Uk Airport Chaos (hand wringing thread)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Summer
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc,
You've been already been told that attitudes like your are myopic, detrimental to economy, and in final analysis, just senseless. I will not repeat what others had said better than me.
I want to remember you why we do want to bring hand baggage on airplanes, including nail cutters and liquids.
It is because is part of 'our' western lifestyle (and other parts of the world, I'm using western as an oversimplification).
We want to bring our things with us, be it sex toys, cameras, laptops or what we like better. This because it is the form of freedom we are able to appreciate best, there be may other forms of freedom but hassle-free travel is appreciated by most people.
If you don't appreciate that, and want to propagand hassle-ridden travel, go ahead, but it will be you only as the discussion here has showed already.
You've been already been told that attitudes like your are myopic, detrimental to economy, and in final analysis, just senseless. I will not repeat what others had said better than me.
I want to remember you why we do want to bring hand baggage on airplanes, including nail cutters and liquids.
It is because is part of 'our' western lifestyle (and other parts of the world, I'm using western as an oversimplification).
We want to bring our things with us, be it sex toys, cameras, laptops or what we like better. This because it is the form of freedom we are able to appreciate best, there be may other forms of freedom but hassle-free travel is appreciated by most people.
If you don't appreciate that, and want to propagand hassle-ridden travel, go ahead, but it will be you only as the discussion here has showed already.
Originally Posted by bjcc
It may come as a suprise that there are people in the press here (BBC News this morning) suggesting excatly what I said, that a permanant ban on hand baggage is actually a good thing.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
el !
I keep reading this detriment to the econamy argument. It really doesn't hold water.
There is no restriction on taking a laptop, or sex toy if that floats your boat. The only restriction is it goes in the hold at the moment. It may be that becomes a permanant thing, it may not. It's not my choice, it's the way it is!
Sitting behind a computer whinging about how inconvientent it is doesn't change it, in any event, thats all it is inconvienent!
The fact is that the DfT has decided that no liquids will be taken airside. Yes, its draconian, and yes it's harsh. They have also decided that there will be 100% passenger searches, and everything will be xrayed.
That decision has been made in response to a specific plot to cause death. Do you suggest that is ignored? I doubt it.
Do you know that there were not other cells planning the same thing, and in fact the threat was much bigger? No, you don't, and nor probably do the Security Service, nor The Police.
So given something has to be done, and given the nature of this form of attack, the DfT has done something. I would suggest the first idea was the 100% pax searches, but that has implications, as I outlined before, think what the queues would be like, and therefore delays caused by that AND having to deal with hand baggage too. Consider for a moment the time taken either asking the Pax to taste every liquid or having it analysed.
Again, as I said before, pax have a habit of ignoring lists of what they can't take in hand baggage, even when it should be obvious, knives, guns, mace/cs/pepper sprays. 30 tpo 50 times a day we as Police were called to exactly that, and you think pax are going to be sensible and remove liquids?
So, yes, I can see the logic of whats been done. In spite of claims to that it is stupid, there is thought behind it.
I keep reading this detriment to the econamy argument. It really doesn't hold water.
There is no restriction on taking a laptop, or sex toy if that floats your boat. The only restriction is it goes in the hold at the moment. It may be that becomes a permanant thing, it may not. It's not my choice, it's the way it is!
Sitting behind a computer whinging about how inconvientent it is doesn't change it, in any event, thats all it is inconvienent!
The fact is that the DfT has decided that no liquids will be taken airside. Yes, its draconian, and yes it's harsh. They have also decided that there will be 100% passenger searches, and everything will be xrayed.
That decision has been made in response to a specific plot to cause death. Do you suggest that is ignored? I doubt it.
Do you know that there were not other cells planning the same thing, and in fact the threat was much bigger? No, you don't, and nor probably do the Security Service, nor The Police.
So given something has to be done, and given the nature of this form of attack, the DfT has done something. I would suggest the first idea was the 100% pax searches, but that has implications, as I outlined before, think what the queues would be like, and therefore delays caused by that AND having to deal with hand baggage too. Consider for a moment the time taken either asking the Pax to taste every liquid or having it analysed.
Again, as I said before, pax have a habit of ignoring lists of what they can't take in hand baggage, even when it should be obvious, knives, guns, mace/cs/pepper sprays. 30 tpo 50 times a day we as Police were called to exactly that, and you think pax are going to be sensible and remove liquids?
So, yes, I can see the logic of whats been done. In spite of claims to that it is stupid, there is thought behind it.
bjcc
Get your head out of the sand and think. Laptops are an indispensible tool for the majority of business travellers who cannot afford to lose the sensitive data they contain. It the computer is stolen or damaged their hellish journeys will have been a waste of time. I for one will stop flying until sanity returns and sensible measures such as passenger profiling are adopted at UK airports.
Get your head out of the sand and think. Laptops are an indispensible tool for the majority of business travellers who cannot afford to lose the sensitive data they contain. It the computer is stolen or damaged their hellish journeys will have been a waste of time. I for one will stop flying until sanity returns and sensible measures such as passenger profiling are adopted at UK airports.
Last edited by brakedwell; 13th Aug 2006 at 14:44.
Ignoring the stupidly woodentop comments of some, I have just been listening to a very sensible and measured response from Michael o'Leary. He has the situation summed up perfectly - the system simply isn't designed to cope with the current requirements and the blunt instrument of checking 100% of all passengers will not work for more than 3 or 4 days or the whole system will collapse and the terrorists will have won.
Yes, there certainly will be commercial damage to the airlines if this pig-ignorance continues. Business travellers will not risk loss or damage of expensive, essential business tools containing sensitive commercial information by consigning them to the hold.
Yes, there certainly will be commercial damage to the airlines if this pig-ignorance continues. Business travellers will not risk loss or damage of expensive, essential business tools containing sensitive commercial information by consigning them to the hold.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just why are the scheduled airlines struggling so much? All UK charter flights have operated, and in most cases with minimal delay. This blanket cancelling of services form low cost carriers for example seems more based on accepting responsibility for the passengers than actual security measures!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Business travellers will not risk loss or damage of expensive, essential business tools containing sensitive commercial information by consigning them to the hold.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bjcc
I keep reading this detriment to the econamy argument. It really doesn't hold water.
People like bjcc only see things in black and white. That's why doing 30mph is always legal on a road that has a 30mph limit, when on some occasions 30mph may be way to fast and on others it may be totally safe to do 40mph. Shades of grey are what we're talking here - that there has to be a state between total anarchy and total security that still allows people to do what they need to do. The current imposition does not achieve that goal.
Andy
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Summer
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc, the you really have a Police attitude, luckly of the civilized kind.
That is, you are willing to discuss things as long these are in line with the instructions you have been given and their limited logic. When your interlocutor poses valid challenges to your arguments, you go back to the autorithative way and refuse to move. And you like to always have the last word, as it is typical of those in your position.
Since we are debating in a forum and not at the Airport, I will take the time once more to show you how flawed is your reasoning. Lucky others are doing that, you should take this as a great opportunity to open your mind.
Doesn't ? Why ? Cetrainly we won't know from you as you skipped to the next item below.
I want my toys on board because they make my fly comfortable, and in a mere minuscole way, make my short life worth to be lived, because this Western civilization that the terrors hate so much, gave me airplanes, ipods, books and freedon of opinion, and money to buy these things and why not, sex toys to be used in restrooms in flight. And I want nail clippers because nobody can be harm by them, expecially pilots behind a locked (blinded) door in 2006 after we learnt.
Here again the cursory recall to authority. bjcc please remember, I'm not 8 years old, and we are not at the airport. If you don't have arguments of your own, let the official ones to be trumped by whoever decided them.
This is a cheap argeumenting tecnique that I suggest you take with less intelligent people, to who you can exert your autority better than here. In order to augment your reasoning, you imply the fact that by not agreeing with you, one actually takes the side of a bigger evil. Banal.
So while we don't know what bad people are wanting, we don't go on with our lives ? Anyway, let me be blunt now, I think that making all these prohibition is absolutely useless, because no terrorist now would try the trick that the Service or whoever had just found (exactly how they found, this is another matter).
Terrorists don't want to be arrested. They are stupid but not stupid enough to do things at the wrong time. And now is a wrong time. Even Bush said so, they are patient. And when a better time will come, if they are still around and willing to die for we don't know what, they will hit.
Actually, by disrupting the way we live, you gave them a partial success. The difference is just that nobody died, no material destructions, but the practical effect on everyday life is the same.
Here you revelad another piece of the hipocracy - "something has to be done". I explained above exactly why nothing had to be done, and I will add another point - there are so many ways of bringing on board dangerous items, that short of 100% body and cavity search, no pax will be ever secure. But it seem that what really matters to you, is to make your work "sustenaible" - so yhe shortcut is OK with you, even if you know in your mind that you are not screening anything, because they are not coming.
Why you come back so often mentioning the forbidden items , all meant to harm a person. The Police is there to seize them and arrest or cite the person carrying them. So what.
Because some individual misbehave, you cannot attach the same attitute to everyone. In fact, the percentage of seized items (30 to 50 in a busy airport) is even less than the prison population of a Western country.
EDIT: few lines above I said "nothing has to be done". This is technically incorrect, I should have said "nothing has to be done now in screening", instead many many things must be done in the area of non-invasive technology and intelligent searches that can in a future minimize the possibility that explosives in whatever form are brought on board.
The "intelligent" approach to security that you hastly dismissed because unsustainable in your line of work, is exactly what should be done.
Instead of thinking about how to get security in the most practical way, why don't you think, in a sensible, foreseeing, concerted way.
That is, you are willing to discuss things as long these are in line with the instructions you have been given and their limited logic. When your interlocutor poses valid challenges to your arguments, you go back to the autorithative way and refuse to move. And you like to always have the last word, as it is typical of those in your position.
Since we are debating in a forum and not at the Airport, I will take the time once more to show you how flawed is your reasoning. Lucky others are doing that, you should take this as a great opportunity to open your mind.
Originally Posted by bjcc
el !
I keep reading this detriment to the econamy argument. It really doesn't hold water.
I keep reading this detriment to the econamy argument. It really doesn't hold water.
There is no restriction on taking a laptop, or sex toy if that floats your boat. The only restriction is it goes in the hold at the moment.
It may be that becomes a permanant thing, it may not. It's not my choice, it's the way it is!
Sitting behind a computer whinging about how inconvientent it is doesn't change it, in any event, thats all it is inconvienent!
The fact is that the DfT has decided that no liquids will be taken airside. Yes, its draconian, and yes it's harsh. They have also decided that there will be 100% passenger searches, and everything will be xrayed.
That decision has been made in response to a specific plot to cause death. Do you suggest that is ignored? I doubt it.
The fact is that the DfT has decided that no liquids will be taken airside. Yes, its draconian, and yes it's harsh. They have also decided that there will be 100% passenger searches, and everything will be xrayed.
That decision has been made in response to a specific plot to cause death. Do you suggest that is ignored? I doubt it.
Do you know that there were not other cells planning the same thing, and in fact the threat was much bigger? No, you don't, and nor probably do the Security Service, nor The Police.
Terrorists don't want to be arrested. They are stupid but not stupid enough to do things at the wrong time. And now is a wrong time. Even Bush said so, they are patient. And when a better time will come, if they are still around and willing to die for we don't know what, they will hit.
Actually, by disrupting the way we live, you gave them a partial success. The difference is just that nobody died, no material destructions, but the practical effect on everyday life is the same.
So given something has to be done, and given the nature of this form of attack, the DfT has done something. I would suggest the first idea was the 100% pax searches, but that has implications, as I outlined before, think what the queues would be like, and therefore delays caused by that AND having to deal with hand baggage too.
Consider for a moment the time taken either asking the Pax to taste every liquid or having it analysed. Again, as I said before, pax have a habit of ignoring lists of what they can't take in hand baggage, even when it should be obvious, knives, guns, mace/cs/pepper sprays. 30 tpo 50 times a day we as Police were called to exactly that, and you think pax are going to be sensible and remove liquids?
So, yes, I can see the logic of whats been done. In spite of claims to that it is stupid, there is thought behind it.
So, yes, I can see the logic of whats been done. In spite of claims to that it is stupid, there is thought behind it.
Because some individual misbehave, you cannot attach the same attitute to everyone. In fact, the percentage of seized items (30 to 50 in a busy airport) is even less than the prison population of a Western country.
EDIT: few lines above I said "nothing has to be done". This is technically incorrect, I should have said "nothing has to be done now in screening", instead many many things must be done in the area of non-invasive technology and intelligent searches that can in a future minimize the possibility that explosives in whatever form are brought on board.
The "intelligent" approach to security that you hastly dismissed because unsustainable in your line of work, is exactly what should be done.
Instead of thinking about how to get security in the most practical way, why don't you think, in a sensible, foreseeing, concerted way.
Last edited by el !; 13th Aug 2006 at 15:34.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: LONDON
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 30W
Just why are the scheduled airlines struggling so much? All UK charter flights have operated, and in most cases with minimal delay. This blanket cancelling of services form low cost carriers for example seems more based on accepting responsibility for the passengers than actual security measures!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
el! Spot on, totally in agreement.
When fighting a monster you must avoid becoming one yourself.
We are in danger of losing the very freedoms we seek to defend.
I have lived with the threat of terrorism for a significant part of my life. As a six year old in Aden my parents drilled it into me that I should not pick up anything outside as our arab friends had a nasty habit of booby-trapping things. I accepted the advice and I'm alive to share this snippet with the likes of bjcc. Take note: I was allowed to have my own toys whilst playing outside.
Then we had 30 years of IRA terror threatening mainland UK. The threat we face now is no worse.
Blowing up airliners whether empty or full is nothing new. Remember the airfield in Jordan and our VC-10's ?
bjcc... With respect,I have served in uniform and recognise that in such walks of life you can be somewhat biased towards the authoritarian view. Whatever solutions are put in place should reflect that the majority of us pax respect the rules and are simply going about our lawful business.
When fighting a monster you must avoid becoming one yourself.
We are in danger of losing the very freedoms we seek to defend.
I have lived with the threat of terrorism for a significant part of my life. As a six year old in Aden my parents drilled it into me that I should not pick up anything outside as our arab friends had a nasty habit of booby-trapping things. I accepted the advice and I'm alive to share this snippet with the likes of bjcc. Take note: I was allowed to have my own toys whilst playing outside.
Then we had 30 years of IRA terror threatening mainland UK. The threat we face now is no worse.
Blowing up airliners whether empty or full is nothing new. Remember the airfield in Jordan and our VC-10's ?
bjcc... With respect,I have served in uniform and recognise that in such walks of life you can be somewhat biased towards the authoritarian view. Whatever solutions are put in place should reflect that the majority of us pax respect the rules and are simply going about our lawful business.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
el !
My attitude has nothing to do with a previous occupation, but everything to do with the real world.
Sadly, the real world doesn't run to the form of logic some who post here would like it too.
Your point about now being safer to fly, because someone got arrested doesn't work. How many times have there been arrests for terrorist offences and a further offence happen within hours? A lot.
While you point out one point of view, there is another, which is that the Seucrity Forces are busy patting each other on the back, and wont be expecting anything further.
Again, you are right is saying there is no 100% security. The idea is to make things as secure as possible, while maintaining as much freedom as possible. You are entitled to believe the balance is wrong at present, those on the other side, ie who impliment or are responsible for security may have an opposing view.
Even if you are on your side of the argument, do you NEED your lap top in the cabin? No, you don't. Do you NEED a mobile? again, no, as far as I know, you can't use it anyway. I take your point about your toys and comfort, but does your comfort outweigh everyone elses security?
Which leads onto the issue of searches when going airside. You don't address the issue, it matters not whether I agree with 100% pax checks or not, they are happening (No, not an authoritive statement, a statement of fact) and given they are happening, which in themsleves lead to extra delays, then removing the handbaggage issue doesn't make the situation worse.
You can make all the comment about me siding with the 'rules' all you like, possibly I do. Possibly I don't. I have expressed no opinion on the pax searches or the reasons behind them, what I have done is try to explain what from a different point of view are very sensible porcesses.
Finally, the issue of crime prevention and expensive items in hold luggage, that is a different issue, and one where I will express an opinion. The situation where the contents of your bag can be stolen is unacceptable. There are things that can, and should have been done in the past, and haven't. For that though, you need to blame the airlines themselves, they are the ones who prevent investigation of offences and refuse to impliment arrangements to stamp it out. Oddly, the best one of which is the very thing there is so much hand wringing over on this thread, 100% search of the contents of baggage handlers property when exiting work.
Edit re your edited comment:
I do not believe that profiling is a very reliable way of arranging security. It relies on well trained and motivated staff, something there is a shortage of. The profiling that people like AA and AI run at LHR I never found very reliable, and they were wrong far more often than they were right.(albeit this was in connection with dodgy passports) That form of security costs, and that means it costs Pax, it may be it will be introduced, but I can't see that in the short term.
My attitude has nothing to do with a previous occupation, but everything to do with the real world.
Sadly, the real world doesn't run to the form of logic some who post here would like it too.
Your point about now being safer to fly, because someone got arrested doesn't work. How many times have there been arrests for terrorist offences and a further offence happen within hours? A lot.
While you point out one point of view, there is another, which is that the Seucrity Forces are busy patting each other on the back, and wont be expecting anything further.
Again, you are right is saying there is no 100% security. The idea is to make things as secure as possible, while maintaining as much freedom as possible. You are entitled to believe the balance is wrong at present, those on the other side, ie who impliment or are responsible for security may have an opposing view.
Even if you are on your side of the argument, do you NEED your lap top in the cabin? No, you don't. Do you NEED a mobile? again, no, as far as I know, you can't use it anyway. I take your point about your toys and comfort, but does your comfort outweigh everyone elses security?
Which leads onto the issue of searches when going airside. You don't address the issue, it matters not whether I agree with 100% pax checks or not, they are happening (No, not an authoritive statement, a statement of fact) and given they are happening, which in themsleves lead to extra delays, then removing the handbaggage issue doesn't make the situation worse.
You can make all the comment about me siding with the 'rules' all you like, possibly I do. Possibly I don't. I have expressed no opinion on the pax searches or the reasons behind them, what I have done is try to explain what from a different point of view are very sensible porcesses.
Finally, the issue of crime prevention and expensive items in hold luggage, that is a different issue, and one where I will express an opinion. The situation where the contents of your bag can be stolen is unacceptable. There are things that can, and should have been done in the past, and haven't. For that though, you need to blame the airlines themselves, they are the ones who prevent investigation of offences and refuse to impliment arrangements to stamp it out. Oddly, the best one of which is the very thing there is so much hand wringing over on this thread, 100% search of the contents of baggage handlers property when exiting work.
Edit re your edited comment:
I do not believe that profiling is a very reliable way of arranging security. It relies on well trained and motivated staff, something there is a shortage of. The profiling that people like AA and AI run at LHR I never found very reliable, and they were wrong far more often than they were right.(albeit this was in connection with dodgy passports) That form of security costs, and that means it costs Pax, it may be it will be introduced, but I can't see that in the short term.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 724
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting comment on the following link as to the reasons behind the baby bottle taste tests.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20115941-2,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20115941-2,00.html
Originally Posted by bjcc
Your point about now being safer to fly, because someone got arrested doesn't work. How many times have there been arrests for terrorist offences and a further offence happen within hours? A lot.
Can you give me any examples in England which were related to aviation?
Last edited by brakedwell; 13th Aug 2006 at 16:17.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc
That is a wholly illogical extrapolation of what was said.
Although police officers are sworn to the office of constable, it is also a rank and that's the sense in which it is most commonly used by both police and public - and the sense in which it was clearly being used here.
You were a Police Constable until you retired from the police. You've said so on various 'police' threads in Jetblast. Why try to play silly games?
You might want to consider what responses such as the one I've quoted do to your credibility. There's a danger people might think you create diversions rather than concede, and fixate on points because you have difficulty with logical argument.
Oh, a Police Constable. I see, so the fact that every member of the British Police Service is a Police Constable (with the exception of some senior members of the Met Police)makes them all Patrol Cops then?
Although police officers are sworn to the office of constable, it is also a rank and that's the sense in which it is most commonly used by both police and public - and the sense in which it was clearly being used here.
You were a Police Constable until you retired from the police. You've said so on various 'police' threads in Jetblast. Why try to play silly games?
You might want to consider what responses such as the one I've quoted do to your credibility. There's a danger people might think you create diversions rather than concede, and fixate on points because you have difficulty with logical argument.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 13th Aug 2006 at 16:12.
Está servira para distraerle.
The possibilities for future travel for experienced and dedicated voyagers are becoming brighter by the minute.
The restrictions placed on carry on baggage will enforce a no fly policy on many families with small children who will feel unable to cope with any flight without their mountain of portable garbage, needed as a life support system for their midnight screaming banshees.
The restrictions placed on carry on computers and other items of brain draining moronity will seriously impede the business traveller. Business lounges, those nests of over fat, over weening and overly self important corporate failures will empty. No more will the quite traveller voyaging on his own account have to listen to the constant self- preening that the businessman or woman constantly needs to apply to themselves by means of prattling on and on on a mobile telephone.
Cabin crew will have the opportunity to relax in a hand baggage free environment unabused by either business traveller or unkempt parent. No more the constant human yo yo up and down to the luggage containers.
Those who still fly regularily will take Valium or some such little tablet to ensure that, with nothing to amuse their minds, they can at least sleep.
Peace and tranquility will reign in the air.
There is much to look forward to in the flights of the future.
Brunel to Concorde
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virtute et Industria, et Sumorsaete Ealle
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a pity that this thread seems to be slipping into an attack on bjcc's intelligence, or lack of it, with the implication that his is a typical unimaginative, unintelligent approach of the average police officer.
During my fairly long life I have had quite a lot of close contact with police officers in a professional situation. I can assure those that talk about stupidly woodentop comments and and you like to always have the last word, as it is typical of those in your position, just to cite two random examples of apparent generalisations, that I have encountered many police officers who are highly intelligent, open-minded and possessed of a knowledge of the world and its citizens far greater than the average person.
I have read many of bjcc's posts on other topics and he clearly has a first rate knowledge of the criminal law and its application.
Having said that, I don't agree with bjcc that the economy argument doesn't hold water. Others have already accurately put the counter argument so there is no need for me to expound further.
The Home Secretary has said the current security measures are time-limited, but that is a vague concept.
There will always be risk in life and the current battle against terrorism will always be a balance between reasonable precautions and allowing everyone to get on with their lives.
As many people are killed on the roads in the UK each year as were murdered on 11 September 2001, but we don't stop people driving cars. We try to limit road casualties by taking reasonable measures, knowing we shall never be completely successful. The same applies to aviation security.
To comment on FL's point about the rank of constable, it is somewhat anomalous in that every police officer is sworn in as a constable and exercises his/her powers as a constable, but that some Acts of Parliament give additional powers only to police officers of a certain rank, eg the Police and Criminal Evidence Act gives inspectors and superintendents powers to authorise searches under various scenarios.
For many years police ranks were primarily for internal discipline and administration, but we seem have gone far beyond that in 21st Century Britain.
During my fairly long life I have had quite a lot of close contact with police officers in a professional situation. I can assure those that talk about stupidly woodentop comments and and you like to always have the last word, as it is typical of those in your position, just to cite two random examples of apparent generalisations, that I have encountered many police officers who are highly intelligent, open-minded and possessed of a knowledge of the world and its citizens far greater than the average person.
I have read many of bjcc's posts on other topics and he clearly has a first rate knowledge of the criminal law and its application.
Having said that, I don't agree with bjcc that the economy argument doesn't hold water. Others have already accurately put the counter argument so there is no need for me to expound further.
The Home Secretary has said the current security measures are time-limited, but that is a vague concept.
There will always be risk in life and the current battle against terrorism will always be a balance between reasonable precautions and allowing everyone to get on with their lives.
As many people are killed on the roads in the UK each year as were murdered on 11 September 2001, but we don't stop people driving cars. We try to limit road casualties by taking reasonable measures, knowing we shall never be completely successful. The same applies to aviation security.
To comment on FL's point about the rank of constable, it is somewhat anomalous in that every police officer is sworn in as a constable and exercises his/her powers as a constable, but that some Acts of Parliament give additional powers only to police officers of a certain rank, eg the Police and Criminal Evidence Act gives inspectors and superintendents powers to authorise searches under various scenarios.
For many years police ranks were primarily for internal discipline and administration, but we seem have gone far beyond that in 21st Century Britain.
Locked bins seem eminently sensible to me! But modifications to achieve this will be costly and will take a long time to fit.
Whilst we're at it, restrict all passengers to only one piece of cabin luggage per adult, max dimensions to total not more than 115 cm and no heavier than 8 kg.
The mounting climbers' backpacks and those damned wheeled trolley things belong in the hold.
Whilst we're at it, restrict all passengers to only one piece of cabin luggage per adult, max dimensions to total not more than 115 cm and no heavier than 8 kg.
The mounting climbers' backpacks and those damned wheeled trolley things belong in the hold.