P.K. Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 As he was headed for Luton they actually did him a favour... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piebaps Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I gotta go against the flow with this one. I agree that Bin Laden probably doesn't have a UK hideout however the Shoe Bomber did as did those guys with the exploding sports drinks. UK aviation security is there to protect us all and acting like a dickhead at an airport isn't clever. If you don't like IOM airport security - catch the boat and preferably take a car. You've got a much better chance of getting your naughties onto a public passenger vessel that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulgarian Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I gotta go against the flow with this one. I agree that Bin Laden probably doesn't have a UK hideout however the Shoe Bomber did as did those guys with the exploding sports drinks. UK aviation security is there to protect us all and acting like a dickhead at an airport isn't clever. If you don't like IOM airport security - catch the boat and preferably take a car. You've got a much better chance of getting your naughties onto a public passenger vessel that way. He didn't have any naughties though. He wasn't a terrorist, just a fucking idiot. If it had turned out that his sandals were made of semtex then i could understand the reaction. Do you agree with the prison sentence then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 ....acting like a dickhead at an airport isn't clever. Agreed - they should get some new security personnel asap... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William_Hartnell Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 From experience the sort of people that make these comments “in jest” are the just sort that deserve to be given a good wake-up call like this. Yes, it’s a pain in the rectum to remove your shoes when going through Ronaldsway security but it’s not like they’re asking you to strip to your pants and limbo through the security gate. As a self professed frequent traveller this chap should know that a lot of airports still scan or intermittently insist on removing shoes and boots at security points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
%age Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 The guy should have been given a bit of hassle in a back room - full search and all that. We all know how tempting it is to proclaim in a sarcastic voice that there is a rocket in your pocket and a bomb in your bloomers and you are going to pluck the pilots to death with your tweasers. But we don't because only twats do that. We just shut the fuck up and get through as quickly as possible. What has happened here is that the establishment needed to make an example of someone and they have gone way, way over the top. Everyone involved in this from the security guard right up to my old mate Michael Moyle, want to think carefully about what they have done. I would say what they have certainly done is made complete and utter tw@ts of themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I want to send the man a tenner towards his fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 bet he wont do it again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ISS Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I gotta go against the flow with this one. I agree that Bin Laden probably doesn't have a UK hideout however the Shoe Bomber did as did those guys with the exploding sports drinks. UK aviation security is there to protect us all and acting like a dickhead at an airport isn't clever. If you don't like IOM airport security - catch the boat and preferably take a car. You've got a much better chance of getting your naughties onto a public passenger vessel that way. It is about 1 in three chance of getting caught down at the Sea Terminal in a car where I understand they operate a one third vehicle check quota in normal circumstances. Once it was quite predicatable that they would do the first few cars and once the quota was reached disappear, though in the last couple of yearsI think someone realised that this was happening and there has been some variation. In May last year I recall an afternoon departure to Liverpool when NO vehicles were checked and there were two departures due that afternoon one to LIverpool and one to Belfast and Dublin. Passengers get the 100% treatment? Why? When over in the UK the standard foot pax check is again around 30% unless security conditions are higher. The big puzzle is about the Sea Terminal securiity is that it was implemented in the late 90s. I think summer 1996, long before 9/11. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Gotta be a bit of a fuckwit to joke about bombs in an airport these days. As soon as the words are said there's a whole load of procedures that they have to go through - he needlessly wasted everyone's time. That's why the sentence is so severe. In May last year I recall an afternoon departure to Liverpool when NO vehicles were checked and there were two departures due that afternoon one to LIverpool and one to Belfast and Dublin. Passengers get the 100% treatment? Why? It'll all change when a car bomb goes off on a ferry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I am genuinely shocked at this. I understand the need to be vigilant, which is why you do the search. And they would have checked the sandals if they posed such a security risk upon this statement. Stating that they ARE explosive does somewhat give the game away if they really were. But I genuinely feel that it is disgusting to throw someone in jail for what they have said, even in this instance. It was obviously said in jest. Might just have been a stupid comment mentioned by accident. However, you don't deal with such stupidity by doing something as draconian as punishing someone, nevermind locking them up! It really is nuts. But is the problem the law or the judge? When it all boils down to it, he wasn't a terrorist (especially judging from what he said), just a person who said a silly thing. I wonder is part of the judgemental analysis of this is swayed by a societal feeling that terrorist is just too awful to joke about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I am genuinely shocked at this. I understand the need to be vigilant, which is why you do the search. And they would have checked the sandals if they posed such a security risk upon this statement. Stating that they ARE explosive does somewhat give the game away if they really were. But I genuinely feel that it is disgusting to throw someone in jail for what they have said, even in this instance. It was obviously said in jest. Might just have been a stupid comment mentioned by accident. However, you don't deal with such stupidity by doing something as draconian as punishing someone, nevermind locking them up! It really is nuts. But is the problem the law or the judge? When it all boils down to it, he wasn't a terrorist (especially judging from what he said), just a person who said a silly thing. I wonder is part of the judgemental analysis of this is swayed by a societal feeling that terrorist is just too awful to joke about. And what does such a sentences, this fine, and the exclusion order actually achieve? How does it do any good or represent some form of justice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terminal Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 He wasn't thrown in Jail. His sentence was suspended for 2 years IIRC. That and the fact that he was excluded from the Island for 5 means he was essentially sent home with slapped wrists and told to think about what he had done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 You're right, but still very bad, especially in respect of the exclusion order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 WTF would he want to come back here for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.