Jump to content

Full body scanners?


Dave
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8438355.stm

Gordon Brown promises full body scanners at UK airports

 

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has given the go-ahead for full body scanners to be introduced at Britain's airports.

 

BAA, which runs six UK airports, said it would now install the machines "as soon as is practical" at Heathrow.

 

Experts have questioned the scanners' effectiveness at detecting the type of bomb allegedly used on Christmas Day in an attempted plane attack over Detroit.

 

The US is also introducing tougher checks for air passengers from nations deemed to have links with terrorism.

 

Speaking on BBC One's Andrew Marr show, the prime minister said the government would do everything in its power to tighten security and prevent a repeat of the US attack.

 

Hand luggage checks

 

Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who is now in custody, is accused of trying to detonate a bomb on a plane bound for the US.

 

Mr Brown said travellers would see the "gradual" introduction of the use of full body scanners and hand luggage checks for traces of explosives.

 

He added transit passengers as well as transfer passengers would undergo these checks.

 

Currently, not everyone has to pass through full body scanners already introduced at some major airports overseas - particularly if they are in transit from another country - due to concerns about cost and time delays.

 

A spokesman for BAA said: "It is our view that a combination of technology, intelligences and passenger profiling will help build a more robust defence against the unpredictable and changing nature of the terrorist threat to aviation."

 

The spokesman said nothing had been decided yet on exactly which passengers would undergo the full body scans.

 

And he declined to give specific details about timing or comment on extending the use of scanners to other airports, costs or the potential for passenger delays.

 

'Strip search'

 

The government's move has been largely welcomed by the Liberal Democrats.

 

But home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne did say the scanners could have been rolled out sooner as they had been kept in storage since being trialled.

 

Meanwhile in the US, President Barack Obama promised "to act quickly to fix flaws" in the security system, and condemned lapses following the alleged Christmas Day bomb plot against a US plane.

 

Reports say people flying from Nigeria, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Yemen and Cuba will have pat-down body searches and have carry-on baggage searched.

 

The new US security directives will come into effect on Monday.

 

Philip Baum, editor of Aviation Security International, said scanners were not the only solution and profiling passengers was, in fact, the best way to prevent terrorist acts.

 

"We've got to face the fact that you can build a bomb in the duty free shop, after you've gone through screening. Bearing that in mind, we need to look at what people's intent is, not what they are carrying on their person."

 

On Friday, Gordon Brown announced he had ordered a review of existing security measures, and advisers are expected to report within days.

 

The £80,000 full body scanners, which produce "naked" images of passengers, remove the need for "pat down" searches.

 

They work by beaming electromagnetic waves on to passengers while they stand in a booth. A virtual three-dimensional image is then created from the reflected energy.

 

Some have voiced concerns about privacy, with campaigners saying they are tantamount to a "strip search".

 

The machines are currently being trialled at Manchester airport following tests at Heathrow airport from 2004 to 2008.

 

They are also being rolled out across the US, with 40 machines used at 19 airports.

 

http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/5732/47024100scanafp226x228.jpg

 

Can't see that being abused at all. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest toonlass

The front page of the Independent on Sunday today showed how the scaners pick up dense objects such as knives and C4 plastic explosives, but missed a package of less dense material strapped to a person's leg, and showed that even had the scanners been used it would not have detected the explosives the bloke had when he tried to blow up the plane at Christmas. Basically it cannot detect powder, liquid or thin plastic (as you see from the photos it cannot detect fabric for clothes) and so would be basically useless when it came to situations like the latest attempt to blow up the plane.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The front page of the Independent on Sunday today showed how the scaners pick up dense objects such as knives and C4 plastic explosives, but missed a package of less dense material strapped to a person's leg, and showed that even had the scanners been used it would not have detected the explosives the bloke had when he tried to blow up the plane at Christmas. Basically it cannot detect powder, liquid or thin plastic (as you see from the photos it cannot detect fabric for clothes) and so would be basically useless when it came to situations like the latest attempt to blow up the plane.

i doubt anything would detect everything.

 

also i thought we'd get "the scanners pick up dense objects such as madras and GM"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen927

I seen Gordon Brown on some programme this morning. The man had major budgies, you could see his leg. Fucks sake, bloke is a joke.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest toonlass

The front page of the Independent on Sunday today showed how the scaners pick up dense objects such as knives and C4 plastic explosives, but missed a package of less dense material strapped to a person's leg, and showed that even had the scanners been used it would not have detected the explosives the bloke had when he tried to blow up the plane at Christmas. Basically it cannot detect powder, liquid or thin plastic (as you see from the photos it cannot detect fabric for clothes) and so would be basically useless when it came to situations like the latest attempt to blow up the plane.

i doubt anything would detect everything.

 

also i thought we'd get "the scanners pick up dense objects such as madras and GM"

 

Aye but a metal detector would pick up a knife on someone. And what was the point of not allowing you to take bottle of liquid on the planes last year. Now they are implimenting a scanner that does the job of the metal detector but the bloke behind the screen can call up his marra and say "Oy, you seen how little Madras' willy is" while missing the point that you cannot bend your knees cos you have bottles of flammable liquid secreted behind them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I seen Gordon Brown on some programme this morning. The man had major budgies, you could see his leg. Fucks sake, bloke is a joke.

It is very annoying how cool the likes of Sarkozy and Obama are compared to the one eyed scotsman!

http://outfoxingkarlrove.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/sarkozy-obama-france.jpg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The front page of the Independent on Sunday today showed how the scaners pick up dense objects such as knives and C4 plastic explosives, but missed a package of less dense material strapped to a person's leg, and showed that even had the scanners been used it would not have detected the explosives the bloke had when he tried to blow up the plane at Christmas. Basically it cannot detect powder, liquid or thin plastic (as you see from the photos it cannot detect fabric for clothes) and so would be basically useless when it came to situations like the latest attempt to blow up the plane.

i doubt anything would detect everything.

 

also i thought we'd get "the scanners pick up dense objects such as madras and GM"

 

Aye but a metal detector would pick up a knife on someone. And what was the point of not allowing you to take bottle of liquid on the planes last year. Now they are implimenting a scanner that does the job of the metal detector but the bloke behind the screen can call up his marra and say "Oy, you seen how little Madras' willy is" while missing the point that you cannot bend your knees cos you have bottles of flammable liquid secreted behind them.

they may still use metal detectors and i always knew my little willy would come in handy....never thought it would be to help blow up a plane though.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The front page of the Independent on Sunday today showed how the scaners pick up dense objects such as knives and C4 plastic explosives, but missed a package of less dense material strapped to a person's leg, and showed that even had the scanners been used it would not have detected the explosives the bloke had when he tried to blow up the plane at Christmas. Basically it cannot detect powder, liquid or thin plastic (as you see from the photos it cannot detect fabric for clothes) and so would be basically useless when it came to situations like the latest attempt to blow up the plane.

i doubt anything would detect everything.

 

also i thought we'd get "the scanners pick up dense objects such as madras and GM"

 

Aye but a metal detector would pick up a knife on someone. And what was the point of not allowing you to take bottle of liquid on the planes last year. Now they are implimenting a scanner that does the job of the metal detector but the bloke behind the screen can call up his marra and say "Oy, you seen how little Madras' willy is" while missing the point that you cannot bend your knees cos you have bottles of flammable liquid secreted behind them.

they may still use metal detectors and i always knew my little willy would come in handy....never thought it would be to help blow up a plane though.

They do say its not the size thats important but what you do with it that counts!  O0

Link to post
Share on other sites

The front page of the Independent on Sunday today showed how the scaners pick up dense objects such as knives and C4 plastic explosives, but missed a package of less dense material strapped to a person's leg, and showed that even had the scanners been used it would not have detected the explosives the bloke had when he tried to blow up the plane at Christmas. Basically it cannot detect powder, liquid or thin plastic (as you see from the photos it cannot detect fabric for clothes) and so would be basically useless when it came to situations like the latest attempt to blow up the plane.

i doubt anything would detect everything.

 

also i thought we'd get "the scanners pick up dense objects such as madras and GM"

 

Aye but a metal detector would pick up a knife on someone. And what was the point of not allowing you to take bottle of liquid on the planes last year. Now they are implimenting a scanner that does the job of the metal detector but the bloke behind the screen can call up his marra and say "Oy, you seen how little Madras' willy is" while missing the point that you cannot bend your knees cos you have bottles of flammable liquid secreted behind them.

they may still use metal detectors and i always knew my little willy would come in handy....never thought it would be to help blow up a plane though.

They do say its not the size thats important but what you do with it that counts!  O0

or who you do with it maybe ?
Link to post
Share on other sites

The front page of the Independent on Sunday today showed how the scaners pick up dense objects such as knives and C4 plastic explosives, but missed a package of less dense material strapped to a person's leg, and showed that even had the scanners been used it would not have detected the explosives the bloke had when he tried to blow up the plane at Christmas. Basically it cannot detect powder, liquid or thin plastic (as you see from the photos it cannot detect fabric for clothes) and so would be basically useless when it came to situations like the latest attempt to blow up the plane.

 

I have it on good authority that they're a lot better than what they make out.  D.d.d.don't believe the hype

Link to post
Share on other sites

The front page of the Independent on Sunday today showed how the scaners pick up dense objects such as knives and C4 plastic explosives, but missed a package of less dense material strapped to a person's leg, and showed that even had the scanners been used it would not have detected the explosives the bloke had when he tried to blow up the plane at Christmas. Basically it cannot detect powder, liquid or thin plastic (as you see from the photos it cannot detect fabric for clothes) and so would be basically useless when it came to situations like the latest attempt to blow up the plane.

 

I have it on good authority that they're a lot better than what they make out.   D.d.d.don't believe the hype

you mean you got caught ?
Link to post
Share on other sites

The front page of the Independent on Sunday today showed how the scaners pick up dense objects such as knives and C4 plastic explosives, but missed a package of less dense material strapped to a person's leg, and showed that even had the scanners been used it would not have detected the explosives the bloke had when he tried to blow up the plane at Christmas. Basically it cannot detect powder, liquid or thin plastic (as you see from the photos it cannot detect fabric for clothes) and so would be basically useless when it came to situations like the latest attempt to blow up the plane.

 

I have it on good authority that they're a lot better than what they make out.   D.d.d.don't believe the hype

you mean you got caught ?

 

yeah, i like the attention. I have a bangalore made of hot dog sausages and some pineapples with pins in strapped to my thigh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stuff like this is total security theatre.  Costs a lot of money, puts people in jobs, and does virtually nothing to improve security.  As shown a few weeks ago, the best defense against a terrorist attack on a plane is an engaged citizenry ready to stand up to stop a threat. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/new-scanners-child-porn-laws

 

New scanners break child porn laws

 

The rapid introduction of full body scanners at British airports threatens to breach child protection laws which ban the creation of indecent images of children, the Guardian has learned.

 

Privacy campaigners claim the images created by the machines are so graphic they amount to "virtual strip-searching" and have called for safeguards to protect the privacy of passengers involved.

 

Ministers now face having to exempt under 18s from the scans or face the delays of introducing new legislation to ensure airport security staff do not commit offences under child pornography laws.

 

They also face demands from civil liberties groups for safeguards to ensure that images from the £80,000 scanners, including those of celebrities, do not end up on the internet. The Department for Transport confirmed that the "child porn" problem was among the "legal and operational issues" now under discussion in Whitehall after Gordon Brown's announcement on Sunday that he wanted to see their "gradual" introduction at British airports.

 

A 12-month trial at Manchester airport of scanners which reveal naked images of passengers including their genitalia and breast enlargements, only went ahead last month after under-18s were exempted.

 

The decision followed a warning from Terri Dowty, of Action for Rights of Children, that the scanners could breach the Protection of Children Act 1978, under which it is illegal to create an indecent image or a "pseudo-image" of a child.

 

Dowty told the Guardian she raised concerns with the Metropolitan police five years ago over plans to use similar scanners in an anti-knife campaign, and when the Department for Transport began a similar trial in 2006 on the Heathrow Express rail service from Paddington station.

 

"They do not have the legal power to use full body scanners in this way," said Dowty, adding there was an exemption in the 1978 law to cover the "prevention and detection of crime" but the purpose had to be more specific than the "trawling exercise" now being considered.

 

A Manchester airport spokesman said their trial had started in December, but only with passengers over 18 until the legal situation with children was clarified. So far 500 people have taken part on a voluntary basis with positive feedback from nearly all those involved.

 

Passengers also pass through a metal detector before they can board their plane. Airport officials say the scanner image is only seen by a single security officer in a remote location before it is deleted.

 

A Department for Transport spokesman said: "We understand the concerns expressed about privacy in relation to the deployment of body scanners. It is vital staff are properly trained and we are developing a code of practice to ensure these concerns are properly taken into account. Existing safeguards also mean those operating scanners are separated from the device, so unable to see the person to whom the image relates, and these anonymous images are deleted immediately."

 

But Shami Chakrabarti, of Liberty, had concerns over the "instant" introduction of scanners: "Where are the government assurances that electronic strip-searching is to be used in a lawful and proportionate and sensitive manner based on rational criteria rather than racial or religious bias?" she said.

 

Her concerns were echoed by Simon Davies of Privacy International who said he was sceptical of the privacy safeguards being used in the United States. Although the American system insists on the deletion of the images, he believed scans of celebrities or of people with unusual or freakish body profiles would prove an "irresistible pull" for some employees.

 

The disclosures came as Downing Street insisted British intelligence information that the Detroit plane suspect tried to contact radical Islamists while a student in London was passed on to the US.

 

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's name was included in a dossier of people believed to have made attempts to deal with extremists, but he was not singled out as a particular risk, Brown's spokesman said.

 

President Barack Obama has criticised US intelligence agencies for failing to piece together information about the 23-year-old that should have stopped him boarding the flight.

 

Brown's spokesman said "There was security information about this individual's activities and that was shared with the US authorities."

 

So I'm left wondering whether paedos or terrorists are the bigger threat to society now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest elbee909

Everyone who flies should be put into a state of suspended animation for the duration of the flight.  Ergo, no triggering of bombage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/new-scanners-child-porn-laws

 

New scanners break child porn laws

 

The rapid introduction of full body scanners at British airports threatens to breach child protection laws which ban the creation of indecent images of children, the Guardian has learned.

 

Privacy campaigners claim the images created by the machines are so graphic they amount to "virtual strip-searching" and have called for safeguards to protect the privacy of passengers involved.

 

Ministers now face having to exempt under 18s from the scans or face the delays of introducing new legislation to ensure airport security staff do not commit offences under child pornography laws.

 

They also face demands from civil liberties groups for safeguards to ensure that images from the £80,000 scanners, including those of celebrities, do not end up on the internet. The Department for Transport confirmed that the "child porn" problem was among the "legal and operational issues" now under discussion in Whitehall after Gordon Brown's announcement on Sunday that he wanted to see their "gradual" introduction at British airports.

 

A 12-month trial at Manchester airport of scanners which reveal naked images of passengers including their genitalia and breast enlargements, only went ahead last month after under-18s were exempted.

 

The decision followed a warning from Terri Dowty, of Action for Rights of Children, that the scanners could breach the Protection of Children Act 1978, under which it is illegal to create an indecent image or a "pseudo-image" of a child.

 

Dowty told the Guardian she raised concerns with the Metropolitan police five years ago over plans to use similar scanners in an anti-knife campaign, and when the Department for Transport began a similar trial in 2006 on the Heathrow Express rail service from Paddington station.

 

"They do not have the legal power to use full body scanners in this way," said Dowty, adding there was an exemption in the 1978 law to cover the "prevention and detection of crime" but the purpose had to be more specific than the "trawling exercise" now being considered.

 

A Manchester airport spokesman said their trial had started in December, but only with passengers over 18 until the legal situation with children was clarified. So far 500 people have taken part on a voluntary basis with positive feedback from nearly all those involved.

 

Passengers also pass through a metal detector before they can board their plane. Airport officials say the scanner image is only seen by a single security officer in a remote location before it is deleted.

 

A Department for Transport spokesman said: "We understand the concerns expressed about privacy in relation to the deployment of body scanners. It is vital staff are properly trained and we are developing a code of practice to ensure these concerns are properly taken into account. Existing safeguards also mean those operating scanners are separated from the device, so unable to see the person to whom the image relates, and these anonymous images are deleted immediately."

 

But Shami Chakrabarti, of Liberty, had concerns over the "instant" introduction of scanners: "Where are the government assurances that electronic strip-searching is to be used in a lawful and proportionate and sensitive manner based on rational criteria rather than racial or religious bias?" she said.

 

Her concerns were echoed by Simon Davies of Privacy International who said he was sceptical of the privacy safeguards being used in the United States. Although the American system insists on the deletion of the images, he believed scans of celebrities or of people with unusual or freakish body profiles would prove an "irresistible pull" for some employees.

 

The disclosures came as Downing Street insisted British intelligence information that the Detroit plane suspect tried to contact radical Islamists while a student in London was passed on to the US.

 

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's name was included in a dossier of people believed to have made attempts to deal with extremists, but he was not singled out as a particular risk, Brown's spokesman said.

 

President Barack Obama has criticised US intelligence agencies for failing to piece together information about the 23-year-old that should have stopped him boarding the flight.

 

Brown's spokesman said "There was security information about this individual's activities and that was shared with the US authorities."

 

So I'm left wondering whether paedos or terrorists are the bigger threat to society now?

 

Neither of them are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/new-scanners-child-porn-laws

 

New scanners break child porn laws

 

The rapid introduction of full body scanners at British airports threatens to breach child protection laws which ban the creation of indecent images of children, the Guardian has learned.

 

Privacy campaigners claim the images created by the machines are so graphic they amount to "virtual strip-searching" and have called for safeguards to protect the privacy of passengers involved.

 

Ministers now face having to exempt under 18s from the scans or face the delays of introducing new legislation to ensure airport security staff do not commit offences under child pornography laws.

 

They also face demands from civil liberties groups for safeguards to ensure that images from the £80,000 scanners, including those of celebrities, do not end up on the internet. The Department for Transport confirmed that the "child porn" problem was among the "legal and operational issues" now under discussion in Whitehall after Gordon Brown's announcement on Sunday that he wanted to see their "gradual" introduction at British airports.

 

A 12-month trial at Manchester airport of scanners which reveal naked images of passengers including their genitalia and breast enlargements, only went ahead last month after under-18s were exempted.

 

The decision followed a warning from Terri Dowty, of Action for Rights of Children, that the scanners could breach the Protection of Children Act 1978, under which it is illegal to create an indecent image or a "pseudo-image" of a child.

 

Dowty told the Guardian she raised concerns with the Metropolitan police five years ago over plans to use similar scanners in an anti-knife campaign, and when the Department for Transport began a similar trial in 2006 on the Heathrow Express rail service from Paddington station.

 

"They do not have the legal power to use full body scanners in this way," said Dowty, adding there was an exemption in the 1978 law to cover the "prevention and detection of crime" but the purpose had to be more specific than the "trawling exercise" now being considered.

 

A Manchester airport spokesman said their trial had started in December, but only with passengers over 18 until the legal situation with children was clarified. So far 500 people have taken part on a voluntary basis with positive feedback from nearly all those involved.

 

Passengers also pass through a metal detector before they can board their plane. Airport officials say the scanner image is only seen by a single security officer in a remote location before it is deleted.

 

A Department for Transport spokesman said: "We understand the concerns expressed about privacy in relation to the deployment of body scanners. It is vital staff are properly trained and we are developing a code of practice to ensure these concerns are properly taken into account. Existing safeguards also mean those operating scanners are separated from the device, so unable to see the person to whom the image relates, and these anonymous images are deleted immediately."

 

But Shami Chakrabarti, of Liberty, had concerns over the "instant" introduction of scanners: "Where are the government assurances that electronic strip-searching is to be used in a lawful and proportionate and sensitive manner based on rational criteria rather than racial or religious bias?" she said.

 

Her concerns were echoed by Simon Davies of Privacy International who said he was sceptical of the privacy safeguards being used in the United States. Although the American system insists on the deletion of the images, he believed scans of celebrities or of people with unusual or freakish body profiles would prove an "irresistible pull" for some employees.

 

The disclosures came as Downing Street insisted British intelligence information that the Detroit plane suspect tried to contact radical Islamists while a student in London was passed on to the US.

 

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's name was included in a dossier of people believed to have made attempts to deal with extremists, but he was not singled out as a particular risk, Brown's spokesman said.

 

President Barack Obama has criticised US intelligence agencies for failing to piece together information about the 23-year-old that should have stopped him boarding the flight.

 

Brown's spokesman said "There was security information about this individual's activities and that was shared with the US authorities."

 

So I'm left wondering whether paedos or terrorists are the bigger threat to society now?

 

Neither of them are.

 

Yeah, that's a good stance, indi. Like it. Good strutting peacock stuff, that is...paedos and terrorists pose no threat to society whatsoever. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/new-scanners-child-porn-laws

 

New scanners break child porn laws

 

The rapid introduction of full body scanners at British airports threatens to breach child protection laws which ban the creation of indecent images of children, the Guardian has learned.

 

Privacy campaigners claim the images created by the machines are so graphic they amount to "virtual strip-searching" and have called for safeguards to protect the privacy of passengers involved.

 

Ministers now face having to exempt under 18s from the scans or face the delays of introducing new legislation to ensure airport security staff do not commit offences under child pornography laws.

 

They also face demands from civil liberties groups for safeguards to ensure that images from the £80,000 scanners, including those of celebrities, do not end up on the internet. The Department for Transport confirmed that the "child porn" problem was among the "legal and operational issues" now under discussion in Whitehall after Gordon Brown's announcement on Sunday that he wanted to see their "gradual" introduction at British airports.

 

A 12-month trial at Manchester airport of scanners which reveal naked images of passengers including their genitalia and breast enlargements, only went ahead last month after under-18s were exempted.

 

The decision followed a warning from Terri Dowty, of Action for Rights of Children, that the scanners could breach the Protection of Children Act 1978, under which it is illegal to create an indecent image or a "pseudo-image" of a child.

 

Dowty told the Guardian she raised concerns with the Metropolitan police five years ago over plans to use similar scanners in an anti-knife campaign, and when the Department for Transport began a similar trial in 2006 on the Heathrow Express rail service from Paddington station.

 

"They do not have the legal power to use full body scanners in this way," said Dowty, adding there was an exemption in the 1978 law to cover the "prevention and detection of crime" but the purpose had to be more specific than the "trawling exercise" now being considered.

 

A Manchester airport spokesman said their trial had started in December, but only with passengers over 18 until the legal situation with children was clarified. So far 500 people have taken part on a voluntary basis with positive feedback from nearly all those involved.

 

Passengers also pass through a metal detector before they can board their plane. Airport officials say the scanner image is only seen by a single security officer in a remote location before it is deleted.

 

A Department for Transport spokesman said: "We understand the concerns expressed about privacy in relation to the deployment of body scanners. It is vital staff are properly trained and we are developing a code of practice to ensure these concerns are properly taken into account. Existing safeguards also mean those operating scanners are separated from the device, so unable to see the person to whom the image relates, and these anonymous images are deleted immediately."

 

But Shami Chakrabarti, of Liberty, had concerns over the "instant" introduction of scanners: "Where are the government assurances that electronic strip-searching is to be used in a lawful and proportionate and sensitive manner based on rational criteria rather than racial or religious bias?" she said.

 

Her concerns were echoed by Simon Davies of Privacy International who said he was sceptical of the privacy safeguards being used in the United States. Although the American system insists on the deletion of the images, he believed scans of celebrities or of people with unusual or freakish body profiles would prove an "irresistible pull" for some employees.

 

The disclosures came as Downing Street insisted British intelligence information that the Detroit plane suspect tried to contact radical Islamists while a student in London was passed on to the US.

 

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's name was included in a dossier of people believed to have made attempts to deal with extremists, but he was not singled out as a particular risk, Brown's spokesman said.

 

President Barack Obama has criticised US intelligence agencies for failing to piece together information about the 23-year-old that should have stopped him boarding the flight.

 

Brown's spokesman said "There was security information about this individual's activities and that was shared with the US authorities."

 

So I'm left wondering whether paedos or terrorists are the bigger threat to society now?

 

Neither of them are.

 

Yeah, that's a good stance, indi. Like it. Good strutting peacock stuff, that is...paedos and terrorists pose no threat to society whatsoever. :lol:

come on indi. GM knows exactly what you mean but is looking for a scrap.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...