Guest tonymailman Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Do you object to this ??? http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20091013/tuk-airport-x-ray-undresses-passengers-dba1618.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I would rather use this than the present system of practically having to strip to your underwear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I agree with Asp. I wouldn't object to being xrayed. Might be an added incentive for people to loose weight before their hols too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I am frowning. Anyone can decline this scan and opt for the usual "pat-down". So clearly, anyone with anything to hide is going to decline. So how does that scan increase the chances of spotting trouble? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Noticed, when they "pat" you down, they seem to avoid the crotch area - best place to tape a gun - but make sure the safety's on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 It may just be YOUR crotch area they avoid, Obs..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disgusted Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 The scanner, made by the firm RapiScan SystemsHow appropriatte If it speeds up check in, then can't say I'm too fussed. I would imagine those saying no will be subject to a rather more thorough pat down than we are used to though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I am frowning. Anyone can decline this scan and opt for the usual "pat-down". So clearly, anyone with anything to hide is going to decline. So how does that scan increase the chances of spotting trouble? Alas the nutters who are intent upon causing mayhem are now hiding things internally and hence the need for a body scan. Maybe if they are caught, they themselves should be the subject of a controlled explosion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I am frowning. Anyone can decline this scan and opt for the usual "pat-down". So clearly, anyone with anything to hide is going to decline. So how does that scan increase the chances of spotting trouble? Alas the nutters who are intent upon causing mayhem are now hiding things internally and hence the need for a body scan. Maybe if they are caught, they themselves should be the subject of a controlled explosion. Precisely my point - they can decline this scan and opt for a pat-down, so we're back to square one, aren't we? And there's absolutely no way you can perform a cavity search without permission or a warrant, for which you need to show reasonable cause to a magistrate. Otherwise, it's assault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 But that is what this scanner does I thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 No scan no fly. Simple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 But that is what this scanner does I thought. Once again for those who can't read all the way down the original article - the scanner is optional. Anyone who does not wish to be scanned can opt for the traditional pat-down type of search. Therefore you have a choice of making a scan compulsory and invading everyone's privacy, or basically wasting a lot of money on a gadget that only the innocent and uninhibited will agree to use. No point scanning anyone who agrees to it, is there? But if you make it compulsory, then you have naked images of celebs floating about - and would they scan the Queen? And more seriously, what's the legal position with children? Naked images of kids? Or a loophole that allows nutters to use kids to smuggle on whatever? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 You raise some very good points there LymmP and ones that had not actually occurred to me Maybe if there weren't so many human rights these days they could have just used the device without telling anyone what it was actually doing but of course that would not overcome some of the issues you have mentioned. As for the images I thought they were immediately deleted if they showed nothing... but then again that is reliant on the operators discretion and integrity. Just think how much the tabloids would offer for celeb shots including proof of false boobs and other enhancements Could be a tempting amount of money for some Oooh and there was me just thinking "what's all the fuss about it's no big deal"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Maybe if there weren't evil people around intent on mass murder................. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I still reckon Jennifer Elliston has had a boob job..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Even more reason to just scan ALL people without having to tell them. Of course there would always be the usual numpties who complain about infringement of their human rights blah blah blah. Maybe they would eventually all stop complaining if they were told the nice chap behind them in the queue to board flight had been found to have a time controlled bomb stuck up his ar*e which was only detected by the secret scanner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Or drug smugglers, or hijackers - and in order to legislate for the few nutters out there, you invariably penalise everyone who's just going for a week on the beach or to see their Aunt Elsie. I don't know what the answer is - optional scans are a waste of time, compulsory scans are an invasion, all scans are open to abuse and selective scans for groups or individuals considered "likely" to be mules, bombers, hijackers or whatever - well, that's going to provide about twenty billion lawsuits a year, isn't it? I suppose it's a reasonable way of narrowing the suspect pool if the innocent agree to the scans. Just the refusers left for the sniffer dogs, lie detectors and rubber gloves! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I still reckon Jennifer Elliston has had a boob job..... Guess she'll be having the pat down rather than the scanner then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I don't know what the answer is Don't worry too much, nobody else does either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 So what's the point of it then... as 'someone' must be worried enough to install it at Manchester Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Have you flown recently Diz? It's all to do with this business of having to take off your jacket, remove your belt and shoes, empty your pockets and still having to go through the metal detector. The X-Ray machine does away with all that so long as you are prepared to have some bored character watching a screen look at a vague outline of your body and, possibly, notice the machine pistol stuffed down the back of your knickers. Very possibly the whole terror threat has been overhyped but you can't really blame the authorities taking their usual "more than my jobsworth" stance so anything that makes it easier for the traveller is welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Don't X-Rays emit doses of radiation? In which case, they could put these machines on the Benidorm Gate to sterilize the Chavs?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 I understand that they are very low level radiation ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 You mean they only cure athletes feet?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Asp I think you may have read my posts wrong as I am all for the special body xray/scanner machine and I think everyone should be made to go through it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.