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.'"

48 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 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 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!
    6. 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.
    7. 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.

    8. 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..."
  2. 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 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).

    3. 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
    4. 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.
  3. 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.

  4. 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 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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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
    5. 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.

    6. 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.

  5. 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
  6. 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!
  7. Blocked? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seriously, Slashdot is getting worse than the mainstream press.

    How was she "blocked" as the title says?

  8. 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.
  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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 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.

  15. 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).

    2. 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.

  16. 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!
  17. 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.
  18. 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."

  19. 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.

  20. 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.
  21. 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

  22. 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.

  23. 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
  24. No by tygerstripes · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    --
    Meta will eat itself