On 15 Jan 2006 04:00:45 -0800, wrote in
. com, seen in
uk.railway:

At the moment anyone can
walk into an airport terminal, join the huge queues without a single
check. The equipment previously not being capable of coping with the
conditions mentioned above.

The Turkish manage to seal their airport terminals very effectively by
simply having the security check at the terminal building's entrance
doors.

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. -(
--
Ross, in Lincoln, most likely being cynical or sarcastic, as ever.
Reply-to will bounce. Replace the junk-trap with my name to e-mail me.

Demonstration of poor photography at http://ross.photobook.org.uk
AD: http://www.merciacharters.co.uk for European charters gripped by me

"Ross" wrote in message
...
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. -(

The company involved, wouldn't be a Labour Party donor, would it?

writes:

"Ross" wrote in message
...
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. -(

The company involved, wouldn't be a Labour Party donor, would it?

I believe they're using Qinetiq stuff. The Government is hoping to
sell off about half of its 56% share in Qinetiq in February.

(S)

Owen Dunn wrote:
writes:

"Ross" wrote in message
...
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. -(

The company involved, wouldn't be a Labour Party donor, would it?

I believe they're using Qinetiq stuff. The Government is hoping to
sell off about half of its 56% share in Qinetiq in February.

(S)

If you are talking about Paddington it is not Qinetiq, but I'm sure
they are involved in the trials elsewhere.

In article ,
Ross wrote:
On 15 Jan 2006 04:00:45 -0800, wrote in
.com, seen in
uk.railway:
At the moment anyone can
walk into an airport terminal, join the huge queues without a single
check. The equipment previously not being capable of coping with the
conditions mentioned above.

The Turkish manage to seal their airport terminals very effectively by
simply having the security check at the terminal building's entrance
doors.

This was also done at Aldergrove in the '80s.

--
RIP Morph (1977-2005)

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:04:50 +0000, Ross
wrote:

The Turkish manage to seal their airport terminals very effectively by
simply having the security check at the terminal building's entrance
doors.

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.

So what's the door check consist of? A quick glance, or "sexy"
equipment?

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006, Laurence Payne wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:04:50 +0000, Ross
wrote:

The Turkish manage to seal their airport terminals very effectively by
simply having the security check at the terminal building's entrance
doors.

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.

So what's the door check consist of? A quick glance, or "sexy"
equipment?

Maybe a quick, sexy glance?

tom

--
I think it would be a good idea -- Mohandas Gandhi, on Western
civilisation

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:04:50 +0000, Ross
wrote:

On 15 Jan 2006 04:00:45 -0800, wrote in
.com, seen in
uk.railway:

At the moment anyone can
walk into an airport terminal, join the huge queues without a single
check. The equipment previously not being capable of coping with the
conditions mentioned above.

The Turkish manage to seal their airport terminals very effectively by
simply having the security check at the terminal building's entrance
doors.

They used to do the same at Bucharest, with the baggage X-ray machines
outside the doors.
--
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

In message
Ross wrote:

On 15 Jan 2006 04:00:45 -0800, wrote in
. com, seen in
uk.railway:

At the moment anyone can
walk into an airport terminal, join the huge queues without a single
check. The equipment previously not being capable of coping with the
conditions mentioned above.

The Turkish manage to seal their airport terminals very effectively by
simply having the security check at the terminal building's entrance
doors.

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.

--
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