Remember the twitter Robin Hood airport thing?

Actually we have to go on a sense of humour course as they are not standard issue

 

Ah, I understand now
I shouldn't make these jokes as I actually have a very high opinion of the police.

 

Feel free to joke away bro - I might hear one I haven't before!

 

If you had heard mine you must have been in the job a fair while.

 

Since 1998, but I got it anyway!

 

Very well. Did you hear the one about the pagan policeman who was called to a crime scene where a burglar interrupted a group of klansmen carrying out a ritual?
He didn't know witch to arrest
I'm sorry, I'll stop now...

 

Have you been reading my diary....?

As an aside I think I might actually be the only pagan cop in my service...I must look into this

 

Sorry took a bit for me to respond...

1) I see the polarized viewpoint - US vs. THEM, OK/NOT OK, ISSUE/NOT ISSUE as essentially part of the original problem here.So I'm loathe to adopt that stance to then look at the resulting mess. The irony is narrow minded bereaucrats and Homeland security officers probably have exactly the same myopic view when looking at a problem that is obviously many shades of grey. So I don't agree that because one hasn't started writing their congressman that it automatically means the issue doesn't matter or somehow is ok with the state of civil liberties post 9/11.

2) Just out of curiosity - was any of this related to an incident that happened outside of your own country. eg. you're in the UK and the incident here happened on American soil. The reason I ask is I'd question what sort of impact (if any) that letters to an MP or online petitions would have towards influencing the decisions of a government in another country.

I realize you could have meant those were actions taken for UK centric issues rather than US issues. But just thought I'd throw it out there.

Yes this is always going to be the hard balance to achieve. I feel no matter how you slice it... it's never going to please everyone. And when it comes to issues of national security... I frankly think that civil liberties do get their toes stepped on. Is it for the greater good. hmmm... not entirely sure. But I do think if one reads down the list of averted terrorist attacks... that terrorism is not some fiction of peoples imagination... domestic terrorism is a very real threat. Not only in the US... but also in the UK... if you watched the news today then you'll understand exactly what I mean.

I think you'd be hard pressed to convince anyone who's had a family member who has been killed or maimed in a terrorist attack of that. I do think there is a lot of grandstanding and money grabbing that goes one... it's a hot button issue and politicians live for them. If it wasn't terrorism it'd be something else... one only has to look at the cold war to see the similarities in the way the Pentagon budget cookie crumbles.

But again - it's a very tough issue to define what is a threat and what isn't. In general civilians don't do that. That is the job of intelligence and government departments that handle those matters. Not a perfect system... but your average man on the streets understanding of how real the threats are is way off kilter.

In terms of being an American citizen I suppose they could write their congressman. They could find and/or start an online petition or perhaps even an actual hand gathered sig. petition and go about the process of trying to bring it some media coverage and hopefully gain some attention in the government. In this particular case... it strikes me as an incredible waste of time.

For someone who is a Brit - I'm not entirely sure. Perhaps petition the US government? Contact their local MP and make a racket about it back at home in hopes that it gains enough momentum to have some political validity. Strikes me again... as a long shot. But I guess you can't knock someone for trying.

Perhaps somewhere they should run cross continental educational courses... for the fashionista Brit who made the comment on Twitter he could perhaps learn how the subject is perceived in the US and that the language he's using might not be seen for what it is and that it could create a far bigger problem than it's even worth... and sat in the desk right next to him could be the Fed's man who flagged this guy for making such a comment and hauled him in and then booted him out.... they might explain that not everyone speaks the same English and the context to a certain extent matters.

And even if they did... it might all be for nothing because again... I suspect there has been a directive that your average civilian isn't privy to that basically says... 'We at no time will perceive this as a joking matter. It set's us on dangerous ground the minute we begin to allow the issue to become clouded by jokes and banter and people cracking wises. We will set a precedent and put paid to any nonsense straight off'

So there you have it. I wrote that yesterday. Life got in the way so I've just cut and pasted now.... so I may very well come back and think... 'Doh!!'

 

It's always a delicate issue balancing the civil rights allowed to a citizen and the security measures one needs to take to protect national interests. Though sometimes the scale hangs heavier on one end than the other, it all balances out in the end. It's when you try to get too much on one side of the scale when the other side suffers.

 

except when it doesn't.

 

Personally I'd say it's leaning a bit too heavy on the civil rights side, but that's just my opinion. To each his own.

 

It always seems to me that the authorities are pretty much damned if they do... damned if they don't. Striking the balance between civil rights and security measures designed to stop incidents like terrorist attacks means that there is usually some sort of state elasticity. It's no doubt influenced by those who are in power during any administration and where they draw their power base from and it's relation to any recent incidents.

Often times it seems that it goes conspicuously quiet when things actually go boom because those who are on about rights haven't thought beyond the cult of ME, ME and ME.

 

lol.

 

I haven't forgotten about my promise Slip, I've been stupid enough to start my response and then have user-related errors twice that lost it. Now I'm avoiding this thread in shame of my ineptitude and laziness at the expectation to retype such boring research. I had some good ones written up though, and I was gonna do the neaner neaner dance to show Hannibal and Kuma for thanking you too. It would have been epic, I assure you. I'm so bad ass.

 

Thank God, the post 9/11 airline industry finally made a rationale decision. According to a local paper, one of our Washington airports will be one of 26 airports in the country to implement a new screening policy pilot program. Evidently fliers can opt to have a background check to ensure they aren't inconvenienced as heavily during boarding screenings. Sadly, I'm in shock that they were capable of making such a logical decision.

 

I always thought the frequent flier programme was a good idea. If you catch a couple of flights a week, at some point you become a much lower risk...although I suppose a patient terrorist could take advantage of that at some point...

 

So rather than have to go through the usual security measures, you would rather have a background check performed on you instead which gives them access to all your personal information? Seems a bit backward to me.

 

I did wonder the same thing. One step forward two steps back so to speak. Though I'd wonder how deep the background check is... and how much personal data they ask for that they can't readily access anyhow... even if it means jumping through a few more hoops.

As for the whole frequent flyer thing... the issue with that is I think the real hang up comes with people who don't travel all that frequently and don't keep up on regulations - which IMHO no small task given the amount of misinformation and the continual state of flux they are in.

I'm sure P&G and Lever & Co. saw a large spike in sales when the no liquids on flights was announced. I'd seen mountains of creams, lotions, deoderants, soaps etc. being confiscated. They could have filled truckloads. Which no doubt... people then ran out and repurchased once arriving at their destination. I suspect collusion with gov. and big business.:hat:

 

You guys are sincerely asking why I'd rather have a background check than a stranger touching or staring at my genitals? Really? REALLY?

 

Just because you pass a background check doesn't mean either of those are never going to happen again. The scanners really aren't going to be giving anyone their jollies anytime soon either.



http://www.relax.com.sg/relax/news/265922/X_ray_ted__British_airport_scanner_reveals_all.html