UK Terror Chief Blocked From Boarding Aircraft 237
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.'"
Do as I say not as I do (Score:5, 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.
Re:Do as I say not as I do (Score:5, 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.
Re: (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.
Re:Do as I say not as I do (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It has long since ceased being kabuki theater and has passed into bukkake theater.
Bukkake theater? No thanks,
not with her.
Rule 35 or not.
http://bit.ly/bRmdRV [bit.ly]
Re: (Score:2)
One more time, it's actually Bunraku. Pay no attention to the men in black.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
DON'T CLICK!!!
It's a picture of Peter Cushing...
Re:Do as I say not as I do (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 [youtube.com] (not a rick roll, have pinches of salt ready though).
Re: (Score:2)
I have not had the best of experiances flying to JFK. Why the really random questions? And why do they care if I get a cab or town car?
Re: (Score:2)
Ho hum try flying from heathrow Not fun.Better than JFK I think.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought Canada was nice. If they ake the piss like that I will avoid it.
Re: (Score:2)
As I hate american airports. Heathrow is probably better.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 ab
Re: (Score:2)
If this woman ends up facing actual charges, it means the US no longer has claim to the rule of law--only of order.
The incident occurred at Heathrow Airport in London.
Re: (Score:2)
The incident occurred at Heathrow Airport in London.
Sorry, my mistake, the comment I replied to was talking about the linked YouTube video.
Re: (Score:2)
Answer:
All animals are equal. Some are more equal than the other.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm: A Fairy Story"
Hmm, Pity... (Score:5, Funny)
"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."
Re:Hmm, Pity... (Score:5, Informative)
Note that it was posted just today.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone mod this up.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember people, protest rules when you actually have a chance to make a difference. When you are trying to get through security, your best bet is to get over your fear of nudity and just get through.
Re: (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).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That's probably worse than prison treatment, and the people in airports are presumed innocent
I saw a television show where people being locked up in the county jail had to strip naked and spread their ass cheeks for the guards. This is, of course, before trial and innocence must be presumed.
Re: (Score:2)
And since "protesting rules" works oh soooo well in the arena dominated entirely by bought and paid-for politicos, by screeching far-right demagogues peddling bed-wetting fear and by corporate "security-military-industrial-complex" money - who are all making a killing on the wholesale shredding of what remains
Astounding! Time to do something... (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, something like this [youtube.com].
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 [house.gov] and the Senate [senate.gov] 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 /.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for that, if nothing else it will be another straw for the camel's back. The TSA show the same sociological ingroup/outgroup ideas that are the basis for the very worst sort of human behaviour. Travellers, not terrorists, have literally become the enemy for these people.
Re:Hmm, Pity... (Score:5, 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
Gander (Score:2)
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Re:Gander (Score:5, 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.
Missed Opportunity (Score:2, Insightful)
Sweet delicious irony (Score:5, Funny)
Should've made her go through the porn scanner.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Re:Sweet delicious irony (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Sweet delicious irony (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:3, 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 polit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... And the IRA and ETA are well known for their Islamic beliefs. Right?
Neither the IRA nor ETA have ever blown up an airplane. They are/were also much more into remotely triggered or timed devices rather than blowing themselves or their daughters up suicide stylie! Nutjobs fo shizzle, but not religious nutjobs.
And no muslim has ever blown up a hotel in Brighto (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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
with the ETA you have a point, but the whole northern ireland conflict does have deep religious roots.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the prospect terrified security to the point where they considered the risk of annoying her worthwhile.
Not good (Score:3, 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.
Re:Not good (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying that you would prefer that the law does not apply equally to all people regardless of social standing, job, etc?
Hm... (Score:4, 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.
No (Score:3, Funny)
Blocked? (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, Slashdot is getting worse than the mainstream press.
How was she "blocked" as the title says?
I love the passive voice! (Score:2)
Paraphrasing: "Mistakes were made. We don't care."
You made the rules, you have to live by them.
I suppose it's fair... (Score:2)
I suppose it's fair when they get caught in the same system they suggest for everybody else.
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Eating your own dog food Re:Good (Score:2)
Really, this should apply in this case. Officials responsible for law production are welcome eating their own dog-food.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_your_own_dog_food [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, 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
Someone's got her beat... (Score:5, 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/ [theglobeandmail.com]
Any of us little people would've been tasered, handcuffed and carried away after a stunt like that. Power certainly hath its privileges.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on how much former this PM is. If she's not responsible for this utter nonsense called security check then she has all reason to be upset. Instead of complying with all the rediculous crap I'd prefer to throw shoes at those people as well. Sadly I'd like to reach my destination so I throw shoes (and do worse things) just in my imagination and politely (as good as I can fake it) comply to get done with it.
Cobra (Score:3, Funny)
Clearly they finally had the chance to really hinder Cobra and they missed it. Gi.Joe must be pissed.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly they finally had the chance to really hinder Cobra and they missed it. Gi.Joe must be pissed.
I'm always amused when I read news stories about British government officials attending Cobra meetings. Either it's an example of someone's sick sense of humor, or they really have no clue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Had a little slider on the back of the head to make the eyes work? I am far to old.
My experience with TSA (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.
Cobraaaa! (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Its roots lie in the fact they were monarchy endorsed, often due to excelling in military service.
So yes, a Baron(or Baroness), would be an epiphany of this role in modern times.
Re:Cobraaaa! (Score:4, 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, [wikipedia.org] whose name was chosen presumably because of the military connotations you mention. The whole thing combines to make articles like this [bbc.co.uk] intensely amusing.
UK Terror Chief? (Score:2)
AND her name is The Baroness?!? I can see why she'd be blocked, she sounds terrifying. And possibly a mortal enemy to GI Joe.
Wasn't the liquid bomb a hoax anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's really become an expensive joke instead of anything resembling security.
Re: (Score:2)
As many have already pointed out - it's security theater and it has nothing to do with security except in the name. It's a pathetic joke designed to make it appear to the less intelligent (which obviously includes most of the power establishment) that something is done.
* None of the checks at the airports, including the porn scanner, would not have stopped the 9/11 terrorists.
* It takes less than 200ml of liquid explosive to down a plane and you're allowed five times that (in separate containers but still).
Re:Wasn't the liquid bomb a hoax anyway? (Score:4, Insightful)
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).
Re: (Score:3, 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 fa
No, it wasn't a hoax. Watch the video. (Score:2)
BBC News article [bbc.co.uk] - watch the embedded video for a real-life detonation of a liquid bomb inside an aircraft fuselage.
Why do we still have the liquid restrictions when they are not a credible threat?
The Judge in the case disagreed: "I'm satisfied that there is every likelihood that this plot would have succeeded but for the intervention of the police and the security service. Had this conspiracy not been interrupted, a massive loss of life would almost certainly have resulted - and if the detonation was over land, the number of victims would have been even greater still."
Three men are cu
Re: (Score:2)
No, it wasn't a hoax - it was just a really bad plan. The most likely outcome, had they got onto the plane, was that they would have died in a small explosion in the toilet while attempting to mix the explosive. Personally, I wish they'd done exactly this - I don't think anyone could be terrified of an organisation whose operatives blew themselves up in toilets - but they were caught first.
Terror Chief Indeed (Score:5, 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.
Security Hassle for others (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
a total ban is uncalled for. We should at least allow them to leave town.
Re: (Score:2)
They can walk.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if they don't actually use the ticket, it could still be worth watching the interviews after.
Re: (Score:2)
With one-way and two-way options. .
only if the two-way option uses the same heatshield-less capsules as the one-way trips.
high up gov people can do DO YOU KNOW WHO I'M (Score:2)
high up gov people can do DO YOU KNOW WHO I'M line and get away with it.
Re:high up gov people can do DO YOU KNOW WHO I'M (Score:5, 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.
Re:high up gov people can do DO YOU KNOW WHO I'M (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 [guardian.co.uk] to run your office.
Next question please."
Re: (Score:2)
high up gov people can do DO YOU KNOW WHO I'M line and get away with it.
Odd grammar... I'm so sorry, Master Yoda, I should have realized who you're immediately.
Re:Wrong Title (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most modern systems have a concept of statutory laws that you can't sign away no matter who you are or what you sign, and this is precisely the sort of thing that would come under such law.
About the only time you can sign a bit of paper which says "I accept that I'm doing something risky and may get killed doing it" is if you join the armed forces.
(Disclaimer: IANAL).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I live in the UK, and I can confirm we are much more terrified of our government than of Al Quaida.
Our own police kill a lot more people than Al Quaida, and are a lot less incompetent in other ways as well. Further more, we are terrorised on a daily basis by over sealous enforement of traffic regulations, and excessive fines.
I thought most of the UK police didn't carry weapons, just whistles. And citizens don't carry weapons, so why would UK police need to use deadly force?
Re: (Score:2)
Criminals carry weapons, and citizens can own them for recreation legally, so the police have armed response units in case a situation includes weapons. if you threaten people with a shotgun for example, and wait for the police to turn up, you can expect to be shot dead.
As they managed to shoot an innocent electrician on vague suspicions which turned out to be unfounded after the tube bombs, they lost some public confidence, but generally they do not over-react or shoot dead citizens without cause.
As to the
Re: (Score:2)
The majority of UK deaths as a result of police activity are traffic accidents, where the police hit someone while responding to an emergency call. These typically only make the local media - there was a case of a pensioner being killed in such an accident here a while ago - but not the national media. When dealing with armed criminals, the police call in SO-19, and when they kill someone it makes the national news for several days.
It's not quite true to say that they don't carry weapons. They don't c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only if they don't speak English...
Re: (Score:2)
Are you referring to the foreign visitors or the Canadians?
Re: (Score:2)
FYI: he's a she.
Re: (Score:2)
FYI: he's a she.
Look at that photo. Care to try again? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Neville-Jones,_Baroness_Neville-Jones [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
hint:
Baron == Male
Baroness == Female
Heir == Male
Heiress == Female
Start to see a pattern?
And she didn't think she was above the law, it was a mistake... which I guess you never mak.. oh guess you do make them :p. Anyway, the bit she got annoyed at wasn't being told to remove it was the lecture the customs/security ape tried giving her - she probably authorised most of the lecture...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
last time i went the customs guy jacked me off.
my wife was unamused. but a little turned on.
Re: (Score:2)