Reply to: Transport minister wants to lift liquids ban on flights

[daviejones]

Oh the irony...

I see you have made my point.

[Churchill]

I am not confused, however you seem to have an opinion of yourself that few others, if any, would share.


Surely your wisdom and maturity would stop you from posting inane comments when a post disagrees with your opinions? Apparently not.

Oh the irony...

[daviejones]

Do not confuse wisdom with being boring and maturity with being dull.

I am not confused, however you seem to have an opinion of yourself that few others, if any, would share.


Surely your wisdom and maturity would stop you from posting inane comments when a post disagrees with your opinions? Apparently not.

[Churchill]

You are one boring dull dog, do you know that? Did your mother have any puppies that lived?

Do not confuse wisdom with being boring and maturity with being dull.

[daviejones]

There is a reason for only allowing that particular size of container - anything litre sized is big enough to create a big enough bang to bring a plane down.

What there is no justification for is this poxy "one bag rule". It really is a pile of tulipe from BAA to try to keep the queues down whilst they beefed up the number of staff qualified to run the scanners.

Now they have enough they should relax the rule and go back to one cabin sized bag + laptop bag. They might lose a few less bags in their airports then. Wnakers that they are.

The new system being developed for T5 will mean that it is almost impossible to lose a bag in the airport.....

BAA did an amazing job in getting enough people to man the scanners etc. These people were pulled from non operational jobs such as non urgent IT, admin staff etc....I was working there at the time and people were queuing up to help in the crisis.

[The Lone Gunman]

There is a reason for only allowing that particular size of container - anything litre sized is big enough to create a big enough bang to bring a plane down.

What there is no justification for is this poxy "one bag rule". It really is a pile of tulipe from BAA to try to keep the queues down whilst they beefed up the number of staff qualified to run the scanners.

Now they have enough they should relax the rule and go back to one cabin sized bag + laptop bag. They might lose a few less bags in their airports then. Wnakers that they are.

Its a farce all round (as stated above).
10 friends = 1 litre of liquid. You can buy 1 litre of anything in duty free to get a big enough bottle.
If they are so concerned about possible dangers why can you buy spirits in duty free. A Glenwhatever bottle makes a pretty good club, once broken it will be a valid knife and the contents are pretty flamable.

Not only that, if everybody had to check everything in then there would not be that mad scramble for locker space and tossers sitting in row 4 blocking the aisle because they ran on first.

[scooterscot]

100ml of nitroglycerin would do the job just fine...

[Moscow Mule]

There is a reason for only allowing that particular size of container - anything litre sized is big enough to create a big enough bang to bring a plane down.

What there is no justification for is this poxy "one bag rule". It really is a pile of tulipe from BAA to try to keep the queues down whilst they beefed up the number of staff qualified to run the scanners.

Now they have enough they should relax the rule and go back to one cabin sized bag + laptop bag. They might lose a few less bags in their airports then. Wnakers that they are.

[daviejones]

There was no need for this ban, just let the security services do their job.

I agree...however they are restricted by the same rules that also make the terrorist job easier.....

[zathras]

The IRA didn't take bombs on planes though!!!

I worked at BAA when this happened and it was madness. If the government did nothing and one of those bombs had gone off, we would be slating them for doing nothing...

Fair enough they might not have fully understood the risk butthey acted and that is better than doing nothing...doing nothing, doesn't save lives...

And NO, I am NOT a NL supporter...

Nobody is expecting the government to do nothing. What I wish they would not do the terrorists job for them. Everytime we get something like this the government runs around like a bunch of headless chickens attempting to look like they were doing something. Meanwhile telling us that we need more queues and have to wait this and that and no you cannot take that hairspray onto the plane. All any self respecting terrorist need do is leave his large bomb in the middle of one of those queues and there will be an almighty outrage. So they swap one unlikely scenario for one all too easy to contemplate.

This government makes no attempt to do risk appraisal on anything to do with this.

And in fact doing nothing would be better than doing the wrong thing, especially if what you are thinking of doing makes the terrrorists job easier!


There was no need for this ban, just let the security services do their job.

[Old Greg]

Next you'll be suggesting that the "wat on terror" is just a Socialist ruse to remove civil liberties and get ID cards in through the back door.

'Authoritarian' ruse, not 'socialist' ruse.

[DBA_bloke]

You are one boring dull dog, do you know that? Did your mother have any puppies that lived?

Agreed.

[daviejones]

Oh, so it's just a coincidence that you talk such tulipe then, eh?

You are one boring dull dog, do you know that? Did your mother have any puppies that lived?

[Churchill]

And NO, I am NOT a NL supporter...

Oh, so it's just a coincidence that you talk such tulipe then, eh?

[daviejones]

Too true , but then what on earth has reality got informing new labour policy - it is far too busy ensuring never the 'twain should meet!

Seriously the liquid ban was always about looking like they were doing something and nothing to do with actually achieving anything. The current terrorist levels seem to me no worse than under the IRA, with the exception that the IRA seem to be far better at building bombs. The comparison that the current war in terror puts London in more danger than during the blitz is laughable to everyone except Sir Ian Blair who actually made the comparison.

So the news that someone is considering it's end is a welcome sign that the government has figured that it is looking pretty stupid trying to persuade a country, which lived 40 years under the threat of a nuclear war, and 30 years under the terrorism is not going to be fazed by a bunch of nutters who have read far too much Tom Clancy!

The IRA didn't take bombs on planes though!!!

I worked at BAA when this happened and it was madness. If the government did nothing and one of those bombs had gone off, we would be slating them for doing nothing...

Fair enough they might not have fully understood the risk butthey acted and that is better than doing nothing...doing nothing, doesn't save lives...

And NO, I am NOT a NL supporter...