Would this be the same liquid explosive that requires lab conditions to manufacture in situ as it is non-transportable?
All they need to look for is the water baths and calibrated thermometers 8)

don’t take a baby to an event they will have no recollection of in the future?

I think you’ll find, that the answer is beer/coffee and it’s in France not UK.

No flask of tea in what looks like perfect “tea in the rain” conditions.

the incredibly scientific method of getting a parent to taste it.

Wonder if there are threads on célibatairetrackworld about hosting the bloody TdF again, traffic delays, security precautions, et zut alors we’re still dans Le Milieu de un recession

🙂

Sod the grumbling, I’m really looking forward to it!

(Then again, I have tickets, so nerr…….! 😉 )

Just take 100ml of squash, dilute with the rain.

I didn’t get any tickets, so I’m miffed anyway, but I’m exceptionally glad that I’m not going. For all of the show of security, don’t you think that any potential terrorist has already figured out a way of getting their weapons of destruction in?

After all, there’ll be literally hundreds of trucks delivering goods every day (to McDonalds and the like) – do you honestly think that every inch of every vehicle will be checked? All you need is collusion between a driver and a member of the receiving staff, and you can get stuff in. The major security screening areas at airports and the like are regularly bypassed by large numbers of people—maintenance staff, shop workers, airline staff, and security themselves. Almost all of those jobs are crappy, low-paid jobs with really high turnover. If you’re a serious plotter, don’t you think you could get one of those jobs? And look at the people G4S have hired – none of the people I saw yesterday on the TV filled me with any great confidence, and the only check that’s done is to see if they pass the standard police reconds review. Gosh, if only al-Qaeda had thought of using people without a criminal record, eh?

And then there’s the shoes. Taking off your shoes is next to useless. Saying that we all have to take our shoes off because they might contain explosives is almost as bad as saying that the terrorists wore red shirts last time, so we should probably ban all red shirts, and that’ll make us safer. If our beloved security services focus on shoes, it’s not beyond the wit of man to believe that terrorists will simply put their explosives elsewhere; the result is that a load of time is spent on the screening but there’s no reduction in the total threat.

What about those swabs they have, you know, the ones they rub over the keyboard of your laptop? This is a test for explosives, which would be excellent if you assume that terrorists are pig-thick. Apparently the idea is that al-Qaeda has never heard of latex gloves and wiping down with alcohol.

I absolutely understand that the purpose of terrorism is to terrorise, and nothing could be better for some bad guys than to disrupt the Olympics. But if terrorists really want to do this, and you lock down the Olympic Park that tightly, what’s to stop a committed terrorist from detonating something in, say, the Blackwall Tunnel? Certainly close enough to cause pandemonium, and it would inevitably be linked to the Games. Just fill a car with explosives, drive through it tomorrow, and job done. Total chaos, the Olympics is in panic, and your aims are achieved.

So what you’re left with in all of this security checking is a bit of pantomime. [Oh yes you are.] The message given is that we, the Government, are doing everything we can to protect you. Thing is, the actions that really make you safe – better intelligence mainly – don’t address public fears because they can’t be seen. But that’s OK, you can justify the pantomime because, to start with at least, a show of strength, no matter how pointless, has the effect of instilling that confidence. After a very short while, however, the message has changed. At first the additional security guard at Luton Airport reassures you, but after a while, you either continue to take it seriously, in which case you start to believe that air travel is really dangerous, or you become astonishingly cynical like me, and believe it’s a total and utter waste of time and money, a sop by a cynical government to pacify the gullible masses.

100ml bottles? An utterly pointless triviality. If you think it makes you safer, you’re deluded. You should be angry about this, not just nod your head and meekly accept this tripe. But instead we’ll all shuffle around, bleating about ‘the common good’ and ‘the need for security’. How utterly British of us.

they used to run tastes tests of various waters – spring/bottled and tap – and Thames Water regularly would win or be at the top – even though it has on average been through the human body 7 times.

Sorry Nick, i don’t really get the point of your post. You’re saying the counter terrorism measures don’t work, so what? We shouldn’t bother with them? Or that we should just carry on and let the deluded fools walk into Al Qaeda’s trap while the smart people aren’t bothering to go to the Olympics because they can see it’s all a sham?

No measure will be 100.00000000% effective. I’m sure the majority of plots are foiled by people far smarter and braver than you or I, who are probably at this exact moment putting the finishing touches to a devastating attack on the Olympics/ an airport / the Underground but who in fact are risking themselves to make our streets safer as undercover operatives and are about to call time. If this 100ml bottle situation is just dotting i’s and crossing t’s to prevent the extremely unlikely scenario of some out of joint nutjob who’s read something on the internet carrying out their own attack, I’m all for a little queueing to accomodate it. You’re right, it probably won’t foil an attack because there probably won’t be one, but if it makes it harder for one to succeed, i think the cost benefit equation is tolerable.

Simply saying it won’t do any good and refusing to participate because you think it’s meek and british to accept it – if we all did that then the terrorists will have won anyway. An Olympics where no-one turned up because we think the counter terrorism measures are over the top – brilliant.

My point is this – if you really think there’s a terrorist threat, spend the money on intelligence. Don’t spend millions on something that effectively makes the terrorists’ points for them (i.e that they have significant power and can affect the lives of everyone in Britain) when it’s not the case.

It’s not just the Olympics, it’s airports/stadia/ferries/museums(!)…you name it, there’s a security goon there ‘for your own protection’ who doesn’t actually deliver any real protection. I’m not saying that queuing up to prevent an attack is a waste of time because there won’t be an attack, it’s that if there were to be an attack, this sort of checking would almost certainly not have prevented it.

As I said before, there are a multiplicity of ways to get dangerous materials through, and if we think that queuing up will somehow prevent this, we’re at best astonishingly naive. And by acting as if the terrorists are a real, credible and daily threat, we’re giving them the oxygen of publicity, which is exactly what they want. Never thought I’d agree with Thatcher on anything, but she was right on this.

You wanted to go so you applied for tickets, but because you didn’t get any now you’re glad you’re not going.

Right

I see.

I wanted to go. I support the Olympics.

I don’t think the security programme is anything other than window dressing, but I’d have put up with it (because I’d have no choice). That’s not the same as agreeing with it. As it is, I got no tickets, so at least I’m spared the charade of G4S ‘protecting’ me.

Tripe? If you say so.

Thank god the whole bloody balls up will be over soon.

Ah yes, that famous closed system, the Thames.

the whole security thing is a farce of the highest order. Missile batteries on tower blocks, no liquids to be carried in ETC etc Just window dressing intended to make people think that everything possible is being done but actually wasting money on useless gestures

Why ? ……how is that relevant ?

As I said, Thames Water pumps treated waste water into rivers. It also collects water from rivers. How many millions of gallons of rainwater I think enters rivers is completely irrelevant.

Although if you are interested I can tell you that 80% of the water in the River Wandle (which is what Wandsworth is named after, and where it enters the Thames) comes from Beddington Sewage Farm. So presumably 20% of the water in my local river comes from rainwater. HTH

If you are working there I have heard that using the wrong brands of phone can get you escorted from the venue.

There is one way to find out…

That is worrying.

Presumably the person doing the security check. Personally I think it’s a very necessary decision as it is a sporting event which shouldn’t hijacked by people who want to make a political point. And I’m sure there are plenty who would like to use the Olympics to express opposition to British foreign policy – as an example. Unlike the Chinese at the last Olympic Games Britain has very wisely insisted that the Olympic Torch remains in the UK, it would make no sense to allow someone to stroll into the venue with a “British Get Out Of Afghanistan” banner/tee shirt. Although I do know the worry is that people will be refused entry for wearing a “Che” tee shirt. Presumably the staff employed by G4S, if they exist/turn up, will be far too sensible to be guilty of such a thing.