Temper blowout at LHR T5 - screeners lying or truthful?
Dec 8, 2012, 3:42 pm
#76
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 46
Dec 8, 2012, 3:56 pm
#77
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New Zealand/ UK
Programs: NZ, EK, QF, SQ.
Posts: 776
Look. Let's get this straight. N830MH posted an ill-informed, ranting condemnation of UK security, even though he had not experienced it. His post demonstrated not only his problems with English (for which I made a polite suggestion, even if I was incorrect, and for which I have now apologised), but also his failure to understand other aspects of life in the UK.
In the light of his lack of personal experience and of his misunderstanding of another aspect of British life, I asked for the source of his opinion. Since he gave no source, I said that he was not qualified to judge. That's right. I said you need to experience something like a country's security screening systems before you are qualified to judge them.
I would have accepted personal experience or a reference to a reliable, academic report or survey as a basis for an informed opinion. He had neither.
In the light of his lack of personal experience and of his misunderstanding of another aspect of British life, I asked for the source of his opinion. Since he gave no source, I said that he was not qualified to judge. That's right. I said you need to experience something like a country's security screening systems before you are qualified to judge them.
I would have accepted personal experience or a reference to a reliable, academic report or survey as a basis for an informed opinion. He had neither.
Dec 8, 2012, 7:55 pm
#78
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,580
Look. Let's get this straight. N830MH posted an ill-informed, ranting condemnation of UK security, even though he had not experienced it. His post demonstrated not only his problems with English (for which I made a polite suggestion, even if I was incorrect, and for which I have now apologised), but also his failure to understand other aspects of life in the UK.
In the light of his lack of personal experience and of his misunderstanding of another aspect of British life, I asked for the source of his opinion. Since he gave no source, I said that he was not qualified to judge. That's right. I said you need to experience something like a country's security screening systems before you are qualified to judge them.
I would have accepted personal experience or a reference to a reliable, academic report or survey as a basis for an informed opinion. He had neither.
In the light of his lack of personal experience and of his misunderstanding of another aspect of British life, I asked for the source of his opinion. Since he gave no source, I said that he was not qualified to judge. That's right. I said you need to experience something like a country's security screening systems before you are qualified to judge them.
I would have accepted personal experience or a reference to a reliable, academic report or survey as a basis for an informed opinion. He had neither.
Dec 8, 2012, 8:32 pm
#79
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 239
The amount of PETN that can take down a plane (according to explosives experts) is about the size of a C-cell battery. This amount, and a great deal more, can be inserted in the rectum of any human. Therefore, all the scanning of bags, naked photography of people and the like achieves nothing, so long as they are not doing cavity searches.
Also, despite the 'enhanced security', they could not prevent the shoe bomber or the underwear bomber.
On top of that, in the USA, tens of thousands die on our roads each year. We still let 16 year olds get a permit to drive a motor vehicle by only answering a 10-question multiple choice test, and we are lax with drunks who continue to drive, but we are so scared of a once-in-a-lifetime terrorist event that we willingly give up our rights for a false sense of security from it?
As long as these ridiculous hypocrisies exist, I have zero faith in the intelligence services to respect the rights of the individual, or to act rationally in the interests of actual security. It's all theater (theatre, for the Brits).
Dec 8, 2012, 8:41 pm
#80
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 239
It's an urban myth...goes back to the 70's perhaps even earlier
http://urbanlegends.about.com/librar...y/aa092198.htm
With all due respect to you, this is *precisely* the problem with airport security. It needs to be based on logic, reason, intelligence (the IQ kind, not the document kind), and effectiveness.
It should never be based on fear, paranoia, "feel good-ness", or an irrational need to feel that "something" is being done. Case in point - there is not a problem with the use of dead babies to smuggle drugs, and using something so horrific and outrageous as a basis for modern day drug screening fails the fear and paranoia metrics above.
Also, a google search shows nothing other than the video you posted regarding using camels to smuggle drugs. Frankly, I think the video is BS. It makes a claim, fails to back it up with any proof, just shows some video of camels. Combined with zero other sources on the Internet backing it up, I have to write off the video as fantasy.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/librar...y/aa092198.htm
With all due respect to you, this is *precisely* the problem with airport security. It needs to be based on logic, reason, intelligence (the IQ kind, not the document kind), and effectiveness.
It should never be based on fear, paranoia, "feel good-ness", or an irrational need to feel that "something" is being done. Case in point - there is not a problem with the use of dead babies to smuggle drugs, and using something so horrific and outrageous as a basis for modern day drug screening fails the fear and paranoia metrics above.
Also, a google search shows nothing other than the video you posted regarding using camels to smuggle drugs. Frankly, I think the video is BS. It makes a claim, fails to back it up with any proof, just shows some video of camels. Combined with zero other sources on the Internet backing it up, I have to write off the video as fantasy.
Last edited by corporate666; Dec 8, 2012 at 8:47 pm
Dec 8, 2012, 10:02 pm
#81
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New Zealand/ UK
Programs: NZ, EK, QF, SQ.
Posts: 776
I think he was judging them based on the previous posts in the thread. The OP criticized several aspects of UK security procedures in post #1, and based on that information,N830MH made an assessment of the situation. Information from other posters is a valid basis to make a judgment.
None of the prior posts mentioned some of the unfounded allegations that N830MH made, which is one of the reasons I asked him for his sources.
I, too, have had the occasional bad experience while going through security screening in various countries. This did not cause me to condemn the entire country's security systems. I just put it down to either the screeners or myself having a bad day.
Dec 8, 2012, 10:38 pm
#82
Join Date: Mar 2007
Programs: QFF Gold, Flying Blue, Enrich
Posts: 5,366
I think he was judging them based on the previous posts in the thread. The OP criticized several aspects of UK security procedures in post #1, and based on that information, N830MH made an assessment of the situation. Information from other posters is a valid basis to make a judgment.
Dec 8, 2012, 11:32 pm
#83
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New Zealand/ UK
Programs: NZ, EK, QF, SQ.
Posts: 776
I think he was judging them based on the previous posts in the thread. The OP criticized several aspects of UK security procedures in post #1, and based on that information, N830MH made an assessment of the situation. Information from other posters is a valid basis to make a judgment.
That is insufficient evidence to condemn the procedures of an entire country.
Dec 9, 2012, 12:07 am
#84
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,580
Not always. And not if the information posted is coloured by the poster's own attitude (as was the case of the OP of this thread) and not if the information is based on a one-day experience at only one airport of many in the country.
That is insufficient evidence to condemn the procedures of an entire country.
That is insufficient evidence to condemn the procedures of an entire country.
Dec 9, 2012, 2:20 am
#85
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 46
Looks like the thread went off on a tangent, which I haven't read yet, but while I think intelligence services know more, I don't think they have our best interests at heart, and are not to be trusted.
The amount of PETN that can take down a plane (according to explosives experts) is about the size of a C-cell battery. This amount, and a great deal more, can be inserted in the rectum of any human. Therefore, all the scanning of bags, naked photography of people and the like achieves nothing, so long as they are not doing cavity searches.
Also, despite the 'enhanced security', they could not prevent the shoe bomber or the underwear bomber.
On top of that, in the USA, tens of thousands die on our roads each year. We still let 16 year olds get a permit to drive a motor vehicle by only answering a 10-question multiple choice test, and we are lax with drunks who continue to drive, but we are so scared of a once-in-a-lifetime terrorist event that we willingly give up our rights for a false sense of security from it?
As long as these ridiculous hypocrisies exist, I have zero faith in the intelligence services to respect the rights of the individual, or to act rationally in the interests of actual security. It's all theater (theatre, for the Brits).
The amount of PETN that can take down a plane (according to explosives experts) is about the size of a C-cell battery. This amount, and a great deal more, can be inserted in the rectum of any human. Therefore, all the scanning of bags, naked photography of people and the like achieves nothing, so long as they are not doing cavity searches.
Also, despite the 'enhanced security', they could not prevent the shoe bomber or the underwear bomber.
On top of that, in the USA, tens of thousands die on our roads each year. We still let 16 year olds get a permit to drive a motor vehicle by only answering a 10-question multiple choice test, and we are lax with drunks who continue to drive, but we are so scared of a once-in-a-lifetime terrorist event that we willingly give up our rights for a false sense of security from it?
As long as these ridiculous hypocrisies exist, I have zero faith in the intelligence services to respect the rights of the individual, or to act rationally in the interests of actual security. It's all theater (theatre, for the Brits).
The Brits have endured years of IRA bombings.
The aftermath of which would turn the stomach of the most hardened individual.
Better some security than none at all.
Dec 9, 2012, 4:01 am
#86
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New Zealand/ UK
Programs: NZ, EK, QF, SQ.
Posts: 776
Celle, I think you are being way too sensitive here. No one likes their country to be criticized, but it happens on the internet all the time. The TSA, for example, is subject to condemnation left and right on this forum, based solely on anecdotal evidence from a small handful of people. There is no research study showing the public overall has any significant problems with the TSA, yet on this forum you will see plenty of people calling them "incompetent", "criminals", or worse, based on stories told in these threads. Of course this is not a scientifically sound way of drawing conclusions, but this is an internet forum, not a peer-reviewed journal.
Yes, I know that the TSA is subject to inordinate criticism on Flyertalk, and I am aware that a number of the individuals who post here have a bee in their bonnet about it. Their comments in no way reflect my own experience when flying into and around the USA. I have my own experience to moderate their paranoia and I know that it is only a small minority of people who have a problem with the TSA.
I would not be rash enough to post a criticism of the entire USA's security procedures based on what I had only read about the TSA on Flyertalk. And I am sure that, had I been so rash, I would have had coals of fire heaped on my head by offended Americans!
Dec 9, 2012, 4:42 am
#87
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 46
LINK
http://reliefweb.int/report/world/20...rism-2002-2011
Download the PDF file, makes interesting reading.
http://reliefweb.int/report/world/20...rism-2002-2011
Download the PDF file, makes interesting reading.
Dec 9, 2012, 12:41 pm
#88
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 239
The reality is that it *is* security theater. It achieves nothing other than offering the illusion of safety to the gullible and/or misinformed. Meanwhile, it tramples on the rights of millions. "Better some security than none at all" is the most disgusting of replies, because it not only creates a strawman, but it trivializes the rights of individuals and justifies expensive and utterly ineffective security theater with "well, we have to do *something*". Shame on those who fall for it.
Dec 9, 2012, 1:01 pm
#89
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 46
I've pointed out that the security measures that have been implemented post 9/11 have done nothing to improve security. Absolutely nothing. With respect, you are willfully participating and encouraging that theater by justifying these security procedures in the name of safety/security and at the expense of freedom and liberty.
The reality is that it *is* security theater. It achieves nothing other than offering the illusion of safety to the gullible and/or misinformed. Meanwhile, it tramples on the rights of millions. "Better some security than none at all" is the most disgusting of replies, because it not only creates a strawman, but it trivializes the rights of individuals and justifies expensive and utterly ineffective security theater with "well, we have to do *something*". Shame on those who fall for it.
The reality is that it *is* security theater. It achieves nothing other than offering the illusion of safety to the gullible and/or misinformed. Meanwhile, it tramples on the rights of millions. "Better some security than none at all" is the most disgusting of replies, because it not only creates a strawman, but it trivializes the rights of individuals and justifies expensive and utterly ineffective security theater with "well, we have to do *something*". Shame on those who fall for it.
You may not agree with me, but once experienced, Never Forgotten!
Your opinion will obviously never change. So I suggest we agree to disagree!
Dec 9, 2012, 1:08 pm
#90
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 57,952
I trust that you never have to experience living with the daily threat of terrorist violence. Where every day one has to check ones car before setting out to work. Where even a piece of scrap newspaper under one of the wheels could hide a bomb. A technique used on a number of occasions.
You may not agree with me, but once experienced, Never Forgotten!
Your opinion will obviously never change. So I suggest we agree to disagree!
You may not agree with me, but once experienced, Never Forgotten!
Your opinion will obviously never change. So I suggest we agree to disagree!
I'm more likely to die driving to the airport than I am to be injured in any way at the airport. And that's not because of TSA/DfT.
Terrorism succeeds because cowards are all too willing to change their behavior and cede their rights and liberties as the terrorists dictate they should. It's shameful and disgusting.