Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UK Terror Chief Blocked From Boarding Aircraft

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the tonight-on-security-theater dept.

Security 237

Jeremiah Cornelius writes "Two days before toner cartridges threatened western civilization, Britain's Home Office minister Baroness Neville-Jones was en route to a Washington summit when she was found to have an over-sized aerosol can in her bag. While being questioned by airport security staff for transporting a container with more than 100ml of liquid, the Baroness seemingly took offense at being lectured on the importance of security procedure: 'Of course I know how important it is,' she said, 'I'm the Security Minister.' The Baroness is also former head of the British Joint Intelligence Committee, and was traveling at the time to discuss the war on terror with US security chiefs. According to a Home Office spokesman, trained in the use of the passive voice, 'Liquids were inadvertently left in a bag. The item was removed and the Minister fully complied with subsequent checks.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Well, she also said (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34193096)

"We are not amused"

but that was at the security theater involved.

Or was that the queen? Or the American people?

Re:Well, she also said (0, Troll)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193314)

Or was that the queen?

What does John Boehner have to do with this?

Re:Well, she also said (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34193494)

Even I know the Queen isn't an Oompa-Loompa!

Do as I say not as I do (4, Insightful)

mirix (1649853) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193106)

Why would the people implementing security theatre want to subject themselves to it?

They know it's just show. Not to mention the whole being above the law thing.

Re:Do as I say not as I do (4, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193164)

Why would the people implementing security theatre want to subject themselves to it?

They know it's just show. Not to mention the whole being above the law thing.

It has long since ceased being kabuki theater and has passed into bukkake theater.

Re:Do as I say not as I do (2, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193202)

Why would the people implementing security theatre want to subject themselves to it?

They know it's just show. Not to mention the whole being above the law thing.

It has long since ceased being kabuki theater and has passed into bukkake theater.

Only for ordinary riff raff. The minister is excempt and shows contempt. If you do the same prepare to spend time in prison.

Re:Do as I say not as I do (4, Insightful)

besalope (1186101) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193242)

Only for ordinary riff raff. The minister is excempt and shows contempt. If you do the same prepare to spend time in prison.

Exactly. The Inner-Party members complain about the hindrance. The Party members are trained to put up with it or they will be unpersoned. And no one cares about the proles because they cannot afford to fly anyways.

Re:Do as I say not as I do (0)

Pteraspidomorphi (1651293) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194396)

Typical of slashdot, no one read TFA? It says she stated the measures were important and fully collaborated with them.

Re:Do as I say not as I do (1)

sempir (1916194) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194488)

There is Drollery, and there is Trollery.......methinks some people don't know about, or understand either.

Re:Do as I say not as I do (0, Offtopic)

jmitchel!jmitchel.co (254506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193518)

If I only had modpoints...

Re:Do as I say not as I do (1)

polle404 (727386) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193870)

It has long since ceased being kabuki theater and has passed into bukkake theater.

Bukkake theater? No thanks,
not with her.
Rule 35 or not.
http://bit.ly/bRmdRV [bit.ly]

Re:Do as I say not as I do (5, Interesting)

Animaether (411575) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193298)

tinfoil hat on

Because stories like these make the general public feel a little less singled out... clearly if even the security bigwig herself is subject to the same rules, then at least they're being 'fair'. If she then throws a mini-fit about it, the general public will realize that she's aware of the annoyance and grievances and she isn't any more fond of them than they are. Then later a statement is released in which she acknowledges this more formally, while pointing out that she deeply believes that these measures are necessary to stop actual terrorist plots... and the general public may just feel a little bit more sympathetic to her given the aforementioned.

tinfoil hat off

Now, about those body scanners...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJGvsAgpfig [youtube.com] (not a rick roll, have pinches of salt ready though).

Re:Do as I say not as I do (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34193618)

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJGvsAgpfig [youtube.com]

Her story is not even consistent from minute to minute. I'm not sure I buy it.

Not defending the TSA, who I think needs to go away and is a huge waste of money, but her story is not very believable given that she changes it in mid stream several times.

Re:Do as I say not as I do (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34193748)

Have to Agree here,

long before the current nonsense, a friend of mine and his partner were travelling to the States on holiday, they get to NY, his partner's passport gets scanned,
system flags that he's a UK government official, border/whatever staff fall over themselves to pass him through with no fuss. My friend's turn, he's there for a couple of hours answering all sorts of, as he put it, 'weird kafkaesque questions' about why he travels to NY a lot.

So I'd call the story BS as well, and if they're throwing these sort of things up now, it means they're doing a bit of groundwork to prepare for something more 'invasive' as far as any of the personal liberties we have left are concerned.

'The Society of the Spectacle' indeed..

.

Re:Do as I say not as I do (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34194258)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxpTKefgde8

ITM

Re:Do as I say not as I do (1)

arivanov (12034) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194202)

Answer:

All animals are equal. Some are more equal than the other.

George Orwell, "Animal Farm: A Fairy Story"

Clearly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34193116)

The terrorists' new plan is for government officials to carry out attacks on airplanes. Therefore, we should not allow any government officials to fly.

Re:Clearly (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193232)

a total ban is uncalled for. We should at least allow them to leave town.

Re:Clearly (1)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193620)

They can walk.

Re:Clearly (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194262)

I'd rather send some of them to orbit. A good reality TV show might be "Vote Them Off The Planet". With one-way and two-way options.

Even if they don't actually use the ticket, it could still be worth watching the interviews after.

Re:Clearly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34194392)

At least you can trust a terrorist, you know their motives, how many times do government officials lie to us and still expect us to buy it?

Hmm, Pity... (4, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193122)

The security staff really let an opportunity slip past them here.

"I'm terribly sorry madam; but surely the real Home Office Minister Baroness Neville-Jones would be properly familiar with aircraft security procedure. Come with me, please."

*Whispers*"We caught a terrorist impersonating the Home Office Minister! What'we do now?" *Whisper*"Just throw a bag over her head and hand her over to the Yanks, those bloody-minded bastards love that sort of thing."

Re:Hmm, Pity... (5, Informative)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193196)

Yeah, something like this [youtube.com] .

Note that it was posted just today.

Re:Hmm, Pity... (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193276)

Someone mod this up.

Re:Hmm, Pity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34193726)

That is a serious human rights violation right there. I hope Meg sues the hell out of someone over this.

Re:Hmm, Pity... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193830)

lol I feel sorry for anyone who has to go through a body scanner or who is singled out for a search (having gone through many, since I often travel with weird prototypes), the girl in that movie keeps saying, "all I was doing was asking questions." Totally reminds me of this [xkcd.com] .

Remember people, protest rules when you actually have a chance to make a difference. When you are trying to get through security, your best bet is to get over your fear of nudity and just get through.

Re:Hmm, Pity... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34193882)

Can't believe the alternative is to have an entire body grope. How is that procedure even remotely decent enough to be considered for deployment in an airport? That's probably worse than prison treatment, and the people in airports are presumed innocent (yeah right).

Re:Hmm, Pity... (2, Funny)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193898)

lol worse than prison? Pray that you never get sent there man, pray hard; you know not what evil lays there in deep cavities.

Re:Hmm, Pity... (1)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194348)

Remember people, protest rules when you actually have a chance to make a difference. When you are trying to get through security, your best bet is to get over your fear of nudity and just get through.

And since "protesting rules" works oh soooo well in the arena dominated entirely by bought and paid-for politicos, by screeching far-right demagogues peddling bed-wetting fear and by corporate "security-military-industrial-complex" money - who are all making a killing on the wholesale shredding of what remains of personal liberties, by the way - this recipe can be simply abbreviated to "ALWAYS OBEY YOUR BETTERS!".

Doubleplusgood.

Astounding! Time to do something... (4, Informative)

bradley13 (1118935) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194094)

Yeah, something like this [youtube.com] .

This really has gone too far. TSA should be eliminated. Let the airlines and airports provide security - they, at least, have no interest in intimidating and humiliating their customers.

I'm not the type to write Congresscritters, but it can do no harm. A bit of Googling... It turns out that both the House of Representatives [house.gov] and the Senate [senate.gov] provide convenient web forms that let you contact your Congresscritters.

Even if you are not normally political, please consider taking the time to send a message. It takes no more time than posting on /.

Re:Hmm, Pity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34193444)

*Whispers*"We caught a terrorist impersonating the Home Office Minister! What'we do now?"

*Whisper*"Just throw a bag over her head and hand her over to the Yanks, those bloody-minded bastards love that sort of thing."

Hold up, there. Is she hot?

Well, she's got a bag over her head. Never mind then. We'll take her.

Gander (1)

markdavis (642305) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193124)

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Re:Gander (4, Interesting)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193220)

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Always. It ought to be a rule that anyone voting for, or enforcing, a law that "balances" personal liberty with anything else, including "security" must not only be required to experience the full force of the process, but to do so at least once a month for the duration of their employment.

Missed Opportunity (2, Insightful)

Lunoria (1496339) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193130)

She missed a glorious opportunity to praise the airport security for her unplanned security check. It is a good thing that British Security Officers check all people, even the Security Minister.

what no taser? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34193132)

In Canada it's standard policy to taser suspicious foreign nationals at airports. On behalf of the Canadian government, I want to formally welcome the minister to one of our airports.

Re:what no taser? (1)

korean.ian (1264578) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193640)

Only if they don't speak English...

Re:what no taser? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193696)

Only if they don't speak English...

Are you referring to the foreign visitors or the Canadians?

I hope she got the "Pat Down" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34193140)

yeah, see how you like getting fondled when you fly!

Re:I hope she got the "Pat Down" (2, Funny)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193916)

last time i went the customs guy jacked me off.

my wife was unamused. but a little turned on.

Sweet delicious irony (5, Funny)

Nimey (114278) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193144)

Should've made her go through the porn scanner.

Re:Sweet delicious irony (2, Insightful)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193394)

Why stop there? Surely such a large aerosol can warrants the full body cavity search with glove <snap!>. What makes all of this security theater even more stupid is that they refuse to profile. How many white 71 year old female bombers have there been?. They probably would have waved someone wearing a burka right through while they were wasting time with the minister who is quite obviously of old British decent (she even has a peerage!) just so that they aren't accused of profiling. Ridiculous!

Re:Sweet delicious irony (2, Insightful)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193818)

The problem is that other groups will claim racism due to said profiling. And then after that, them terrorists will be recruiting white 71 year olds.

Re:Sweet delicious irony (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34194466)

And they would be correct to claim racism.

Re:Sweet delicious irony (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34194110)

Of Course Timothy McVeigh, John "Ted" Kaczynski and Joseph Stack fit perfectly into your idea of a terrorist profile. And the IRA and ETA are well known for their Islamic beliefs. Right?

Re:Sweet delicious irony (1)

AGMW (594303) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194476)

... And the IRA and ETA are well known for their Islamic beliefs. Right?

Neither the IRA nor ETA have ever blown up an airplane. They are/were also much more into remotely triggered or timed devices rather than blowing themselves or their daughters up suicide stylie! Nutjobs fo shizzle, but not religious nutjobs.

Re:Sweet delicious irony (1)

Shark (78448) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193406)

Maybe the prospect terrified security to the point where they considered the risk of annoying her worthwhile.

Re:Sweet delicious irony (1)

Grapplebeam (1892878) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193412)

Damnit, it's my collection and you have to surf for yourself! Besides, if you make your own collection you don't end up with stuff you don't want. Also, when did they roll out these porn scanners? Is the TSA trying to cut down on wasted manhours by keeping their workers from having to surf for porn?

Not good (2, Interesting)

ArchieBunker (132337) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193160)

This really isn't good. The monster that is airport security is too big to control. Not even high profile politicians can seem to escape it.

Re:Not good (3, Interesting)

Huntr (951770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193204)

I disagree. I think the key to affecting change is to demonstrate the utter stupidity and futility of current regs and prohibitions to people of import, such as Ms. Neville-Jones. They need a picture painted for them in order to understand, so paint that mother.

Re:Not good (2, Insightful)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193208)

"This really isn't good. The monster that is airport security is too big to control. Not even high profile politicians can seem to escape it."

On the contrary, this is exactly what is needed. Unless the foolishness affects those in charge of it they will never stop their ill conceived practices.

Re:Not good (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194442)

If it ever affected them in any real way, don't you think they'd just put in place regulations that specifically let them bypass the checks (something along the lines of diplomatic immunity) citing that it affected their ability to effectively do their job (and ignoring the massive irony of what it means to everyone else trying to do their jobs)?

Re:Not good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34193258)

Who's to say it wasn't intentional? It did make the news and draw attention to just how awesome the TSA is at finding stuff to be afraid of, after all. They escape it just fine, when they need to.

Re:Not good (1)

SmlFreshwaterBuffalo (608664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193332)

Actually quite the contrary. That's the only good thing about it.

Hm... (3, Insightful)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193180)

"The Baroness is also former head of the British Joint Intelligence Committee, and was traveling at the time to discuss the war on terror with US security chiefs."

They must be talking about the 'terror' that they use to manipulate the average sheep into believing that these blatant invasions of privacy and freedom are a good idea.

Re:Hm... (1)

Grapplebeam (1892878) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193436)

She should've got a cavity search, like everyone else. What makes her better than the rest of us, besides her silly title? And job description? And seeming authority on this sort of thing?

Opportunity lost (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34193182)

If security is important, then she should 1) have known better in the first place 2) thanked them for their efforts, and 3) apologised for her mistake. Instead she turned into a bitch (a haughty bitch), and in hind sight, it would have been better for her to be detained and strip searched. You can bet cash that if she took that tone with American airport security, there would have been no diplomatic gloves applied. She would have been detained and made to strip. ...and it would be a 'dressing down' long long overdue. The airport security people are under the gun to make sure air transportation is safe. They have to be diligent, there are rules on top of rules that they constantly have to keep up with (always growing, never shrinking), and to add insult to injury, not only are the passengers all bitchy, their bosses are bitchy. I remember just days after 9/11/01, US marines were patrolling airports with M16's (not shouldered). Security was more manic then. Yelling at security could get someone shot.

high up gov people can do DO YOU KNOW WHO I'M (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193244)

high up gov people can do DO YOU KNOW WHO I'M line and get away with it.

Re:high up gov people can do DO YOU KNOW WHO I'M (4, Funny)

sr180 (700526) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193780)

I use the "Don't you know who I am?" line with police...
When they reply, "Why the hell would I know who you are?"
I say, "Good!" and run like hell.

Re:high up gov people can do DO YOU KNOW WHO I'M (5, Informative)

radio4fan (304271) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193914)

If she said "Do you know who I am?", the correct answer would surely be:

"You're a Baroness that no-one has ever had the chance to vote for - or against - and you were allegedly vetoed by MI5 for the position of National Security Adviser due to your ill-advised links to dodgy Russian mafia-linked oligarchs, from whom you take sizeable donations [guardian.co.uk] to run your office.

Next question please."

Blocked? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34193188)

Seriously, Slashdot is getting worse than the mainstream press.

How was she "blocked" as the title says?

I love the passive voice! (1)

humphrm (18130) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193190)

Paraphrasing: "Mistakes were made. We don't care."

You made the rules, you have to live by them.

I suppose it's fair... (1)

KingAlanI (1270538) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193200)

I suppose it's fair when they get caught in the same system they suggest for everybody else.

Good (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34193234)

While being questioned by airport security staff for transporting a container with more than 100ml of liquid, the Baroness seemingly took offense at being lectured on the importance of security procedure: 'Of course I know how important it is,' she said, 'I'm the Security Minister.'

Good. I'm happy she was offended. I say we run through the entire procedure word-for-word, action-for-action for EVERY public official who flies commercially. And I hope every single one of them is every bit as offended as the rest of us are for being treated at best like petulant children who need to be taught a lesson, and at worst like criminals who have no rights. The more public officials get pissed off over being treated the same way the average citizen is treated, the more likely there is to be an outcry against this kind of crap.

As the Security Minister, she should have known damn well that she needed to double check her bags for compliance BEFORE leaving home. So if she gets pissy over having to endure the same lecture as some other poor sap who simply forgot it was in there, tough shit. She's not above the law. And since she's one of the ones who seem to think it's so important, she needs to the standard just as much as everyone else, if not moreso.

I see it differently - "technical" background (-1, Offtopic)

dbIII (701233) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193778)

Dealing with the details of laws is her job. She knows as well as you or I how ridiculous that law is and how stupid it is that it is implemented by a guy that cannot deviate from a script that could almost be replaced by a robot. She's getting angry about something we should all be angry about and she knows that things are done differently in her country (perhaps just as stupid, but in different ways).
In other words she has a "technical" background to know that what the TSA is doing is bullshit.
She can't deal with it the way I do. I'm not going to the USA until airport security is put under adult supervision.

Re:I see it differently - "technical" background (2, Informative)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194456)

Dealing with the details of laws is her job. She knows as well as you or I how ridiculous that law is and how stupid it is that it is implemented by a guy that cannot deviate from a script that could almost be replaced by a robot. She's getting angry about something we should all be angry about and she knows that things are done differently in her country (perhaps just as stupid, but in different ways).

What on Earth are you talking about? She is a UK politician who was flying to the US. However, the aerosol was taken off her in Heathrow airport

Eating your own dog food Re:Good (1)

La Gris (531858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194032)

Really, this should apply in this case. Officials responsible for law production are welcome eating their own dog-food.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_your_own_dog_food [wikipedia.org]

Someone's got her beat... (4, Interesting)

quacking duck (607555) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193236)

The Baroness' behaviour sounds positively tame compared to former Canadian Conservative MP Helena Guergis's temper tantrum when trying to catch a flight home earlier this year, going so far as throwing insults and her boots at security officials:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/airport-worker-says-guergis-meltdown-among-worst-hes-seen/article1482043/ [theglobeandmail.com]

Any of us little people would've been tasered, handcuffed and carried away after a stunt like that. Power certainly hath its privileges.

Re:Someone's got her beat... (1)

fadir (522518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194020)

Depends on how much former this PM is. If she's not responsible for this utter nonsense called security check then she has all reason to be upset. Instead of complying with all the rediculous crap I'd prefer to throw shoes at those people as well. Sadly I'd like to reach my destination so I throw shoes (and do worse things) just in my imagination and politely (as good as I can fake it) comply to get done with it.

Wrong Title (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193264)

UK Terror Chief Blocked From Boarding Aircraft

That's because his title is wrong. It should be Anti-Terror Chief.

Re:Wrong Title (4, Interesting)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193402)

That's because his title is wrong. It should be Anti-Terror Chief.

No, when I lived in the UK I was far more terrified of the government than terrorists. And, more pedantically, her job is to terrorise Britons into thinking that anyone carrying more than 100ml of liquid onto a plane is trying to kill them, so Terror Chief is really very apt.

Re:Wrong Title (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193532)

They should have a choice of Anal and Non-Anal flights. Those willing to take on a little more risk in exchange for more privacy could take the Non-Anal flight. Those who are paranoid or like ass exams would take the Anal flight.

Re:Wrong Title (1)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193842)

You know - I'd go for that... the differing levels of screening, I mean. I would gladly accept the apparent increased risk for a "non-extensively passenger screened" flight if given the option. I'll happily sign a waiver to do it.

Re:Wrong Title (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194492)

Most modern systems have a concept of statutory laws that you can't sign away no matter who you are or what you sign, and this is precisely the sort of thing that would come under such law.

About the only time you can sign a bit of paper which says "I accept that I'm doing something risky and may get killed doing it" is if you join the armed forces.

(Disclaimer: IANAL).

Re:Wrong Title (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193942)

i'm all for that!

how cool would it be to have smoking sections on terror flights?

WAY MORE FUN than in-flight entertainment (unless it's "snakes on a plane", and it very well could be)

Re:Wrong Title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34193730)

now if she was a simpleton black or arab looking person...

Re:Wrong Title (1, Troll)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194066)

I live in the UK, and I can confirm we are much more terrified of our government than of Al Quaida.

Our own police kill a lot more people than Al Quaida, and are a lot less incompetent in other ways as well. Further more, we are terrorised on a daily basis by over sealous enforement of traffic regulations, and excessive fines.

Too bad (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193346)

If she was a Duchess, we might have let her thru, but a mere Baroness? Come on.

Security Checks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34194508)

She was en route to Washington, where do you imagine they check people boarding a plane?

Since you're American I'll make it easy; her outburst happened at Heathrow Airport in London on her way out of the country!
   

Cobra (3, Funny)

redvision4 (105878) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193360)

Clearly they finally had the chance to really hinder Cobra and they missed it. Gi.Joe must be pissed.

Re:Cobra (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193426)

Clearly they finally had the chance to really hinder Cobra and they missed it. Gi.Joe must be pissed.

I'm always amused when I read news stories about British government officials attending Cobra meetings. Either it's an example of someone's sick sense of humor, or they really have no clue.

Re:Cobra (1)

Filmcell-Keyrings (973083) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194398)

Why should we have a clue about GI Joe, in the UK we had the far superior Action Man, He had moving eyes, gripping hands and he ate GI's for breakfast. Honestly, I knew of GI Joe, but until the recent movie, did not not know that the bad guys were called Cobra.

My experience with TSA (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34193490)

I was waiting to pick a friend up at the airport. I was early and they were late. I had seen a report on the local news that week that they were going to start wiping peoples hands and running them trough a sniffer to see if there was explosive residue on them.

I wanted to find out what chemicals were in the wipes because of alergies. There was a person watching the exit from the secure area who was obviously bored (very small airport, could be 15 minutes between people at times) She needed only to make sure nobody went the wrong way. So I decided to ask her about it. Took awhile to explain what I wanted to know and then confirm she didn't know and was just willing to make stuff up.

I went back to waiting and then suddenly 5 police officers were around me to ask questions. 2nd degree and background check and other fun. I felt like asking if I was being detained, but I could not afford to be taken away for 24 hours.

Eventually I was let go after about 30 minutes. They did not take me anywhere or touch me but it was eye opening.

Off Lee Head ... Off Lee Head ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34193516)

Ha Ha the Baroness Neville-Jones is fucking CLUELESS! Priceless!

Perhaps her Worshipfullness will give a BLOW-JOB to the TSA KiesterKops about 20+ I'd imagine watching the spectacle.

Just goes to show that the SECURITY, post 9/11 is a blithering JOKE and not even up to the security in 1911!

OH! [Ramp up the musc boys] Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines. They Go UptpyUpUp and Go DowntpyDownDown ...

In the words of Red Skelton ... "May God Bless."

In my words ... may you burn from a Molitov Cocktail in the face.

Toodles!

Neville-Jones can shove it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34193530)

I would like to give a sincere, "Ha ha, fuck you" to the Minister.
Cheers
-- Anonymous Aviation Security Professional who is sick and tired of purely reactive ineffective security measures imposed by various Ministries and Departments.

noob (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34193536)

He thinks he's above the law..,
What a creep, just like every other politician.

Re:noob (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193754)

FYI: he's a she.

Re:noob (1)

Arimus (198136) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194394)

hint:
Baron == Male
Baroness == Female
Heir == Male
Heiress == Female

Start to see a pattern?

And she didn't think she was above the law, it was a mistake... which I guess you never mak.. oh guess you do make them :p. Anyway, the bit she got annoyed at wasn't being told to remove it was the lecture the customs/security ape tried giving her - she probably authorised most of the lecture...

Cheap Spyder and wholesale spyder jackets for sale (-1, Troll)

snowli (1938366) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193582)

Cheap Spyder [perfectwinter.net] and wholesale spyder [perfectwinter.net] jackets for sale! Christmas is coming, for sale female and male cheap spyder [perfectwinter.net] jackets and wholesale spyder [perfectwinter.net] jackets Cheap Spyder [perfectwinter.net] and wholesale spyder [perfectwinter.net] jackets for sale! Christmas is coming, for sale female and male cheap spyder [perfectwinter.net] jackets and wholesale spyder [perfectwinter.net] jackets

Cobraaaa! (3, Funny)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193662)

Why would you hire the Baroness as your minister of security? Next you'll be telling me that Destro is the new Prime Minister.

Re:Cobraaaa! (1)

stimpleton (732392) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193742)

I realize to non-British, the term "Baroness" sounds like something from a Hollywood Vampire movie, but the term Baron(and hence Baroness) goes to the heart of the British class system.

Its roots lie in the fact they were monarchy endorsed, often due to excelling in military service.

So yes, a Baron(or Baroness), would be an epiphany of this role in modern times.

Re:Cobraaaa! (3, Informative)

Confusador (1783468) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193908)

For the benefit of those who didn't grow up in the US in the 80s, it's not just like something from a Hollywood movie, in the context of terrorism The Baroness is a very specific someone, [wikipedia.org] whose name was chosen presumably because of the military connotations you mention. The whole thing combines to make articles like this [bbc.co.uk] intensely amusing.

Re:Cobraaaa! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34194330)

epitome

UK Terror Chief? (1)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193704)

AND her name is The Baroness?!? I can see why she'd be blocked, she sounds terrifying. And possibly a mortal enemy to GI Joe.

Wasn't the liquid bomb a hoax anyway? (4, Insightful)

dbIII (701233) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193736)

Why do we still have the liquid restrictions when they are not a credible threat? Meanwhile flammable liquids and gasses in cigarette lighters are ignored as they should be.
It's really become an expensive joke instead of anything resembling security.

Re:Wasn't the liquid bomb a hoax anyway? (1)

xenobyte (446878) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194056)

As many have already pointed out - it's security theater and it has nothing to do with security except in the name. It's a pathetic joke designed to make it appear to the less intelligent (which obviously includes most of the power establishment) that something is done.

* None of the checks at the airports, including the porn scanner, would not have stopped the 9/11 terrorists.
* It takes less than 200ml of liquid explosive to down a plane and you're allowed five times that (in separate containers but still).

A simple profiling banning everybody that had connections with extremist organisations would have stopped both all the 9/11 terrorists and all subsequent attempts using shoe-bombs, underwear bombs, liquid bombs and so on. All the people involved were on watch-lists, as were many others by the way.

Sure, you'll ban a lot of legitimate travelers as well, but people chose their friends and if they chose to associate with extremists it might (or will) have consequences, like the inability to travel by air.

Re:Wasn't the liquid bomb a hoax anyway? (3, Insightful)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194468)

A simple profiling banning everybody that had connections with extremist organisations would have stopped both all the 9/11 terrorists and all subsequent attempts using shoe-bombs, underwear bombs, liquid bombs and so on. All the people involved were on watch-lists, as were many others by the way. Sure, you'll ban a lot of legitimate travelers as well, but people chose their friends and if they chose to associate with extremists it might (or will) have consequences, like the inability to travel by air.

While I agree with you about your other points, this is simply the old good Nazi/Soviet/What-not "guilt by association" shtick. Its even worse than the perversity already being committed. So a brother of a guy you buy kabobs from at his mobile cart in front of your office joined the Jihad somewhere in Pakistan and you being a computer nerd happened to help the stand owner get his wi-fi working on his netbook while waiting for your kabobs. Neither of you had a clue about the new Holy Warrior being minted in some cave but its just too bad anyway. Goodbye air travel, hello body cavity searches. Etc and so on.

The real goals of "guilt by association" are of course things like Aryan Purity (because anyone not "pure" enough is quickly "associated" out of relevance or even existence) and also a very convenient to rulers abject fear of the security apparatus by the populace. Because it takes only "an association" (completely arbitrarily defined) to fuck you up for life and so enforcement becomes entirely the matter of whim of your "betters" (i.e. the members of the Securocracy).

Re:Wasn't the liquid bomb a hoax anyway? (2, Informative)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194480)

Because it has nothing to do with security and everything to do with the appearance of security. The two are often quite different, and should not be confused.

If our politicians wanted security, they'd canvass the opinion of the worlds' experts. If they want political appearance of security, they will do what they think looks good.

The worlds' experts have almost universally said "Everything being done is a waste of time - obvious knee-jerk reactions are pointless"; the world's politicians have without fail carried out the obvious knee-jerk reaction whenever something bad happens.

Terror Chief Indeed (4, Insightful)

skywire (469351) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193866)

The story title aptly characterizes her as Terror Chief. Her role, like that of her American counterpart, is to instill terror in the populace. She is one of the most valuable, if unofficial, players on the Al Qaeda team, thanks to the interest of our ruling elites in promoting (for different reasons) terrorism.

What about world leaders? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194050)

The Baroness could easily be a terrorist. According to the security agencies, the pilots may decide to blow up the planes as well. I see no reason that Barack Obama and David Cameron are above the law in this respect, and they have access to a lot of information that could aid terrorism.

I do hope they get the security pat down as well.

Cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34194076)

Wow, great scoop man! She got stopped, removed an item, and then was let through! Now there's something that doesn't happen every day.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?