Major breach of security at LGW !!
Helicopter Pilots Get It Up Quicker
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location:
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Irrespective of WHY this was done the following facts still stand.
The journo was airside without proper authority/security clearance - deal with that appropiately as with any other person airside 'illegally' would be.
The driver is in contravention of the terms which accompany his airside pass issuance - withdraw it immediately and ensure he is prevented from ever holding another.
Consider banning all this company's vehicles and staff from airside until the result of the enquiry and a DETR inspection confirming appropiate security measures are now being followed. Tough on their employees and the airlines involved, but perhaps the company can pursue damages/losses against the driver. And it might stop other idiots doing things like this.
The photos in the 'paper' could have been taken just about anywhere, or by a pax boarding or from over the perimeter fence, which incidently would put you closer to landing/departing aircraft than most of the airside roads would permit.
There are much easier ways of 'attacking' planes and there are loopholes ,(at LGW and other airports), of varying sizes which again would provide easier airside access.
View From The Ground - I also thought exactly the same thing - I wouldn't wish that on any police officer though as I m sure (s)he would be made a scapgoat - especially by the press.
The journo was airside without proper authority/security clearance - deal with that appropiately as with any other person airside 'illegally' would be.
The driver is in contravention of the terms which accompany his airside pass issuance - withdraw it immediately and ensure he is prevented from ever holding another.
Consider banning all this company's vehicles and staff from airside until the result of the enquiry and a DETR inspection confirming appropiate security measures are now being followed. Tough on their employees and the airlines involved, but perhaps the company can pursue damages/losses against the driver. And it might stop other idiots doing things like this.
The photos in the 'paper' could have been taken just about anywhere, or by a pax boarding or from over the perimeter fence, which incidently would put you closer to landing/departing aircraft than most of the airside roads would permit.
There are much easier ways of 'attacking' planes and there are loopholes ,(at LGW and other airports), of varying sizes which again would provide easier airside access.
View From The Ground - I also thought exactly the same thing - I wouldn't wish that on any police officer though as I m sure (s)he would be made a scapgoat - especially by the press.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deal with the journo as you will, personally I'd leave him be as he's the only one showing up the gross inadequacies of airport security.
But make sure you throw the book at the person who is repsonsible for the security policy at LGW too and all the other BAA airports. In fact make sure they are done.
There are so many loop holes in security it is a joke.
I used to drive transit vans from landside to airside at another BAA airport in the UK and their security is lamentable. Never once did they open the van to see what was in the bags and kicking about on the floor. They made me go through the metal detector but anything I didn't want them to find could have easily been left in the glove box.
Since the majority of hijacks are inside jobs it makes sense to be tightening these areas. If the reporter has achieved this then fair play to him.
But make sure you throw the book at the person who is repsonsible for the security policy at LGW too and all the other BAA airports. In fact make sure they are done.
There are so many loop holes in security it is a joke.
I used to drive transit vans from landside to airside at another BAA airport in the UK and their security is lamentable. Never once did they open the van to see what was in the bags and kicking about on the floor. They made me go through the metal detector but anything I didn't want them to find could have easily been left in the glove box.
Since the majority of hijacks are inside jobs it makes sense to be tightening these areas. If the reporter has achieved this then fair play to him.
Whilst some disagree to this journo being prosecuted, I do not.
He DID breach a major security area.
He DID smuggle weapons into a security area.
He DID bring weapons onto an aircraft
He DID tresspass on airport property.
He DID tresspass in property on the airport, being one aircraft.
He DID coerce an airport employee into aiding and abieting him.
He DID knowingly and willing breach Airport Bylaws, National Laws, Air Navigation Laws and a few more besides as well, please tell me why this person, and his company are not prosecuted to the extent of the law.
He has highlighted a known lapse in airport security, it has always been the responsibilty of the caterer to ensure safety of galley equipment and food onloads, the trucks are sealed from their base of operation until they reach the aircraft. Only a sheet of paper with the seal number on it is checked by security. With this in mind, our cabin crew are renowed for their pre-flight checks of the cabin including the meals and trolley. Many a flight has been delayed for security checks by the crew (and there is no way I would ever ask them to hurry or even interupt).
Can any non-draconian security be 100% breach-proof? The answer has to be no, eventually someone will find a hole.
He DID breach a major security area.
He DID smuggle weapons into a security area.
He DID bring weapons onto an aircraft
He DID tresspass on airport property.
He DID tresspass in property on the airport, being one aircraft.
He DID coerce an airport employee into aiding and abieting him.
He DID knowingly and willing breach Airport Bylaws, National Laws, Air Navigation Laws and a few more besides as well, please tell me why this person, and his company are not prosecuted to the extent of the law.
He has highlighted a known lapse in airport security, it has always been the responsibilty of the caterer to ensure safety of galley equipment and food onloads, the trucks are sealed from their base of operation until they reach the aircraft. Only a sheet of paper with the seal number on it is checked by security. With this in mind, our cabin crew are renowed for their pre-flight checks of the cabin including the meals and trolley. Many a flight has been delayed for security checks by the crew (and there is no way I would ever ask them to hurry or even interupt).
Can any non-draconian security be 100% breach-proof? The answer has to be no, eventually someone will find a hole.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So lets get this straight.....
That's right - he was SMUGGLED in airside. Not broke in, or blagged his way in, but Smuggled.
That would suggest to me that he was aided by a bona fide person who was legally there.
Shouldn't the person with a pass who smuggled him in be exposed?
As I undertand it, those vehicles are secured with a numbered security seal at the catering factory. Then this is checked as they leave the catering factory by the security there, and when they get to airside. How can anyone legislate for what is in fact an "inside job"??
Our reporter, who could easily have been an al-Qaeda terrorist, was smuggled past gate guards as he hid in the back of a catering lorry which was supplying in-flight meals.
That would suggest to me that he was aided by a bona fide person who was legally there.
Shouldn't the person with a pass who smuggled him in be exposed?
As I undertand it, those vehicles are secured with a numbered security seal at the catering factory. Then this is checked as they leave the catering factory by the security there, and when they get to airside. How can anyone legislate for what is in fact an "inside job"??
An yes I agree with Clear Right, the Airport operator and Catering Company need to have their security arrangements addressed, and possibly a fine imposed for a material failure of basic security.
I for one am glad I don't frequent LGW and don't get my lunch from the catering company.
I for one am glad I don't frequent LGW and don't get my lunch from the catering company.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: staines,uk
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to pass everyones attention in the last four postings I have made on security issues that people operating at LHR ,LGW/BAA Airports are allowed to carry a 3 inch religious dagger with a sharpened blade AIRSIDE for RELIGIOUS reasons.
IMHO total cr*p,it should NOT be allowed.
Are you as crew happy with this senario?.....I'm not.
NJR.
IMHO total cr*p,it should NOT be allowed.
Are you as crew happy with this senario?.....I'm not.
NJR.
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nojacketsrequired writes:"LHR ,LGW/BAA Airports are allowed to carry a 3 inch religious dagger with a sharpened blade AIRSIDE for RELIGIOUS reasons. "
This is something to new to a Stateside boy. I find it not hard to believe though in this age of "Cultural Diversity". What are they used for anyway, inflight emergency circumcisions??
Another event that has me up in arms is the situation in Florida where the Muslim women got her picture on her drivers license with a veil.........Yea Right I recognize her......Im sure if I went into DMV with a Bandana over my face I would have more guns pointed at me than they did at the Alamo.
I think someone should start a thread with examples of the idiocy that is now airport routine..
This is something to new to a Stateside boy. I find it not hard to believe though in this age of "Cultural Diversity". What are they used for anyway, inflight emergency circumcisions??
Another event that has me up in arms is the situation in Florida where the Muslim women got her picture on her drivers license with a veil.........Yea Right I recognize her......Im sure if I went into DMV with a Bandana over my face I would have more guns pointed at me than they did at the Alamo.
I think someone should start a thread with examples of the idiocy that is now airport routine..
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: U.K.
Age: 45
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm going to call it a day with this one.
I am baffled as to why so many who have commented on this thread are focussing so much on the journo and the driver being screwed into the ground.
To me, the far more serious 'crime' was committed by the people responsible for our airports' security.
The driver DID smuggle the journo on board. Is it not possible that this could be carried out by a 'sleeper' terrorist quite legally working as a driver?
At the end of the day, the driver and the journo did no harm to any thing or any person. Who knows, perhaps if they have caused enough waves a potential avenue for terrorists to exploit may close and make their job of killing people just that little bit more difficult.
I really do not see what good will come of putting a great amount of effort, aggression and tax-payers money into prosecuting two guys who were successful in exposing this gaping hole in security.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that rules and laws are there for a reason and that they should be respected, and I can' t say that I have that much love for your average tabloid journo. I just think that we need to pull out and have a look at the bigger picture.
I am sure that there are hundreds of other security loopholes that haven't been publicized. Perhaps in the same way that car manufacturers have ex-cons advising on how they can make their cars more secure, there could be a small group of ex-SAS or whatever going around airports looking for weak spots in procedures around the airport, etc?
As for "3 inch religious daggers with sharpened blades airside" that just beggars belief! We should be screwing the moron that authorized that into the ground!
I shall expect a hail of fiery retorts...
Haul.
I am baffled as to why so many who have commented on this thread are focussing so much on the journo and the driver being screwed into the ground.
To me, the far more serious 'crime' was committed by the people responsible for our airports' security.
The driver DID smuggle the journo on board. Is it not possible that this could be carried out by a 'sleeper' terrorist quite legally working as a driver?
At the end of the day, the driver and the journo did no harm to any thing or any person. Who knows, perhaps if they have caused enough waves a potential avenue for terrorists to exploit may close and make their job of killing people just that little bit more difficult.
I really do not see what good will come of putting a great amount of effort, aggression and tax-payers money into prosecuting two guys who were successful in exposing this gaping hole in security.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that rules and laws are there for a reason and that they should be respected, and I can' t say that I have that much love for your average tabloid journo. I just think that we need to pull out and have a look at the bigger picture.
I am sure that there are hundreds of other security loopholes that haven't been publicized. Perhaps in the same way that car manufacturers have ex-cons advising on how they can make their cars more secure, there could be a small group of ex-SAS or whatever going around airports looking for weak spots in procedures around the airport, etc?
As for "3 inch religious daggers with sharpened blades airside" that just beggars belief! We should be screwing the moron that authorized that into the ground!
I shall expect a hail of fiery retorts...
Haul.
Moderator
This loophole has been around for years.
Airport security is there for 2 reasons. One is to keep the casual criminals off the aircraft with weapons, since you are unlikely to get a weapon past the screening checkpoint. It does happen, but if I were a bad guy bent on taking over an airplane, I would not expect to get a Glock through the checkpoint. It is far easier to get a job on the ramp or as a cleaner and just bring it airside in a lunch bag.
The other reason for airport security is to make the flying public feel safer. This is the reason that pilots are screened. We are easily identifiable, authority figures. When the passengers see us getting the same treatment as they, they assume that security must be tight, if even the pilots get searched. We all know better, and personally, I find the entire situation disgusting.
It's ironic that pilots, who are the only employees that don't need a "weapon" to take over the airplane, are the only group that is required to be screened for "weapons" (I used quotes since I do not consider a screwdriver, leatherman, eyeglass screwdriver or penknives etc., weapons). It's doubly ironic when the reason for flight crew submitting to passenger screening is due to the actions of a customer service representative (not a flight crew member and they STILL don't get screened!).
The entire situation is surreal......
Airport security is there for 2 reasons. One is to keep the casual criminals off the aircraft with weapons, since you are unlikely to get a weapon past the screening checkpoint. It does happen, but if I were a bad guy bent on taking over an airplane, I would not expect to get a Glock through the checkpoint. It is far easier to get a job on the ramp or as a cleaner and just bring it airside in a lunch bag.
The other reason for airport security is to make the flying public feel safer. This is the reason that pilots are screened. We are easily identifiable, authority figures. When the passengers see us getting the same treatment as they, they assume that security must be tight, if even the pilots get searched. We all know better, and personally, I find the entire situation disgusting.
It's ironic that pilots, who are the only employees that don't need a "weapon" to take over the airplane, are the only group that is required to be screened for "weapons" (I used quotes since I do not consider a screwdriver, leatherman, eyeglass screwdriver or penknives etc., weapons). It's doubly ironic when the reason for flight crew submitting to passenger screening is due to the actions of a customer service representative (not a flight crew member and they STILL don't get screened!).
The entire situation is surreal......
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haul By Cable has it spot on IMHO.
Many slate the driver for helping the journo through.
BUT what if some terrorist had an accomplice with loaded weapons pointed at the driver's family back home, and radio comms to ensure 'retribution' should the driver alert security to their presence ?
What would YOU do if you were in that position ? Would you alert security ? Would you do your hardest to protect your family ( OK - so the chances of the terrorists letting you survive once they are onboard are zero, but would you cling to the hope ... ? )
So call for the driver's head if you want ... but he has highlighted just how easy it COULD be !
The one weak link in security will always be the human factor !
Many slate the driver for helping the journo through.
BUT what if some terrorist had an accomplice with loaded weapons pointed at the driver's family back home, and radio comms to ensure 'retribution' should the driver alert security to their presence ?
What would YOU do if you were in that position ? Would you alert security ? Would you do your hardest to protect your family ( OK - so the chances of the terrorists letting you survive once they are onboard are zero, but would you cling to the hope ... ? )
So call for the driver's head if you want ... but he has highlighted just how easy it COULD be !
To me, the far more serious 'crime' was committed by the people responsible for our airports' security.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: SE Asia
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong, but I believe that the Home Seceratary David Blunkett authorised the carrying airside of the Sikh's religious dagger. The same guy who is trying to cover his backside by introducing a lot of ineffective extra security measures which had immeasurably more to the hassle and not much to the security of the environment many of us work in. I have said this a couple of times before I am 100% for effective security just 100% against futile gestures. Sadly I believe that this case will lead to more of the latter.
One thing that this case does highlight is the need for the crew to be trained to a sufficient standard to carry out a thorough cabin inspection.
One thing that this case does highlight is the need for the crew to be trained to a sufficient standard to carry out a thorough cabin inspection.
Helicopter Pilots Get It Up Quicker
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location:
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But Ghost Rider he wasn't. He offered his services to the journo to expose this alledged security gap.
If his family were being held you said yourself would he say anything? Probably not - but that's slightly different to voluteering his services.
Had he attempted to express his concerns to his employers, BAA, etc?
Yes I agree the security staff/BAA have the majority responsibilty in preventing security breaches but then don't we all have some responsibilty? After all we are all working or travelling on these aircraft.
As has been said before what has this achieved except to scare the travelling public and sell newspapers? Now if the NOTW had taken it's case to BAA/DETR/the caterers and been fobbed off and no attempt made to change things then maybe they would have been justified in publishing. But they didn't - too boring and not sensationalist enough.
Other security concerns have been brought to the appropiate authorities concerned but things haven't changed - at least not visibly - but neither I nor the reportee(s) would call the press and offer to help them sell papers. Maybe we are wrong?
If his family were being held you said yourself would he say anything? Probably not - but that's slightly different to voluteering his services.
Had he attempted to express his concerns to his employers, BAA, etc?
Yes I agree the security staff/BAA have the majority responsibilty in preventing security breaches but then don't we all have some responsibilty? After all we are all working or travelling on these aircraft.
As has been said before what has this achieved except to scare the travelling public and sell newspapers? Now if the NOTW had taken it's case to BAA/DETR/the caterers and been fobbed off and no attempt made to change things then maybe they would have been justified in publishing. But they didn't - too boring and not sensationalist enough.
Other security concerns have been brought to the appropiate authorities concerned but things haven't changed - at least not visibly - but neither I nor the reportee(s) would call the press and offer to help them sell papers. Maybe we are wrong?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: SE Asia
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=816262002
The link above may be of interest for those who have posted on the kirpin issue.
The link above may be of interest for those who have posted on the kirpin issue.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies if what I have to say on this so-called security lapse has already been said,but i couldn't be bothered to read through all the alarmist drivel written by many of the previous posters who obviously do not hold a BAA security pass.
As I understand it,all of us who hold a pass have been security vetted,and are deemed responsible enough to hold it.
This journalist could NOT have gained access without the help of a pass holder.It's not as if he could waltz onto the airfield by himself.
There is only so much the authorities can do.I have a complete tool kit which I carry onto the aircraft all the time to carry out my job.This includes knives,big screwdrivers,hammers etc.I also have access to the internal's of the aircraft at all times,easy to plant a bomb if I wished to do so,but I don't.
There are 1000's of people in the same position as myself.The fact we don't have aircraft being blown-up/hi-jacked every day is surely a testament to the fact that the security vetting of pass holders works.
This incident really should not be given any debate time at all.It is just a tabloid attempt to discredit airport security which is probably as good as it can get.We all know that we could smuggle just about ANYTHING [and I mean that] onto a commercial aircraft if we [a pass holder] wanted to,but the fact remains that the security vetting for pass holders appears to be working.
As I understand it,all of us who hold a pass have been security vetted,and are deemed responsible enough to hold it.
This journalist could NOT have gained access without the help of a pass holder.It's not as if he could waltz onto the airfield by himself.
There is only so much the authorities can do.I have a complete tool kit which I carry onto the aircraft all the time to carry out my job.This includes knives,big screwdrivers,hammers etc.I also have access to the internal's of the aircraft at all times,easy to plant a bomb if I wished to do so,but I don't.
There are 1000's of people in the same position as myself.The fact we don't have aircraft being blown-up/hi-jacked every day is surely a testament to the fact that the security vetting of pass holders works.
This incident really should not be given any debate time at all.It is just a tabloid attempt to discredit airport security which is probably as good as it can get.We all know that we could smuggle just about ANYTHING [and I mean that] onto a commercial aircraft if we [a pass holder] wanted to,but the fact remains that the security vetting for pass holders appears to be working.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilotwolf ... I know he wasn't under duress for this particular event ... and I don't necessarily agree with his actions in going to the press instead of the relevant authorities.
My point though was that if that had have been the case - ie he was under duress, then Houston we would have a problem !
But luckily it wasn't - this time - and it has highlighted yet another lapse in security.
Now just how to close the loop is another thing. 100% security will never happen in a civilian environment. The public won't allow it due to civil-rights infringements, much to the delight of Mr Bin Laden and his followers.
. Would the crews, ground-staff, public or airlines for that matter accept 100% body/vehicle searches by armed forces or security ? The delays and cost would be massive - but it might at least help to reduce the threat.
Somehow I don't think it will ever happen. Thank the do-gooders for that.
As to the kirpin - it just goes to prove that PC is a definate case of the lunatics taking over the assylum !
Whether we agree with the driver's actions or not is irrelevant. Something needs to be done NOW before it's too late.
My point though was that if that had have been the case - ie he was under duress, then Houston we would have a problem !
But luckily it wasn't - this time - and it has highlighted yet another lapse in security.
Now just how to close the loop is another thing. 100% security will never happen in a civilian environment. The public won't allow it due to civil-rights infringements, much to the delight of Mr Bin Laden and his followers.
. Would the crews, ground-staff, public or airlines for that matter accept 100% body/vehicle searches by armed forces or security ? The delays and cost would be massive - but it might at least help to reduce the threat.Somehow I don't think it will ever happen. Thank the do-gooders for that.
As to the kirpin - it just goes to prove that PC is a definate case of the lunatics taking over the assylum !
Whether we agree with the driver's actions or not is irrelevant. Something needs to be done NOW before it's too late.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this Journo has highlighted is something that has been known for many, many years.
Namely that a bona fide pass holder can be coerced (bribed) into smuggling persons or weapons into a secure area.
This topic has been raised at just about every security brief I have attended in the last 20 odd years.
Think about it guys, that's why crew are security screened before going airside.
Are some of you really suggesting that anyone can now do anything illegal to point out something the entire industry already knows? Come on!!!!!!!!!!!
I can do 100+ mph in my car just to point out to the police that it's possible but I'll still get done for it, whether or not I work for a newspaper!
Namely that a bona fide pass holder can be coerced (bribed) into smuggling persons or weapons into a secure area.
This topic has been raised at just about every security brief I have attended in the last 20 odd years.
Think about it guys, that's why crew are security screened before going airside.
Are some of you really suggesting that anyone can now do anything illegal to point out something the entire industry already knows? Come on!!!!!!!!!!!
I can do 100+ mph in my car just to point out to the police that it's possible but I'll still get done for it, whether or not I work for a newspaper!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: SOUTH
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have often wondered why flt crew are so picked out for screening.What are they supposed to be carrying.Surely by
just signing a letter saying I am of sound mind today and have
no reason to commit suicide today and kill all my crew and passengers would suffice.
Also,you do not seem to get many journalists trying to put a pretend bomb on a coach or lorry to get on a ferry.Very easy indeed,and could have an even more devastating outcome.Or engineers working on Eurostar could also do the same with a timer to ensure maximum devastation.Why doesn't a journalist drop a package into a bin somewhere on the underground and see how long it takes before it is found.
As someone said earlier,there is no 100% security if people wish to travel,but aviation as always gets the flak.If you tried to get even near it,crews would be out of hours,passengers p++++d
off,and no-one would be going anywhere.
Screening the crews so blatantly in front of passengers just makes them worry more about who they are flying with,rather than fill them with confidence,something which is badly needed just now.
just signing a letter saying I am of sound mind today and have
no reason to commit suicide today and kill all my crew and passengers would suffice.
Also,you do not seem to get many journalists trying to put a pretend bomb on a coach or lorry to get on a ferry.Very easy indeed,and could have an even more devastating outcome.Or engineers working on Eurostar could also do the same with a timer to ensure maximum devastation.Why doesn't a journalist drop a package into a bin somewhere on the underground and see how long it takes before it is found.
As someone said earlier,there is no 100% security if people wish to travel,but aviation as always gets the flak.If you tried to get even near it,crews would be out of hours,passengers p++++d
off,and no-one would be going anywhere.
Screening the crews so blatantly in front of passengers just makes them worry more about who they are flying with,rather than fill them with confidence,something which is badly needed just now.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: South east, UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I am one of the Drivers and I would have to agree the man should be sacked! Abuse of trust. However he has highlighted a problem that has been there during the 13 years I have been in catering.
It is imposable to be 100% safe with catering, the only way we shall ever be able to stop this happening for real would be to check every catering trolley as it boarded the aircraft as Kuwait Airways have done for many years.
I think the system works fine ATM as it works on looking for things out of place, now the catering driver was seen day in day out by BAA and was trusted, BAA would not be able to check every part of the vehicles, the driver has broken that trust and should be relived from duty. Because of this trust we shall never be safe from sleepers and just have to hope that the checks that are made on staff continue to work.
Just my 2 pennies worth.
It is imposable to be 100% safe with catering, the only way we shall ever be able to stop this happening for real would be to check every catering trolley as it boarded the aircraft as Kuwait Airways have done for many years.
I think the system works fine ATM as it works on looking for things out of place, now the catering driver was seen day in day out by BAA and was trusted, BAA would not be able to check every part of the vehicles, the driver has broken that trust and should be relived from duty. Because of this trust we shall never be safe from sleepers and just have to hope that the checks that are made on staff continue to work.
Just my 2 pennies worth.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London, England
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We all know that maintaining security againts terrorist attacks is a virtually impossible task, we only have to think back to the IRA mortar attack from the Heathrow car park a few years ago to see that. As long as planes fly there will be ways to take them down, you could sit in Hyde park and plink them with shoulder launched SAMs if you felt like it.
This journo and his driver need to have the book thrown at them. We're all for finding and closing loopholes in security, but these guys did this for no other reason than to sell newspapers and in so doing further eroded the confidence of the flying public. The relevant authorities should be prosecuting these guys very agressively. Not just for the actual lapse in security but more to protect jobs in the industry they serve so that the next journalist who gets a phone call from some plonker who wants to be famous reports the lapse to the relevant authorities rather than splashing it on the front page.
This journo and his driver need to have the book thrown at them. We're all for finding and closing loopholes in security, but these guys did this for no other reason than to sell newspapers and in so doing further eroded the confidence of the flying public. The relevant authorities should be prosecuting these guys very agressively. Not just for the actual lapse in security but more to protect jobs in the industry they serve so that the next journalist who gets a phone call from some plonker who wants to be famous reports the lapse to the relevant authorities rather than splashing it on the front page.