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.'"

8 of 237 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

  2. 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!
  3. 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.

  4. 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 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).

  5. 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.
  6. 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.