|
Robin wrote;
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 think that most of us, especially those whose general outlook is humanitarian, believe in notions similar to those Plato spoke of in Republic - that is: (a) an equal distribution of the burden of citizenship, i.e. of those limitations of freedom which are necessary in social life; (b) equal treatment of the citizens before the law, provided, of course, that (c) the laws show neither favour nor disfavour towards individual citizens or groups or classes; (d) impartiality of the courts of justice; and (e) an equal share in the advantages (and not only in the burden) which membership of the state may offer to its citizens. Individualism can counter these notions yet it is indvidualism that has stopped the British people from standing up and arguing the toss over any of the notions we've covered in this thread. We don't stand together, we don't support one another. We are factional and place self interest over the greater good. Perhaps it's time we, as a people, reviewed this methodology. So, it seems to me, these ideals are slowly being eroded away if one compares them to what is happening in the UK today more generally in favour of some twisted notion that offers me more protection but at the cost of my civil liberties - I agree - this is not acceptable either. No-one asked me if I was happy to appear on CCTV everyday, no-one asked me if I wanted my number plate scanned 20 times a day and nobody asked me if I wanted all of my electronic mails stored for months/years. On the other hand, who have I bothered to challenge over any of these issues? We all know the answer to that. I agree that !!!!! happens but IMO this issue is different in the sense that there is more to it than a simple domestic agenda of control, it relates to harm reduction in any numbers of criminal activity in an area where there might lot's of regulations from the CAA et al but where there is little overt control from the law enforcement agencies. A hurridly filled in GAR with half the details missing and no-one checking with a Mk1 eyeball that the person declared on board is the person flying. How can that be acceptable? |
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.
Originally Posted by D SQDRN 97th IOTC
(Post 4212648)
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 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) |
(come to think of it, would anyone take the cannonball 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 |
Somewhere over the rainbow
Way up high There's a land that I heard of Once in a lullaby Judy Garland - 1939 I wish I lived here but we don't. Platitudes are meaningless. |
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 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 17:39. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.