View Full Version : Media *ucking MORONS!!!!!

24th Nov 2002, 07:53
I could not believe my ears listening to the Channel 7 News tonight regarding airport security!
(Edited because I thought it better not to repeat what these IDIOTS told millions of people tonight.)
In the current security environment this report was reprehensible!
Hope to get some good rating points did we?
Little wonder you morons enjoy the reputation you deserve!!
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

24th Nov 2002, 09:43
Hang on a bit woftam, I think, much as I have no cause to love the media, that you might be putting the boot in a bit too soon on this one.

The information was on more news services than just 7 and appears to have come from a media release. I would think that it has been released in the interests of sending a clear message that if you think that the domestic airlines are a soft target and you can get away with putting something nasty on an aircraft you will have to think again.

Think deterrent rather than leak.

24th Nov 2002, 10:14
I think you may have watched a different news item to the one I watched.
The message given on the item I watched was exactlly the OPPOSITE!
Hence the concern.
For obvious reasons I won't go in to detail here.
A couple of million people is MORE than enough.

24th Nov 2002, 11:25
As at 2320hrs Sunday Wolfram the report that concerns you is running in all the major daily newspapers to be circulated in Australia on Monday and has appeared on every major TV bulletin on the commercial networks.
Clearly you missed the Prime Minister's appearance on Sunday Sunrise on Sunday morning on which all of the material was made public. For some reason when the PM says something the media reports it.
You represent the major problem the media faces in this country today - people who don't want to know or think they know better than the people who do.
The media does its job, for better or worse, to the best of its ability and limitations. We don't know everything and do get stuff wrong but you'd hate the alternative.
And if you think the alternative might be better find a copy of Paul Lendavai's book Bureaucracy of Truth which details, in part, the Soviet media's cover-up of Aeroflot crashes in the 1970s.
Don't think you'd like it

24th Nov 2002, 11:52
Dear Trouser,
That's just bloody wonderfull.
Why don't the media just tell the terrorists everything they need to know?
A little common sense wouldn't go astray!
Have you been living on a different planet?
I don't want to know?
You're kidding right?
I FLY these bloody things you are giving people clues on how to circumvent security on.
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
Wolfram (sic) ...and yes you are!
And yes you are right,I missed the PM's appearance.
I am the first one to admit that security needs to be beefed up, but why does the media feel the need to expose this vulnerability at this sensitive time?
Maybe an instruction manual next issue?

Kaptin M
24th Nov 2002, 12:02
A bit like locks, Woftam........"made to keep HONEST people out."

Even as a modest airline pilot, I KNOW that if I REALLY wanted to hijack/do serious damage to an airliner, it would be dead EASY.

The people we have, acting as "security" are a JOKE.
Test: Put a 40cm ceramic knife inside your sports coat/blazer and walk through "security"..................NOTHING.
Now, put a pair of nail clippers in your x-rayed carry on.......and all HELL will break loose.


There are numerous other examples - some of which I did identify, but have subsequently "scrubbed" - that PROFESSIONAL TERRORISTS are fully aware of..these guys are TRAINED for the position!

The airlines even provide terrorists with key ingredients on board, but the PUBLIC are oblivious.

And that's ALL that matters.

Printing it here, Woftam, will only give the half-wits who AREN'T trained, the chance to be made an example of.
Poor, dumb, f^ckers!

24th Nov 2002, 12:58
For once I agree with you Kaptin.
I too am fully aware of the vulnerabilities in our domain.
The point I am making is WHY do we need to tell every Tom,Dick and Harry at this point in time about them just to sell a few newspapers or whatever.
ANY discussion regarding airport/airline security at this time is a very sensitive issue.
Let's get our house in order BEFORE telling the world where the holes are.
The report I referrred to might as well have been an issue of " terrorism for idiots".
All I am asking of the media is please use a bit of common sense.
It might make a great story,but it might get my a*se blown out of the sky too!
We are not talking censorship here,simply common sense.
Is that too much to ask?

24th Nov 2002, 14:10
Mon "Melbourne Age" 25/11/02

Qantas confirms X-ray loophole
November 25 2002
By Andrew Heasley
Transport Reporter

Despite the threat of terrorism to aviation, all baggage on domestic flights is not X-rayed before being loaded on to passenger aircraft, Qantas confirmed yesterday.

The revelation came after Prime Minister John Howard announced on Channel Seven yesterday that the government would soon announce measures to remedy the situation.

Asked if that would mean X-raying all baggage stored in domestic aircraft holds, he said: "We are moving towards that. I can't say it's going to happen overnight because it's a massive operation."

Aviation is not the only sector to face new security measures. Tomorrow Mr Howard will unveil a device to screen shipping containers on the dockside.

A spokesman for federal Transport Minister John Anderson said cabinet was due to consider baggage screening, and the future of the Ansett ticket levy, before the end of the year.

Mr Anderson's spokesman, Paul Chamberlin said international flights would screen all baggage by 2005 in line with international security standards.

Qantas spokeswoman Alison Maxwell said some bags were checked randomly before being loaded on domestic flights, but she did not know if this was done technologically or manually.

But the airline met security regulations laid down by the Transport Department and the company was talking to the government about improving security, she said. "It's the government that regulates what is and isn't done in terms of passenger screening or baggage screening, and we comply fully with their regulations.

"We've been speaking to the government over the past couple of months about a range of enhanced security measures including the screening of checked baggage."

Virgin Blue said it would cooperate with Federal Government's security review.

A Melbourne Airport Corporation spokesman said he would not discuss security measures.

with AAP

24th Nov 2002, 19:53
Good on the Melbourne Airport Corporation spokesman!
The only smart one amongst them unfortunately.

24th Nov 2002, 21:01
And I suppose we will have to stop scotsmen from wearing their kilts in public because they may be concealing an offensive weapon under it?

Mud Skipper
24th Nov 2002, 21:18
ABC radio this morning also ran an article about QANTAS not screening checked baggage - where was any mention of VB?

Don't tell me they do it, I doubt it. But not being included in the article, Joe public would probably think they do. Ha what a joke.

Once again the press beats up the tall poppy.

Who's going to pay for this - quoted at $30 a pax - well by the sound of the journo you'ld think he wants QF to cover the cost in the current ticket - dream on.


24th Nov 2002, 21:42
"...John Anderson said cabinet was due to consider baggage screening, and the future of the Ansett ticket levy...."

Consider, not revoke. Why cancel a good revenue earner?

I can feel a name change coming on. The Ansett ticket tax to be renamed as the "Torrorist Tax"?

Pimp Daddy
24th Nov 2002, 22:07
Consider, not revoke. Why cancel a good revenue earner?

It's not a revenue earner.

Govt gave administrators ~$300m and has received ~$120m back from ticket levy, by my calculations that leaves the Govt still in the hole to the tune of about $180m dollars seeing as it has been stated the loan isn't likely to be repaid.

Kaptin M
24th Nov 2002, 22:08
The following is from The Australian (sorry Wirraway):

Urgent airline security upgrade
By Steve Lewis and Sophie Morris
November 25, 2002
PLANS to upgrade airline security across Australia, including X-raying passenger luggage, will be fast-tracked as part of the federal Government's response to the heightened terrorism alert.

Cabinet also will consider tough new laws allowing suspected terrorists to be deported, even if they hold a valid Australian passport or visa, as part of a crackdown following the Bali bombings.

Plans are under way to tighten screening procedures for baggage on domestic flights, but John Howard warned yesterday this was a massive operation that would not happen overnight.

Qantas and other airlines operating domestic services are known to be concerned over the massive costs of installing security equipment across the nation's airports.

Just days after the Government upgraded its security warnings, the Prime Minister rejected suggestions that Australia was on par with either the US or Israel. And Opposition Leader Simon Crean demanded to be briefed by Mr Howard on a multi-million-dollar advertising campaign aimed at educating the public about the terrorist threat.

The television and radio blitz is expected to be broadcast over the Christmas holidays, but the Prime Minister cautioned against overreaction to threats against Australia. "I really want people to go on living their own lives," he said.

In a sign of Labor's increasing unease about the Government's handling of the security threat, Mr Crean wrote yesterday to Mr Howard claiming it was important for the Opposition to be consulted on the advertising campaign.

While downplaying suggestions that the Coalition was engaged in "scaremongering", Mr Crean said it was important to ensure this was a "genuine effort" to inform the public, rather than a blatant misuse of taxpayers' dollars.

Reading between the lines, it would appear that as the Government is about to embark on an extensive advertising programme prior to the Christmas/New Year break, they are trying to put pressure on the airlines to "come to the party" by installing the x-ray equipment for check-in baggage and cargo.

My guess is the media are being used by the Government to try to lobby public support.

It IS something of a "joke" - but not a funny one - that MORE than 1 year after September 11, the Prime Minister comes out with the statement, "We are moving towards that (x-raying). I can't say it's going to happen overnight because it's a massive operation."

IMHO there is NO reason that it could not be instigated RIGHT NOW.
There are x-ray machines used at all the international airports in Australia, used to scan check-in baggage for some of the overseas carriers such as JAL.
All domestic airlines in Japan scan pax check-in bags (and then place a seal on them) as the pax line up for seat allocation.

I'm not sure how they calculate $30 per passenger - I'd be surprised if it ran out at any more than $1. (It will be the security companies hired by the airlines, who will be responsible for the outlay of the machine.)

Certainly a cheap INVESTMENT, if it stops a suitcase full of explosives being checked in!

25th Nov 2002, 00:40
Airlines can x-ray all they like, but a very high percentage of airlines will provide a weapon to any passenger if they ask. When the drinks trolley comes around just ask for a "wine" and you will be given a nice "glass" bottle of wine which in one quick movement can become a weapon.

25th Nov 2002, 01:22
Kaptin,you may well be right that the "media are being used by the Government to try to lobby public support." i.e. who pays?
The big problem I have with what is going on in the media at the moment is that the general public should NOT be told about what security measures are or are not in place at airports under ANY circumstances!
This issue is FAR too important to become a political stunt aided by the media about who pays?
Sort it out in the back rooms boys!!
In the meantime stop telling potential terrorists how best to go about their work you FOOLS!

25th Nov 2002, 01:57
The risk, and now stated by the media, is from suicide bombers.

Suicide bombers are counterable, to an extent, at airports with the heightened security mentioned. With this there is a good risk that a suicide bomber will fail to bring about the level of destruction hoped for in their murderous objective.

A suicide bomber will pick the easy, undefendable and unfoilable civilian targets we see on the news from Israel all to frequently.

Airports are at risk from a number of threats. They are confined spaces with large numbers of people. Not just bombers, look at Rome in the eighties or even the confessions of Martin Bryant.

As unsavoury as it may well be to Australia, police armed with submachine guns may be neccessary additions to airport security, not Chubb guards.

25th Nov 2002, 09:28
The problem is that they will always have certain sectors of the community yelping about their "need to know". And I don't mean the media either. You will always have some interest group jumping up and down because the gvt hasn't done x or won't tell them y.

So you tell people nothing and they start to choose not to fly because they are worried about security, and you will have some anti government group yelping because "the Government doesn't care about the security of ordinary Australians", then the conspiracy theorists jump out of the woodwork about "Government cover up because they won't say anything" (and if you think conspiracy theorists are just loonies who would believe anything and aren't worth responding to, have a look at today's articles regarding the use of one of the world's most powerful telescopes just to prove that the Yanks really DID go to the moon).

The sensible mean is that they tell people the most obvious security measures and keep their mouths firmly shut about the ones that they don't want to make public.

Don't you think that the people in the industry who publicly state that there are loopholes to be exploited is more of a worry? Just a thought...

25th Nov 2002, 11:01
Yes, your last statement is very much on the mark VictorBravo.
People in the industry should NOT be telling anyone who will listen where the weaknesses may or may not be. And the media should not be broadcasting this.
It's a bit like putting a note on your front door telling everyone the key is under the mat.
All a bit too late now though,everyone who watches TV or buys a paper knows all they wanted to know about airport security but were afraid to ask.
Thanks very much.
While they are at it,why not publish bank vault combinations or a guide to breaking in to cars?

Kaptin M
25th Nov 2002, 12:09
Guess what??!!
It's not restricted to Australia only!

Watching CNN (the television network for homesick Yanks), I saw a 5 minute programme on the new US laws that will allow pilots to carry guns in the cockpit - except on freighters.
They then went on to film how almost all cargo, except those that had a consignment note stating "General", was NOT x-rayed.

Probably the biggest "joke" was the shot of one of these "inspectors", with a tiny hand held detector that he ran over the outside of the big cargo pallets, trying to determine if any held radioactive materials.
DOH....these terrorists are TRAINED for this sort of stuff (the Yanks admitted, following the war in Afghanistan, that they SERIOUSLY underestimated Al Qaeda's resources), and even I am dumb enough to realise that radioactive material, properly encased, would be easy to conceal from the amateurs employed in the name of "security", by the airlines.

Well, with all this sort of [email protected] going to air, it's almost like an invitation to the terrorists to try something over the XMAS/New Year season.
And perhaps a message to travellers to stay at home.
Airlines might see a DROP in pax numbers over December/January, thanks to the clever press!!

Luke SkyToddler
25th Nov 2002, 16:27
The way things went down on Sep 11th, won't happen again for the simple reason that there has been a sea change in the psyche of the public, and the passengers would almost certainly take matters into their own hands. If you think about it, an essential ingredient for the success of the hijackings was that 200-odd passengers sat there like lambs to the slaughter while these hijackers, armed at the end of the day only with small knives, took them all to their deaths.

But if you put yourself in a pax seat tomorrow, and the little arabian bloke next to you jumped up waving a Stanley and said he was taking over the aircraft, what would you do, sit there fat dumb and happy? I reckon they'd be torn limb from limb before they even got two rows towards the flight deck.

Of course we're still at the mercy of bombers to a certain extent but to be fair, the Bali bomb showed us that it's just as easy to get blown up in any public place as in an airliner. It isn't perfect and never will be but but at least we have some attempt at security measures in place in our industry, the shopping malls and railway stations and millions of other public congregation places do not. In a lot of ways I'd rather be sitting up the front of an airliner these days than in some other soft civilian target.

heli lonestar
25th Nov 2002, 23:26
Bit off track but....

In the Philippines, Manila International Airport, every bag, suitcase and item whether it be a pram or box is x-rayed before you even get through the front door and enter the checkin areas. To get to the departure gates you go through an extra two check points with another x-ray of hand baggage and everyone (not just those that make the walkthrough beep) is frisked and scanned.

For a nation that in many ways is so far behind it makes sense really. They are doing it so why aren't we!!

26th Nov 2002, 00:07
I would be happy to close this thread now please Woomera before anyone here has a "slip of the tongue" and does even more damage than the media have already done.

26th Nov 2002, 01:24

The "Threat" defeated Soviet forces in Afganistan and has since found holes in many aspects of Western security. Their srategic planning think tank does not rely on pprune.

We are ignorant and complacent in our part of the world. A little public discussion may do more good then harm.


Was in Manilla last week. Very impressed with their visible levels of security. I suppose they have terrorists in their backyard though, but then of course, so do we!

Got me a handful of those rotten Manilla cigars to take home too.

26th Nov 2002, 06:44
I wish I had the balls to walk up to an airport security check
brandishing a broken off wine bottle. I'm sure I would be taken
into custody for attempting to carry an offensive weapon onto
an aircraft.
And, yet I can carry half a dozen wine bottles in my handcarry,
and convert them to deadly offensive weapons in a microsecond.
It's a JOKE that bottles are still allowed on aircraft.
The lipservice to increased security will stop after the next big
suicide bomb (aircraft) finally hits the earth.

26th Nov 2002, 09:02
I remain fascinated by the attitude of ppruners on the issue of airport security.

VictorBravo - the public does not have a "need to know" - they have a right to know. In case you have missed it, as woftam certainly has, we live in a democracy where the free exchange of information is a basic freedom. Pprune exists because we have such a right.

Woftam - You call to Woomera to close the thread is beyond belief. As others have pointed out those people with designs on attacking and/or damaging our way of life have better sources of information than pprune. If you wish to live in a state where censorship is the norm try North Korea. You won't like it.

Meanwhile the media will continue to publish information and comment about airport security and security issues in general.

And just in case you believe the media are not to be trusted with information about security issues, sections of the media were briefed about aspects of security surrounding the Olympics, or found out about them through good intelligence work, that were not for public consumption. Not a word was published or ever will be.

26th Nov 2002, 18:15
Yes,they have far better sources than pprune,they have the media!
As I have already stated we are NOT talking censorship here,we are talking common sense.
Exactly WHOSE side are you on?
Don't you idiots realise that EVERY piece of information regarding security you release is a threat to us all?
"meanwhile the media will continue to publish information and comment about airport security and security issues in general"
I'm sure we will all sleep soundly knowing we are in such great hands.

26th Nov 2002, 22:34
"The sky is falling. The sky is falling!"

Fat Ass
27th Nov 2002, 00:15
Watched a peice on x-ray machines at Austalian ports lastnight, being introduced to fight terrorism. I was horrified to hear the exact timetable and capitals involved. Now anyone interested in smuggling goods into australia knows where and when to do so...WAKEUP AUSTRALIA!!!!!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

27th Nov 2002, 01:45
Joint intelligence and joint military ops are the first line of defence against terrorism. Defence signals intelligence, SAS, ASIS etc. Top Secret. No media discusssion here.

Second line. Police and ASIO. Civil libertarians can make difficult. They tend to aid those who take liberties against our freedoms.

Last line is the cumbersome defence of soft targets like airports.

At the moment, our airports security in question. An awakening to our complacency, through debate and media, will eventuate in better protection afforded to all.

Airport security is expensive. Who will pay? Take note of the VB Sydney terminal. The security situation bare minimum. Why? Dollars!

I fell the only effective defence against a well organised terror threat is the aforementioned first and second line. Good airport security, the result of their initial spectacular success, would have them look at softer targets.

Every few years a maniac like Martin Bryant pops up. The first and second line defences useless. A Martin Bryant, using religious justification and acting independently, would see airports/airlines the perfect target.

Thus the need for x-ray machines and heavily armed airport police. A useful, but probably not effective, last ditch defence against Al Queda too.

I feel our Northern approaches poorly defended. Using the arguments of some above, I am guilty of treason in almost inviting invasion by stating the obvious!

27th Nov 2002, 12:14
You're right tsnake, it should have been "right to know". However I stand by my comments. I do not believe that the people who say that have a "right to know" in this wonderful democracy that we live in also have a right to compromise my, or any other person's, right to live in a safe environment.

You accuse woftam of advocating censorship by asking for closure of this thread (although I would have thought that he/she is entitled to their right to free speech). However you then cite an example where the press itself allegedly decided to withhold information with the implication that this was in the public interest. So are you saying that it's ok for the press to determine what does and doesn't get published in the public interest? Now, that wouldn't be, oh gosh! CENSORSHIP, would it? Or is it democratically all right if it's the press taking on the role of arbiter of what is good or what isn't good for the public?

Are we having our cake and eating it yet?

I could waste hours of bandwidth arguing about it, but I have better things to do.

Whether or not people can get better information elsewhere, it is better not to say anything. Information is a big jigsaw set where sometimes you just need to get the last piece in place before you can see the whole picture. If you don't want anyone else to get the picture, you withhold any pieces you have, no matter how small, because every piece can make a difference. And sometimes just pointing out the existence of a gap can, in itself, reveal something that should not be seen.

Kaptin M
27th Nov 2002, 23:40
Good observation, Gardenbug :D . You have raised a very valid issue with your post.
IF the citizens of a country are under threat, as is apparently the case now (I see the Australian Embassy in Manila is being closed, due to `credible threats`, btw) in Australia, and airports/aircraft are declared prime targets, then let`s get the military involved in an ACTIVE, protective role.

The pollies are happy to send the troops off to Afghanistan, Viet Nam, and Timor - how about sending them off to our OWN Aussie airports to replace some of the "amateurs" they have operating the security services at present!

So called "Homeland Security" seems to be looking at every other country to send the AAF to, whilst ignoring HOME!!

27th Nov 2002, 23:51
I don't know much about the specifics of airport security. Can I just ask what x-ray screeners are hoping to see in checked bags? Afterall, the explosive of choice for the terrorist is C4. As I understand it, C4 won't show up on the x-ray machine and can be molded to almost any shape. Detonators are tiny, and almost every bag must have a battery or two and integrated circuits packed somewhere. The US is getting explosive detection installed at their airports. X-ray machines just don't sound too effective to me.

Lead Balloon
29th Nov 2002, 01:58
At the risk of inflaming Woftam.

I travel quite a lot (monthly) to the States and have observed some very strange security practices, if Australia is going to emulate these to pacify a stupid public, then it will be just throwing good money after bad - whilst increasing frustration for business travellers.

One such practice is the Automatic marking of a passenger who changes their flight schedule (as just about every businessman does), or who has a one-way ticket (like Pheonix - LAX). Not only do you get your large bags x-ray screened, but you get tagged for an automatic search at the Gate. STUPID! Now, if I was planning to see my maker with a bunch of infidels in tow, I'd simply travel with a fellow nutcase, ensuring that I changed my flight time to the one he was on and give him my carry on bag, knowing that the chances that he would be picked would be greatly reduced. I would prefer a far more intelligent and random system, like physcographics, profiling and good 'ol randomness.

But the other punters on the plane (who I discuss this with) like the "feeling" it gives them.

So, as Creampuff would say, it is the "vibe of the thing" that matters, not the reality.

Woftam, a question for you, what security measure is going to stop someone shooting a rocket at a plane, or sharpenening a credit card to slit someones throat or taking medicines on board and mixing your own plastique or highly corrosive substance.

I'm afraid the answer, doesn't rely in $14/hr grunts at the gate.

29th Nov 2002, 03:00
Kaptin M says....

"All domestic airlines in Japan scan pax check-in bags (and then place a seal on them) as the pax line up for seat allocation. "

Not true.

30th Nov 2002, 07:48
That's right, I forgot your dad had a kilt!