Aarrh yes sir....
 

... but surly this is a problem that can be solved by a new type of home office ID card that allows the holder to carry sporting goods, wear a belt, shoes and while we're at it matches too. Should create a few jobs and manage to p*ss off a plenty of hard working tax payers. No wait.. please sir wait... we could add this detail to the biometric data on ones passport.... actually don't bother sir, just catch the train...:}.. oh no... but thats where the last trouble was, the bus then.... oh no...

Me thinks that Bin Laden and his buddies are winning this one hands down thanks to the lunatics we have running the show!

PS. my humble apologies if I've offended any, planes, trains or buses, their staff, parents, siblings, dogs and cats or god forbid a civil servant or two. Oops now back to the PROG page... where am I. Oh dear.. sitting up the pointy end.:ooh:

Empty "thermos"type coffee mugs must go too as they are of a greater volume than 100mls.....................

Well according to GLA security anyway, I asked if he wanted my boots too:ugh:

Just a thought , has anyone actually tried to get a kayak onboard as hand luggage?

Alwayz

I've blatantly taken empty water bottles through security before now, the regs are obviously different at GLA. Even the time when I was pre-selected for extra security, the security team didn't object to the empty bottle.

My understanding is that it's the presence of the liquid that's important, not the container, given that it's trivial to go buy a new container once airside.

How is a tennis raquet a bat? What are you going to do with it? Hit someone with it? Oh no, that would really hurt :ooh::ooh:! I've taken one through before no problem. Obviously another example of inconsistant rules.

In the TSA list under Tools it states that it is OK to take, as carry on, a screwdriver, up to 7 inches!

Opportunity for some real terrorism there:

"Get back, or I'll dismantle the plane!"

Rather to my surprise, a couple of years ago at a very wet CDG I went through check-in, general security and gate security unmolested with a large, pointy golf umbrella. I stowed it overhead in the Air France cabin. On **disembarking** at JFK, the AF cabin crew tried to take it off me as I exited the aircraft, saying it was "outrageously illegal" that I had brought such a dangerous object on board.

Go figure. Maybe they didn't like the look of the weather in New York that week-end....

AGB

It never ceases to amaze me with the number of different things that are now banned when going through 'security' to get airside.

I regularly take a pot of yoghurt with me in my lunch-box, and it's only been taken from me perhaps 2-3 times in the past 3 years. On one occasion I was told that I could not take through a small bottle of water, so the following day I froze it until it was solid, and took that. When they questioned me about it, I pointed out that it was not a liquid, and got away with it.

We can't take a can of soup/rice-pud/custard/beans/etc, but if we empty the contents into a tupperware container, then that's okay.
So that means that it must be the tin that is the offensive weapon, rather than the contents! :hmm:


Regarding 'sporting goods' ... a few days ago I saw somebody trying to take through a full set of balls for a pool table. This wasn't a passenger, it was somebody who worked at the airport. He was told that it was a dangerous weapon ... he might put it in a sock and hit somebody!
So ... my foot is inside a sock, and I might kick you. That makes it a dangerous weapon, are you going to cyt my foot off each time I go to work?

In the past few days we've had to remove our belts, and now we have to remove our watches. However, at another nearby check-point, we don't have to! Can you guess which check-point I go to now?

Bic pens
 

Anyone seen the Bourne Identity...?!

This is just genius. Full marks.

Someone (successfully) worked this scam in Germany, garnering export subsidies for dairy solids which were higher than for dairy products in liquid form.

Froze the milk, trundled across the border to the Czech Republic (probably Czechoslovakia back then) and let it thaw.

Went on for yonks until they changed the law...

A single snooker ball in a sock *WILL* knock you out. I've seen it (and heard it) happen and it is not a pretty site. In my view that's a sensible measure.

Thanks, I do my best! :ok:

I have also 'got away with ...' a creme-caramel (as it's not a liquid), a trifle (also not a liquid), a full roast-dinner including gravy (I told them they were welcome to the gravy, but they had to 'extract' it from the meal), a fruit jelly, and a rice-pudding.

To be honest, once I've managed to get these things through, I'm generally not bothered any more. It's almost like a challenge, and I lose interest in it quite quickly once it's no longer a challenge.


Going back to the original point ...

Quote:

---

A single snooker ball in a sock *WILL* knock you out. I've seen it (and heard it) happen and it is not a pretty site. In my view that's a sensible measure.

---

I agree, and I certainly wouldn't want to be on the receiving end. But the bloke had a whole box of them, not just one. They obviously have a pool table in their crew room, so all the BAA people had to do was make a simple phone-call.

I think that Skipness One Echo is missing the point. We all agree that a snooker ball in a sock is a potential weapon. But so is ALMOST EVERYTHING ELSE YOU CAN CARRY ON BOARD. The problem is that someone in a distant room actually thinks they can "solve" the problem by making lists of things not to take on board. We need to tell them that there is not enough time in the world to write down all the common objects that might be used to harm another person given enough ingenuity.

To paraphrase the IRA comment about getting lucky, whilst the bloke writing the list has to hope they have thought of everything, the terrorist only has to find ONE thing that is a useful weapon but is NOT on the list.

I suspect the security policy should concentrate on materials of use to suicide bombers, and forget about anti-personnel weapons, since as someone pointed out earlier, the current hijack philosophy makes it impossible to take over an aircraft by threatening passengers or crew in the cabin anyway, so no sensible terrorist is likely to try.

Thats all very fine BUT some people carry Weapons of Mass Reproduction with them and think of the Paternity suits.:hmm:

Quite so, CJ Driver - in fact it's even worse than that. As no less a security guru than Bruce Schneier has pointed out, there's no penalty (other than confiscation) for attempting to carry on board an item on the 'forbidden' list. So a bad person who has thought of a method of bringing down an aircraft with (e.g.) 150ml of apparently innocuous liquid can simply carry on making repeated attempts to get through the system. As the system can never achieve 100% effectiveness, he will eventually succeed. (We'll gloss over the point that two bad people could carry through 75ml each with no difficulty whatsoever.)

300mL in a medicine bottle with a suitable prescription label will get you through. You can be asked to taste it: this leads to problems, because when the dose is 5ml, and it's dangerous to exceed the dose (e.g some diuretics have side effects of leading to reduced blood pressure and you can pass out - really safe on an escalator at T5), enough to taste as a demonstration can be too much. Some medicines don't come in under 100ml sizes.

Then there's insulin. and the syringe for it, and asthma inhalers - one can go on and on. Note that walking sticks ARE allowed - apparently even by ryanair.

Belts attached to trousers can cause problems. Having lost 14kg since January, and more coming off, if my belt isn't sewn on the trousers at the back, they hang on the belt loops and become very uncomfortable.....

There's a very apt term in French to describe the situation:

'c'est un grand bordel'