The rules
Saturday, 16:39 Heathrow Terminal 1
I'm off to the BBC Film Festival in Glasgow. I've flown precisely twice since the terrorists tried to kill us all and UK airports brought in their Pythonesque restrictions, so I know all about the tightening up of the one-piece-of-hand-baggage rule (people have been flaunting this for years, especially women, so I have no problem with this), but the liquids law strikes me as insane. I've just had three expensive tubes of organic "product" confiscated by the man at the x-ray machine because they were larger than 100ml each. (How many fucking bottles of product are as small as 100ml each? These would be miniatures.) I had taken them out to be x-rayed separately, like a good citizen, and put them in a sealed plastic bag so that they could be examined by anyone interested in my ablutive rituals (one pre-shave cream, one shaving cream, and one moisturiser, in case you missed my products being waved around at the x-ray machine - they're made by Green People, and I've used them on my face for years, they're very good indeed, and worth every penny of the eight pounds 99p I pay for them). Now my hand baggage is 600ml lighter, so perhaps I should be grateful (and I am almost 30 quid lighter). It means I will have to buy inferior products for the same job in Glasgow. Let's hope they sell Green People at the airport at the other end. I hate terrorists. They have ruined our lives without even blowing anything or anyone up. I've just realised, I've typed the word "terrorist" inside the terminal building. That means the FBI will have already intercepted this document. I may never even get to post it. Ah well, at least I'll have been incarcerated for defending my right to moisturise.
Sunday, 09.07, Glasgow Hilton
Internet connection in room for 15 pounds per 24 hours. I was able to get some shaving cream from reception last night. It's very small, but I'm not complaining. I was having a drink in the bar with Danny Wallace, who's up here to compere the main stage, and some other local friends, whose privacy I will guard, as they may not wish to be named. (Danny is famous, and thus public property, obviously.) I think Scotland won something yesterday. There were some red-faced, drunk men in the bar. They may have been celebrating. Clare Grogan was on the same flight to Glasgow and Danny and myself, which made me feel sure we wouldn't crash, and we didn't. She's a good luck charm. The idea of a running blog is already running out of steam, as I doubt I'll have a connection on site at the festival, but I'll take my laptop and who knows?
Sunday, 09.37, Glasgow Hilton
What a horrible breakfast room. It's decorated to look like a 1920s American bar and grill. It isn't one. Anyway, Rab C Nesbitt is having breakfast, with his wife. (Alright, the actor who played him, if you must.) The young waiting staff seem beside themselves with excitement and keep grinning at each other. Truly, Gregor Fisher is a Scottish icon.
posted by Andrew Collins @ 8:59 AM
46 Comments
Contact
Andrew at
46 Comments:
Scotland beat Lithuania 3-1 in the football. That is probably the cause of their delight.
Clare Grogen!!! she's bloody lovely was she wearing a ra ra skirt?
This 100ml rule at airports is utter bollocks. We had the same hassle this summer coming back from Tenerife. They made me throw away 5 bottles of water and leave them in the bin in the terminal (could have easily had a bomb in the bin, it was nearly full up with other peoples bottles as well). Then I had to pay 14 Euros to buy 5 more bottles of Vittel to take onto the plane to ensure that my wife, 3 children and I had something to drink on the 4 hour flight home>
I got through Edinburgh airport with a whole bottle of water in my bag, I'd forgoten it was in there until I got home,
Bollocks, indeed Andrew. On my last flight, the queues for security were utterly ridiculous, and the atmosphere was only lightened by the fact that I spotted a notice that you could only take a small amount of pastes with you - I bet Shipphams are livid. Anyhoo, despite all this nonsense, I managed to get a Swiss Army card (everything in a Swiss Army knife bar the thing for getting stones out of horses' hooves and guarding the Pope), which contains a small knife, through security, as I forgot it was in my hand luggage. Good, eh?
It's not bollocks. It's double bollocks. I can't remember if it was Stanstead or Gatwick I flew from a while back, but having seen all the signs about liquids and sharp objects we had to go through the usual x-ray malarkey, and then take our shoes off to have them put through a smaller x-ray machine.
The utter stupidity of it all is that you were then into the departure area full of shops, before you go to the boarding gate, i.e. through no further security checks. I walked into Boots to find you can buy razor blades...
I actually had a row with security guards at Manchester airport. I had flown from London City and had been allowed to take a number of bottles, including shampoo, conditioner etc. At Manchester airport on the return leg, I was told I would have to dispose of the said bottles as they were a "security threat". When I asked if I could take my razor blades I was told I could. This resulted in me losing the plot and asking why it was more dangerous taking a bottle of shampoo on a plane than a razor blade? The security guard simply said that they were the rules. Another victory for common sense.
To be honest I don’t have much time for the people above whinging about the liquids thing. Yes it is a pain in the arse and yes it does make travelling with hand luggage only difficult as you have to get miniature toothpaste, deodorant etc etc, but- a] who knows more about the reasons, you or the people responsible for these measures and b] its not as if they’re not well publicised is it?
To be honest it’s the other inconsistencies that annoy/ perplex me more, e.g. sometimes its strictly one item, other times no-one seems to care, sometimes you have to remove shoes, belt etc, other times not… etc
Unfortunately the reasons behind banning liquids has more to do with forcing the average traveller to buy more expensive products, to replace the ones confiscated, once through security than ensuring we are all much safer once on board our planes.
Green People would probably have preferred you to take the train, if they live up to the billing.
A couple of years ago (before the latest extreme paranoia, back when we were just very paranoid) a family behind me in the security queue were sad, shocked and confused that security wanted to confiscate their infant son's lifesize, very realistic, metal, toy gun. You do sometimes wonder about people...
Oh of course Tim, its all an evil conspiracy by John Menzies and Boots to get us to buy more of their stuff. Grow up.
‘Having a row’ with an airport security person, wow what an urban warrior you are. What exactly did you expect them to do?
Less of the "grow up" and other snide comments, Saint Nick. It's not helpful.
And if you don't "have much time" for people whingeing about liquids, you've come to the wrong place! I have lot of time for it, and welcome it.
Sorry if it came across that way Andrew, but alluding to some kind of conspiracy like that is just silly. I guess I would turn the question round and ask them why do they think this restriction is in place? It really must be a logistical nightmare, it can’t really be for the fun of it can it?
I also welcome conspiracy theories.
All I can say is, you're very trusting of those that govern us. Ever since September 11 it's been very difficult to sift fact from fiction. I'd like someone to explain to me how distinguishing between 100ml and 125ml bottles of moisturiser is going to prevent terrorism. Funnily enough, I had to remove my shoes on the way back from Glasgow, but not on the way up, and I can actually see why they might want to x-ray shoes after Richard Reid. But the liquids ruling doesn't make much sense to me. I do know that the security services and BAA are desperate to look like they're doing something to weed out terrorists so that they can't be blamed when the next bomb goes off.
And Tim's point about razor blades versus shampoo is a valid one. Who makes these rules? (I was obviously cross that three bottles of product were taken off me by Heathrow security, but it's not just selfish whining, there is a point here: what are they actually trying to achieve? And where's the consistency? Why are shoes not dangerous when flying out of Heathrow to Glasgow, while they become dangerous when flying back two days later?)
Well as I mentioned above I also find the inconsistencies annoying / baffling… the way I understand it with the liquids was that the supposed plot involved mixing substances which while separately inert are explosive in combination. The point about razor blades vs shampoo is only really valid if the shampoo is not allowed because you might squirt it in someone’s face, which isn’t the reason.
There's talk about Rab C Nesbitt coming back. I must admit I love the sense of humour of it, and the equally good Still Game - find it weird that it doesn't get good reviews from some London-based newspapers.
machine levine
I have abandoned flying to Scotland precisely for the reasons you state. The stupid, niggling rules are pathetic sops to politics in my view, and do not stop terrorism. But it is the attitude you get from everybody at airports which sends me into a spiral of dismay at modern life. So to avoid all that I get the train now. Not perfect, but feels like far less hassle, and if you go at the weekend you can upgrade to first class for £20, worth it in my opinion, and you get free wifi and plied with tea and coffee, and it usually very quiet. Lovely.
Or you could just check your toiletries of whatever size in as hold luggage.
And re the 100ml limit, yes obviously that's pretty arbitrary and so can be annoying- just a case of having to draw the line somewhere. I guess you start with an idea of how much liquid someone might need, and set a limit well below that.
And I’m sure there is an element of being seen to be doing something about it all, but call me naïve- maybe they would also quite like to prevent people being killed too if they can? And are thus erring on the side of caution.
"Product", Andrew? Have you just graduated beauty school?
I never mentioned anything about it being a conspiracy on the part of the likes of John Menzies et al. It does further beg the question though that if certain liquids are dangerous when mixed together, why are these same liquids then available once through airport security? Surely these should be banned full stop if they pose that much of a threat?
Well, you did say it was about "forcing the average traveller to buy more expensive products, to replace the ones confiscated", so what else did you mean?
And it's not the dangerous liquids that are available in departures is it, that's the whole point. I'm pretty sure that everything on sale there has been acquired from a secure source / has been scanned or whatever.
jeez saint nick, leave tim bowling alone! if you havent anything nice to say, dont say anything at all
a primary school teacher
hmmm, I can't quite work out if that's supposed to be ironic or not...
I fly a lot, and yes the liquids thing makes very little sense. Without appearing to offer top tips for terrorists, it strikes me that if you want to take a detonating device into the cabin, then the laptops, mobiles and even digital watches we all have have far more potential than a bottle of suncream. Especially odd is the rule about bagging up all liquidish makeup: seeing a terrorist employ his Mascara of Death on a plane would almost be worth the trouble.
I've even had cheese confiscated on with the stern assertion that "it's a paste".
On the other hand shouting at security people, who enforce the rules but don't make them, doesn't seem very productive. They get paid very little, certainly not enough for the grief they get. Better surely, to complain to BAA and upwards?
FYI I met one of the bmi executives and asked, rather pompously, "isn't the liquids restriction a case of being seen to do something, rather than doing something effective". He readily agreed.
And without getting my tinfoil hat on, I believe there is something cynical about the ban on drinks. Otherwise, once you'd passed through security, you could fill up your empty water bottle from the free drinking fountains around the airport gates... This is particularly harsh on families with small kids I think.
Like other posters here, sometimes I've got through with a bottle of liquid contraband because the machines simply aren't equipped to spot all bottles and containers in your bag. More disconcertingly, a huntin', shootin' and fishin' MP of acquaintance who travelled back and forth by plane with handluggage, and later realised that his bag included a box with a couple of unspent bullets from an old shooting trip which he'd obviously taken through airport security unchallenged.
I have a bit of sympathy with St. Nick. People were moaning when I went up to Glasgow from Birmingham recently. I was warned about the restrictions on the e-mail about my flight, by the check in staff and by numerous posters around the airport. You have no-one to blame but yourself if you cannot follow pretty simple instructions.
I do agree about how arbitrary the rules seem but nobody can honestly claim ignorance of them.
And the accusation that this is some way of getting people to spend more money in the airport seems a little incredible. BAA are in danger of losing their monopoly because people are so unhappy with the delays. It would be a pretty crap plan all in all.
I think it was on a trip to Rome in March that I saw a chap ask the security desk at Stansted about the two cigarette lighters he was carrying, and if he could take them flight-side. He was told that he was allowed one.
But of course! It's well known that you need at least two lighters to ignite anything.
In view of these frustrations, there's probably all the more reason to travel up to Glasgow from London by train? This way one can avoid the airport queues and silly restrictions on what one can and cannot take on board..
An excellent point. My travel was booked up for me by the BBC. But I could have, and should have, specified the train.
couple of points here...
re putting these things in your hold baggage..I did this on a BA flight to Amsterdam. I arrived in Amsterdam late on a Sunday night and was due to be speaking at a conference the next morning. Sadly my baggage joined the statistic of BA lost luggage. No-where to buy stuff late on a Sunday night and was speaking at 09:00 the next morning. Did it in my jeans and a smelly t-shirt and looked a complete arse. My colleague (luggage also lost) had all her contact lens stuff in hers...
Just got back from Orlando yesterday, given the date I can understand the security, but in addition to belts and shoes, they were checking eye glasses too! Mind you, watching the half blind people trying to find their belts and shoes was mildly amusing if you have that sort of sense of humour. Which, apparently, I do.
But I agree, it's the logic that confuses. If nothing else, you can buy a bottle of duty free on the plane, smash it and you have an immediate weapon! I do understand the need for security, but I fail to see the logic...
AnonoNick
"Unfortunately the reasons behind banning liquids has more to do with forcing the average traveller to buy more expensive products, to replace the ones confiscated,"
...if you are enough of a moron to have them confiscated in the first place. If you can't follow simple instructions (after over a year of the ban being in place) then I've got precious little sympathy.
"But the liquids ruling doesn't make much sense to me."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6108546.stm
"Security experts believe explosives disguised as a liquid would not be able to destroy an airliner if carried in such small quantities. Limiting the amounts allowed also makes it easier for security staff to check what is being taken on board. The same rules are being introduced across Europe and will take effect on Monday - almost three months after the clampdown on air security began."
Christ, it's like the Daily Mail letters page in here.
So did you enjoy Glasgow Andrew? Funny story (sort of): I couldn't make the Glasgow Green thing as I fell over while drinking and ended up losing consciousness and going to hospital. (Stereo)typical Glasweigan behaviour!
Regarding the inconsistencies: do the airport staff look highly paid, well motivated, highly skilled and well trained? And are they getting on the plane with you?
Hey, Mr or Mrs Openmind, don't go calling people "morons". I took the same 125ml bottles with me on a plane to Lucerne, when I really didn't know the rules, but I left them in my bag and nobody minded. I also took them to Dublin, and again, no problems. So I took them this time with great confidence, hence my "moronic" moaning.
It's inconsistency that's the beef here. Do you work for the government? Or do you just enjoy taking orders and being fucked about?
"Do you work for the government? Or do you just enjoy taking orders and being fucked about?"
Neither. I just don't want to be blown up in a terrorist attack. And I have read & understood the reasons for the security measures.
Essentially you broke the security restrictions the first time round but didn't get caught. You are now complaining that you broke the restructions a second time and got caught.
Either you knew you were in the wrong when you did it the 2nd time, in which case you've got no right to moan. Or you didn't know
it was wrong and you should have checked beforehand. In which case you have no right to moan.
If you really think you're less likely to be blown up in a terrorist attack because of 25ml difference in the amount of moisturiser I can take on a plane, then I envy your faith in the powers than be and the rules they hand down to us, Openmind. Do you have a similarly reassuring answer to the discrepancy between razor blades and shampoo? I would like to hear it.
For the record: I took my 125ml bottles in innocence twice on planes (Lucerne, Dublin), and was not stopped the second time (Dublin, from Gatwick) even though I took them out in their sealed bag and put them in a separate tray with my coat for x-ray. Henceforth, I assumed they were OK. I did not "know I was in the wrong" on any of the three occasions, or else, believe me, I wouldn't have brought them with me, or taken them out of the my bag for inspection, as a) I don't want no trouble, mister, and b) I certainly didn't want to have them confiscated by a man. Security should at least be consistent, is I think all anybody's saying here.
By the way, I don't actually want a fight, but you did wade in here and call me a moron.
Also, as I understand it, a plane-based "bomb plot" was apparently foiled last August, after which all liquids were banned from hand luggage. Then these rules were relaxed in November, so that smaller bottles of liquid could be taken onboard. Why? Did the threat suddenly dissipate? And isn't liquid explosive difficult to spot in an x-ray machine? You can take three 100ml bottles through, in a sealed bag, but couldn't all three be filled with liquid explosive, and thus amount to 300ml? I'm neither a bomb expert nor a mathematician, I'm just throwing possibilities around. And has anyone been convicted of these planned atrocities? (I'm not being clever, I actually want to know. Arrests are noisily made, people are deported, and then the story goes quiet.)
Andrew; we did deal with these points earlier, please keep up :-)
As I understand it, it was the mixing of different liquids that would cause the (alleged) explosion ie 1 300ml bottle wouldn't be the same as 3 100ml ones. Also re razor blades and shampoo- yes razor blades are potentially more dangerous than shampoo... but its not shampoo they are trying to stop people bringing on is it?
the sanctimoniousness self-righteousness of the people on here are precisely the reason i do not want to go to airports to encounter such insufferable priggish know-alls, lecturing everybody else on the 'terrorist' threat. Urgh. You have my sympathy, andrew.
No, but the 9/11 hijackers - if you believe that particular version of events - hijacked a plane and crashed it into a building using only knives and a lot of shouting. There's nothing to say you can't take empty containers onboard anyway, so three 100ml bottles of liquid explosive could be decanted in the toilets, couldn't they?
Bring me consistency! Nobody is bringing me consistency! It's easy to tell me I'm a moron, but why do some airports get you to remove your shoes, and not others? Where is the Europe-wide set of restrictions and precautions? How are we to have confidence in those that seek to protect us from fiery death if you can take some things through some airports and not through others?
I'm totally with you on the consistency thing too Andrew, it does baffle me as well. As an aside the most ridiculous security procedures I have experienced recently were nothing to do with flying, but…. going into the Statue of Liberty. Bags through scanners etc before getting the boat over to the island, ok fair enough. But you then had everything scanned again before going into the base, and then a one by one air blowing detector thingy (the technical term I believe) which presumably detects any explosives or whatever.
More security than for going up in a plane! Surely if you wanted to take out the S of L you’d just bazooka it from a boat or something? :-/
(Ian, you seem no slouch in the self-righteousness stakes either to be fair...)
"No, but the 9/11 hijackers - if you believe that particular version of events - hijacked a plane and crashed it into a building using only knives and a lot of shouting."
You mean the version that corresponds with reality and not fantasy? They used surprise, small weapons, fear, intimidation, bluffing tactics, violence and the threat of violence to turn planes into missiles.
The point about shampoo is a straw man. Once you are through security you can buy goods in the departure lounge that have a) been assessed for their potential use as a weapon and b) checked to ensure that they are what they say they are. I can't be arsed to argue either. If you want answers to your questions they are all on the BAA website. Sometimes 'the man' is right and this is one of those times.
"For the record: I took my 125ml bottles in innocence twice on planes (Lucerne, Dublin), and was not stopped the second time (Dublin, from Gatwick) even though I took them out in their sealed bag and put them in a separate tray with my coat for x-ray. Henceforth, I assumed they were OK."
So you didn't know it was wrong and you should have checked beforehand. In which case you have no right to moan.
Strange that someone with the tag Openmind should appear to be so narrow minded!!
AnonoNick
I'm not actually sure why I'm pursuing this, but here goes ...
Mr Openmind: you say, of the Sep 11 hijacking, "They used surprise, small weapons, fear, intimidation, bluffing tactics, violence and the threat of violence to turn planes into missiles," which, apart from reminding me of the Spanish Inquisition sketch, is a list that contains six things that anybody could smuggle on to a plane. Even now.
You also say, "Sometimes 'the man' is right and this is one of those times." Well how 'the man' only x-rays your shoes on some flights and not on others. If the man if right, the man is also inconsistent, which, with a heavy heart, I must go back to as my original point.
You tell me that I have no right to moan because I "should have checked beforehand", even though I have taken pains to explain that the security staff at Gatwick when I flew to Dublin saw my sealed bag containing three 125ml bottles and did not raise an objection. Thus, I assumed they were OK to take with me the next time I flew.
Thus, I have every right to moan. I am moaning about the inconsistency of the situation. And if you have all the answers, why were some of the restrictions brought in relaxed a couple of months later? Had the terrorist threat receded? Or was it more to do with the airports and airlines moaning that it was going to lose them business if it carried on?
This is not a leading question. But you have taken on the role of man who knows everything and trusts every decision by the government, so I'm hoping for a good answer.
Don't tell me I don't have the right to moan again though. The only situation in which I'd have no right to moan is if I'd had 125ml bottles confiscated before and I tried to get them onboard again.
Just out of interest - what drew you to come here and tell us all off for moaning?
"...is a list that contains six things that anybody could smuggle on to a plane. Even now."
Yes. That is the point. They are trying to stop liquid explosives and small weapons from being smuggled onto flights by putting restrictions in place.
"Well how 'the man' only x-rays your shoes on some flights and not on others."
Because flights from some airports on some airlines to some destinations are considered to be higher risk than others. There are limited resources so these resources are allocated in such a way as to be the most effective and inconvenience as few people as possible.
"...the security staff at Gatwick when I flew to Dublin saw my sealed bag containing three 125ml bottles and did not raise an objection. Thus, I assumed they were OK to take with me the next time I flew."
Therefore the security staff made an error the first time around and didn't make an error the second. To be fair I'd be pissed off but every time I have to fly I check the regulations because a) I can't remember what they are and b) I don't want to have stuff confiscated. This isn't meant to sound like how it will probably come across but why shoudn't the rules apply to you?
"why were some of the restrictions brought in relaxed a couple of months later? Had the terrorist threat receded? Or was it more to do with the airports and airlines moaning that it was going to lose them business if it carried on?"
If you really wanted to know the answer I'm sure you could have found out in about 2 minutes. But here goes: The initial regulations were essentially a short term panic measure based on intelligence received. Once the threat had been fully assessed, together with the impact on the travelling public (and probably taking into account lost revenue) and a risk / benefit anaylsis undertaken, it was decided that the regulations could be relaxed. This stuff is freely available if you want to find it. Of course, it could be a false flag operation designed to cow the populace prior to the impostion of the New World Order but I doubt it. I guess it's just one of those times when he government and BAA have some difficult choices to make (allowing another terrorist attack to happen wouldn't be a big vote winner) and have come up with some regulations that aren't popular. Personally I'm happy to abide by them as I'm shit scared of flying. Or rather crashing. I don't trust governments but I don't see how these measures benefit ours in any way. It's just pissed off voters.
Central London to Edinburgh is sooo much easier by train and a little bit quicker.
Post a Comment
<< Home