On 19/07/2014 12:10, Windmill wrote:
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.


There was a very large flap when a petrol tanker, with Army markings,
was stolen from a local company, which makes them. As it turned out, it
seems to have been ordinary crooks, rather than terrorists, who took it.

--
Colin Bignell

"Windmill" wrote in message
...
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?

Every chance with someone like Maggy.

I wonder how many of the people accused of sex scandals

Convicted of them, actually.

in the current witch hunts were uncovered
by or on behalf of outside interests.

**** all I bet.

The whole thing appalls me.

Your problem.

Hunting down 80 and 90 year olds for what
did or maybe didn't happen long long ago.

Plenty of it must have happened.

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.

On 14/07/2014 20:54, John Williamson wrote:

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.



But then you see on TV an account of a real criminal investigation
where they had to fully dismantle a suspect car before they found what
they were looking for. A 10/30 minute search will have found nothing.


--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

On 15/07/2014 08:23, RJH wrote:

However, how much time does it add to a flight? An hour at most. And a
bit of indignity as you wrestle with belts and shoes, and run the risk
of your 'special items getting a public show?

Where's the harm?

:-)



At some regional airports you can turn up 1 hour before the flight, go
through security and still be at the departure gate in plenty of time.

Try this at the larger airports for the first UK flights in the morning
and the chances that you would miss the flight. To be sure of catching a
flight 2+hours is more normal. If you have driven to the airport also
factor in 30+ minutes to get from the medium/long term car parks. Sod's
law says when you turn up really early it will be the day when security
is fully staffed and the queues are short.

And then there is 1.5 hours it took for baggage handlers at Heathrow to
unload a aircraft.

--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

In article ,
alan wrote:
On 15/07/2014 08:23, RJH wrote:

However, how much time does it add to a flight? An hour at most. And a
bit of indignity as you wrestle with belts and shoes, and run the risk
of your 'special items getting a public show?

Where's the harm?

:-)



At some regional airports you can turn up 1 hour before the flight, go
through security and still be at the departure gate in plenty of time.

Try this at the larger airports for the first UK flights in the morning
and the chances that you would miss the flight. To be sure of catching a
flight 2+hours is more normal. If you have driven to the airport also
factor in 30+ minutes to get from the medium/long term car parks. Sod's
law says when you turn up really early it will be the day when security
is fully staffed and the queues are short.

And then there is 1.5 hours it took for baggage handlers at Heathrow to
unload a aircraft.

or the fun time I once had at Glasgow, having caught the first Shuttle of
the day from Heathrow. It was the first flight of type of plane new to BA.
Glasgow didn't have the appropriate key to the baggage hold. We had to
wait until the next-but-one flight brought a key. (The next one was already
in the air).

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 20/07/2014 10:31, alan wrote:
On 14/07/2014 20:54, John Williamson wrote:

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.



But then you see on TV an account of a real criminal investigation
where they had to fully dismantle a suspect car before they found what
they were looking for. A 10/30 minute search will have found nothing.


They can do the search they carry out on a coach in about two minutes,
including the test for explosive residue on the swabs, and it no longer
responds to playing cards or their residue.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 20/07/2014 10:31, alan wrote:
On 14/07/2014 20:54, John Williamson wrote:

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.



But then you see on TV an account of a real criminal investigation
where they had to fully dismantle a suspect car before they found what
they were looking for. A 10/30 minute search will have found nothing.



IME, the 'search' is more about talking to the people in the car as
actually looking at the car. There is a list I have seen of a dozen*
indicators to look for when checking for suicide bombers.

* 11 in the case of women - most of them don't need to shave off a
beard, possibly leaving a line between tanned and untanned skin.

--
Colin Bignell

The Natural Philosopher writes:

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?

'Spose I'm being insufficiently cynical. Again.

--
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

"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my surname here writes:

On 19/07/2014 12:10, Windmill wrote:
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.


There was a very large flap when a petrol tanker, with Army markings,
was stolen from a local company, which makes them. As it turned out, it
seems to have been ordinary crooks, rather than terrorists, who took it.

And according to a recent news item, there was some kind of a
surveillance flap involving the investigation of the *family* of that
Brazillian electrician who was legally murdered, when the family started
to kick up a stink.

--
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

alan writes:

On 14/07/2014 20:54, John Williamson wrote:

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.



But then you see on TV an account of a real criminal investigation
where they had to fully dismantle a suspect car before they found what
they were looking for. A 10/30 minute search will have found nothing.

You might wondwer if they felt compelled to somehow find _something_ if
they had totally dismantled someone's car and left it in little pieces.

--
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 24/07/2014 14:52, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Windmill
wrote:

alan writes:

On 14/07/2014 20:54, John Williamson wrote:

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.

But then you see on TV an account of a real criminal investigation
where they had to fully dismantle a suspect car before they found
what they were looking for. A 10/30 minute search will have found
nothing.

You might wondwer if they felt compelled to somehow find _something_ if
they had totally dismantled someone's car and left it in little pieces.

Presumably they'd have to remantle it before handing back. Like in the
French Connection.

Customs and Excise don't have to. Especially if you annoy them, they've
been known to do a complete stripdown search and when they find nothing,
say words to the effect of "Okay, off you go"

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 14/07/2014 19:47, hugh neary wrote:

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.

Ah "Any body know of any terrorist attacks coming up?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-JGZ_LKDjU

Tim Streater writes:

In article , Windmill
wrote:

alan writes:

On 14/07/2014 20:54, John Williamson wrote:

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.

But then you see on TV an account of a real criminal investigation
where they had to fully dismantle a suspect car before they found what
they were looking for. A 10/30 minute search will have found nothing.

You might wondwer if they felt compelled to somehow find _something_ if
they had totally dismantled someone's car and left it in little pieces.

Presumably they'd have to remantle it before handing back. Like in the
French Connection.

Wouldn't bet on it.
The FBI used to dismantle small planes looking for drugs, and leave the
pieces on the tarmac. Caused some anger.

--
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

"Windmill" wrote in message
...
Tim Streater writes:

In article , Windmill
wrote:

alan writes:

On 14/07/2014 20:54, John Williamson wrote:

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.

But then you see on TV an account of a real criminal investigation
where they had to fully dismantle a suspect car before they found what
they were looking for. A 10/30 minute search will have found nothing.

You might wondwer if they felt compelled to somehow find _something_ if
they had totally dismantled someone's car and left it in little pieces.

Presumably they'd have to remantle it before handing back. Like in the
French Connection.

Wouldn't bet on it.
The FBI used to dismantle small planes looking for drugs, and leave the
pieces on the tarmac. Caused some anger.

I don’t believe that.