real bigbrother starts here? no scan, no flight- 'security' before human rights..?

Tojo_Ralph

alanrowell wrote: »

IAnd if it had been something "suspicious in the underwear area? Would you have been happy to be groped by some TSA Smurf? Would you want your children "felt up"?

Out of interest, if a bloke boarding a flight in front of you, your wife and your children was noted to have a suspicious package secreted in their groin area when they passed through a scanner, would you be happy to have the TSA investigate further?

moneypooh

What's with the 'felt up' comment?? When we went through the last time we had the very strict rules and body searches (no liquids & pastic bag time) both my children were searched (DS 9 & DD 12) - neither were done inappropriately.

Mr_Lahey

FAO terrorists - Fly from Gatwick/Stansted instead.

Angelic

I'd adhere to the rules and be scanned/search but i'm not happy about it and scanners van be tricked anyway.
It won't stop the nutjobs trying to blow us up but after reading various forums it seems to make people feel safer.

Marty21

Dont understand why people would refuse, Deserves them right if they refuse, No more holidays for them

dzug1

Where do you draw the line though? Perhaps in the name of human rights there should be no security checks at all of people boarding aircraft. A plane getting blown out of the sky every month or so is a small price to pay for our hard won liberties.

OK so you don't buy that. What do you buy????

teallach

What about my 'rights' as a human being to be able to fly without risk of being blown up;)
The only problem I have with the body scanning is that they are not scanning everyone!

alanrowell

moneypooh wrote: »

What's with the 'felt up' comment?? When we went through the last time we had the very strict rules and body searches (no liquids & pastic bag time) both my children were searched (DS 9 & DD 12) - neither were done inappropriately.

Did your children have their pubic area examined closely - with the possibility of being partially unclothed as the source of the "suspicious" object is determined.

There's also going to be great fun with people with colostomy bags and women at a "certain time of the month".

But none of this alters my original point - it's a pretty ineffective way of detecting a bomber. The chances of not being detected as a bomber is high and by having several bombers on several flights the odds are that most if not all will get through

Tojo_Ralph wrote: »

Can the authorities not simply ask passengers if they are concealing any weapons or explosives?

Actually it probably have a higher chance of detecting an Evul Doer - if you have people train who can judge people rather than relying on some hardware

Mr_Lahey

alanrowell wrote: »

Did your children have their pubic area examined closely - with the possibility of being partially unclothed as the source of the "suspicious" object is determined.

There's also going to be great fun with people with colostomy bags and women at a "certain time of the month".

But none of this alters my original point - it's a pretty ineffective way of detecting a bomber. The chances of not being detected as a bomber is high and by having several bombers on several flights the odds are that most if not all will get through



Actually it probably have a higher chance of detecting an Evul Doer - if you have people train who can judge people rather than relying on some hardware

I agree with you about the effectiveness of the scanners. I used one in Moscow last year, i don;t know the statistics behind what it detected or didn't but all in all it holds you up for only a few seconds.

In terms of catching terrorists the more effective way would be to completely throw the Human Rights book out of the window and search every single Muslim. The problems with that are obvious.

Tojo_Ralph

Mr_Lahey wrote: »

The more effective way would be to completely throw the Human Rights book out of the window and search every single Muslim. The problems with that are obvious.

Are you planning on inventing a Muslim Detector then?