angatol

.....

Tobias-UK

I rest my case

stifle

I don't have any evidence to suggest that is correct in the context of preclearance posts. It is likely to be true in the US itself where CBP officers are fully-fledged law enforcement officers with powers of arrest etc. In Ireland, they can conduct or direct customs searches; if they believe a passenger has an item which is a security risk but not a customs risk, they have no right to do anything other than detain the passenger pending the arrival of a Garda.
You said:
I pointed out that they have the right of appeal to the Irish courts, albeit with compensation being met by Ireland – unless they have waived the right, which you do by applying for entry under the Visa Waiver Program.

shorthauldad

I don't think anyone has ever got very far in attempting to explain The Point, or at least anything beyond "CYA"

Is it that when the first aircraft is deliberately and mysteriously flooded with water at 38,000' inbound to the UK, and all pax drown, it's not our problem as they were screened outside the UK, so tick in box for the DfT goons and our brave security screeners?

Tobias-UK

This really is nonsense. Take away the screening (or the 'theatre' as you like to call it) and see how long it is before some fanatical idiot manages to down a plane.

Teefaf

North Security was quiet just now. Only two people ahead of me, and it still took 10 minutes to get through. No trays had been returned so there were none for me to put my stuff in. And then they took ages screening the stuff going through.

Meh.

Calchas

is that the purpose of the section? It seems to me to indemnify US agents for breaches of Irish law and then creates a right of action against the Irish State in lieu of against the officer. I don't think it is intended to provide a remedy for procedural failings of US Customs and Immigration on admissions decisions, rather to provide some relief if they assault you!

Also, the enactment doesn't say you can waive or otherwise your right to rely on that provision, which would seem to me a higher authority for the Irish courts than an administrative decision of US CPB. It also provides a passenger may withdraw his intention to travel at any time and leave the preclearance area, unless he is already detained.

shorthauldad

How many BA pax use the bus, the train, or the tube to get to LHR each day?

Can anyone remind me what the current DfT screening rules are for pax boarding a bus/train/tube in LON? I felt sure I read the only liquid that was banned was ethanol, not water

GUWonder

Even at CBP PreClearance facilities, there are items and persons that are a security risk and an immigration or "customs" risk.

Passengers (and their belongings) may be subject to secondary screenings in gate areas at CBP PreClearance facilities, with those screenings possibly conducted by CBP .... even if CBP had earlier cleared them/the belongings at the primary PreClearance checkpoint .... even if the passenger had only admissible belongings and owes no customs duty.

Tobias-UK

The bus is irrelevant and water is not banned as you well know. This is a silly, futile argument which is becoming rather boring. Thank goodness those responsible for dictating airport security policy don't have such simplistic views on passenger safety.

I'm outta here.

chris1979

On a lighter note, T5 flight connections was empty tonight at 6.40pm. 15 mins from leaving a/c at C gates to being through security again in A.

alexwuk

Well, anyone whose lives were touched by the bombings in London on the 7th July 2005 will disagree strongly that this argument is futile. Society is willing to forgo security for the sake of convenience on the Underground (because the hassle of 10 minute security waits on so many journeys is deemed a bad cost/benefit), and yet is unwilling to even discuss whether there is "too much" security at an airport.

Frankly I think it's absurd we allow anyone with a 40kilo rucksack packed with explosives unscreened on to a crowded rush hour tube train with 500 pax on board, yet we absolutely won't let him take an evian on an easyjet flight. I'm not advocating either extreme position, but there's a glaring inconsistency.

PS: Yes I know my example about the rush tube tube train is absurd - of course there's no room for any bag on the central line at peak hours, regardless of what's in it...

fransknorge

Yes It was a breeze yesterday; I managed to go landside for 10 minutes of fresh air on a 75 min connection. The Fast Track at South Security took me less than one minute.

stifle

This may be true in Canada. It is not true in Ireland. Security and enforcement of Irish law is a matter for the Garda�.

catandmouse

I don't think anyone is suggesting taking screening away, they are suggesting that being screened once correctly is enough and that much of what goes on at T5 flight connections is nothing more than a job creation exercise (or theatre).
Why, when a mystery item is spotted on the scanner, is the result clearly retaliation by the security numpties, with every single item taken out of a bag atom by atom at the deliberately slowest possible speed (with tea-breaks), and scanned individually? That has nothing to do with security, but everything to do with inconveniencing passengers. At all other airports, mystery items are cleared and that's it. That's why it's theatre and not security.