I'm sad to see you've addressed none of my points PM, and you simply continue on your self-damaging course of half-informed ranting. I feel I'm peeing firmly into the wind so I'll leave it there. As I say, I'm not here to argue. All the best to you, and try to take it easy.

Might not be anything to do with 100ml rule - honey has its own restrictions.
https://www.food.gov.uk/business-industry/imports/honey

Not sure of how many grams per 'heart' but I have taken these with me before.
http://www.thebeardedbakery.com/wp-c...2stno1_500.jpg

^
report I saw earlier this week said that marmite was one of the two most confiscated items at UK airport security.......

EDIT: I now see on page 1 of this thread that I was beaten to it. Apologies

It's only going to get worse, because no country wants tospend more money. So it will have to wait until enough MPs have been delayed for anything to happen.
This article is on a Europe wide problem but new UK border controls in a couple of years time will certainly not help.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...opean-airports

Who says social media doesn't work?

That from news, this from LCY twitter:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGEqYBLXsAAzK-1.jpg

Speedywheels

Well I certainly didnt know that , you can learn something every day on Prune can't you.

My awful typing meant you couldnt tell where I embarked it was Lyon not yon as I typed and therefore in the EU so legal. Its just the 100ml or 100gr that got me

Interesting differing points of view between Laarbruch72 and piltdown man. Be interesting to see who's opinions of security most people find more common.
I find PMs experiences more the norm especially in the UK

OK, as you have spent the time, I'll try to answer each an every point you have made.
You made the point well. If I ping either the threshold or the random selector I get extra treatment. So be it, that's life.
You are correct and I totally agree. But I dislike the attitude that typically goes along with the procedure.
I disagree, it's a huge variation.Probably the real culprits.

Unfortunately, I think you are correct. Too many crew try to take on security at the checkpoint. A pointless and futile proposition.

Lastly, I'm not UK crew. Our security department despairs at UK security. They believe it is just a cost of doing business in the UK. And I have tried to speak with the powers that be. I left with no doubt about what they thought of me.

Thanks PM. And apologies, I'd gathered you worked for a UK carrier. I also work for a foreign carrier these days.

As I read through the response to my initial post I'm struck by several points that confirm my own observation.

Security screening is variable, inconsistent and IMHO often appearing wrongheaded. No doubt experts will tell me that this is intentional, by keeping the bad guys guessing, but I don't buy that. What such variabilty creates is delay and crowding, and not infrequently, anger. The number of false positives sounded by those entry portals needs to be significantly reduced.

Articles have been written suggesting much of this passenger scanning is ineffective, that few real perpetrators are actually caught, but many legitimate travellers are inconvenienced. I have a fund of stories but I'll relate just two. 1). A few years back at IAD, huge delay in security caused by one individual reading every liquid container to ensure that the packaging read 100ml or less (Clearly no clue as to what that volume looked like). 2. In Orgeon, being wanded all over to identify why it sqawked when passing over my shirt pocket. Took him a some time but he eventally found it - it was the staple that held together the two pages of my flight itinerary!!!

I admit my security scanning fuse is short, especially short in the UK, and agree with those who've observed that 'attitude' is most prevalent there. I try hard to comply but have yet to receive satisfactory replies to the question "What caused the problem?" which I ask so that I can avoid delay in the future i.e. when I can get any reply at all.

Finally: I despair when some little old lady says to me "Oooh I feel so much safer now with all this security. Don't you?" To which I honestly reply "No, I don't". The 'Why' goes back to my statement above about crowding and exclusion.
If I wanted to cause damage and destruction why would I go to the bother of trying to pass through a security gate when I have possibly hundreds of potential victims waiting outside. Examples are many: In the Middle East examples of attacks on lines of personnel awaiting recuitment or pay cheques. Why attack a train when I can do more damage on the crowded concourse among those waiting.

You in the UK are very familiar with attacks outside secured areas (Manchester, Westminster Bridge, Borough Market). Ideas and Ideology travel quickly and very effectively and, it seems to me, most terrorists are today 'home grown' with little need to physically infiltrate a country via a commercial airliner. Drug smuggling, and what else, is being committed by those workers already on the secure(?)'Airside'. Hardened cockpit doors that can exclude pilots from regaining entry, anyone? The most egregious recent example being July 1st Canada Day Celebrations on Ottawa's Parliament Hill. In pouring rain 1,000's lined up for 4-6 hours and more, to get through to the secured stage show area. Why the delay? Security requiring the removal of rain gear for scanning, only two entrances all constrained by zig-zag barriers. Imagine someone creating a panic, wouldn't have needed any device, just how many would have been trampled to death. Clearly hundreds.

I submit that in many instances this overreaching effort at security creates the potential for far greater problems, and I ask the final question. "What actually is this excessive security trying to protect" The people or the show? The passengers or the aircraft? The people or the infrastructure? The politicians and their re-election?

Have passed through 2 different terminals at LHR in recent weeks. At one my carry on was pulled aside for a further check but not at the other. Same things in the carry on. I think what annoy passengers most is the lack of consistency over security. It might also help if the signs were bigger / clearer and better positioned for what needs to be removed ie shoes etc. As for marmite why not put it in checked luggage rather than carry on?

"What actually is this excessive security trying to protect"

Politicians for a start.............. remember Tanks to Heathrow?

I used to have a 'crew tag' on my carry-on, every time I went through a particular Scottish airport my bag was emptied, swabbed etc, with a smarmy smirk on the operators face, took the tag off and other indentifying marks, never been stopped again.

Security keeps us safe who work on a plane, our passengers and those on the ground who will be hit when the inevitable happens. If you're not happy with that, may I suggest Eurostar?

I only hope when it happens it does so somewhere remote like MetroJet or over the sea like AI182.

How many terrorists have ever brought down a plane using Marmite?

Someone needs to take a step back - one person (a headcase) on one occasion tries to take some alleged explosive onto a plane in the soles of their trainers and now every passenger (and possibly crew) worldwide have to take their shoes and belts off to go through security for every flight? IMHO utter madness

So what's your deterrent replacement going to be?

All for extensive profiling? Or just trust everyone like an EU open border which always gets shown for its weaknesses when exactly these type of individuals exploit its freedoms.

Let's get rid of the perimeter fence as well! :}