiable symbol - say a green crescent armband and in case they take that off they should get a tattoo as well.
get i.d. cards and the problem is solved.
Of course it is. Because ID cards can never be stolen, forged, swapped etc.
[cite]Posted By: Bournemouth Addick[/cite]If people honestly believe that everyone is currently treated equally I suggest you might want to consider what happens with the example of retail theft. Yes there's a scanner by the front door to stopeverybodynicking stuff but in addition there's store detectives operating who, using their experience, training and skills of observation are targeting potential lifters for additional security every minute they're in the shop. If targeting in that situation is acceptable to everybody why isn't is even more so when we are talking about the deaths of 100's people and not just someone pinching a packet of razor blades?
Why doeseveryoneagainst profiling assume that theonlyfactor that will be taken into consideration is the colour of the persons skin? It's a factor, given the profile of those who's commited these things before, but there are plenty of others along with it too.
Yes that is true, and who's to say a similar profiling doesn't actually go an airports. In fact, I'd be surprised if it doesn't.
But it's the visible signs of this profiling. You can't visibly be seen to discriminate, which is what subjecting certain profile types to certain security measures would do. That isn't fair, and doesn't promote good relationships between 'profile types', esepcially where relationships are already strained.
Oh right so your view is it's fine to do it but we musn't get caught doing it? It does happen already in some US airports already as you have said, Washington for one that I know about. Again you are making the assumption that the profile will be mainly based on the colour of someone's skin, which is not what it's exclusively about - it's about age, destination, point of origin, other places visited, sex, booking method, behaviour in the queue/airport, body language, clothing, responses to questions, etc, etc, etc. There are ways of doing this descretly after all, we are not saying profiling should result in an armed response unit pulling people out of the queue.
[cite]Posted By: Bournemouth Addick[/cite]If people honestly believe that everyone is currently treated equally I suggest you might want to consider what happens with the example of retail theft. Yes there's a scanner by the front door to stopeverybodynicking stuff but in addition there's store detectives operating who, using their experience, training and skills of observation are targeting potential lifters for additional security every minute they're in the shop. If targeting in that situation is acceptable to everybody why isn't is even more so when we are talking about the deaths of 100's people and not just someone pinching a packet of razor blades?
Why doeseveryoneagainst profiling assume that theonlyfactor that will be taken into consideration is the colour of the persons skin? It's a factor, given the profile of those who's commited these things before, but there are plenty of others along with it too.
Yes that is true, and who's to say a similar profiling doesn't actually go an airports. In fact, I'd be surprised if it doesn't.
But it's the visible signs of this profiling. You can't visibly be seen to discriminate, which is what subjecting certain profile types to certain security measures would do. That isn't fair, and doesn't promote good relationships between 'profile types', esepcially where relationships are already strained.
Oh right so your view is it's fine to do it but we musn't get caught doing it? It does happen already in some US airports already as you have said, Washington for one that I know about. Again you are making the assumption that the profile will be mainly based on the colour of someone's skin, which is not what it's exclusively about - it's about age, destination, point of origin, other places visited, sex, booking method, behaviour in the queue/airport, body language, clothing, responses to questions, etc, etc, etc. There are ways of doing this descretly after all, we are not saying profiling should result in an armed response unit pulling people out of the queue.
I'm not saying it's right, nor that the profiling will be primarily race or ethnicity based. I'm simply saying that all general and visible security measures employed at airports (ie. naked scanners, the subject of this thread, or anything else), must be applied equally to all - old white woman or otherwise. Having said this, I think the prospect of these 'naked scanners' is a step too far - even if some do think it increases safety by a fraction of a fraction of a percent.
We, in the West, need to stop making such a big fuss over being 'inconvenianced'. It's not the end of the world, but dropping security checks in order to stop this minor and generic inconveniance, and thus allowing a free run for terrorists could be. If security measurses drop, terrorists will seize the oppurtunity and attacks will rise.
These are cunning, vicious, remorseless people. We just have to hope that MI5 remain even more so.
In the mean time get things in perspective; stop acting spoilt, and take, even be grateful for, the security checks which could save your life.
[cite]Posted By: Fortune Costa Fish[/cite]We, in the West, need to stop making such a big fuss over being 'inconvenianced'. It's not the end of the world, but dropping security checks in order to stop this minor and generic inconveniance, and thus allowing a free run for terrorists could be. If security measurses drop, terrorists will seize the oppurtunity and attacks will rise.
These are cunning, vicious, remorseless people. We just have to hope that MI5 remain even more so.
In the mean time get things in perspective; stop acting spoilt, and take, even be grateful for, the security checks which could save your life.
For me, it's not the inconvenience that's the issue. It's what airlines and government's can demand of us before boarding a form of 'public' transport, such as walking through an X-Ray machine that effectively removes all your clothes. It's the principal, not the inconveneience.
FCFish Sorry you have such a pompous view but is the aim of these people to bomb or cause terror? What percentage of flying Britons have been affected by bombings since Lockerbie? really, if there was the same energy directed towards road safety we would all be better off.
The current non sensical fear governed scatter gun system if neither intelligent, nor as the recent attempt shows, effective. I am happy for you that you think its fine for us to be treated like this. Many who see the encroaching Orwellian state are less enamoured.
You people need to wake up. One of the delicious ironies of modern 'democracies' is that the average citizen is monitored more closely than they were in the Communist regimes of old. It's just that it's being done a lot more subtly, and when the government does catch you doing something naughty they don't send the goon squad round to cart you off to a Siberian gulag. GCHQ has been monitoring nearly all communications in this country for years.
[cite]Posted By: jimmymelrose[/cite]Why, then, do you not believe the - quiter literally -thousandsofentirely independentstudies that have proven there is no link between mobile phones and health problems?
Because there are equally as many independent studies that say the opposite. If you want to discuss this please start another thread.
[cite]Posted By: Floyd Montana[/cite]Interesting exchange of views chaps.
Good to hear your input.
My misplaced view is that for a tiny number of plane bombings a very very large number of people are being inconvenienced (points taken Leroy, Sussex!).
Is this really the best system we can come up with?
Personally I dont have a problem if the only people checked are those that are either on a watch list or who match the profiles of those who have previously bombed planes.
Security checking an 80 year old white granny flying to Australia to see her son seems a pointless target and the efforts could be more usefully employed.
As a side note I am still mystified by the removal of eyebrow tweezers, then as we sat down to dinner on the plane, steel cutlery was handed out. Whats that all about?
Another example of the absurd level of inconsistency
[cite]Posted By: Fortune Costa Fish[/cite]
In the mean time get things in perspective; stop acting spoilt, and take, even be grateful for, the security checks which could save your life.
Still people are missing the point about aviation security. If the people responsible for security had done their work correctly than the Nigerian guy would never have even made it to the airport. Everything leading up to the day was far too suspicious. Searches at the airport should be just a minor percentage of overall security not blown up to be the be all and end all to the point that we all have to be subjected to harassment.
[cite]Posted By: Leroy Ambrose[/cite]You people need to wake up. One of the delicious ironies of modern 'democracies' is that the average citizen is monitored more closely than they were in the Communist regimes of old. It's just that it's being done a lot more subtly, and when the government does catch you doing something naughty they don't send the goon squad round to cart you off to a Siberian gulag. GCHQ has been monitoring nearly all communications in this country for years.
You make it sound like they listen to / read all communications. We both know they don't.
We might be being 'watched' more, but I'm not sure communist Russia or any of the other "communist regimes of old" had an abundance of affordable cctv technology. Furthermore you're drawing lines between being caught speeding and being deemed rebellious to a communist state.
[cite]Posted By: Leroy Ambrose[/cite]Not everything is a massive X-Files-style government/corporate conspiracy. On what basis do you believe that the all-over body scanners are a health risk?
[cite]Posted By: Leroy Ambrose[/cite]You people need to wake up. One of the delicious ironies of modern 'democracies' is that the average citizen is monitored more closely than they were in the Communist regimes of old. It's just that it's being done a lot more subtly, and when the government does catch you doing something naughty they don't send the goon squad round to cart you off to a Siberian gulag. GCHQ has been monitoring nearly all communications in this country for years.
Hang on. Aren't you contradicting yourself here? And you called me loopy.
phones have been scanned since the days of the IRA. They pick on certain words. Not only re terrorists but drugs as well. Mobiles are routinely scanned and net works of calls made.
England has the biggest DNA data base in the World . EU say inocent peoples data should not be stored --- Police forces in England refue to comply. Scotlands law is differant.
As for scanners etc im OK with it as long as they do "profiling" as well . Mr and Mrs Smith 75 going on hols should not be subject to the same level of searching as 4 young (lets be frank) asian men. If me and my asian wife are stopped given the same level as the 4 asian men i dont give ashit ---- sure as eggs are eggs one day a 20 year old blonde convert to this radical filth will do something, till that happens then profile away--- if only 15 % of those traveling are given a fast track and all the rest of us get the full deal SO WHAT ? only PC arse wipes like Harriet Harperson would care.
Why are ALL flights subject to full security checks tho ? isnt it only flights to the USA that should be given the full treatment ? Arnt flights to Israel given a higher level of checks ? and hasnt this been going on for donkeys ?? so why if your going to Toser Del Mar (and many on here must have been born there) why do u get the same level of check as a flight to washington ? If they where to just give the full works to the flights to the USA the rest of the World carried on as normal.
It may well inconvenience people but if people lost confidence in airport security through a terrorist outrage the result may well be catastrophic for world trade. I don’t believe scanners are there just to catch would be bombers.
[cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]As for scanners etc im OK with it as long as they do "profiling" as well . Mr and Mrs Smith 75 going on hols should not be subject to the same level of searching as 4 young (lets be frank) asian men. If me and my asian wife are stopped given the same level as the 4 asian men i dont give ashit ---- sure as eggs are eggs one day a 20 year old blonde convert to this radical filth will do something, till that happens then profile away--- if only 15 % of those traveling are given a fast track and all the rest of us get the full deal SO WHAT ? only PC arse wipes like Harriet Harperson would care.
Well, no, it will be more than the 'PC arse wipes' that would care. How about the other young Asians, and million of non-radical Muslims that are subjected to the treatment? I'm sure they might care a little.
[cite]Posted By: Leroy Ambrose[/cite]You people need to wake up. One of the delicious ironies of modern 'democracies' is that the average citizen is monitored more closely than they were in the Communist regimes of old. It's just that it's being done a lot more subtly, and when the government does catch you doing something naughty they don't send the goon squad round to cart you off to a Siberian gulag. GCHQ has been monitoring nearly all communications in this country for years.
There's a difference between being watched and being seen.
[cite]Posted By: Fortune Costa Fish[/cite]We, in the West, need to stop making such a big fuss over being 'inconvenianced'. It's not the end of the world, but dropping security checks in order to stop this minor and generic inconveniance, and thus allowing a free run for terrorists could be. If security measurses drop, terrorists will seize the oppurtunity and attacks will rise.
These are cunning, vicious, remorseless people. We just have to hope that MI5 remain even more so.
In the mean time get things in perspective; stop acting spoilt, and take, even be grateful for, the security checks which could save your life.
Sounds like the new breed of scanner will render this discussion pointless. In a couple of UK universities they have a scanner which only picks up explosive traces however small and wherever located. Costs the same as the current metal detectors. One of the inventors says they arent being installed because of budget restraints, so millions of obviously innocent people will still be taking their clothes belts and shoes off amongst crowds, being put in see through bomb proof boxes, whilst being hurried through by ignorant ex criminals If people are so worried about the statistically minute risk of death, why arent they campaigning for invasive road safety programmes, say fixed blood test points at the entrance and exit of all motorways. It would save far far more lives wouldnt it?
Boy have the terrorists and government security departments won
[cite]Posted By: Floyd Montana[/cite]Sounds like the new breed of scanner will render this discussion pointless.
In a couple of UK universities they have a scanner which only picks up explosive traces however small and wherever located.
Costs the same as the current metal detectors.
One of the inventors says they arent being installed because of budget restraints, so millions of obviously innocent people will still be taking their clothes belts and shoes off amongst crowds, being put in see through bomb proof boxes, whilst being hurried through by ignorant ex criminals
If people are so worried about the statistically minute risk of death, why arent they campaigning for invasive road safety programmes, say fixed blood test points at the entrance and exit of all motorways. It would save far far more lives wouldnt it?
Boy have the terrorists and government security departments won
Did you complain when safety helmets for motorcyclists became compulsory ?
Comments
Rhetorical questions are nice and all, but what is your alternative?
It's the same with anything. Shops for example have barriers that scan everyone as they go out, technically treating everyone like a shoplifter even though the huge majority aren't. But it's there because there are shoplifters and there's no way of identifying who specifically is one.
Until there is a nice and simple way of identifying bad people (which there never will be) then everyone is under suspicion.
Or use the method highlighted by Brad Pitt in Inglorious Bastards ;-)
Do you really equate an inert scanner to pick up stolen goods with the humiliation and considerable inconvenience suffered by millions every day all around the world?
bizarre
I botice you dont answer my question about Iquitos. Do you think its right this type of scenario is played out every day around the world?
Who has won. The two dozen suicide terrorists who have inflicted misery on countless millions?
I guess you are a supporter of ID cards, a DNA database and full cavity searches for obviously innocent travellers?
I guess you dont travel much?
I agree that this must be the case, but that scanners take the security process (for all) too far.
You misunderstand my point Floyd. The comparison was to highlight that any system of security must treat everyone equally, as there are no good alternatives. It's interesting you speak of humiliation, considering there's little humiliation in routinely going through the same checks as everyone else, but extreme humiliation in being an Asian separated from the white folk to get individually security checked.
Your own moralising also creates problems for yourself. Imagine the family returning from Iquitos are a Muslim family with 3 kids, do you suddenly find it ok that they're checked? Despite this being due to events plotted tens of thousands of miles away, involving a handful of individuals that merely happen to believe in the same God? And in a far more awful way ('Mummy, why do we have to go a separate way to the other people?' asks little Anwar).
If you have a good suggestion as to how a system other that treating everyone the same could work, I'm open to it. But I just don't see how it could.
On your other points, I'm not sure where all these wild suppositions about my views on what security should be are coming from; all I was saying is that if there's security (and inevitably post 9/11 there will be)then it has to be applied to everyone.
I can't personally have an opinion on what level of airport security there should be, because I'm not in MI5 and have no idea of the level of terrorist threat. I suspect a lot of the security is show to make customers feel safe, but equally a lot of it derives from genuine worry about terrorism. Without knowing the balance between the two I'm be uncertain about making a judgement.
As a side note, I have no idea what sort of airports you've been to Floyd, but are security measures really 'inflicting misery'?
Good to hear your input.
My misplaced view is that for a tiny number of plane bombings a very very large number of people are being inconvenienced (points taken Leroy, Sussex!).
Is this really the best system we can come up with?
Personally I dont have a problem if the only people checked are those that are either on a watch list or who match the profiles of those who have previously bombed planes.
Security checking an 80 year old white granny flying to Australia to see her son seems a pointless target and the efforts could be more usefully employed.
As a side note I am still mystified by the removal of eyebrow tweezers, then as we sat down to dinner on the plane, steel cutlery was handed out. Whats that all about?
get i.d. cards and the problem is solved.
Its possible that the new scanners pose a health risk although I doubt it very much but I can say that they use what I believe are called Terahertz rays (T- Rays) which are not anywhere near x-rays in the spectrum but close to micro waves. These rays are unlike x-rays being non ionising and use electrons which at the energies used for these machines cannot penetrate the skin.
Exactly, because there is never a first time for anything.
Why does everyone against profiling assume that the only factor that will be taken into consideration is the colour of the persons skin? It's a factor, given the profile of those who's commited these things before, but there are plenty of others along with it too.
But it's the visible signs of this profiling. You can't visibly be seen to discriminate, which is what subjecting certain profile types to certain security measures would do. That isn't fair, and doesn't promote good relationships between 'profile types', esepcially where relationships are already strained.
Oh right so your view is it's fine to do it but we musn't get caught doing it? It does happen already in some US airports already as you have said, Washington for one that I know about. Again you are making the assumption that the profile will be mainly based on the colour of someone's skin, which is not what it's exclusively about - it's about age, destination, point of origin, other places visited, sex, booking method, behaviour in the queue/airport, body language, clothing, responses to questions, etc, etc, etc. There are ways of doing this descretly after all, we are not saying profiling should result in an armed response unit pulling people out of the queue.
These are cunning, vicious, remorseless people. We just have to hope that MI5 remain even more so.
In the mean time get things in perspective; stop acting spoilt, and take, even be grateful for, the security checks which could save your life.
Sorry you have such a pompous view but is the aim of these people to bomb or cause terror?
What percentage of flying Britons have been affected by bombings since Lockerbie?
really, if there was the same energy directed towards road safety we would all be better off.
The current non sensical fear governed scatter gun system if neither intelligent, nor as the recent attempt shows, effective.
I am happy for you that you think its fine for us to be treated like this. Many who see the encroaching Orwellian state are less enamoured.
You make it sound like they listen to / read all communications. We both know they don't.
We might be being 'watched' more, but I'm not sure communist Russia or any of the other "communist regimes of old" had an abundance of affordable cctv technology. Furthermore you're drawing lines between being caught speeding and being deemed rebellious to a communist state.
That's walking a tightrope made of silly-string.
Hang on. Aren't you contradicting yourself here? And you called me loopy.
England has the biggest DNA data base in the World . EU say inocent peoples data should not be stored --- Police forces in England refue to comply. Scotlands law is differant.
As for scanners etc im OK with it as long as they do "profiling" as well . Mr and Mrs Smith 75 going on hols should not be subject to the same level of searching as 4 young (lets be frank) asian men. If me and my asian wife are stopped given the same level as the 4 asian men i dont give ashit ---- sure as eggs are eggs one day a 20 year old blonde convert to this radical filth will do something, till that happens then profile away--- if only 15 % of those traveling are given a fast track and all the rest of us get the full deal SO WHAT ? only PC arse wipes like Harriet Harperson would care.
Why are ALL flights subject to full security checks tho ? isnt it only flights to the USA that should be given the full treatment ? Arnt flights to Israel given a higher level of checks ? and hasnt this been going on for donkeys ?? so why if your going to Toser Del Mar (and many on here must have been born there) why do u get the same level of check as a flight to washington ? If they where to just give the full works to the flights to the USA the rest of the World carried on as normal.
Or had you forgotten about all of them?
There's a difference between being watched and being seen.
We are seen, not watched by the government.
And we are free,
Agree 100%
In a couple of UK universities they have a scanner which only picks up explosive traces however small and wherever located.
Costs the same as the current metal detectors.
One of the inventors says they arent being installed because of budget restraints, so millions of obviously innocent people will still be taking their clothes belts and shoes off amongst crowds, being put in see through bomb proof boxes, whilst being hurried through by ignorant ex criminals
If people are so worried about the statistically minute risk of death, why arent they campaigning for invasive road safety programmes, say fixed blood test points at the entrance and exit of all motorways. It would save far far more lives wouldnt it?
Boy have the terrorists and government security departments won
Did you complain when safety helmets for motorcyclists became compulsory ?