yup But to make it more relevant, how about likening it to every road user and pedestrian wearing helmets because a few bikers get killed? Then I would feel the same way as I do about these ineefectual security measures in place worldwide.
The Explosive Residue Detection system - developed by Loughborough University - can scan crowded areas such as airports and train stations remotely, automatically alerting an operator if it finds traces of explosives.
The system is non-evasive, works in real time, causes no delays to passengers and is fully automated which means human error can be ruled out, its developers say.
And a key point, they argue, is that, unlike the Whole Body Imaging which Prime Minister Gordon Brown has called for, the images the ERD produces are no more controversial than those generated by CCTV.
more at... http://www.yorkshirecoastradio.com/news/review.php?article=102195
[quote][cite]Posted By: Floyd Montana[/cite]Now this is more like it!
The Explosive Residue Detection system - developed by Loughborough University - can scan crowded areas such as airports and train stations remotely, automatically alerting an operator if it finds traces of explosives.
The system is non-evasive, works in real time, causes no delays to passengers and is fully automated which means human error can be ruled out, its developers say.
And a key point, they argue, is that, unlike the Whole Body Imaging which Prime Minister Gordon Brown has called for, the images the ERD produces are no more controversial than those generated by CCTV.
more at... [url]http://www.yorkshirecoastradio.com/news/review.php?article=102195[/url][/quote]
Well, perhaps that puts an end to this discussion.
no hadnt forgot about all the none muslim asians (thats why i said about my wife) or the fact that these radical muslim facists are a tiny tiny fraction , but it is muslims that are the terrorists please xplain how it isnt ? and its pc knobs like you that get out of your tent when anyone mentions profiling. whats wrong with 15% being fast tracked because they dont fit the profile ? f**k all except it might upset some one !! it f**kin upsets me that people want to blow us to bits -- so f**k the PC bollox ----profile away.
[cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]no hadnt forgot about all the none muslim asians (thats why i said about my wife) or the fact that these radical muslim facists are a tiny tiny fraction , but it is muslims that are the terrorists please xplain how it isnt ?
Didn't say that it wasn't. I was making the point that if I was an asian I would be pretty pissed about being subject to crazy security measures while others walked straight through. Nothing about being PC, it just isn't fair.
[cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]whats wrong with 15% being fast tracked because they dont fit the profile? f**k all except it might upset some one !!
Before you were talking about all but 15% getting through, now it's just 15% getting through, which does change things a bit. The point still stands: it's not beneficial nor fair to blatantly subject one racial profile to extra security measures.
[cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]it f**kin upsets me that people want to blow us to bits -- so f**k the PC bollox ----profile away.
How many Britons have been 'blown to bits' on airplanes in the last 20 years? Exactly. Why is there no profiling or extreme security measures for getting on a bus, for example, as more people have died this way on them? The increasing intensity and encroaching privacy of security measures do not seem justifiable to me. But maybe you read too much Daily Mail?
[cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]and its pc knobs like you that get out of your tent when anyone mentions profiling
I don't know why I (or anyone) bothers debating anything with you. It's so quickly reduced to some stupid insult or other non-sensical sh*t like this. It's almost embarrassing.
Traces of explosives, yes. Traces of two non-explosive substances which, combined together, cause an explosive chemical reaction - no. Threats nowadays have moved on from traditional explosive devices - rendering scanners which are designed to look for explosives useless.
i dont give a shit who is pissed off about it the point is 15% (my figure) was to help move the number along while the rest of us have to go through the full check. If the 15% happen to be white OAPs then good. Of course there will be in the future some poor sap from Surrey who gets radicalised in UK ( not Yemen mr Brown) and when he tries to carry out a mass murder the profile will change or be stopped.But oooooooooooo dear yes lets not increase sensitivity FFS are you real ? Why is profiling used in other coutries but not here ? do tell. oooooooooooooooo i see we might upset someone and they will try to plant bombs !!!!!!!!!!!!
after 7/7 there was the usual Guardianistas on here saying "it might not be muslims etc ,lets wait till the muslim council say it was " blah blah blah.Who the f**k did they think did it ? where did they go when Al Quida said they did it.
good point Leroy but the current world wide embuggering security wouldnt find it either so I say again what is the point of the current system>
Si if non muslim asians, such as my wife, more closely resemble those who are mostr likely to blow up a plane, then tough, they should go through the, according to some, not inconvenient (but in reality, multiplied by millions of embuggerances per week, a right royal un-necessary waste of time and security resources) process of being closely security checks, shouldnt they?
Hey gooner Al quida, is that a branch of the pound shop near you? Even your nomenclature nsays more about you than anything you rant on about. Why hate when you can love? Why be a negative balance on life when you could be a positive one? And you never told us what job you had with amultinational oil company - whic I notice isnt bidding for the largest alternative energy contract in recent times in this country.
To be fair I don't think it's anyones business what he does, not a dig, but I don't see it's anyones business
If going through more security helps restrict the chances of me being vapourised mid-air then I will happily take that
I appreciate it's a pain in the arse but excusing the pun I would take a pain in the arse over getting blowin into pieces on a jet
I have been collared tons of times going through security for being a smartarse or just seemingly for the amusement of security staff,owing to the fact I have nowt to hide I don't give a monkies if it means not having to scrap with a islamic nutjob at 30,000 feet to stop them killing a load of people.
Roughly what are the chances that you would have to Carter? Say, compared with you being smashed into tiny little pieces by a speeding truck on our motorways? About the same as milk running out in the UK? (just watching the 'BE AFRAID' news.
Sorry Carter, I cross pollinated there as Gooner claimed that climate change was nonsense on another thread because he claimed some connection to a multinational which he refused to elaborate on. My apologies. - withdraws humbly to a day on the beach
I am getting real mate, I can minimise my chance of getting smashed to pieces by anything on our motorways by being a good driver. If something happens out of my control then there ain't much I can do about it is there?
BAA or whoever is controlling who gets on what plane with whatever? I would rather they were on top as opposed to having open gates.
I couldn't give a shite what the chances are, I'd rather not have to. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't either.
You have fallen into the trap of believing that years of pointless security have saved you (and if you think BAA have a role, then perhaps have a look at their website for ideas about their responsibilities)
I am a good flyer but I still have a chance of being killed by drunk pilots or the many thousands of bombers out there. Chances are however, that although I am the best driver ever in the history of driving I am far far far more likely to be killed on the road, or in a club or in my own home.
Right, you can do things yourself to minimise that risk though.
What is the end argument though? Let everyone through without being checked and hope on the law of averages that not everyone out of the millions that fly every year are not intent on blowing a plane up?
I hope it's not.
I think things are ok (all beit a nuisance) security-wise all things considered.
Profiling has to be a complete waste of time surely.
If the terrorist organisation are organised & skilfull enough to come up with explosives that can go through the security checks undetected - surely they will make sure that they use passengers unlikely to be picked out for extra profile checks to carry them.
Would racial profiling for example allow the guy below through
whilst worrying about what this lady might be carrying
the guy is the Exeter restaurant bomber who was radicalised by Islamic extremists
the lady is a Nobel Peace prize winner & Human Rights activist in Iran
So I'd rather thay checked everyone. Vaseline is not a liquid but can still be used as an explosive agent, as is lipsip and various other fluids (look them up on the internet, I can't be bothered to explain) I know which counties I'd feel safer flying from though
Whether some of you would rather invasive security checks than 'being blown up' (although, again, I would point out no plane out of a British airport has been 'blown up' in over 20 years) is not really the point.
Saying 'I'd rather this happen' is not an argument for it, it's just an opinion. I'm sure plenty of 1930s Germans rathered Jews walked around with armbands on so that they could feel 'safer', but that dooesn't make the policy right. (Yes, extreme example, but the point stands).
Whether profiling works or not is not really something we would know anything about. I'm sure profiling does go on to some extent, and its benefits and limitations are known by the security forces that execute it.
The original point though, was that the same physical security measures have to be implemented for ALL people. It's nothing to do with being PC, it's just the only fair, just and humane way to do things. And, as has also been pointed out, not every bomber has been Asian, and shock horror, not every extremist will be Muslim. Although I do love GH's point that should a white OAP ever blow up a plane, then it will be okay to start profiling them too. Sums up the non-sensical premise of the argument perfectly.
(And Carter, no one is suggesting that you 'let everyone through' and hope for the best, obviously. Security measures are fine, but scanners that remove all your clothes? Too far. And u18's are exempt - the whole idea is seriously flawed IMO)
I remember politicians pontificating and stating that people should not "give in" to terrorism by not travelling etc.
In my view all this invasive security stuff and disruption is very much "giving in" to terrorism.
Osama Bin Laden and cohorts must be pi***** themselves.
In my opinion the first rule of security must be minimum disruption and intrusion to the innocent majority.
Otherwise the terrorists have won by the fear they have generated as much as any actual incidents.
On a far more trivial level I was condemned on here for expressing concerns about taking my daughter to the Millwall match and being "gutless" by considering giving in to hooliganism. Surely the principle is exactly the same?
If not we've let the bastards win as they've achieved their aim.
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]I remember politicians pontificating and stating that people should not "give in" to terrorism by not travelling etc.
In my view all this invasive security stuff and disruption is very much "giving in" to terrorism.
Osama Bin Laden and cohorts must be pi***** themselves.
In my opinion the first rule of security must be minimum disruption and intrusion to the innocent majority.
Otherwise the terrorists have won by the fear they have generated as much as any actual incidents.
On a far more trivial level I was condemned on here for expressing concerns about taking my daughter to the Millwall match and being "gutless" by considering giving in to hooliganism. Surely the principle is exactly the same?
If not we've let the bastards win as they've achieved their aim.
[cite]Posted By: Si[/cite]Whether some of you would rather invasive security checks than 'being blown up' (although, again, I would point out no plane out of a British airport has been 'blown up' in over 20 years) is not really the point.
For the first time in your life, si, i think you might be missing the point.
If there were no 'invasive security checks', there would be an increase in planes being blown up. Surely.
[cite]Posted By: Si[/cite]Whether some of you would rather invasive security checks than 'being blown up' (although, again, I would point out no plane out of a British airport has been 'blown up' in over 20 years) is not really the point.
For the first time in your life, si, i think you might be missing the point.
If there were no 'invasive security checks', there would be an increase in planes being blown up. Surely.
That's true, but I wasn't suggesting all security checks are invasive. I was referring to the 'Naked Scanners'. They have not been used in the past 20 years, yet there has never been a plane blown up.
[cite]Posted By: Si[/cite]Whether some of you would rather invasive security checks than 'being blown up' (although, again, I would point out no plane out of a British airport has been 'blown up' in over 20 years) is not really the point.
For the first time in your life, si, i think you might be missing the point.
If there were no 'invasive security checks', there would be an increase in planes being blown up. Surely.
That's true, but I wasn't suggesting all security checks are invasive. I was referring to the 'Naked Scanners'. They have not been used in the past 20 years, yet there has never been a plane blown up.
Granted. But if a naked scanner means everyone can walk straight through, reducing security checking to a 30 second discomfort, i'm still for it.
The thing about racial profiling is it can lead to more serious problems then just annoying people. It caused the Brixton riots for a start and could help the extremist movement, 'we told you the west were against us, why don't they search white people'. etc.
[cite]Posted By: Friend Or Defoe[/cite]The thing about racial profiling is it can lead to more serious problems then just annoying people. It caused the Brixton riots for a start and could help the extremist movement, 'we told you the west were against us, why don't they search white people'. etc.
Once again, it's not exclusively based on the colour of a persons skin, why are so many people having a problem seeing beyond that or is it just because it suits their point to ignore the other factors involved in profiling?
I remember reading an article ages ago about it, and where it is operated, they pick up up all sorts of wrongdoers and wanted people for all sorts of reasons, mostly completely unrelated to the reason they started profiling (which surprised them) and the reason was very simple - you might think you're an oscar winning thespian but if you were in a queue to check in and you're the sort of person who's on an arrest warrant or jumped bail or got something on you you shouldn't have or actually is a terrorist, you are going to be giving off all sorts of signals whether you want to or not.
For instance the Exeter guy, Nicky Reilly, above in Oaksters example, had the mental age of a young kid and had been groomed by extremists to carry out the attack. I am damn sure that if he had been standing at check-in knowing what he was about to do he would have been pulled, today, let alone if we had systematic profiling in place which would have picked him up the minute he entered the airport, regardless of his colour. Equally likely the lady in question would have been subject to the same appropriate checks that everyone else has because she's not giving off these signals and she does not fit the profile of a potential bomber in terms of age or sex. No one has raised an objection to profiling on the ground of either of these two factors I notice.
It seems completely nonsensical to me to deliberatly ignore the opportunity this factor gives our security staff to look at someone a bit closer. If you're searching for a suspect believed to be driving a blue, Ford Focus about to be used in a bank robbery, you don't pull over every car for fear of upseting all the other, innocent, drivers of blue Ford Focus' do you, because that's the logical conclusion of the anti-profiling argument as far as I can see.
enough of this PC hogwashBullshit "it might upset someone" .
it was YOUR pc shit that allowed the exremists into the UK it was your PC bs that allowed the Hook to preach in the street for 2 yeare spouting his racist anti woman anti homo sexual anti jewish shit(try blocking the street if your a crowd of white football fans !!) and yes lest give them a police protection crew it was your pc bs that allowed the UK to be the BASE for radical muslims it was your pc bs that allowed 2,000 ( just where were those moderate muslims i hear about ? ) to march thorugh London with banners asking for our troups to be beheaded and more 7/7s. It was your pc bs that allowed a group of scum bags to stand and scream abuse at troups in Luton
but f**k me suggest profiling and it might up set a few people !!!!!!!!!!!!! it upsets me that a few tofu eating numptys make us afraid to say anything ---- well after all it might upset that shoe bomber fellow-- you know the one who was givena British passport-- lives in a detached hse on benefits and spews filth about British troups --- i mean he is a sensertive soul his 4 wifes say so. Of course those same troups have been called an army of a "neo colonial power" on here two days ago by one of the Tofu Army .
France thay cant wear a veil hear we cant SAY anything.
Yes lets all stand for two hours in a que with our shoes off, have afull body scan and not be allowed to carry a bottle of water on a 12 hour flight ------ but for f**K sake dont ever ever say f**K all in case it upsets someone !!!
[cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]enough of this PC hogwashBullshit "it might upset someone" .
it was YOUR pc shit that allowed the exremists into the UK
it was your PC bs that allowed the Hook to preach in the street for 2 yeare spouting his racist anti woman anti homo sexual anti jewish shit(try blocking the street if your a crowd of white football fans !!) and yes lest give them a police protection crew
it was your pc bs that allowed the UK to be the BASE for radical muslims
it was your pc bs that allowed 2,000 ( just where were those moderate muslims i hear about ? ) to march thorugh London with banners asking for our troups to be beheaded and more 7/7s.
It was your pc bs that allowed a group of scum bags to stand and scream abuse at troups in Luton
but f**k me suggest profiling and it might up set a few people !!!!!!!!!!!!! it upsets me that a few tofu eating numptys make us afraid to say anything ---- well after all it might upset that shoe bomber fellow-- you know the one who was givena British passport-- lives in a detached hse on benefits and spews filth about British troups --- i mean he is a sensertive soul his 4 wifes say so. Of course those same troups have been called an army of a "neo colonial power" on here two days ago by one of the Tofu Army .
France thay cant wear a veil hear we cant SAY anything.
Yes lets all stand for two hours in a que with our shoes off, have afull body scan and not be allowed to carry a bottle of water on a 12 hour flight
but for f**K sake dont ever ever say f**K all in case it upsets someone !!!
How many non-sensical, right wing, Daily Mail inspired cliches can you fit into one rant GH? Impressive stuff.
No point debating anything with you, you just ignore what other people say.
[cite]Posted By: Friend Or Defoe[/cite]The thing about racial profiling is it can lead to more serious problems then just annoying people. It caused the Brixton riots for a start and could help the extremist movement, 'we told you the west were against us, why don't they search white people'. etc.
Once again, it's not exclusively based on the colour of a persons skin, why are so many people having a problem seeing beyond that or is it just because it suits their point to ignore the other factors involved in profiling?
I remember reading an article ages ago about it, and where it is operated, they pick up up all sorts of wrongdoers and wanted people for all sorts of reasons, mostly completely unrelated to the reason they started profiling (which surprised them) and the reason was very simple - you might think you're an oscar winning thespian but if you were in a queue to check in and you're the sort of person who's on an arrest warrant or jumped bail or got something on you you shouldn't have or actuallyisa terrorist, you are going to be giving off all sorts of signals whether you want to or not.
For instance the Exeter guy, Nicky Reilly, above in Oaksters example, had the mental age of a young kid and had been groomed by extremists to carry out the attack. I am damn sure that if he had been standing at check-in knowing what he was about to do he would have been pulled,today, let alone if we had systematic profiling in place which would have picked him up the minute he entered the airport, regardless of his colour. Equally likely the lady in question would have been subject to the sameappropriatechecks that everyone else has because she's not giving off these signals and she doesnotfit the profile of a potential bomber in terms of age or sex. No one has raised an objection to profiling on the ground of either of these two factors I notice.
It seems completely nonsensical to me to deliberatly ignore the opportunity this factor gives our security staff to look at someone a bit closer. If you're searching for a suspect believed to be driving a blue, Ford Focus about to be used in a bank robbery, you don't pull overeverycar for fear of upseting all the other, innocent, drivers of blue Ford Focus' do you, because that's the logical conclusion of the anti-profiling argument as far as I can see.
Sounds like an interesting and useful strategy. This doesn't sound so much like profiling to me though, more like simply looking for signs of suspicious behaviour, etc. I would have thought they do something along these lines already, although I don't know.
I don't think anyone is suggesting profiling is, or would be based on race alone. But of course 'racial profiling' is, and I think that's the type of profiling people are referring to. It's certainly the type of profiling people like GH are referring to.
It seems completely nonsensical to me to deliberatly ignore the opportunity this factor gives our security staff to look at someone a bit closer. If you're searching for a suspect believed to be driving a blue, Ford Focus about to be used in a bank robbery
...............
That would be intelligence, and you'd expect the police etc to act on that.
However in profiling muslims I'm not convinced that you'd necessarily catch anyone - and as soon as the first woould be suicide bomber detonates a trouser leg full of semtex then it will show up profiling for what it is - a flawed strategy. Bear in mind the success of the "suss laws" in the early 80s - the police were given the right to stop and search anyone they suspected might be up to no good. The result was that young Afro-caribbean males were targeted, they got the hump with being disproportionately picked on and the result was rioting in Brixton, Handsworth, Toxteth etc. The suss laws were profiling by another name and failed - yet the Daily Mail crowd want to repeat something that didn't work, was divisive and had to be dropped after a lot more damage had been done - however it did prove that the law of unintended consequences should never be forgotten.
If we want to beat Islamic extremist terrorism then it simply makes no sense to start driving a wedge between the islamic community and the police/rest of Britain. The struggle against Islamic extremism will not succeed unless we are seen to be treating them with respect and the same as everyone else - profiling will make things worse, alienate ordinary muslims and make intelligence gathering harder not easier to conduct.
Comments
But to make it more relevant, how about likening it to every road user and pedestrian wearing helmets because a few bikers get killed? Then I would feel the same way as I do about these ineefectual security measures in place worldwide.
The Explosive Residue Detection system - developed by Loughborough University - can scan crowded areas such as airports and train stations remotely, automatically alerting an operator if it finds traces of explosives.
The system is non-evasive, works in real time, causes no delays to passengers and is fully automated which means human error can be ruled out, its developers say.
And a key point, they argue, is that, unlike the Whole Body Imaging which Prime Minister Gordon Brown has called for, the images the ERD produces are no more controversial than those generated by CCTV.
more at...
http://www.yorkshirecoastradio.com/news/review.php?article=102195
The Explosive Residue Detection system - developed by Loughborough University - can scan crowded areas such as airports and train stations remotely, automatically alerting an operator if it finds traces of explosives.
The system is non-evasive, works in real time, causes no delays to passengers and is fully automated which means human error can be ruled out, its developers say.
And a key point, they argue, is that, unlike the Whole Body Imaging which Prime Minister Gordon Brown has called for, the images the ERD produces are no more controversial than those generated by CCTV.
more at...
[url]http://www.yorkshirecoastradio.com/news/review.php?article=102195[/url][/quote]
Well, perhaps that puts an end to this discussion.
Before you were talking about all but 15% getting through, now it's just 15% getting through, which does change things a bit. The point still stands: it's not beneficial nor fair to blatantly subject one racial profile to extra security measures.
How many Britons have been 'blown to bits' on airplanes in the last 20 years? Exactly. Why is there no profiling or extreme security measures for getting on a bus, for example, as more people have died this way on them? The increasing intensity and encroaching privacy of security measures do not seem justifiable to me. But maybe you read too much Daily Mail?
I don't know why I (or anyone) bothers debating anything with you. It's so quickly reduced to some stupid insult or other non-sensical sh*t like this. It's almost embarrassing.
after 7/7 there was the usual Guardianistas on here saying "it might not be muslims etc ,lets wait till the muslim council say it was " blah blah blah.Who the f**k did they think did it ? where did they go when Al Quida said they did it.
Si if non muslim asians, such as my wife, more closely resemble those who are mostr likely to blow up a plane, then tough, they should go through the, according to some, not inconvenient (but in reality, multiplied by millions of embuggerances per week, a right royal un-necessary waste of time and security resources) process of being closely security checks, shouldnt they?
Al quida, is that a branch of the pound shop near you?
Even your nomenclature nsays more about you than anything you rant on about.
Why hate when you can love?
Why be a negative balance on life when you could be a positive one?
And you never told us what job you had with amultinational oil company - whic I notice isnt bidding for the largest alternative energy contract in recent times in this country.
If going through more security helps restrict the chances of me being vapourised mid-air then I will happily take that
I appreciate it's a pain in the arse but excusing the pun I would take a pain in the arse over getting blowin into pieces on a jet
I have been collared tons of times going through security for being a smartarse or just seemingly for the amusement of security staff,owing to the fact I have nowt to hide I don't give a monkies if it means not having to scrap with a islamic nutjob at 30,000 feet to stop them killing a load of people.
Say, compared with you being smashed into tiny little pieces by a speeding truck on our motorways?
About the same as milk running out in the UK? (just watching the 'BE AFRAID' news.
come on lets get real here
My apologies.
- withdraws humbly to a day on the beach
BAA or whoever is controlling who gets on what plane with whatever? I would rather they were on top as opposed to having open gates.
I couldn't give a shite what the chances are, I'd rather not have to. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't either.
I am a good flyer but I still have a chance of being killed by drunk pilots or the many thousands of bombers out there.
Chances are however, that although I am the best driver ever in the history of driving I am far far far more likely to be killed on the road, or in a club or in my own home.
What is the end argument though? Let everyone through without being checked and hope on the law of averages that not everyone out of the millions that fly every year are not intent on blowing a plane up?
I hope it's not.
I think things are ok (all beit a nuisance) security-wise all things considered.
If the terrorist organisation are organised & skilfull enough to come up with explosives that can go through the security checks undetected - surely they will make sure that they use passengers unlikely to be picked out for extra profile checks to carry them.
Would racial profiling for example allow the guy below through
whilst worrying about what this lady might be carrying
the guy is the Exeter restaurant bomber who was radicalised by Islamic extremists
the lady is a Nobel Peace prize winner & Human Rights activist in Iran
I would rather everyone gets checked properly.
Saying 'I'd rather this happen' is not an argument for it, it's just an opinion. I'm sure plenty of 1930s Germans rathered Jews walked around with armbands on so that they could feel 'safer', but that dooesn't make the policy right. (Yes, extreme example, but the point stands).
Whether profiling works or not is not really something we would know anything about. I'm sure profiling does go on to some extent, and its benefits and limitations are known by the security forces that execute it.
The original point though, was that the same physical security measures have to be implemented for ALL people. It's nothing to do with being PC, it's just the only fair, just and humane way to do things. And, as has also been pointed out, not every bomber has been Asian, and shock horror, not every extremist will be Muslim. Although I do love GH's point that should a white OAP ever blow up a plane, then it will be okay to start profiling them too. Sums up the non-sensical premise of the argument perfectly.
(And Carter, no one is suggesting that you 'let everyone through' and hope for the best, obviously. Security measures are fine, but scanners that remove all your clothes? Too far. And u18's are exempt - the whole idea is seriously flawed IMO)
In my view all this invasive security stuff and disruption is very much "giving in" to terrorism.
Osama Bin Laden and cohorts must be pi***** themselves.
In my opinion the first rule of security must be minimum disruption and intrusion to the innocent majority.
Otherwise the terrorists have won by the fear they have generated as much as any actual incidents.
On a far more trivial level I was condemned on here for expressing concerns about taking my daughter to the Millwall match and being "gutless" by considering giving in to hooliganism. Surely the principle is exactly the same?
If not we've let the bastards win as they've achieved their aim.
For the first time in your life, si, i think you might be missing the point.
If there were no 'invasive security checks', there would be an increase in planes being blown up. Surely.
Granted. But if a naked scanner means everyone can walk straight through, reducing security checking to a 30 second discomfort, i'm still for it.
Once again, it's not exclusively based on the colour of a persons skin, why are so many people having a problem seeing beyond that or is it just because it suits their point to ignore the other factors involved in profiling?
I remember reading an article ages ago about it, and where it is operated, they pick up up all sorts of wrongdoers and wanted people for all sorts of reasons, mostly completely unrelated to the reason they started profiling (which surprised them) and the reason was very simple - you might think you're an oscar winning thespian but if you were in a queue to check in and you're the sort of person who's on an arrest warrant or jumped bail or got something on you you shouldn't have or actually is a terrorist, you are going to be giving off all sorts of signals whether you want to or not.
For instance the Exeter guy, Nicky Reilly, above in Oaksters example, had the mental age of a young kid and had been groomed by extremists to carry out the attack. I am damn sure that if he had been standing at check-in knowing what he was about to do he would have been pulled, today, let alone if we had systematic profiling in place which would have picked him up the minute he entered the airport, regardless of his colour. Equally likely the lady in question would have been subject to the same appropriate checks that everyone else has because she's not giving off these signals and she does not fit the profile of a potential bomber in terms of age or sex. No one has raised an objection to profiling on the ground of either of these two factors I notice.
It seems completely nonsensical to me to deliberatly ignore the opportunity this factor gives our security staff to look at someone a bit closer. If you're searching for a suspect believed to be driving a blue, Ford Focus about to be used in a bank robbery, you don't pull over every car for fear of upseting all the other, innocent, drivers of blue Ford Focus' do you, because that's the logical conclusion of the anti-profiling argument as far as I can see.
it was YOUR pc shit that allowed the exremists into the UK
it was your PC bs that allowed the Hook to preach in the street for 2 yeare spouting his racist anti woman anti homo sexual anti jewish shit(try blocking the street if your a crowd of white football fans !!) and yes lest give them a police protection crew
it was your pc bs that allowed the UK to be the BASE for radical muslims
it was your pc bs that allowed 2,000 ( just where were those moderate muslims i hear about ? ) to march thorugh London with banners asking for our troups to be beheaded and more 7/7s.
It was your pc bs that allowed a group of scum bags to stand and scream abuse at troups in Luton
but f**k me suggest profiling and it might up set a few people !!!!!!!!!!!!! it upsets me that a few tofu eating numptys make us afraid to say anything ---- well after all it might upset that shoe bomber fellow-- you know the one who was givena British passport-- lives in a detached hse on benefits and spews filth about British troups --- i mean he is a sensertive soul his 4 wifes say so. Of course those same troups have been called an army of a "neo colonial power" on here two days ago by one of the Tofu Army .
France thay cant wear a veil hear we cant SAY anything.
Yes lets all stand for two hours in a que with our shoes off, have afull body scan and not be allowed to carry a bottle of water on a 12 hour flight ------ but for f**K sake dont ever ever say f**K all in case it upsets someone !!!
No point debating anything with you, you just ignore what other people say.
I don't think anyone is suggesting profiling is, or would be based on race alone. But of course 'racial profiling' is, and I think that's the type of profiling people are referring to. It's certainly the type of profiling people like GH are referring to.
...............
That would be intelligence, and you'd expect the police etc to act on that.
However in profiling muslims I'm not convinced that you'd necessarily catch anyone - and as soon as the first woould be suicide bomber detonates a trouser leg full of semtex then it will show up profiling for what it is - a flawed strategy. Bear in mind the success of the "suss laws" in the early 80s - the police were given the right to stop and search anyone they suspected might be up to no good. The result was that young Afro-caribbean males were targeted, they got the hump with being disproportionately picked on and the result was rioting in Brixton, Handsworth, Toxteth etc. The suss laws were profiling by another name and failed - yet the Daily Mail crowd want to repeat something that didn't work, was divisive and had to be dropped after a lot more damage had been done - however it did prove that the law of unintended consequences should never be forgotten.
If we want to beat Islamic extremist terrorism then it simply makes no sense to start driving a wedge between the islamic community and the police/rest of Britain. The struggle against Islamic extremism will not succeed unless we are seen to be treating them with respect and the same as everyone else - profiling will make things worse, alienate ordinary muslims and make intelligence gathering harder not easier to conduct.