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

jeanniebeanie_2

spiro wrote: »

If you want the checks to be completely random do what they do in some workplaces were staff have random drug/drink tests when arriving at work. You press a button and a computer random turns a light red or green. If its green carry on, if its red you get checked. As computers can't see gender or skin colour how much more random could you get.

I don't agree the scans should be entirely random. I think that ANYONE dressed in Hijab and Burka should be scanned -as should anyone else who chooses to dress in head to toe loose garments. If you want to board a plane dressed in attire that makes it easy to conceal something then accept the consequences.

wallbash

That statement is so not PC .
But I have to agree . If my daughter walks thru the airport ( going on a summer hols)
wearing her standard shorts / t-shirt and flip flops holding hands with her white 70 year old Grandmother and is then followed by a Burka wearing female.
I know this sounds racist , but I want the second party to be the one too be searched.

For those , and there will be many , who deplores my views , how would you put my mind at rest .I really would like to know.

jeanniebeanie_2

I don't care what religious beliefs anyone holds. My point is WHOEVER YOU ARE if you dress in a way that would make it very easy to conceal something, then you should be scanned. If I turned up wearing a floor length caftan I SHOULD BE SCANNED! Beyond that, then yes, random.

marshallka

brightonman123 wrote: »

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5j8W0JgbACK5b3iz6Z_M310YxZEwQ

Air passengers who refuse to submit to a full body scan at Heathrow and Manchester airports will be barred from taking their flights, it was announced.
The two airports started operating advanced imaging technology (AIT) scanners from noon. Birmingham airport will follow suit later this month ahead of a national rollout.

I wonder if they are saving money, too..

Could they perhaps have doctors/consultants there too to diagnose conditions at the same time. That would save money.:rotfl:

littlereddevil

jeanniebeanie wrote: »

I don't agree the scans should be entirely random. I think that ANYONE dressed in Hijab and Burka should be scanned -as should anyone else who chooses to dress in head to toe loose garments. If you want to board a plane dressed in attire that makes it easy to conceal something then accept the consequences.

My sentiments exactly. All those people wandering about OUR airports with only eyes peeping out is ridiculous. I would expect to be scanned if I were covered from top to toe .

davidlizard

What I find concerning is that the women who refused to be scanned were simply sent away. If someone refused to be scanned, then that should be treated along the same lines of a driver refusing a breath test, and further inquiries must take place - i.e. they should be dragged off and given a full search.

A terrorist group determined to knock an aircraft out could simply send along 10 terrorists each concealing a bomb. Security ask to scan 9 of them, they refuse and walk away to try again another day. The 10th one - bang.

FH_Brit

Agree with a lot of you - nothing to hide = no worry

Would Brightonman rather have a bomb on his flight?

Here's a thought - They (the Authorities) could make EVERY flight 100% safe - but would you (the travller) stand 24 hour check in and flights that quadruple in cost to pay for the screening? You see if you CHOSE (no one is forcing you) to travel you have to play by the rules, if you dont want to be scanned STAY ON BRIGHTON BEACH!

Carol444_2

The reason that people should refuse to be scanned by the scanner is that they are dangerous and have caused (according to an airport staff member who was forced to operate one in Heathrow) high levels of breast cancer in female operating staff and high levels of testicular cancer in the male operating staff.

Staff are not allowed to operate the scanner on anyone who is either pregnant or trying to become pregnant (the latter in the case of both males and females) and must offer to pat the person down instead.

Therefore if selected for a scan tell the operator that you are refusing on account of the fact that you either believe you are pregnant (female), or taking fertility treatment to become a father.

teallach

Carol444 wrote: »

The reason that people should refuse to be scanned by the scanner is that they are dangerous and have caused (according to an airport staff member who was forced to operate one in Heathrow) high levels of breast cancer in female operating staff and high levels of testicular cancer in the male operating staff.

Surely there is a difference between the people operating the machines and those within the machines being scanned? This statement would infer that it's the people operating the equipment that should refuse to. Sorry, but I'd need actual proof before I believed this one. If it was true, then there would be huge publicity over it.........so, be scanned or don't fly!

jeanniebeanie_2

Carol444 wrote: »

The reason that people should refuse to be scanned by the scanner is that they are dangerous and have caused (according to an airport staff member who was forced to operate one in Heathrow) high levels of breast cancer in female operating staff and high levels of testicular cancer in the male operating staff.r.

What a load of cobblers! Scanner operators are not exposed to radiation just as hospital radiographers are not. They are not in the same area!

Take a look here

http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/imaging_technology.shtm

http://www.howstuffworks.com/backscatter.htm

There is PLENTY more where that came from. Like to show us your evidence?