In message
AlanG wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 17:27:40 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:



In the UK we still retain the possibility to accompany our loved ones
through check-in and to the outward passport control.

I've never known that.
You don't get past the check in desk without a passport and ticket in
any airport I've been in this last 15 years


Applies at every UK airport I've used: Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, Stanstead,
Southampton, Newcastle, West Midlands, Hurn.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

In message .com
wrote:


Graeme Wall wrote:
In message . com
wrote:


Roger wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
"Steve" wrote in message
...
But, why would you want to object if you have nothing to hide?

If you think that gimmicks and a waste of money like that is going
to make you safer, then you need to be fleeced of even more money,
to pay the clever people fleecing you.

These scanners are a complete waste of time and money! What are they
trying to achieve?

They are trying them out in a "dirty" environment where there are large
variations in temperature, humidity,airborne particulates and
electrical interference. Things not present in an airport departure
lounge. If technical bits work out, then there is the possibility of
employing them on the exterior of airport buildings, and various public
transport venues that are more easily "sealable". Paddington was chosen
because it has a lot of diesel trains using it. It is no more than a
technical trial. Amazing how a simple trial of a bit of kit exercises
so many IQ's in trying to make out that it is an attempt to seal off
Heathrow or interfere with civil liberties! Nothing is 100% effective,
but if this works scanning can be moved from the interior of buildings
to the exterior. At the moment anyone can walk into an airport
terminal, join the huge queues without a single check.

Checks are carried out on people queueing at airports already.

The equipment previously not being capable of coping with the
conditions mentioned above. The thinking behind it is brutally simple,
a bomb outside an enclosed space is mostly less effective than inside
when there are large numbers of people about.


In which case why not try it outside an appropriate building? Sorry Jon,
not getting at you personally, but I'm afraid your explanation sounds
like so much retrospective bull**** to hide the fact that the thing is
pointless in practice and the only object is to justify spending a large
fortune enriching the manufacturing company for no practical purpose. Are
they going to install them outside every single public building in the
country Every pub, shop, council office, MacDonalds and so on? If not
then there is no point in installing any of them. As for Paddington
having a large number of diesel trains using it, how many diesel vehicles
would pass one outside T2, along with all the kerosene fumes from the
aircraft?

The Paddington trial is just one of several that will be tried at other
locations. The idea of doing it at Paddington was to check how reliable the
equipment was in such conditions and being a prototype is bulkier than the
proposed final design.

Still better to try it outside T2 if they genuinely mean to use it at
airports.

Hardly retrospective, this was public knowledge months ago and was even
mentioned here.

My have been known months ago it is still post-decison justification of the
initial decision.

If McDonalds want one they can pay, in general they are used to protect
places where there is a known risk and public transport terminals and
airports are favourite targets for two reasons. Lots of potential
casualties, and lots of disruption afterwards. Blow up a burger joint or a
council office, two weeks later it's out of the public conscience. Blow up
their means of travelling daily and it spreads unease.

Tell that to the Israelis where burger joints, cafes and night club queues
are regular targets. The known risk from terrorist murderers is anywhere
people congregate in large numbers. Remember Bali?

No it isn't pointless and yes I do support the trial now that I know there
is actually a point to it. Paddington is sheltered from the wind and the
particulates linger for longer than they do outside T2.

They also go to ground much quicker without the wind to spread them about.

Paddington also has 25KV init and electronically noisy trains (HST's, 332s
and 360s)

That is the only plausible arguement which leads to the question, what are
the nedical effects of repeated exposure to these scanners?

By testing in a worse case scenario outside T2 will be a doddle. Oh, and
the makers as far as I know do stand to make a lot of money as the system
is likely to sell well around the World,

Of course they do, arse-covering politicians exist in every form of
government known to man

and there is very little public money involved in this trial, and yes I was
briefed.

You presumably accepted the briefing at face value?

Bull**** you not do I.

Can I have that in English, or reasonable approximation thereof?

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:51:43 +0000 someone who may be Graeme Wall
wrote this:-

But that's not as "sexy" as new, cutting-edge equipment, so wouldn't
have appealed to either our politicians or the senior security bods.

Practical answers never do, not when there's a chance of playing with
"sexy" new toys. -(

Quote from New Scientist: The people in charge of homeland security spend
far too much time watching action movies. They defend against specific movie
plots instead of against the broad threats of terrorism.

The quote and Ross are right. The waffle and ire with which such
suggestions tend to be received by some is a good indication that
these criticisms have found their mark.

I think there are a number of factors at work:

1) the public want to "be safe", but are unaware of the complicated
arguments around this.

2) party politicians don't want to be blamed for anything that
happens. Thus they will accept almost anything that is put forward
by officials. See the way they fall over themselves after any
incident to rush ill-considered "laws" through the Westminster
parliament. The recent extension of police detention from two weeks
to a month is a prime example.

3) officials don't want to be blamed for anything that happens. Thus
they will put forward anything.

4) manufacturers want to sell expensive equipment, and employers
earn a margin on the staff they supply.

Note that all of this assumes good motives by those involved and the
public.


What is missing is thorough analysis by people who can think issues
through clearly. Should the UK be turned into East Germany? Would
that make the public safer? Is some so-called security concept
bull**** or a sensible idea? I see little or no sign of this sort of
analysis by those who should be considering this.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

In uk.legal Palindr☻me wrote:
It's not especially hard - if there is a 3D reasonable image, to go from
that, to a fairly decent nude image, based on facial and hand skin tone.
Of course, you won't get exact blemishes, or hair colour, but it'll be
pretty close.

Actually, it would open whole new lines of merchandising - eg "modesty"
panties and bras with woven-in gold/silver wire. The wire could be
woven into words, such as, "If you can read this, you should be ashamed
of yourself"..Or other wording that a lady wouldn't mention..

One argument I've heard is, "Why worry?, you show more on a beach".

Missing the points that many don't and that those that do are doing so
voluntarily. My points are my business and no one else's

Interesting that a woman was refused entrance to a prison in America to
visit her husband (a convict) because she was not wearing a bra. As if
were a danger.

Axel.

wrote:
In uk.legal Palindr☻me wrote:

It's not especially hard - if there is a 3D reasonable image, to go from
that, to a fairly decent nude image, based on facial and hand skin tone.
Of course, you won't get exact blemishes, or hair colour, but it'll be
pretty close.



Actually, it would open whole new lines of merchandising - eg "modesty"
panties and bras with woven-in gold/silver wire. The wire could be
woven into words, such as, "If you can read this, you should be ashamed
of yourself"..Or other wording that a lady wouldn't mention..



One argument I've heard is, "Why worry?, you show more on a beach".



Missing the points that many don't and that those that do are doing so

voluntarily. My points are my business and no one else's


Interesting that a woman was refused entrance to a prison in America to
visit her husband (a convict) because she was not wearing a bra. As if
were a danger.

Very moral and upright people, the Americans. I am surprised that she
didn't get locked up herself, as a result. An affront to public decency,
without a doubt.

It was possibly that she mde it evident that she was not wearing one -
rather than the simple situation of not doing so. Some points of the law
can be less obvious than others.

A lady, of course, would never allow such a situation to arise. The best
kept secrets are best kept secret.

--
Sue

In uk.legal Roland Perry wrote:
I've never known that.
You don't get past the check in desk without a passport and ticket in
any airport I've been in this last 15 years

The only exceptions I've found are some American airlines who want to
ask passengers their security questions "did you pack this bag..." and
so on, as they join the check-in queue rather than when they get to the
desk. In those cases you have to wait nearby while they check in, but
can still be with them most of the time until they join the passport
control queue.

I recently accompanied a friend to an airport and she was asked by
an airline persoa (Continental) whenn when she arrived in the UK. None
of their business. A pity it was not a different friend of mine as he would
have told them to **** off since he has both UK and US passportd.

Axel

In article ,
Palindrâ »me wrote:

A lady, of course, would never allow such a situation to arise. The best
kept secrets are best kept secret.

Secrecy is an option no lady will have, if the terahertz strip-search
technology comes into general use.

Incidentally the one at Paddington is an active scanner according to
the company that made it, not a passive receiver as the publicity claims.

Nick
--
So when is Tony Blair going to start treating *us* with respect ?

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:55:34 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

In message
AlanG wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 17:27:40 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:



In the UK we still retain the possibility to accompany our loved ones
through check-in and to the outward passport control.

I've never known that.
You don't get past the check in desk without a passport and ticket in
any airport I've been in this last 15 years


Applies at every UK airport I've used: Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, Stanstead,
Southampton, Newcastle, West Midlands, Hurn.

We've been stopped at Newcastle , Teesside and Manchester by a bloke
with a badge.

In message
AlanG wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:55:34 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

In message
AlanG wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 17:27:40 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:



In the UK we still retain the possibility to accompany our loved ones
through check-in and to the outward passport control.

I've never known that. You don't get past the check in desk without a
passport and ticket in any airport I've been in this last 15 years


Applies at every UK airport I've used: Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton,
Stanstead, Southampton, Newcastle, West Midlands, Hurn.

We've been stopped at Newcastle , Teesside and Manchester by a bloke with a
badge.

What sort of badge? Ian Allan Planespotters Club?

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

In message , at 16:58:41 on
Mon, 16 Jan 2006, AlanG remarked:
I've never known that.
You don't get past the check in desk without a passport and ticket in
any airport I've been in this last 15 years


Applies at every UK airport I've used: Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, Stanstead,
Southampton, Newcastle, West Midlands, Hurn.

We've been stopped at Newcastle , Teesside and Manchester by a bloke
with a badge.

And I wasn't stopped at EMA. Indeed, the departure lounge is almost at
the other end of the terminal buildings from check-in (great planning,
guys - almost as good as having immigration in a shed a hundred yards
from the nearest place to park an apron bus, so a guaranteed dousing
when it rains). There's nothing they could do to stop you rejoining your
friends after you have your boarding pass and walking all that way
together.

It's not like *some* foreign airports (I think Tenerife South is like
this) where you are hustled past and behind the check-in desk and
straight into security, rather than back onto the concourse.
--
Roland Perry