BAA - They've done it again!

[preiffer]

Just when you thought their incompetence couldn't be more proven, there's a tiny little paragraph at the end of this article.

So, we're paying the price for BAA to "ramp up security" during these "unprecedented circumstances". Yet THIS happens:

Meanwhile an investigation has been launched after a 12-year-old boy, reported to be from Penrith, managed to board a plane at Gatwick without tickets on a Monarch flight to Lisbon on Monday.

Glad to know my taxes are still going directly to BAA to help with their profits security efforts... [:w][ii]

You gotta watch out for those kids...

Well Prieffer, that would be because he didn't fit any security alert profile. Still, nice to know all this security is worth while, not.

And sooo nice to know I'm not the only cynical one here either [8D]

According to the government, it is just you and me Claire, and the rest of the population is right behind them. But I think they are wrong.

Originally posted by sailor99
According to the government, it is just you and me Claire, and the rest of the population is right behind them. But I think they are wrong.

No spin there then....[}:)]

[Neil]

What a Joke - security is supposed to be at its highest ever and this happens, I love a comment from BAA in a paper today say "its clearly a matter for concern" well done for stating the obvious love, stupid people. So we can't take a bottle of water on a plane but somebody can get on without a ticket or passport after passing through all security checks, god this makes me so mad[:(!]

Heard this on the radio whilst shaving this morning and nearly cut myself.

I suppose BAA might offer some pretty feeble mitigation along the lines of "well, given the nature of the threat, it's hand-luggage contents we're more concerned with at this particular and exceptional time, rather than travel documents", but really, this kind of thing is beyond the pale.[:(!]

Given that security lines are nearly always CCTVd, I sincerely hope the individual responsible for the lapse is identified and gets what's due to them. I know BAA collectively have hardly covered themselves in glory this last week, but to allow someone to slip by your checkpoint without passport or boarding card in times such as these is just an unforgivable individual failing.

I'm no fan of BAA but in all fairness I don't think you can level the 'increased security and this happens' angle at this incident.

Increased security is focused on screening possesions and ensuring that certain items do not get through - perhaps resources are even being pulled from less critical areas to manage this. I can quite understand how, under this chaotic situation a small child could get past. This was not a stray dog it was a 12-year old boy and they have been known to be quite intelligent and resourceful if they put their minds to it. You only need to show documents once and if the security guy was busy with someone else then he could easily have slipped through. Once past the boarding pass check the main screening would not even have thought about him as they would have been concentrating on a different job.

I think Sailor is very close to hitting the nail on the head about him not fitting the profile. I personally don't even think he would have hit the security radar as they would, quite rightly, have been putting other more important security matters first.

As I said - not defending BAA for the slipup but just trying to put this in perspective in a way that our press rarely ever do.

Phil FM

Indeed, 12 year olds can be very resourceful. I have heard terrorists are pretty sharp and cunning too. In these times of increased security it was clearly necessary to stop certain things getting on the plane in hand luggage. But surely it is just as necessary to check every passenger who goes through security is entitled to do so. One can well imagine what articals it would have been possible for this lad to have been give to carry and transfer to someone on the other side.

I am afraid I feel that while we are being forced to comply with security rules we don't understand and that BAA staff don't appear to understand, BAA failing in a basic security check is very relevent in forming an opinion about their abilities.

[Neil]

Agreed - the reports were that the Terrorists were planning use kids aged 1 & 3 on there latest plots, whats to stop them using 12 year old boys next time?

BAA have said he passed through all security checks so he wasn't a danger, but if the checks failed to spot he had ANY documents on him at all, then whats to say they aren't failing to check what he, or any other people are taking onto a plane? They can't concentrate on only one aspect (hand lugagge searches) and let the basic checks fail instead.

I am no great fan of the TSA but at least having to have your BP inspected before you pass through the metal detector would have prevented his progress.

Slightly off topic, but non the less relevant.

When I lived in Spain, the gypsy people used to send their cute little kids in to the urbanisations to rob houses and apartments, also used to shove them through the small windows to open the doors for them, so using kids to perpertrate a crime isn't unusual.

Disclaimer: this is from my own personal experience, but does not mean I have an anti Gypsy thing going on generally.

Just thought I would add, top of the list of items to steal were PASSPORTS

[Neil]

Thanks for that EGG, it kinda backs up my own personal view of why profiling isn't the bee's knee's in fighting terrorist activity, these "people" and I use the term loosely, are pushing the boundaries all the time and will stop at nothing to try and achieve their aim, which includes using/killing their own children.

I totally agree that BAA should have picked up the kid on BP check and that it was a slip that needs to be investigated.

However both Sailor and Attitude are assuming that just because the BP check was missed so was the screening. He would not have been able to pass something to someone on the other side because he was screened and passed. In order for him to be 'used' by a terrorist organisation he (or any other child) would need to be carrying something which unless I missed something in the story, he was not.

The manpower around checking BPs is meagre compared to the actual screening and should probably be increased but escalating slipping past a single security guy checking BPs into something that it isn't is hardly constructive. Likewise, assuming that because he slipped past some guy checking paperwork he would also be able to bypass screening is, in my opinion, a huge leap of logic.

Am I concerned about someone without a BP getting through security - a little. Am I concerned about someone with a banned item getting through security - hell yes.

Phil FM

[Neil]

FamilyMan - the point I am making is that, if the BP check failed, a standard procedure that has been in place for a long time and is surely the most basic of checks, then how do we know that the new, more thorough screening checks aren't failing too?? I hope it is not the case, but it does not fill me with confidence.

Neil:)

[preiffer]

Times Story Link here.

Originally posted by Attitude23
FamilyMan - the point I am making is that, if the BP check failed, a standard procedure that has been in place for a long time and is surely the most basic of checks, then how do we know that the new, more thorough screening checks aren't failing too??
Neil:)

I can understand that viewpoint. Unfortunately it a sad fact that when you change long standing procedures and concentrate really hard on getting something new to work and work well - other things tend to suffer especially if you are also pulling resources from that area.

It's a bit like a motorist seeing a speed camera - they suddenly become so focused on looking at their speedometer and keeping their speed down that they often forget about looking at the road.

As I said I think this is unfortunate and unacceptable but I don't really see it as any reason to lower confidence in the actual main screening procedure. It is easy to see how you might slip past a single security guy busy checking other pax but quite another to see him bypassing screening that forms an impeneratible barrier across your path.

Phil FM

P.S. Incidentally when the kid bypasses the BP Security in Love Actually we all enjoyed that didn't we [?]

[RichardMannion]

On EGG's point about using children - if you view the list of suspects that have been arrested via the Bank Of England site you can see that one of them is below 18.

And for entertainment value - I've been to EDI and back viaLHR in the last 24 hours and its a joke.

LHR
- Loads of people wearing bibs outside T1 and on doors too busy chatting away or twiddling thumbs, so I just walk straight past and to BD check in.
- No questioning about me only buying the ticket one hour earlier with me then catching the first flight back the next morning.
- Discussion with the 'retail' who normally hassle me to buy duty free who are now stood by the entrance to domestic security in front of the heavily modified (via MDF) hand luggage measuring tool. My laptop bag doe not meet the guideline via 1 cm so they tell me I have to check. I refuse to as its my laptop and other expensive equipment. So am told to proceed to security to see if they will take it.
- Security didn't care, they were more interested in the shoe (and belt) carnival. No other security checks, the myriad of agents were too busy chatting. So bag is through, and I am done with check-in and security in under 10 minutes, and now on way to lounge.

EDI
- Busier than LHR, but no need to queue for check-in as already checked in at LHR.
- Again, 'your bag looks too big' comment but to check with security, might have soemthing to do with the point made that I could buy a huge Plasma at Dixons in Duty free.
- Larger snaking queue at screening, no fastrack and the bag is not questioned.
- Shoe carnival but no request to remove belt
- Mannion makes fatal mistake of emptying pockets out lock stock and placing two lipsyls' in the screening tray. Oh my goodness stand back - you can't take these onboard. Decide to discuss. Take one of the lipsyls and apply it to my mouth as proof. Still no go, so they are confiscated. But then avaialbe to purchase in duty free. Stupidity.

So basically BAA being BAA again.

Thanks,
Richard

Richard

Great to have contemporary view of the situation - this really is madness though as it always is when kneejerk responses are implemented. Lipsyl!!! Shoes!!! Oh and by the way of course we've put every single item in Dixons through the same scanner ... plus every drink inside the terminal has been tasted by someone. Reminds me of the whole no metal cutlery on board but a crate of nice smashable bottles at the bar.

Be good if Virgin would speak out publicly to support their passengers in returning to normal rather than trying to differ with BA too.

Oh, incidentally, a colleague of mine travelling to the US at the weekend packed two bags, one for the hold inc. lappy, and one with stuff like phone and work documents for internal connecting flights. Three days later the smaller bag turned up so no work stuff on a business trip for two days!

It's about time normality returned along with improved security.

Reminds me of the whole no metal cutlery on board but a crate of nice smashable bottles at the bar

...and metal cutlery available in airside lounges[:0]

VS.

what a joke!