Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 0/34 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What price political correctness?
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3664 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 1 of 63 (338878)
08-10-2006 6:22 AM


The policy is to check EVERYONE at Heathrow and other airports this morning on the back of this huge terror alert. Is this necessary? Limited security resources are spread thin and disruption is maximised. Thus there are associated financial and security risks with this policy. How necessary is this policy? At what scale does this policy becomes untenable?
[still in the process of moving and only just got limited net connectivity installed, so apologies to all those I owe replies to from the past couple of weeks. will be back to normal in next couple of days]
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by CK, posted 08-10-2006 6:38 AM cavediver has replied
 Message 5 by Legend, posted 08-10-2006 8:06 AM cavediver has replied
 Message 6 by riVeRraT, posted 08-10-2006 8:08 AM cavediver has not replied
 Message 9 by Dr Jack, posted 08-10-2006 8:26 AM cavediver has replied
 Message 51 by Dr Jack, posted 08-11-2006 3:05 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 55 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-12-2006 2:17 PM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3664 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 3 of 63 (338886)
08-10-2006 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by CK
08-10-2006 6:38 AM


So what you are saying is only to check White people like Richard Reid
I'm just raising the issue for discussion. And Richard Reid was fairly noticable in his appearance! And of coure this is precisely how security works in normal situations. My state of dress has always dictated the probability of being stopped. My none-white friends and colleagues have always suffered far more scrutiny. It is all a case of perceived risk potential.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by CK, posted 08-10-2006 6:38 AM CK has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3664 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 10 of 63 (338899)
08-10-2006 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Legend
08-10-2006 8:06 AM


Re: this has nothing to do with political correctness
This policy is necessary in order to acclimatise the population (a.k.a 'the sheep') to a state of continuous monitoring and scrutiny, naturally "for their own protection".
Normally I wouldn't go quite this far, but Reid (John Reid, our newish Home Secretary) has made some quite scary statements over the past couple of weeks...
Edited by AdminPhat, : fixed quotes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Legend, posted 08-10-2006 8:06 AM Legend has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by CK, posted 08-10-2006 8:31 AM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3664 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 12 of 63 (338901)
08-10-2006 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Dr Jack
08-10-2006 8:26 AM


Are you aware that Al Queda specifically targets recently converted white muslims? That it teaches techniques for not standing out by your appearance?
Of course, but the numbers of such are tiny - the idea of a group acting in concert is hopefully fairly implausible, though of course this could change - and with *limited resources* do you equally target mothers, famililes, etc? The innocuous (i.e. not the shoebomber) white terrorist acting on the small scale is virtually unstoppable without sacrificing western infrastructure (as we are today)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Dr Jack, posted 08-10-2006 8:26 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Dr Jack, posted 08-10-2006 8:44 AM cavediver has replied
 Message 24 by Legend, posted 08-10-2006 12:02 PM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3664 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 14 of 63 (338909)
08-10-2006 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Dr Jack
08-10-2006 8:44 AM


The white terrorist is no more or less stoppable than the Arab terrorist unless you decide to hamstring yourself by adopting racial profiling
It is all to do with perceived risk. With unlimited resources there would not be a problem. As someone who drove a white van around NI upon occasion I have seen it in action all before...
while alienating the vast majority of entirely peaceful, law-abiding Arabs as a free bonus
I think we're pretty much there already
[abe] and the entirely peaceful, law-abiding white van drivers of Omagh were alienated and thoroughly pissed off long ago
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Dr Jack, posted 08-10-2006 8:44 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 08-10-2006 10:25 AM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3664 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 42 of 63 (338987)
08-10-2006 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Dr Jack
08-10-2006 3:07 PM


The Economist's got to come to close
Ever since their advert I've never dared travel by air without reading it first

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Dr Jack, posted 08-10-2006 3:07 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024