On 15/07/14 12:29, F wrote:
On 15/07/2014 12:13 Tim Watts wrote:

Best airport - Riga in 1997. Walk across tarmac - show passport at one
of 2 huts, through door into hall. Road is 30m away the otherside of the
large hall. Hole in wall where they literally lobbed the suitcases
through.

Out in about 25 minutes!

Masai Mara.

Having a drink in the open air watching elephants and a waitress comes
up to us and announces 'You're plane is waiting sir.' We climb into a
Land Rover alongside the pilots and are driven to the plane on the grass
airstrip. The pilot opens the door to the plane, bags are thrown on, he
asks us to fasten belts and points out the 'emergency exit (the door we
just came through), walks to the front, climbs in his seat and we take off.

Priceless!


Style

Was that an internal flight? If so, then I can claim that
Blackwater-Brisbane (Queensland, Aus) was not far off.

"Terminal" building was a portacabin. Get dropped off in a car park and
sit on the benches. "Terminal" door opens and we are invited to show
tickets briefly and chuck our bag on the scales.

10 minutes later, they open the wire netting gate and we walk onto the
plane and take off. OK - they did have tarmac.

That really was like getting on a bus, but with less chewing gum on the
floor...

On 15/07/2014 13:04 Tim Watts wrote:

On 15/07/14 12:29, F wrote:
On 15/07/2014 12:13 Tim Watts wrote:

Best airport - Riga in 1997. Walk across tarmac - show passport at one
of 2 huts, through door into hall. Road is 30m away the otherside of the
large hall. Hole in wall where they literally lobbed the suitcases
through.

Out in about 25 minutes!

Masai Mara.

Having a drink in the open air watching elephants and a waitress comes
up to us and announces 'You're plane is waiting sir.' We climb into a
Land Rover alongside the pilots and are driven to the plane on the grass
airstrip. The pilot opens the door to the plane, bags are thrown on, he
asks us to fasten belts and points out the 'emergency exit (the door we
just came through), walks to the front, climbs in his seat and we take
off.

Priceless!


Style

Was that an internal flight?

Mombasa - Masai Mara - Mombasa in a Twin Otter.

We had an 'interesting' view of Kilimanjaro: we had to look *up* to see
the summit.

--
F

On 15/07/2014 12:13, Tim Watts wrote:
On 15/07/14 10:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/07/14 08:23, RJH wrote:

I think we spent a total of 7 hours in airports for a 2 hour flight.

Sounds about right.

3 hours to arrive, lose car, check in (could be 2 hours, but you always
need padding for transport delays unless you are in an airport hotel).

1 hour getting out the other end if you are lucky!

Best airport - Riga in 1997. Walk across tarmac - show passport at one
of 2 huts, through door into hall. Road is 30m away the otherside of the
large hall. Hole in wall where they literally lobbed the suitcases through.

Out in about 25 minutes!

A bit slow then.

Cicargo,
arrived late for plane.
took about 4 minutes to get through security.
ran to check in
got to gate as they were closing it.
told we couldn't get our luggage in hold as it was too late and it would
be put on a later flight.
went down to plane
shut doors behind us and pushed off.

About 15 mins total.

And when we got to the other end we had our bags so someone must have
took them down the step and chucked them in the hold.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
hugh neary wrote

It seems that the proof that someone is carrying a phone, laptop or
bomb is to ask the owner to turn it on. If it works then it's fine and
perfectly safe to zoom around the skies with a few hundred passengers.

What's the game? It seems almost as stupid as looking
for terrorists with tanks although there were more
obvious reasons behind that particular scam.

Anyway can anyone suggest what possible use the "turn on" test could be?

Presumably to check if its been gutted and stuff with explosive.

There isnt a lot of space most phones or laptops to put explosive in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63u6b-eHYzU

On 15/07/2014 12:13, Tim Watts wrote:
....
Best airport - Riga in 1997. Walk across tarmac - show passport at one
of 2 huts, through door into hall. Road is 30m away the otherside of the
large hall. Hole in wall where they literally lobbed the suitcases through.

Out in about 25 minutes!

Fairly standard for any UK airport in the 1960s. The only check anybody
made was your passport and there was never any queue. On Dan Air, in the
very early 1960s when he was still flying Dakotas, you carried your own
bag out to the aircraft and handed it to the stewardess, who put it in a
compartment at the back.

--
Colin Bignell

On 15/07/2014 09:12, Brian Gaff wrote:
I was reading some article on line about two years ago about how small a
container of Sarin gas could be to effectively disable a whole aircraft
through the air circulation system. It is frightening and not an explosive
in sight.
Really, it is worrying but then again, if you are in the wrong place at the
wrong time there are lots fo dangers in the world.

Indeed - and for all the movie plot terrorist attacks and techniques,
the saving grace is that there are very very few actual terrorists out
there. Our perception of the risk is skewed by the events being rare,
newsworthy, and outside of our control - never a good combination for
assessing risk.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 15/07/2014 10:53, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 20:54:19 +0100, John Williamson wrote:

In much the same way, every coach passing through the ferry ports
travelling from France to England is stopped, and all the passengers
made to get off and walk through passport control while the coach is
searched.
Superficially. It inconveniences people, and makes them think that
something necessary is being done. Or the random explosives screening on
the Channel Tunnel. One in ten vehicles or thereabouts is stopped at
random. If it's not random, it's a good imitation, as they seem to run a
one out, one in policy at the screening bays.

When the Israelis stop a car for a search, they perform the search at
least 100 metres away from the queue - the obvious point being that if
there is a bomb, and it detonates, it won't take too many innocents with
it.

When UK police "search" for "bombs" they do it in line. Which leads me to
conclude that they have no concern for the safety of the queue, or they
have no expectation of finding a bomb.


At the Eurotunnel terminal, traffic is held back short of the search
area and only allowed to proceed when the exit beyond the search area is
clear. The actual search area is well off to one side of the road. It
would need to be a very large bomb to take out more than the search
staff. IME, they rely far more on speaking to the car occupants than
actually searching the car.

--
Colin Bignell

+

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 15/07/14 10:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/07/14 08:23, RJH wrote:

I think we spent a total of 7 hours in airports for a 2 hour flight.

Sounds about right.

3 hours to arrive, lose car, check in (could be 2 hours, but you always
need padding for transport delays unless you are in an airport hotel).

1 hour getting out the other end if you are lucky!

Best airport - Riga in 1997. Walk across tarmac - show passport at one of
2 huts, through door into hall. Road is 30m away the otherside of the
large hall. Hole in wall where they literally lobbed the suitcases
through.

Out in about 25 minutes!

Our regional airport is still like that even now. Tons of parking outside
the terminal, one decent sized building that isnt even as big as a normal
supermarket. Trivially easy to get thru in 15 mins at most.

"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 11:45:53 +0100, newshound wrote:

On 15/07/2014 10:56, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 09:53:39 +0100, newshound wrote:

On 14/07/2014 19:47, hugh neary wrote:
It seems that the proof that someone is carrying a phone, laptop or
bomb is to ask the owner to turn it on. If it works then it's fine
and perfectly safe to zoom around the skies with a few hundred
passengers.

What's the game? It seems almost as stupid as looking for terrorists
with tanks although there were more obvious reasons behind that
particular scam.

Anyway can anyone suggest what possible use the "turn on" test could
be?

HN

I don't buy the posted argument that it's all about scaring passengers
and showing "something is being done".

I think there are sound (and pragmatic) technical arguments behind the
advice, and that it is a bad idea to discuss them here. I am sure that
many of us could come up with good terrorist strategies and
counter-strategies; but why risk giving bad people good ideas.

Because it helps the good people think like bad people ?

I'm curious as to why terrorists are so infatuated with air travel -
which affects a tiny minority of the population. I can think of far
more straightforward ways of terrorising the population which are
incredibly low-tech. Which rather makes me wonder if the terrorists are
being as honest with us as our own security services.


Two reasons.

1) Passenger plane targets get a big media profile

Fair point


2) The "high mile" travellers are generally high profile people: CEOs,
pop stars, etc, so strikes disproportionately hit the top 0.1%.

I've never heard this as a reason for targeting airplanes ...
if 9/11 took out a higher proportion of high-earners, it's more
likely because they were *in* the twin towers, than the planes.

True.

Anyway, there are many simple, and hard to counter ways to bring terror
to the population than concentrating on small, highly protected areas.

Yeah, most obviously with car bombs.

And given that the great British public are quite capable of terrorising
themselves, with paedo scares and horsemeat scandals, it's debatable as
to whether they'd notice any more.

Corse they would notice if someone did a 9/11
with the houses of parliament or the gherkin etc.

They certainly noticed with the underground and buses.

In article , says...

John Williamson wrote:

Looking at it dispassionately, though, it's just a way to convince the
travelling public that there is a threat worth worrying about.

Or, more cleverly, it's a way to convince the travelling terrorist that
their super new smuggling system isn't going to work so there's no point
trying.

Nah.

It's so the Security personnel can have a go at Angry Birds in order to
pass the time.

--
Sam

On 15/07/2014 12:13, Tim Watts wrote:
On 15/07/14 10:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/07/14 08:23, RJH wrote:

I think we spent a total of 7 hours in airports for a 2 hour flight.

Sounds about right.

3 hours to arrive, lose car, check in (could be 2 hours, but you always
need padding for transport delays unless you are in an airport hotel).

1 hour getting out the other end if you are lucky!

Best airport - Riga in 1997. Walk across tarmac - show passport at one
of 2 huts, through door into hall. Road is 30m away the otherside of the
large hall. Hole in wall where they literally lobbed the suitcases through.

Out in about 25 minutes!

Best airport? Southampton and Newcastle.

Get to airport, walk over and shake hands with pilot and co-pilot, walk
out to aircraft, taxi and take-off. Reverse just as good.

A huge advantage having a company aircraft...

Riga pretty good about 10 years ago.

Dubai excellent around 1992 - land, baggage available as soon as I got
to the terminal, straight through to waiting taxi. Speed was limited by
how fast I could walk.

--
Rod

On 15/07/14 13:24, Dennis@home wrote:
On 15/07/2014 12:13, Tim Watts wrote:
On 15/07/14 10:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/07/14 08:23, RJH wrote:

I think we spent a total of 7 hours in airports for a 2 hour flight.

Sounds about right.

3 hours to arrive, lose car, check in (could be 2 hours, but you always
need padding for transport delays unless you are in an airport hotel).

1 hour getting out the other end if you are lucky!

Best airport - Riga in 1997. Walk across tarmac - show passport at one
of 2 huts, through door into hall. Road is 30m away the otherside of the
large hall. Hole in wall where they literally lobbed the suitcases
through.

Out in about 25 minutes!

A bit slow then.

Cicargo,
arrived late for plane.
took about 4 minutes to get through security.
ran to check in
got to gate as they were closing it.
told we couldn't get our luggage in hold as it was too late and it would
be put on a later flight.
went down to plane
shut doors behind us and pushed off.

About 15 mins total.

And when we got to the other end we had our bags so someone must have
took them down the step and chucked them in the hold.

about 20 years ago.
2pm Telephone booking for flight London City to Paris
2:20 got taxi at Holborn
2:50 arrive LCY, check-in, slight delay while payment processd
straight out to plane on tarmac by passing usual process
3pm onto plane, door closes behind and we are off.
I think there were only two other passengers on that flight.

--
djc

On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 11:18:59 +0100, F news@nowhere wrote:

On 14/07/2014 20:59 bert wrote:

What's your alternative? Just wait for an aircraft to be blown
out the sky and then blame the security services?

We were in the queue to go through security in Mombasa Airport a few
years ago just a week after someone had been picked up trying to get a
gun through. A woman in the queue started moaning at length about the
ten or so minute delay the extra checks were taking. She shut up when I
asked if she would prefer a two minute fall from 30,000 feet.

Some people just don't think it through...

Observed some really **** poor security in Greece back in the mid 80's. Arabs
had been throwing hand grenades around Athens for many years, mainly but not
always at Israeli targets, yet despite a recent hijacking of a TWA jet
transiting Athens their *entire* security check at the airport amounted to
partly opening a bag and briefly glancing at the items on the top. Same
procedure for everyone, even shady looking middle eastern types.

Fecking Heathrow *domestic* security have driven me nuts many times over the
years particularly in the 1990's. Insisting on x-ray checks on *everything* in
your pockets if you accidentally triggered a metal detector with loose change or
keys. When you happened to be carrying in your jacket pocket a few weeks almost
irreplaceable work and that stood a very big chance of being destroyed or
corrupted if the mains dipped or spiked as it went through the machine you felt
like punching the ****ers in the gob for being so damn stupid.

So after this happened a couple of times I took to unloading everything
including my keys, phone, change, jacket and belt into one of their containers
for the scanner except the item I was carrying stuffed down my underpants.
Worked like a charm every time. And before you start asking, no it was nothing
illegal, just a protest at the terminal ****wits in security that really should
have been culled at birth. I suspect many of these turds of the human race went
on to be fully paid up members of Greenpeace or FoE.


--

On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 11:32:01 +0100, F news@nowhere wrote:

On 14/07/2014 23:07 Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:

I don't mind flying. What I object to is usually spending more time in
the airport than in the air.

On more than one occasion we have spent more time between push back and
the wheels leaving the runway at Heathrow than we were actually in the
air between there and Leeds Bradford.

That doesn't surprise me despite the routing being non direct and usually via
overhead Birmingham around the airport / NEC

London Manchester was a regular trip a few years ago. 15 mins taxi food
literally thrown at passengers during climb, level for 30 secs, descend, trays
collected, land, another 10 minute taxi. Total time in the air was less than 20
mins if it was a straight in approach to London at a quieter time of day.


--

On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 11:29:25 +0100, F news@nowhere wrote:

On 14/07/2014 22:27 The Other Mike wrote:

Flying is very safe, the plane exploding and falling apart into thousands of
pieces at 30000 feet and then hitting the ground a few minutes later is the
dangerous bit.

Driving at high speed is similarly safe. It's the quick stop when you
hit something solid that does the damage.

Also picking red hot shrapnel out of your flesh is a bit difficult with no arms


--

On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 19:47:40 +0100, hugh neary
wrote:

It seems that the proof that someone is carrying a phone, laptop or
bomb is to ask the owner to turn it on. If it works then it's fine and
perfectly safe to zoom around the skies with a few hundred passengers.

What's the game? It seems almost as stupid as looking for terrorists
with tanks although there were more obvious reasons behind that
particular scam.

Anyway can anyone suggest what possible use the "turn on" test could

It's a risible test and childishly simple to circumvent. Someone at
the home office needs their head kicked in.

On 15 Jul 2014 20:50:13 GMT, Huge wrote:


And grossly exaggerated by scummy politicians who want to rail-road through
****ty "surveillance state" legislation.

Well put, sir! The truth is that 'they' are the ones who need
watching....very closely indeed.... 24/7....

"Cursitor Doom" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 19:47:40 +0100, hugh neary
wrote:

It seems that the proof that someone is carrying a phone, laptop or
bomb is to ask the owner to turn it on. If it works then it's fine and
perfectly safe to zoom around the skies with a few hundred passengers.

What's the game? It seems almost as stupid as looking for terrorists
with tanks although there were more obvious reasons behind that
particular scam.

Anyway can anyone suggest what possible use the "turn on" test could

It's a risible test and childishly simple to circumvent.

Not when looking fine on the xray too.

Someone at the home office needs their head kicked in.

Or you do.

On Wed, 16 Jul 2014 09:30:43 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"Cursitor Doom" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 19:47:40 +0100, hugh neary
wrote:

It seems that the proof that someone is carrying a phone, laptop or
bomb is to ask the owner to turn it on. If it works then it's fine and
perfectly safe to zoom around the skies with a few hundred passengers.

What's the game? It seems almost as stupid as looking for terrorists
with tanks although there were more obvious reasons behind that
particular scam.

Anyway can anyone suggest what possible use the "turn on" test could

It's a risible test and childishly simple to circumvent.

Not when looking fine on the xray too.

Someone at the home office needs their head kicked in.

Or you do.

No, I need my head *examined* - the bloke at the HO needs his kicked
in.

On 15/07/2014 22:58, djc wrote:
On 15/07/14 13:24, Dennis@home wrote:
On 15/07/2014 12:13, Tim Watts wrote:
On 15/07/14 10:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/07/14 08:23, RJH wrote:

I think we spent a total of 7 hours in airports for a 2 hour flight.

Sounds about right.

3 hours to arrive, lose car, check in (could be 2 hours, but you always
need padding for transport delays unless you are in an airport hotel).

1 hour getting out the other end if you are lucky!

Best airport - Riga in 1997. Walk across tarmac - show passport at one
of 2 huts, through door into hall. Road is 30m away the otherside of the
large hall. Hole in wall where they literally lobbed the suitcases
through.

Out in about 25 minutes!

A bit slow then.

Cicargo,
arrived late for plane.
took about 4 minutes to get through security.
ran to check in
got to gate as they were closing it.
told we couldn't get our luggage in hold as it was too late and it would
be put on a later flight.
went down to plane
shut doors behind us and pushed off.

About 15 mins total.

And when we got to the other end we had our bags so someone must have
took them down the step and chucked them in the hold.

about 20 years ago.
2pm Telephone booking for flight London City to Paris
2:20 got taxi at Holborn
2:50 arrive LCY, check-in, slight delay while payment processd
straight out to plane on tarmac by passing usual process
3pm onto plane, door closes behind and we are off.
I think there were only two other passengers on that flight.


Yep, I remember that, as recently as the mid-90s. Used to fly to Dublin
a couple of times a year. Home-bus-plane-taxi-B+B in 2 hours

--
Cheers, Rob

In message , Huge
writes
On 2014-07-15, John Rumm wrote:
On 15/07/2014 09:12, Brian Gaff wrote:
I was reading some article on line about two years ago about how small a
container of Sarin gas could be to effectively disable a whole aircraft
through the air circulation system. It is frightening and not an explosive
in sight.
Really, it is worrying but then again, if you are in the wrong
place at the
wrong time there are lots fo dangers in the world.

Indeed - and for all the movie plot terrorist attacks and techniques,
the saving grace is that there are very very few actual terrorists out
there. Our perception of the risk is skewed by the events being rare,
newsworthy, and outside of our control -

And grossly exaggerated by scummy politicians who want to rail-road through
****ty "surveillance state" legislation.

Very east to say that when you're not the one who would have to carry
the can.
--
bert

On 16/07/2014 17:00, bert wrote:
In message , Huge
writes
On 2014-07-15, John Rumm wrote:
On 15/07/2014 09:12, Brian Gaff wrote:
I was reading some article on line about two years ago about how
small a
container of Sarin gas could be to effectively disable a whole aircraft
through the air circulation system. It is frightening and not an
explosive
in sight.
Really, it is worrying but then again, if you are in the wrong
place at the
wrong time there are lots fo dangers in the world.

Indeed - and for all the movie plot terrorist attacks and techniques,
the saving grace is that there are very very few actual terrorists out
there. Our perception of the risk is skewed by the events being rare,
newsworthy, and outside of our control -

And grossly exaggerated by scummy politicians who want to rail-road
through
****ty "surveillance state" legislation.

Very east to say that when you're not the one who would have to carry
the can.

That is why you need politicians that actually have the balls to respond
to those cries of "the government must do something" with a firm "no, in
this circumstance doing nothing (or doing what we are already doing) is
actually better" when that is a more appropriate response.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 17/07/2014 12:10, John Rumm wrote:
On 16/07/2014 17:00, bert wrote:
In message , Huge
writes
On 2014-07-15, John Rumm wrote:
On 15/07/2014 09:12, Brian Gaff wrote:
I was reading some article on line about two years ago about how
small a
container of Sarin gas could be to effectively disable a whole
aircraft
through the air circulation system. It is frightening and not an
explosive
in sight.
Really, it is worrying but then again, if you are in the wrong
place at the
wrong time there are lots fo dangers in the world.

Indeed - and for all the movie plot terrorist attacks and techniques,
the saving grace is that there are very very few actual terrorists out
there. Our perception of the risk is skewed by the events being rare,
newsworthy, and outside of our control -

And grossly exaggerated by scummy politicians who want to rail-road
through
****ty "surveillance state" legislation.

Very east to say that when you're not the one who would have to carry
the can.

That is why you need politicians that actually have the balls to respond
to those cries of "the government must do something" with a firm "no, in
this circumstance doing nothing (or doing what we are already doing) is
actually better" when that is a more appropriate response.


Reminds me of the politician's syllogism from Peter Jay's "Yes Minister".

Something must be done.
This is "something".
Therefore it must be done.

However in *this* case it sounds to me much more like an
intelligence-led issue, with demonstrating functionality as quite a
reasonable test. Bearing in mind that the item will already have been
through x-ray, quite possibly with pattern matching software.

newshound wrote:

However in *this* case it sounds to me much more like an
intelligence-led issue, with demonstrating functionality as quite a
reasonable test.

It probably is a reasonable test for the short term, but now the
terrorists know they can't completely gut a laptop and then get it
through security with the excuse that the battery is flat, so they'll
have to make it keep working and only be half-gutted, if the
intelligence-led tests keept up with that sort of development every few
months, fair enough, but in general the "something" becomes a long term
measure even if it's just to make people feel safe the same way as the
bottled water and toothpaste rules have.

On 15/07/2014 10:40, Scott M wrote:
John Williamson wrote:

Looking at it dispassionately, though, it's just a way to convince the
travelling public that there is a threat worth worrying about.

Or, more cleverly, it's a way to convince the travelling terrorist that
their super new smuggling system isn't going to work so there's no point
trying.

It would only be a minor change of plan for the terrorist to take a
train instead.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 17/07/2014 22:37, John Rumm wrote:
On 15/07/2014 10:40, Scott M wrote:
John Williamson wrote:

Looking at it dispassionately, though, it's just a way to convince the
travelling public that there is a threat worth worrying about.

Or, more cleverly, it's a way to convince the travelling terrorist that
their super new smuggling system isn't going to work so there's no point
trying.

It would only be a minor change of plan for the terrorist to take a
train instead.


At which point they would find that on Eurostar at least, the security
checks are almost the same as for flying, and you need a *much* bigger
bomb to damage a train than a plane. Unless it's on the track, set to
break a rail shortly before a train is due.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 18/07/2014 08:57, John Williamson wrote:
On 17/07/2014 22:37, John Rumm wrote:
On 15/07/2014 10:40, Scott M wrote:
John Williamson wrote:

Looking at it dispassionately, though, it's just a way to convince the
travelling public that there is a threat worth worrying about.

Or, more cleverly, it's a way to convince the travelling terrorist that
their super new smuggling system isn't going to work so there's no point
trying.

It would only be a minor change of plan for the terrorist to take a
train instead.


At which point they would find that on Eurostar at least, the security
checks are almost the same as for flying, and you need a *much* bigger
bomb to damage a train than a plane. Unless it's on the track, set to
break a rail shortly before a train is due.


According to my Home Guard Manual, that needs a couple of pounds of
guncotton.

--
Colin Bignell

On 18/07/2014 09:15, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 18/07/2014 08:57, John Williamson wrote:
On 17/07/2014 22:37, John Rumm wrote:
On 15/07/2014 10:40, Scott M wrote:
John Williamson wrote:

Looking at it dispassionately, though, it's just a way to convince the
travelling public that there is a threat worth worrying about.

Or, more cleverly, it's a way to convince the travelling terrorist that
their super new smuggling system isn't going to work so there's no
point
trying.

It would only be a minor change of plan for the terrorist to take a
train instead.


At which point they would find that on Eurostar at least, the security
checks are almost the same as for flying, and you need a *much* bigger
bomb to damage a train than a plane. Unless it's on the track, set to
break a rail shortly before a train is due.


According to my Home Guard Manual, that needs a couple of pounds of
guncotton.

Or a slab of C-4 about the size of a large bar of chocolate.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 18/07/2014 10:41, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 09:15:15 +0100, Nightjar \"cpb\"@ wrote:

On 18/07/2014 08:57, John Williamson wrote:
On 17/07/2014 22:37, John Rumm wrote:
On 15/07/2014 10:40, Scott M wrote:
John Williamson wrote:

Looking at it dispassionately, though, it's just a way to convince
the travelling public that there is a threat worth worrying about.

Or, more cleverly, it's a way to convince the travelling terrorist
that their super new smuggling system isn't going to work so there's
no point trying.

It would only be a minor change of plan for the terrorist to take a
train instead.


At which point they would find that on Eurostar at least, the security
checks are almost the same as for flying, and you need a *much* bigger
bomb to damage a train than a plane. Unless it's on the track, set to
break a rail shortly before a train is due.


According to my Home Guard Manual, that needs a couple of pounds of
guncotton.

So you possess something of use to a terrorist ? Printed by HMG ?

Does it tell you who you were to bump off, if the Nazis made it across
the channel ?


It is a reprint of the manual issued to the Home Guard in New Zealand,
so they probably weren't too worried about the Germans.

--
Colin Bignell

On 18/07/2014 09:35, John Williamson wrote:
On 18/07/2014 09:15, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 18/07/2014 08:57, John Williamson wrote:
On 17/07/2014 22:37, John Rumm wrote:
On 15/07/2014 10:40, Scott M wrote:
John Williamson wrote:

Looking at it dispassionately, though, it's just a way to convince
the
travelling public that there is a threat worth worrying about.

Or, more cleverly, it's a way to convince the travelling terrorist
that
their super new smuggling system isn't going to work so there's no
point
trying.

It would only be a minor change of plan for the terrorist to take a
train instead.


At which point they would find that on Eurostar at least, the security
checks are almost the same as for flying, and you need a *much* bigger
bomb to damage a train than a plane. Unless it's on the track, set to
break a rail shortly before a train is due.


According to my Home Guard Manual, that needs a couple of pounds of
guncotton.

Or a slab of C-4 about the size of a large bar of chocolate.

We learned how to make guncotton in chemistry at school. We never found
out how to make C4 :-)

--
Colin Bignell

On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 15:43:22 +0100, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my surname
here wrote:

We learned how to make guncotton in chemistry at school. We never found
out how to make C4 :-)

http://www.google.com/patents/US3018203


--

On 18/07/2014 16:37, The Other Mike wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 15:43:22 +0100, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my surname
here wrote:

We learned how to make guncotton in chemistry at school. We never found
out how to make C4 :-)

http://www.google.com/patents/US3018203



Probably as well we never knew. Somebody would have been sure to try to
make it. I'm not certain how good the guncotton we made was. It burned
spectacularly quickly in open air, but nobody fancied trying to make a
detonator.

--
Colin Bignell

On 18/07/2014 17:55, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 18/07/2014 16:37, The Other Mike wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 15:43:22 +0100, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my
surname
here wrote:

We learned how to make guncotton in chemistry at school. We never found
out how to make C4 :-)

http://www.google.com/patents/US3018203



Probably as well we never knew. Somebody would have been sure to try to
make it. I'm not certain how good the guncotton we made was. It burned
spectacularly quickly in open air, but nobody fancied trying to make a
detonator.

Instructions are available, an anonymising server is recommended for the
research. ;-)

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 18/07/2014 18:08, John Williamson wrote:
On 18/07/2014 17:55, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 18/07/2014 16:37, The Other Mike wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 15:43:22 +0100, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my
surname
here wrote:

We learned how to make guncotton in chemistry at school. We never found
out how to make C4 :-)

http://www.google.com/patents/US3018203



Probably as well we never knew. Somebody would have been sure to try to
make it. I'm not certain how good the guncotton we made was. It burned
spectacularly quickly in open air, but nobody fancied trying to make a
detonator.

Instructions are available, an anonymising server is recommended for the
research. ;-)


We knew what to make. We just couldn't find anybody willing to risk
losing a finger or two :-)

--
Colin Bignell

F wrote:
On 15/07/2014 12:13 Tim Watts wrote:

Best airport - Riga in 1997. Walk across tarmac - show passport at one
of 2 huts, through door into hall. Road is 30m away the otherside of the
large hall. Hole in wall where they literally lobbed the suitcases
through.

Out in about 25 minutes!

Masai Mara.

Having a drink in the open air watching elephants and a waitress comes
up to us and announces 'You're plane is waiting sir.' We climb into a
Land Rover alongside the pilots and are driven to the plane on the grass
airstrip. The pilot opens the door to the plane, bags are thrown on, he
asks us to fasten belts and points out the 'emergency exit (the door we
just came through), walks to the front, climbs in his seat and we take off.

Priceless!

Here in the outback they used to have smallish planes for moving about
Australia and one of the tradesmen I worked with related a trip he had
once, all the passengers got on the plane and sat down to wait for the
pilot after a time a seemingly drunk man got up and said, well if the
pilot is not coming I might as well do it and he walked to the front to
the cockpit and took off.He was the pilot playing tricks on everybody.

In article om,
F Murtz wrote:
F wrote:
On 15/07/2014 12:13 Tim Watts wrote:

Best airport - Riga in 1997. Walk across tarmac - show passport at one
of 2 huts, through door into hall. Road is 30m away the otherside of the
large hall. Hole in wall where they literally lobbed the suitcases
through.

Out in about 25 minutes!

Masai Mara.

Having a drink in the open air watching elephants and a waitress comes
up to us and announces 'You're plane is waiting sir.' We climb into a
Land Rover alongside the pilots and are driven to the plane on the grass
airstrip. The pilot opens the door to the plane, bags are thrown on, he
asks us to fasten belts and points out the 'emergency exit (the door we
just came through), walks to the front, climbs in his seat and we take off.

Priceless!

Here in the outback they used to have smallish planes for moving about
Australia and one of the tradesmen I worked with related a trip he had
once, all the passengers got on the plane and sat down to wait for the
pilot after a time a seemingly drunk man got up and said, well if the
pilot is not coming I might as well do it and he walked to the front to
the cockpit and took off.He was the pilot playing tricks on everybody.

I was also done on one of the Orkney inter-island flights on an April
first. The pilot got sacked.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

John Rumm writes:

On 16/07/2014 17:00, bert wrote:
In message , Huge
writes
On 2014-07-15, John Rumm wrote:
On 15/07/2014 09:12, Brian Gaff wrote:
I was reading some article on line about two years ago about how
small a
container of Sarin gas could be to effectively disable a whole aircraft
through the air circulation system. It is frightening and not an
explosive
in sight.
Really, it is worrying but then again, if you are in the wrong
place at the
wrong time there are lots fo dangers in the world.

Indeed - and for all the movie plot terrorist attacks and techniques,
the saving grace is that there are very very few actual terrorists out
there. Our perception of the risk is skewed by the events being rare,
newsworthy, and outside of our control -

And grossly exaggerated by scummy politicians who want to rail-road
through
****ty "surveillance state" legislation.

Very east to say that when you're not the one who would have to carry
the can.

That is why you need politicians that actually have the balls to respond
to those cries of "the government must do something" with a firm "no, in
this circumstance doing nothing (or doing what we are already doing) is
actually better" when that is a more appropriate response.

What chance is there of that happening when GCHQ et alii have the
lowdown on all politicians *and* their families?

I wonder how many of the people accused of sex scandals in the current
witch hunts were uncovered by or on behalf of outside interests.

The whole thing appalls me.
Hunting down 80 and 90 year olds for what did or maybe didn't happen
long long ago.
Jailing for a long time people who are supposed to have done to
teenagers what most of today's teenagers are keen to experience or to
do to themselves.

--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ S c o t s h o m e . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

Andy Burns writes:

newshound wrote:

However in *this* case it sounds to me much more like an
intelligence-led issue, with demonstrating functionality as quite a
reasonable test.

It probably is a reasonable test for the short term, but now the
terrorists know they can't completely gut a laptop and then get it
through security with the excuse that the battery is flat, so they'll
have to make it keep working and only be half-gutted, if the
intelligence-led tests keept up with that sort of development every few
months, fair enough, but in general the "something" becomes a long term
measure even if it's just to make people feel safe the same way as the
bottled water and toothpaste rules have.

Bottled water and toothpaste rules worry me. Because if there was
nothing to worry about, they wouldn't have such nutty rules.

Maybe by not flying I'm just doing as those worried about
balance-of-payments problems would have me do.

--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ S c o t s h o m e . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

John Rumm writes:

On 15/07/2014 10:40, Scott M wrote:
John Williamson wrote:

Looking at it dispassionately, though, it's just a way to convince the
travelling public that there is a threat worth worrying about.

Or, more cleverly, it's a way to convince the travelling terrorist that
their super new smuggling system isn't going to work so there's no point
trying.

It would only be a minor change of plan for the terrorist to take a
train instead.

Not to mention cars, lorries, buses, ultralights, hang gliders,
bicycles, hiking boots ...........

If our Glorious Leaders ever considered what the other guys might do in
response to their actions, and acted (or didn't act) accordingly, that
might ease these situations.

--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ S c o t s h o m e . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

On 19/07/14 12:00, Windmill wrote:
Because if there was nothing to worry about, they wouldn't have such
nutty rules.

You jest, surely?



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll