July 8th, 2005

userinfo senji
 		2005/07/08 15:16:00 - Fond misunderstandings…
<them> seeing as that whole area's (Kings Cross – Ed) a huge building site, could that have been how the terrorists slipped through the net?
<me> what net?
<them> the security check net.
<me> what security check net?
Current Mood: [mood icon] amused
Entry Tags: irc, tube bombings

( < | 11 glosses | comment | > )
userinfo ilanin
[userpic] 		2005/07/08 14:31:48
Dude. Seriously. wtf? What city/country has a security check net for a rail terminus? Especially for a *subway* terminus, wherein a thorough security check would probably take longer than an appreciable fraction of the journeys...
( reply | thread )
userinfo senji
[userpic] 		2005/07/08 14:33:10
London, apparently.
( reply | parent | thread )
userinfo fluffymormegil
 		2005/07/08 14:34:11
London, Ashford, Calais, Lille, Paris, and Brussel.
( reply | parent | thread )
userinfo ilanin
[userpic] 		2005/07/08 14:37:28
If you're counting those, none of which actually do, then you missed out Tokyo, at very least.
( reply | parent | thread )
userinfo fluffymormegil
 		2005/07/08 14:40:14
There are railway stations in all of those places with at least one secured passenger-services platform...
( reply | parent | thread )
userinfo ilanin
[userpic] 		2005/07/08 14:41:47
Which is rather different to what I was actually saying, which was a "secured" terminus, in the manner of an airport.
( reply | parent | thread )
userinfo ilanin
[userpic] 		2005/07/08 14:49:54
And of course, even that isn't actually of much practical use, since the terrorists get on somewhere else. What you would need is a secure network, which is even more stupidly expensive and utterly implausible (until somebody comes up with an automated detection system for Bad Things which actually works, anyway).
( reply | parent | thread )
userinfo fluffymormegil
 		2005/07/08 14:50:26
I hadn't noticed Gatwick Airport, in the large, to be particularly secured.
Airside, yes. Though ISTR a stunt by one of the redtop rags suggesting that airside personnel vetting was not what it might be.
( reply | parent | thread )
userinfo ilanin
[userpic] 		2005/07/08 14:53:24
For airside read trackside, naturally.

As for personnel vetting at airports, very much so. If you can be bothered to click through the advert which non-premium subscribers have to put up with, salon.com's Ask The Pilot column has a lot to say about the subject of airport security, none of which is complimentary when it talks about the screening of airport service crews.

I kind of lapsed in putting "secure" in inverted commas. I think we all know there is no such thing, just relative degrees.
( reply | parent | thread )
userinfo edith_the_hutt
[userpic] 		2005/07/08 15:16:23
*giggle*
( reply | thread )
userinfo alfvaen
 		2005/07/08 19:46:39
Obviously they snuck through Platform 9 3/4.

( reply | thread )

( < | 11 glosses | comment | > )
Fond misunderstandings… - Squaring the circle...

> log in
> recent entries
> fiends
> archive
> toothywiki page
> profile
> new entry
> recent comments


> go to top