You CAN take more than 100ml of drink on a plane

budgetflyer

Welshnige,

When the jackboots are kicking your door in and your house wrecked because you bought some fertiliser out of B+Q to make your carrots bigger, the penny will drop.
These measures do NADA to stop terrorism. Effective security isnt stopping a 10 year old going to the Costa Brava with a 125ml carton of Rybena in their satchel.

welshnige

budgetflyer wrote: »

Welshnige,

When the jackboots are kicking your door in and your house wrecked because you bought some fertiliser out of B+Q to make your carrots bigger, the penny will drop.
These measures do NADA to stop terrorism. Effective security isnt stopping a 10 year old going to the Costa Brava with a 125ml carton of Rybena in their satchel.

Forgive my ignoreness here but this wasnt about 125ml Ribena carton by a 10 year old kid. This was someone who deliberately took a bottle over 100 ml who knew that the airports are unhappy about this and have been for some time and argued about it. Now this is in light of 7/7 and then the potential airport terrorists of how it all came about with the restrictions on liquids and you somehow think that its ok. Im sorry I really must be missing the point here. From what I can see its a bit like you should only have 1.5 pints of lager to be on the limit of drink driving and then just have a few more pints on top but dont worry about it, its only what someone thinks it should be so ignore the security aspect and then do exactly what you want, ignore the rules and then try and argue someone down over what you have done and justify it despite knowing that you were told not to do it in the first place.

taxiphil

welshnige wrote: »

Now this is in light of 7/7

.....which had absolutely NOTHING to do with people blowing up aeroplanes with bottles of exploding Ribena or Anais Anais.

7/7 involved trains and buses being blown up, not aeroplanes. So how on earth are these measures going to prevent another 7/7 ?

The whole thing is utter tosh, it's just an Orwellian exercise in social compliance by the state, and of course it spreads fear and paranoia amongst the gullible and makes them think our great leaders are doing a good job of looking after us.

My friend works in WHSmith at Manchester airport and it's common knowledge that airport staff can stroll in and out of the airside zone unchecked and could easily leave explosives in any one of hundreds of hiding places where a terrorist could pick them up after they have cleared security control.

azjh77

I did wonder when I was in the airport last week whether the staff have to be searched/scanned every time they go in? And who checks those doing the checkiing?

budgetflyer

drinking more than 1.5 pints of lager and driving your car isnt the same. Do that and your vision, judgement and response time is impaired so you could crash and kill someone. Or sober you could have reacted quicker and avoided an accident.Responsible, innocent law abiding people dont do that.

If however , b4 you can drive your car each and every time you have to spread them , give a blood and urine sample, swear blind you havent been drinking or done some drugs, you maybe would object, wouldnt you ?To me it isnt so different.

I as a frequent traveller, put up with these security checks. I still however am amazed how anyone could argue they make a difference.

What it does however is put up a good case for the security agencies when they hand out the begging bowl for an increase in government funding.

richardw

taxiphil wrote: »

My friend works in WHSmith at Manchester airport and it's common knowledge that airport staff can stroll in and out of the airside zone unchecked .....

BUT they don't board aircraft.

Voyager2002

taxiphil wrote: »

.My friend works in WHSmith at Manchester airport and it's common knowledge that airport staff can stroll in and out of the airside zone unchecked and could easily leave explosives in any one of hundreds of hiding places where a terrorist could pick them up after they have cleared security control.

This is simply not true!

For instance, see post #5, from someone who works in an airport and cannot bring in coke, or even soy sauce for his Chinese takeaway.

bouquiniste

Security services have known for a long time that liquid explosives can be used for impromptu bombs - as, incidentally, can Vaseline (petroleum jelly). The measures were put in place as a reaction to a foiled plot where some people were found trying to board a plane with liquid explosives. Ditto the shoes in the x-ray checks - post the shoe-sole bomb attempt.

Yes, it's a pain - security always is. Yes, if someone wants to blow up a plane, they'll find a way. But is it not better to at least know that it is at least harder for them now?

It isn't an infringement of civil liberties – flying is not a human right, it’s a commercial transaction. It certainly isn't Nazi. It is people trying - however much it may irritate you - to keep you safe.

If you can afford to fly somewhere, you can afford the 2 minutes it takes to put your liquids into your hold baggage or pack smaller items. And you can afford another bottle of Ribena for your kid.

poppyolivia

when we flew in January...we took a normal water bottle...which we had to drink a bit in front of them and 2 sports bottles with water for the kids but they never checked that they said it was ok cause it was a baby bottle?????
On the way home it was stricter for some reason we had to drink from all the bottles but then it was fine. We never had to throw any away.

Forgot to say though that I had to take my boots off til they checked them and I had to roll my trouser legs up????????

satan666wayne

If i was the airport staff i would have put him in a warm room for an hour or two untill i had checked out the rules. then told him he could not take his bottle of warm water...