Air Terror Bid Foiled in England

[Sureshot]

We ignore you anyway Stevo so don't feel left out!

-------

Since 7/7 we have thwarted 4 terrorist attacks in Britain, that's pretty good going.

One of the best Police and Secret intelligence forces in the world.

 

[andrew_nixon]

Since 7/7 we have thwarted 4 terrorist attacks in Britain, that's pretty good going.

Funny how we only get to hear about these foiled attacks when the government is pushing some new anti-terrorism tactic isn't it?

 

[embi]

We ignore you anyway Stevo so don't feel left out!

-------

Since 7/7 we have thwarted 4 terrorist attacks in Britain, that's pretty good going.

One of the best Police and Secret intelligence forces in the world.

And one of the worst capitalist governments.

But the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes didn't go down too well. Plus they made some crap up to cover up about how he looked suspicious by wearing a heavy thick coat and a backpack, when in fact he wasn't.

 

[Kev]

But the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes didn't go down too well. Plus they made some crap up to cover up about how he looked suspicious by wearing a heavy thick coat and a backpack, when in fact he wasn't.

2 points to consider here

First it wasnt the government who shot him, it was police officers
Secondly there wasn't a coverup. There were reports in the press that he was wearing a thick coat but the enquiry did not try to cover this up. If the government had intended to cover it up they didnt do a very good job did they?

But we will not be going over old ground again here. This is NOT the closed London Bombings thread. Personally I think there is little point to this thread now either, its just going round and round with the same old arguments.

 

[Milo_LCCC]

i know this isn't the closed thread but while we are on the subject can i just say that Jean Charles de Menezes should of stopped when the police orderd him to otherwise he wouldnt be dead now and the police would of known they had the wrong person

 

[embi]

2 points to consider here

First it wasnt the government who shot him, it was police officers
Secondly there wasn't a coverup. There were reports in the press that he was wearing a thick coat but the enquiry did not try to cover this up. If the government had intended to cover it up they didnt do a very good job did they?

But we will not be going over old ground again here. This is NOT the closed London Bombings thread. Personally I think there is little point to this thread now either, its just going round and round with the same old arguments.

Fair enough. I didn't put acros... dammit, yeah leave it.

Back to the topic. Air travel is never going to be safe, and I think the compromise we had already reached between security and convienience was almost enough. I can't imagine spending a 10 hour flight without a music player or even a book/magazine. Current restrictions take long enough, and more would place even more stress on the system.
The terrorists are always going to find another way. That is guaranteed.

 

[Kev]

Unless you are flying to America you may take Books etc onboard provided you purchased them airside.

 

[Milo_LCCC]

yeh i mean its impossible to simply sit through long flights there has to be some form of entertainment but at the same time id rather be safe than sorry

 

[embi]

Unless you are flying to America you may take Books etc onboard provided you purchased them airside.

Fair enough. Thats ok. Still, Americas still a good 6+ hours. The only other thing you can do is watch the inflight movie, but what do you do when it comes off and they show the flight progress animation?

yeh i mean its impossible to simply sit through long flights there has to be some form of entertainment but at the same time id rather be safe than sorry

Well I think that now they've banned water (which is a pretty good idea, because they can hand out water on board to you), it will be harder to find another way to smuggle on explosives. This is probably a new era in aviation security, and I view my trip from Heathrow to Sydney now as a bygone luxury. Of having your own bag, and putting pretty much everything you want except of course, the already banned items.

 

[Kev]

The security threat has been downgraded today and new long term hand luggage rules will come in today (tomorrow at BAA airports). 1 bag will be allowed on board but can only be half the size previously allowed. No liquid will be allowed except baby milk and pescription medicines. Passengers must have a letter from their GP if they want to carry medicines and must taste any baby milk. Electronic devices such as laptops will be permitted but will be security checked.

 

[andrew_nixon]

The security threat has been downgraded today and new long term hand luggage rules will come in today (tomorrow at BAA airports). 1 bag will be allowed on board but can only be half the size previously allowed. No liquid will be allowed except baby milk and pescription medicines. Passengers must have a letter from their GP if they want to carry medicines and must taste any baby milk. Electronic devices such as laptops will be permitted but will be security checked.

Good to see we're not letting terrorism affect the way we live our lives. [/sarcasm]

Just go back to how it was before, otherwise the terrorists are winning.

 

[Kev]

There were restrictions there before and most of these were there for security reasons. For many years people have been subject to search, had their hand luggage x-rayed and been restricted from taking certain items on board. It is not exactly a huge inconvienence not to be able to take liquids onboard. As I said in a previous post you can take liquids that are purchased once you have passed through security (as long as you dont open them before bording). It would be foolish to go straight back to the old rules. If a plane was blown out of the sky I'm pretty sure you'd be critisising the government and security forces for not preventing it.

 

[andrew_nixon]

There were restrictions there before and most of these were there for security reasons. For many years people have been subject to search, had their hand luggage x-rayed and been restricted from taking certain items on board. It is not exactly a huge inconvienence not to be able to take liquids onboard. As I said in a previous post you can take liquids that are purchased once you have passed through security (as long as you dont open them before bording). It would be foolish to go straight back to the old rules. If a plane was blown out of the sky I'm pretty sure you'd be critisising the government and security forces for not preventing it.

I'm not suggesting no security checks. But was this "threat" foiled by the use of ridiculously intense security checks? (only baby milk if you taste it, even if it's self-expressed breast milk!) No it wasn't, it was foiled by good old-fashioned police and intelligence work.

And how many cases of planes being blown up in mid-air have there been? You can probably count them on your fingers.

 

[Kev]

I put it to you that there would be more if we didnt check luggage. I dont see a problem with having to taste baby-milk. For many years when flying (something I used to do on a regular basis in my old job) I would have been asked to turn on my laptop to proove it was actually a laptop. I didnt see problem with this.

As a side issue, I am personally happy that the hand luggage size has been reduced. People always took far too much onboard and there was never enough room in the overhead lockers anyway.

 

[sohum]

The TSA in the USA downgraded the security level of flights from the UK to the US from red to orange. This is same with all the other international flights going into the US. I guess I can probably travel without too many inconveniences in about 12 days.

I don't see liquids being banned a major problem for myself, but I can see how it may be for others.