Originally Posted by Deancm (Post 8391902)

Who were surveyed? A government funded focus group?

If safety is of such paramount importance, why was it then that the "Christmas Day Bomber" was already on the no-fly list, was known by the CIA he was traveling beforehand, was spotted by airport security and was permitted to fly anyway?

Originally Posted by Deancm (Post 8391917)

If they were serious about car safety, they we would have driver training that actually teaches people how to drive rather than just accelerate forward and reverse. Right now it is pay your money and we will give you a licence.

My logic never mentions anything about 10 year old drunks and Mad Max lookalike cars. Let's face it, that's ridiculous.

Most of the speeding legislation at the moment is more concerned with raising revenue rather than actually combating speeding and road safety. That's the reason why you will find speeding cameras in areas which never have accidents.

Originally Posted by slapphead_otool (Post 8391924)

SEAT

BELTS

I say no more...

Originally Posted by slapphead_otool (Post 8391924)

SEAT

BELTS

I say no more...

Originally Posted by Deancm (Post 8391936)

Back on topic, as for the scanners, actual profiling would be more successful. Not very PC but more successful.

I think the scanners are actually more of a knee jerk reaction to give the appearance of increased security and thus increased safety. A band-aid soluton.

Originally Posted by Deancm (Post 8391936)

And yet we have seat belts and still people are getting killed in car accidents. When I ws a copper I used to attend an average about 4 car accidents a day. Seat belts may save lives but they don't prevent accidents, especially in the hands of drivers that don't really know how to handle a car.

Education, training and experience is more important.

Back on topic, as for the scanners, actual profiling would be more successful. Not very PC but more successful.

I think the scanners are actually more of a knee jerk reaction to give the appearance of increased security and thus increased safety. A band-aid soluton.

Originally Posted by slapphead_otool (Post 8391931)

Nope – upon reflection I will say more. The reason 10 year old drunks don’t drive Mad Max lookalikes on the pavement:

!0 years olds are not issued licenses. That’s legislation.

Originally Posted by Deancm (Post 8391955)

And they can't reach the pedals!



Yes, it's illegal to drive a motor vehicle while over the prescribed content of alcohol. It's also common sense.

Yet, it's not illegal to board an aircraft. How many people have been scanned so far and how many people have been caught carrying any contraband? Zero!



A drunk 10 year old wouldn't even know the meaning of the word liberty. If he (she if being PC) doesn't know what it is, how can it be infringed?



Will lose your licence and pay a hefty fine.



There's a far far far greater chance of being involved in a motor vehicle accident than there is of ever being involved in a terrorist activity on board an aircraft.

If a would be terrorist wants to get a bomb on board an aircraft, they will find a way irrespective of these scanners.

Originally Posted by slapphead_otool (Post 8391950)

In fact aircraft bombs aren’t really the problem of the future. They are headline grabbing, anger inducing, but don’t serve much of a purpose.

Originally Posted by slapphead_otool (Post 8391962)

Common sense to you and I isn’t the same common sense to a drunk driver. Lots still do it, despite the legislation. If we took the RBT away lots more would.

Originally Posted by spalen (Post 8391839)

In singapore/china and lots of asia you get patted down fairly 'robustly'

In China especially (Im a bloke) you get women security guards patting down male passengers and they are quite er... invasive. They certainly are not shy.

In india - all women go behind a curtain and get pat-down by a woman ( I assume ) in China / Singapore its out in open.

It is weird the different approaches and different cultures.

Its a fact of life now - I prefer to be searched and know that its at least a bit of a deterrent / protection than not having any at all and being entirely unprotected. On the scale and range fo things that the security services are doing its one of many steps. Can you imagine if you were not required to be searched? It'd be ridiculous. I think the guys that run the Israeli airline security had it right - they profile EVERYBODY that gets on their flights they do deep background checks on every passenger before they even get to an airport. Those guys should be running everyones airport security.

I agree wholeheartedly that if you refuse a security check - you should be kicked out the airport.

Originally Posted by slapphead_otool (Post 8392004)

Of course we could make the scans “optional”.

“What’s that love, you don’t want to be scanned today because of your civil liberties may be infringed? Never mind, off you go ,and mind your smoking backpack doesn’t go off until you are in the air”.

“What’s that Sir, you don’t want to be breathalysed today because of your civil liberties may be infringed? Never mind, off you go ,my wife is walking down the road over there, try and sideswipe her as you go past, if you are lucky you might get my daughters too. Why don’t you smack me in the face as well, for daring to challenge your liberties".

Codswollop.

Throw the woman off the plane, and ban her from ever flying again – which wont matter anyway because you take her passport off her as well. And put her on a “watch list”.

THAT’S the only deterrent that works.

Originally Posted by Lord_Farquar (Post 8392010)

Backpacks are already scanned. So a bodyscanner would be pointless and not necessary in your example.

Originally Posted by slapphead_otool (Post 8392015)

I was being sarcastic :rofl:


What i don’t understand here are all of these mysterious alternative reasons why a government would want to have body scanners.

Do people think they are going into the porn business???