In Brief: Alyssa Milano’s Breast Milk Was Seized by Heathrow Security, Actress Is Anything But CHARMED

"To those who don’t think this is a case of DYKWIA,The way it was tweeted, it was meant to sound as if the security did something illegal or unethical while the fact is what LHR security did is THE LAW PERIOD." It is unethical, actually. The rules are supposed to be directed to security, and it is thus unethical to have the liquid rules because they do nothing to promote security. And beyond that - it was breast milk. The screening clerks knew it was breast milk. The screening clerks know breast milk isn't dangerous. So, you are saying Ms. Milano was a DYKWIA for wanting to bring on a known harmless substance and complaining because she wasn't allowed to, because rules! Now, if it had been a stupidity detector, that would have been something else. Around all the screening clerks it would have overloaded and set off an explosion bigger than Tsar Bomba.

Give her a break. Some of you are commenting as though you understand how she feels as a mother. Yes, she is obviously in the wrong and she has admitted it but were YOU aware prior to this about the rules on bringing breast milk/baby milk on board international flights? Let her be. Go pick on someone else.

Re: the above - the rules are there to prompt you to buy drinks and liquids at the airport stores or on board. I wonder if all the products on sale in the stores and brought aboard by catering companies are tested against containing the wrong stuff - you don't have to actually make a bomb (although you could hide one in a box of chocolate), you can simply poison a large group of passengers with some "enhanced" Coke. The rules are clearly wrong and it is thanks to media bringing attention to it - be it because of celebrities twitting or some non-celebrity making a fuss - that brings attention to them and has the potential to change them under public pressure.

To those who don't think this is a case of DYKWIA,The way it was tweeted, it was meant to sound as if the security did something illegal or unethical while the fact is what LHR security did is THE LAW PERIOD. Anyone on this forum can be upset with security but the topic here is not about how useful the laws are. If someone doesn't like the law their options are 1. Don't fly from that airport. 2. Go to the court. 3) Talk to the govt to change the law. Any attempt to just gain sympathy this way is pure DYKWIA. We have a 2 years old and we have taken atleast 8-9 trips with the baby through LHR. Although most US security would let us take a 15oz milk bottle for the baby LHR security made us throw it. We had a real tight connection and had to run to a store to buy milk and run with milk to the gate. We did feel a little frustrated but knew it clearly that we have to accept it or vote with our feet.

"The liquid rules are there for a reason." Yes, to pretend that screening is doing anything to promote security. Even the US rules aren't as stupid as this (although the TSA clerks in the USA are often too stupid to follow the rules and so sometimes improperly block breast milk). The fact is that liquids pose no threat - the liquid "threat" consists of some guys in 2006 saying they wanted to make a liquid bomb. But there's no way to make a liquid bomb - all the screening is just a way for the authorities to pretend that (a) there's a threat and (b) they are doing something about it. The fact is, though, that there is no threat because the screening won't stop any reasonably determined attacker. So if there were a reasonably determined attacker, there would have been a successful attack. But there hasn't been a successful attack, and the reason is that no one is trying. Why should they? It's a lot better for enemies of the western powers to just let us fall all over ourselves worrying about liquids and (in the USA) shoes. The airport screening process might just as well have been designed by al Qaeda.