Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
27 online now:
Britton, dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (4 members, 23 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,851 Year: 18,887/19,786 Month: 1,307/1,705 Week: 113/446 Day: 9/104 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What price political correctness?
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1933 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 responded
 Message 5 by Legend, posted 08-10-2006 8:06 AM cavediver has responded
 Message 6 by riVeRraT, posted 08-10-2006 8:08 AM cavediver has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Dr Jack, posted 08-10-2006 8:26 AM cavediver has responded
 Message 51 by Dr Jack, posted 08-11-2006 3:05 PM cavediver has not yet responded
 Message 55 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-12-2006 2:17 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2417 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 2 of 63 (338881)
08-10-2006 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
08-10-2006 6:22 AM


quote:
The policy is to check EVERYONE at Heathrow and other airports this morning on the back of this huge terror alert. Is this necessary?

So what you are saying is only to check White people like Richard Reid - who is the only british citizen I can think of who has been involved in trying to take down a plane in a such a way?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 08-10-2006 6:22 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by cavediver, posted 08-10-2006 7:33 AM CK has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Thugpreacha, posted 08-10-2006 7:51 AM CK has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1933 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 yet responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 13043
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 4 of 63 (338888)
08-10-2006 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by CK
08-10-2006 6:38 AM


Covering ones own ****
We recently had to sign a letter at work declaring that we as cashiers were personally responsible for any bad checks which we took.

The letter declared that we were to agree to ask for EVERYONES I.D. whether or not we knew them and if they were regular customers.

Perhaps this is the attitude surrounding this still unclear situation which cavediver is describing.

Officials worried about liability issued a blanket policy.


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

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 3295 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 5 of 63 (338891)
08-10-2006 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
08-10-2006 6:22 AM


this has nothing to do with political correctness
cavediver writes:

How necessary is this policy?


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".

just read some German history, circa late 1930's.

cavediver writes:

At what scale does this policy becomes untenable?


If the policy's ultimate goal is our protection from terrorists then it has already become untenable, as the police just don't have the resources to fully enforce it.

If, however, its purpose is the gradual introduction of blanket surveillance, then this is a realistic means of achieving it.


"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 08-10-2006 6:22 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by cavediver, posted 08-10-2006 8:29 AM Legend has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 209 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 6 of 63 (338892)
08-10-2006 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
08-10-2006 6:22 AM


If you've heard the news this morning, you'll notice just how neccessary this is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 08-10-2006 6:22 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Thugpreacha, posted 08-10-2006 8:13 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded
 Message 8 by CK, posted 08-10-2006 8:22 AM riVeRraT has responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 13043
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 7 of 63 (338895)
08-10-2006 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by riVeRraT
08-10-2006 8:08 AM


I heard the news today, oh boy...
No, I have not heard the news! Come to chat and tell me!

I also agree with Legend concerning blanket surveillance....

The classic fundie fear factor mentioned in Revelation is the one where everyone needs to have a mark without which they can neither buy nor sell.

If the government offered to guarantee peoples safety by insisting that humans register themselves by allowing identification devices to be implanted on their person, I wonder how many would comply with such a request after a few more 9-11's happen around the world?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by riVeRraT, posted 08-10-2006 8:08 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2417 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 8 of 63 (338897)
08-10-2006 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by riVeRraT
08-10-2006 8:08 AM


why what happened this morning?

There was an alleged plot this morning in the UK - but we have those every six months - Ricin, Forestgate etc - what happens is they arrest someone, call it a major breakthrough on the war on verb and then six months later release everyone without charge.

So you'll have to forgive the british public for being very cynical about messages coming out of the minstry of truth.

Edited by CK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by riVeRraT, posted 08-10-2006 8:08 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by riVeRraT, posted 08-11-2006 7:59 AM CK has responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 9 of 63 (338898)
08-10-2006 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
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?

Who, specifically, do you think they should limit their checks to? Brown skin and beards, perhaps? Are you aware that Al Queda specifically targets recently converted white muslims? That it teaches techniques for not standing out by your appearance?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 08-10-2006 6:22 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by cavediver, posted 08-10-2006 8:37 AM Dr Jack has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1933 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 yet responded

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

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2417 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 11 of 63 (338900)
08-10-2006 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by cavediver
08-10-2006 8:29 AM


Re: this has nothing to do with political correctness
We even now have our own terrormeter - it's clearly at FEARTERROR 1.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by cavediver, posted 08-10-2006 8:29 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1933 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 responded

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

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 13 of 63 (338902)
08-10-2006 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by cavediver
08-10-2006 8:37 AM


The white terrorist is no more or less stoppable than the Arab terrorist unless you decide to hamstring yourself by adopting racial profiling (while alienating the vast majority of entirely peaceful, law-abiding Arabs as a free bonus).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by cavediver, posted 08-10-2006 8:37 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by cavediver, posted 08-10-2006 9:17 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1933 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 yet responded

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

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31509
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 15 of 63 (338916)
08-10-2006 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by cavediver
08-10-2006 9:17 AM


In the US we have responded very effectively to the threat you guys so efficiently uncovered. We immediately stopped all boardings on all flights and made everyone line up and throw away any bottles of handlotion or mouthwase or soda that they had.

No more carry on cosmetics or soft drinks to threaten the world.

Oh, and we are also sending some Air Marshalls to make you guys feel safer too.

"No liquids or gels. Shaving cream, shampoo, contact lens solution -- all of it has to be checked," Strum shouted to the would-be vacationers and business travelers who surrounded her. "You cannot carry any of that on. If you try to carry it on, you will be sent back."

But there was also Good News.

For those hoping to get on an airplane, the hours-long wait to pass through security checkpoint had one small silver lining: since flights were also being delayed, airport workers told them, it was possible that after clearing the checkpoints they could still get on board.

from here


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by cavediver, posted 08-10-2006 9:17 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by kuresu, posted 08-10-2006 10:51 AM jar has not yet responded
 Message 17 by Dr Jack, posted 08-10-2006 10:51 AM jar has responded
 Message 28 by ringo, posted 08-10-2006 12:10 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019