Agreed.

Effective enagement on both sides and 'hearts and minds' work thereafter.

Qwertplop

>I cannot understand why it's so hard for people to get their head around the notion of potential because that's all that has been identified. No-one has addressed my points about the other aspects of this issue, the potential to traffick individuals to do harm (any harm), the potential to engage in logistical flights in support of something dastardly, recon, delivery systems, et al.

I suspect anyone working against them is simply engaging in a futile struggle that will not carry one iota of public support. Your last point about documentation is interesting however, scrutiny and credibility based questioning is the key to dealing with such issues yet everyone says here that more scrutiny is not needed. All law enforcement investigative questioning techniques are based around the notion of credibility. So, immediately, we are in conflict with conventional investigative techniques.<


Potential ? There is a mass of potential everywhere you look "serious threat" is a word that is more appropriate.

I have met many MPs in my time and infact most have one gift and that is the gift of the gab and little else.

There are some very intelligent, very dedicated MPs who are nobodies fool and who research their subject thoroughly and without bias or agenda but there are also many who have their own agendas and regrefully there are some who are influenced by minority pressure groups and the votes they get in the ballot box.

This latest attack on aviation needs to be killed in in tracks as a waste of public money and time. There are far greater "potential threats to the safety of the public from terrorism than GA aircraft.

Please do take the London tube in the rush hour and you will see a massive potential to cause as much damage as 9/11 or Lockerbie and ZERO security to stop it happening.

That is where public money needs to be targeted at not some hair brained further targetting of aviation.

And yes AOPA needs to put this idea to bed as it has on other equally poorly thought out schemes against aviation.

Pace

qwertyplop. Sorry but I couldn't resist noting the irony in that. I dread growing up.

Pace. I find myself largely agreeing with you. My worry isn't the clever, diligent and honest MPs but the hordes of division lobby fodder in the Commons. I also think some influential elements of the Police will latch on firmly to this. As I mentally noted back in '72 (Srl 29), unknown and "unregulated" traffic zipping around outside controlled airspace clearly jarred in the plod mind.

Originally Posted by qwertyplop

It's also why the charter and air taxi market is booming.
qwertyplop. Sorry but I couldn't resist noting the irony in that. I dread growing up.

Sorry, not my comment. I cut and pasted it to respond.

Potential ? There is a mass of potential everywhere you look "serious threat" is a word that is more appropriate.

Semantics Sir. I agree with the thrust of the point though.

Check out today's Daily Mail - pages 16/17. The beaurocratic party may now begin and the "free" world may now become less so, I susect. Who is winning this "war"? Stop addressing the symptoms and REALLY go at the cause, otherwise we will end up about as "free" as the average citizen in an extremist Islamic state.

Could it be that Lord Carlile has read an advance copy Tom Cain's new book called The Survivor and over reacted? God help us if he reads The Hunt for Red October.

Anyway The Survivor is going to be on my holiday reading list.

;)

Times gone by
 

a short excerpt form a post I made on another forum that may (or may not) be of some interest -


Could you imagine doing this flight now?

29th November 1983 (for those who do not know, at the height of the cold war) on a leg from Compton Abbas to Leavesden (now sadly like so many other airfields in my book either closed, inaccessible or too bloody expensive to even contemplate landing at) which was 8 miles due East of Bovingdon VOR.

If you draw that route on the current South of England map via the BNN VOR you will see that this would take you just to the south of Newbury racecourse. Put that track into GoogleEarth and you will see that it takes you right over the top of a very large disused airfield that even the younger pilots amongst us would (or should recognise the name of) Greenham Common. At that time of course home to the Women’s Peace Camp and more importantly an untold number of nuclear Cruise Missiles, and although we overflew, we didn’t even speak to them, (probably) we were in contact with London Information but we just overflew above the ATZ and not a problem.

Even when our country and indeed the whole world was subjected to perhaps even greater threats than those we face now, common (no pun intended) sense rather than paranoia prevailed. Lord Carlisle please take note you also must remember when we lived in a free country and the defence of those freedoms was not dependent upon the ever encroaching power of and surveillance by the state and the inevitable and subsequent curtailment of our liberty. (Rant now over)



ZM

You can all stop whinging now......

MI5 warns of suicide bombers using ambulances - Times Online

:ooh::ooh::ooh::ooh::ooh::ooh::ooh::ooh::ooh::ooh:

G-EMMA Wrote:

I hope you realise from this Carlile is trying very hard to clutch at straws and will therefore review your comments on this thread regard the potential of GA aircraft being used by terrorists.

No Sir, I do not see a need to review of my comments. I simply accept a need for oversight, for whatever reason, by the authorities if they deem to have identified a risk. I am happy to to at least debate the issue in an open forum and give an opinion, I cannot offer anything more than that really.

And here's something to consider, if you used any of the things you identified in a suspcious manner, in a public place, and were pinged for doing something that might lead to a view that you were up to no good, you'd be stopped and questioned. That's the bigger issue here G-EMMA and that's the issue that should be debated. If you were on the tube and were spotted concealing a battery pack inside a coke can or a bag of crisps, I expect someone would raise the alarm. And rightly so IMO because it's the environment that's the issue in addition to the act itself, the act of doing that in such an environment is open to question. GA is different because of the control one has over where one can be with the minimum of oversight. It strikes me as a bigger issue than the aircraft itself. It's a combination of things.

But then, playing devils advocate, should a photography student standing outside a tube station taking photos be stopped and searched? And so and so forth.

The cat's out of the bag now and that's the issue. How both sides of the debate deals with this issue in the future when such mindsets exist is the problem GA and the authorities have now.

I still accept the need for oversight however but that's just me, that said, I am very open to the opinions discrediting oversight and the choice of GA as a topic for such oversight.

Best,

QP

Stop for a moment and try to imagine a society where all "possible" terrorist threats are neutralised!

God help us if the likes of Lord whatshisface and QP here get their way. I assume they are both old enough to not have to live too long with the consequences. Some of us will though, and my children even longer.

Big Brother Nanny State has you by the bo!!ocks (not you G-EMMA, obviously!)

Sorry G-EMMA. :ok:

How have you, Squeegee Longtail, come to the conclusion that I am the worst thing for society that has ever existed? What a total overreaction.

All I've said is that monitoring is clearly an issue for the powers that be and that I subscribe to monitoring if it's considered appropriate. Additionally, I also said that there is little I don't disagree with on the other side of the argument but that I'm open to a debate, with the authorities, on this idea. And I'm open because it seems to me that to participate in a debate before something is done is better than all the usual hangwringing after. I also said that there is a threat, and that the threat needs to be assessed and dealt with by the powers that be. It's what they are paid to do and I guess they are doing it.

No-one has answered any point I've made about self regulation and self policing. No-one dealt with logisitics, recce's et al - everyone has seemed to focus on the aircraft being used on a one way trip. All I've heard in response is that you can use a car and a can of coke if you like and that it's a waste of time.

Fine but a least explain why?

Nowhere have I advocated signing away any of my perceived freedoms or liberties. To suggest such a thing is, frankly, offensive.

Qwertplop

>And here's something to consider, if you used any of the things you identified in a suspcious manner, in a public place, and were pinged for doing something that might lead to a view that you were up to no good, you'd be stopped and questioned. That's the bigger issue here G-EMMA and that's the issue that should be debated. If you were on the tube and were spotted concealing a battery pack inside a coke can or a bag of crisps, I expect someone would raise the alarm. And rightly so IMO because it's the environment that's the issue in addition to the act itself, the act of doing that in such an environment is open to question. GA is different because of the control one has over where one can be with the minimum of oversight. It strikes me as a bigger issue than the aircraft itself. It's a combination of things.

But then, playing devils advocate, should a photography student standing outside a tube station taking photos be stopped and searched? And so and so forth.>

You can do what you want on the tubes and no body will bother with you.

Please do take a tube ride on something like the Jubilee line in the rush hour.
You will see hundreds of people,pushing, shoving carrying brief cases, pullying along cases on wheels. These people are every race you can imagine.
One tube train will be packed with equal numbers of people in them as a large airliner and they roll into the tube station every couple of minutes.

You talk of potential forget potential here lies a massive risk. No security, no one questions what you hold in those bags and cases then we look at aviation? The whole thing is a farce!!! Why because the government know only too well that even minimal security on the London Tube system would bring the whole system to a halt and in turn would bring London to a chaotic standstill.

So they pretend that these real risk areas do not exist and target a soft option "aviation" Lord Carlisle worries his pretty little head over whether some tiny little wooden bi plane is going to cause a huge security threat.The poor aircraft would dissolve into a thousand splinters if it hit anything larger than a paper bag.

Then we have irresponsible newspapers like the Daily Mail who employ fiction writers to drum up a fantasy over something they know little about.

Every business jet in Europe is known about. Compared to cars the numbers are miniscule. The authorities know which airports they live in. They know who owns them. I fly as a Captain on business jets. When I turn up at the airport even the security men at the gates know me and who I fly for and I am sure the same goes for all the other Euopean business jets. The owners are known, the jets are usually maintained and operated by long established organisations and every IFR flight is traceable by a simple programme on a computer.

The Daily Mail and other thrill seeking tabloids would do a better service by pointing out the real dangers and threats to the safety and well being of our citizens rather than perpetuating the rubbish and scaremongering that churned out by government and the press.

Pace

I am no nuclear weapon expert, though I have read a lot of stuff that has been declassified in recent decades, and the obvious Q to ask is:

If it is so apparently easy to get one's hands on a bomb, why is the UK, America, and a few other places (like Israel) still standing?

The IRA would have absolutely loved to blow up Buckingham Palace, Downing Street, etc. But they never managed anything like it.

The Muslim terrorists are much better funded than the IRA ever was, and they still haven't done this - yet there is zero doubt they would do this in an instant. Not a sovereign state, overtly (that would just cause some ICBM launches, wiping it off the map an hour later) but terrorists.

I think that building a bomb is simply much harder than people think. The simple designs are big and heavy (tons) and one would need something bigger than a bizjet to carry it. And it needs a lot of material which - in that volume - doesn't fall off the back of a lorry - not even at BNFL. The sophisticated compact designs are ... sophisticated and difficult to build, and those who have the designs have exactly zero interest in leaking them because the result could be used against them next. And you certainly cannot find the designs for the latter type on google. Not working designs.

If it was that easy, the things would be going off all over the place - delivered by vehicles.

At the risk of repeating myself - I don't disagree with you at all. I totally agree with everything you say.

And yes - it could be construed as unfair and singling out a certain section of society for attention but all of the areas you discribe do not have any degree of regulation over them, you don't need to do anything to ride the tube or a bus. Hence the undue amount of CCTV and other overt and covert surveillance measures aimed at users of these services. Is it right or is it wrong? Not for me to say.

Part of this I think is the idea that the government could be criticised if something were to happen where a degree of regulation and oversight exist, GA is an example unfortunately. It's all very well identifying a risk but what did you do about it is the question that would be asked when the balloon goes up.

Road traffic is monitored, ANPR is everywhere now, you can be grassed up by your mobile phone that gives your position away to 10 feet, you appear on camera approx 300 times a day in London as a pedestrian I read somewhere recently, you cannot leave or enter the UK without someone knowing you've done it. You can send emails that are traced etc. And that's just the stuff that exists to benefit the private sector, one can only imagaine what the government has at it's disposal.

I think if you analyse what is going on generally in terms of state control in the UK, you'll see very quickly, and acknowledge, that GA is the last bastion of more decent and trusting times but it's the most decent and trusting of us that ultimately get's done over by the cads.

'We're self policing and self regulating' cannot cut it anymore, sad but true I'm afraid.

And that's something worth discussing.

G-EMMA wrote:

OK qwertyplops, lets throw the argument back your way -

Take the club I fly at.

I need to have flown within the last 28 days to be current before I can get near an aeroplane.

I plan a terrorist attack, lets say we are going to fill a PA-28 with explosives and fly it into some soft target.

I have to have a licence, a medical, the ability to fly the aeroplane, navigate accurately and the weather has to be good for VFR else I will be in IMC and crash any way. Or I need an instrument rated pilot to do the deed for me.

So I have all of this and somehow in the view of the entire club and any members of the public I have to load the aircraft with said explosives... have you not realised yet that the whole scenerio is pure fantasy. I doubt if you have ever been around light aircraft as your entire argument is based from some entirely hyperthetical stance that a light aircraft could be used by terrorists. Yes it could, but it isn't likely and isn't practical. Terrorists could also dump azo dyes in the London water supply, that hasn't happened either and I doubt anyone would suggest that nobody use tap water just in case it did one day. Terrorists could hijack and strategically place fuel tankers under all the major intersections leading into London and blow them up... hmmmmm lets ban tankers or at least make them fill in a form before they can go on the road (or do they already???)

Terrorist acts are aimed to have an affect on the whole nations sense of security and lifestyle, I do not see light aircraft as a likely tool, neither do I see any way of sensibly preventing the possibility that they could be used anymore than I believe that the tube could be sensibly protected other than by permenantly shutting it down, best ban buses as well as the ex service vehicles...

The point is lots of things could be done by terrorists and to mitigate all of them gives you Squeegee Longtail's point. What a horrendous world it would be to live in. Safeguard one and the terrorist will turn to another.

The only reason GA is being highlighted is that it will be dead easy to mandate any silly restrictions the government can dream up and probably we will also have to pay for the administration in the process, all for a percieved threat that never existed anymore than any other. You still couldn't stop a terrorist purchasing a light aircraft and flying it out of a strip could you? So it will be all those that posed no risk that will suffer the consequences with no real reduction in the potential 'threat'. (which in my opinion only exists in fantasy) Today 18:58

Why the need to be so patronising G-EMMA?

You fly a light aircraft and all of a sudden you are an expert on national security and intelligence? With the greatest of respect, you and I know as much as the Daily Mail tells us about these things, we all do.

Why, as I keep saying, are you focusing on simply the aircraft as a method of delivery? There are so many more angles to this. You are missing the point with respect, the point is that the debate is upon us and it's time to make sensible points to the right people. Just because your club does things in a certain way and that they are all decent folks does not mean a thing anymore. That's the reality of this issue. How can this have passed you by?

Trying to belittle me for simply saying 'I get it' is pointless. :ugh:

I have given an opinion, it's unlikely to change, and that's that. :)

Well, to be honest G-EMMA, your comment about being around an aircraft grated a bit and if you can dole it out then you have to be able to take it. :)

And now I find myself dragged into a disagreement which was the last thing I wanted. It's an emotive issue and I accept that and please believe me when I say that I actually agree with most of what you say. As for joining the 'thought police' - I don't think they could afford me.

Have a good evening. :ok:

Qwetryplop

I can undertstand your position, but, as an aged pilot, have little sympathy with it.

There are a lot of people out there who are prepared to give up on their civil rights because they have been persuaded that by doing so, they will make the world a safer place

Rot.....

There is absolutely no point in playing the government's game, as they are generally a bunch of amateurs, scared to death about losing a single civilian life. The fact that over a hundred military deaths have been caused by their failure to behave in what any rational person would consider acceptable is glossed over.

!!!!! happens. If an asteroid were to hit central London that is fate. During the last war death was a daily experience and people accepted it - unfair though it may be.

Our current bunch of politicos (and those never exposed to the death and suffering of war) are scared rigid of losing access to their Internet access or of having their credit card cloned. They have lost all sense of perspective.

But what scares me most of all, as someone who works daily with massive UK databases, is the way that people are surrendering their right to a personal life, unencumbered by government overview.

You, Qwertyplop, seem to have been convinced that the threat (unquantified and unjustified) is so great that you are prepared to give up on what we consider is so good about our lives in the UK.

I am prepared to stand up to this Stalinist control-freakery - I hope that others are

Robin wrote;

You, Qwertyplop, seem to have been convinced that the threat (unquantified and unjustified) is so great that you are prepared to give up on what we consider is so good about our lives in the UK.

Thank you Robin for the response. I am not convinced actually, far from it.

But in the same way that I am not convinced by the governments position, I am far from convinced by the GA position of 'we're awfully nice chaps don't you know'.

And I completely agree with your view on military deaths and, from my own point of view, the stupidity and vanity shown by faceless cowards sending men and women to their deaths, badly equipped in ill thought through and conceived misadventures, is criminal. I'd put New Labour in the dock for that if I could. In fact, we are relocating to New Zealand just because of much of what has been written here, we concluded much of this some time ago so let me be clear on that too.

But I have faith in those who would protect me. I have faith in the police and the security services, I trust them more than I would ever trust the government. That might make me naive but they, like our armed forces, are there because of duty and obligation and I see it as my duty to assist them wherever possible to counter a threat they are clearly convinced exists on whatever level.

We are a divided society, much of which is the governments fault but I am clear in my responsibility to my fellow citizen and this is manifested by my belief that I should assist wherever possible in this issue.

I wish I shared your view, but being an old b*st*rd and having seen the way that those in any form of authority behave, I have little faith

Take the situation of the army being sent into Heathrow after a security alert. The reality is there is 17 miles between Central London and the airport where someone could lauch an RPG or SAM missile and guarantee bringing it down. Yet the Army went into the centre of Heathrow where you can't see an aircraft at all.

Obviously it was PR to show they were doing something.

They are likely to use Lord Carlile's concerns to wind up the politicos who know b*gg*r all. If you want more resources or more authority tell the idiot MPs that there is a credible threat and hope they don't ask difficult questions - they don't usually

Politicos like this sort of thing as it means they can grab more power

As I said earlier, !!!!! happens and an engine-out, like the recent Heathrow incident can happen with, or without terrorist help. Politicos need to accept this and accept that a certain number of people are likely to be killed or injured through any form of incident.

They can't know everything and one day the bad guys will get through. It is wrong for them to pretend that they can stop any and all threats. And it is more grown-up of us to accept that life itself is a risk

The problem is that we, as a people, are colluding with the rulers who want to make life more repressive on the promise that all will be well if we give up our civil liberties

If we do so, we will never get them back, and a regime, such as that in Zimbabwe, could use these laws to destroy any and all protections we enjoy.

I'm with robin on this one. All I require of Her Majesty's Government is that they leave me alone to get on with my life. I am well aware that the world is a risky place, but frankly I'd prefer to manage that risk without their help.

qwerty plop

you said: and have already been quoted on this above

"But I have faith in those who would protect me. I have faith in the police and the security services, I trust them more than I would ever trust the government. That might make me naive but they, like our armed forces, are there because of duty and obligation and I see it as my duty to assist them wherever possible to counter a threat they are clearly convinced exists on whatever level."

you cleary believe in the nanny state.....
I don't
Pilots tend to be a fairly individualistic bunch - they have some character, whereas you seem to be a "grey" to me in the John Major sense. Or in the sense when mother says to the young child - "don't play in the garden Tasmin, you might get dirty and we wouldn't want you getting dirty now, would we dearest sweet child of mine."

3000 people die on the roads every year - you need to get GA in proportion to the carnage on the roads. and this 3000 deaths a year is despite the CCTV, and ANPR systems you mention.

my plane could be used as a bomb
it doesn't require a key to start it up
you don't need a key to get in the cockpit
it carries over a ton of fuel
and could go into the side of any major building in London before any jets from east anglia had much of a chance to react.
but I am not suicidal - let alone a terrorist.

try something a little dangerous in your life - try playing a bit of rugby in the front row. drink 10 pints of guiness. have a dodgy prawn curry at the local indian. get off with that minging woman who has been making "eyes" at you.

less intusion into peoples' every day lives thx. all this snooping that you advocate has be used (as the daily mail points out) to snoop on the real villains of society who litter the street, park illegally, and put the wrong sort of rubbish in their bins.

you need to get a life qwerty plop.
and a new name.
(although I can hardly talk there....but at least mine has some background to it)

There was an article in the press yesterday detailing how used ambulances, police cars etc can be bought for trivial sums and could also be stuffed with explosives and driven past security.

There have been articles in the past about how a bomb could be put in a boat, driven up the Thames and detonated outside parliament without coming to the notice of the single river police boat on duty.

i.e. for anyone not actually carrying a largeblack cannonball shaped object labelled "bomb" with a fizzing fuse into central London (come to think of it, would anyone take the cannonball seriously?), there are an infinite number of alternative bomb delivery systems. Can we seal off the world against them all?

No.

Be careful, fine, but ultimately fear of all the innumerable things which could happen will strangle everyday life if allowed (or promoted by the media). So f*** the doom and gloom merchants. Let's get on with life.

Look at what's already been done to children's activities by the fear industry -I'm bloody glad that I was a kid when I was allowed out by myself all day, climbed trees, drove tractors, used power tools and got up to no good, mostly at risk to myself!:ok::ok::ok: And survived!:D:D

Much as I disagree with qwerty and find the general concept of the risk around GA as articulated by Lord Carlislie to be woefully lacking in proportionality, I do think we in GA need to take reasonable basic steps.
Although the odds of the plane being boosted are probably small, unless it is parked in a locked hanger, a secure field (i.e. RAF xxx), or some other security is applied - I think aircraft should at least have some basic security.

Most people, after an incident, would find it surprising and bordering on negligent that an expensive, reasonably dangerous piece of kit was left parked up with not even minimal attempts at securing it against operation.

The incident could be as minor as a couple of kids crashing it while taxing around the field. (apologies if it is stored in a manor which makes this improbable)

I think it was about a year ago when somebody left a box clearly labeled "verdacht pakketje" ("suspicious packet") at Utrecht Central Station, which is the main train hub in the Netherlands. I think it had a mechanical (ticking) alarm clock inside as well. This was clearly intended as a prank, not to be taken seriously.

This brought train traffic throughout the Netherlands to a standstill, because the police did take it seriously, stopped all train traffic going through the station (which had a knock-on effect throughout the country), evacuated the station and spent three to four hours investigating.

A lot of people were late for dinner that night.

So a large cannonball shaped object with an actual fizzing fuse? I don't think they're going to take any chances.

D Sqn wrote

you cleary believe in the nanny state.....

I most certainly do not Sir. What I don't accept or can reconcile is this idea of self regulation and self policing as it exists now.

You might argue it works just fine as it is now given nothing has happened thus far but the focus of everyone's points seems to be around the notion of delivery not the idea that harm can come from any number of associated uses. And it does not mean that I am prepared to roll over and have my tummy tickled by the state, it means I am prepared to listen and then make an informed decision over what level of this concerns me and my subsequent behaviour.

Look at Sri Lanka for example and see that in recent times a proscribed group in the UK have utilised light aircraft for securing their ends. This group is active in the UK and only several weeks ago, members were arrested in the UK.


More time to quiz LTTE suspects arrested in UK British authorities have been granted extra time until next Tuesday to quiz three LTTE suspects arrested last week as part of an investigation into the LTTE, BBC reported yesterday (May 1).

Two of the men, aged 39 and 46, were arrested in raids in Powys, Wales and a third, aged 33, in south-west London.

All three are being held on suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.

They are being questioned at the high-security Paddington Green police station in central London.

Might this sort of thing throw a new light on this issue? A well established migrant community, a war overseas, a group proscribed in the UK and tactics that take in the very notion we are discussing and a regulatory framework which even the most hardend GA advocate could pick to pieces. The issue is not just one of domestic security.

I accept that the state may well overract on much of this, I've said all along that I agree with much of what has been written but we also should be mindful of the greater world in which we live.

try something a little dangerous in your life - try playing a bit of rugby in the front row. drink 10 pints of guiness. have a dodgy prawn curry at the local indian. get off with that minging woman who has been making "eyes" at you.

In fact D Sqn - who has not done these things? I would not trust a man who had claimed to be free of these rites of passage.

I am very happy with my life thanks and my name has anticednce if it actually matters. In fact, I would ask that you focus on the debate and leave the name calling at the door.

There is absolutely nothing to fear. The government, who are completely competent in these matters, have put restricted areas over central London. No terrorist would dare to fly in them. Lie easy in your beds, we're saved. God bless the government.

:ugh:

It must just be me.

Why is EVERYONE focusing on ONE particular method and ignoring EVERY other possible use of an aircraft? Does it suit them to ignore that part of the debate?

MM Flynn wote that he disagrees with me on something or other when all I've said is that a debate around reasonable measures with the authorities is all that I agree with and that after that debate, if I'm convinced, then I would go along with what I was asked to do. I'm not all that sure what's unreasonable about that given he/she said virtually the same thing.

MM Flynn said;

Most people, after an incident, would find it surprising and bordering on negligent that an expensive, reasonably dangerous piece of kit was left parked up with not even minimal attempts at securing it
against operation.

I think I've said something similar to this as well - that is - after an event took place and the recriminations begin - the question will be asked: 'You knew there was a risk, what did you do about it?'

What's the answer folks? 'Yes there was a risk but we're all nice chaps don't you know and it's awfully rude to ask someone what they are up to when it's none of my business - anyway another pink gin anyone'?

If I'm coming across as flippant, I apologise. But I am repeatedly being attributed for comments I did not make in a context I have not alluded to.

The more I read here, the more out of touch somebody becomes. Whether it's me or the majority of you is debatable but while we debate, Rome burns and something will be forced upon GA that we had the chance to deal with and contribute to.

Astonishing guys. :ugh:

Quote: Helen Keller on Security

"Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. . .Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. . . Life is either a daring adventure or nothing."
- Helen Keller, deafblind American author, activist and lecturer

Yes G-EMMA, that'll be it.

Read the thread properly why don't you and comment when you've understood the issue enough to be concise in your own points instead of misrepresenting my comments.

Thank you. :D

G-EMMA Wrote

The way you are going qp people will react the same way every time a light aircraft goes overhead. I have read the whole thread. You keep contradicting yourself on the one hand stating that control over everything we do is unacceptable on the other that you will facilitate that control in every way you can and those that don't agree with you (the majority) live with the cuckoos. I suggest the mods send this one off to JET BLAST and the attention seeking troll with it.

What a thoroughly unpleasant way to go about debating G-EMMA. When the point cannot be discredited or debated, discredit the person. You must be very proud of yourself. :D I am asking you publically to stop misquoting me and attributing comments to me out of context. It's rather tiresome frankly. I respect your opinion, whether I agree or not, it's a dying courtesy in this country though. The last word is more important to some than the sensible and respectful interaction of people with, ultimately, the same interests.

There is no contradiction from me, the contradiction lies between the responsibilities of the individual and the state and it the highlights the juxtapostion of those positions. It highlights the difference of position between any number of people with an interest in this subject.

Therefore you cannot have read it with respect, if you had you would have seen that I am having trouble reconciling the need for privacy against the need for security, it's the most relevent part of this debate IMO, and this issue exists in any part of the 'security' debate you'd care to have. This is articulated by my acceptance of the criticism that has been levelled at the notion as it was raised orginally by Lord Carlile. On the other hand, I can see the inadequecy of the law enforcement oversight as it exists now. They are two part of the same issue.

Whether you agree with Carlile or not is your business but to insult a fellow forumite for trying to have a debate on the subject is really rather poor show - I thought people here were made of better stuff than the rest of the riff raff out there.

Perhaps I was wrong. :cool:

Can someone wake me up when this is over, please.... :zzz:

Of course.

Let's sleep through all this and hope it goes away. :zzz:

It won't but if it makes you all feel better. :ugh:

:yuk:

Not at all. Nice response.

Did you know that demonstrating an interest in Judy Garland is tantamount to dressing like the motorcycle cop from the Village People, and hanging around in bars with other 'rufty-tufty' men....?

Even in the 1940's, the question "are you a friend of Dorothy's?" was a way of finding out something other than whether someone liked musicals.

Just thought you ought to know, before you get into trouble...
:hmm:

Unreal
 

Why do so many threads on pprune end up in boring, pointless bickering ?
Even more strangely, why does it always seem to be the same people involved ?

Another target and frankly more credible

MI5 warns of suicide bombers using ambulances - Times Online

No one says no to an ambulance.

Pompey Paul
 

...that's the way of the world. Human nature. That's what has caused all this sh!t in the first place.

What's this country coming too? I remember when a bank manager made the decision to lend rather than a computer, and when a policeman could give you a clip around the ear an threaten to tell your Dad! Now we have rules on rules, made by idiots who know little of what they legislate against!

Every couple of years I have Special Branch and a customs man come around and ask if anything has changed at my strip (ie, new aircraft/owners ect). They seem quite reasonable blokes and surely intelligent enough to be able to assess what threat my little outfit represents. Surely this has to be good enough? Anything more would be insulting their intelligence .... just as a bank manager must now feel rather maginalised by the computer that tells him/her who he can lend too!

SS