Honestly, I feel hopeless.

I've talked to almost everyone from my family and even a few friends, and virtually all of them support the liquid ban. I feel like a black sheep amongst white sheep.

What I don't understand is, WHY do so many people, especially those who rarely fly, mindlessly support the liquid ban, both liberal and conservative? I mean, I tried to argue that before and even after 911, millions of people flew with liquid, and we always faced that risk of explosive liquid, then that ONE incident happened, and now we face a permament ban all because of that? Talk about paranoia. But, their arguments were that they would prefer to feel safer on the plane than to face the possibility of flying with explosives. HELLO! You've been flying for YEARS now facing the possibility. HECK, even nowadays, even NOW, we face dying. We are NOT guaranteed to be safe no matter what, no matter how strict security is.

I'm so frustrated... it's like my own family and friends has been brainwashed by TSA or something, and now they believe that even WATER, for heck's sake, can be dangerous! Gahhhhh! My family is mostly anti-Bush and think that the Iraq war is needless, but when it comes to airport security, I wouldn't be surprised if they enforced STRIP flying whenever it comes in effect!

Honestly, I don't feel like an average joe at all... how long will it be until I'm considered dangerous merely because I dare to think for myself?

Screw this.

Quite simply, they buy into the government's mantra of "we're protecting you from the boogey man." People will naturally follow the rules, especially if a talking head in the government says that things are safer.

I always get a kick out of people who say "I feel safer on a plane now than ever before." What they don't realize is how much goes unscreened. Very little has changed since 9/11. It's all window dressing--it's just looks a bit different than it did on 9/10/2001.

That's the thing. Those who rarely fly are not affected in any major way by those rules so it's easier for them to say 'anything for safety' than it would be if they lost hours of their life every week due to security. In theory the government have access to top secret intelligence that we don't and to top scientists so it's easy to think they must know something we don't. Anyway, if it was so stupid why did so may independent countries follow with these rules?

Also it's hard for some people to imagine why the government would spend so much money on nothing, if there was no need for airport security they could use the money saved to attack new countries or build more offshore detention centres.

Of course once you fly then you start to see how stupid the rules are and if they still need convinced then treat them to a nice flight with a tight connection at LHR.

Because the USA refused to allow any flight to approach its airspace unless these irrational procedures had been applied at its point of departure. Regrettably most major airports in the world generate a significant proportion of their business from flights to or from the USA.

Is there any website that lists why these rules are a bad idea but does it in a clear way that the public would believe. Remember that many of the public would dismiss any site that claims the government is exaggerating the threat. In my previous post I listed some of the comments I've heard to justify this crazy security.

Although I'm sure the more intelligent ones are finally starting to realise that the actual threat level is not worth this disproportionate reaction. The UK governments over reaction to those supposed failed car bombings in London and the flaming car at GLA that harmed no one but BAAs profits was met with a collective shrug from most of the public. As a country we suffered regular bombings from the IRA for a number of years and people just carried on with their lives as normal. From memory it's only since the US sponsored war on terror that the UK government has tried to make people fear terrorists and if all these liberty reducing laws were needed we'd have had them ages ago as a response to the (more severe at the time) IRA threat.

Citizen, please direct yourself to the nearest re-education camp, that you may have this "think for yourself" defect of yours addressed before it becomes a permanent condition. Know that "thinking for yourself" is very very dangerous, and should be treated at the very earliest state -- for your own good, of course...

Sincerely,

Big Brother

Yes, this springs to mind: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=222



I'm also sure that a simple search for postings by Spiff will give plenty

(btw., sadly, Spiff is mostly right....)

I do wish the media would give more attention and coverage to the various reports of "success" rates at various airports during security tests. Like the 9% "success" rate at EWR, or any of the more recent ones such as those showing a high find-rate for water but a complete failure to find the bomb parts and weapons in the same bags!

Safer, riiiiigght.

Now all we need is Spiff to somehow gain access to the scripts used of Fox news and we may have a chance

What people have to realise is that 9/11 shouldn't change everything (and as I'm from the UK my reply to anyone that says it does is 'what's so bad about the 9th November' - useless fact: Firefox 1.0 was released on 9/11/04 if you use the European date form, so for those at Microsoft 9/11 did change everything!).

Back to being serious: the attacks of 11 Sept 2001 were worse than anything I've seen after living most of my life under the threat of the IRA and so the worlds sympathy was with the US. President Bush managed to turn the worlds sympathy against his country by the actions following that attack. A lot of people like myself had decided that these terror attacks would not stop me visiting the US, just like I hoped that the IRA attacks and (more recently) 7th July 2005 attacks would not stop people visiting the UK.

However, the fact that visitors to the US are now treated like criminals combined with pointless rules like having to collect your bag at point of entry have meant that I'd only visit the US now for business reasons (if there was no alternative for the trip). Although I don't think the UK immigration is as bad as the US (hard to say as a citizen) our airline security rules are currently worse than the TSA and for that reason I support anyone (like Spiff) who has decided to boycott the UK and for those who really have to visit they should support smaller non-BAA airports like LCY where things are a lot less stressful (I don't blame BAA for the rules but their airports were a nightmare to begin with, this just makes things worse).

If there was a way to get into the US bypassing the TSA and immigration I'd be over there on the next flight The current exchange rates would make it exceptional value. With the new open skies agreement in place next year I expect to see a boom in US tourism from Europe as prices will be very competitive, but if immigration stays as bad is it is currently then they may never want to come back.

That "sympathy" of which you speak was real, genuine, and much more short-lived than most people subsequently give it credit for.
Pres Bush is not very popular, and mostly for good reason. The leap that the world's 'sympathy' has therefore turned against the US is malarky, however. Other nations have their own interests at play in this game of kabuki theatre.
Please let me know which things you are NOW required to do make you feel like a 'criminal' compared to previous entry procedures. Thank you.
Not ONLY is this NOT pointless - it is not new. The principal reason for the collection at entry is that the US airline system does not have the resources to put C&I officers in any of the hundreds/thousands of downstream airports to do Customs inspection. BTW: is the UK different in this respect? I don't believe so, and neither do I believe that 9/11 made any difference.
That is a very reasonable "alternative" solution, wouldn't you say? Similar to how I'd love to transit the UK with MORE THAN ONE CARRYON.
Not gonna happen
IMO, nonsense. Immigration is not good - I am no apologist for inefficiencies of my government but your post reeks of hyperbole. Sorry, I hope that you visit us here at your earliest convenience. An FT DO would be a particularly good idea to do so!
Best, Dave

Primarily the fingerprinting and photographing on arrival.
You can check bags through to your final destination in the UK and most other countries I've travelled through. I didn't know this rule existed before 9/11 because prior to this time I'd only been to US destinations served direct from Europe. Whatever the reason it is definitely a hassle but I do understand the problems of staffing customs at numerous smaller airports in a country the size of the US.
Of course I was joking about bypassing TSA and immigration! As for the UK why would you never be able to transit the UK with more than one carryon? You could this time last year. I do support avoiding the UK for transit until they remove this pointless rule.
I, like most of the people on this forum, are just fed up with what their countries (UK in my case) and their allies are doing to air travel. Air travel should be getting more convenient, travelling is not as fun as it used to be and that shouldn't be the case.

Fair enough. Neither of these things seems to me to be as big a deal as some make it out to be, but I imagine it's a case of to each their own. IIRC, isn't a person captured on camera in Central London something like 16x/day??
Certainly you can, provided that said final destination, IIRC, is a significantly large airport to have C&I resources.
I don't dispute that it's a hassle, it's just not a sufficient hassle, IMO, for one to avoid an otherwise inexpensive trip to the US. You have to clear C&I one place or another - what's the difference WHERE you do so?
We share that viewpoint. I will still travel TO the UK several times this year, but will avoid transit if I can. If not, I'll just deal with it. The water-bomb scare was the silliest so far of our Security Theatre, but always remember that things could be much worse if Richard Reid were otherwise known as the "Underwear Bomber".
You will get no arguments from me. My EP wasn't meant to indicate approval of all the security "precautions" but rather to point out that some of your proposed solutions - such as not coming to the US at a time of fantastic GBP/$ ratios - JUST because of photographing/fingerprinting seems OTT.

Best, Dave

Because years of conditioning have led the sheeple to believe that the Government's role is to protect us from everything, and that anything that a Government official says that indicates that they're protecting us is proof that they are.

Most people are sheep (present company excepted, of course) and will believe whatever they are told, especially if they are told by someone in a position of "authority".

This leads to:

Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. During Groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking. A variety of motives for this may exist such as a desire to avoid being seen as foolish, or a desire to avoid embarrassing or angering other members of the group. Groupthink may cause groups to make hasty, irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group�s balance. The term is frequently used pejoratively, with hindsight.

LostinAmerica:

But my mom and I had discussions before, and she said there were many sheep in America. Now, ironically, she's BEING one of them. All in the name of security. *rolls eyes*