Word to the wise for our security officers
@AircraftOperations : You're blasé attitude makes me suspect you are a 60's hippy throwback on drugs. As such, PM me your address - I want to come to your house, and go through your wife's knicker drawer, looking for drugs.
... after all, if you have nothing to hide, you have no reason to refuse.
It's a stupid comment. In human society we all have things we wish to keep private, which are personal to ourselves, or protect the sensibilities of family, or are simply embarrassing - but are not the business of the wider community, and hence are legal, but private!
... after all, if you have nothing to hide, you have no reason to refuse.
It's a stupid comment. In human society we all have things we wish to keep private, which are personal to ourselves, or protect the sensibilities of family, or are simply embarrassing - but are not the business of the wider community, and hence are legal, but private!
First they banned liquids, and I did not speak out, because I don't drink;
Then they made me take off my shoes, and I did not speak out, because I go barefoot;
Then they banned books in the last 60 minutes of flight and I did not speak out, because I can't read;
Then they introduced body scanners and I did not speak out, because I'm well endowed
Then they started arbitrarily refusing to allow passengers to fly based on the colour of their socks and I did not speak out because I'm used to putting up with it.
Then they started......
Historical context in the ongoing saga of protecting civil liberties here
Then they made me take off my shoes, and I did not speak out, because I go barefoot;
Then they banned books in the last 60 minutes of flight and I did not speak out, because I can't read;
Then they introduced body scanners and I did not speak out, because I'm well endowed
Then they started arbitrarily refusing to allow passengers to fly based on the colour of their socks and I did not speak out because I'm used to putting up with it.
Then they started......
Historical context in the ongoing saga of protecting civil liberties here
Join Date: May 2002
Location: LGW - Hub of the Universe!
Posts: 978
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So then is this a statute law ? If not, then how could it be enforced ?
If a passenger declines, they are then being subject to financial penalty and restriction of freedom of movement without fair trial and not subject to statue law ?
perhaps one of the PPRuNe legal specialists could provide input ?
If a passenger declines, they are then being subject to financial penalty and restriction of freedom of movement without fair trial and not subject to statue law ?
perhaps one of the PPRuNe legal specialists could provide input ?
1. When you purchase an airline ticket, you accept the airline's Terms and Conditions.
2. Part of those Terms and Conditions state that you will co-operate with security measures in place at the airports where the airline operates.
3. Proceeding through the Airport Security Screning area to enter the Restricted Zone is a voluntary process, but once you enter the Security Screening Area, you have, in law, consented to any security screening processes which may be in force and you have no right to refuse or to walk backwards out of the Security Screening Area.
4. The airline has the right to refuse travel to any passenger who refuses to comply with prevailing security procedures.
This does seem reasonable. If you don't want a full body scan, then you can always seek alternative travel arrangements. You can go by ship, train or drive! Flying is not, after all, compulsory!
You may be interested in the full Transec document:
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib...snbt-01246.pdf
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: not a million miles from old BKK
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all so pathetic isn't it? How soon. I wonder, before page 3 of the Sun has "Jordan going through the scanner at Heathrow"
I don't live in the UK any more and, frankly, it isn't hard to understand why.
I am sick and tired of politicians abrogating their responsibilities and palming it all off onto the long suffering public.
To all politicians:
P.S. <Literal quote> If you don't like what's going on then don't travel by air <unquote). Spot on! The moment the traveling public adopts this attitude for real; is the moment the crap stops. Do you really think Wee Willie or MOL are going to stand by and watch empty aircraft leaving the departure gates?
I don't live in the UK any more and, frankly, it isn't hard to understand why.
I am sick and tired of politicians abrogating their responsibilities and palming it all off onto the long suffering public.
To all politicians:
- It is your responsibility to ensure that people who are likely to cause harm to UK Citizens are not allowed to enter the country in the first place.
- It is your responsibility to identify anyone already in the country who poses a threat to UK citizens and remove them.
P.S. <Literal quote> If you don't like what's going on then don't travel by air <unquote). Spot on! The moment the traveling public adopts this attitude for real; is the moment the crap stops. Do you really think Wee Willie or MOL are going to stand by and watch empty aircraft leaving the departure gates?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: LGW - Hub of the Universe!
Posts: 978
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The moment the traveling public adopts this attitude for real; is the moment the crap stops. Do you really think Wee Willie or MOL are going to stand by and watch empty aircraft leaving the departure gates?
The fact is, none of these security measures have put people off flying! Our load factors, even through the recession, have been high. Sensible people accept that security measures have to be taken - if you have a proven clean criminal record, why don't you ask BAA security if you can shadow one of their positions for a shift and see how many long knives, martial arts weapons, pepper sprays, laser pens etc passengers try to smuggle through. You would be shocked, I think!
As one previous poster said "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!"
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: not a million miles from old BKK
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bealine
Sorry. Spheroids! PanAm was already on the skids. Lockerbie had nothing to do with the airline going under. If anything, public sentiment was pro PanAm after the event.
The proof will be if the great British public can drag themselves away from their reality TV screens and actually DO something about the situation. If the public stop traveling by air or if the numbers prepared to submit themselves to the present indignity begin to substantially lessen then watch what happens.
The proof will be if the great British public can drag themselves away from their reality TV screens and actually DO something about the situation. If the public stop traveling by air or if the numbers prepared to submit themselves to the present indignity begin to substantially lessen then watch what happens.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: LGW - Hub of the Universe!
Posts: 978
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bogus and offensive argument if there ever was one! Repeating it does not make it any less so.
Why are you unable to discuss anything in a mature and intelligent manner?
Making a statement negating someone else's viewpoint without offering any explanation is the height of offensive behaviour!
Bye!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: not a million miles from old BKK
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah! The reason so many of us airline employees can't be bothered with passenger forums.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Inside
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes bealine, I am a passenger, on occasion. Just as you are too no doubt.
Between those occasions I make my living transporting people in pressurised aluminium tubes. I do apologize if that does not conform to your assumptions.
Had you read the entire thread before wading in you would have notice Checkboard's excellent explanation of why the often trottet out line "If you have nothing to hide...." is offensive and, to use his words, stupid. You have no doubt notice that I am not a great fan of repitition.
I understand from previous posts that you are a great believer in regurgitating the official line on airport security, however, a bit of critical and independant thinking or contemplation if you will, is to be encouraged. Mindless drones we can do without.
*
And before you tell me about your security briefings I would like to inform you, just to be ahead of your assumptions, that my position is such that I get my briefings from people who are involved in security at a national and regulatory level.
*
As a side note, have anybody found it somewhat peculiar that the reaction to the successfull smuggling of a bomb like device through an airport that is equipped with full body scanners, is to rush in the use of full body scanners?
Between those occasions I make my living transporting people in pressurised aluminium tubes. I do apologize if that does not conform to your assumptions.
Had you read the entire thread before wading in you would have notice Checkboard's excellent explanation of why the often trottet out line "If you have nothing to hide...." is offensive and, to use his words, stupid. You have no doubt notice that I am not a great fan of repitition.
I understand from previous posts that you are a great believer in regurgitating the official line on airport security, however, a bit of critical and independant thinking or contemplation if you will, is to be encouraged. Mindless drones we can do without.
*
And before you tell me about your security briefings I would like to inform you, just to be ahead of your assumptions, that my position is such that I get my briefings from people who are involved in security at a national and regulatory level.
*
As a side note, have anybody found it somewhat peculiar that the reaction to the successfull smuggling of a bomb like device through an airport that is equipped with full body scanners, is to rush in the use of full body scanners?
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: New Mills
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Underpants and the Temple of Doom.
Having read with some interest and some chuckles regarding this issue, I find it all very strange as to the rationale regarding subjects for screening.
The so called experts advise that passenger profiling is accurate,,, well probabaly.
The normal security staff depend on new equipment that was partially designed to make them redundant. Though I will accept the designers probably did consider the safety of airport users when these mahines were in the design stage.
The DfT run constant test programmes for security staff body searching, some good, some bad, some awful.
The results of these tests are made available to the airports security managers and directors.
I do not agree with these new machines but, the onus is on the airports to supply the best and most affordable equipment. So the answer is fly from a small airport which is unable to afford this equipment,transfer into a larger airport and Captain Underpants can blow his, yours and my private bits all over the place, typical Brits, lets rush everything through but only for the airports who can jolly well afford this gear.
The so called experts advise that passenger profiling is accurate,,, well probabaly.
The normal security staff depend on new equipment that was partially designed to make them redundant. Though I will accept the designers probably did consider the safety of airport users when these mahines were in the design stage.
The DfT run constant test programmes for security staff body searching, some good, some bad, some awful.
The results of these tests are made available to the airports security managers and directors.
I do not agree with these new machines but, the onus is on the airports to supply the best and most affordable equipment. So the answer is fly from a small airport which is unable to afford this equipment,transfer into a larger airport and Captain Underpants can blow his, yours and my private bits all over the place, typical Brits, lets rush everything through but only for the airports who can jolly well afford this gear.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wake up and smell the coffee. I can't be bothered to, once again, type the reasons why this ignorance should be banned.
So here is a link that sums it up.....Debunking a myth: If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear (The Privacy, Identity & Consent Blog)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, who's traveling differently because of all this?
I'm considering traveling to the US in March, and have just asked my travel agent to look for flights avoiding Manchester, Heathrow, Birmingham, and Amsterdam (airports I understand have potentially mandatory scans)...
I don't object to a reasonable amount of effective security, but there comes a point when you decide enough is enough. I still object to some of the security measures I'd have to go through (including bag size, liquid, and on-board restrictions), but short of not flying, I guess I must draw a line somewhere, and scanners are it.
You only have to consider the number of flights/passengers worldwide vs. the number of security related injuries/deaths etc to see it's ludicrously disproportionate.
Sadly according to a CAA survey (H1 2009):
I'm considering traveling to the US in March, and have just asked my travel agent to look for flights avoiding Manchester, Heathrow, Birmingham, and Amsterdam (airports I understand have potentially mandatory scans)...
I don't object to a reasonable amount of effective security, but there comes a point when you decide enough is enough. I still object to some of the security measures I'd have to go through (including bag size, liquid, and on-board restrictions), but short of not flying, I guess I must draw a line somewhere, and scanners are it.
You only have to consider the number of flights/passengers worldwide vs. the number of security related injuries/deaths etc to see it's ludicrously disproportionate.
Sadly according to a CAA survey (H1 2009):
Passengers were also asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the statement: “Any inconvenience caused by the security screening was acceptable”. Overall, 89% of passengers strongly agreed or agreed. (source)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: London
Age: 60
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by call100
So here is a link that sums it up.....Debunking a myth: If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear (The Privacy, Identity & Consent Blog)
But, as has been said earlier in the thread, we do not have to fly. And by choosing to do so we are agreeing to subject ourselves to whatever security procedures may be in place, no matter how illogical, intrusive and ineffective they may be. In my experience, the best way to deal with it is simply to do as they ask without even thinking about it.
