Slashdot Mirror


UK Terror Chief Blocked From Boarding Aircraft

Jeremiah Cornelius writes "Two days before toner cartridges threatened western civilization, Britain's Home Office minister Baroness Neville-Jones was en route to a Washington summit when she was found to have an over-sized aerosol can in her bag. While being questioned by airport security staff for transporting a container with more than 100ml of liquid, the Baroness seemingly took offense at being lectured on the importance of security procedure: 'Of course I know how important it is,' she said, 'I'm the Security Minister.' The Baroness is also former head of the British Joint Intelligence Committee, and was traveling at the time to discuss the war on terror with US security chiefs. According to a Home Office spokesman, trained in the use of the passive voice, 'Liquids were inadvertently left in a bag. The item was removed and the Minister fully complied with subsequent checks.'"

237 comments

  1. Well, she also said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We are not amused"

    but that was at the security theater involved.

    Or was that the queen? Or the American people?

    1. Re:Well, she also said by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0, Troll

      Or was that the queen?

      What does John Boehner have to do with this?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Well, she also said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even I know the Queen isn't an Oompa-Loompa!

  2. Do as I say not as I do by mirix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why would the people implementing security theatre want to subject themselves to it?

    They know it's just show. Not to mention the whole being above the law thing.

    --
    Sent from my PDP-11
    1. Re:Do as I say not as I do by jollyreaper · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why would the people implementing security theatre want to subject themselves to it?

      They know it's just show. Not to mention the whole being above the law thing.

      It has long since ceased being kabuki theater and has passed into bukkake theater.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    2. Re:Do as I say not as I do by syousef · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why would the people implementing security theatre want to subject themselves to it?

      They know it's just show. Not to mention the whole being above the law thing.

      It has long since ceased being kabuki theater and has passed into bukkake theater.

      Only for ordinary riff raff. The minister is excempt and shows contempt. If you do the same prepare to spend time in prison.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    3. Re:Do as I say not as I do by besalope · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Only for ordinary riff raff. The minister is excempt and shows contempt. If you do the same prepare to spend time in prison.

      Exactly. The Inner-Party members complain about the hindrance. The Party members are trained to put up with it or they will be unpersoned. And no one cares about the proles because they cannot afford to fly anyways.

    4. Re:Do as I say not as I do by Animaether · · Score: 5, Interesting

      tinfoil hat on

      Because stories like these make the general public feel a little less singled out... clearly if even the security bigwig herself is subject to the same rules, then at least they're being 'fair'. If she then throws a mini-fit about it, the general public will realize that she's aware of the annoyance and grievances and she isn't any more fond of them than they are. Then later a statement is released in which she acknowledges this more formally, while pointing out that she deeply believes that these measures are necessary to stop actual terrorist plots... and the general public may just feel a little bit more sympathetic to her given the aforementioned.

      tinfoil hat off

      Now, about those body scanners...
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJGvsAgpfig (not a rick roll, have pinches of salt ready though).

    5. Re:Do as I say not as I do by jmitchel!jmitchel.co · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      If I only had modpoints...

    6. Re:Do as I say not as I do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJGvsAgpfig

      Her story is not even consistent from minute to minute. I'm not sure I buy it.

      Not defending the TSA, who I think needs to go away and is a huge waste of money, but her story is not very believable given that she changes it in mid stream several times.

    7. Re:Do as I say not as I do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have to Agree here,

      long before the current nonsense, a friend of mine and his partner were travelling to the States on holiday, they get to NY, his partner's passport gets scanned,
      system flags that he's a UK government official, border/whatever staff fall over themselves to pass him through with no fuss. My friend's turn, he's there for a couple of hours answering all sorts of, as he put it, 'weird kafkaesque questions' about why he travels to NY a lot.

      So I'd call the story BS as well, and if they're throwing these sort of things up now, it means they're doing a bit of groundwork to prepare for something more 'invasive' as far as any of the personal liberties we have left are concerned.

      'The Society of the Spectacle' indeed..

      .

    8. Re:Do as I say not as I do by polle404 · · Score: 1

      It has long since ceased being kabuki theater and has passed into bukkake theater.

      Bukkake theater? No thanks,
      not with her.
      Rule 35 or not.
      http://bit.ly/bRmdRV

      --

      ~men are from earth. women are from earth. deal with it.~
    9. Re:Do as I say not as I do by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Answer:

      All animals are equal. Some are more equal than the other.

      George Orwell, "Animal Farm: A Fairy Story"

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    10. Re:Do as I say not as I do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxpTKefgde8

      ITM

    11. Re:Do as I say not as I do by Pteraspidomorphi · · Score: 0

      Typical of slashdot, no one read TFA? It says she stated the measures were important and fully collaborated with them.

    12. Re:Do as I say not as I do by sempir · · Score: 1

      There is Drollery, and there is Trollery.......methinks some people don't know about, or understand either.

      --
      A closed mouth gathers no foot.
    13. Re:Do as I say not as I do by matfud · · Score: 1

      I have not had the best of experiances flying to JFK. Why the really random questions? And why do they care if I get a cab or town car?

    14. Re:Do as I say not as I do by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Her story is not even consistent from minute to minute. I'm not sure I buy it.

      Her story is actually remarkably consistent and clear by general radio interview standards.

      This story is it. This is the acid test. A young woman is selected for the scanner; she feels uncomfortable the naked pictures of her being taken, she further feels uncomfortable with being groped in a body search and also refuses that. For this simple transgression, she is arrested, refused her flight and escorted out of the airport. The ability to refuse to be subjected to such indignities is a basic freedom once enjoyed in every western society. This is basic stuff.

      If this incident passes by without proper discussion, whatever pretense America claims to having a civilized and free society is utterly bankrupt. If this woman ends up facing actual charges, it means the US no longer has claim to the rule of law--only of order.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    15. Re:Do as I say not as I do by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Informative

      Now, now: MiniTruth said that she fully complied. Also, the chocolate ration has been increased from 30 grammes to 20.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    16. Re:Do as I say not as I do by mrclisdue · · Score: 1

      Have to agree with the random questions...and mine from *Canadian* border folk - who only very recently have begun to mimic their 'merican counterparts, a hundred yards away.

      It used to be one could exchange pleasantries with a fellow canuck, now he wants to know why we rented a car, as opposed to bringing one of ours....?

      As for traveling into the US anymore? About a month ago I could have shaved 3 hours off a 14 hour car trip by taking a shortcut through the states. Thanks, but no thanks.

      Can't wait till we have armed security guards in the corner convenience.

      cheers,

    17. Re:Do as I say not as I do by matfud · · Score: 1

      I thought Canada was nice. If they ake the piss like that I will avoid it.

    18. Re:Do as I say not as I do by matfud · · Score: 1

      Ho hum try flying from heathrow Not fun.Better than JFK I think.

    19. Re:Do as I say not as I do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It has long since ceased being kabuki theater and has passed into bukkake theater.

      On that pleasant note, here's a photo of the baroness herself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pauline_neville-jones.jpg

    20. Re:Do as I say not as I do by matfud · · Score: 1

      As I hate american airports. Heathrow is probably better.

    21. Re:Do as I say not as I do by Raenex · · Score: 1

      If this woman ends up facing actual charges, it means the US no longer has claim to the rule of law--only of order.

      The incident occurred at Heathrow Airport in London.

    22. Re:Do as I say not as I do by Raenex · · Score: 1

      The incident occurred at Heathrow Airport in London.

      Sorry, my mistake, the comment I replied to was talking about the linked YouTube video.

    23. Re:Do as I say not as I do by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      One more time, it's actually Bunraku. Pay no attention to the men in black.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    24. Re:Do as I say not as I do by Threni · · Score: 2, Informative

      No it doesn't. Did you not read it? It said she complied with subsequent checks. Not sure how you collaborate with a measure rather than conform to them, but she didn't conform to the measures in as much as she breached them then had a hissy fit when this was pointed out to her. This situation was paraphrased perfectly by the person you were replying to.

    25. Re:Do as I say not as I do by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Now, now: MiniTruth said that she fully complied. Also, the chocolate ration has been increased from 30 grammes to 20.

      Except that 'chocolate' has been secretly re-defined to be cardboard.

      Enjoy your cardboar, err, I mean chocolate...

    26. Re:Do as I say not as I do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that 'chocolate' has been secretly re-defined to be cardboard.

      Here in America, that's not too far from the truth

    27. Re:Do as I say not as I do by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Breaking news: MinLove reminds us that Al Qaeda still loves us, has always loved us, and many of our best friends, and wants to love us even even more in future! Al Qaeda can only love us. We should meditate on why they do not love us as often as other people. Make your holiday plans now, destinations are filling up!!

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    28. Re:Do as I say not as I do by nametaken · · Score: 1

      [Re: Youtube Vid]

      You're right, it turns the stomach a bit. The flipside (and this is really only for arguments sake) is that this wasn't about walking down a public roadway. This is about flying on a plane, which involves a agreement to subject yourself to security screening.

      That said, what happened to this girl is sad and unsettling. I feel like there should be a more reasonable way to screen people for air travel without this kind of nonsense going on. And specific to this case, I'd love to find out that the TSA reps were at least reprimanded... though I doubt it.

      I guess the real question then is, how do we do a good job of making sure air travel is safe without relegating ourselves to the ridiculous "security theater" situation that we have now? I honestly don't know the answer to that.

    29. Re:Do as I say not as I do by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2, Funny

      DON'T CLICK!!!

      It's a picture of Peter Cushing...

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    30. Re:Do as I say not as I do by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      It's NOT the TSA. They are US-ian.

      This is UKBA.

      Frankly, I have always been treated by them with an unbelievable measure of courtesy and even pleasant engagement, when contrasted with their American equivalents.

      Many staff are of South-Asian extraction, and I surmise this is a contributing factor to their sensitivity to the indignity of these measures. But the Anglo-Saxon agency representatives are still, head-and-shoulders above the TSA drones, in their general level of courtesy, tolerance and basic humanity.

      I will not relate the depth and detail of my personal anecdotes in this regard. Let it be said, that an awareness and concern for the comfort of my wife and children was expressly made by UKBA supervisors in Heathrow - on more than one occasion.

      Amsterdam Schipol has good folk, too. After the Christmas "Underwear Scare", I was subjected to a less than casual pat-down, by a tall, young blonde gentleman. "There's no additional charge for this treatment?" I asked him, in mock incredulity. The agent smiled and said, "No, we give these free."

      I know not to make a quip like this in the US - where the TSA might actually detain me, and possibly go so far as to prevent my boarding. In Holland, my joke was treated as a natural relief of tension - to be shared in an otherwise awkward, social interaction.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    31. Re:Do as I say not as I do by MrLint · · Score: 1

      And nothing will change.....

    32. Re:Do as I say not as I do by Stray7Xi · · Score: 1

      This story is it. This is the acid test. A young woman is selected for the scanner; she feels uncomfortable the naked pictures of her being taken, she further feels uncomfortable with being groped in a body search and also refuses that. For this simple transgression, she is arrested, refused her flight and escorted out of the airport. The ability to refuse to be subjected to such indignities is a basic freedom once enjoyed in every western society.

      With the current state of TSA any business that requires an employee to travel by air should be sued for sexual harassment. Since they're ordering their employee to pick between naked pictures or being groped.

    33. Re:Do as I say not as I do by NoisySplatter · · Score: 1

      Her story doesn't line up with the surveillance video that the TSA released. She claims that she was the only person picked to be body scanned when she clearly isn't. There is a steady stream of people going through the scanner the whole time. In addition to that she claims she wasn't allowed to wipe her face when you can see the TSA agent give her a towel of some sort which she then uses.

      http://wewontfly.com/tsa-videos-meg-mclain

      --
      In Soviet Russia meme tires of you!
    34. Re:Do as I say not as I do by AmigaMMC · · Score: 1

      Why would the people implementing security theatre want to subject themselves to it?

      They know it's just show. Not to mention the whole being above the law thing.

      Because some people should be exempt from these stupid security checks, like the minister of defense, or people like myself who work all day in, out and around commercial airplanes, have passed a thorough background check and if we wanted to cause damage we wouldn't certainly wait for the day we're boarding a plane as a passenger.

    35. Re:Do as I say not as I do by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

      i read that as chocolate rain :)

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    36. Re:Do as I say not as I do by ikeman32 · · Score: 1

      More importantly what happend to diplomatic immunity?

  3. Clearly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The terrorists' new plan is for government officials to carry out attacks on airplanes. Therefore, we should not allow any government officials to fly.

    1. Re:Clearly by JustOK · · Score: 1

      a total ban is uncalled for. We should at least allow them to leave town.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    2. Re:Clearly by Cwix · · Score: 1

      They can walk.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    3. Re:Clearly by TheLink · · Score: 1

      I'd rather send some of them to orbit. A good reality TV show might be "Vote Them Off The Planet". With one-way and two-way options.

      Even if they don't actually use the ticket, it could still be worth watching the interviews after.

      --
    4. Re:Clearly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least you can trust a terrorist, you know their motives, how many times do government officials lie to us and still expect us to buy it?

    5. Re:Clearly by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

      With one-way and two-way options. .

      only if the two-way option uses the same heatshield-less capsules as the one-way trips.

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    6. Re:Clearly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can walk.

      Four legs good, two legs better!

    7. Re:Clearly by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Or, perhaps the answer is make damn sure they are all on the same plane.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    8. Re:Clearly by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

      I'd take the risk. Once. Of course, this precludes letting them get on a return flight.
      I'd take that risk too.

    9. Re:Clearly by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      It's actually the PILOTS.

      Why scan 'em for bombs and weapons?

      If they want to destroy the aircraft - they can do it with their BARE HANDS.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    10. Re:Clearly by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Nah, we might want to send some people to space and still have them come back.

      It makes for a better contrast to the ones we'd like to send to space one-way, plus allows a "suspense" bit in the show where a winner waits to see if it's "winner" or winner. :)

      --
  4. Hmm, Pity... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

    The security staff really let an opportunity slip past them here.

    "I'm terribly sorry madam; but surely the real Home Office Minister Baroness Neville-Jones would be properly familiar with aircraft security procedure. Come with me, please."

    *Whispers*"We caught a terrorist impersonating the Home Office Minister! What'we do now?" *Whisper*"Just throw a bag over her head and hand her over to the Yanks, those bloody-minded bastards love that sort of thing."

    1. Re:Hmm, Pity... by ChipMonk · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah, something like this.

      Note that it was posted just today.

    2. Re:Hmm, Pity... by Shikaku · · Score: 1

      Someone mod this up.

    3. Re:Hmm, Pity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Whispers*"We caught a terrorist impersonating the Home Office Minister! What'we do now?"

      *Whisper*"Just throw a bag over her head and hand her over to the Yanks, those bloody-minded bastards love that sort of thing."

      Hold up, there. Is she hot?

      Well, she's got a bag over her head. Never mind then. We'll take her.

    4. Re:Hmm, Pity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is a serious human rights violation right there. I hope Meg sues the hell out of someone over this.

    5. Re:Hmm, Pity... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      lol I feel sorry for anyone who has to go through a body scanner or who is singled out for a search (having gone through many, since I often travel with weird prototypes), the girl in that movie keeps saying, "all I was doing was asking questions." Totally reminds me of this.

      Remember people, protest rules when you actually have a chance to make a difference. When you are trying to get through security, your best bet is to get over your fear of nudity and just get through.

      --
      Qxe4
    6. Re:Hmm, Pity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Can't believe the alternative is to have an entire body grope. How is that procedure even remotely decent enough to be considered for deployment in an airport? That's probably worse than prison treatment, and the people in airports are presumed innocent (yeah right).

    7. Re:Hmm, Pity... by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Funny

      lol worse than prison? Pray that you never get sent there man, pray hard; you know not what evil lays there in deep cavities.

      --
      Qxe4
    8. Re:Hmm, Pity... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      Remember people, protest rules when you actually have a chance to make a difference. When you are trying to get through security, your best bet is to get over your fear of nudity and just get through.

      And since "protesting rules" works oh soooo well in the arena dominated entirely by bought and paid-for politicos, by screeching far-right demagogues peddling bed-wetting fear and by corporate "security-military-industrial-complex" money - who are all making a killing on the wholesale shredding of what remains of personal liberties, by the way - this recipe can be simply abbreviated to "ALWAYS OBEY YOUR BETTERS!".

      Doubleplusgood.

    9. Re:Hmm, Pity... by fremsley471 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that, if nothing else it will be another straw for the camel's back. The TSA show the same sociological ingroup/outgroup ideas that are the basis for the very worst sort of human behaviour. Travellers, not terrorists, have literally become the enemy for these people.

    10. Re:Hmm, Pity... by timbos · · Score: 1

      lol I feel sorry for anyone who has to go through a body scanner or who is singled out for a search (having gone through many, since I often travel with weird prototypes), the girl in that movie keeps saying, "all I was doing was asking questions." Totally reminds me of this.

      Heh. Makes me think of this XKCD

    11. Re:Hmm, Pity... by crow_t_robot · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      People should take the tactic of assaulting the assailants. Next time you are in an airport, refuse the scan and start generating some really erotic thought to pop the biggest boner you can. Imagine how uncomfortable a man or woman security guard (especially a man) would be if they had to grope a grown man that has a boner on that is about to tear through his pants. Bonus points if you post it to youtube.

    12. Re:Hmm, Pity... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      That's probably worse than prison treatment, and the people in airports are presumed innocent

      I saw a television show where people being locked up in the county jail had to strip naked and spread their ass cheeks for the guards. This is, of course, before trial and innocence must be presumed.

    13. Re:Hmm, Pity... by wildstoo · · Score: 1

      On a flight from Amsterdam to Dallas recently, I had to remove my shoes, my belt, remove my laptop from my bag, and had the option of a full body scan or a "pat-down". I saw other people opting for the pat-down and chose the body scan; at least it's quick. Let them stare at my flabby form if they want to. It wrongly detected metal in my left pocket, which made them ask "Do you have anything in that pocket?". I said "No." and they let me pass.

      On arriving in DFW all non-US citizens had to have their passports and visas (or visa waivers) checked, their fingerprints scanned and their faces photographed.

      Add that to the general discomfort of a 9 hour trans-Atlantic flight in Economy class and you have real a recipe for fun.

    14. Re:Hmm, Pity... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      I wonder what happens if you start to moan loudly and suggestively as they search you and finish with a "Harry Met Sally" style fake orgasm.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    15. Re:Hmm, Pity... by corbettw · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This has got to stop. To that end, I just sent this letter to both my Representative and Senator (names obscured to protect the guilty):

      Dear (Rep|Sen). Soandso,

      I am writing today about the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), specifically regarding your support in defunding and disbanding this agency.

      The TSA is notorious among travelers for being arrogant, rude, and invasive. They routinely conduct searches on the flimsiest of grounds, during the course of which they subject citizens to degrading conduct. The rationale given for all of this behavior is that they are "keeping us safe" from terrorists.

      I consider this argument to be absurd. First of all, prior to 9/11, there had only been a handful of plane hijackings in American history. The last one, FedEx Flight 705, was hijacked by a FedEx employee. The TSA would not have helped in this instance. The only commercial flights hijacked within the United States prior to 9/11 were in the 60s and 70s. Given that it had been more than 20 years between the last of those in 1978 and 9/11, it's unfair to say that the TSA have made a difference in hijackings between 9/11 and now.

      Secondly, none of the airplane bomb threats to emerge over the last 10 years have been foiled by the TSA. They've all been foiled by a combination of effective intelligence and alert and responsive passengers. There is nothing the TSA has done to make us safer.

      Thirdly, even if they did make us safer, I believe very strongly that Dr. Franklin was right: we should not sacrifice liberty for safety, as we will end up with neither.

      The last straw, for me, happened recently, when I learned of a young woman, Meg McLain, in Florida being arrested and having her ticket torn up because she did not want to submit to a full-body scan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJGvsAgpfig). This is an outrage. If we can't protect the dignity of our people to be safe from invasion by the government, why did our ancestors fight off the British in the first place?

      When I was young, during the Cold War, I remember being shocked at some of the things I heard about living in the Soviet Union. That citizens had to carry passports at all times; that they had to register with the government before they could travel; that they had no right to privacy when traveling; and that their political opinions could result in their being unable to travel. What does it say about our country that every single one of these abhorrent practices are now common place in the United States of America?

      I hope you'll agree with me that enough is enough and it's time to return our nation to one of liberty, to make us once again the "land of the free and the home of the brave".

      Sincerely,

      corbettw

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    16. Re:Hmm, Pity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is Mr. Creedy with his black bags when you need him..

    17. Re:Hmm, Pity... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      lol fear from the right, apathy from the left (you), eh?

      --
      Qxe4
    18. Re:Hmm, Pity... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Yes. And piss all over, inside you pants.

      Say "Sorry! I can't help it! You're EXCITING me!"

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    19. Re:Hmm, Pity... by Devoidoid · · Score: 1

      Where are my mod points when I need 'em.

    20. Re:Hmm, Pity... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      The reason I point out the right-wing demagogues is because they did take over the airwaves nearly completely. Should left-wing demagogues be anywhere near so successful, I would be mentioning them. Each "side" in this artificial, farcical divide operates on fear of something and is hell-bent on destroying some personal liberties, they only differ which ones they are going to go after first. The Democrats are merely a "kindler, gentler" face on the one and only party in the USA that counts: the Wealth, Power and Neo-feudalism Party. One has to only look at their "achievements" and how they go about "achieving" them to see what is going on. The only thing that truly boggles my mind is that so many Americans are fooled by this Two-Faces-of-The-Party circus.

      And then you have the throwbacks to the last days of the Weimar Republic: the tools otherwise known as the "Tea Party".

      The whole thing would be funny to read about in the "Last Days of the US Experiment" chapter in some history book 200 years from now, alas it is not so fun now, considering the damage these last throes of the Republic will do to everyone around ... and given what comes after.

    21. Re:Hmm, Pity... by tftp · · Score: 1

      Can't believe the alternative is to have an entire body grope. How is that procedure even remotely decent enough to be considered for deployment in an airport?

      The groping is better because it is a bad thing, and they can't hide that fact, and they know it. TSA would love you to walk through their pr0n booth because that indignity is "out of sight, out of mind." If you want a change then insist on groping. If sufficiently many people are patted down like that, the practice will be in the open, with daily horror stories about a [more than usual] nasty TSA employee doing a pat-down of a 5 y/o girl a bit more thoroughly than most. With enough lawsuits and enough convictions TSA will have to mend its ways, and will stop asking its employees to commit sex crimes as part of their job.

    22. Re:Hmm, Pity... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      My chiropractor can "grope" my ass to locate my tailbone for an x-ray. What makes that any different?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    23. Re:Hmm, Pity... by tftp · · Score: 1

      My chiropractor can "grope" my ass to locate my tailbone for an x-ray. What makes that any different?

      You aren't forced to go to the chiropractor, and even if you do you can tell them to not do certain things (and then they may not service you.) When you go to the chiropractor it's all voluntary, and you know that it is done with best intentions and for your benefit.

      At the airport, however, you don't have much of a choice. Flying is not voluntary if it is job-related. Sure, you can quit the job but that's not realistic in most cases (esp. considering this job market.) Even if you are on a personal trip, there is no viable alternative to flying long distances or overseas. You can take a train across the USA, or you can buy a ticket on a container ship, but that is neither heaper nor faster; you will need to spend one or more weeks on the road. One can argue that that's the price you pay for speed, but this price doesn't seem to have a solid foundation - you know that the probing at the airport is not done for your benefit or for anyone's benefit, as matter of fact - it is done as a "do something!" measure out of Spaceballs movie.

    24. Re:Hmm, Pity... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      lol you call the tea party a throwback to the last days of the weimar republic? Who then do you consider to be Hitler? Do you read the daily kos often? I only ask because several months ago I got in a discussion with another slashdot poster who was convinced that daily kos readers wanted to destroy freedom in America.

      I think really Scott Rasmussen gets it right when instead of dividing the country between left and right, he divides it between the 'political class' and normal people. It sounds kind of like what you are doing too, although more hyperbolically (please don't tell me you actually believe all that stuff you said literally).

      --
      Qxe4
    25. Re:Hmm, Pity... by Lucractius · · Score: 1

      Now thats how to make a well written argument.

      --
      XML - A clever joke would be here if /. didn't mangle tag brackets.
    26. Re:Hmm, Pity... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      lol you call the tea party a throwback to the last days of the weimar republic?

      Many most vocal "tea party" members seem to desire some radical change in the way the US society is organized, with a particular emphasis on defending and worshiping the rich, bringing "back" "traditional values" that never were, enshrining religion as an integral part of governance, sticking it to "america's enemies" abroad, etc. This is very much the same ideology that drove most of the members of the various angry movements which later on became the NSDAP. The main difference is that in the case of Germany, these angry-at-everyone-but-themselves loudmouths were joined by the working-class "socialists" which later became the SA, while in today's America they consider each other as bitter enemies. In Germany they were in the end enemies too, with the "socialists" ending up being purged from the NSDAP in the Night of the Long Knives, but at first they were instrumental in bringing about collapse of the Weimar republic. The only other group that was viciously persecuted by all others were the Communists, who ended up in the newly constructed concentration camps first, even before the Jews.

      I only ask because several months ago I got in a discussion with another slashdot poster who was convinced that daily kos readers wanted to destroy freedom in America.

      The sad truth is that many of them do, without even realizing so. Many of the kos members have the same failings as those on the "other side" do: personality cultism, overconfidence in patently flawed and unworkable social solutions, unsubstantiated faith in general goodness of governments operating without the most strict of checks and balances, herd mentality, etc and so on, all the way to American Exceptionalism and outright blood-thirst when to comes "uppity" foreigners.

      True there are many reasonable people on both sides of this artificial divide, but they are all drowned in the cacophony of whining, rage and general mindlessness.

      Hence useful idiots like George Bush or slick con-men like Barak Obama end up running the place and things keep getting more pear-shaped every day.

      I think really Scott Rasmussen gets it right when instead of dividing the country between left and right, he divides it between the 'political class' and normal people.

      Actually I think it is a bit more complex than that. You have the parasite class which absorbs most of the GDP and whose only object and purpose is to multiply their loot at absolutely any cost (always to someone else). Then you have the political con-men class which servers the parasites while pretending to represent the rest. Then you have the countless sheeple, working mindlessly to support the other two classes and who always end up distracted from their lot in life by staring stupefied into the sparkling images on the Idiot Box. And then you have the "activists" whose claim to fame is usually being utterly uninformed and unrealistic (as in defying the laws of physics for example) as to the object of their "activism". And then on the end, in the tiny minority you have people who actually try to exercise logic and reason and who usually end up really, really depressed and disheartened.

      I am not sure if this a cyclical change in how civilizations operate, but for sure the "age of reason" is long past us and some new era of proud, strutting idiocy is upon us, where more uninformed, ignorant and illogical the person is, the more he or she garners acclaim as the "real American". Again, parallels with the last days of the Weimar republic are undeniable.

    27. Re:Hmm, Pity... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      lol that is certainly the most optimistically depressing analysis of American segments that I have ever seen.

      --
      Qxe4
  5. Gander by markdavis · · Score: 1

    What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

    1. Re:Gander by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

      Always. It ought to be a rule that anyone voting for, or enforcing, a law that "balances" personal liberty with anything else, including "security" must not only be required to experience the full force of the process, but to do so at least once a month for the duration of their employment.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    2. Re:Gander by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I'd prefer that those that would want to enact/enforce such laws be subject to it for an entire month BEFORE it is applied to anyone else.

      Granted, you'd need special wording to make sure they can't try and enact something that is a benefit that only they could enjoy for at least a month.

    3. Re:Gander by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      This was in England. Thus the proper rendering of the expression is: "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."

      What is left unambiguous in the British version? The goose is cooked.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
  6. Missed Opportunity by Lunoria · · Score: 2, Insightful

    She missed a glorious opportunity to praise the airport security for her unplanned security check. It is a good thing that British Security Officers check all people, even the Security Minister.

  7. what no taser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    In Canada it's standard policy to taser suspicious foreign nationals at airports. On behalf of the Canadian government, I want to formally welcome the minister to one of our airports.

    1. Re:what no taser? by korean.ian · · Score: 1

      Only if they don't speak English...

    2. Re:what no taser? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Only if they don't speak English...

      Are you referring to the foreign visitors or the Canadians?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:what no taser? by korean.ian · · Score: 1

      do they have to be mutually exclusive?

  8. I hope she got the "Pat Down" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah, see how you like getting fondled when you fly!

    1. Re:I hope she got the "Pat Down" by mug+funky · · Score: 2, Funny

      last time i went the customs guy jacked me off.

      my wife was unamused. but a little turned on.

  9. Sweet delicious irony by Nimey · · Score: 5, Funny

    Should've made her go through the porn scanner.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
    1. Re:Sweet delicious irony by CodeBuster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why stop there? Surely such a large aerosol can warrants the full body cavity search with glove . What makes all of this security theater even more stupid is that they refuse to profile. How many white 71 year old female bombers have there been?. They probably would have waved someone wearing a burka right through while they were wasting time with the minister who is quite obviously of old British decent (she even has a peerage!) just so that they aren't accused of profiling. Ridiculous!

    2. Re:Sweet delicious irony by Shark · · Score: 1

      Maybe the prospect terrified security to the point where they considered the risk of annoying her worthwhile.

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
    3. Re:Sweet delicious irony by Grapplebeam · · Score: 1

      Damnit, it's my collection and you have to surf for yourself! Besides, if you make your own collection you don't end up with stuff you don't want. Also, when did they roll out these porn scanners? Is the TSA trying to cut down on wasted manhours by keeping their workers from having to surf for porn?

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree.
    4. Re:Sweet delicious irony by the_humeister · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is that other groups will claim racism due to said profiling. And then after that, them terrorists will be recruiting white 71 year olds.

    5. Re:Sweet delicious irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Of Course Timothy McVeigh, John "Ted" Kaczynski and Joseph Stack fit perfectly into your idea of a terrorist profile. And the IRA and ETA are well known for their Islamic beliefs. Right?

    6. Re:Sweet delicious irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      And they would be correct to claim racism.

    7. Re:Sweet delicious irony by AGMW · · Score: 1

      ... And the IRA and ETA are well known for their Islamic beliefs. Right?

      Neither the IRA nor ETA have ever blown up an airplane. They are/were also much more into remotely triggered or timed devices rather than blowing themselves or their daughters up suicide stylie! Nutjobs fo shizzle, but not religious nutjobs.

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    8. Re:Sweet delicious irony by bcmm · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How many people in burkas have blown up planes?

      Terrorists on planes tend to dress very normally to avoid suspicion.

      When you complain about people in strange clothing not being subjected to extra humiliating checks, you're just voicing some kind of gut instinct to punish entire cultures you seem to consider your enemy. Just like, say, Bin Laden.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    9. Re:Sweet delicious irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about Joseph Stack, how does he fit into the profile?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_plane_crash

    10. Re:Sweet delicious irony by Vectormatic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      with the ETA you have a point, but the whole northern ireland conflict does have deep religious roots.

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    11. Re:Sweet delicious irony by Guido+von+Guido · · Score: 1

      Excellent idea! I prefer to smuggle my explosives onto planes using 71 year old ministers as dupes.

    12. Re:Sweet delicious irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the english nobility have clearly never been involved in terrorism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpower_plot

    13. Re:Sweet delicious irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They probably would have waved someone wearing a burka right through while they were wasting time with the minister who is quite obviously of old British decent (she even has a peerage!) just so that they aren't accused of profiling. Ridiculous!

      Because after all, it's not like there are any groups composed entirely of white people that might want to conduct terrorist attacks (*cough*IRA*cough*). Nope, we've just got to focus on the sand niggers, amirite?

    14. Re:Sweet delicious irony by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Why do I keep seeing calls for racial profiling on Slashdot? It's not what I expect to see on a site with more educated members. It's fucking racist, guys. It's that simple. Racism is bad, mmkay?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    15. Re:Sweet delicious irony by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      entire cultures you seem to consider your enemy

      Like it or not that is an issue in Britain. There is a growing minority of second generation Britons who refuse to assimilate into their new culture. Instead, they maintain an alien and aggressive culture inside Britain with the ultimate goal of completely changing English society to match the sort of Sharia inspired nightmare that exists in parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan where women have no rights and thefts are punished by chopping off limbs. The people of Britain had better wake up soon, as the people of France already have, to the dangers of invasive foreign cultures within their midst. The Islamists have a long term goal, which they are willing to pursue across generations, and the gradual displacement of western civilization with Sharia (which they European Court of Human Rights has ruled incompatible with democracy) is part of that agenda. You are in a culture war that your enemies are actively fighting. How long will some people continue to deny that they are even under attack before fighting back?

    16. Re:Sweet delicious irony by mea37 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First of all, the Islamic faith is far from unique in its desire to displace conflicting cultural patterns. You might be familiar with another such religion - Christianity.

      Second, there is a difference between cultural conflict and war. You need to learn to separate the two, and understand that just because the woman in a burka might want the other women around her to wear burkas does not mean that she's a terrorist. Having airport screeners harass members of one culture is not an appropriate weapon for use in a cultural conflict.

    17. Re:Sweet delicious irony by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I heard your NF bullshite back in the '70's, too - before you went all BNP on us.

      Go watch "My Beautiful Laundrette" as punishment for your shame.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    18. Re:Sweet delicious irony by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      If your profiling is limited to looking for burkas or skin color, you have lost the war a long time ago.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    19. Re:Sweet delicious irony by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      Second, there is a difference between cultural conflict and war.

      And yet history is replete with examples of cultural absorption and domination and whether by warfare or by other means the result is the same: destruction of one culture concurrent with the rise of another. To argue whether or not that process is war is to argue over durations and means, not end results.

      Having airport screeners harass members of one culture is not an appropriate weapon for use in a cultural conflict.

      If we decide that airport security is needed, and I think that most people would agree that airport security is necessary, then why must effective tactics be curtailed merely because they aren't politically correct? If you want to see what real airport security looks like, take a look at Ben Gurion International Airport and El Al. The Israelis don't screw around when it comes to airport security. Is it politically correct? Probably not. Does it work? Absolutely.

    20. Re:Sweet delicious irony by mea37 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Destruction of one culture concurrent with the rise of another" is not what airport security is intended to defend against. People being killed is what airport security is intended to defend against. You need to get your fears of cultural assimilation out of the picture, as they have nothing to do with the topic of airport screenings.

      If you don't want to draw a distinction between killing everyone who doesn't conform to your culture on one hand, vs. spreading your culture through various social and political means on the other, that's your problem; reforming bigoted radicals isn't my line of work.

      Oh, and profiling is not and will not be effective. A brief look at recent history will demonstrate why:

      When we put more scrutiny on shoes, did the total frequency of attempted attacks go down? No, the attackers just didn't bother trying another shoe bomb.

      When we put more scrutiny on liquids, did the total frequency of attempted attacks go down? No, the attackers just didn't bother trying liquids.

      So if you put more scrutiny on people who match your biggoted view of what a terrorist looks like, is the frequency of attempted attacks going to go down? No, the attackers will send bomb-carriers who don't fit your profile. You think they can't recruit such people, and they laugh.

    21. Re:Sweet delicious irony by mahadiga · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden is bullying America to protect Muslim interests world-wide.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawood_Ibrahim is bullying India to protect Muslim interests in India.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh is bullying India to protect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_caste interests.

      Why remaining http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_writings communities do not have similar ally?

      --
      I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
  10. Not good by ArchieBunker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This really isn't good. The monster that is airport security is too big to control. Not even high profile politicians can seem to escape it.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Not good by Huntr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I disagree. I think the key to affecting change is to demonstrate the utter stupidity and futility of current regs and prohibitions to people of import, such as Ms. Neville-Jones. They need a picture painted for them in order to understand, so paint that mother.

    2. Re:Not good by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "This really isn't good. The monster that is airport security is too big to control. Not even high profile politicians can seem to escape it."

      On the contrary, this is exactly what is needed. Unless the foolishness affects those in charge of it they will never stop their ill conceived practices.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    3. Re:Not good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who's to say it wasn't intentional? It did make the news and draw attention to just how awesome the TSA is at finding stuff to be afraid of, after all. They escape it just fine, when they need to.

    4. Re:Not good by SmlFreshwaterBuffalo · · Score: 1

      Actually quite the contrary. That's the only good thing about it.

    5. Re:Not good by delinear · · Score: 1

      If it ever affected them in any real way, don't you think they'd just put in place regulations that specifically let them bypass the checks (something along the lines of diplomatic immunity) citing that it affected their ability to effectively do their job (and ignoring the massive irony of what it means to everyone else trying to do their jobs)?

    6. Re:Not good by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that you would prefer that the law does not apply equally to all people regardless of social standing, job, etc?

    7. Re:Not good by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      No, because while most of the general public would probably miss the irony until it was pointed out to them, a large part of the media would not miss it, and Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert certainly wouldn't miss it.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    8. Re:Not good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree. I think the key to affecting change is to demonstrate the utter stupidity and futility of current regs and prohibitions to people of import, such as Ms. Neville-Jones. They need a picture painted for them in order to understand, so paint that mother.

      The picture being painted is that the people who matter don't have enough exemptions.

  11. Hm... by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "The Baroness is also former head of the British Joint Intelligence Committee, and was traveling at the time to discuss the war on terror with US security chiefs."

    They must be talking about the 'terror' that they use to manipulate the average sheep into believing that these blatant invasions of privacy and freedom are a good idea.

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    1. Re:Hm... by Grapplebeam · · Score: 1

      She should've got a cavity search, like everyone else. What makes her better than the rest of us, besides her silly title? And job description? And seeming authority on this sort of thing?

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree.
    2. Re:Hm... by jez9999 · · Score: 0

      Nah, they wouldn't be at war with that terror.

  12. Opportunity lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If security is important, then she should 1) have known better in the first place 2) thanked them for their efforts, and 3) apologised for her mistake. Instead she turned into a bitch (a haughty bitch), and in hind sight, it would have been better for her to be detained and strip searched. You can bet cash that if she took that tone with American airport security, there would have been no diplomatic gloves applied. She would have been detained and made to strip. ...and it would be a 'dressing down' long long overdue. The airport security people are under the gun to make sure air transportation is safe. They have to be diligent, there are rules on top of rules that they constantly have to keep up with (always growing, never shrinking), and to add insult to injury, not only are the passengers all bitchy, their bosses are bitchy. I remember just days after 9/11/01, US marines were patrolling airports with M16's (not shouldered). Security was more manic then. Yelling at security could get someone shot.

  13. Blocked? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seriously, Slashdot is getting worse than the mainstream press.

    How was she "blocked" as the title says?

  14. I love the passive voice! by humphrm · · Score: 1

    Paraphrasing: "Mistakes were made. We don't care."

    You made the rules, you have to live by them.

    --
    -- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
  15. I suppose it's fair... by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    I suppose it's fair when they get caught in the same system they suggest for everybody else.

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  16. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While being questioned by airport security staff for transporting a container with more than 100ml of liquid, the Baroness seemingly took offense at being lectured on the importance of security procedure: 'Of course I know how important it is,' she said, 'I'm the Security Minister.'

    Good. I'm happy she was offended. I say we run through the entire procedure word-for-word, action-for-action for EVERY public official who flies commercially. And I hope every single one of them is every bit as offended as the rest of us are for being treated at best like petulant children who need to be taught a lesson, and at worst like criminals who have no rights. The more public officials get pissed off over being treated the same way the average citizen is treated, the more likely there is to be an outcry against this kind of crap.

    As the Security Minister, she should have known damn well that she needed to double check her bags for compliance BEFORE leaving home. So if she gets pissy over having to endure the same lecture as some other poor sap who simply forgot it was in there, tough shit. She's not above the law. And since she's one of the ones who seem to think it's so important, she needs to the standard just as much as everyone else, if not moreso.

  17. Someone's got her beat... by quacking+duck · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The Baroness' behaviour sounds positively tame compared to former Canadian Conservative MP Helena Guergis's temper tantrum when trying to catch a flight home earlier this year, going so far as throwing insults and her boots at security officials:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/airport-worker-says-guergis-meltdown-among-worst-hes-seen/article1482043/

    Any of us little people would've been tasered, handcuffed and carried away after a stunt like that. Power certainly hath its privileges.

    1. Re:Someone's got her beat... by fadir · · Score: 1

      Depends on how much former this PM is. If she's not responsible for this utter nonsense called security check then she has all reason to be upset. Instead of complying with all the rediculous crap I'd prefer to throw shoes at those people as well. Sadly I'd like to reach my destination so I throw shoes (and do worse things) just in my imagination and politely (as good as I can fake it) comply to get done with it.

  18. high up gov people can do DO YOU KNOW WHO I'M by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    high up gov people can do DO YOU KNOW WHO I'M line and get away with it.

    1. Re:high up gov people can do DO YOU KNOW WHO I'M by sr180 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I use the "Don't you know who I am?" line with police...
      When they reply, "Why the hell would I know who you are?"
      I say, "Good!" and run like hell.

      --
      In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
    2. Re:high up gov people can do DO YOU KNOW WHO I'M by radio4fan · · Score: 5, Informative

      If she said "Do you know who I am?", the correct answer would surely be:

      "You're a Baroness that no-one has ever had the chance to vote for - or against - and you were allegedly vetoed by MI5 for the position of National Security Adviser due to your ill-advised links to dodgy Russian mafia-linked oligarchs, from whom you take sizeable donations to run your office.

      Next question please."

    3. Re:high up gov people can do DO YOU KNOW WHO I'M by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      high up gov people can do DO YOU KNOW WHO I'M line and get away with it.

      Odd grammar... I'm so sorry, Master Yoda, I should have realized who you're immediately.

    4. Re:high up gov people can do DO YOU KNOW WHO I'M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see the situation in a slightly different light. I see the sheer ignorance of the "security staff" about their ultimate boss as grounds for immediate dismissal of said personnel, and whosoever was in charge of their training. The Aerosol must be discarded though. Next question?

  19. Wrong Title by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    UK Terror Chief Blocked From Boarding Aircraft

    That's because his title is wrong. It should be Anti-Terror Chief.

    1. Re:Wrong Title by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's because his title is wrong. It should be Anti-Terror Chief.

      No, when I lived in the UK I was far more terrified of the government than terrorists. And, more pedantically, her job is to terrorise Britons into thinking that anyone carrying more than 100ml of liquid onto a plane is trying to kill them, so Terror Chief is really very apt.

    2. Re:Wrong Title by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      They should have a choice of Anal and Non-Anal flights. Those willing to take on a little more risk in exchange for more privacy could take the Non-Anal flight. Those who are paranoid or like ass exams would take the Anal flight.

    3. Re:Wrong Title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      now if she was a simpleton black or arab looking person...

    4. Re:Wrong Title by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 1

      You know - I'd go for that... the differing levels of screening, I mean. I would gladly accept the apparent increased risk for a "non-extensively passenger screened" flight if given the option. I'll happily sign a waiver to do it.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    5. Re:Wrong Title by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      i'm all for that!

      how cool would it be to have smoking sections on terror flights?

      WAY MORE FUN than in-flight entertainment (unless it's "snakes on a plane", and it very well could be)

    6. Re:Wrong Title by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1, Troll
      I live in the UK, and I can confirm we are much more terrified of our government than of Al Quaida.

      Our own police kill a lot more people than Al Quaida, and are a lot less incompetent in other ways as well. Further more, we are terrorised on a daily basis by over sealous enforement of traffic regulations, and excessive fines.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    7. Re:Wrong Title by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Most modern systems have a concept of statutory laws that you can't sign away no matter who you are or what you sign, and this is precisely the sort of thing that would come under such law.

      About the only time you can sign a bit of paper which says "I accept that I'm doing something risky and may get killed doing it" is if you join the armed forces.

      (Disclaimer: IANAL).

    8. Re:Wrong Title by delinear · · Score: 1

      The worst part about policing and enforcement in this country is the move to automate everything. Now computers and other machines get to automatically act as judge, jury and executioner - watching our every move and issuing fines and penalty points if we ever overstep the mark. I'm loathe to suggest that police have much common sense, but at least with a real cop you have a chance of some common sense coming in to play in edge cases where you made an honest mistake or were left no choice, a machine is cold and works in shades of only black and white, guilty and yet-to-be-found guilty. I thought Skynet was meant to sieze power, not that we were going to just willingly let it enslave us.

    9. Re:Wrong Title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, Anne Thwacks, you can't confirm that WE are more terrified. You can confirm that YOU are more terrified.

      I'm not terrified of either. This is just how the world has always worked.

      Clearly you really hate government because you've been slapped with a couple of £35 parking tickets. I agree that the outsourced traffic enforcement is pretty scummy, but the speed limit fines are totally justified. Those speed limits are the rules. If you don't like the rules don't play the game (or do something positive to change the rules).

    10. Re:Wrong Title by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      I live in the UK, and I can confirm we are much more terrified of our government than of Al Quaida.

      Our own police kill a lot more people than Al Quaida, and are a lot less incompetent in other ways as well. Further more, we are terrorised on a daily basis by over sealous enforement of traffic regulations, and excessive fines.

      I thought most of the UK police didn't carry weapons, just whistles. And citizens don't carry weapons, so why would UK police need to use deadly force?

    11. Re:Wrong Title by Serious+Callers+Only · · Score: 1

      Criminals carry weapons, and citizens can own them for recreation legally, so the police have armed response units in case a situation includes weapons. if you threaten people with a shotgun for example, and wait for the police to turn up, you can expect to be shot dead.

      As they managed to shoot an innocent electrician on vague suspicions which turned out to be unfounded after the tube bombs, they lost some public confidence, but generally they do not over-react or shoot dead citizens without cause.

      As to the comparison with al quaida of course many things kill more than terrorism as only one successful attack has been made on uk soil by AQ - cars, alcohol and probably food poisoning have killed more over the last decade.... The police in the uk do not cause many fatalities as compared with other countries, which I believe is a more sensible measure. Comparing them to a foreign terrorist group for whom we are at best a peripheral target is not very useful.

    12. Re:Wrong Title by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The majority of UK deaths as a result of police activity are traffic accidents, where the police hit someone while responding to an emergency call. These typically only make the local media - there was a case of a pensioner being killed in such an accident here a while ago - but not the national media. When dealing with armed criminals, the police call in SO-19, and when they kill someone it makes the national news for several days.

      It's not quite true to say that they don't carry weapons. They don't carry firearms, but they do carry batons. Someone died at a protest last year after being beaten to the ground with these (not a protester, just some guy leaving work while the march was on). This also made the national news.

      The grandparent is almost certainly right that the police have killed more people in Britain than Al Quaeda, but that's largely due to the fact that Al Quaeda has killed a total of 56, in their one successful attack. The probability of being killed by a terrorist attack is so low it's statistically irrelevant.

      And people complaining about being 'terrorised' by traffic regulations makes me glad that I live in Britain - when speeding and parking fines are the most serious complaint that people have, you know life can't be that bad...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    13. Re:Wrong Title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I live in the UK, and I can confirm the *I* am much more terrified out our Government" - there fixed it for you.

      The UK Government is far from perfect, but I am not that scared of it... too incompetent to be scary.

    14. Re:Wrong Title by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 1

      (Disclaimer: IANAL).

      So I take it you'd be in the 'intensive screening' line?

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    15. Re:Wrong Title by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      generally they do not over-react or shoot dead citizens without cause.

      I should hope not, else they would be brought up on charges of abusing a corpse!

  20. Too bad by oldhack · · Score: 1

    If she was a Duchess, we might have let her thru, but a mere Baroness? Come on.

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  21. Cobra by redvision4 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Clearly they finally had the chance to really hinder Cobra and they missed it. Gi.Joe must be pissed.

    1. Re:Cobra by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Clearly they finally had the chance to really hinder Cobra and they missed it. Gi.Joe must be pissed.

      I'm always amused when I read news stories about British government officials attending Cobra meetings. Either it's an example of someone's sick sense of humor, or they really have no clue.

    2. Re:Cobra by Filmcell-Keyrings · · Score: 1

      Why should we have a clue about GI Joe, in the UK we had the far superior Action Man, He had moving eyes, gripping hands and he ate GI's for breakfast. Honestly, I knew of GI Joe, but until the recent movie, did not not know that the bad guys were called Cobra.

      --
      Never rub another man's rhubarb
    3. Re:Cobra by delinear · · Score: 1

      More likely they just wanted to make their tedious jobs sound a little more interesting. "Hey, today I attended a meeting at COBRA!" Good for you. The stupid thing is, I bet there's not even a Cabinet Office Briefing Room Beta - they just realised that they could turn COBR into a "cool" acronym by appending an extra letter.

    4. Re:Cobra by matfud · · Score: 1

      Had a little slider on the back of the head to make the eyes work? I am far to old.

  22. My experience with TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was waiting to pick a friend up at the airport. I was early and they were late. I had seen a report on the local news that week that they were going to start wiping peoples hands and running them trough a sniffer to see if there was explosive residue on them.

    I wanted to find out what chemicals were in the wipes because of alergies. There was a person watching the exit from the secure area who was obviously bored (very small airport, could be 15 minutes between people at times) She needed only to make sure nobody went the wrong way. So I decided to ask her about it. Took awhile to explain what I wanted to know and then confirm she didn't know and was just willing to make stuff up.

    I went back to waiting and then suddenly 5 police officers were around me to ask questions. 2nd degree and background check and other fun. I felt like asking if I was being detained, but I could not afford to be taken away for 24 hours.

    Eventually I was let go after about 30 minutes. They did not take me anywhere or touch me but it was eye opening.

    1. Re:My experience with TSA by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      A lot of the training and direction that security guards/officers get is about conversations exactly like yours. My company develops security screening technologies, and one of our constant efforts is just talking with security people about what they look for (not just airport but also run-of-the-mill rent-a-cops). These people are specifically instructed to watch out for people asking questions like that. Also for trenchcoats. I've seen countless security briefings/orientations with example images of bad guys wearing sunglasses and trench coats in unusual places. It's almost a meme within the community.

    2. Re:My experience with TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to state your concerns in their language, that is, print up a legal form that they must sign before you hand is wiped, that states that they take full responsibility for any adverse reaction you have, including any doctor, hospital, and missed work costs. Have one of their supervisors sign it. This way you aren't asking any questions about the content, and thus raising their suspicion.

  23. Off Lee Head ... Off Lee Head ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ha Ha the Baroness Neville-Jones is fucking CLUELESS! Priceless!

    Perhaps her Worshipfullness will give a BLOW-JOB to the TSA KiesterKops about 20+ I'd imagine watching the spectacle.

    Just goes to show that the SECURITY, post 9/11 is a blithering JOKE and not even up to the security in 1911!

    OH! [Ramp up the musc boys] Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines. They Go UptpyUpUp and Go DowntpyDownDown ...

    In the words of Red Skelton ... "May God Bless."

    In my words ... may you burn from a Molitov Cocktail in the face.

    Toodles!

  24. Neville-Jones can shove it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would like to give a sincere, "Ha ha, fuck you" to the Minister.
    Cheers
    -- Anonymous Aviation Security Professional who is sick and tired of purely reactive ineffective security measures imposed by various Ministries and Departments.

  25. noob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He thinks he's above the law..,
    What a creep, just like every other politician.

    1. Re:noob by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      FYI: he's a she.

    2. Re:noob by Arimus · · Score: 1

      hint:
      Baron == Male
      Baroness == Female
      Heir == Male
      Heiress == Female

      Start to see a pattern?

      And she didn't think she was above the law, it was a mistake... which I guess you never mak.. oh guess you do make them :p. Anyway, the bit she got annoyed at wasn't being told to remove it was the lecture the customs/security ape tried giving her - she probably authorised most of the lecture...

      --
      --- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
    3. Re:noob by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      FYI: he's a she.

      Look at that photo. Care to try again? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Neville-Jones,_Baroness_Neville-Jones

    4. Re:noob by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      An approximation of one anyway.

  26. Cobraaaa! by Dachannien · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why would you hire the Baroness as your minister of security? Next you'll be telling me that Destro is the new Prime Minister.

    1. Re:Cobraaaa! by stimpleton · · Score: 1

      I realize to non-British, the term "Baroness" sounds like something from a Hollywood Vampire movie, but the term Baron(and hence Baroness) goes to the heart of the British class system.

      Its roots lie in the fact they were monarchy endorsed, often due to excelling in military service.

      So yes, a Baron(or Baroness), would be an epiphany of this role in modern times.

      --

      In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
    2. Re:Cobraaaa! by Confusador · · Score: 3, Informative

      For the benefit of those who didn't grow up in the US in the 80s, it's not just like something from a Hollywood movie, in the context of terrorism The Baroness is a very specific someone, whose name was chosen presumably because of the military connotations you mention. The whole thing combines to make articles like this intensely amusing.

    3. Re:Cobraaaa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      epitome

    4. Re:Cobraaaa! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Now you know, and knowing is half the battle!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    5. Re:Cobraaaa! by steelfood · · Score: 1
      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  27. UK Terror Chief? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

    AND her name is The Baroness?!? I can see why she'd be blocked, she sounds terrifying. And possibly a mortal enemy to GI Joe.

  28. Wasn't the liquid bomb a hoax anyway? by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why do we still have the liquid restrictions when they are not a credible threat? Meanwhile flammable liquids and gasses in cigarette lighters are ignored as they should be.
    It's really become an expensive joke instead of anything resembling security.

    1. Re:Wasn't the liquid bomb a hoax anyway? by xenobyte · · Score: 1

      As many have already pointed out - it's security theater and it has nothing to do with security except in the name. It's a pathetic joke designed to make it appear to the less intelligent (which obviously includes most of the power establishment) that something is done.

      * None of the checks at the airports, including the porn scanner, would not have stopped the 9/11 terrorists.
      * It takes less than 200ml of liquid explosive to down a plane and you're allowed five times that (in separate containers but still).

      A simple profiling banning everybody that had connections with extremist organisations would have stopped both all the 9/11 terrorists and all subsequent attempts using shoe-bombs, underwear bombs, liquid bombs and so on. All the people involved were on watch-lists, as were many others by the way.

      Sure, you'll ban a lot of legitimate travelers as well, but people chose their friends and if they chose to associate with extremists it might (or will) have consequences, like the inability to travel by air.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    2. Re:Wasn't the liquid bomb a hoax anyway? by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A simple profiling banning everybody that had connections with extremist organisations would have stopped both all the 9/11 terrorists and all subsequent attempts using shoe-bombs, underwear bombs, liquid bombs and so on. All the people involved were on watch-lists, as were many others by the way. Sure, you'll ban a lot of legitimate travelers as well, but people chose their friends and if they chose to associate with extremists it might (or will) have consequences, like the inability to travel by air.

      While I agree with you about your other points, this is simply the old good Nazi/Soviet/What-not "guilt by association" shtick. Its even worse than the perversity already being committed. So a brother of a guy you buy kabobs from at his mobile cart in front of your office joined the Jihad somewhere in Pakistan and you being a computer nerd happened to help the stand owner get his wi-fi working on his netbook while waiting for your kabobs. Neither of you had a clue about the new Holy Warrior being minted in some cave but its just too bad anyway. Goodbye air travel, hello body cavity searches. Etc and so on.

      The real goals of "guilt by association" are of course things like Aryan Purity (because anyone not "pure" enough is quickly "associated" out of relevance or even existence) and also a very convenient to rulers abject fear of the security apparatus by the populace. Because it takes only "an association" (completely arbitrarily defined) to fuck you up for life and so enforcement becomes entirely the matter of whim of your "betters" (i.e. the members of the Securocracy).

    3. Re:Wasn't the liquid bomb a hoax anyway? by jimicus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because it has nothing to do with security and everything to do with the appearance of security. The two are often quite different, and should not be confused.

      If our politicians wanted security, they'd canvass the opinion of the worlds' experts. If they want political appearance of security, they will do what they think looks good.

      The worlds' experts have almost universally said "Everything being done is a waste of time - obvious knee-jerk reactions are pointless"; the world's politicians have without fail carried out the obvious knee-jerk reaction whenever something bad happens.

    4. Re:Wasn't the liquid bomb a hoax anyway? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      No, it wasn't a hoax - it was just a really bad plan. The most likely outcome, had they got onto the plane, was that they would have died in a small explosion in the toilet while attempting to mix the explosive. Personally, I wish they'd done exactly this - I don't think anyone could be terrified of an organisation whose operatives blew themselves up in toilets - but they were caught first.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:Wasn't the liquid bomb a hoax anyway? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone could be terrified of an organisation whose operatives blew themselves up in toilets

      Why not? They're terrified of an organization whose operatives burn their balls off and set off bombs in their asses.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    6. Re:Wasn't the liquid bomb a hoax anyway? by speroni · · Score: 1

      Its so you have to buy more goods in the airport, at extortion prices.

      --
      Eschew Obfuscation
    7. Re:Wasn't the liquid bomb a hoax anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love how you've used Nazis and Aryans to try to prove that a technique is invalid. Obviously, only you know what the "real goals" are.

      People didn't get on these watch lists for setting up wi-fi at any hot dog (kabob) stand, so let's not play that game. I work with people traveling all over the world, some of whom have come up on watch lists (same name as someone else). They don't get jacked up and cavity searched without a lot more screening.

    8. Re:Wasn't the liquid bomb a hoax anyway? by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      People didn't get on these watch lists for setting up wi-fi at any hot dog (kabob) stand, so let's not play that game. I work with people traveling all over the world, some of whom have come up on watch lists (same name as someone else). They don't get jacked up and cavity searched without a lot more screening.

      Aaaah the old canard of trying to imply that you know things only available to the anointed priesthood, Mr. Securocrat, and not to mere peons like us here. I mean the process of putting people on no fly lists is completely secret, the people responsible for maintaining the list are shielded by "national security", not subject to any public scrutiny whatsoever, there are no appeals possible and people like Ted Kennedy end up on the list. But you somehow "know"!

      Or in other words, go fuck yourself with a cactus, you wannabe brownshirt. I did bring Nazi comparisons in here for a reason and the reason is people like you.

    9. Re:Wasn't the liquid bomb a hoax anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either show us the evidence of this great Nazi conspiracy, or take off your tin-foil hat and stop trolling.

      There's an obvious need for watch lists not to be public. Or is that over your head?

      Oh, and thank you very much for the cactus insult. It shows your true ignorance.

    10. Re:Wasn't the liquid bomb a hoax anyway? by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      Either show us the evidence of this great Nazi conspiracy, or take off your tin-foil hat and stop trolling.

      Since no one but you is talking about a "Nazi conspiracy" that's a strawman you could try burning somewhere else.

      What people are pointing out are individual signature Nazi policies, such as construction of State Security apparatus agencies such as TSA, the security theater, mass surveilance, torture etc and so on.

      There's an obvious need for watch lists not to be public. Or is that over your head?

      Secret "watch lists" are a Nazi (Gestapo to be particular) and Soviet (NKVD) policies. Or is that over your head?

  29. Terror Chief Indeed by skywire · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The story title aptly characterizes her as Terror Chief. Her role, like that of her American counterpart, is to instill terror in the populace. She is one of the most valuable, if unofficial, players on the Al Qaeda team, thanks to the interest of our ruling elites in promoting (for different reasons) terrorism.

    --
    Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
  30. Eating your own dog food Re:Good by La+Gris · · Score: 1

    Really, this should apply in this case. Officials responsible for law production are welcome eating their own dog-food.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_your_own_dog_food

    --
    Léa Gris
  31. What about world leaders? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    The Baroness could easily be a terrorist. According to the security agencies, the pilots may decide to blow up the planes as well. I see no reason that Barack Obama and David Cameron are above the law in this respect, and they have access to a lot of information that could aid terrorism.

    I do hope they get the security pat down as well.

  32. Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, great scoop man! She got stopped, removed an item, and then was let through! Now there's something that doesn't happen every day.

    1. Re:Cool by delinear · · Score: 1

      In case you missed it, the story was her reaction. We're all expected to silently take this crap like sheep, while she gets to blow up about it (sorry, poor choice of words). If you or I made any kind of fuss we'd be off to the back-room for interro^H^Hview (and probably miss flights/connections etc as a result).

  33. Astounding! Time to do something... by bradley13 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yeah, something like this.

    This really has gone too far. TSA should be eliminated. Let the airlines and airports provide security - they, at least, have no interest in intimidating and humiliating their customers.

    I'm not the type to write Congresscritters, but it can do no harm. A bit of Googling... It turns out that both the House of Representatives and the Senate provide convenient web forms that let you contact your Congresscritters.

    Even if you are not normally political, please consider taking the time to send a message. It takes no more time than posting on /.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:Astounding! Time to do something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm not the type to write Congresscritters"

      I am, but it would probably end up looking more like "Conjizzoullus". My writing sucks.

    2. Re:Astounding! Time to do something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      . Let the airlines and airports provide security - they, at least, have no interest in intimidating and humiliating their customers.

      You've obviously not flown 'RyanAir' recently ;-)

    3. Re:Astounding! Time to do something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This really has gone too far. TSA should be eliminated.

      Sheeps say "baa baa", not "something should be done". Do something or practice your baa-baa.

      I heard americans own lots of handguns. What for?

    4. Re:Astounding! Time to do something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It turns out that both the House of Representatives and the Senate provide convenient web forms that let you think you're contacting your Congresscritters.

      FTFY. Unless there's a Paypal donation button on the form, you might as well just redirect it to /dev/null.

    5. Re:Astounding! Time to do something... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      It turns out that both the House of Representatives [house.gov] and the Senate [senate.gov] provide convenient web forms that let you contact your Congresscritters.

      Yes this is more eco-friendly. Instead of low-level government employees incrementing a number on a spreadsheet based on your letter's basic gist and dropping it in the recycling bin, they can send your web form's input directly to /dev/null.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    6. Re:Astounding! Time to do something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you actually watch TFVs? They show that the girl lied. At no time was she handcuffed to a chair. At no time did the TSA agents appear to mistreat her in any way.

      I have no love for useless security checks and I'm no proponent of body scanners but you have to have a reasonable measure of security just the same.

  34. Re:I see it differently - "technical" background by jimicus · · Score: 2, Informative

    Dealing with the details of laws is her job. She knows as well as you or I how ridiculous that law is and how stupid it is that it is implemented by a guy that cannot deviate from a script that could almost be replaced by a robot. She's getting angry about something we should all be angry about and she knows that things are done differently in her country (perhaps just as stupid, but in different ways).

    What on Earth are you talking about? She is a UK politician who was flying to the US. However, the aerosol was taken off her in Heathrow airport

  35. Security Checks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She was en route to Washington, where do you imagine they check people boarding a plane?

    Since you're American I'll make it easy; her outburst happened at Heathrow Airport in London on her way out of the country!
       

  36. Police-phobia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, I doubt your claims that the British police kill more people than Al-Qaeda.

    For arguments sake at least the British police did not launch a series of coordinated suicide attacks upon London's public transport system during the morning rush hour killing 56 civilians in one fell swoop!

    It would be ironic if you were hurt during a terrorist attack in the UK.

    1. Re:Police-phobia by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      56 deaths in one incident sounds a lot, but 56 deaths in one incident is actually 56 deaths ever. The IRA killed a lot more people than Al Queda and were actually a credible terrorist threat and didn't cause us to massively overreact. I can't find a total for the number of people killed by the police. Apparently 40 were killed in police-related traffic accidents in one year, so over the last 10 years a lot more people have almost certainly been killed by police than AQ. If you go for the last 30 years, and include the systematic police brutality involved with Thatcher's response to the miner's strike, then it's going to be a lot more.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:Police-phobia by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      If Al Quaeda caused a massive overreaction and the IRA didn't, then Al Quaeda are the better terrorists.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    3. Re:Police-phobia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's more that "al Qaeda" (a mythical organisation, I actually mean the rare and disparate groups of massively incompetent angry young Muslims) got very lucky with the political climate. Nobody gave a shit about this in the 80s, and we were quite happy to only strip away the rights of, murder and dehumanise Irish people. Out of sight, out of mind. But now it's the new century, and our governmental apparatus and media are massively in favour of a police/surveillance state. So obviously no good crisis will go to waste. Hell, they're happy to manufacture a crisis out of a ridiculous and impossible terroristic idea that they suspect some young brown men might have. They have maps, photos and household chemicals! Materials Of Use To Terrorists!

  37. And no muslim has ever blown up a hotel in Brighto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    And no muslim has ever blown up a hotel in Brighton.

    Mind you, the 11/9 terrorists didn't blow up a plane either. The crashed them.

  38. Security Hassle for others by Aceticon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm actually surprised she was flying on a normal airliner - had she been flying on a charter flight she wouldn't have to go through the pointless hassle of security theater in the airport.

    Maybe an unintended side-effect of the recession and the UK government having to cut custs will be that, now that most public officials can't easilly justify the cost of charter flights, they'll be subjected to the same humiliations as us plebes have been facing in UK airports thus coming to the conclusion that (now that they have to go through it) the current security practices are excessive and unjustified.

    1. Re:Security Hassle for others by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can't wait for a terrorist to hijack a charter flight. The first step to undoing this insane airport security crap is to inconvenience the wealthy and powerful. Either that or it will help expose the stupidity of the system to the media.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:Security Hassle for others by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      Why Hijack? Use some of that ample drug funding to pack an ultralight with a fertilizer/diesel bomb. Use gear acquired exclusively in country and avoid airports altogether.

      But you're right, people really need to realize that "Oh yeah, bad guys don't really need to go through security checkpoints to get their terror on".

      p.s. IANAT.

  39. No by tygerstripes · · Score: 2, Funny

    Not unless it was Tuesday, and she was carrying a hamburger patty.

    --
    Meta will eat itself
  40. All I can say is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HAA HAA!

  41. Cobra is getting sloppy! by PPCAvenger · · Score: 1

    "The Baroness is also former head of the British Joint Intelligence Committee ... "

      You'd think the Baroness would know better than to use an over sized can; perhaps this was plan B with plan A being the use of Destro's head. Can you imagine how they would have reacted to that guy's noggin?

      I can practically hear Cobra Commander screaming about idiots from here!

  42. Please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop calling them "critters". These are not warm, fuzzy, harmless stuffed animals we are talking about. These are people who hold a special right to employ physical force against you -- not merely in self-defense, but as a business model. These are the people sitting at the top of the power pyramid, looking at you from the top down, certainly not from the bottom up. These are the people who run the business of government, expanding the business in terms of power and revenue, at your expense, year after year.

    Using the word "critters" completely alters the perception of what these people actually do for a living (hint: snuggling up to you is the last thing on their agenda).

    1. Re:Please by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Based on my understanding of American linguistics (learned from Brian Frisk's White Bread Blues web cartoons), I think the word you're looking for is Congressvarmints.

      Varmint: Non-cute creature that needs killin', and if God didn't want you killin' 'em, they'd have a cuter name, like fuzzy wuzzums.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:Please by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Congressvermin

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
  43. No, it wasn't a hoax. Watch the video. by chrb · · Score: 1

    BBC News article - watch the embedded video for a real-life detonation of a liquid bomb inside an aircraft fuselage.

    Why do we still have the liquid restrictions when they are not a credible threat?

    The Judge in the case disagreed: "I'm satisfied that there is every likelihood that this plot would have succeeded but for the intervention of the police and the security service. Had this conspiracy not been interrupted, a massive loss of life would almost certainly have resulted - and if the detonation was over land, the number of victims would have been even greater still."

    Three men are currently serving life sentences for their part in the plot.

    1. Re:No, it wasn't a hoax. Watch the video. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Please tell me then what the journalists know but the worlds best chemists don't. Flashy pictures of something completely different are worthless apart from getting everyone emotionally involved.
      It wasn't going to work and they just went to jail to make sure they'll never try anything that will.

    2. Re:No, it wasn't a hoax. Watch the video. by chrb · · Score: 1

      Please tell me then what the journalists know but the worlds best chemists don't.

      Sidney Alford made the liquid bomb for the BBC that is in the video I already referenced He is a qualified explosives engineer, and the man behind explosives.net. He has a long history of contracting for governments and militaries in explosives technologies, including for the U.S. Army and for the Ministry of Defense in Afghanistan. Quoting from that article, "Staff Sergeant Snowy White, of the Royal Engineers Trials and Development Unit, described Sidney as a 'pure genius'". The MOD refer to him as an expert in IEDs.

      So, a recognised and qualified expert in the IED field not only built a liquid bomb, but also detonated it inside a plane fuselage, filmed by the BBC. Such an attack may require a degree of skill and planning, but it is obviously possible.

  44. From the Ministry Of Passive Voices by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    'Liquids were inadvertently left in a bag. The item was removed and the Minister fully complied with subsequent checks.'"

    You mean "subsequent checks were fully complied with".

  45. Re:I see it differently - "technical" background by dbIII · · Score: 1

    The rules about what items you are allowed when flying to the USA are decided by (drum roll) guess which country for 10 points?
    There had already been a bit of political grumbling about that in the UK as well as a few other countries.
    Now do you understand?

  46. Because I said so, that's why. by hduff · · Score: 1

    Typical government arrogance. They tell us what to do, not the other way around.

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  47. She knows by wonkavader · · Score: 1

    'Of course I know how important it is,' she said, 'I'm the Security Minister.'

    So she knows it's completely unimportant.

  48. Re:I see it differently - "technical" background by jimicus · · Score: 1

    Not really, IME the exact same rules regarding liquids apply regardless of where you're flying from or to with remarkable consistency.

  49. The video is not of the same substances by dbIII · · Score: 1

    OK you've shifted the goalposts a bit from what can be mixed up on the spot from things that get past sniffer dogs (or nitrogen sensing equipment) to stuff prepared earlier - which is why I wrote "Flashy pictures of something completely different".
    I'm not denying the existence of nitroglycerine and many things since, simply sticking to the story of the stuff in the bombing and the stuff the rules will stop. Please note that they stop you bringing on water and not lighter fluid!

    1. Re:The video is not of the same substances by tftp · · Score: 1

      Please note that they stop you bringing on water and not lighter fluid!

      They can't tell the difference. Not all dangerous substances are distinctive enough to be recognized through the bottle's wall or to be safely opened and sniffed. The linked chemical - hydrazine - is a colorless liquid, and if someone opens the bottle then it's too late (someone is going to get badly burned, or poisoned, or both.) Nitrogen tetroxide is also a colorless liquid (if kept cold enough.) When those are mixed you get one of most efficient - and very poisonous - rocket fuels; and a terrorist can probably mix them by just putting several plastic bottles together and smashing them.

    2. Re:The video is not of the same substances by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Once again, what would a chemist say about the subject? Can you mix them in an aircraft toilet without setting yourself on fire halfway through or poisoning yourself? A small fire is not going to bring the plane down.
      Once again I'm not denying that liquid explosives exist. I've worked with picric acid on occasions myself and it can be highly explosive under certain conditions (a thing to consider when a tank of it is on your lap with a current going through it and you are up on scaffolding). I'm writing about the liquid explosive plot that didn't work and "closing the door after the horse has bolted". All of the excuses about substances sealed away apply to solid explosives as well.

    3. Re:The video is not of the same substances by tftp · · Score: 1

      Once again, what would a chemist say about the subject? Can you mix them in an aircraft toilet without setting yourself on fire halfway through or poisoning yourself? A small fire is not going to bring the plane down.

      I'm not a professional chemist, but I dabbled in chemistry in school. Certainly the quality of the mixture is a factor in the thermal efficiency of the reaction ... in most cases.

      However this particular pair of liquids is hypergolic. That means that the mixture self-ignites once it is made. And that, in turn, not only makes pre-mixing of them unnecessary - it makes it impossible. My example ("put several bottles together and smash them") was not contrived; most of these liquids will react.

      Once again I'm not denying that liquid explosives exist.

      Technically, these liquids are not explosives, they are just highly active propellants. But the distinction will be lost, given enough of either substance. Besides, UDMH *is* explosive in presence of oxidizers.

      "closing the door after the horse has bolted"

      There are still plenty of horses left in that barn, unless you imply that there are no more passenger flights. A better expression would be "once burned, twice shy."

      I'm writing about the liquid explosive plot that didn't work

      As I recall, it "didn't work" because the police didn't wait to let them try it in the air. As you acknowledge, liquid (and solid, and gaseous) explosives exist, and once you establish that fact you, as a public servant, have to close that hole - otherwise you'd be crucified by the mob after that hole is exploited (and it will be, since there is seemingly no lack of willing suiciders.) You'd have no excuse; you are not Condi Rice, after all (I think :-)

    4. Re:The video is not of the same substances by dbIII · · Score: 1

      You "put several of those bottles together and smash them" and you have one badly burned criminal in an intact aircraft. It was in the press at the time and came up again when it was in court. People are just distracted by what it could have been instead of what actually happened and can be done within the existing constraints. Explosive experts could make a big bang for the cameras but it wasn't out of materials that would have withstood a search. If we are going to play the game of things that are hidden from a search then rules about searches are completely irrelevant in that game then aren't they?
      Anyway, think about the concept of a two part reacting liquid explosive for a few seconds. Violent reactions when liquids mix happen where the liquids are in contact, so if they are explosive on contact you'd expect to get a rapidly expanding gas phase forming at that point which makes it even harder to mix because it keeps the liquids apart or liquid goes everywhere. What you most likely saw on TV was instead somebody mixing up an explosive liquid (which is going to take time and is likely to have volatile fumes which will be noticed (stinging eyes etc) ) and then detonating it conventionally with something else.

    5. Re:The video is not of the same substances by tftp · · Score: 1

      Violent reactions when liquids mix happen where the liquids are in contact, so if they are explosive on contact you'd expect to get a rapidly expanding gas phase forming at that point which makes it even harder to mix because it keeps the liquids apart or liquid goes everywhere.

      Two hair spray bottles, one for each hand, can become a pocket flamethrower. But all this is just an example; the original question was "why they are not allowing water" and by now it had been shown why - hopefully on purely logical and technical grounds.

      On the other hand, there is no way for a reasonable person to "feel safe" in TSA hands and behind their checkpoints. TSA is a reactive organization; it can't foresee threats, and most importantly there is no physical way to protect from those threats, short of X-raying every passenger (through, not just backscatter.)

    6. Re:The video is not of the same substances by chrb · · Score: 1

      OK you've shifted the goalposts a bit from what can be mixed up on the spot from things that get past sniffer dogs (or nitrogen sensing equipment) to stuff prepared earlier

      The plotters plan was to prepare the liquid bomb earlier, and carry it onboard in a regular 500ml soft drinks bottle. The plan was to use a syringe to fill the bottle, so the "tamper proof" screw top would be intact, and the bottle would attract little notice when going through security.

      As far as I know, there are no sniffer dogs or nitrogen sensing equipment in use for boarding security at most British airports. I know the government is planning to bring in some high tech scanners, but I haven't seen any yet. And even if there were such technology, would it detect explosives in a sealed plastic container, even if the outside was washed? The plotters planned to use an explosive detonator in an AA battery - if it were sealed and washed, would there be any residue for the scanners to detect?

      Please note that they stop you bringing on water and not lighter fluid!

      Lighter fluid is restricted to the amount you can put in a regular size refillable lighter. You can take on a litre of vodka from the departure lounge shops though, which should burn quite well.

    7. Re:The video is not of the same substances by dbIII · · Score: 1

      A far far more credible threat is somebody with something that produces toxic fumes when burnt and a lighter. We don't ban lighters and are instead playing with fantasies of two part explosives that don't really exist.
      The liquid ban is more of a game and arse covering than credible security.

    8. Re:The video is not of the same substances by tftp · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's why I said that I don't trust TSA with anyone's safety. There are too many threats out there, and your example is just one out of hundreds. But TSA only knows of attacks that had been attempted. While we may criticize it (or not) for their lack of attention to future threats, at least it is understood that the TSA, being a bureaucracy, *will* be confiscating nail clippers and bottles of water - it's the nature of the beast.

      Proposals to drop all this micro-screening and switch to profiling and questioning by trained detectives are met with screams about "betrayal of the soul of the country" and whatnot. But you have to do either the dumb confiscations of everything or allow whatever you want but pass profiling and interviews. At the moment the TSA is in favor of dumb things b/c they are easier to perform; but they are limited to just a few tools of terror and don't cover such a deadly thing as a piano string (possibly made today out of a polymer, totally undetectable.)

      Some say that public liberty requires us to abandon all these checks and just allow the dice to fall however they may. But the public will never allow it - they "have to be protected." Well, they asked for it, and they got it. The public just doesn't want to think that you can never be safe; and in search of this unattainable goal they are willing to sacrifice everything they got.

  50. Re:I see it differently - "technical" background by dbIII · · Score: 1

    There are many different rules for US bound flights than there are for flights to other destinations. This is pissing a lot of people off and some populist politicians are advocating extra searches of US visitors as some deluded sort of payback punishment.
    I'll take your word for the stupid liquid restrictions since I find it too ridiculous to take seriously so don't know how widespread it is. We are attempting to block an attack that would not have worked anyway.

  51. Re:Cheap Spyder and wholesale spyder jackets for s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Got anything that'll stop my spyder sense from tingling?

  52. Wasn't actually blocked? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems that she wasn't actually "blocked from boarding".