Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Big Brother / Microchipping / Problem-Reaction-Solution

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 30-01-2007, 05:36 AM   #1
jimijams
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 974
Likes: 23 (18 Posts)
Default New probe into airport security failure

New probe into airport security failure

The federal government will investigate whether a recent serious incident at Sydney Airport warrants tightening security, Transport Minister Mark Vaile says.

Hundreds of passengers were sent back through security on Sunday night after a man reportedly barged past staff at the domestic departures' X-ray point for passengers and hand luggage.

He disappeared into the secure area of the T2 terminal and an extensive search failed to find any trace of him.

After about two hours passengers were allowed back into the cleared departure area to board flights which had been suspended.

The Inspector of Transport Security, Mick Palmer, would conduct the investigation into the security breach, Mr Vaile said.

"I have asked Mr Palmer to undertake an immediate review of the incident and report back to me," Mr Vaile said.

"The incident involved a suspected screening failure and the evacuation of the departure terminal beyond the screening point.

"Mr Palmer's review will focus on all the security procedures and processes that came into play during the incident with a view to advising me if any improvements or changes to the security regime at the airport are necessary."

Transport Workers Union secretary Tony Sheldon said yesterday the government owed an explanation to airport staff, whose lives are endangered by such security breaches.

The incident was the latest in a string of security failures at Sydney Airport, he said.

AAP
http://www.smh.com.au/news/travel/ne...919319415.html
jimijams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-01-2007, 06:20 AM   #2
oneofmany
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Paddle Pop Lionland
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

I found this interesting article after watching Mr Jasson on
commercial network news station channel 7 in Australia. I'm still stunned
that he got airtime (almost 2 minutes) to state his case. More people are
now seeing through the bullshit and trying to out----tango the totalitarian
tiptoe, or at least , shine a spotlight at their feet.

AN ANTI-WAR protester who was refused boarding on a Qantas flight to London
because he wore a provocative T-shirt has issued a challenge to the airline
to fly him home dressed the same way.

source
http://www.theage.com.au/news/nation...330830791.html
oneofmany is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-01-2007, 07:01 AM   #3
jimijams
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 974
Likes: 23 (18 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oneofmany View Post
I found this interesting article after watching Mr Jasson on
commercial network news station channel 7 in Australia. I'm still stunned
that he got airtime (almost 2 minutes) to state his case. More people are
now seeing through the bullshit and trying to out----tango the totalitarian
tiptoe, or at least , shine a spotlight at their feet.

AN ANTI-WAR protester who was refused boarding on a Qantas flight to London
because he wore a provocative T-shirt has issued a challenge to the airline
to fly him home dressed the same way.

source
http://www.theage.com.au/news/nation...330830791.html
Airports are the front line of totalitarianism to condition us for the continued loss of freedoms we experience in the wider community so freedom of speech no longer exists there.. Even having a poor sense of humour can land you in hot water;

1. A person must not engage in conduct that a reasonable person could interpret as:
1. a threat to commit an act of unlawful interference with aviation; or
2. a statement that such an act has been committed. Penalty: 50 penalty units.
2. For the purposes of subregulation (1) it does not matter that the conduct:
1. was engaged in in jest; or
2. was expressed to be a jest.
http://girtby.net/articles/2005/7/7/...nto-an-airport
jimijams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-01-2007, 01:15 PM   #4
jimijams
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 974
Likes: 23 (18 Posts)
Default

Subject: "Suspected Terrorist" button gets Gilmore ejected from airplane
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 21:46:43 -0700
From: John Gilmore

You probably already know about my opposition to useless airport security crap. I'm suing John Ashcroft, two airlines, and various other agencies over making people show IDs to fly -- an intrusive measure that provides no security. (See http://freetotravel.org). But I would be hard pressed to come up with a security measure more useless and intrusive than turning a plane around because of a political button on someone's lapel.

My sweetheart Annie and I tried to fly to London today (Friday) on British Airways. We started at SFO, showed our passports and got through all the rigamarole, and were seated on the plane while it taxied out toward takeoff. Suddenly a flight steward, Cabin Service Director Khaleel Miyan, loomed in front of me and demanded that I remove a small 1" button pinned to my left lapel. I declined, saying that it was a political statement and that he had no right to censor passengers' political speech. The button, which was created by political activist Emi Koyama, says "Suspected Terrorist". Large images of the button and I appear in the cover story of Reason Magazine this month, and the story is entitled "Suspected Terrorist".

(See Reason Article.)

Get your button here!

The steward returned with Capt. Peter Hughes. The captain requested, and then demanded, that I remove the button (they called it a "badge"). He said that I would endanger the aircraft and commit a federal crime if I did not take it off. I told him that it was a political statement and declined to remove it.

They turned the plane around and brought it back to the gate, delaying 300 passengers on a full flight.

We were met at the jetway by Carol Spear, Station Manager for BA at SFO. She stated that since the captain had told her he was refusing to transport me as a passenger, she had no other course but to take me off the plane. I offered no resistance. I reminded her of the court case that United lost when their captain removed a Middle Eastern man who had done nothing wrong, merely because "he made me uncomfortable". She said that she had no choice but to uphold the captain and that we could sort it out in court later, if necessary. She said that my button was in "poor taste".

Later, after consulting with (unspecified) security people, Carol said that if we wanted to fly on the second and last flight of the day, we would be required to remove the button and put it into our checked luggage (or give it to her). And also, our hand-carried baggage would have to be searched to make sure that we didn't carry any more of these terrorist buttons onto the flight and put them on, endangering the mental states of the passengers and crew.

I said that I understood that she had refused me passage on the first flight because the captain had refused to carry me, but I didn't understand why I was being refused passage on the second one. I suggested that BA might have captains with different opinions about free speech, and that I'd be happy to talk with the second captain to see if he would carry me. She said that the captain was too busy to talk with me, and that speaking broadly, she didn't think BA had any captains who would allow someone on a flight wearing a button that said "Suspected Terrorist". She said that BA has discretion to decline to fly anyone. (And here I had thought they were a common carrier, obliged to carry anyone who'll pay the fare, without discrimination.) She said that passengers and crew are nervous about terrorism and that mentioning it bothers them, and that is grounds to exclude me. I suggested that if they wanted to exclude mentions of terrorists from the airplane, then they should remove all the newspapers from it too.

I asked whether I would be permitted to fly if I wore other buttons, perhaps one saying "Hooray for Tony Blair". She said she thought that would be OK. I said, how about "Terrorism is Evil". She said that I probably wouldn't get on. I started to discuss other possible buttons, like "Oppose Terrorism", trying to figure out what kinds of political speech I would be permitted to express in a BA plane, but she said that we could stand there making hypotheticals all night and she wasn't interested. Ultimately, I was refused passage because I would not censor myself at her command.

After the whole interaction was over, I offered to tell her, just for her own information, what the button means and why I wear it. She was curious. I told her that it refers to all of us, everyone, being suspected of being terrorists, being searched without cause, being queued in lines and pens, forced to take our shoes off, to identify ourselves, to be x-rayed and chemically sniffed, to drink our own breast milk, to submit to indignities. Everyone is a suspected terrorist in today's America, including all the innocent people, and that's wrong. That's what it means. The terrorists have won if we turn our country into an authoritarian theocracy "to defeat terrorism". I suggested that British Airways had demonstrated that trend brilliantly today. She understood but wasn't sympathetic -- like most of the people whose individual actions are turning the country into a police state.

Annie asked why she, Annie, was not allowed to fly. She wasn't wearing or carrying any objectionable buttons. Carol said it's because of her association with me. I couldn't have put it better myself -- guilt by association. I asked whether Annie would have been able to fly if she had checked in separately, and got no answer. (Indeed it was I who pointed out to the crew that Annie and I were traveling together, since we were seated about ten rows apart due to the full flight. I was afraid that they'd take me off the plane without her even knowing.)

Annie later told me that the stewardess who had gone to fetch her said that she thought the button was something that the security people had made me wear to warn the flight crew that I was a suspected terrorist(!). Now that would be really secure.

I spoke with the passengers around me before being removed from the plane, and none of them seemed to have any problem with sitting next to me for 10 hours going to London. None of them had even noticed the button before the crew pointed it out, and none of them objected to it after seeing it. It was just the crew that had problems, as far as I could tell.

John Gilmore

PS: For those who know I don't fly in the US because of the ID demand: I'm willing to show a passport to travel to another country. I'm not willing to show ID -- an "internal passport" -- to fly within my own country.
http://freetotravel.org/terrorist.html
jimijams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2007, 12:52 PM   #5
ellopott
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default 'good bush bad bush' tee shirt

I have a friend who was barred from wearing a 'good bush, bad bush' tee shirt on a domestic flight in the states last year.

'Southwest' told her the garment was offensive and wouldn't be tolerated on the flight, she was told she'd have to get changed if she wanted to the board the flight.

this is probably not the greatest example of totalarianism but i find it quite amusing, mainly because i was on the flight and had to sit next to a guy wearing a god-awful hawaiin shirt, which, was definitely more offensive.
ellopott is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:44 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.