[Hopple]

Assuming the guy who invented Fireman Sam is telling the truth here, someone was able to get onto a plane without showing their face. Now, I'm sure security would have made a fuss if the metal detector went off, but I do feel that once you're in an airport, you should be easily identifiable so that if anything bad does happen, your movements can be easily traced backwards.

David Jones raised a good point about him wearing a scarf over his face too, if all the security people want to do is check if the metal detector goes off, why can't he wear it around his face (maybe Chisora style when he slapped Klitschko)? I have been on the wrong end of this too, once walking through the metal detector with my jumper tied around my waist - the idiot told me to take it off, put it in the tray and walk through again. Or perhaps he wasn't an idiot, and actually the metal detector can't work through maybe 4 folds of cloth, in which case this is another possible security hole at our airports.

(Original post by In a Gatwick Airport statement)
There was no legal requirement to ... establish identity in airport security areas

I have removed a part of that quote that I feel is irrelevant - either identity should be clear/visible at that point in the airport, or it is unnecessary - though you can find it in the article. My question is this, should someone's identity be always visible when they are in an airport? If not always, how about sometimes, and then at what times should it be required?

[emilymay]

(Original post by Hopple)
Assuming the guy who invented Fireman Sam is telling the truth here, someone was able to get onto a plane without showing their face. Now, I'm sure security would have made a fuss if the metal detector went off, but I do feel that once you're in an airport, you should be easily identifiable so that if anything bad does happen, your movements can be easily traced backwards.

David Jones raised a good point about him wearing a scarf over his face too, if all the security people want to do is check if the metal detector goes off, why can't he wear it around his face (maybe Chisora style when he slapped Klitschko)? I have been on the wrong end of this too, once walking through the metal detector with my jumper tied around my waist - the idiot told me to take it off, put it in the tray and walk through again. Or perhaps he wasn't an idiot, and actually the metal detector can't work through maybe 4 folds of cloth, in which case this is another possible security hole at our airports.



I have removed a part of that quote that I feel is irrelevant - either identity should be clear/visible at that point in the airport, or it is unnecessary - though you can find it in the article. My question is this, should someone's identity be always visible when they are in an airport? If not always, how about sometimes, and then at what times should it be required?

I was just about to make a thread about this but you got there first I think you should always be identifiable in any situation anywhere, which is why I agree with the ban the burkha in france. But I think this is most important in areas where security is a major priority and there are major risks to the public if security is not good enough. Airports are a prime example of this, think of all the times that things have gone wrong at airports, terrorist attacks etc. Banks, shops and public transport should all have a policy that anyone should be easily identifiable.

[marcusfox]

He's totally right though. I don't see that it was racist, after all, Islam is a religion, you are not born with it, it is something you choose to adopt.

You should be easily identifiable at the airport for security purposes.

[navarre]

Simple: he had to remove his because he wasn't wearing it to please an invisible, imaginary sky god. The veiled woman got through because she was deluded enough to think she pleasing an invisible, imaginary sky god.

I do think it's ridiculous that he was held simply because someone was 'offended'. You'd have thought they would just have got over it after 5 seconds and got on with their lives; but because of their idiocy, the airport is being sued. And I hope it is sued for every penny.

[flugelr]

Airport security if mostly for show, to make people feel safe.

[Veale]

(Original post by flugelr)
Airport security if mostly for show, to make people feel safe.

true. for more than 10 years we have to go through the most idiot systems, when we all know where the real danger is.

[Shabalala]

(Original post by flugelr)
Airport security if mostly for show, to make people feel safe.

Not really it's nearly impossible for terrorists to get anything dangerous onto the plane these days which is why they are resorting to newer methods like chemical power in printers or underwear stuff like that and they haven't had any success with these methods yet have they. If it's all for show then tell me how you think terrorists could get past the security?

Although it is ridiculous that people in Veils don't have to show their face, anyone could be under that mask and it must be pretty easy to smuggle people into the country that way surley. It's not really a security risk to the plane as they couldn't get anything dangerous onto the plane but it could be dangerous to our national security they could smuggle a terrorist in or something and we should defo no who's going in and out the country.

[LowRider]

Since when did it state she her identity had never been checked to get onto the plane it was probably checked beforehand as you can't get onto a plane without getting checked. Screening areas are there to check you don't have anything which could be dangerous or prohibited since when did they check your identity in those areas.

Finally I don't understand why being the creator of fireman sam makes your story any more important? The story lines BBC news comes up with to attract attention is starting to annoy me.

[marcusfox]

(Original post by Shabalala)
Not really it's nearly impossible for terrorists to get anything dangerous onto the plane these days which is why they are resorting to newer methods like chemical power in printers or underwear stuff like that and they haven't had any success with these methods yet have they. If it's all for show then tell me how you think terrorists could get past the security?

Although it is ridiculous that people in Veils don't have to show their face, anyone could be under that mask and it must be pretty easy to smuggle people into the country that way surley. It's not really a security risk to the plane as they couldn't get anything dangerous onto the plane but it could be dangerous to our national security they could smuggle a terrorist in or something and we should defo no who's going in and out the country.

Or even out.

[flugelr]

(Original post by Shabalala)
Not really it's nearly impossible for terrorists to get anything dangerous onto the plane these days which is why they are resorting to newer methods like chemical power in printers or underwear stuff like that and they haven't had any success with these methods yet have they.

Most of the security is done before you reach the airport.

(Original post by Shabalala)
If it's all for show then tell me how you think terrorists could get past the security?

I said that Airport security is mostly for show. Not that it is all for show.

I'm talking about things like the frisking people down and so on. It is just a cursory search and is pretty easy to get around.

[Fusion]

I remember when one guy managed to fly to Italy by wearing a veil.

Surely at passport checks the face must be revealed...

[Pareidolia]

I'll take the extra time to travel by automobile, thank you very much. Airports have become way too stressful for me. I'm a little surprised that airport security hasn't put the industry out of business.

[thunder_chunky]

I find it interesting how often someone gets confronted and told something like:

"You've made a remark which someone finds offensive. Come with me."

Yet so often they never reveal who it was that was so offended.

[Kolya]

(Original post by Shabalala)
Not really it's nearly impossible for terrorists to get anything dangerous onto the plane these days which is why they are resorting to newer methods like chemical power in printers or underwear stuff like that and they haven't had any success with these methods yet have they. If it's all for show then tell me how you think terrorists could get past the security?

Well, eight planes have been hijacked in the past five years.

Beyond securing the cockpit, and checking that passengers aren't carrying something like a gun, I don't see the rationale behind any airport security. Even if it did hinder terrorists - which is questionable - then they just switch their attention to other high-profile targets and public places which have less security.

It's all an elaborate show which is costing a ridiculous amount of money.

[VeniViciVidi]

(Original post by Pareidolia)
I'll take the extra time to travel by automobile, thank you very much. Airports have become way too stressful for me. I'm a little surprised that airport security hasn't put the industry out of business.

I think you're using airports incorrectly if the stress gathered using airport security motivates and coercions you to do a trans-EU or trans-international car journey over a flight that would get you there within 4 hours as opposed to 20. If you're talking about domestic flights, that doesn't really add much substance to thinking airport security has put the industry out of business as the travel time on the train or car outweighs the benefits of travelling and using an airport terminal.

Though, quite the contrary on security put the industry out of business, people feel safer and more secure knowing there is a security apparatus in airports that does a much more effective job at preventing terrorist organizations from using a plane as a tool to further their motives. Besides, most of an airlines intake (unless the nation is as large as the United States) is trans-international flights with domestic flights not being the real source of income which what you seem to be insinuating.

[for_healing_only]

I wouldn't mind if the airport security introduced a policy of not being able to wear your own clothes on the plane. Instead after you are at check in you are provided new clothing (I am thinking jumpsuit or scrubs) and your current clothes are screened and then returned on arrival.

I have to travel alot for work and the amount of times religious people slow thing s down are infuriationg. (I don't care if it is your culture you are holding up the sodding line). I will admit that the new electronic gates are quite good. You have to show your face to a scanner and it doesn't open unless your passport coincides with the image results.

[kka25]

(Original post by Pareidolia)
Airports have become way too stressful for me.

I agree with this. It can be very stressful really

[marcusfox]

(Original post by for_healing_only)
I wouldn't mind if the airport security introduced a policy of not being able to wear your own clothes on the plane. Instead after you are at check in you are provided new clothing (I am thinking jumpsuit or scrubs) and your current clothes are screened and then returned on arrival.

I have to travel alot for work and the amount of times religious people slow thing s down are infuriationg. (I don't care if it is your culture you are holding up the sodding line). I will admit that the new electronic gates are quite good. You have to show your face to a scanner and it doesn't open unless your passport coincides with the image results.

They're turning of the biometric iris recognition gates at Manchester and (I think) Birmingham because they don't work as expected and it is usually quicker to go through the manual gates. They are leaving the London ones in place until after the Olympics, I can only guess that they want things to appear technologically futuristic to all those London visitors from overseas.

[Mbob]

(Original post by thunder_chunky)
I find it interesting how often someone gets confronted and told something like:

"You've made a remark which someone finds offensive. Come with me."

Yet so often they never reveal who it was that was so offended.

Is it that often? It's never happened to me or anyone I know personally.