I've been posting on another board for at least 9 months about the possibility that these airport scanners could be conceived as allowing the government to legally access child porn images as the beam through passenger's clothing...met with a blast of how loopy I am from assorted hyserics.

And so it has come to pass with Manchester Airport having to "re-think 'the bleeding obvious.

www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-new...02h.html?autostart=1

And what alerted me ?...2 years ago 2 friends who returned from a Bali holiday were searched at Sydney Airport by a stroppy custom's officer ..and even worse..were stripped nude ALONG with their 2 small children who were taken into a separate room watched over by 3 custom's officers.

Nothing was found.
They were advised against suing as Customs were a law unto themselves but were furious about their children being stripped.

They never received an apology. I wanted them to go public but they were naturally reluctant.

Sometimes BR is spot on.

Where do I apply for as job with this organisation ?

Sorry if the writing is a bit sloppy, but I'm wanking as I write.

"Scans" of people under-18 have been suspended for now -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/8313335.stm

The "security" people will just frisk (fondle) them instead !

will they check people's age before they go through the scanner?

plenty of people don't look their age.

Fondle made me giggle ITK.

How did we avoid catastrophe for so many years without stripping and groping little kids at airports? And don't the rest of us deserve some level of dignity or privacy or respect?

There is a scene in the Airplane! movies where the scanner blares a sound if a man passes through, but with a woman, it shows them as topless walking through.

Sometimes things said(done) in jest...

in the latest war against..whatever..schools in West Australia are telling older students who are in relationships not to hug in school as it may give younger kids the wrong idea.

can't have kids showing affection to each other can we ?. They'll have to go back to having wrestling matches and playground tussles to get in a discreet grope.

JK2006 wrote:
Fondle made me giggle ITK.

I suggest that anyone passing through airport security in future has an extremely large cucumber down their boxer shorts !

(Fortunately ITK does not need one !!! LOL)

How many planes have been blown out of the sky without this technology.......

Lockerbie ( and the bomb was in the hold - not on the person ) and........

Terrorism does not exist. It is a creation of BUSH and BLAIR and the ruling classes in order to make money and bring in silly laws.

Reading about this made me laugh. It would indeed be funny if ZanuLabor's overzealous and poorly defined anti-pedo laws put a spanner in their overzealous anti-terrorisim efforts.

Ulrika Johnsonn recently paid 20 zillion quid to have 'the body of a 16 year old girl'. Surely her plastic surgeon should be arrested for virtual child pornography offences (creating a sexual image of a person who appears to be under 18)?

Spot the contradiction in the folowing words:

"Lockerbie ( and the bomb was in the hold - not on the person )"

"Terrorism does not exist. It is a creation of BUSH and BLAIR and the ruling classes in order to make money and bring in silly laws."

While I see what you are getting at, BR, you do your case no good by posting things like this.
Either terrorism is real or it's not. You can't have it both ways. That Lockerbie was the result of terrorist activity is beyond argument. We can argue about who was responsible 'til the cows come home.
Don't shoot yourself in the foot, BR. It's much more fun to let me do it.

Locked Out wrote:
Either terrorism is real or it's not.

IT IS NOT

There has not been a single "terrorist" act in the UK (as defined by the Government, who are trying to convince us that we are under constant threat from terrorists abroad).

July 7th was committed by BRITISH subjects - born and brought up here.
They were outraged by what was being done in their name.

Similarly the "attack" on Glasgow airport.

I agree that we must take whatever our government says with a pinch of salt, be it in matters of "terrorism" or anything else. What I do not think is a good idea is for someone to post allegedly "authotitative" and "well informed" comment deliberately sexed up {you remember the universal concern about that particular practice when it was employed by the Government...}. We have no right to criticise anyone when we allow sophistry like this to pass unnoticed and unquestioned simply because it suits us. If we hold the Government to rigorous account we need to apply that same scrupulouness to our own postings. Anything else is simple hypocrisy. If there is no terrorism {as BR claims} then who takes responsibility for the fate of PanAm Flight 103? No terrorism, no bomb. However, BR also tells us there was a bomb. Whoever planted it - Mossad, MI6, the CIA the Lybian Secret Service or whoever - was guilty of terrorism.
So is there "terrorism" or not? I'm still confused as to what people really think. And, as yet, my point remains unanswered. I'd hazard a guess that that's because the posting I flagged up was deeply flawed and pretty indefencible to start with and needed to be questioned. An answer to the point would be nice.