Airport Security

[GANNET FAN]

In the City and just seen an evening Standard banner headline, Airport security to be relaxed.

Anyone the wiser?

[Hotel Mode]

This what you're after?

Aircraft hand baggage restrictions imposed after an alleged terrorist plot to attack airliners are likely to be eased next week, the BBC has learned.
Larger bags will be allowed on board, and passengers will be able take some liquids through security from Tuesday, the government is set to announce.

The government's transport security division is holding talks with the aviation industry on Monday.

The new measures should take effect next weekend.

According to BBC transport correspondent Tom Symonds the government has been trying to find ways to reduce the impact of the security alert at airports and has carried out a series of tests.

Rules criticised

Larger bags will be allowed along with some liquids - such as toiletries, including toothpaste.

These items may have to be placed in plastic bags so they can be easily examined at security.

Musical instruments will also be allowed on board again, after professional musicians complained the measures were hindering them.

The limits on hand luggage - brought in last month - have been criticised for causing delays to passengers, and for costing airlines and airports.

The current security measures also ban all liquids except medication essential for the flight and baby milk and liquid baby food, which must be tasted by the passenger.

Thousands of flights were cancelled at Heathrow and BAA's other UK airports after the alleged plot was foiled last month.

Under the current restrictions the dimensions of hand luggage must not exceed 45cm x 35cm x 16cm (17.7in x 13.7in x 6.2in approx), including wheels, handles and side pockets.

[GANNET FAN]

Hotel Mode, thanks. I suppose every little helps. But I'm still puzzled about the noticeable lack of information about the "alleged" terrorists and their "alleged" plot. Again, is anyone the wiser?

[perkin]

A fair few of them have now been charged with various offences related to terrorism and the alleged plot to blow up airliners bound for the US, this has been widely publicised. I assume the lack of continuing info in the media is intentional so as not to potentially put the judicial process at risk eg biased jurors. Its normal for high profile cases like this to be kept out of the media until a verdict is reached surely?

[GANNET FAN]

Yes I guess you are right, however in the present climate and under the circumstances, I suspect it may be difficult to find a completely unbiased juror.

[Globaliser]

Yes I guess you are right, however in the present climate and under the circumstances, I suspect it may be difficult to find a completely unbiased juror.English jurors tend to do pretty well, actually, even in this sort of case. Even if there's lots of evidence that something was up, they are made to focus on what's important: Is there enough evidence to prove the case against this individual? And generally they seem to examine that question conscientiously.

The outcome of the "ricin plot" trial demonstrates this. Not only was there evidence against those who were acquitted, there was (in the judge's view) enough evidence that the jury could have properly convicted them if they had formed certain views and drawn certain inferences. But it was for the jury to form those views and draw those inferences if they thought it right. Clearly they didn't - so they acquitted.

What the lack of press coverage is intended to do is to stop potential jurors hearing things which might poison that reasoning process. For example, a story such as "This defendant has been arrested on suspicion of terrorism on six previous occasions, but was released every time because there wasn't enough evidence" would not be allowed. A juror who read that might not be able to avoid thinking that there can't be smoke without fire. So the coverage is kept to a minimum, so that the jury will only see and hear what the trial judge thinks they should properly see and hear.

There have been lots of arrests in terrorism cases since September 2001, but relatively few trials. The fact that quite a number of people have been actually charged over this suggests that the police have substantial confidence that they have a decent case to bring before the courts.