Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

And that appears to be the crux of the issue.

I make no such assumption but if you do some research you will find that Bilal Abdullah and Kafeel Ahmed had very limited help with their attempts in London and with the GLA blast.

Plane spotting in the UK is a popular hobby. Legions of people gather at a weekend to take pictures etc. The persons partaking in this are able to pursue this recreation without being harassed. I suppose it must be a question of normal activity, location, reason for presence, demeanour etc all combining to = no suspicion

OK Rev. Having thought about it. I think if it is to be a formula it can't be solved with just 'x' more like x+y+z where each is a contributing variable of different criterIa used to form a reasonable suspicion.

Not much, but best I can do.

I'm not at all in agreement with that patom. You will be aware then, that the GLA event followed approx 24hrs after a failed attempt on a night club in London where the thing was made safe by the ordnace guy as the mobile attached to it was ringing. Well done to that guy!! I am pretty sure it was reported that the two events were linked in some way by some sort of evidence and therefore a significant cell would seem to have been active across the length of the UK in a co-ordinated way. As you would expect with 2 events in that short time span

Actually, that's precisely the relevant hinge. Your perspective belies a position of assumed guilt whereas the context under consideration -- a U.S. airport governed by U.S. law -- the reasonable and operating presumption is one of innocence.

Flatly untrue.

August of 2006, btw. While conjecture about would've been has little argumentative merit, I must give you snaps for having the cojenes to take a swan dive into TS/S within minutes of registering here just four days ago.

Welcome to Flyertalk, Custardthecat.

When I said suspicion is a universal concept, I simply meant the things that go to form a suspicion e.g in the mind of whatever official are not that much different in the different parts of the world we live in, thats all. Behavoiral aspects surely don't differ that much

Thanks for the welcome. It is appreciated. Swan dive..well maybe, I'll give you that it does appear so, but you know. If it's woth doing...it's worth overdoing!! That's Brit humour BTW, before the roof falls in!

Not necessarily. Check http://www.heraldscotland.com/glasgo...-plot-1.897581

I'll make it easy for you: X = irrational paranoia and a willingness to toss away rights and freedoms in exchange for the illusion of safety for comfort.

It's a comprehensive report patom, but I am not inclined, at this point anyway, to change my opinion based on facts released to the Glasgow Herald. I agree only several charachters are described in this report but it is interesting some of the things they are described as doing. Tourist buses did it say, Landmarks. That will be the open top double decker bus variety in London. Cameras, perhaps?

So much material found it took 14 days, was it. Was any of it photographs perhaps.

I think we are developing off topic here though. I can't provide evidence to prove you wrong in this case and I don't think whatever happened here is the rule of thumb for all cases

....and still they come, with no sense of objectivity and willingness to reasonably discuss. I now know what it must have felt like at Rourkes Drift!

I will say this though. Being objective and fair with your statement (despite it's obtuse overtone) I agree that many measures are probably pointless and probably an exercise in public re-assurance. For example I have no idea what putting tanks in place at an airport during times of elevated concern achieves in a practical sense as a deterrent. Paranoia. 'Just because you are paranoid does not mean they are not out to get you'. I could say the same, in any case, about many of the posts I've seen on here.

Heres a scenario for you

Lets say it involves an individual, or number of individuals and your house, thus:

Whilst driving past your nice house the local fuzz see someone taking pictures of said house from a vehicle (including your security system /alarm) and that nice new BMW / Lexus in your drive

scenario 1.

Cops pull up and ask whats occurring

Individual(s) state their business as realtors involved in house sale and appear to be able to attain credibility in this respect (by whatever means) and cops drive away, suspicions abated

or

Individuals refuse to assist cops in enquiries stating its a free country and they can do as they please in terms of taking pictures. Cops either push it, or they don't (judgement call)

or

Cops see pictures being taken and whilst thinking, thats a little odd they drive on thinking its none of their business as no crime is [apparently] being committed and the person(s) is 'obviously' exercising their right to photograph in a public place and it's not suspicious at all because they have 'a right' to do it.

next night


Nothing at all happens

or

Your security system is disabled and your house is violently entered, your family held at knife point while the keys are demanded and your stolen to order car (complete with vanity plates) is never seen again, except on another continent having been shipped out on a sea container within 24hrs and your loved ones are traumatised to boot.


then


You become aware that there was unusual activity in the neighbourhood (actually outside your house) unacted upon by the Police who could have put in a challenge and thus detterred the crims. What would be your feeling. 'Don'y worry, you upheld their rights in doing nothing to be curious and challenge'? Or, would you file suit for neglect (not sure how it works over there).

Different when it's closer to home, perhaps

In the case of your house and someone perhaps 'casing the joint', what would you, have the officers do?

A. Approach and clear suspicions via checks e.g. ID, DMV, car search, question credibility

B. Nothing, drive on

Now we are not at the airport here, but I believe the principle is the same. Forgetting the fact that the OP could have used his photos for any horrible and nasty purpose, he might e.g. have been a reporter for a local rag who sensationalised the fact that he was allowed to wander freely around taking pictures of the security operation without any intervention at all. Where would the poor guy in the picture have been then? Carpeted! I don't suppose I have convinced the hard core but maybe just maybe, food for thought.

OK, I'm out, it's been a blast!

"I am disappointed in how this was handled because I mistakenly believed that everyone would play by the rules."

Is this a case of willful abandonement of the rules, or are the agents completely knowledgeble of the rules? I am not sure I could of perservered this gauntlet that you went through unless I knew the rules, which I do not.

What a story.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that police officers are under no duty to protect us. So there'd be no recourse against the police regardless of what they did or didn't do.

We could be completely safe if we lived in a police state. If we didn't have rights guaranteed to us under Natural Law (the United States Constitution isn't a guarantor of our rights; it's a limit on what the government can do to deny us those rights), if police could investigate anyone they wanted, search without cause, we'd be safer. But it wouldn't be worth it.

As for anything else? Thomas Paine once said that "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." Sounds like a pretty good way to think about things to me.

You cited photographs of GLA. I showed you where some could be found.

And that is the end of my responses to you. Never argue with an ....

Sorry, can't let that go (and what a nice civil chap you are!)

Indeed you did, nearly 400 of them. I looked at every single one! Only a solitary ONE was even taken before 2007. That one was in 2002. 5 years before the event and so useless anyway. As the entire 400 are also, either because most of them were taken in 2008, or were too out of date and even those taken in 2008 are not much good for the intended purpose IMO. So ZERO of any use. Unless you count the one from 2002, which has a birds eye view from about 5000feet. So if you want to use a 5 year out of date picture, and orientate yourself at ground level and high speed from it, when it might not even have been published anyway, fair enough. I am familiar with that site. It is the official BAA site. If whats available now from it is deemed useless, then in 2007 it would have been worse, much so! Not sure what other sites might be available.

The point is wally, old bean, that even now the photographs are 2 years out of date regardless of their suitability. Things change in the interim. That's why you have to DO YOUR OWN and SEE FOR YOURSELF !! PPPPPP! (Proper Planning Prevents P**s Poor Performance)

I didn't cite anything, I think I said I would bet on it

Over and out !!

Care to elaborate as to what "push it" means in terms of the cops' behavior? Or would that ruin your "argument"?

Photograph away. I don't see how photographs of the outside of my house are going to help you get in. If you want in, you're getting in. My house is exposed to the street. How the hell does a picture compromise my safety? Is my door stronger or my window more shatter-proof because the house has never been photographed? Does the picture let people figure out my security system's inner workings and a way to disable it? Really? You're THAT scared?

In any case, I have NO PROBLEM with the cops asking questions of the person photographing my house, that's great, BUT THEY CANNOT FORCE THEM TO ANSWER OR DETAIN THEM BASED ON A REFUSAL TO ANSWER.

I will give up my car before I give up the 4th amendment. Just because YOU are willing to give rights up easily doesn't mean the rest of us are. If you like police states because you're more comfortable that way, you should move to one and let us try to keep ours from becoming one.

It's not how...it's why!! The reason for B&E is often to steal the keys to the expensive motor vehicle that is in the drive / garage. The photo is so they remember what car is where (getting it yet) and to confirm that it's on the wish list etc etc. Now if in the unfortunate situation these people come calling at 0300 for the keys, you are potentially in deep doo doo. Any attempt to resist will doubtless be met with overwhelming violence. That's the way it works. These people are serious, big style!! Things can and do go pear shaped!

I am not willing to give up rights as you casually assert, but I am happy to co-operate with LEO's as long as they stay within their own remit and legislation. Surely there is a crossover, a bridge where the two meet. A place where common sense can be exercised.

Life, my friends, is one bl**dy big compromise!!

I think I am in a unique position to comment on this hypothetical.

I currently live in Qatar, a police state in which rights are regularly trampled upon, where I would never consider openly expressing a political opinion (e.g., by wearing a T-shirt with a political message on it), telephones are routinely tapped without warrants or court orders, and there are laws that regulate everything you do, including who you have consensual sex with. Qatar is also just about the safest place I have ever lived. Your kids can go out and play for hours without any need for worry. I regularly leave my car and home unlocked, and even minor crime is almost unheard of.

Previously, I lived in Poland, where publicly displaying open contempt for the government, law, order, or even innocuous rules is a national pastime (one social commentator observed that if you have a cinema in Poland, and put signs saying "Exit" above one door and "No Exit" above the other, EVERYONE would leave by the "No Exit" door, just because they didn't like someone telling them which door to use). People regularly drink, smoke, expectorate, and even fornicate in public. Parking and traffic rules are particularly carefully and deliberately ignored. You also need to watch your stuff constantly, because someone is always trying to make off with it, by one means or another. A moment's lapse in attention can mean your stuff is gone.

Obviously, there are pluses and minuses to both, but I wouldn't spend a moment's hesitation in choosing the Polish environment over Qatar. Freedom has a price, and freedom-loving people don't mind paying it day in and day out.

And that certainly goes for the hypothetical suggested by CtheC -- I would definitely be willing to accept a higher possibility of being a crime victim rather than tolerate harassment by the police.