Slashdot Mirror
Body Scanners for the London Underground
Ronald Dumsfeld writes "In a report in the TimesOnline, it is alleged that those lovely see-through-your-clothes scanners are to be installed in London's Tube stations. Part of the UK's Military-industrial complex, QinetiQ stands to make £150,000 to £2 million per station ($260,000 - $3.4 million) with their
Millimetre Wave Imagers."
Here(In Israel) we got used to this long time ago.
You can't go to anywhere without passing thru metal detectors(full size or hand used) and surface body checks.
Armed guards are common view.
I can't remember when was the last time that I've entered a mall and nobody have checked me.
The terror is taking over our lives, Now all over the world.
If youve ever used the underground extensively youll be aware that a) Its a nightmare getting in/out at many stations at peak hours. b) On off-peak hours gates are often unmanned/broken meaning you can just walk right on. c) Many stations have gates that you can just jump over to enter/exit. d) Once in the underground system you can transfer between lines without going through any gates.
All the above means that any form of scanning system would be so easy to circumvent as to be entirely useless....unless they were to more than TRIPLE the manpower at non-central stations...and trust me that NO-ONE will be happy at seeing these costs passed onto them via ticket price increases.
...will have heard about a Private Equity company known as Carlyle Group. This is one of biggest and most profitable Private Equity firms in the world. The shareholders include the Bush family, the bin Laden family and former British PM John Major may still be their Chairman. It's a bit like Milo Minderbinder's outfit in Catch 22, where everyone benefits, because everyone is a part of the syndicate. Well anyway they own QinitiQ. And please don't assume that I am suggesting anything other than the fact that the war on terror, has been quite profitable for some parties involved.
This is not the sig you are looking for...
It seems that most of us Londoners have forgotten the lessons we learnt from the IRA. Ten years ago, you would never, ever let an unattended bag go ignored, and you would never leave bags unattended. [...] I would also like to add a personal view on this, which is; these guys are pathetic. We have grown up with the IRA, and there is nothing special about these. Why the fuss?
Because it's Al-Qaeda, not the IRA. No-one outside the UK gave a damn about IRA attacks, so they were kept in perspective.
With Al-Qaeda, you have 9/11. You also have the fact that everyone knows about them, and that the Americans have felt the effects of their attacks.
Matter of fact, the Americans allowed IRA fundraising (they eventually outlawed them because their criminal activity was becoming an inconvenience). This is the same IRA that tried to kill the British Prime Minister around that time (Margaret Thatcher).....
The more I think about this, the more damn crack-headed it seems. An anti-democratic terrorist organisation comes close to killing the leader of one of America's closest allies, and they *still* allow them to raise funds on their soil?!
Bear this in mind the next time you hear an American complaining about lack of cooperation against terrorism.
Frankly, it doesn't say much about Thatcher that this was never an issue, but personally I never liked her anyway. Not that this is the point.
And on another subject; what the *hell* is going on with Britain allowing hate-preaching mullahs and so on, to remain in the country? It's been claimed that they can't send them back to countries with the death penalty or where they would be at serious risk of persecution.
Well, at least be ******* consistent about it; the British government is sending people (who have done *nothing* to endanger British security) back to Zimbabwe, laughably claiming that they won't face persecution or death when the evidence is blatantly to the contrary. And yet, they're allowing these hate-preaching vermin to remain in the country.
So; any claims of not wanting to breach human rights (or at least human rights legislation) are complete hypocrisy. Frankly, no-one's "right" to asylum should stretch as far as allowing them to incite against, nor to create security risks towards the society that grants it to them.
If there's any case for detention centres, those guys should be the ones going in them, not the children of ordinary refugees. Though it'd probably be a lot easier to deport the hatemongers back to where they came from, outside the protection of the society they despise so much.
Anyway, back to the bombs; this was significant, and it sucks that people died; but it wasn't 9/11. Disruption was the aim, and if we let people like that dictate how we run our lives, they win.
If we don't, they lose.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Are we more safe because they spent longer searching me than nearly everybody else on the plane? I'm gonna go with a no.
Here's another affirmation of the ineffectiveness of the situation, but from the other angle. I was in the military during '01 and '02, and went to PSAB (in Saudi Arabia) a couple months after 9/11. Anyhow, I packed a big duffel and a small gym bag, the former was checked and the latter was carried. I went through the Oklahoma City airport security, through the Air Base's security, and back through security in Boston (IIRC), only to THEN have someone tell me "I think I see a knife in your bag."
I'd been carrying a ~7-inch boot knife in an outer pocket of my carry-on bag on flights that spanned half the globe (aka, full of jet fuel) which was not concealed in any way except for simply being in a pocket of a duffel filled with socks, books, munchies, and a few electronic gizmos. It still took them close to 10 additional minutes to decide to physically search the bag and an additional 5 beyond that to actually find it (after they'd emptied all pockets except the one it was in).
Feeling safer yet? As for me, I say just do nothing, let people arm themselves if they want to shoulder the responsibility and liability, and go on about your daily life. You might be hit by a car, or you might be blown up by a terrorist. Odds are the car will get you many times over before the terrorist even has a chance.
If:
... I daresay we'd probably allow fundraising for al Qaeda here.
Pretty? No. But that's how democratic societies work. As long as the threat is distant, and some significant percentage of the voting public identifies with the people behind it, all the incentives politicians care about point them towards just ignoring the problem and hoping it will go away.
Read my blog.
A person is reasonable and intelligent but people are dumb stupid and panicky.
There were people in the tube carriage I was in when a bomb blew up in the train which was passing us in the opposite direction, near Edgware Road station. I regret to inform you that contrary to your description, those people reacted as well as you could possibly expect any person to react. Everyone was shit-scared, me included, frozen with fear for the first minute or two, waiting for a second bomb to possibly go off. But then after that, the behaviour of all the people around me was admirable. We stayed calm, comforted each other, talked, tried to get our minds off the awful truth (which no one voiced - it's amazing how many plausible alternative possibilities you can come up with to deny that it's a bomb, even after you saw the flash, heard the loud bang, and breathed the nasty black smoke).
Those people waited patiently to be evacuated, waited a whole 45 minutes in this unnerving train with that nasty toxic smell, with screams of agony coming from the nearby train and no coherent information coming from anywhere, with no guarantee that any of us would get out of there alive, as there could have been a second bomb, for all we knew.
So I think you should grow a bit of respect for people, dumbass.
Daniel
Carpe Diem