U.K. Seeks Added Travel Rules
 

I wonder if the UK will profile.

U.K. Seeks Added Travel Rules
Associated Press
November 15, 2007

LONDON -- Travelers face new delays and disruption on trips to the United Kingdom after Prime Minister Gordon Brown unveiled plans to tighten defenses against terrorism at airports, rail stations and major public spaces.

Bag screening at train terminals, limits on cars dropping travelers off near departure gates and -- at times of heightened threat -- frisking customers before they enter shopping malls, are recommendations made under the proposals.

continued

Even as Mr. Brown announced baggage checks at major rail terminals, he said restrictions limiting air passengers to one piece of hand luggage per flight were being relaxed.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1195...left_column_hs

There appear to be plans to make the screening systems accessible to US profiles: I understood that was one of the factors behind the insane rush to biometric ID cards. (If your government wants visitors to the US to carry biometric ID, let it try to persuade Congress to invest in issuing biometric visas everywhere!)

Fortress Britannia

The rush to biometric ID/Passports was because the US demanded it from Visa Waiver countries. Given the hassle of trying to get a US visa nowadays the pressure was on to get biometric passports, even though they are not very effective yet.

Airports are to be allowed to apply for relaxation of the one bag rule. Manchester has already said it intends to do that. It is scrapping landside shops to provide a bigger security zone.

God bless them....alll their doing is copying the paranoia that has gripped the USA....and what they should do next and I would support them to the hilt is take mug shots and finger prints of all entering Americans...what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I realy don't see how this is going to work on the railway. Trains have multiple stops at stations en route and unless every little station has it's own security, it will be pointless. It's just moving the problem somewhere else. What next, bag screening on the tube and at every bus stop?

It could be a system similar to Spain. They have bag screening on the major AVE runs in Spain. It's just like an airplane, but a lot quicker. They have one of those baggage screening machines inbetween an entrance point to the platform and getting on the train. They don't do it for every little train.

I think the theory (which has basis to it) is that major terrorism events on trains are going to be on the major, big runs for the maximum effect/publicity. No terrorist is going to bomb some pokey local train line with only a couple folks on it. They want publicity and to have an impact on folks. Same reason terrorists don't bother flying and trying to blow up some local commuter plane run between two small airports.

Those high-speed trains do have fewer stops, and they can do screening at the major stations where they stop or load.

I don't know what UK will do as I don't think they have high-speed trains, but maybe for the Eurostar they could easily do that.

Christina - we have high speed trains, just no rails for them to run on !

Many of the existing trains were designed to run at 125mph - not as fast as the 180+mph in Europe, but pretty quick. The problem has been maintaining the railways to a standard where the trains can actually run at this level.

With regard airport security, I suppose it is churlish to question anything that is supposed to make things safer. I am hoping that tourists won't be discouraged from visiting for fear of "being treated as a terrorist".

well, that's interesting, I didn't know that. We have some high-speed ones in the eastern US, but they aren't as fast as in Europe (Acela).

But the real idea is to do it on express trains, basically, ones with a lot of passengers and few stops between major cities. Those just happen to be the TGV/AVE type trains. If they got a high-speed between London and Edinburgh (I wish), that would be a good one. How about a tunnel over to Dublin?

I think that at 190 mph or 100 mph the result would be equally devastating - surprised it hasn't happened more

or in a crowded suburban train like in Madrid may make more sense than a high-speed train

or a crowded tube like in London

they can't possibly check everywhere all the time.

I'm not sure you could call it paranoia considering recent events at Glasgow Airport and the bombs in London.

Unfortunately, this is the world we live in and it's a real pain in the backside. But I'm not sure what the alternative is -- do nothing? Or do, what?

bettyk - that attitude is why the terrorists are winning

There's a much higher chance that you'll be mugged / assaulted / raped / murdered than being involved in a terrorist incident yet you don't suggest that you have your own personal security guard

Thanks, Alan, I'll keep that in mind.

OBTW, I meant to add that I do carry my own personal bodyguard with me all the time. It's my Smith & Wesson.

Betty, the S&W is not an option in the UK. Which is possibly why we have about 50 times less likelyhood of being fatally shot than in the US.

Well, I haven't been fatally shot yet. As a matter a fact, I have never been a victim of a violent crime nor has anyone in my immediate family. In fact, I don't know anyone who ever has. Maybe we have just been lucky or maybe things aren't as bad here as people like to make it sound.

I'm not suggesting it is bad, but if neither you, nor anybody around you has ever been the victim of a violent crime, then why feel the need to carry a gun?

This is a rhetorical question. It will always be an issue on which most Europeans, and many Americans disagree.

Betty's got a gun

Hope she doesn't uncome

Betty's got a gun

Problem with guns here in part is there any idiot or insane person can get their hands on one (Betty i am not refering to you)

and then folks use their guns when they crack up, etc.

Guns begate gun violence IMO

I am for a strict gun ban like in most advanced countries - with needed exceptions - hunters, ones who can prove their in danger, etc.

Too often when a gun is around and folks get a little emotionally upset it's too easy to use it.

I have seen evidence to the contrary Pal. States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes.

You can ban guns, but who is going to insure that all the bad guys comply with the law?

This can be debated all day long, of course, but the right to bear arms is part of our history and will not be easy to take away.

<<< Well, I haven't been fatally shot yet. >>>

Nor I bet a victim of a terrorist act, yet you support further restrictions to (allegedly) do with terrorism yet you aren't against gun restrictions despite being much more likely to be a victim of gun crime than terrorism.

Smacks of very fuzzy thinking to my mind