Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
UK travel

Welcome to our UK travel forum where you can get advice on everything from holidays to exotic destinations, to tips on London travel.

Original poster

Can you beleive this? Airport security gone MAD!

38 replies

harrisey · 28/08/2006 13:08

I understand that the govt feels there is a need to improve airport security/stop people carrying bottles of water/chewing gum etc on to flights.
But this weekend took the biscuit. We flew Glasgow - Belfast for MILs 60th Birthday do. Out on Fri, back on Sun.
On the way out, dd1's schoolbag (she came straight from school to the flight) which has a little clear sealed pocket with glitter and water in it to look pretty (present from my stepmum) was confiscated at security as there was too much liquid in it and they didnt know what it was! They wanted to pop it and let the water/glitter out but with some persuading allowed dh to run back down to check in to put it inthe hold (and a big huge thanks to Easyjet for reopening their checkin desk just for this!)
On the way back - they decided to bodysearch dd2. Dd2 is 2years 9months old. SHe was nice enough to let them do it, but it seemed just a little ott to me. Plus the fuss of taking off shoes for checking etc.
If youhad a bomb, would you not just pu tit in the hold and use your mobile to set off a remote signal to it whwn the time came? Rather than booby trapping a 6yo's schoolbag and a 2yo's body in some way?
Puts me off flying anyway, so probably good for the environment!

OP posts:
Twiglett · 28/08/2006 13:11

unfortunately terrorists use children to carry bombs and laud them as martyrs

so no I don't think its OTT

SherlockLGJ · 28/08/2006 13:18

I am delighted they were doing their jobs so well. TBH

belgo · 28/08/2006 13:20

My two year old dd was frisked at Brussels Airport, it's not just the UK!

waterfalls · 28/08/2006 13:23

I would'nt have a problem with it, if thorogh (sp) were'nt carried out, there would be hell to pay if weapons got through so easily, remember they are doing this to protect you.

waterfalls · 28/08/2006 13:24

thorough searches.............

belgo · 28/08/2006 13:26

she just thought it was fun! Made me laugh

Original poster
harrisey · 28/08/2006 13:26

Forgot to add that my dh had an A4 sized glazed (with glass!) picture in his handluggage as a prezzie for his Mum, and it got through no bother.... though it could very easilt have been turned into a weapon!

OP posts:
prettybird · 28/08/2006 13:28

Actually Hrrisey - I agree with you.

It amy not be a PC view, but I think this is getting more and more like 1984 all the time, with the government using "fear" ot keep us in line as little by little our liberties are eroded. And we are "grateful" to them.

If a terrorist wants to blow us up and the implements with which to do so could be a small as the sort of things they are talking about - a wee sealed pocket, a small lipstick, mascara, then a committed and orgnaised terrorists would be able to secrete such objects within body orifices and retreive them once they are through security or on to the plane.

waterfalls · 28/08/2006 13:28

But a sheet of glass wont bring a plane out of the sky, these terrorists mean business!!

misdee · 28/08/2006 13:32

harrisey, the plot foiled was about liquid explosives being hidden in small containers like pots of hair gel, water bottles etc.

fuzzywuzzy · 28/08/2006 13:34

How come there's never been a report on the news about babies being used as suicide bombers/'martyr's'???

It's scaremongering, and a way to make Muslim's look inhumane and deservig of being treated like criminals for being quite simply Muslims.
I sincerely doubt anyone regardless of religious/political affiliation would do that to their child.

hulababy · 28/08/2006 13:50

I thought the current threat was to use a mother and baby, with possibly baby food/formula used to carry the explosives in liquid form?

Have to say I like the ide aof tightended security. Makes me feel safer.

I am so used to seeing people being frisked and searched, inlcudng new borns, at the prison I work out. Sadly people smuggle drugs in inside baby's nappies! None of it seems straange to me anymore.

chocybickie · 28/08/2006 13:51

wouldn't it be easier just to search the prisoners after visiting time instead of newborn babies?

Original poster
harrisey · 28/08/2006 13:53

Yeah, maybe I'm naive, but it was a bit crap trying to explain to my 6yo why thay wanted to pop her bag, and not pleasant to see my 2yo being searched - they wouldnt even let me hold her or carry her through the metal detector (though I had come through clean). It was a tiny metal badge on hr trousers that set it off.
I think they are going over the top to be honest. This was a 25 min flight to Belfast. It wasnt anywhere near any international terminal - the domestic UK departures fom Glasgow!
I think we are being sold a myth of the danger of terrorism - which we wouldnt even be facing if we werent so deep in the pockets of the US (personal political opinion, - sorry) to control us. Like prettybird, I think its very 1984.
And it was my KIDS facing it. I wouldnt be flying with them if I thought we were in any danger of being blown out the sky. Its not as if they were doing their early 90's style interrogations about flying to Belfast either.

OP posts:
hulababy · 28/08/2006 13:54

They do both. They have to search prisoners beforehand as the drugs are passed over during visits and swallowed there and then by the prisoner. All happens really quickly (watched it on a video) and way too fast for officers to stop it often.

tessasmum · 28/08/2006 13:55

As you were flying back from Belfast I'm not surprised they searched your 2 year old. In the 70's baby's prams were used to take small incendery devices into shops in N Ireland.
Those of us who grew up then, under a constant threat of 'terror', don't forget easily.
As others have said, I'd rather be searched than not.

chocybickie · 28/08/2006 13:58

oh i see. makes sense then.

trinityrhino · 28/08/2006 13:58

I am glad they are doing their job so thoroughly

hulababy · 28/08/2006 14:00

Fortunatekly staff are not searched every day, as it takes ages when we are to get into work. We have random checks instead.

prettybird · 28/08/2006 14:04

Hear hear Harrisey. And I think it is too much of a coincidence that the increase in secuirty to "Critical" came the day after the Prime Minster flew out to Barbados.

I'm angry at the terrorists - but I am even more angry at the government who have contributed to put us in the firing line, and have acted as the best even recruiting agents for Al Quaeda and the fundamentalists.

Have you read the articles about army deserters in both the Guardan Weekend magazine and the Sunday Times magazine? Interesting perectives from American soldiers who have come to relasie that they are the invaders and the killers - and that if the sitation were reveresed, they would be doing exactly the same thing as the "insurgeants" that the Amercians are being encouraged to kill. That any various other comments about "war crimes" that they beleived were being committed.

.....But that is whole other debate!

Original poster
harrisey · 28/08/2006 14:05

tessamum my dh is Belfast born and bred (though doesnt live there now)
and he was equally appalled at them searching our daughter - they're not smuggling incendaries now are they?

Think I#ll have to accept that I'm the nutter that thinks all this 'security' stuff is a load of rubbish designed to frighten us into beleiving what the government is saying is true when I feel my so called liberties (eg to drink water on an aeroplane, keep my children safe and happy) are being infringed.

But then, I never was much good with authority figures.

OP posts:
expatinscotland · 28/08/2006 14:06

This is why I don't fly anymore.

Sorry, just not worth the humiliation, hassle, annoyance, etc.

There are plenty of places to drive/take a train or ferry to.

The SeaCat landing at Belfast only takes about an hour and a half and is a pleasant ride.

Flying is a PITA.

prettybird · 28/08/2006 14:14

... you're not the only one Harrisey.

My dh feels even more strongly than me. My mum, my dad (both still, for their sins, Labour voters, but thinking twice - only there is no-one else they could bring themselves to vote for, as they hate the Conservatives),many of my dad's friends (most of whom are right wing), my mum's friends, loads of my collegaues at work, probably Russell T Davis (judging by his Doctor Who scripts ) .......all have their suspicions.

OK, I am a trendy pinko liberal who is deeply disillusioned with Labour (was even before Iraq, but that really was the last straw), but I am not normally in to conspiracy theories, although I am changing my mind.....

Gem13 · 28/08/2006 14:34

I agree with the searching but find the random searches strange.

I recently flew 5 months and visibly pregnant with my 72 year old mother who was thoroughly frisked (and was upset about it as she said the woman was rough) but I walked straight through.

Surely my bump was a more likely cause for concern?

melpomene · 28/08/2006 14:52

My dd2 (then 6 months old) was frisked when we flew in October 2005, before the recent security scares.

The security policies have always seemed inconsistent to me; prior to the recent security scares, people could take glass bottles of duty free but you weren't allowed to have a metal knife or fork in your hand luggage, even a little toddler's fork. Which could cause more injury - a toddler's fork or big shards of glass from a broken bottle?

Swipe left for the next trending thread