A TV Commentator said today that we will have to get used to being checked before entering the airport at all.
That means that massive queues will build up outside airport entrances. Why should not a terrorist join such a queue and blow himself up, killing even more people?
What then? Do we need something similar to toll booths on the roads approaching the airport to vet passengers as they approach the airport?
Where does it end?
Or should the authorities pass a law, similar to the smoking ban in pubs, which makes the bus of taxi company, or the driver of the car, responsible for transporting a bomber? Surely a bus driver should be able to spot a bomber by the girth of his circumference and his shifty appearance, and challenge him. OK, so the bus driver and other passengers get blown up, but is that not a reasonable price to pay for saving lots of other lives? CCTV cameras could easily identify the bus which carried the bomber.
And what about suitcases?
Does anyone have a reasonable solution? I think that there comes a point where Fate has to be accepted. I do not mean complacency. I mean that there is only so much that can be done before FATE must be accepted.
Having said that, there are possible solutions which might reduce the toll of deaths and injuries and might dissuade bombers on the grounds that they would fail to kill enough people. For example, checking-in need not be confined to the check-in desk of your airline. Given the existence of the computer, it would be quite easy for any passenger to check in at any desk. You go to any desk and present your passport. Your name is typed into the screen and you are asked your destination to confirm. If more than one person with your name comes up, then more detail, such as date of birth, is required. Airport desks and not airline desks. No special desks for special treatment. Everyone has the same rights and duties at that stage. Once inside the secure area, then people who have paid for special treatment can get that special treatment, but not before. FATE has to be accepted as the price of freedom.
The same applies to smoking bans. Such bans are and always have been, scandalous since they deny the right of ordinary people to conduct their lives (including their businesses) as they wish. SHS damage to pub workers – where is the proof? There is none because such damage would only occur if those workers lived for several hundred years. Oh.. Apart from people who are already dying as a result of some other factor, such as genetics. It is the other factor which kills them, and not SHS. If Doll’s Doctors Study proves anything, then it proves that tobacco smoke harm takes an awful long time to appear, even for the heaviest of smokers. How much longer would SHS take to have an effect? Thus, it is not the damage which is important with SHS, but the timescales.
I shall be going to Manchester Airport shortly. What is the risk that I shall be blown up? It is minuscule. I shall have no fear of such an event, even if there is a possibility. The journey to the airport is far more risky.
We need politicians who are trustworthy. Those MPs who voted for smoking bans are not trustworthy because they forgot what they are in Parliament for. They are there to oppose. It does not matter whether their is a Tory or Labour majority in Parliament. Our individual elected representatives are there to oppose essentially, although they might let legislation through if they seriously think that it is OK.
Our Democracy stinks. ASH ET AL have been promoting their surveys for years, but we have seen that their surveys promote bigotry. They are propaganda. They create divisions which did not exist.
Are these errors forgiveable? I think that not. My reason is that the promotion of error has gone on too long. If the errors had affected the promoters themselves, then they would have abandoned them long ago.
Suppose that I said that the terrorist problem would have been spotted long ago by the UN had it not been for the emphasis on the FCTC? Would I be wrong? Where IS the UN on terrorism?
What on Earth is the UN FOR? Does anyone know?