Where Does Security at Airports Start?

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?

 

Advertisements

6 Responses to “Where Does Security at Airports Start?”

  1. garyk30 Says:

    If the bombs yesterday had targeted the UN/EU HQ’s things to prevent such occurences would be very rapid.

    Pity they did not.

  2. smokingscot Says:

    Seems these out of terminal checks are commonplace in Baghdad as well as Tel Aviv. There the threat is ever present, however for the most part they benefit from having relatively mild winters and of course far less rain.

    And one of “Head of ???? Security” I saw on some channel yesterday pointed out exactly the same as yourself. It builds up a bottleneck that’s a perfect soft target.

    The fact the greatest number of casualties yesterday was in the metro – almost 2 to 1 (and still counting) has caused some scratching of heads because general Joe Public certainly want some level of security, but not a whole bunch of inconvenience. And where exactly does this stop? If it’s good for aircraft, then why not trains and buses and so on?

    That costs very serious money and delays people considerably. It’s also a royal pain in the butt when using an airport only for transit purposes.

    Certainly you can check in to your flight on-line with Easyjet making it possible 28 days beforehand and KLM keeping it to a useless 30 hours. If you have no check-in baggage then you just go straight to security. If you do have check-in luggage then you have to go to their counter and queue.

    The reason airports are an attractive target is the knock on effect is massive, so much greater than any other, with the airport shut for days and expensive aircraft grounded for long periods of time. And generally speaking the people killed are nice comfortable middle-class as well as business people.

    Not so the metro. Aside from some phone video, the press has not been able to access the station and they can keep a lid on things, so yes airports will always be great for getting maximum publicity.

    Myself, I go with Joe Public, if we over react then they’ve won. And I prefer to take my chances which, let’s be realistic are far, far lower than simply walking down a pavement.

    • junican Says:

      I think that Gerona airport has a suitcase checking machine as you enter the airport. Oddly, there were no big queues, but Gerona airport is only a small airport. But there is no reason that big airports should not have multiple such machines. What I have noticed, again and again, is that people arrive at airports in dribs and drabs, and not in vast numbers at the same time. Not all of the machines have to be real! As long as the suitcase is placed upon a belt and moves through the machine, who is to know if the machine, or which machine, actually does anything?
      What terrorists rely upon is numbers of deaths and casualties.

  3. smokingscot Says:

    Bummer. Forgot this amusing cartoon.

    https://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/a-must-read-if-you-think-the-tsa-are-a-bunch-of-nudniks/

    • junican Says:

      Perhaps we could expect Cameron to permit himself to be strip searched some time soon so as to prove the necessity.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: