?

Log in

No account? Create an account

UK outdoes US in gargantuan stupidity - Nothing to See Here

Aug. 9th, 2006

11:05 pm - UK outdoes US in gargantuan stupidity

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4778615.stm

I guess I'm not flying to the UK again. Maybe ever (well, until they lift those PSYCHOTIC restrictions... on trans-Atlantic flights, they'll have people going postal... you can't even bring a BOOK?!). I'll really get depressed if any other countries start following suit... :/

Edit: It seems that the new security restrictions are in fact for the most part for actual good reasons, which makes it even more depressing, because it seems more likely that this will mark a permanent change in air travel. At least some of the changes will probably remain. The fact that you can't bring a book on the plane in the UK, I still maintain is crazy, especially for trans-Atlantic flights, but I guess they're reacting with tough measures really quickly and one can only hope they will eventually relax the over-zealous bits later.

Current Location: home
Current Mood: angryangry

Comments:

(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:mavjop
Date:August 10th, 2006 04:07 pm (UTC)
(Link)
There've been other things in the past few years that I couldn't see continuing long, and have.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:targaff
Date:August 10th, 2006 07:45 am (UTC)
(Link)
I don't know how it's being reported over there, but here at least they're definitely stating it to be a short-term policy.

That said, they've apparently just closed Heathrow to incoming flights...
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:mavjop
Date:August 10th, 2006 06:59 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I never believe it when I'm told security changes are "short term" any more.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:surpheon
Date:August 10th, 2006 11:18 am (UTC)
(Link)
In theory, I have a 8pm departure tonight to Heathrow. Thankfully, my on plane activities only require being allowed to bring a sleep mask. Although its not clear if the insane travel restrictions apply to flying into the UK, or if they only hit folks on the way out (we're connecting through Heathrow, so it will hit us eventually, just wondering if JFK needs an extra hour).
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:mavjop
Date:August 10th, 2006 06:58 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I have a feeling you might not be going to Heathrow any more. AFAIK, it's closed.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:surpheon
Date:August 10th, 2006 11:32 am (UTC)
(Link)
As a sidenote, I don't really see these draconian policies as stupid. This is what real security looks like, as opposed to the "we check shoes and take nail files, don't you feel safe now?" time waster we usually have...
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:mavjop
Date:August 10th, 2006 06:57 pm (UTC)
(Link)
True. Regrettably.

What I wonder is what security measures El Al take. They're one of the most targetted and one of the safest airlines there is. They don't do stupid placebo security.

I feel like the new measures are ... for good reasons, but are going too far. The US ones, not so much, but the UK ones...
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:anemone
Date:August 10th, 2006 11:42 am (UTC)
(Link)
These aren't insane. There was a specific threat; until that's gone, they are implementing REAL security policies. Yes, they are probably going overboard, but this is actually providing additional security as opposed to the "no nail files, but you can bring a bottle of a convenient size to break and form a weapon" security.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:mavjop
Date:August 10th, 2006 06:55 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Or more to the point, no nail clippers, because you might ... what ... clip someone to death? ... but pens or pencils? Sure! It's not like you could cause any damage with-- waitasec...

The US measures no longer seem over the top (no liquids or gels), having heard more about the threats involved. It *sucks*, but it's understandable. The UK restrictions seem less insane now... though they're going to have a lot of people driven demented by the lack of anything whatsoever to do on the plane to keep themselves occupied. Leaving books out of the approved items list was a truly awful idea.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:urox
Date:August 10th, 2006 07:15 pm (UTC)
(Link)
But there never was a US threat. It was specifically Brittish citizens with a US bound flight.. but they were going to blow it up in flight.. once you get over the pond, there is less jet fuel to blow up so it is likely they were going to do it not over US soil.

The increased US restrictions are ludicrous. It is like sifting for a hay needle in a haystack. You can't use a magnet to find it. The threat wasn't even inside our country.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:mavjop
Date:August 10th, 2006 09:41 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Mum told me that it was all American airlines that were targeted. It doesn't seem unreasonable to be concerned about flights to/from America when the UK is cracking down on things and making it difficult for the plans to be carried out there. For once, I find myself grudgingly not being about to take issue with the precautions, despite the fact that they make me very unhappy.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:urox
Date:August 10th, 2006 09:51 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I've heard about more details released in the UK.

I was right. They were going to blow them up over the Atlantic to ensure loss of life.

Again, this isn't a threat inside the US so there is *no* need for the extra security within.

The added security is a publicity stunt. Why raise the terror alert *after* suspects are in custody? Why not raise the alert before they're caught when, ya know, there's an actual threat?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:mavjop
Date:August 10th, 2006 09:56 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Oh, I agree, except that as I said, if there's any of them left out there, they might move the plan and, as mentioned, my understanding is that American carriers were targeted.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:maeglin73
Date:August 10th, 2006 02:33 pm (UTC)

Guess what?

(Link)
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/9658304/detail.html

At least they're going after the specifics of the threat over here... no liquids or gels in carry-on bags.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:mavjop
Date:August 10th, 2006 04:04 pm (UTC)

Re: Guess what?

(Link)
*sigh*
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:mavjop
Date:August 10th, 2006 04:06 pm (UTC)

Re: Guess what?

(Link)
So now the only liquids I get to drink in-flight are those served by the airline... so I go horribly thirsty because they aren't serving drinks all the time. This is getting insane. I normally bring at least 2 or 3 bottles of water with me in my carry-on -- and I normally don't have any left by the time we land.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:maeglin73
Date:August 10th, 2006 04:09 pm (UTC)

Re: Guess what?

(Link)
This is getting insane.

I never said that wasn't the case. Hopefully they do keep this only in the short term... like the stupid restriction on nail clippers.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:mavjop
Date:August 10th, 2006 06:52 pm (UTC)

Re: Guess what?

(Link)
It sounds in fact like they have real reasons for these measures... unlike the moronic nail clipper thing. *sigh* The fact that there's actual reasons for the changes imposed in the US (the UK restrictions are a little over the top--the least they could have done is allowed you to bring books--easy enough to leaf through them to make sure they're not hollowed out and hiding something) won't make them any less unpleasant, but it sounds like ... they are not groundless placebo measures like we're so used to. It's going to be hard to argue with the restrictions if they actually are meaningful, and it means they're less likely to go away. :( I'm going to be parched next time I fly...
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:urox
Date:August 10th, 2006 07:18 pm (UTC)

Re: Guess what?

(Link)
From your link: "Chertoff said there was no indication of plotting in the United States "

There is no threat over here. There was no need for increasing screening over here. Not to mention that they're still allowing kids and babies to have drinks so there's really still no security for a suicide bomber who takes their child on board (not unheard of).
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:maeglin73
Date:August 10th, 2006 07:22 pm (UTC)

Re: Guess what?

(Link)
Very true.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:mavjop
Date:August 10th, 2006 09:44 pm (UTC)

Re: Guess what?

(Link)
There is the protection that there's fewer drinks to check, so they can be more careful about the ones that are allowed on board, and there's the protection that an adult passenger has to show that they're willing to drink some of it.

Of course, as someone pointed out to me earlier, if you're preparing to blow up the plane you're on, you don't expect to survive, and you can take a little bit (a taste) of a lot of really nasty things and survive at least for a while, so maybe that isn't a protection really.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)