On 15 Jan 2006 04:00:45 -0800, wrote in
. com, seen in
uk.railway:

At the moment anyone can
walk into an airport terminal, join the huge queues without a single
check. The equipment previously not being capable of coping with the
conditions mentioned above.

The Turkish manage to seal their airport terminals very effectively by
simply having the security check at the terminal building's entrance
doors.

But that's not as "sexy" as new, cutting-edge equipment, so wouldn't
have appealed to either our politicians or the senior security bods.

Practical answers never do, not when there's a chance of playing with
"sexy" new toys. -(
--
Ross, in Lincoln, most likely being cynical or sarcastic, as ever.
Reply-to will bounce. Replace the junk-trap with my name to e-mail me.

Demonstration of poor photography at http://ross.photobook.org.uk
AD: http://www.merciacharters.co.uk for European charters gripped by me

In message . com, at
04:00:45 on Sun, 15 Jan 2006, remarked:
At the moment anyone can walk into an airport terminal, join the huge
queues without a single check.

Although there is a trend to only allow passengers near the terminals. I
recall everyone being verified as a passenger before being allowed near
the terminal at Tokyo, and many American airports have restricted
movements (even pre 9/11) within the formerly open terminals to
passengers only.

In the UK we still retain the possibility to accompany our loved ones
through check-in and to the outward passport control. I wonder how much
longer that will survive - or is the aim of these new security devices
to ensure that we will always have that freedom?
--
Roland Perry

In message . com
wrote:


Roger wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
"Steve" wrote in message
...
But, why would you want to object if you have nothing to hide?

If you think that gimmicks and a waste of money like that is going to make
you safer, then you need to be fleeced of even more money, to pay the
clever
people fleecing you.

These scanners are a complete waste of time and money!
What are they trying to achieve?

They are trying them out in a "dirty" environment where there are large
variations in temperature, humidity,airborne particulates and
electrical interference. Things not present in an airport departure
lounge. If technical bits work out, then there is the possibility of
employing them on the exterior of airport buildings, and various public
transport venues that are more easily "sealable". Paddington was chosen
because it has a lot of diesel trains using it. It is no more than a
technical trial. Amazing how a simple trial of a bit of kit exercises
so many IQ's in trying to make out that it is an attempt to seal off
Heathrow or interfere with civil liberties!
Nothing is 100% effective, but if this works scanning can be moved from
the interior of buildings to the exterior. At the moment anyone can
walk into an airport terminal, join the huge queues without a single
check.

Checks are carried out on people queueing at airports already.

The equipment previously not being capable of coping with the conditions
mentioned above. The thinking behind it is brutally simple, a bomb outside
an enclosed space is mostly less effective than inside when there are large
numbers of people about.


In which case why not try it outside an appropriate building? Sorry Jon,
not getting at you personally, but I'm afraid your explanation sounds like so
much retrospective bull**** to hide the fact that the thing is pointless in
practice and the only object is to justify spending a large fortune enriching
the manufacturing company for no practical purpose. Are they going to install
them outside every single public building in the country Every pub, shop,
council office, MacDonalds and so on? If not then there is no point in
installing any of them. As for Paddington having a large number of diesel
trains using it, how many diesel vehicles would pass one outside T2, along
with all the kerosene fumes from the aircraft?

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

In uk.railway Steve twisted the electrons to say:
But, why would you want to object if you have nothing to hide?

One assumes you always use postcards rather than letters when you send
correspondence? Or do you use letters inside envelopes, thus clearly
indicating that you have something to hide?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

In message , Steve
writes
But, why would you want to object if you have nothing to hide?



Isn't this the argument behind every police state?

--
Mike_B

In uk.railway Mike_B twisted the electrons to say:
In message , Steve
writes
But, why would you want to object if you have nothing to hide?
Isn't this the argument behind every police state?

Pretty much ...
--
People should not be afraid of their governments,
Governments should be afraid of their people ...

Steve wrote:
But, why would you want to object if you have nothing to hide?


"In the next 24 hours I've got three [pointless] security scans at three
separate airports to go through. I'm already sick at the thought of
security scans. I don't want another. [Exactly how do you think this is
helping the security of the railway anyway? Are you going to start
setting up scans at every country halt? No? Well what good are you doing
then? Just wasting people's time really aren't you?]"

Will be my reason. Except for the bits in the brackets, which will be
silent.

Philip.