Sun journo sneaks fake 'bomb' into LCY airport
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I find tragic is that "security" take so much trouble making the lives of pepole with years of track record in the industry unplesant (Engineers, ATCO's & flight crew) and let contractors in without so much as a second glance!
All thos proves to me is that all this "security" is just about protecting the goverment from fleet street.......................... and it's not even doing that very well!!!!!
Perhaps it is time to think about spending a little more time checking the less well known workers and little less time removing yougut from Engineers lunch boxes, for the mentaly challenged of the security I should point out this is called effective use of manpower avalable.
Now that this has happend and the security industry can't get back at The Sun I just fear the backlash on airport staff from the "security" numptys.
All thos proves to me is that all this "security" is just about protecting the goverment from fleet street.......................... and it's not even doing that very well!!!!!
Perhaps it is time to think about spending a little more time checking the less well known workers and little less time removing yougut from Engineers lunch boxes, for the mentaly challenged of the security I should point out this is called effective use of manpower avalable.
Now that this has happend and the security industry can't get back at The Sun I just fear the backlash on airport staff from the "security" numptys.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Manchester
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
manrow, I couldn't agree more. If a terrorist wants to achieve something destructive on a large scale, then they will find a way through regardless of how many security checks are in place. All airport security can do is make it as difficult as possible but it can never be a 100% deterrant.
Maybe the Sun newspaper truly feels deep down that they are doing some good by highlighting this but in reality all they are achieving is adding more fear to the travelling public whilst giving would-be terrorists some extremely useful insight into how to get around security checks
Maybe the Sun newspaper truly feels deep down that they are doing some good by highlighting this but in reality all they are achieving is adding more fear to the travelling public whilst giving would-be terrorists some extremely useful insight into how to get around security checks
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as a journalist (in my recent former pre-flying life) let me say that this is not the work of a professional journalist but rather that of a tabloid sensationalist. If he was a professional the power and indeed the real story would have been not focussing on the stunt itself but rather the response of the authorities and the resultant remedies.
I was taught to paint the picture factually, check the detail and test the evidence - go through the 'who, what where, how, why stages - and in the case of inequity, negligence or misconduct to seek a remedy....this kind of reporting jumps straight to the 'wtf' stage and proffers or solicits no remedy..it just gets bogged down in its own self applause.
What's the point of having bitch about a problem if you don't draw a line to the solution.
I was taught to paint the picture factually, check the detail and test the evidence - go through the 'who, what where, how, why stages - and in the case of inequity, negligence or misconduct to seek a remedy....this kind of reporting jumps straight to the 'wtf' stage and proffers or solicits no remedy..it just gets bogged down in its own self applause.
What's the point of having bitch about a problem if you don't draw a line to the solution.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgive me for laughing, but somehow I don't see Bin Laden sitting in his cave with his cronies reading the Sun and exclaiming "By Allah's beard! So that's how it's done!!! If only we had thought to impersonate the Village People, we would have brought the infidels to their knees."
The Islamic fundamentalist terrorists with whom the West is currently utterly preoccupied to the exclusion of almost every other threat, are far more canny and devious, not to mention dedicated, than a coffee-swilling, chain-smoking hack from the British gutter press.
They are several steps ahead of the great minds of the Sun, and I very much doubt this publicity stunt has given them any insight whatsoever into security anywhere.
The Islamic fundamentalist terrorists with whom the West is currently utterly preoccupied to the exclusion of almost every other threat, are far more canny and devious, not to mention dedicated, than a coffee-swilling, chain-smoking hack from the British gutter press.
They are several steps ahead of the great minds of the Sun, and I very much doubt this publicity stunt has given them any insight whatsoever into security anywhere.
None but a blockhead
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London, UK
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airtags - the 'what happens next' story is indeed the more important part. There's also a principle that journalists should report, not become, the story. And "What's the point of having bitch about a problem if you don't draw a line to the solution" is not the journalists' responsibility, that's for the editor to sort out in op-ed.
None of that invalidates what these journalists did. The story so far is that security at the smaller airports is inadequate, and that's a good story. It's safe to say that if the Sun journos could find this out, so could others. It's also safe to say that it's better to embarrass the authorities into action before there's a body count, and it's not responsible to rely on change happening without one of these two motivators.
I've seen this at first hand, with computer security on a large public system containing a great deal of confidential commercial and personal data. We were a small bunch of very young tech hacks, and we discovered a huge flaw which left the whole thing open. We told the security manager on the system, who didn't seem interested. We told the boss of the whole enterprise, who didn't even acknowledge it. The flaw remained.
So we went public. It made the front pages and the six o'clock news, and the problem got fixed. Two of my pals also got arrested (in armed raids, yet. Embarrassing the authorities is not a risk-free business) and charged, and the course of that particular case resulted in a new act of Parliament that, for the first time, brought computer access into the law. Did we act responsibly? Would this have happened if we'd kept quiet?
Proper security is hard, and perfect security is impossible. That doesn't excuse incompetence. As other threads have shown, the state of non-pax security in the UK is woeful. Given what other threads have said about aircrew ID checks, it would have been too wonderful, and not impossible, for one of the Sun hacks to have been asked to escort a pilot to their aircraft.
What's needed is a proper inspectorate of airport security, with one person in charge of the whole business, clear lines of responsibility and a proper reporting mechanism for problems. (I hate advocating more bureaucracy; if done properly, there should be far less.) More than the whole population of the UK passes through UK airports every year: security for these people doesn't just depend on the staff on the ground, but in the machinery that co-ordinates them. I don't think that machinery is even coherent: do the people who set the rules know what conditions are like on the ground for those who have to implement them?
I couldn't agree more that almost nothing is worse than having to cope with the aftermath of a publicity stunt conducted by a bunch of tabloid hacks - except having to cope with the aftermath of a publicity stunt conducted by a bunch of terrorists.
R
None of that invalidates what these journalists did. The story so far is that security at the smaller airports is inadequate, and that's a good story. It's safe to say that if the Sun journos could find this out, so could others. It's also safe to say that it's better to embarrass the authorities into action before there's a body count, and it's not responsible to rely on change happening without one of these two motivators.
I've seen this at first hand, with computer security on a large public system containing a great deal of confidential commercial and personal data. We were a small bunch of very young tech hacks, and we discovered a huge flaw which left the whole thing open. We told the security manager on the system, who didn't seem interested. We told the boss of the whole enterprise, who didn't even acknowledge it. The flaw remained.
So we went public. It made the front pages and the six o'clock news, and the problem got fixed. Two of my pals also got arrested (in armed raids, yet. Embarrassing the authorities is not a risk-free business) and charged, and the course of that particular case resulted in a new act of Parliament that, for the first time, brought computer access into the law. Did we act responsibly? Would this have happened if we'd kept quiet?
Proper security is hard, and perfect security is impossible. That doesn't excuse incompetence. As other threads have shown, the state of non-pax security in the UK is woeful. Given what other threads have said about aircrew ID checks, it would have been too wonderful, and not impossible, for one of the Sun hacks to have been asked to escort a pilot to their aircraft.
What's needed is a proper inspectorate of airport security, with one person in charge of the whole business, clear lines of responsibility and a proper reporting mechanism for problems. (I hate advocating more bureaucracy; if done properly, there should be far less.) More than the whole population of the UK passes through UK airports every year: security for these people doesn't just depend on the staff on the ground, but in the machinery that co-ordinates them. I don't think that machinery is even coherent: do the people who set the rules know what conditions are like on the ground for those who have to implement them?
I couldn't agree more that almost nothing is worse than having to cope with the aftermath of a publicity stunt conducted by a bunch of tabloid hacks - except having to cope with the aftermath of a publicity stunt conducted by a bunch of terrorists.
R
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember we all want to go home at the end of the day!!!
these people have highlighted a real security issue instead of the largely for show crap that passengers and crew are subjected to on a daily basis.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... and a new route to New York, starting when was it??
The multi-layered onion of security often fails at the front door.
That VIP James Robertson Justice showed it back in 1961 in Black and White and Matt Damon as Jason Bourne wouldn't have a movie without it, let alone three - it's the oldest trick in the book, isn't it?
I am sure it is all under control ... the CIA Substation is only 2 miles from the end of the runway
That VIP James Robertson Justice showed it back in 1961 in Black and White and Matt Damon as Jason Bourne wouldn't have a movie without it, let alone three - it's the oldest trick in the book, isn't it?
I am sure it is all under control ... the CIA Substation is only 2 miles from the end of the runway
Last edited by slip and turn; 10th Feb 2008 at 16:35.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 43
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
100% secure is an unattainable ambition that IS true. However this appears to have uncovered F*** **L % security, which in my view is something of a "could try harder".
None but a blockhead
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London, UK
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the security flaw wasn't in passenger handling. LCY may be quick, but I've no complaints about their thoroughness; I've been better screened there than in any of the busier London airports.
I don't think it's unreasonable to want airside passes inspected properly. Had that been done, then the story would be quite different. If that's sorted out as a result of this, then who's the loser?
R
I don't think it's unreasonable to want airside passes inspected properly. Had that been done, then the story would be quite different. If that's sorted out as a result of this, then who's the loser?
R
