Airport Security Is Totally Overdone
Kate Hoey thinks airport security is completely over the top, and questions why, if Boris doesn't need security, Tony Blair does.
2 Aug 2011, 18:46
Airport Security: OTT?
The miracle is the docility of the passengers - they pad along, in a zombie fashion, obeying the orders with mostly expressionless faces. Occasionally someone protests when a larger than 100mls tube of toiletry is removed to be put in a big bin and supposedly destroyed. A friend of mine is convinced the staff share the contents out at the end of the day but I have been personally assured that this is not true and that everything is destroyed - even if unopened, sealed but visible. What a waste. When I suggested that maybe items could be given to a charity shop I was told sternly "definitely not- that would be putting lives at risk".
There is no consistency between airports - some require laptops to be taken out of the bag, others allowing them to stay covered. On one day you will be asked to remove shoes - on others not. There is also no consistency in travel modes. I am at liberty to get on a packed train at Euston with a huge case and put it in a crowded luggage area without any security whatsoever.
Why do we assume the terrorist will ignore a crowded train with far more passengers than the average aeroplane.? There is now a whole industry grown up around airport security with hundreds of jobs at risk if ever the 'powers that be' decide the risk has deteriorated enough to scale down the searches. But I think we all know this will not happen. Gradually we have allowed the terrorists to win by making us change the way we live our lives and relinquish more and more of our freedoms.
While the public suffer the extra inconvenience there is one person able to travel the world free from the petty surveillance and actually encompassed by security which we are paying for. Tony Blair, whose actions in going to war in Iraq helped bring about the increased risks from terrorists, has a whole team of metropolitan police officers guarding him night and day and flying round the world at our expense. The former Prime Minister is now a multi millionaire and should be made to help meet the costs of his huge security bill. Maybe then he might realise that he doesn't need protection on this scale any longer.
One man who is certainly as easily recognised and well known in London as Tony Blair is Mayor Boris Johnson. Yet he goes everywhere on his bicycle, totally unprotected. If it is safe enough for Boris, it should be safe enough for any politician.Security has become just another status symbol - witness the pompous FIFA Executives demanding police escorts on their visit to London last year. But it increasingly bears no relation to the actual risks we are faced with. It is time for more public figures to do a Boris and buck this unnecessary trend.
Comments (4)
Subscribe to this posts's comments feed
I couldn't agree more, and considering your party political background, I am impressed with your graciousness at commending Boris.
However, I do think you, as a Labour MP, must accept that much of the increase in the intrusive nature of the prying that the State carries out into our lives and its incessant nannying and interference has been as a direct result of the previous 13 years of Labour government.
The Labour ethos, it seems crystal clear to me, is to behave always as though "we know best what's good for you" and to systematically eradicate the liberty with which we can make up our minds about whether or not we consider something acceptable to us and us alone.
One size simply cannot fit all but the trend over the last few years has been to consistently remove choice and impose regulation. And, in so doing, this one size regime inevitably comes with increased costs to support it across the board and incurs colossal waste in resources, administration and money in areas where such regulation is completely unnecessary.
I am glad you recognise the limiting of our freedoms. I haven't followed your position on this matter so perhaps you've been fighting this all along, but it would be good to hear the Labour Party apologise for its part in this.
03/08/2011 14:12As historical background, the strict measures came in following the foiled liquid bombs plot at Heathrow in summer 2006.
The then Labour government imposed new strictures, which have been backed up by new EU regulations across airports within member states.
But I agree that the restrictions need to be eased. Philip Hammond, over to you...
04/08/2011 08:49Whilst I agree with your views on Airport Security, I think you are quite wrong to compare a former PM's security to that of a Mayor. You often do not explain yourself very well and I suppose this was a throwaway remark without knowledge of how such decisions are reached. I recently heard you say that the population of NI was 5m when this is not accurate.
As an MP you should be aware that a Committee decides the level of security required for individual citizens, Royalty or those resident in the country. Former PM's and Senior Government ministers have always received protection even when they leave office. John Major continues to have armed protection - you failed to mention that as does Gordon Brown. As far as I know David Miliband also receives protection - he did last year anyway and that was twelve months after leaving office as Foreign secretary. You also failed to mention that Lord Mason receives protection 30 years after leaving his job as Secretary of State for NI.
In addition to former Ministers, you should have perhaps mentioned those who seek our protection. I refer to the former Pakastani President Musharif who also had police protection when he moved to London. Tony Blair is not one of your favorite people. You insult me by suggesting that a former PM who is also an envoy in the Middle East, and in demand on the world stage does not need protection. It is ludicrous to compare his former job to that of the London Mayor. If anything happened to him we would be the laughing stock of the world as all political leaders receive protection on leaving office. Shame on you.....
04/08/2011 11:05Ah, airports and the Security Circus whose only performers are the clowns. Not only has this circus never caught a terrorist (and that includes all the other farces in every other country in the world)but the fact of the matter is, it never will.
When you are faced with a terrorist who intends to give up their life too, there simply is no protection against this ... period!
Does anyone think that if a terrorist has their bag scanned or body scanned at airport security (not forgetting turbans) and explosives are seen that said terrorist will then surrender? No, of course not, the terrorist will detonate the explosives and take out himself, airport security and all the passengers in the vicinity.
What then? Do you have pre airport security? .. then pre pre airport security?
lt's a bloody circus and a damn expensive one too that is simply not fit for purpose!
04/08/2011 19:56