Plot to blow up planes foiled

[Ginger Rogers]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4778575.stm :( well, :) that they foiled it I suppose.

a worrying time for the UK. :-[

[wollery]

I can't access the BBC news website, but I've been listening to the radio on the internet all day. Apparently nobody is being allowed to take any handluggage on board, just keys, travel documents and any medicines they need. Even handbags have to be checked, and the duty free shops are closed.

[Ginger Rogers]

That's correct, no hand luggage is allowed except perhaps wallets, I thnk they prefer you to empty your wallet and take just the contents.
Everything you need to take on board must be taken in a clear plastic bag provided by the airport.

MI5 have stepped up security levels to 'critical'

[chillzero]

They've just grounded Heathrow altogether.

[vbloke]

You haven't heard the worst of it yet... (http://www.be-spoke.com/shop/images/terror_alert.gif)

[Mongrel]

You haven't heard the worst of it yet... (http://www.be-spoke.com/shop/images/terror_alert.gif)



Oh, that's evil :D

By the way, you missed a 'to' between plot and release

[Jocky]

;D

Nice one vbloke!

[Ginger Rogers]

Can't open the link, it says forbidden ::)

[Jocky]

Hi Ginger,

Try going to http://www.be-spoke.com/shop/images/ then opening the image manually.

[vbloke]

http://www.be-spoke.com/shop/images/terror_alert.gif

should work

[Jocky]

Ginger is not alone - it didn't for me either.

You are not authorized to view this page

:(

[seren]

Y'know...all I can think about is Jean-charles de Menezes and those brothers in Forest Gate or wherever it was.

the police damn well better have got this one right. >:(

[Jocky]

Yes, I just posted an allusion to the Forest Gate brothers on the JREF.

Somebody was suggesting that the fact that arrests have been made implied that the plot was real (and therefore not a government conspiracy, as is already being claimed by the usual supects among deranged conspiracy theorists). I feel it's too early to assume anything about this.

These unfortunate mistakes by the Police in the past show how important it is not to rush to judgement in circumstances such as these.

[chillzero]

Y'know...all I can think about is Jean-charles de Menezes and those brothers in Forest Gate or wherever it was.

the police damn well better have got this one right. >:(



I think this is a totally different kind of scenario. And - it is certainly better to have been disruptive like this and wrong, than to try not to be disruptive until absolutely certain, but then have several flights turned into missiles. No?

[seren]

I don't know. I think it would be better to have thorough security checks at all airports all the time anyway, some decent intelligence and contingency planning so that chaos is avoided! ;)

Aren't we all security checked anyway? Why the need for this explosion (sorry) of activity and over-the-top security measures? Are they suggesting that what we have now isn't safe enough? Isn't that...er...kind of a problem?

[Mongrel]

I don't know. I think it would be better to have thorough security checks at all airports all the time anyway, some decent intelligence and contingency planning so that chaos is avoided! ;)

Aren't we all security checked anyway? Why the need for this explosion (sorry) of activity and over-the-top security measures? Are they suggesting that what we have now isn't safe enough? Isn't that...er...kind of a problem?


Given what they're suggesting as the plot on the news there's every reason to have such a hive of security activity. 'Household' liquids disguised innocuously in drinks bottles, small electronic (I'm guessing strong sparks) detonators, individually harmless. Five minutes in the toilet and you have a device, that if placed right, will bring down an aircraft.

Whilst this will increase security intensely for a while it'll step back down later, a combination of complacency and irritability from passengers, both wait times and the security checks, and the airlines because they're losing money, will take us back down to a lower level of airport sucurity.

Terrorism is very hard to combat proactively because of the small amount of people involved, the technology is most often "Kitchen Chemistry 101" and " A 1000 things to do with a soldering iron" and the fact that we have a lot of personal freedom over here; virtually unlimited internet access, no curfews, no secret police, lawyers etc.

[chillzero]

I don't know. I think it would be better to have thorough security checks at all airports all the time anyway, some decent intelligence and contingency planning so that chaos is avoided! ;)

Aren't we all security checked anyway? Why the need for this explosion (sorry) of activity and over-the-top security measures? Are they suggesting that what we have now isn't safe enough? Isn't that...er...kind of a problem?




What we have now is safe enough for the types of threats faced - up until now. Now things have changed and the terrorists are using new tactics, so measures have to be changed to keep up with that.

I don't think these measures will be stepped down too swiftly - we are still facing changes in what we bring on board after 9/11. If the threat remains, then the security measures must do also - regardless of the inconvenience. The airlines will have to change their check-in approaches, etc to keep up with the new measures.

My main focus is to be grateful that today;s news is exactly what it is, instead of sitting horrified a few weeks from now watching planes drop from the sky all over the USA, filled with passengers, landing on who knows which populated areas.

[median]

BBC News The suspects were rounded up in raids in London, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, and Birmingham. All are being held in London.

Searches continue at several addresses and people were evacuated from some homes in High Wycombe

Speaking as a High Wycombite, it has certainly made the streets safe. You can't move for policemen ;D

Speaking seriously though, is the worry of the potential backlash against asians (not just muslims) that could occur because of some minority extremists.

[Ginger Rogers]

What we have now is safe enough for the types of threats faced - up until now. Now things have changed and the terrorists are using new tactics, so measures have to be changed to keep up with that.

I don't think these measures will be stepped down too swiftly - we are still facing changes in what we bring on board after 9/11. If the threat remains, then the security measures must do also - regardless of the inconvenience. The airlines will have to change their check-in approaches, etc to keep up with the new measures.

My main focus is to be grateful that today;s news is exactly what it is, instead of sitting horrified a few weeks from now watching planes drop from the sky all over the USA, filled with passengers, landing on who knows which populated areas.


Absolutely. I can't believe people are actually annoyed about it, they should be bloody grateful - it might have saved their life.
I would be worried if they stepped down the security, I means whats a slight inconvenience if it saves your life! personally I'm not sure I want to get on a plane at all now..

How do they find these people and uncover these plots, they must have people working on the 'inside'

[tkingdoll]

Aren't we all security checked anyway? Why the need for this explosion (sorry) of activity and over-the-top security measures? Are they suggesting that what we have now isn't safe enough? Isn't that...er...kind of a problem?




Agreed, but the normal state of affairs is a balance between what is safe and what is commercially viable. Airports do not have the infrastructure and manpower to increase security, and the effect on their business if they did would be disastrous. Many people just wouldn't bother flying. Hence, they only step up security when intelligence indicates that there is a need.

Most people who fly do not have murderous intentions, so to treat everyone as if they did, all the time, would be bad business.

Now let's hope the TV licence people figure that out ;)

[seren]

That's the thing about the "better safe than sorry" argument- it sounds totally logical. But the truth is we just don't know what the likelihood is that this plot was real- it is still a "suspected" plot. We don't know yet if the intelligence was bogus (I surely hope not) and the whole thing a mistake- just like those tanks at Heathrow, just like Menezes, just like Forest Gate.

I'm sorry, that's not OK. You can't justify false alarms, arrests and mass fear over and over again "just in case" it turns out to be real one time. If the threat is really that bad, ban all non-essential air travel (which is all we should be doing anyway given the effect it has on the climate).

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I do think this has so much to do with people's perceptions. You're so much more likely to die in a whole load of other ways but this just seems so grim it's easy to get caught up in a wave of fear. We should be being much more skeptical until we have proof that this time it's for real, at which point we can say phew, thank god for that. For now, I'm withholding judgement.

BTW, this ain't new tactics. A supposed Al Qaeda bomber used a liquid based explosive on a plane in 1994.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines_Flight_434
http://www.airsafe.com/events/airlines/pal.htm

It killed 1 person.

[chillzero]

That's the thing about the "better safe than sorry" argument- it sounds totally logical. But the truth is we just don't know what the likelihood is that this plot was real- it is still a "suspected" plot. We don't know yet if the intelligence was bogus (I surely hope not) and the whole thing a mistake- just like those tanks at Heathrow, just like Menezes, just like Forest Gate.

I'm sorry, that's not OK. You can't justify false alarms, arrests and mass fear over and over again "just in case" it turns out to be real one time. If the threat is really that bad, ban all non-essential air travel (which is all we should be doing anyway given the effect it has on the climate).

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I do think this has so much to do with people's perceptions. You're so much more likely to die in a whole load of other ways but this just seems so grim it's easy to get caught up in a wave of fear. We should be being much more skeptical until we have proof that this time it's for real, at which point we can say phew, thank god for that. For now, I'm withholding judgement.

BTW, this ain't new tactics. A supposed Al Qaeda bomber used a liquid based explosive on a plane in 1994.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines_Flight_434
http://www.airsafe.com/events/airlines/pal.htm

It killed 1 person.


"You can't justify false alarms, arrests and mass fear over and over again "

Maybe I'm missing something, but I am not seeing this happen 'over and over again'.

[Ginger Rogers]

That's the thing about the "better safe than sorry" argument- it sounds totally logical. But the truth is we just don't know what the likelihood is that this plot was real- it is still a "suspected" plot. We don't know yet if the intelligence was bogus (I surely hope not) and the whole thing a mistake- just like those tanks at Heathrow, just like Menezes, just like Forest Gate.

I'm sorry, that's not OK. You can't justify false alarms, arrests and mass fear over and over again "just in case" it turns out to be real one time. If the threat is really that bad, ban all non-essential air travel (which is all we should be doing anyway given the effect it has on the climate).

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I do think this has so much to do with people's perceptions. You're so much more likely to die in a whole load of other ways but this just seems so grim it's easy to get caught up in a wave of fear. We should be being much more skeptical until we have proof that this time it's for real, at which point we can say phew, thank god for that. For now, I'm withholding judgement.

BTW, this ain't new tactics. A supposed Al Qaeda bomber used a liquid based explosive on a plane in 1994.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines_Flight_434
http://www.airsafe.com/events/airlines/pal.htm

It killed 1 person.


So what are you saying Seren, that they should do nothing, because hey, it's not that likely and you're more likely to be run over by a bus?? Are you saying the whole thing has been made up?? why would anyone make that up, what would the point be????

And you've named 3 separate incidents, hardly 'over and over again' ?? Mistakes are made for sure, menezes was a bad mistake, for him and for his family but I'm sure as hell glad we have some kind of security force in place or these nutters could get away with far more.

[seren]

Well it depends whether you're looking for exact replicas of yesterday's events. What I'm talking about are mistakes made about the terror threat that mess with people's lives and heads.

Tanks at Heathrow "because it's Eid" Feb 2003: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2749659.stm

The missile attack that never happened and has mysteriously never been mentioned again:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2773707.stm

The "Ricin that never was": http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4249516.stm and http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1461202,00.html


Jean Charles de Menezes is trailed and shot to death, being incorrectly suspected of being an Al Qaeda bomber.


Birimingham City Centre is cordoned off due to a (bogus) bomb scare. http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,,1525753,00.html


Two brothers are apprehended at their home in Forest Gate, one is shot in the shoulder by police.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5066166.stm

And, just to finish:

Of the 701 people arrested under the Terrorism Act since the September 11 attacks, half have been released without charge and only 17 convicted under the act. Only three of those cases relate to allegations of Islamist extremism. The other convictions involved Irish paramilitaries - both republican and loyalist - a Sikh extremist group and the Tamil Tigers.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1468468,00.html April 2005

But you know my point with all this is that we shouldn't defend these extreme security measures before we know if they're justified. If the threat is not as has been suggested, then we can rightfully say what the hell are the police and "security services" playing at? Shooting people, arresting people and disrupting lives without sufficient evidence is not ok in my opinion. I really hope they ARE right and that they genuinely HAVE foiled a massive plot, but why should I believe that until it's proven? I'm not saying it's made up, that would be ludicrous! We are all edgy and nervous and it seems we've been prone to see guilt where there is none. Past performance tells me the police mess up- surely withholding judgement is just the most sensible option??

[chillzero]

I think a better approach might be to not get all riled up about them until it is proven they were implemented too hastily and without reason. Which I doubt will be the case here.

However, having grown up in Ulster, I think it is always better to be as safe as possible. No matter how many false bomb scares there were, it was always preferable to situations when no precautions were taken and deaths resulted.

[tkingdoll]

I think a better approach might be to not get all riled up about them until it is proven they were implemented too hastily and without reason. Which I doubt will be the case here.

However, having grown up in Ulster, I think it is always better to be as safe as possible. No matter how many false bomb scares there were, it was always preferable to situations when no precautions were taken and deaths resulted.


I agree, and regarding the Birmingham City Centre thing, that was nothing new, and certainly not a Muslim-only thing.

There have been bomb scares in Bham City Centre several times a year since the 70s. When I was a kid, every Christmas there were several mass evacuations of central shopping centres. In recent years, the public ones are fewer (although there is still at least one every few years that grinds the City to a halt - in fact a couple of years ago I had to walk home 11 miles because no traffic was allowed to leave). I worked for a major newspaper group, the offices of which were next to a major police headquarters, and we'd have a bomb scare or threat every couple of months, either in our building or theirs. I'd rather take the basic precautions than rest on on my laurels.

However, in the case of the airport plot, if the intelligence hadn't given the information, the bombers would probably not have been caught. in normal circumstances, if you want to get box cutters or liquid explosives on to a plane, you probably can easily.

[seren]

Well, alright on the case of Birmingham City Centre. Would it be in bad taste to suggest that the Bull Ring could have done with it? >:D


*slinks off guiltily*

[tkingdoll]

Well, alright on the case of Birmingham City Centre. Would it be in bad taste to suggest that the Bull Ring could have done with it? >:D


*slinks off guiltily*


>:(

[vbloke]

Well, alright on the case of Birmingham City Centre. Would it be in bad taste to suggest that the Bull Ring could have done with it? >:D


*slinks off guiltily*

The best thing that ever happened to Manchester City Centre was it being blown up.

[chillzero]

The best thing that ever happened to Manchester City Centre was it being blown up.


Is that when over 200 people were injured?

I don't understand this rather flippant attitude to terrorism.

[Aardvark]

Is that when over 200 people were injured?

I don't understand this rather flippant attitude to terrorism.


It could be gallows humour. For some people this is a way of dealing with the high worry and stress of these situations.

' ey ar kid he's dissin madchester........ give im a smack'

What are the odds of being a victim of terrorism in this country like when compared with winning the National Lottery. It could be you on the one hand, but on the other, you hope it never will be.

Personally I do notice that I worry whenever I have to fly. We do not have a subway in Yorkshire.

[tkingdoll]

Is that when over 200 people were injured?

I don't understand this rather flippant attitude to terrorism.


I think he meant from an architectural and economic perspective. Which may be true, but is specific to Manchester. The same cannot be said for, say, Coventry City Centre, which was all but wiped out during the war and is still a mess as a result, despite extensive rebuilding.

The injuries and loss of life are never worth a new shopping centre, but I don't think that's what Vbloke meant anyway :)

[Aardvark]

I think he meant from an architectural and economic perspective. Which may be true, but is specific to Manchester. The same cannot be said for, say, Coventry City Centre, which was all but wiped out during the war and is still a mess as a result, despite extensive rebuilding.

The injuries and loss of life are never worth a new shopping centre, but I don't think that's what Vbloke meant anyway :)


Well said, I am sure that this was what Vbloke meant, but I could not get the message across as well as you did.

[chillzero]

I think he meant from an architectural and economic perspective. Which may be true, but is specific to Manchester. The same cannot be said for, say, Coventry City Centre, which was all but wiped out during the war and is still a mess as a result, despite extensive rebuilding.

The injuries and loss of life are never worth a new shopping centre, but I don't think that's what Vbloke meant anyway :)


OK, I'll consider that.
I guess I was just placing this comment with the initial responses to the plane plot news (the snake thing), and perhaps got a little uppity over the whole thing.

.... ok ... and I'm also being a little pouty because my weekend isn't turning out as planned. :(

sorry.

[vbloke]

No one was killed in Manchester, OK people were injured and the whole thing was a terrible crime and affront to humanity, but the point I was trying to make is that the council saw the devastation as a chance to transform the city centre - something they couldn't have done if it hadn't happened. And they did it well.

Before, the city centre was somewhere you didn't want to be late in the evening - lots of dingy dark alleys and badly lit areas. now, it's a wide open space, well lit and feels safe.

It's my home town, and I was there when it happened (I was knocked off my feet by the blast).

I, and many of my fellow mancunians, feel the bomb was a second chance to transform the city from a dirty northern shambles into a modern city.

[tkingdoll]

Yes, it's just another way of saying that something positive can come out of something awful.

Shame the Coventry town planners didn't read the same books as the Manchester guys though.

[huw-l]

living in manchester at the time of the bombing I don't remember 200 injured. I remember people with cuts and bruises.

Most mancunians I know would heartily agree with vblokes assertion that the IRA blowing up the Arndale Centre was the best thing ever to happen to Manchester.

[chillzero]

OK, I'll accept all that, as I said.

I'm not from Manchester - not even from England. I'm from Ulster, so that may help you understand my perspective when it comes to IRA bombings.

:)