jaapv Posted November 16, 2007 Share #21 Posted November 16, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Well, given that the chances of being involved in a terrorist incident are so vastly smaller than the chances of being involved in an airplane accident or indeed a motorway accident on the way to the airport as to be statistically immeasurable, and that the security measures are so ridiculous as to be wholly ineffective- after all it is hard to imagine blowing up an airoplane with a 10 mll bottle of Eclipse or hyjacking it with a pair of nail clippers when I have seen doors to the apron unlocked, unauthorized personell cleaning toilets, etc-, that conspiracy theories to the real reasons seem to gain credibilty. And my Noflexar 400 which really looks like a rocket launcher went unchallenged through security checks in five different international airports..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 16, 2007 Posted November 16, 2007 Hi jaapv, Take a look here UK Hand luggage restriction to be eased.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
earleygallery Posted November 16, 2007 Share #22 Posted November 16, 2007 I'd not flown in ages before the trip to Berlin, and to be honnest at Liverpool - which I admit isn't a large airport - it didn't feel much different than before the regulations came in. Steve, this is my point exactly. You fly from Liverpool and don't notice any difference (I'm assuming they weren't checking everyone, making everyone take their shoes off to x ray them etc etc). I fly from Gatwick - checked in on line to save time but when I got there found a que snaking right around the airport for departures, took an hour to get through to the departure lounge after aforementioned checks, having my shaving cream chemically tested, my bag searched etc etc. As I said surely - if this is about counter terrorism - it has to be done all the time every time? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted November 16, 2007 Share #23 Posted November 16, 2007 I thought you guys had some airports targeted lately? Tube? Maybe if the planes were softer target ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
guywalder Posted November 16, 2007 Share #24 Posted November 16, 2007 I thought you guys had some airports targeted lately? Tube? Maybe if the planes were softer target ... Rob, there was an attempted attack on Glasgow airport. It has been quoted as one of the reasons behind new security measures which call for 'attack proofing' of buildings, and security checks at major stations amoung other things. Ironically the most devastating attacks in the current era were the subway attacks in 2005, the new proposals do not include AFAIK any substantive suggestions to address subway security... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael-IIIf Posted November 16, 2007 Share #25 Posted November 16, 2007 All these so called counter-terrorism measures are simply window dressing and posturing to try and make the opposition look soft on security. They certainly don't add to our security. No one has thought them through. If you were a suicide bomber your happiest hunting ground would be a packed Heathrow security queue. Where else would you find lots of vulnerable victims conveniently corralled into one place for you? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spylaw4 Posted November 16, 2007 Author Share #26 Posted November 16, 2007 Absolutely! Introduced for the convenience of BAA and the airlines - nothing to do with security. Having said that I recognise that the liquids limit relates to a foiled plot where liquids were to have been mixed on board to make an explosive. But I fail to see quite why 100ml was decided upon. The sooner commonsense prevails the better! Alas I doubt if it will. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted November 16, 2007 Share #27 Posted November 16, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Having said that I recognise that the liquids limit relates to a foiled plot where liquids were to have been mixed on board to make an explosive. But I fail to see quite why 100ml was decided upon. IIRC the scientists thought of the various combinations of liquids that could be carried on board and mixed to make an explosive; factored in the practicalities of mixing and detonating it in an airliner toilet compartment; and advised that it would take more than a few 100ml bottles of ingredients. If true, that seems quite sensible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted November 16, 2007 Share #28 Posted November 16, 2007 Because you to have something consistent. We have 100ml 100g carry on restriction too, nothing to do with internal Brit politics. 100ml containers makes it eaisier to spot when you are trying to get a kilo of something on board. "Why sir, are you carrying six bottles of conditioner and four bottles of shampoo...Can we have a look" And anything to stop the average hopeless useless tourist carrying on board their kitchen sink "just in case I might need it" works for me. And the dumb bastards that have to put forty kilos of shit in the overheads. Whats the hold for? The worst part of air travel is time in the plane, not at the airports. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted November 16, 2007 Share #29 Posted November 16, 2007 The worst part of air travel is time in the plane, not at the airports. After trying a slice of Easyjet peperoni pizza on the flight to Berlin I have to agree. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cocker Posted November 17, 2007 Share #30 Posted November 17, 2007 Because the IRA never went as far as deciding that blowing up passenger airlines was a good idea, that would further their political cause. Don't agree Andy. This is "seen to be doing things" (I've just come back from 4 days business in France and was treated like a guest by their border controls and like a potential-criminal on my return to the UK by the newly re-branded UK Border gestapo - how much did that cost us?) and fear-mongering from a government that knows how unpopular and illegal and unconstitutional it was to ally itself with an aggressive American government policy on Iraq. We are reaping the consequences of what Blair took us in to - but not in my name! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cocker Posted November 17, 2007 Share #31 Posted November 17, 2007 If you are going to have more overseas military campaigns since the second world war, you have to keep people on their toes on the home front as a way of justifying them. The hypocrisy of those in charge is breathtaking. They bang on about 'ethical' business, democracy and human rights, and then lay out the red carpet for a visit by the Saudis after blocking an investigation into the huge back handers given to them. And no, I don't think the other lot would have done anything differently. Steve, Multiple Applause - Hear Hear, well Said, Couldn't agree more with all aspects of your point. The disappointing thing is that we THOUGHT that this lot would do different to the previous lot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted November 17, 2007 Share #32 Posted November 17, 2007 Anybody else happen to think that the 'security measures' are unwittingly doing the terrorists work for them? After all, the terrorists' main objective is to widely spread fear and dread, which is precisely the end product of all the restrictions and checks. Al Qaeda must be feeling very satisfied. "The only thing to fear is fear itself." (Franklin D Roosevelt.) Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xjr Posted November 17, 2007 Share #33 Posted November 17, 2007 All non-essential items i.e.clothes,creams,shoes,after-shaves,blades etc go check-in luggage. All essential items i.e. £eica cameras and lenses and films go with me.The Lowepro stealth 200 with extra dividers will easily take 2 bodies,4or 5 lenses,filters,accessories, Sony personal cd and other small items. The films go into lead lined pouches and placed in the big back pockets of the Domke/other tongs which I always wear due to the amazingly available number of pockets. If you carry films in lead lined pouches it is essential you keep them separate from the cameras otherwise they will check everything regardless.Weight of stealth 200 plus equipment no more than 4kg. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
guywalder Posted November 17, 2007 Share #34 Posted November 17, 2007 All non-essential items i.e.clothes,creams,shoes,after-shaves,blades etc go check-in luggage. All essential items i.e. £eica cameras and lenses and films go with me.The Lowepro stealth 200 with extra dividers will easily take 2 bodies,4or 5 lenses,filters,accessories, Sony personal cd and other small items. The films go into lead lined pouches and placed in the big back pockets of the Domke/other tongs which I always wear due to the amazingly available number of pockets. If you carry films in lead lined pouches it is essential you keep them separate from the cameras otherwise they will check everything regardless.Weight of stealth 200 plus equipment no more than 4kg. and your point is? I can happily go on a multi month trip with eveything in a standard carry-on size bag, except for often being thwarted by the excessive, patchily applied 'security' measures. It is absolutely the case that the terrorists Are achieving their aim of changing 'our' world in the name of 'their' cause, with massive support from a few 'western' governments. Robert Fisk (The Independent) writes well on this topic Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhsimmonds Posted November 17, 2007 Share #35 Posted November 17, 2007 Well having just spent 6 weeks flying to and around Australia, 11 flights, one overnight train journey and a ferry crossing...........(Quantas also insisted by the way on just one hand baggage.) Before leaving I ensured that I met all the conditions for dimensions and weight (7Kg) but was able to get my R9/DMR, 3 lenses plus LC1 and a portable mobile disc all in a Tamrac Adventure 9 rucksack as my only handbaggage. I didn't get any problems whatsoever in security checks. Going out of little Ayers Rock airport I was asked to take everything out of the rucksack and placed in the trays for going through X-ray, but that was the only hassle. I found that by telling the attendants that I had digital camera equipment in the rucksack BEFORE it went through the x-ray machine worked wonders everywhere else. Even at Ayers Rock airport the guy apologised profusely as soon as he saw the Leica badge! Air travel is a hassle, but travelling anywhere over generations has always been a hassle! You either do it and put up with the problems or you don't and miss out on the excitement! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted November 17, 2007 Share #36 Posted November 17, 2007 Whilst they are easing your carry-on load, they are to now collect 53 (count 'em) pieces of personal information from you, to be held "for as long as the authorities see fit" - possibly your entire lifetime. Credit card details, holiday contact numbers, travel plans, email addresses, car numbers and even any previous missed flights, to name but a few. Terror crackdown: Passengers forced to answer 53 questions BEFORE they travel| News | This is London Welcome to Britain, folks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
guywalder Posted November 17, 2007 Share #37 Posted November 17, 2007 Whilst they are easing your carry-on load, they are to now collect 53 (count 'em) pieces of personal information from you, to be held "for as long as the authorities see fit" - possibly your entire lifetime. Credit card details, holiday contact numbers, travel plans, email addresses, car numbers and even any previous missed flights, to name but a few. Terror crackdown: Passengers forced to answer 53 questions BEFORE they travel| News | This is London Welcome to Britain, folks Andy, this looks like the list that the US was demanding, for some months the EU authorities and US authorities were arguing about it, with the EU resisting (bit like the spat over so called air marshals). Looks like uncle Gordon has caved in. I'd still like to know how these measures would have prevented the london tube attack or the Madrid train bombings..... still better to be seen to do something than to waste time looking at causes, eh? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted November 17, 2007 Share #38 Posted November 17, 2007 I'd still like to know how these measures would have prevented the london tube attack or the Madrid train bombings..... still better to be seen to do something than to waste time looking at causes, eh? And there's me thinking that Gordon Brown wasn't going to be brown-nosing any more... You're not wrong there. Can't see any restrictions on getting on the tube with a rucksack full of fertiliser and sugar... One day, a politician will have the balls to do something about these root causes. Until then, prepare to fill in the form and have your mouth swabbed. Holidays at home from now on then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted November 17, 2007 Share #39 Posted November 17, 2007 YouTube - Airport Security - The Chaser Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandokan Posted November 18, 2007 Share #40 Posted November 18, 2007 Bruce Schneirer has been going on about this for ages, including the erosion of our civil liberties to a point where it would not take much more for democracy to die - now that would be a victory for terrorism: the death of what we are fighting to keep. The book, Beyond Fear: Schneier.com Crypto-Gram: November 15, 2007 for the fear of the unusual To quote briefly: "We've opened up a new front on the war on terror. It's an attack on the unique, the unorthodox, the unexpected; it's a war on different. If you act different, you might find yourself investigated, questioned, and even arrested -- even if you did nothing wrong, and had no intention of doing anything wrong. The problem is a combination of citizen informants and a CYA attitude among police that results in a knee-jerk escalation of reported threats. This isn't the way counterterrorism is supposed to work, but it's happening everywhere. It's a result of our relentless campaign to convince ordinary citizens that they're the front line of terrorism defense. "If you see something, say something" is how the ads read in the New York City subways. "If you suspect something, report it" urges another ad campaign in Manchester, UK. The Michigan State Police have a seven-minute video. Administration officials from then-attorney general John Ashcroft to DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff to President Bush have asked us all to report any suspicious activity." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.