UK Airport Security
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) Be as nice and polite as you can possible can be.
2) Do everything asked of you.
3)As you are queuing at the gate, be grateful that in your job, u don't have to put up with as much **** as the operatives who are screening you do.
4) Remember that you are not important, you are just an ordinary person flying on an ordinary flight and consequently, are subject to whatever Government Restrictions pertain at the time.
5) Remember that, if these restrictions were not in place and your flight was hi jacked, you'd be the first to squeal and litigate like a stuck pig!
6) Remember, that you are a very ordinary airline user, you deserve no worse than the best security restrictions for the benefit of yourself and your fellow passengers.
2) Do everything asked of you.
3)As you are queuing at the gate, be grateful that in your job, u don't have to put up with as much **** as the operatives who are screening you do.
4) Remember that you are not important, you are just an ordinary person flying on an ordinary flight and consequently, are subject to whatever Government Restrictions pertain at the time.
5) Remember that, if these restrictions were not in place and your flight was hi jacked, you'd be the first to squeal and litigate like a stuck pig!
6) Remember, that you are a very ordinary airline user, you deserve no worse than the best security restrictions for the benefit of yourself and your fellow passengers.
2) No. If some bint who is payed to give me a plastic bag starts to pretend to be anything more than a vending machine I have every right to tell her where to go.
3)Why should i be grateful for the rewards of my own hard work? I earned every penny that pays for my flight.
4)WRONG! I am the reason everyone at the airport has a job.
5)WRONG! I would most likely be dead. The sham that pretends to be security will not stop anyone who really wants to hi jack the flight.
6)WRONG! I am the customer. Without me there is no airline.
I would like a voluntary vetting process. After 12 years in the military followed by 8 years in the airline world I now train the pilots who control the 1000tonnes of aluminium bomb that takes me back and forth weekly. I am not a threat and if the most qualified security person in the land would like to sit with me for a while and disscuss things I would be very happy. IF at the end of it I could bypass the mongs who make my life hell every time I travel through MAN.
You Know Who You Are!!!!!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nice, FR
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Explosives-One of many security stories.
I set off the explosives sensor in Zurich once, after they vacuumed my laptop.
of course since I did not look like a terrorist they told me exactly what type of tablets I might be carrying that would leave those traces on the keyboard!
I was not carry those tablets, but you can be sure that any terrorist would.
It is the difference between the security folk who wave you through when your obvious metal belt set the alarm off and those you make you take the belt off and try again.
I have got one of these stories for every security feature you might want to discuss. My point - if a frequent flier can get around today's security then we cannot hope to stop a determined attacker with what we are doing today.
It needs a re-think. Of course everyone is working terribly hard but are we not too busy chopping down trees to sharpen our axes?
of course since I did not look like a terrorist they told me exactly what type of tablets I might be carrying that would leave those traces on the keyboard!
I was not carry those tablets, but you can be sure that any terrorist would.
It is the difference between the security folk who wave you through when your obvious metal belt set the alarm off and those you make you take the belt off and try again.
I have got one of these stories for every security feature you might want to discuss. My point - if a frequent flier can get around today's security then we cannot hope to stop a determined attacker with what we are doing today.
It needs a re-think. Of course everyone is working terribly hard but are we not too busy chopping down trees to sharpen our axes?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QUOTE:
1) Be as nice and polite as you can possible can be.
2) Do everything asked of you.
3)As you are queing at the gate, be grateful that in your job, u don't have to put up with as much **** as the operatives who are screening you do.
4) Remember that you are not important, you are just an ordinary person flying on an ordinary flght and consequently, are subject to whatever Government Restrictions pertain at the time.
5) Remember that, if these restrictions were not in place and your flight was hi jacked, you'd be the first to squeal and litigate like a stuck pig!
6) Remember, that you are a very ordinary airline user, you deserve no worse than the best security restrictions for the benefit of yourdelf and your fellow passengers.
I tried to apply all this last week as I queued for 1h45min to go through security at South Terminal, Gatwick.
I also tried to apply this advice as I stepped around the 80 year-old lady who had collapsed whilst in the queue.
The country is going to the dogs and it is all total a**e covering by UK politicians.
1) Be as nice and polite as you can possible can be.
2) Do everything asked of you.
3)As you are queing at the gate, be grateful that in your job, u don't have to put up with as much **** as the operatives who are screening you do.
4) Remember that you are not important, you are just an ordinary person flying on an ordinary flght and consequently, are subject to whatever Government Restrictions pertain at the time.
5) Remember that, if these restrictions were not in place and your flight was hi jacked, you'd be the first to squeal and litigate like a stuck pig!
6) Remember, that you are a very ordinary airline user, you deserve no worse than the best security restrictions for the benefit of yourdelf and your fellow passengers.
I tried to apply all this last week as I queued for 1h45min to go through security at South Terminal, Gatwick.
I also tried to apply this advice as I stepped around the 80 year-old lady who had collapsed whilst in the queue.
The country is going to the dogs and it is all total a**e covering by UK politicians.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
paull:
I set off the metal detector in a US federal building once, the guard told me to step back and try again, having described how to stop it tripping on my belt without having to remove said belt. I'm sure the technique would work for other small metallic items, but I bet he wouldn't give that advice now.
It is the difference between the security folk who wave you through when your obvious metal belt set the alarm off and those you make you take the belt off and try again.
Last edited by llondel; 13th Mar 2007 at 22:55. Reason: typo removal
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KSA
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's designed for duty free
I do whatever I can to stay the he11 away from BA, or any airline combination that transits through the UK because of their illogical, draconian, across-the-board 1 piece of carry-on luggage policy.
Nobody's ever explained why, in addition to a computer case or purse that can fit under one's seat, does a garment or small roll-on that can easily fit into overhead pose a "security threat"? (because if you question this policy you're informed it's "for your security, sir").
Why can someone board a BA flight in the US, checked-in by BA personnel, with a personal item and a carry-on and fly to the UK, but upon arriving can't transit out without checking one of them? What magically changes enroute?
More patronizing "it's for your security" answers is all you'll get. They act as if you should feel fortunate to be standing in one of their 90-minute quues..queues..qusu....lines.
Also, they seem to have to resources to hire an inordinate amount of employees who do nothing more than wander around the lines barking orders and chastizing those that make up their captive audience.
Yet, once you get past security with your 1 bag at LHR or LGW, there loom large signs advertising the fact that you can now carry on anything you buy in the duty-free shops onto the plane. So someone's duty-free perfume (or whatever) purchase poses no threat, but a bag containing a change of clothes that I'd love to have at my destination when the famously-bad baggage handlers in the UK lose my luggage does?
And anyone who's been in a security line knows that they're slow NOT due to people putting 2 bags on the conveyer to be x-rayed instead of 1, but waiting for people (who've been in line for 30 minutes) who wait until they're at the front of the line to decide to empty their pockets of phones, change, belt, etc. etc......as if the requirement to do so was sprung on them as a big suprise.
I'll take the occasional, surly US screener anyday to a policy that patronizingly treats you like a peasant one moment, then attempts to entice you to shop and carry-on whatever you buy from them the next.
Nobody's ever explained why, in addition to a computer case or purse that can fit under one's seat, does a garment or small roll-on that can easily fit into overhead pose a "security threat"? (because if you question this policy you're informed it's "for your security, sir").
Why can someone board a BA flight in the US, checked-in by BA personnel, with a personal item and a carry-on and fly to the UK, but upon arriving can't transit out without checking one of them? What magically changes enroute?
More patronizing "it's for your security" answers is all you'll get. They act as if you should feel fortunate to be standing in one of their 90-minute quues..queues..qusu....lines.
Also, they seem to have to resources to hire an inordinate amount of employees who do nothing more than wander around the lines barking orders and chastizing those that make up their captive audience.
Yet, once you get past security with your 1 bag at LHR or LGW, there loom large signs advertising the fact that you can now carry on anything you buy in the duty-free shops onto the plane. So someone's duty-free perfume (or whatever) purchase poses no threat, but a bag containing a change of clothes that I'd love to have at my destination when the famously-bad baggage handlers in the UK lose my luggage does?
And anyone who's been in a security line knows that they're slow NOT due to people putting 2 bags on the conveyer to be x-rayed instead of 1, but waiting for people (who've been in line for 30 minutes) who wait until they're at the front of the line to decide to empty their pockets of phones, change, belt, etc. etc......as if the requirement to do so was sprung on them as a big suprise.
I'll take the occasional, surly US screener anyday to a policy that patronizingly treats you like a peasant one moment, then attempts to entice you to shop and carry-on whatever you buy from them the next.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Beautiful South
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading these comments on here makes me wonder how much worse it has to get before the masses stop flying .
I can see that Joe Public will put up with it for their once a year jaunt to the sun, but for the frequent flyers must be asking themselves " Do I really want to do this any more ? "
Most people on these pages have a vested intrest as to how this security issue is being handled and it is worrying that in the main it is confused and shambolic. Grrr.....
I can see that Joe Public will put up with it for their once a year jaunt to the sun, but for the frequent flyers must be asking themselves " Do I really want to do this any more ? "
Most people on these pages have a vested intrest as to how this security issue is being handled and it is worrying that in the main it is confused and shambolic. Grrr.....
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Milton Keynes, UK
Age: 44
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I tried to apply all this last week as I queued for 1h45min to go through security at South Terminal, Gatwick.
I use either LCY, BHX or LTN and AMS twice weekly, and have used other airports from time to time. In none of the above four have I *ever* encountered a queue of that length (nor indeed in LHR or LGW, but that's only about 3 times and I was probably lucky, and the queues were still not insignificant).
15 minutes is the *most* that people should have to wait. If that isn't feasible, either employ more staff or cut the number of flights by law if necessary.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Milton Keynes, UK
Age: 44
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And anyone who's been in a security line knows that they're slow NOT due to people putting 2 bags on the conveyer to be x-rayed instead of 1, but waiting for people (who've been in line for 30 minutes) who wait until they're at the front of the line to decide to empty their pockets of phones, change, belt, etc. etc......as if the requirement to do so was sprung on them as a big suprise.
Before you get to the screening *queue*, provide a supply of thick-ish re-usable (for environmental purposes) clear plastic carrier bags, plus the toiletries bags if practicable. Provide a row of tables at this point, a floating member of staff for advice and a set of notices roughly thus:-
"Remove your shoes and place in one clear bag. If you are wearing a coat remove this and place in another clear bag. If you are carrying a laptop or other large electrical equipment, place this in a third bag. Place all items from your pockets in a fourth bag. Present all these bags plus your one carry-on luggage item to the security screener at the X-ray machine. Anyone not complying to this notice, or anyone found with non-permitted items as shown, will be refused security screening and will be told to return to this table to complete this then the back of the queue, regardless of its length".
I've long thought this would be a good idea, as it's far easier to carry a load of clear plastic carrier bags than it is a big pile of trays (which is what it's getting to). I also find that random shoe screening is slower than just doing everyone's and being done with it (I commented this to the BHX screener a couple of weeks ago when I asked when getting ready if he wanted my shoes, and he said he wasn't allowed to decide until he'd put my bags on the X-ray. We both agreed this was silly and I just gave him my shoes anyway).
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: 180INS500
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Random, in fact any, shoe screening is a health hazard. Why should I have to walk across a floor in my socks that is A) contaminated by the dirt from everyone elses shoes, and B) is not disinfected?
And AFAIK it is only done because the bottom couple of inches of the screening macjines doesn't do any screening. So why not put a small ramp in the arch that you can stand on?
The most effective means of detecting explosives etc is to use trained sniffer dogs. I would suggest that in every terminal from the check in area all through the departure lounges there should be a number of trained handlers and dogs, to replace the security check procedure. And before anyone says that this would allow passengers to carry sharp items on board - I thought the whole point of locked cockpit doors was to deny control of the aircraft to anyone who posessed any weapons and threatened the cabin crew. Does this mean that cockpit doors are not as safe as advertised?
And AFAIK it is only done because the bottom couple of inches of the screening macjines doesn't do any screening. So why not put a small ramp in the arch that you can stand on?
The most effective means of detecting explosives etc is to use trained sniffer dogs. I would suggest that in every terminal from the check in area all through the departure lounges there should be a number of trained handlers and dogs, to replace the security check procedure. And before anyone says that this would allow passengers to carry sharp items on board - I thought the whole point of locked cockpit doors was to deny control of the aircraft to anyone who posessed any weapons and threatened the cabin crew. Does this mean that cockpit doors are not as safe as advertised?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Milton Keynes, UK
Age: 44
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Random, in fact any, shoe screening is a health hazard. Why should I have to walk across a floor in my socks that is A) contaminated by the dirt from everyone elses shoes, and B) is not disinfected?
It is inconvenient, yes, but I actually find it more inconvenient getting my laptop out of my bag, or having a pile of about 4 trays to screen (hence why I suggested replacing the trays with plastic bags).
And AFAIK it is only done because the bottom couple of inches of the screening macjines doesn't do any screening. So why not put a small ramp in the arch that you can stand on?
It is worth noting that (before this all started) I used to have a pair of hiking shoes which had metal framework in the sole. They'd alarm so often that I just ended up putting them straight on the belt to avoid the hassle. Thus, some metal detectors *do* detect metal at the bottom. But that's not the point.
I thought the whole point of locked cockpit doors was to deny control of the aircraft to anyone who posessed any weapons and threatened the cabin crew. Does this mean that cockpit doors are not as safe as advertised?
Thus, in that sense, they are indeed not impenetrable. I don't think anyone's advertised that they were; they are just more secure than the old type which could easily be kicked in by one not particularly large person.
Paxing All Over The World
At LGW North, last Thursday, they had some scanner queues removing shoes and some not. I picked the queue that did not! The operative said that the DoT required them to scan one third of all shoes and they had found it easier to do it by queue. "It's difficult enough to get people to remove their shoes - more so if we had to pick every third person in each queue." So, watch out for which queue you are being directed into.
As to signs and prep tables Pacer 142: Yes, this is a another very sensible idea that will not work. You might get the regulars and the observant reading the signs and following instructions but that would be no more than a third or half of the pax. All the rest need to be told what to do. Nothing personal, 142, I just don't think they will read and comprehend. Also, those who do not speak English as a first language will rely upon watching what others are told to do.
Regarding scanners, I have long thought that the scanner on departure at Isle of Man was set to a more sensitive level but the staff deny that, "Our scanner is calibrated to be the same as every other scanner at UK airports." Last Sunday (with shoes off) it noted my belt. No other scanner at any other airport picks out the small metal buckle on that belt. As I removed it and went back through the arch, I commented to the operative that their scanner was set more sensitively than any others. He just smiled.
Official edict: This level of nonsense will continue until it is replaced by a higher level of nonsense.
As to signs and prep tables Pacer 142: Yes, this is a another very sensible idea that will not work. You might get the regulars and the observant reading the signs and following instructions but that would be no more than a third or half of the pax. All the rest need to be told what to do. Nothing personal, 142, I just don't think they will read and comprehend. Also, those who do not speak English as a first language will rely upon watching what others are told to do.
Regarding scanners, I have long thought that the scanner on departure at Isle of Man was set to a more sensitive level but the staff deny that, "Our scanner is calibrated to be the same as every other scanner at UK airports." Last Sunday (with shoes off) it noted my belt. No other scanner at any other airport picks out the small metal buckle on that belt. As I removed it and went back through the arch, I commented to the operative that their scanner was set more sensitively than any others. He just smiled.
Official edict: This level of nonsense will continue until it is replaced by a higher level of nonsense.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Niknak and others are missing something important, demonstrated by the recent smuggling of weapons and drugs onto an airplane from FLA to PR; nothing that is being done by the security Nazis has any effect on hijacking or airplane mayhem. It is Airport security, not Airplane security that they do. Unless the focus is changed, it will continue to be a complete waste of time and energy, and continue to drive people away from flying without making us any safer.
There has never been a case where airport security has caught a terrorist, and given the way they work, they never will.
There has never been a case where airport security has caught a terrorist, and given the way they work, they never will.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not in the ivory tower
Age: 47
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone who works in security out there!?
I have never read such a load of 
about improving the current security systems!! Very disappointing!
As for the whole idea of putting tables and more notices up - believe me this does NOT work - passengers are not interested in reading notices and they think they know it all already, when in fact they know very little of the actual restrictions.
My problem is with the restrictions that were brought in by the DfT - as far as I can gather as a knee jerk reaction to the discovery of what may well have been a very real threat to flights leaving the UK.
The restrictions were brought in with very little if any thought to the practical and operation impact it would have on security areas, security staff work loads, and other airport staff for that matter - as well as the impact on the staff and crew and passengers being subjected to all the complicated restrictions which the DfT foolishly thought would be 'better' than a total ban on liquids.
I still maintain the problem is with the DfT and the fact that each and every airport is interpreting the regulations differently and enforcing them differently - which leads to the conflicts and confusions for all!
Perfect example is the shoe screening - I know for a fact that MAN tried to simplify the procedures some months ago to prevent a slow up of the pax throughput by designating dedicated 'shoe lanes'. They were promptly informed by the DfT that this was not compliant as someone could bypass the checks if they wanted... Yet as mentioned it is still being tried at other airports - there is just such a lack of joined up thinking between the airports and by the DfT who seem happy to let the airports 'make it up as they go along' until they decide they don't like it and they threaten deficiancy notices unless it is changed.
I point the finger with DfT and the goverment for not assisting the airports by consulting them in the first place. . . and then not making the restrictions clear to ensure all airport are keeping to same standard.
So how do we get to the DfT??
about improving the current security systems!! Very disappointing! As for the whole idea of putting tables and more notices up - believe me this does NOT work - passengers are not interested in reading notices and they think they know it all already, when in fact they know very little of the actual restrictions.
My problem is with the restrictions that were brought in by the DfT - as far as I can gather as a knee jerk reaction to the discovery of what may well have been a very real threat to flights leaving the UK.
The restrictions were brought in with very little if any thought to the practical and operation impact it would have on security areas, security staff work loads, and other airport staff for that matter - as well as the impact on the staff and crew and passengers being subjected to all the complicated restrictions which the DfT foolishly thought would be 'better' than a total ban on liquids.
I still maintain the problem is with the DfT and the fact that each and every airport is interpreting the regulations differently and enforcing them differently - which leads to the conflicts and confusions for all!
Perfect example is the shoe screening - I know for a fact that MAN tried to simplify the procedures some months ago to prevent a slow up of the pax throughput by designating dedicated 'shoe lanes'. They were promptly informed by the DfT that this was not compliant as someone could bypass the checks if they wanted... Yet as mentioned it is still being tried at other airports - there is just such a lack of joined up thinking between the airports and by the DfT who seem happy to let the airports 'make it up as they go along' until they decide they don't like it and they threaten deficiancy notices unless it is changed.
I point the finger with DfT and the goverment for not assisting the airports by consulting them in the first place. . . and then not making the restrictions clear to ensure all airport are keeping to same standard.
So how do we get to the DfT??
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Not cloud Cuckoo land!
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have read with great interest the comments and ideas that people have made on this thread.
It has infact lead to me posting my first comment on pprune, so here I go....
The original concept behind security was as a deterant and not a fool proof system of total security- this being back in the 70s when aircraft were being hijacked on a regular basis across the world.
The idea that a security staff force which only has the basics in training would deter a determined terrorist, I agree is farcical.
The problem is that since the Department for Transport employed ex tax inspectors, VAT inspectors, ex fisheries inspectors.... we now have the situation of amateurs dictating government legislation and policies with no thought for the consequences of their actions. The government allows this situation to continue to spiral out of control.
I have over 30 years aviation security experience and can assure you all that people within the industry do not agree with a number of the policies that the DfT have introduced - but day after day we have to adhere to these policies, and listen to DfT inspectors pontificating about what they will do to security staff and airports if we do not adhere to these policies.
Another side of the argument is airports driving down the costs of security staffing and subsequently 'dumbing down' of the role of security officers as salaries are reduced and inadequate manning in place. This is turn leads to large queues - which were seen at most UK airports even before the latest restrictions were introduced.
I could go on. . . . but I'll leave it there for now. Look forward to reading more with interest!
It has infact lead to me posting my first comment on pprune, so here I go....
The original concept behind security was as a deterant and not a fool proof system of total security- this being back in the 70s when aircraft were being hijacked on a regular basis across the world.
The idea that a security staff force which only has the basics in training would deter a determined terrorist, I agree is farcical.
The problem is that since the Department for Transport employed ex tax inspectors, VAT inspectors, ex fisheries inspectors....
we now have the situation of amateurs dictating government legislation and policies with no thought for the consequences of their actions. The government allows this situation to continue to spiral out of control.I have over 30 years aviation security experience and can assure you all that people within the industry do not agree with a number of the policies that the DfT have introduced - but day after day we have to adhere to these policies, and listen to DfT inspectors pontificating about what they will do to security staff and airports if we do not adhere to these policies.
Another side of the argument is airports driving down the costs of security staffing and subsequently 'dumbing down' of the role of security officers as salaries are reduced and inadequate manning in place. This is turn leads to large queues - which were seen at most UK airports even before the latest restrictions were introduced.
I could go on. . . . but I'll leave it there for now. Look forward to reading more with interest!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: ellan vannin
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paxboy
You will be pleased to learn that LGW are getting seven more scanners for the summer. This will of course leave even more out of use as the queues grow ever longer. When I last went through North Terminal only two out of nine were in use. Pathetic.
You were lucky in the IOM, everytime I have been through since August it has been shoes, belts and watch. The minister has just been questioned about overzealous security in the IOM and denied it is so.
What makes it worse is that us Manxies then have to go through UK security to get anywhere, oh for direct flights to Europe
You will be pleased to learn that LGW are getting seven more scanners for the summer. This will of course leave even more out of use as the queues grow ever longer. When I last went through North Terminal only two out of nine were in use. Pathetic.
You were lucky in the IOM, everytime I have been through since August it has been shoes, belts and watch. The minister has just been questioned about overzealous security in the IOM and denied it is so.
What makes it worse is that us Manxies then have to go through UK security to get anywhere, oh for direct flights to Europe
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Milton Keynes, UK
Age: 44
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You will be pleased to learn that LGW are getting seven more scanners for the summer. This will of course leave even more out of use as the queues grow ever longer. When I last went through North Terminal only two out of nine were in use. Pathetic.
Paxing All Over The World
Pacer 142
Whhaaaaaat???
The airports are already paid the agreed amount of money per pax and the reason they do not have enough teams at work is because they have consistently under recruited. They pocket the differerance and you want to give them more???
If they are short of staff, recruit more. If that costs money, put it on the price of a ticket.
The airports are already paid the agreed amount of money per pax and the reason they do not have enough teams at work is because they have consistently under recruited. They pocket the differerance and you want to give them more???
Guest
Posts: n/a
Cirrus01 asked the frequent flyers must be asking themselves " Do I really want to do this any more ?
As an expat frequent flyer living outside the UK, I no longer correspond via the UK.
As an expat frequent flyer living outside the UK, I no longer correspond via the UK.
Last edited by Final 3 Greens; 17th Mar 2007 at 23:15.
Nigerian In Law
Am I Missing Something ??
I use LHR T3 regularly. As a dirty smelly smoker I drop my disposable lighter in the security bin provided as per instructions in the scanner queue.
I then go to the World News shop in duty free and buy a new one !! Why insist we divest ourselves of these things then have them on sale in the "sanitised" area ? Is it commercial ?
NEO
I then go to the World News shop in duty free and buy a new one !! Why insist we divest ourselves of these things then have them on sale in the "sanitised" area ? Is it commercial ?
NEO
