68 Turkish Nationals Lived in Kuala Lumpur Airport for Over A Month, Officials Did No
Oct 5, 2014, 10:33 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Singapore
Posts: 977
68 Turkish Nationals Lived in Kuala Lumpur Airport for Over A Month, Officials Did No
68 Turkish nationals lived in Kuala Lumpur Airport for over a month, and the Malaysian Airport officials had no clue, until three of them tried to breach the satellite terminal of KLIA.
Initial investigations reveal that the group had been living in the airport viewing gallery for more than a month. The group ranged from elderly to a 6 month old baby.
The Malaysian Police said that no one noticed them. The group had money. They slept on cloth on the floor, bathed and changed in the toilets.
Such a large group for more than a month - no one noticed them.
Makes you wonder about the security of that place.
http://londonproperty123.blogspot.sg...-in-kuala.html
Initial investigations reveal that the group had been living in the airport viewing gallery for more than a month. The group ranged from elderly to a 6 month old baby.
The Malaysian Police said that no one noticed them. The group had money. They slept on cloth on the floor, bathed and changed in the toilets.
Such a large group for more than a month - no one noticed them.
Makes you wonder about the security of that place.
http://londonproperty123.blogspot.sg...-in-kuala.html
Oct 6, 2014, 2:32 am
#2
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Programs: UA 1K, AA Lifetime Platinum, DL Platinum, Honors Diamond, Bonvoy Titanium, Hertz Platinum
Posts: 7,970
Why? They were in a sterile area of the airport, so they presumably had been screened. Simply staying in such an area over X amount of time would not seem to increase the security risk. And,
it would appear that as soon as they did do something that affected security, they were immediately detected.
So it would appear to me that the airport security was correctly focusing its resources where they should be.
Malaysian Airport officials had no clue, until three of them tried to breach the satellite terminal of KLIA.
So it would appear to me that the airport security was correctly focusing its resources where they should be.
Oct 6, 2014, 4:27 am
#3
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Programs: KL Gold, SQ KF Gold, CX Green
Posts: 9,409
http://cogitasia.com/illegal-uighur-...outheast-asia/
Oct 6, 2014, 5:52 am
#5
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Singapore
Posts: 977
Why? They were in a sterile area of the airport, so they presumably had been screened. Simply staying in such an area over X amount of time would not seem to increase the security risk. And,
it would appear that as soon as they did do something that affected security, they were immediately detected.
So it would appear to me that the airport security was correctly focusing its resources where they should be.
it would appear that as soon as they did do something that affected security, they were immediately detected.
So it would appear to me that the airport security was correctly focusing its resources where they should be.
However, by their own admission, they sent officers to patrol on the ground for squatters. So, by their own admission, they did not do a good job in identifying these squatters.
The bigger picture is this - wouldn't security be concerned if somebody stays in your transit area for longer than a typical person should? And I am not even talking about days or weeks now, it was more than a month.
Oct 6, 2014, 5:57 am
#6
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Turkish nationals? Most likely they were Uighurs from Western China claiming to be Turks or holding fake Turkish passports.
http://cogitasia.com/illegal-uighur-...outheast-asia/
http://cogitasia.com/illegal-uighur-...outheast-asia/
Oct 6, 2014, 4:07 pm
#7
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 18
I'm not saying it's a direct threat to security, but this is a lot like inviting some people over for a party, and then not noticing them taking up your extra bedroom in the basement until they decide they want a change of scenery and try to use the main floor restroom.
Oct 6, 2014, 9:26 pm
#8
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,345
Why? They were in a sterile area of the airport, so they presumably had been screened. Simply staying in such an area over X amount of time would not seem to increase the security risk. And,
it would appear that as soon as they did do something that affected security, they were immediately detected.
So it would appear to me that the airport security was correctly focusing its resources where they should be.
it would appear that as soon as they did do something that affected security, they were immediately detected.
So it would appear to me that the airport security was correctly focusing its resources where they should be.
Oct 7, 2014, 1:39 am
#9
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Given how bad even passport control type employees can be with positive and negative match identification for people of a different ethnicity than themselves who happen to change clothes every so often, can't say I'm surprised this could take place at an airport that is a major regional melting pot transit hub.