I amused to see that our "beloved" PM Gordon "Smiler" Brown has authorised the installation of body scanners, at all of the UK's airports, in response to the threat posed by morons who try to detonate their underpants.
Here are a few observations about Brown's "great" plan:
1 Scanners have been considered in the past, and deemed not up to the job.
2 Scanners require a human to spot the "bomb", they are therefore not infallible.
3 Scanners will not pick up certain dangerous substances.
4 Brown has ordered a review of security, with special emphasis on scanners. Yet he has overridden the review, even before it has concluded/reported, and ordered scanners.
Why?
It's an election year, and he has to look "decisive".
5 Body scanners will most likely break Nanny's anti child porn laws.
6 Why waste resources treating all passengers as suspects, when experts in the field of terrorism have stated (time and time again) that the terrorists fit a reasonably "easy to identify" profile?
Nanny is just trying to look busy, to make us think that she is useful to us.
However, do not be too alarmed, as said this is a "directive from Brown himself:
1 Orders from Brown never actually come to fruition.
2 These days orders from the Number 10 bunker carry as much weight as Fuhrer orders did in April 1945.
3 Brown/Labour will cock this up, as they have done every other thing in the past 13 years.
Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.
Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.
Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.
www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"
Celebrate the joy of living with booze. Click and drink!
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
I must admit I nearly choked on my Kellog's cornflakes (product placement)yesterday morning when I read that, the scanners would break Nanny's own child porn laws....This illustrates perfectly how daft Nanny and her team really are.....Badly drafted knee-jerk legislation benefits only lawyers....Then again, Labour are full of lawyers and I suppose they will need work later this year;-)
ReplyDeleteEnjoy drafting knee-jerk legislation responsibly.
kneejerklegislationaware.co.uk
Talking of exploding skiddies, can Nanny's scanners detect the internal build-up of Brussels sprout-fuelled farts? These pose an extreme explosion hazard as well as a risk of seriously toxic emissions.
ReplyDelete1. Which member or members of the government is a director of, consultant for or shareholder in the company producing the scanners?
ReplyDelete2. Where is the research demonstrating that repeated exposure to the radiation used by these scanners is safe?
I am tired of reading comments about this that run along the lines of "how can you object to being seen naked by a total, brain dead, uneducated lout of a stranger when it is for your own safety". I have managed to get to middle age without exhibiting my bits in public and I do not think it is too much to ask to be able to decide for myself who I get naked with and under what circumstances. When did the British public become so supine and spineless as to not only accept being visited by this gross indignity, but to believe it is for their own good.
Outraged Englishwoman
Well said Outraged Englishwoman. Of all the sheep who willingly go through these scanners without complaint, I wonder how many would also be happy to stand fully naked before the scanner operative?
ReplyDeleteFor that is exactly what they are being asked to do, if only they realised it.
The radiation is also a good issue. One of the larger sites my employer runs uses airport style x-ray scanners at the entrance (yes, really).
To go through once or twice a year for a holiday seems not too much of a worry, but several times a day at work? Nobody has done studies proving this is safe...
The same for these new body scanners, they *think* they're safe but nobody can be certain that some day there won't be some weird side-effect, even if it only appears 2-3 generations along the line.
I fear too, that one day these body scanners will be everywhere, except (I hope) our own homes.
If you get to an airport and resuse to go through the scanner will they use naked force.
ReplyDeleteIts bare faced cheek that they ask us to do this. Theyre all starkers.
They need stripping of their powers.
Bollocks ect.....
I am not alarmed. The scanners will improve in time. Too many people travel through airports for Nanny to be able to use the photos improperly.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a matter of them using the images improperly, it's about taking them at all.
ReplyDeleteIt's about yet another step towards us being stripped of our dignity and privacy by the state.
It's not like by doing this they'll stop terrorism. If they're lucky, they might, just might prevent certain types of terrorism.
That's it.
In that context, it cannot be defended.
Statistically you have about a 1 in 500,000 chance of being hit by lightening.
ReplyDeleteAnd about a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of being killed in an aircraft terror incident.
The latter risk is so low as to be insignificant.
But let's keep reminding ourselves how important this is to white-knuckles-gripping-the-transom politicians [a la smiler] and the legions of plush bottomed apparatchniks who depend on "security risk management" for their current and future paycheques.
Anonymous said:
ReplyDelete"The radiation is also a good issue. One of the larger sites my employer runs uses airport style x-ray scanners at the entrance (yes, really)"
No - really. These scanners don't use X-rays, rather millimetre wavelength microwaves at very low power. Far less hazard than a mobile phone. Trust me, I've worked in radio/electronic engineering for 40 years.
Mind you, I don't agree with them.
its already been said that these scanners were unlikely to actually register the threat on Christmas day if used anyway.
ReplyDeleteAlso they have been sniffing round for most of last year trying to find a way to justify these scanners and I think it was April 2009 or earlier when the machines were being discussed and I first heard someone mention Child images laws... surely thats long enough for this to get through to the lawmakers to sort out the statute correctly?
Can't even run a Nanny State properly!
You lot need reassuring.
ReplyDeleteSo I suggest all the cabinet have body scans and post the results on the No 10 website and on You Tube.
As they tell us:
"Nothing to hide, nothing to fear."
Why do they concentate on aeroplanes - if you are of a mind to blow yourself up and kill crowds - why not do it in shopping malls, cruise ships, schools etc?
ReplyDelete"Why do they concentate on aeroplanes - if you are of a mind to blow yourself up and kill crowds - why not do it in shopping malls, cruise ships, schools etc?"
ReplyDeleteThat is exactly what will start to happen once they make it too hard to blow planes up. That's why I made the point of saying that before we know it, these scanners will be everywhere.
"These scanners don't use X-rays, rather millimetre wavelength microwaves at very low power."
Yes, I take your point, it was a colloquial term, I know it's not actual "x-rays"... :)
"Far less hazard than a mobile phone. Trust me, I've worked in radio/electronic engineering for 40 years."
With all respect, 40 years is nothing in the great scheme of things. We can't say for certain how this regular exposure to various types of radiation affects DNA over several generations. Sure, compared to say background radiation levels it's probably insignificant, but can we really be 100% certain that all these different kinds of scanners are harmless in the long run?
Can we? Or one day will we look back at archive TV footage and exclaim "I can't believe we used to do that, we were so ignorant back then." Remember when people used lead for water pipes and as an anti-knocking agent in petrol?
Welcome to the great modern era human experiment, neatly summed up in the clichéd quote "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
Anonymous Anonymous said:
ReplyDelete"...summed up in the clichéd quote "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
Just so. Of course.
However we are being forced, more or less, to fill our homes with mercury in CFL light bulbs so presumably the scary advice has been adapted to suit.
And we are surrounded at all times by radio and tv transmissions amongst other things yet interestingly since such devices were invented human life expectancy has been increasing. Indeed the problem now may be that many of us now live too long for our own good, at least in some ways.
I assume the former Chancer of the Exchequer will attempt to pay for these scanners with unrequired flu vaccine ... ?
If not, why not?