Hmmm....sure that arguments been made a few times in history with apalling consequences. Let's just round up anyone who we groundlessly suspect may wish to harm the countries (and their families and anyone else of their religion) and seperate them from society by enacting laws which essentially treat them as second class citizens.
If a man pulled out a big black round bomb with a fuse on it and the word BOMB written on the side, on a bus, I would understand the reaction.
Assuming (and I think it's fair to assume this one) that the person who panicked when they witnessed someone filling up a hot water bottle/ pouring soup, is not aware of a type of bomb that looks deceptively like a Thermos flask of steaming soup, then I think the reaction to the coach thing is utterly ridiculous, and gives terrorism an easy win. The purpose of it is to make us live in fear. And the M6 was one big road of fear this afternoon, and potential terrorists didn't have to lift a finger.
Lethal injection more humane than shooting ? .... nah .. lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment, first the sedation of the 'patient' followed by protracted insertion of drips and catheters to enable poison to be pumped in to the 'patient's' system. A quick shot by pistol to the back of the neck severing the spinal cord from the brain and resulting in instant demise is far far more humane.
If a man pulled out a big black round bomb with a fuse on it and the word BOMB written on the side, on a bus, I would understand the reaction.
Assuming (and I think it's fair to assume this one) that the person who panicked when they witnessed someone filling up a hot water bottle/ pouring soup, is not aware of a type of bomb that looks deceptively like a Thermos flask of steaming soup, then I think the reaction to the coach thing is utterly ridiculous, and gives terrorism an easy win. The purpose of it is to make us live in fear. And the M6 was one big road of fear this afternoon, and potential terrorists didn't have to lift a finger.
I personally find that the point you make about over reaction is ridiculous. If the police get a call saying there is a suspected bomb on board it is exactly the response you want. The fact it may well have been something quite innocent is an irrelevance.
If a man pulled out a big black round bomb with a fuse on it and the word BOMB written on the side, on a bus, I would understand the reaction.
Assuming (and I think it's fair to assume this one) that the person who panicked when they witnessed someone filling up a hot water bottle/ pouring soup, is not aware of a type of bomb that looks deceptively like a Thermos flask of steaming soup, then I think the reaction to the coach thing is utterly ridiculous, and gives terrorism an easy win. The purpose of it is to make us live in fear. And the M6 was one big road of fear this afternoon, and potential terrorists didn't have to lift a finger.
Know what you mean,but the worrying thing is this kind of thing has been attempted.Did you not see the documentary about the terrorists who planned to blow up planes in the Atlantic using drink bottles/cartons?
You'd think people would learn. All sorts of new powers were given to the police and politicians to "deal with these sort of people". How are they used? Well let's see, anti-terrorism powers are used against football fans, online file sharers, and pretty much any group other than terrorists!
If we give powers to hold and deport with no need for judicial oversight, evidence, etc. who do you think it will be used against? Terrorists or whistle-blowers? Terrorists or football fans? Terrorists or people who don't like the way big business operates?
I totally agree, the Police abusing these powers shows exactly why certain powers should never be given to them. Having said that its a real dilemma freedom over security, but should be handled with care
I had a conversation with an American work colleague the other day, he thought it was ridiculous that you still had to remove your shoes and go through the body scan machine at Airport Security..........what short memories some people have.
Short memories? One guy tried it, and failed. Should our security procedures all be based on low chance, almost guaranteed to fail, frankly bizarre supposed "threats"? Maybe we should all strip naked because one nutter tried a pants bomb?
The security at airports is designed to do 2 things: 1)Reassure the gullible and naive that something is being done - i.e. security theatre 2)To line the pockets of various suppliers
The 2 most important security measures that would have stopped 9/11 were inacted immediately, and very little else needed to be changed. 1)The assumption that you peacefully go along with the terrorists and they will simply collect their money and let you go is now gone, terrorists try to take over a plane and the passengers have nothing to lose by trying to stop them. 2)Cockpit doors are now locked.
Israel has far tighter security at its airports for obvious reasons, but they don't seem to have the need for billion pound "naked" scanners, nor the need to border-line sexually assault passengers, nor have massive, slow moving bomb targets, sorry I mean security lines.
Short memories? One guy tried it, and failed. Should our security procedures all be based on low chance, almost guaranteed to fail, frankly bizarre supposed "threats"? Maybe we should all strip naked because one nutter tried a pants bomb?
The security at airports is designed to do 2 things: 1)Reassure the gullible and naive that something is being done - i.e. security theatre 2)To line the pockets of various suppliers
The 2 most important security measures that would have stopped 9/11 were inacted immediately, and very little else needed to be changed. 1)The assumption that you peacefully go along with the terrorists and they will simply collect their money and let you go is now gone, terrorists try to take over a plane and the passengers have nothing to lose by trying to stop them. 2)Cockpit doors are now locked.
Israel has far tighter security at its airports for obvious reasons, but they don't seem to have the need for billion pound "naked" scanners, nor the need to border-line sexually assault passengers, nor have massive, slow moving bomb targets, sorry I mean security lines.
The guy that tried to light his shoe on Christmas Day a few years back didn't give a sh1t that the Cockpit door was locked, he simply wanted to blow that plane out of the sky. I'd like to think with the measures in place now there is a much reduced chance of this kind of thing happening.
"Border-line sexually assault passengers"......too much Daily Mail reading.
Those naked scanners show nothing of the body, you would see more flesh going to Eltham Swimming Pool.
I'm marshalling the Olympic torch coming through our borough tomorrow. We had to sit through a two hour presentation from a member of the anti terroist squad on what to look out for in the crowd, packages etc. scary!
Also sadly casual/subconscious racism is often the reason behind these so called "better safe than sorry" false alarms. Had the person getting their electric cigarette out their bag been a white middle aged woman I suspect there wouldn't have been any alert, I expect to hear that it was someone that "looks like a terrorist" who was getting their nicotine fix.
I remember a number of scenarios immediately after 9/11 and 7/7 where people would panic when on a flight because someone on their plane "looked like they could be dangerous". I think on a couple of occasions people were taken off planes just to let the flights go ahead because the other passengers were so scared (one example here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/5278210.stm).
One of my colleagues was on a plane with me in 2002 and absolutely freaked out when the passenger next to him was using a laptop with lots of squiggly text on it - he assumed it must be a remote bomb device (when of course it was just a laptop running the Arabic version of Windows).
It's sad really and I don't buy the better safe than sorry argument. Almost all of the false alarms are people panicking and creating fantasies in their heads and getting more upset the more they think about it. Clearly there's a risk out there but I think our intelligence agencies do a good job of preventing things happening, rather than members of the public seeing something suspicious...
As mentioned above, terrorists want to cause panic and disruption. Unfortunately farces like today give them a victory even though it was nothing to do with them...
It's not even difficult to prove how much of a farce it all is. They limit the amount of a liquid you can take on to a 125ml container. But you can take as many of those containers on as you like, so there is actually no limit. If I need 1kg of an explosive liquid, and 1kg of another, that when mixed form an incredible bomb (this has been proved to be not only immensely difficult, even under lab conditions, but also far harder than hundreds of other ways of getting explosives on a plane), all I need is 1 partner in crime. We each take a number of differently labelled 125ml containers onto the plane and job done.
The whole point about scanners, and liquid limits, and taking shoes off is that they do absolutely nothing. The 9/11 bombers didn't go through security, an accomplice led them through a back door and they skipped the whole of airport security.
The person that needs hanging/lethal injection is the cretin that couldn't tell the difference between someone trying to have a sneaky fag and a terrorist attempting to get others to take a quick trip to paradise (virgin bonus for non-infidels) against their will!
Personally, I hope that we get to see them on TV so that we can point and laugh....however, did anyone else think that the speculation game being played by all the media this morning was utterly ridiculous? The fact that it was a furtive smoker has made them all look right wallies, so at least we can be grateful for that, I suppose....
The guy that tried to light his shoe on Christmas Day a few years back didn't give a sh1t that the Cockpit door was locked, he simply wanted to blow that plane out of the sky. I'd like to think with the measures in place now there is a much reduced chance of this kind of thing happening.
"Border-line sexually assault passengers"......too much Daily Mail reading.
Those naked scanners show nothing of the body, you would see more flesh going to Eltham Swimming Pool.
Don't read the Daily Mail, do some research into TSA practices in the US. See what various medical councils have to say about the scanners. If the scanners show nothing of the body then why bother with them, and why have operators been sacked for saving the images if they show nothing? Why would they bother? Why have there been scandals in the US of attractive women being asked to walk through multiple times whilst the operator and his buddies crowd around the screen?
There are a million ways to blow up a plane, and the current security arrangements do nothing more than the old security arrangements to stop the vast vast majority. And as I said in a later post, the 9/11 terrorists skipped security all together.
You have to ask what are the aims of terrorists, are we thwarting or helping those aims with our actions? The M6 incident today shows that too often we are aiding the terrorists in creating terror, whilst all the time giving our governments and police more and more undemocratic powers that they almost universally use against those they are supposed to protect.
It's not even difficult to prove how much of a farce it all is. They limit the amount of a liquid you can take on to a 125ml container. But you can take as many of those containers on as you like, so there is actually no limit. If I need 1kg of an explosive liquid, and 1kg of another, that when mixed form an incredible bomb (this has been proved to be not only immensely difficult, even under lab conditions, but also far harder than hundreds of other ways of getting explosives on a plane), all I need is 1 partner in crime. We each take a number of differently labelled 125ml containers onto the plane and job done.
The whole point about scanners, and liquid limits, and taking shoes off is that they do absolutely nothing. The 9/11 bombers didn't go through security, an accomplice led them through a back door and they skipped the whole of airport security.
Thought it was 100ml containers, up to a litre, in only 1 bag - the standard sized bags?
I have seen detectors that can analyse the contents of a bottle, through the plastic. The technology certainly exists and is very affordable.
I also recall pictures of some of the hijackers going through airport security, not round the back.
Discussing the suggestions that the threat from terrorism is over-estimated, Mr Anderson wrote: “During the 21st century, terrorism has been an insignificant cause of mortality in the United Kingdom. The annualised average of five deaths caused by terrorism in England and Wales over this period compares with total accidental deaths in 2010 of 17,201, including 123 cyclists killed in traffic accidents, 102 personnel killed in Afghanistan, 29 people drowned in the bathtub and five killed by stings from hornets, wasps and bees.”
It's possible I'm getting the shoe or pants bomber confused with the 9/11 hijackers with the security avoidance, but the liquid limits still make no sense. If they can analyse what's in a bottle, then why have any limit? We had to down a 300ml bottle of my 2 yr old's squash at Gatwick last year, it's ridiculous.
They're a pain for sure, but just as you have had a bad experience with them, i have had a good one. I was due to fly transatlantic the very morning they uncovered the liquid plot, and as a result i have no qualms about them removing this as a threat.
Remember, the bomb doesn't have to blow up the plane, it just has to put a big enough hole in the fuselage.
The answer is to deport any KNOWN terrorists or people with terrorist affiliations AND to make sure that they don't get back into the UK. If anyone is found to have snuck back after deportation then they should get a life sentence, NO parole.
If they come from countries within the EU we have no right to deport them...
Conversely terrorists from other EU countries have every right to pop over and we have no right to stop them
More reason to get out the EU!
They're already in the EU. Which is the West. Why take a bus to England. It is the West that the Jihadis are at war with. There have been attacks in other EU countries you know. It''s not just all about England.
Even if they did, for some reason, decide to travel to a country with arguably tighter security and (arguably) more elaborate forms of policing than the rest of Europe, they would still be subjected to the same tests as everyone else, including probably being on the no-fly list or already under surveillance.
Bloody hilarious comments - Taking anything you can find to suit your own point of view, even when it doesn't make any sense. Hardly surprising from you two.
Comments
Those who give up basic freedoms for temporary security deserve neither
Could have sworn you view point was more "innocent until proved guilty" when it was some other type of people who had been arrested. I wonder why.
East and West stand take heed ;-)
Bit harsh, but hey, better safe than sorry.
Call me a woolly liberal but I think lethal injection is more humane.
Assuming (and I think it's fair to assume this one) that the person who panicked when they witnessed someone filling up a hot water bottle/ pouring soup, is not aware of a type of bomb that looks deceptively like a Thermos flask of steaming soup, then I think the reaction to the coach thing is utterly ridiculous, and gives terrorism an easy win. The purpose of it is to make us live in fear. And the M6 was one big road of fear this afternoon, and potential terrorists didn't have to lift a finger.
The security at airports is designed to do 2 things:
1)Reassure the gullible and naive that something is being done - i.e. security theatre
2)To line the pockets of various suppliers
The 2 most important security measures that would have stopped 9/11 were inacted immediately, and very little else needed to be changed.
1)The assumption that you peacefully go along with the terrorists and they will simply collect their money and let you go is now gone, terrorists try to take over a plane and the passengers have nothing to lose by trying to stop them.
2)Cockpit doors are now locked.
Israel has far tighter security at its airports for obvious reasons, but they don't seem to have the need for billion pound "naked" scanners, nor the need to border-line sexually assault passengers, nor have massive, slow moving bomb targets, sorry I mean security lines.
The guy that tried to light his shoe on Christmas Day a few years back didn't give a sh1t that the Cockpit door was locked, he simply wanted to blow that plane out of the sky. I'd like to think with the measures in place now there is a much reduced chance of this kind of thing happening.
"Border-line sexually assault passengers"......too much Daily Mail reading.
Those naked scanners show nothing of the body, you would see more flesh going to Eltham Swimming Pool.
I remember a number of scenarios immediately after 9/11 and 7/7 where people would panic when on a flight because someone on their plane "looked like they could be dangerous". I think on a couple of occasions people were taken off planes just to let the flights go ahead because the other passengers were so scared (one example here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/5278210.stm).
One of my colleagues was on a plane with me in 2002 and absolutely freaked out when the passenger next to him was using a laptop with lots of squiggly text on it - he assumed it must be a remote bomb device (when of course it was just a laptop running the Arabic version of Windows).
It's sad really and I don't buy the better safe than sorry argument. Almost all of the false alarms are people panicking and creating fantasies in their heads and getting more upset the more they think about it. Clearly there's a risk out there but I think our intelligence agencies do a good job of preventing things happening, rather than members of the public seeing something suspicious...
As mentioned above, terrorists want to cause panic and disruption. Unfortunately farces like today give them a victory even though it was nothing to do with them...
The whole point about scanners, and liquid limits, and taking shoes off is that they do absolutely nothing. The 9/11 bombers didn't go through security, an accomplice led them through a back door and they skipped the whole of airport security.
Personally, I hope that we get to see them on TV so that we can point and laugh....however, did anyone else think that the speculation game being played by all the media this morning was utterly ridiculous? The fact that it was a furtive smoker has made them all look right wallies, so at least we can be grateful for that, I suppose....
There are a million ways to blow up a plane, and the current security arrangements do nothing more than the old security arrangements to stop the vast vast majority. And as I said in a later post, the 9/11 terrorists skipped security all together.
You have to ask what are the aims of terrorists, are we thwarting or helping those aims with our actions? The M6 incident today shows that too often we are aiding the terrorists in creating terror, whilst all the time giving our governments and police more and more undemocratic powers that they almost universally use against those they are supposed to protect.
I have seen detectors that can analyse the contents of a bottle, through the plastic. The technology certainly exists and is very affordable.
I also recall pictures of some of the hijackers going through airport security, not round the back.
http://www.toledoblade.com/Nation/2011/09/11/What-has-become-of-September-11-hijackers-remains.html
Discussing the suggestions that the threat from terrorism is over-estimated, Mr Anderson wrote: “During the 21st century, terrorism has been an insignificant cause of mortality in the United Kingdom. The annualised average of five deaths caused by terrorism in England and Wales over this period compares with total accidental deaths in 2010 of 17,201, including 123 cyclists killed in traffic accidents, 102 personnel killed in Afghanistan, 29 people drowned in the bathtub and five killed by stings from hornets, wasps and bees.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9359763/Bee-stings-killed-as-many-in-UK-as-terrorists-says-watchdog.html
Remember, the bomb doesn't have to blow up the plane, it just has to put a big enough hole in the fuselage.
Even if they did, for some reason, decide to travel to a country with arguably tighter security and (arguably) more elaborate forms of policing than the rest of Europe, they would still be subjected to the same tests as everyone else, including probably being on the no-fly list or already under surveillance.
Bloody hilarious comments - Taking anything you can find to suit your own point of view, even when it doesn't make any sense. Hardly surprising from you two.