24th Aug 2004, 14:11
Thats a little bit of BS :mad:
Thats a little bit of BS :mad:
View Full Version : Reporters Sneaking fake bombs onto airplanes (Merged)
24th Aug 2004, 14:11
Thats a little bit of BS :mad:
24th Aug 2004, 14:14
Its a disgrace i know and its not helping our industry either... These :mad: do anything to sell a newspaper without thinking of the consequences
24th Aug 2004, 14:17
<<I could have wiped out more than 220 British passengers... and thousands more on the ground below," France said.>>
24th Aug 2004, 14:20
its not helping our industry either
How is revealing (yet a-bloody-gain) how p*ss-poor UK airport security is "not helping?" Or does it need a real bomb before anyone actually takes action. The tombstone imperitive is very popular in this industry after all.
24th Aug 2004, 14:27
Well there's other ways of solving these kind of problems than jumping straight to the public eye, i mean this is just giving terrorists ideas.
But its only my interpretation.
24th Aug 2004, 14:35
just giving terrorists ideas.
I doubt that very much. No journalists sneaked box cutters onto aircraft before 9/11 did they?
24th Aug 2004, 14:43
How long is it going to be before one of these journos gets a bullet in their head from and unfortunate over-reacting security staff member for trying something like this? Imagine the headlines.
Take that tool that sat on a jet brandishing a knife for his photographer to take snaps of. What would have happened if somebod yon the flight had seen this, and forcibly tried to take the knife of him?
24th Aug 2004, 15:09
How long is it going to be before one of these journos gets a bullet in their head
I think we'll have a while to wait before that happens.
The real question is, did The Sun suddenly decide to do this, or were they "tipped off" about the state of security at Birmingham?
24th Aug 2004, 15:17
I could have wiped out more than 220 British passengers... and thousands more on the ground below," France said. Well - actually - No!! Not unless he had the knowledge and ability to:[list=1]
Locate the components of a bomb :hmm:
Assemble it without blowing himself up ;)
Get it through security :suspect:
Get past the staff without looking and feeling uncomfortable and therefore suspicious. :uhoh:
Carry out the plan to kill everyone without being waylaid. :ugh:
Ensure that he had left a full record of his plan at home, so that he could receive full credit in the media, as he would (fortunately) have died in the process. :ok:
These journos have such inflated ideas of their abilities and only know how to write sensationalist headlines. :rolleyes:
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different." Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
24th Aug 2004, 15:23
I just cannot understand the reaction to this particular journo.
He has shown once again how poor security still is, how poor the checks still are and that if you are not prepaed to invest in personnel and training it will not get any better.
Do the Pilot fraternity not have an interest in supporting anything that highlights the fact that it is still easy to smuggle articles onto aircraft?
Strikes me that you are much more interested in reporter bashing than looking at the underlying problems.
As for "giving terrorists ideas", well, what utter rubbish!
I think he theoretically managed points 1 to 5!
If he had been the "genuine terrorist" he would have had access to the components and knowledge to set it up.
On point 6, as an airport worker, he didn\'t need to stay on borad to get blown up, just set a timer me thinks!!
24th Aug 2004, 15:28
I see nothing in the article (please correct me if I missed it) that would indicate that this guy had any explosives among his bomb components. In other words, even if he'd been subjected to neutron-based detection (or another follow-on "bomb-sniffing" technology), he'd still have been allowed to pass because he did not actually HAVE any explosives. Then he'd have been able to claim that, even though his equipment had been "swabbed," they STILL failed to detect his "bomb." Of course, that would only have shown that the system worked, having not alarmed with a false-positive...
--Edited to reiterate that he did not have a bomb. I think Paxboy's points remain valid, especially the point regarding acting suspicious. Again, he DID NOT HAVE A BOMB. I'm willing to wager that, had he had a bag with a few kilos of C4 in it he would have acted differently. THAT may have been enough to change the outcome (not to mention land him in jail).
24th Aug 2004, 15:31
Do they subject all maintenance staff to that from of checking at BHX??
Do they even have the equipment?
24th Aug 2004, 15:43
It seems to me that most of the world have the security issues all screwed up.
The Airplane has become the weapon. NOT the box cutter, the cutlery or your favourite swiss army knife.
Are the measures taken at airports throughout the world really effective at securing THAT weapon ??:E
24th Aug 2004, 16:14
If a normal fare-paying punter had tried to smuggle a fake bomb onto a flight, no doubt that passenger would be arrested, hauled up in court, probably get some sort of criminal record, and almost certainly be banned from flying with the airline concerned for the rest of their life.
Although I suspect he'll get away with what he's done (and maybe some will even applaud him for exposing a supposed loop hole in airport security), I sincerely hope that this PRAT from the Sun gets the same sort of treatment from the authorities that any normal passenger doing the same sort of thing would get.
24th Aug 2004, 16:49
some will even applaud him for exposing a supposed loop hole in airport security
Maybe I missed something, but wasn't there a bit of a gap in the security!
.......was employed by private contractor Aviance despite giving bogus references and bank details.
This by itself is a pretty serious hole - considering the much hyped need for increased security!
I suggest you direct your criticism at the people who have left these large holes, namely the BAA and the contractors they hire.
24th Aug 2004, 16:50
This just drives me absolutely mad!!! I use BHX quite a lot and this doesn't suprise me at all. Just about every time I go through security I am scrutinised, searched and generally harassed. Myself and other flight crew that I have been with have had all sorts confiscated like nail clippers, razors (e.g. Gillette Mach 111), and a compass of all things. Whilst this is happening workman with tool boxes overflowing (gets me mad as I am not even allowed a screw driver incase I need to do something crazy like manually check fuel levels!!!) just get waved through because the security staff obviously find them familiar. Doesn't just happen at BHX either. It would seem that this reporter has highlighted a very weak area, whilst flightcrew and passengers are treated like criminals they seem to not apply the same level of scrutiny to all levels of staff.:mad:
24th Aug 2004, 17:41
Firstly, the jurno is not lightly to be prosecuted, it would not be in the public interest. He has shown a loophole in security at Brum, and that alone will negate any attempt to get him into court.
Did the press do this before 7/11? Yes they did, on a regular basis. So did the father on of one the victims of Lockabie.
Did you read the artical? The point is that he has all the compants to make a bomb, except the explosives. Those are not difficult to come by if you happen to move in terrorist circles. He was not going to kill himself, as he wasn't planning to staying in the cargo hold, where he quite obviouisly would have been able to place a bomb had he brought the real thing with him.
While I am not a fan of the press, at least they have not got thier heads in the sand on this matter. Which would you rather have? This sort of artical, or photos of a smoldering hole?
24th Aug 2004, 18:13
Although I’m no big fan of this sensationalistic sort of ‘investigative’ journalism, I have to admit that the current paranoid “security” system is begging to be exposed by these sort of journalists.
Basically we have an incompetent bureaucracy spinning out of control by confiscating nail clippers from flight crew (with crash axe in the cockpit :rolleyes: ) or 90 year old granny’s while at the same time leaving complete areas in security uncovered.
At Crossair/Swiss we frequently complained about a certain French airport where all flight crew were intensely checked, while all ground crew (with access to aircraft!) was able to totally circumvent security! One morning a flight attendant had some difficulty opening the plastic wrap that holds together newspapers, the catering guy said “let me ‘elp you, mon cheri,” went to his catering truck and returned with a 30cm steak knife! All query’s from our Security Officer were systematically brushed aside by the French Airport Authorities with he usual efficient French mixture of ‘laissez faire’ and “Errrr….station culling?” :ugh:
Just like the current ridiculous jumpseat restrictions, we desperately need some common sense in the security debate.
24th Aug 2004, 20:30
Am I missing something?
All this guy seems to have done is shown that he can get something which isn't a bomb on board a flight.
Er...I usually do that whenever I fly. :confused:
A and C
24th Aug 2004, 20:51
As usual the small minded idiots at BHX security are to busy removing safety equipment from the first aid kits that crews have to have ( an ANO requirment ) rather than doing anything usefull.
The DFT should have a good look at BHX they will find it to be the most stupid security setup in the UK.
24th Aug 2004, 21:27
Firstly, the jurno is not likely to be prosecuted, it would not be in the public interest. He has shown a loophole in security at Brum, and that alone will negate any attempt to get him into court.
Whilst I accept that what he's done may have some value, it'd be a shame if he wasn't prosecuted as a result - because if a passenger (or even an aircrew member) attempted to show such a loophole existed at Brum, and got caught, I've no doubt that passenger would be treated somewhat severely. There are ways and means of exposing security problems, and in my opinion investigative journalism isn't one of them.
25th Aug 2004, 00:34
Eal, while not perhaps a bullet, one of these individuals who attempts something like this (or smuggling a knife or, heaven forbid, a fake firearm) is NOT going to be able to defuse a rapidly deteroriating situation in the air with "It's Ok, I'm a journalist".
With the advent of Sky Marshalls, as well as pax's attitudes towards anybody who even remotely looks like they may be trying to repeat the attrocity of that day (look at the example where the 2 guys were overheard saying "Right, let's do it now. Let's sieze the opportunity" and were talking about a family reunion), one of these journos is going to try something one day in an effort to get that huge breaking story, and it's only a matter of time before it's going to end in tears.
25th Aug 2004, 01:47
The only offence I can find, or think of is giving false information to obtain an identity card. It may be however that he would claim he never actualy intended the ID card for which the information was supplied to be issued, as he he would not have remained in the employ of the company having achived what he intended while using a temp card. (ie he was given a temporary 'escorted' ID card pending a full ID card which would only be isseued after all background checks were complete)
Giving false information to obtain employment is not covered by aviation security legislation (unless new legislation has been passed that I have missed). There may be evidence of an offence under the Theft act, for obtaining property (pay) by deception, but thats stretching the point.
In any event, what public interest would be served?
As regards to passengers/crew, a certain Dr Squires tried to take a mock up of the lockabie bomb onto an aircraft on serveal occations. He was not prosecuted.
In this particular case, sky marshalls are totaly irrelevent. This man was employed as a baggage handler. He was able to smuggle airside the componants, except the explosives, of a bomb. Showing that if he could do it, so could a terrorist. Skymarshalls don't patrol aircraft on the ground.
I think you have missed the point, which is as above. It would not apparently have taken any greater effort to take the explosives through security if he were a terrorist.
25th Aug 2004, 07:40
Get past the staff without looking and feeling uncomfortable and therefore suspicious.
Again, how comfortable did the 9/11 bunch look before departure? And they got double screened.
The Airplane has become the weapon. NOT the box cutter, the cutlery or your favourite swiss army knife.
The airplane bcomes the weapon AFTER the use of the box cutter etc.
Jerricho, I see your point, but as stated, this guy was in a position to leave something on board, not be on board. A far more dangerous situation.
25th Aug 2004, 07:55
Why should journalists be exempt from prosecution? What happens when the "bad" journalist who really means to carry out an act of terrorism gets caught somewhere in the process - will he be allowed to walk? When will those intent on destruction turn to using this avenue....or maybe they have already.
This Sun journalist does not appear to have taken anything into the airside RZ that any other person could not have legally had in their possession. Blu-Tac (spelling?) will be banned before you know it.
25th Aug 2004, 09:09
I am with EastMids on this one.
Remember the journo is not doing this for altruistic reasons. He has yet again created a major headline selling loads of extra copies of an otherwise cr*ppy newspaper.
So he wanted to find out how leaky the security at BHX is. Well, now he should discover what fall-out is likely to befall punters / crew that perform similar acts. A spell in gaol would be very much approprate. (Makes good copy for a subsequent piece)
However, what happens with the official DfT inspections? Are these still performed?
25th Aug 2004, 09:42
I have worked for the company referred to in the papers at BHX before as a baggage handler while I was trying to get a break into the industry. I was also appalled by the lack of security at the airport. Like the Journalist I was given access to airside will out having my references followed up and was able to wander off by myself around aircraft and around the airport on a temporary pass. I even had the ability to gain access to the flight deck of A/C that were parked up overnight.
The security to get airside for the Ramp workers basically involves a metal detection unit and a search. As we all wore steel toecapped boots the alarm always went off but all they did then was pat us down to see if we were concealing any large objects.
As far as I am aware they had no explosive detection units.
Judging by the security staff when I was there I think if you wandered through sweating and looking terrified they would still wave you through.
The security system was very weak and the attitude of the staff at the company appalling. The way passangers baggage was handled was awful, I saw bags broken into and things stolen and bags broken just for the fun of it.
However annoying it is to see these journalists trying to up the sales of their papers I think on this occasion it is good to see the weakness at BHX security put in the limelight.
I tried to broach the subject with the managment before I left but was basically ignored.
25th Aug 2004, 10:11
I tried to broach the subject with the managment before I left but was basically ignored.
Which is why there is some defence in the actions of the journo. If actual employees cannot talk to their own management about problems, then what can be done?
25th Aug 2004, 10:58
Four Reds & GK430
They are not exempt from prosecution. Please read what I write. The lightlyhood is that he will not be as the offence he has committed was 'minor' and prosecution is probably not in the public interest. What interest would be served by taking him to court for exposing a security loophole. It is unlightly any jury (except perhaps one made up of some people who post on here) would find him guilty. Now if he had ignored the loophole and subsequently someone used it to commit an act of terrorism, then what would you all be shouting?
As for crew committing the same offence? Well if crew have made a false statement to get employment, with a view to it being permanent (unlike this jurno) then thats an offence for 'self gain, and yes they should be prosecuted.
The hope is that security in this area will be reviewed and something done to prevent this happening. I would have thought that you would all be in favour of that?
25th Aug 2004, 15:26
In this particular case, sky marshalls are totaly irrelevent.
Yes, in this case they are irrelevent, there' not debating that. My point is that there seems to be an increase in journos attempting these sorts of things pre-flight (as in this instance) or actually getting on the flight (our friend with the knife a month or two ago). We could start what if-ing about possible situations where somebody DID find what he was attempting to do. His defence "I'm a journalist"
The perception of some journalists of their being "above the law" in an effort to get the story or the scoop is going to cause a very detrimental outcome. There is no denying they are highlighting ways to circumvent security, and prosecution will not come of it. Begins to set interesting precedent.
However as I said, it will end in tears one day.
25th Aug 2004, 16:22
So, is the Sun reporter behind bars for trying to take a bomb on an aeroplane? If not, why not?:mad:
25th Aug 2004, 17:31
What do they think they are achieving by all this!!
Jail sounds good :mad:
25th Aug 2004, 18:19
In Jail? Is there not the small matter of finding an offence? Investigating it? Charging him if there is sufficent evidence, oh and a trial. Or perhaps because he has dared to expose something in the hallowed turf of Aviation, then we should dispense with these things.
Now does Russia have a free press, able to do that sort of thing?
25th Aug 2004, 18:32
Correct it is an interesting point. However, one of the acid tests in the decision to prosecute these days in the UK is the 'Public Interest'. Afrerall, although prosecutions are in the name of the Crown, they are funded by the tax payer. So what, in charging this berk is in the public interest? Nothing. He has exposed a loophole, which presumably is what he set out to do. His reasons for doing it may well have been to sell more papers, but the by product is making the Airport authority and DOT aware that there is a bloody great hole in security. Charging him and taking him to court, for what is in effect one and possibly two very minor offences, for which the probable penelty is very low and thats IF he gets convicted (offence 2, is, shall we say dodgy) achieves absolutly nothing.
If it ends in tears at some point in the future and a jurno gets binned, well, so what? will you shed any tears? However in the UK thats unlightly. Police are the only people at airports with firearms, and they arn't as trigger happy as some jurnos make out.
I am not so sure there is an increase in this sort of thing, just thats its newsworthy nowadays. Its been happening since before Lockabie.
25th Aug 2004, 18:50
Hallowed turf…..aviation? …no, more like some one here has committed an offence and had it been you or me we certainly would have not got off scott free…but because this guy is a self proclaimed guardian of democracy, his rules seem to be different. I say he should be behind bars just like any terrorist might expect to be.:*
25th Aug 2004, 19:07
Agree with what you have said bjcc, but there is going to have to be a line drawn somwhere. If a journo can do it, what's to stop Mr. J Selfload from trying the same thing, with the intention of proving a point in the same way?
"I'm sorry. I read that security was crap in the paper, and saw what a journo did to test it and wanted to test it for myself!!"
25th Aug 2004, 19:10
Yup. Just as a contiunation of the other thread going (which this will probably be combined with). If a journo can do these sorts of things, what stopping an member of the public who swears he/she are doing the same thing?
25th Aug 2004, 20:27
And what offence do you assume that he will go behind bars for?
I am not saying the system is right, not wrong, just pointing out reality to you. The first one is that he has not committed any offence (so far as I can see) for which he is lightly to be imprisoned for.
The one probable and second possible (and it is very unlightly he would be convicted of) offences I can see are very minor. Usualy resulting in a very low sentence, if indeed he were charged and not Cautioned under the Attorney Generals Guidlines.
In any case, no one has yet to answer the main question I keep asking...Where is the public Interest being served in charging him?
I take the point that anyone could do the same thing. And they do. Dr Swire, father of one of the victims of the Lockabie Bomb (sorry got his surname wrong in earlier post) tried to take a mock up of the that device onto aircraft.
I don't seem to recall the same outcry when a jurno joined the Police and exposed racisam in a Police Training Centre. I don't recall the same when another got himself a job in the prison holding Huntley of Soham fame.
At the end of the day, this guy's exposed a loophole, would you rather he didn't?
25th Aug 2004, 21:17
Well, since we are only talking about FAKE bombs,
I suppose we could make up a "Fake" prison shower full of violent sex offenders so the reporter could experience a "Simulation" of what a prison shower would be like....
25th Aug 2004, 22:07
This guy should be placed in jail as would any other that attempted to do this sort of thing.
The fact and credentials that he claims to have does not give him any right or forgiveness to break the law, under any circumstance.
Exposing a flaw in the system is bullxxxx.
If one of usdoing the same as a cockpit crew member, they would lock us up and throw away the key.
Really dont think the training and education level or the background checks even qaulifies a journalist to even think of this.
Maybe if he had prior clearance with the airport authorities and local law enforcement then his story would be credible.
What he has accomplished is slapped everyone in the face as to all the hard efforts we have been trying to achieve.
This is what feeds our families, we are trying to make this work.
Instead of pointing out what can be done to improve he has stated that the whole system is screwed up.
There is a right way to do things which can bring the same results, other than being a total un-proffesional jerk and breaking all the laws just to get a story.
News reporters just like used car salesman, real estate agents not to forget lawyers.
All we could live without.
Thank God they dont fly!
Not saying we are perfect, but these leave alot to be desired.
26th Aug 2004, 00:10
Interesting, on another thread there are screams of protest at the fact a pilot has been arrested for drink/flying. Many of the posts rightly pointing out that as he's not been convicted he is innocent.
Now, oddly the same principle applies to jurnos (At this point I have to admit, I don't think it should..however). So he is innocent of any offence at the moment.
If (and I doubt he will be) he is charged and Convicted by the fabled 12 good men and true (even less lightly) then the offences can think of him commiting are not ones for which he, or anyone else would be sentenced to imprisonment for on the first offence. So can we end the throw him in jail and chuck the key away shouts, cause it aint going to happen.
So Earl, if you did it no one in the UK is going to lock you up and chuck the key away. Please come back to the real world.
It seems to be that as I have said before the outrage is because he exposed a loophole in aviation security. If he did the same in any other industry I am sure you would be patting him on the back.
The outrage should be directed at the DOT Security branch, the airport authority and the company that employed him. At the end of the day exposing the breach was the correct thing to do, whether he went about it in the right way is another matter.
Having said that, I would prefer him to do it, the problem corrected with no harm done except for some egg on some faces, than the alternative......
26th Aug 2004, 01:39
I am really going to throw the pigeon (me) amongst the cats here and put my head on the chopping block.
Security is only truly effective if it is total and to obtain total security is not practical in terms of risk management or commercial effectiveness. The best staff, the best management, the best infrastructure and the best training are only as good as the last time it all worked. The moment it goes pear shaped anybody with half a functioning brain cell (me again) can pick it to pieces.
But that does not mean that we should accept anything less than the best we can attain. However, in order to attain this, investment is required and that includes developing effective REALISTIC procedures and also paying security staff decent wages for a starter (this has been commented on in other threads).
As for journos satisfying their sales figures / quotas / egos, whatever, regardless of the fact that they may have brought something to the attention of the paying public, if offences have been committed then maybe they should be brought to book and also potentially their employer (I'm sorry if I offend anyone but I do not feel journalistic privilege qualifies breaking the law, particularly in such a sensitive area, commercially and publically - and there are a potential myriad of offences here).
It is a difficult area to address and there will always be a number of conflicting viewpoints (read above) but a couple of questions for starters are:
Is total security the only answer?
Is it necessary?
Are we prepared to put up with the impositions that would result from it?
27th Aug 2004, 00:07
What about the escort - the person who signed to take responibility for this guy, the crime of the visitor is also the crime of the escort.
Its the airlines and handling agents who want the temporary passes as they are screaming to get staff airside.
27th Aug 2004, 09:25
When you buy gas for your car it's nice to know that the pumps have been calibrated by the local authority.
If you were responsible for hiring a company to provide security wouldn't you want to know what you are getting for your money? I mean wouldn't you require that company to demonstrate that it's meeting it's contractual obligations?
I think I would do this by insisting the security firm hire an independant auditor... I mean what a good advert for a Security firm.... "Our service is approved and audited by xyz" ....but perhaps a jorno is cheaper/free!
27th Aug 2004, 19:43
What do they think they are achieving by all this!!
While I'm not a fan of tabloid sensationalism, I think there's going to be a few grieving relatives in Russia who might have appreciated a similar timely exposure of weaknesses.
Or is it going to take a similar event in the UK before someone does something?
27th Aug 2004, 23:18
I am not about to go into any specifics here, suffice to say that all these hacks are doing is trying to sell news papers to a public that are fed scare stories every day.
FACT : if one seriously wanted to compromise the integrity of airport security it can be done.
FACT : removing toenail scissors from pax may give the illusion of security to the wider public but does not address the real issues which require either an engagement with the political problems that spawn the threat, or serious investment in terms of capital and manpower.
Neither of these are being addressed.
28th Aug 2004, 15:54
I think these reporters that sneak on board our aircraft and get pictures of them on board saying they sneaked in without a valid BAA pass or and airside pass should be arrested and sent to prison because they are being criminals in there own right!!!!
Everyone in this country knows how bad security is but it shouldnt be put on the front page of a national newspaper so that proper terrorists can then take advantage of this!!!!!
what is wrong with these people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
28th Aug 2004, 19:57
People keep saying what offence can the journalist be charged with?, what has he done wrong?,
Well I beleive that giving false referances and false information to Security to gain access Airside is an Offence punishable by a prison sentance.
Old Man Rotor
28th Aug 2004, 22:49
The Post by Nick on the third page tells the story!!
28th Aug 2004, 23:37
Went through security at BHX in June for flight to Tenerife. Very pleased to see that security confiscated my 12 month old daughter's baby cutlery, just in case she tried to take control of the aircraft with a completly blunt, two inch knife and a fork that she can barely push through the skin of a sausage. 200 passengers had a much happier flight, safe in the knowledge that my daughter was stapped into her seat, eating her 'childrens' meal with her fingers!
Security where in more peril from my wife's tounge, which believe me, was a lot sharper than any knife!!!
29th Aug 2004, 18:48
Went through security at BHX in June for flight to Tenerife. Very pleased to see that security confiscated my 12 month old daughter's baby cutlery,
Went through Naples in june. Security staff found our childrens metal baby cutlery that we had left in hand luggage by mistake. After some debate they asked which airline we were flying on and returned it to us when we confirmed it wasn't BA. Why would the choice of airline make a difference?
29th Aug 2004, 18:49
No thats not correct. S21 (B) of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 only allows for summary conviction (magistrates Court) and a fine at level 5. I have no idea what level 5 is these days. But in any event, it does not allow for a prison sentence.
I pointed out earlier on in this thread that this was the offence, although I didn't bother to look at the max sentence.
The second offence he could have committed is obtaining property by deception, under the Theft act. However, this is stretching the point. The property being pay from the company he was working for. This is punishable with a prison sentence, although would have to be very serious for that to happen on a first offence. In any event, as I say its stretching the point and a solicitor straight out of uni could easily defend against that charge.
It's very unlightly the Crown Prosecution Service would proccede against him, as I pointed out numerous times, they will only act in cases where it is in the public interest. In this case, he has uncoved a loophole in security. There is therefore not really any public interest in taking him to court.
So in summary the calls for him to be banged up are a waste of breath, its not going to happen. Shouting for him to be taken to court, again isn't going to happen and smacks of vindicitivness.
29th Aug 2004, 23:15
dont know what the police's rules are for opening fire,
if this reporter had been seen device in hand
and was shot as a result, i wouldnt convict the officer if on a jury.
30th Aug 2004, 01:26
There is no security. There never has been any security. There will never be any "security".
The reason is simple, humans are very ingenious when they want to be as it sadly appears our Russian bretheren have been reminded.
Short of giving everyone a body cavity search and handcuffing them to their seats and having all maintenance and loading done on a "two man principle" there is not much that can be done.
I suspect that it would be far more economical and effective to throw the billions now being spent on "security" at the underlying problems: Chechnya, Palstine/Israel and the Wahibists in Saudi Arabia.
2nd Sep 2004, 16:26
Perhaps it is time to start playing such journo's at their own game. Hire a transit van, pull up outside the Sun's offices and take a picture of it. Send picture to rival newspaper explaining how the transit could have been full of explosives and how I could have walked down the road and blown up The Sun's HQ. See how they like that.
This story has been done to death. Journo seeks job at an airport with a false name, gets newspaper to provide appropriate references and then gets airside. Then goes up to an aircraft takes his pictures and claims to be "son of osama" etc etc.
Go and find something proper to report on.