Hand Luggage Ban and Ryanair

[David Wright]

Just an idea about Ryanair - have they not just abolished check-in luggage
in favour of an increased hand-luggage allowance?

Bit tricky now, that most Hand Luggage is seemingly banned.

D

[david]

It gets worse.

This just through from company, part of a longer message as you'll
appreciate, but these are the bits that matter...

a.. Flight crew bags may be taken onboard but they may only contain
essential items - passport, licence, headset, plotters and other essential
documentation.
a.. Only the captain's company mobile phone may be taken onboard
a.. No other crewmembers' phones are allowed onboard
a.. No car keys with an electronic fob are allowed on board - they should be
left at the crew room
a.. No PDAs or laptops are allowed on board
a.. No cameras are allowed on board

Why do we put up with the Americans? We ought to shoot them all. For
decades we put up with the US funded IRA and things never got this bad. The
US has been chasing the muslims for less than a decade and the world
descends into shit. Interesting poll in todays paper...apparently when
asked what year 9/11 took place 30% of americans had no idea.

Give it a couple of years and there'll be precious few of them who remember
anything about 9/11 other than it's a nice holiday or something.

Well that's me in Abu Grahib for ten years!!!

D

[Peter]

Post by david
Why do we put up with the Americans? We ought to shoot them all. For
decades we put up with the US funded IRA and things never got this bad. The
US has been chasing the muslims for less than a decade and the world
descends into shit. Interesting poll in todays paper...apparently when
asked what year 9/11 took place 30% of americans had no idea.

:)

The difference about the IRA was that MI5 and MI6 almost certainly
knew who most of the bad guys were, but couldn't nick them. They did
try to shoot them at one stage but got into trouble for that :)

With Muslims one is dealing with a huge international scene, widely
dispersed, much better funded than the IRA ever got from racketeering,
extortion and the USA, and as you say they are not happy about the
various military actions going on in various places. The IRA would
have probably not tried to set of an atom bomb even if they had one,
whereas to Al Queda that sort of capability would be an absolute
godsend - they simply go for max damage and don't give a toss.
Finally, suicide bombing enhances the mission capability massively
because all previous security measures assumed, correctly, that normal
terrorists want to survive. A far bigger threat.

[Andrew998]

Post by Peter
Finally, suicide bombing enhances the mission capability massively
because all previous security measures assumed, correctly, that normal
terrorists want to survive. A far bigger threat.

A suicide bomber only does it once. The IRA bombers came back over and over
again.

[Peter]

Post by Andrew998
A suicide bomber only does it once. The IRA bombers came back over and over
again.

Yes but they are well known by then, if not before.

The advantage of using a suicide bomber for a job is that you need
only to pick somebody who is not known about (so can move about freely
until the job is done) and the rest doesn't matter.

Also there is an unlimited supply of potential suicide bombers;
probably in the millions, worldwide. The numbers available for
operations within the UK will be much lower but still vast.

A recent survey suggests 15% of Muslims resident in the UK would like
to effectively destroy the UK. That's quite a pool to pick from - even
if this is wrong by one or two orders of magnitude it is vastly bigger
than anything the IRA could ever muster.

I guess the numbers available are limited only by the need to give
them some training without drawing attention. The ability to send a
whole team to a training camp in Pakistan etc must be getting
curtailed these days, so they have to be recruited, trained and
supported locally. I reckon this factor is the only one which keeps
any lid whatsoever on the situation.

[Clive]

Post by Peter

Post by Andrew998
A suicide bomber only does it once. The IRA bombers came back over and over
again.

Yes but they are well known by then, if not before.
The advantage of using a suicide bomber for a job is that you need
only to pick somebody who is not known about (so can move about freely
until the job is done) and the rest doesn't matter.
Also there is an unlimited supply of potential suicide bombers;
probably in the millions, worldwide. The numbers available for
operations within the UK will be much lower but still vast.
A recent survey suggests 15% of Muslims resident in the UK would like
to effectively destroy the UK. That's quite a pool to pick from - even
if this is wrong by one or two orders of magnitude it is vastly bigger
than anything the IRA could ever muster.
I guess the numbers available are limited only by the need to give
them some training without drawing attention. The ability to send a
whole team to a training camp in Pakistan etc must be getting
curtailed these days, so they have to be recruited, trained and
supported locally. I reckon this factor is the only one which keeps
any lid whatsoever on the situation.

Just don't get it myself. Muslims don't appear to like the Western World,
yet a large amount of them will doing anything to live in countries like UK,
USA - why? To rip us off, kill us??

Some that move to these countries to try and blow them up, etc, but if your
an honest Muslim why not just stay with the people you like, in a country
that you were born?

I know a lot of these people who are being accused are born in Britain- - so
why not sod off, if they don't like us?

Muslims and the UK/USA are never going to get on, so why not just separate,
live in our own countries and just leave each other alone?

Would people from the UK (non Muslims) expect to be able to go to Pakistan
(for example) and build churches by the dozen...... I think you get my
point.


Clive

[david]

Just don't get it myself. Muslims don't appear to like the Western World,
yet a large amount of them will doing anything to live in countries like UK,
USA - why? To rip us off, kill us??


Presumably because Muslim countries are so retrictive. When you consider
all the great things Muslims in Muslim states have contributed to the world,
well, it must be erm, well, er, well okay I cant think of one. Whereas the
wetern world, well...

So I guess that a Muslim who beleives in Islam yet wishes to be allowed some
level of life or creative freedom has no choice but to come to a Christian
or secular state.

I therefore surmise that those who wish to kill us either have become
passionately in favour of Islam OR they have concluded that the west, in
allowing their bretheren the freedoms they now have, is remiss and needs
curtailing.

I know a few very decent Muslims who are appalled at what some of their kind
are doing in the name of Islam.

Now, where's them crusaders when you need 'em?

The problem I think we face is that Muslims believe in something very
strongly, and whilst a large contingent of secular westerners believe in
nothing, or at least, not in God, then the Muslims have the moral high
ground and will, almost by default, win. We'll become muslims because we
won't be able to argue against it. personally, as a Christian I will argue
against it. To the death if I need to. Worth thinking about.

Cheery thoughts! david

[Peter]

Post by david
The problem I think we face is that Muslims believe in something very
strongly, and whilst a large contingent of secular westerners believe in
nothing, or at least, not in God, then the Muslims have the moral high
ground and will, almost by default, win.

I don't think this is automatic. I come from a former communist
country. At least 95% of the people there hated communism, and most of
the other 5% went along with it because they got the ruling class
privileges (a B&W TV and a telephone in those days - that incidentally
is how you run any dictatorship; it's quite easy). Communism was
pushed passionately, whereas capitalism is a sort of free for all
where nobody believes in very much except sex, shopping, Mitsubishi
Shoguns for the school run, MacDonalds and Big Brother.

Which one won?

Lenin should be revolving in his mausoleum at 2575 RPM. No wonder they
have to keep replacing bits of the wax.

I know this is a simplistic explanation but a large part of the
"Muslim problem" has been explained as the inevitable result of
keeping many millions of young and passionate (they are Arabs, more or
less) men in a strict and extremely sexually frustrating environment
where women are covered up from head to toe and there is no alcohol.
(Why do they have to promise them 48? virgins?) This energy has to
come out somewhere. African Muslims don't have these restrictions
(they drink and shag freely) and they don't generally want to blow
everybody up. The politics of the Middle East since WW2 have obviously
not helped but to be honest few living people there are old enough to
remember or care (similar is true for Ireland but somehow that
business kept going decades past its apparent sell-by date, too).

The West absolutely and without question will win eventually. Far too
much at stake. A lot of freedoms over here will be sacrificed in the
process though.

[Sla#s]

Post by Peter

Post by david
The problem I think we face is that Muslims believe in something very
strongly, and whilst a large contingent of secular westerners believe in
nothing, or at least, not in God, then the Muslims have the moral high
ground and will, almost by default, win.

I don't think this is automatic. I come from a former communist
country. At least 95% of the people there hated communism, and most of
the other 5% went along with it because they got the ruling class
privileges (a B&W TV and a telephone in those days - that incidentally
is how you run any dictatorship; it's quite easy).

<SNIP>

You have a point.
I wonder how many people in these religious countries are true
believers? That is get them on their own and go through the tenets of
the faith in question one by one. I don't think you'd get 10% true
believers.

Slatts

[david]

Post by Peter

Post by david
The problem I think we face is that Muslims believe in something very
strongly, and whilst a large contingent of secular westerners believe in
nothing, or at least, not in God, then the Muslims have the moral high
ground and will, almost by default, win.

I don't think this is automatic. I come from a former communist
country. At least 95% of the people there hated communism, and most of
the other 5% went along with it because they got the ruling class
privileges (a B&W TV and a telephone in those days - that incidentally
is how you run any dictatorship; it's quite easy). Communism was
pushed passionately, whereas capitalism is a sort of free for all
where nobody believes in very much except sex, shopping, Mitsubishi
Shoguns for the school run, MacDonalds and Big Brother.
Which one won?

The one that was denied?

If Muslims feel their way of life is denied they will really push for it.
Westerners (mostly. Today)have no idea what they have, so no real
requirement to fight for it. Generally speaking we don't know what we have
till it's gone.

As for giving the masses what they want - well, it seems that today's
politicians have got the people wanting justice, safety from the hoards of
rampaging school-shadowing paedophiles, safety from the zillions of evil
hoodies who lurk on every corner, safety from the horrid earth killing 4x4
driving careless, thoughtless over-paid erm, someones and emptier jails.
Who will actually provide the safety from these perceived threats? Islamists
in fact. Cover up your women, hide your children, ban cars and petrol
engines, re-instigate corporal punishment and lets introduce the removal of
limbs from criminals. Job done. Oh come all ye faithfull...to the mosque.

Seriously Peter, these are dangerous times for Christian based secularism as
well as for Democratic principles. As a Christian I ought to turn the other
cheek,but I'm inclined to say "bring it on!" . Our history is littered with
our having to fight hard to retain our freedoms - someone always wants to
remove it (cf T Blair).

The problem stems from immigration policy - the host nation (us) will always
try to bend over backwards to accommodate the guest (islam) because that's
polite. Trouble comes when the guest wants to redecorate your lounge! How
do you suddenly call a halt? Especially if you have enshrined a "guest
rights" policy promoting full accommodation??

D

[pietro]

Post by david
Seriously Peter, these are dangerous times for Christian based secularism as
well as for Democratic principles. As a Christian I ought to turn the other
cheek,but I'm inclined to say "bring it on!" . Our history is littered with
our having to fight hard to retain our freedoms - someone always wants to
remove it (cf T Blair).
The problem stems from immigration policy - the host nation (us) will always
try to bend over backwards to accommodate the guest (islam) because that's
polite. Trouble comes when the guest wants to redecorate your lounge! How
do you suddenly call a halt? Especially if you have enshrined a "guest
rights" policy promoting full accommodation??

You were warned --- many years ago --- by a man named Enoch
Powell. At the time they laughed him out of Parliament.

<http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Enoch+Powell&defid=1892103>

P.

[david]

Post by pietro
You were warned --- many years ago --- by a man named Enoch
Powell. At the time they laughed him out of Parliament.

Damn. I hate it when people do that!

True sir, very true.

D

[Mike Lindsay]

Post by Clive
Just don't get it myself. Muslims don't appear to like the Western World,
yet a large amount of them will doing anything to live in countries like UK,
USA - why? To rip us off, kill us??
Presumably because Muslim countries are so retrictive. When you consider
all the great things Muslims in Muslim states have contributed to the world,
well, it must be erm, well, er, well okay I cant think of one. Whereas the
wetern world, well...

Enormous advances in maths, medicine, architecture (think Alhambra) and
astronomy were made by Islamic scholars about 1000 years ago.

Most of the names of stars are Arabic, as is the word algebra. It was
they who invented this branch of maths, which underpins quite a lot of
science.

OK, I suppose that is rather a long time ago...

[Sla#s]

Post by Mike Lindsay

Post by Clive
Just don't get it myself. Muslims don't appear to like the Western World,
yet a large amount of them will doing anything to live in countries like UK,
USA - why? To rip us off, kill us??
Presumably because Muslim countries are so retrictive. When you consider
all the great things Muslims in Muslim states have contributed to the world,
well, it must be erm, well, er, well okay I cant think of one. Whereas the
wetern world, well...

Enormous advances in maths, medicine, architecture (think Alhambra) and
astronomy were made by Islamic scholars about 1000 years ago.
Most of the names of stars are Arabic, as is the word algebra. It was
they who invented this branch of maths, which underpins quite a lot of
science.

And then they found religion and scientific progress stopped dead.
It seems that is what befalls a society when it finds religion. I note
that the US academy of science is worried by the Christian
fundamentalists and their denial of science.

Slatts

[Andrew Crane]

Post by david
The problem I think we face is that Muslims believe in something very
strongly, and whilst a large contingent of secular westerners believe in
nothing, or at least, not in God, then the Muslims have the moral high
ground and will, almost by default, win. We'll become muslims because we
won't be able to argue against it. personally, as a Christian I will argue
against it. To the death if I need to. Worth thinking about.

You're a scary person. Remind me not to fly with you at the controls :-)

Regards
Andrew

[Greg]

Post by Clive
but if your
an honest Muslim why not just stay with the people you like, in a country
that you were born?

Well in the case of a friend of mine quite simply because his country was
handed over to the Jews...

Post by Clive
I know a lot of these people who are being accused are born in Britain- - so
why not sod off, if they don't like us?
Muslims and the UK/USA are never going to get on, so why not just separate,
live in our own countries and just leave each other alone?

Because we won't leave them alone? we keen on invading their countries and
telling them we know better how they should live their lives, telling them
the western way is the only true way and they should be grateful that we
have liberated them, sound familiar?.

Quite simply they are attacking us because we have attacked them, of course
in our eyes we are the liberators and they the terrorists but the view from
the other side is quite different, one man's freedom fighter is another's
terrorist.

Greg

[david]

Post by Greg
Because we won't leave them alone? we keen on invading their countries and
telling them we know better how they should live their lives, telling them
the western way is the only true way and they should be grateful that we
have liberated them, sound familiar?.

We? We?

Excuse me! It's not WE it's those bloody yanks again and the arse licking
Mr B. I see Packistan is now implemented again in providing both terrorist
and intelligence. We ought to get out of there.

D

[Peter]

Post by david
Excuse me! It's not WE it's those bloody yanks again and the arse licking
Mr B. I see Packistan is now implemented again in providing both terrorist
and intelligence. We ought to get out of there.

The problem, David, is that it isn't that simple.

The Middle East has OIL. If it didn't have oil, it would be no more
than some remote place on the map, inhabited by a few people riding
camels (or perhaps battered 4x4s nowadays) and visited by a few
tourists.

You can blame past colonial governements for the present mess. How far
do you go? Should the borders of each European country be modified to
their 1945 positions, their 1939 positions, their 1918 positions?

There isn't a simple solution.

[Greg]

Post by david
We? We?
Excuse me! It's not WE it's those bloody yanks again and the arse licking
Mr B. I see Packistan is now implemented again in providing both terrorist
and intelligence. We ought to get out of there.

Well Blair is your elected leader, though of course that's based on the
fiction that there is such a thing as a democracy in the world 8-).

But I was meaning the Western countries in general, we've invaded their
countries and tried to control their lives for a very long time and are
doing it as we speak, there are currently British forces in Iraq,
Pakistan etc and for what?, yes another poster has already said it,
oil.

We believe their natural resources are ours for the taking and have
never cared how we get them, but if parts of Europe had been invaded
for resources we might be the ones fighting back, of course we would be
freedom fighters not terrorists. Actually that's already happened, it
was called World War two!, and our victory involved carpet bombing
cities and finally nuking them just to show who's boss.

So when we get all the government propoganda and spin, and all the
carefully engineered scare tactics, I try to look at the other side,
thinking of my friend's family in the middle of two sides who are both
bombing civilians indiscriminately brings it into focus 8-(

Greg

[pietro]

Post by Greg

Post by david
We? We?
Excuse me! It's not WE it's those bloody yanks again and the arse licking
Mr B. I see Packistan is now implemented again in providing both terrorist
and intelligence. We ought to get out of there.

Well Blair is your elected leader, though of course that's based on the
fiction that there is such a thing as a democracy in the world 8-).

Do you think Maggie would have handled it any different?:-)

Post by Greg
But I was meaning the Western countries in general, we've invaded their
countries and tried to control their lives for a very long time and are
doing it as we speak, there are currently British forces in Iraq,
Pakistan etc and for what?, yes another poster has already said it,
oil.
We believe their natural resources are ours for the taking

It wouldn't be so bad if we were taking them, but we're not! - We
are paying for them.

P

[Peter]

Post by pietro
It wouldn't be so bad if we were taking them, but we're not! - We
are paying for them.

Indeed. I actually think the reason for the U.S. interventions in the
Middle East is to stabilise the place, partly so the oil keeps flowing
and partly to keep some control over what might happen in the future
in a region which would shut down the West if it got half a chance.

Obviously it doesn't seem like a stabilising move right now! But if
not, why the hell are they doing it? They aren't in there for the
ancient British-style (or USSR-style, French-style, Spanish-style,
etc) colonial or territorial reasons. There is nothing there for
anybody to have and nobody wants to be there.

Much bigger wars have been fought, for much longer, in central Africa
for example, and the West just left them to it. Take the Congo - more
dead there than in any other war since WW2. But there is no economic
interest to the West, and there is no threat to the West from the
region. Nobody wants to be there so nobody is bothered.

[Mike Lindsay]

In article <***@pipex.net>, Greg <***@SPAM
123voyager2.nildram.co.uk> writes

Post by Greg

Post by Clive
but if your
an honest Muslim why not just stay with the people you like, in a country
that you were born?

Well in the case of a friend of mine quite simply because his country was
handed over to the Jews...

Are you sure it was "handed over to the Jews"? From where I'm sitting it
looks as if the problem was down to Jordan, Syria and Egypt telling the
inhabitants of the region to, temporally remove themselves from to give
them a clear field to "drive the Jews into the sea". That was in 1948,
and was something the Arab nations didn't quite succeed in doing.

So the refugees were stuck in the temporary camps, where they have been
festering for more than 50 years.

[Greg]

Post by Mike Lindsay
So the refugees were stuck in the temporary camps, where they have been
festering for more than 50 years.

I don't think semantics cut much ice with the victims, my point was that but
the original 'foreigners go home' sentiment doesn't work when you have no
home left to go to 8-(.
Greg

[pietro]

Post by Mike Lindsay
Are you sure it was "handed over to the Jews"? From where I'm sitting it
looks as if the problem was down to Jordan, Syria and Egypt telling the
inhabitants of the region to, temporally remove themselves from to give
them a clear field to "drive the Jews into the sea".

Have you ever heard of the Balfour Declaration?

<http://www.mideastweb.org/mebalfour.htm>

P.

[Mike Lindsay]

In article <44e01c0f$***@news.bluewin.ch>, pietro <***@tiscali.net>
writes

Post by pietro

Post by Mike Lindsay
Are you sure it was "handed over to the Jews"? From where I'm sitting it
looks as if the problem was down to Jordan, Syria and Egypt telling the
inhabitants of the region to, temporally remove themselves from to give
them a clear field to "drive the Jews into the sea".

Have you ever heard of the Balfour Declaration?
<http://www.mideastweb.org/mebalfour.htm>
P.

You betcha! "His Maj's Govt looks with favour on a Jewish homeland being
set up, as long as it doesn't inconvenience anyone else, but we are
going to do FA to implement it."

At about the same time the area was being promised to Arab nationalists
in exchange for the help they gave Lawrence. What a good idea, promise
the same bit of land to two different groups! Bound to make for peace
and harmony, what?

[Andrew998]

Post by Clive
Just don't get it myself. Muslims don't appear to like the Western World,
yet a large amount of them will doing anything to live in countries like
UK, USA - why? To rip us off, kill us??

What garbage. This is exactly the problem we face now. People like you make
absurd generalisations about Muslims. Just because a small number of
activists around the world take extreme measures it is rediculous to
characterise an entire religeon in this way. The vast majority of Muslims
are peace loving people who live very happily alongside other religeons.

Post by Clive
Some that move to these countries to try and blow them up, etc, but if
your an honest Muslim why not just stay with the people you like, in a
country that you were born?

Very rarely does anyone move to a country to try and blow it up. Most of the
7/7 bombers were UK born and bred.

Post by Clive
I know a lot of these people who are being accused are born in Britain- -
so why not sod off, if they don't like us?

Because they have been radicalised by manipulative people.

Post by Clive
Muslims and the UK/USA are never going to get on, so why not just
separate, live in our own countries and just leave each other alone?

OK. Which country will we go to to live in peace while we leave the British
& US Muslims alone in their country?

Post by Clive
Would people from the UK (non Muslims) expect to be able to go to Pakistan
(for example) and build churches by the dozen...... I think you get my
point.

No I don't . I think you are a bigotted fool. Behaving as badly as the
people you criticise isn't a solution.

[david]

Post by Andrew998

Post by Clive
Just don't get it myself. Muslims don't appear to like the Western World,
yet a large amount of them will doing anything to live in countries like
UK, USA - why? To rip us off, kill us??

What garbage. This is exactly the problem we face now. People like you
make absurd generalisations about Muslims.

"people like you"? Isn't the exact sentiment you are deriding??

Post by Andrew998

Post by Clive
Would people from the UK (non Muslims) expect to be able to go to
Pakistan (for example) and build churches by the dozen...... I think you
get my point.

No I don't . I think you are a bigotted fool. Behaving as badly as the
people you criticise isn't a solution.

Andrew, then perhaps you OUGHT to expect to be able to. Being able to build
"churches by the dozen" is simply an expression of faith, it is religious
freedom and the desire to express religious freedom does not make one a
"bigotted fool". The denial by the state of such freedoms however does make
the state dictatorial and repressionist. I remember reading a newspaper
from UAE on a flight last year and there was a story about a christian who
had been caught praying...so they gave him 50 lashes.

I would feel very much happier if all mosques were closed down today and
destroyed.

Like it or not, whilst not all muslims are terrorists, to date all
terrisists are muslims. IIRC (and I might not coz I wasn't there) when we
were at war with the Germans ALL UK germans were interned.

D

[Brengsek!]

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 10:01:50 +0100, "david"

Post by david
Like it or not, whilst not all muslims are terrorists, to date all
terrisists are muslims.

Did you forget about the the Rote Armee Fraction? Brigate Rossi? IRA?
The Japanese Red Army? The Weather Underground Organization? Sendero
Luminoso?

[Andrew998]

Post by david

Post by Andrew998

Post by Clive
Just don't get it myself. Muslims don't appear to like the Western
World, yet a large amount of them will doing anything to live in
countries like UK, USA - why? To rip us off, kill us??

What garbage. This is exactly the problem we face now. People like you
make absurd generalisations about Muslims.

"people like you"? Isn't the exact sentiment you are deriding??

No. There is a huge difference between targetting a very specific
self-demonstrated attitude as opposed to targetting an entire religeon based
on the actions of a few.

Post by david

Post by Andrew998

Post by Clive
Would people from the UK (non Muslims) expect to be able to go to
Pakistan (for example) and build churches by the dozen...... I think you
get my point.

No I don't . I think you are a bigotted fool. Behaving as badly as the
people you criticise isn't a solution.

Andrew, then perhaps you OUGHT to expect to be able to. Being able to
build "churches by the dozen" is simply an expression of faith, it is
religious freedom and the desire to express religious freedom does not
make one a "bigotted fool". The denial by the state of such freedoms
however does make the state dictatorial and repressionist. I remember
reading a newspaper from UAE on a flight last year and there was a story
about a christian who had been caught praying...so they gave him 50
lashes.

The bigotted fool is a reference to the generalisations not the fact that
other countries might not allow people the freedom to worship. I agree that
it would be nice to have freedom to worship as you wish in any country.

Post by david
I would feel very much happier if all mosques were closed down today and
destroyed.

So you don't believe in religious freedom and want us to live in a
dictatorial and repressive state? I'm getting mixed messages here.

Post by david
Like it or not, whilst not all muslims are terrorists, to date all
terrisists are muslims. IIRC (and I might not coz I wasn't there) when we
were at war with the Germans ALL UK germans were interned.

That isn't an excuse to persecute all Muslims and this isn't a war.
Describing it as such has made the world a much more dangerous place. The
actions of the west over the last few years have created an environment that
makes it far easier to radicalise young Muslims and for every one ten years
ago there are probably ten now.

What the terrorists are doing isn't acceptable but what we are doing is
playing into the hands of extremists.

[Chris]

Post by Peter
The difference about the IRA was that MI5 and MI6 almost certainly
knew who most of the bad guys were, but couldn't nick them.

They could have nicked them but did not want to, they wanted to contain
them. If you nick them you have to spend years trying to find out who has
replaced them so nicking was never a sensible option. Containment did work
and in later years even if they set off bombs few people got hurt.

[Peter]

Post by Chris

Post by Peter
The difference about the IRA was that MI5 and MI6 almost certainly
knew who most of the bad guys were, but couldn't nick them.

They could have nicked them but did not want to, they wanted to contain
them. If you nick them you have to spend years trying to find out who has
replaced them so nicking was never a sensible option. Containment did work
and in later years even if they set off bombs few people got hurt.

They could not have nicked them anyway, because UK laws did not make
that possible. One needs evidence.... well you do unless it is a
motoring offence :)

[Simon Hobson]

Post by Peter

Post by david
Why do we put up with the Americans? We ought to shoot them all. For
decades we put up with the US funded IRA and things never got this bad. The
US has been chasing the muslims for less than a decade and the world
descends into shit. Interesting poll in todays paper...apparently when
asked what year 9/11 took place 30% of americans had no idea.

The difference about the IRA was that MI5 and MI6 almost certainly
knew who most of the bad guys were, but couldn't nick them. They did
try to shoot them at one stage but got into trouble for that :)
With Muslims one is dealing with a huge international scene, widely
dispersed, much better funded than the IRA ever got from racketeering,
extortion and the USA, and as you say they are not happy about the
various military actions going on in various places. The IRA would
have probably not tried to set of an atom bomb even if they had one,
whereas to Al Queda that sort of capability would be an absolute
godsend - they simply go for max damage and don't give a toss.
Finally, suicide bombing enhances the mission capability massively
because all previous security measures assumed, correctly, that normal
terrorists want to survive. A far bigger threat.

Might I suggest that's it's counterproductive to equate Muslim with Terrorist
? It's about as valid as saying that ALL Irish are/were terrorists or ALL
Germans were Nazis.

Much badness is/has been done in the name of religion. Some of it genuinely
was done 'by the religion' (thinking of some of the things the churches got
up to in the past), but my take is that most of what we are talking about in
this thread is nothing to do with religion and the majority of true Muslims
are probably embarassed to be associated with such actions. I know that as an
Englishman and an Agnostic Christian I find it deeply embarassing to know how
this country came to be where it is today - The Crusades, the Slave Trade,
the pillaging of other countries resources in the name of "The British
Empire", ...

'The problem' isn't going to go away until the fundamental issues are dealt
with, but until then it's far too easy for the terrorist organisations to
distort <insert religion du jour> and persuade people to become terrorists
"in the name of religion" - heck, I'm pretty sure that given the right spin
and out of context quoting you could make the Bible sounds like a call to
arms.

Language in the tone of "lock up all <category>" or "send all the murdering
b***ards home" is not exactly going to make people feel welcome and part of
the community. Take away that feeling of 'being part of society' and you are
part way to turning someone against that society.

[Eeyore]

Post by david
It gets worse.
This just through from company, part of a longer message as you'll
appreciate, but these are the bits that matter...
a.. Flight crew bags may be taken onboard but they may only contain
essential items - passport, licence, headset, plotters and other essential
documentation.
a.. Only the captain's company mobile phone may be taken onboard
a.. No other crewmembers' phones are allowed onboard
a.. No car keys with an electronic fob are allowed on board - they should be
left at the crew room
a.. No PDAs or laptops are allowed on board
a.. No cameras are allowed on board
Why do we put up with the Americans? We ought to shoot them all. For
decades we put up with the US funded IRA and things never got this bad. The
US has been chasing the muslims for less than a decade and the world
descends into shit. Interesting poll in todays paper...apparently when
asked what year 9/11 took place 30% of americans had no idea.
Give it a couple of years and there'll be precious few of them who remember
anything about 9/11 other than it's a nice holiday or something.
Well that's me in Abu Grahib for ten years!!!

I hope you'll forgive me if I forward this to another group for the benefit of
the Americans in there who currently seem to think I'm some kind of Commie for
being critical about them ?

Do you fly for Ryanair ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

Post by david
It gets worse.
This just through from company, part of a longer message as you'll
appreciate, but these are the bits that matter...
a.. Flight crew bags may be taken onboard but they may only contain
essential items - passport, licence, headset, plotters and other essential
documentation.
a.. Only the captain's company mobile phone may be taken onboard
a.. No other crewmembers' phones are allowed onboard
a.. No car keys with an electronic fob are allowed on board - they should be
left at the crew room
a.. No PDAs or laptops are allowed on board
a.. No cameras are allowed on board
Why do we put up with the Americans? We ought to shoot them all. For
decades we put up with the US funded IRA and things never got this bad. The
US has been chasing the muslims for less than a decade and the world
descends into shit. Interesting poll in todays paper...apparently when
asked what year 9/11 took place 30% of americans had no idea.
Give it a couple of years and there'll be precious few of them who remember
anything about 9/11 other than it's a nice holiday or something.
Well that's me in Abu Grahib for ten years!!!

Copied to sci.electronics.design

[Mr. J D]

Post by Eeyore

Post by david
It gets worse.
This just through from company, part of a longer message as you'll
appreciate, but these are the bits that matter...
a.. Flight crew bags may be taken onboard but they may only contain
essential items - passport, licence, headset, plotters and other essential
documentation.
a.. Only the captain's company mobile phone may be taken onboard
a.. No other crewmembers' phones are allowed onboard
a.. No car keys with an electronic fob are allowed on board - they should be
left at the crew room
a.. No PDAs or laptops are allowed on board
a.. No cameras are allowed on board
Why do we put up with the Americans? We ought to shoot them all. For
decades we put up with the US funded IRA and things never got this bad. The
US has been chasing the muslims for less than a decade and the world
descends into shit. Interesting poll in todays paper...apparently when
asked what year 9/11 took place 30% of americans had no idea.
Give it a couple of years and there'll be precious few of them who remember
anything about 9/11 other than it's a nice holiday or something.
Well that's me in Abu Grahib for ten years!!!

Copied to sci.electronics.design

This is an electronics usenet...

[David Cartwright]

Post by David Wright
Just an idea about Ryanair - have they not just abolished check-in luggage
in favour of an increased hand-luggage allowance?

Although the rules that have been introduced in such a rush in the last 24
hours are probably a bit over-the-top, I for one hope that they'll keep the
majority of aspects of the ban on hand luggage.

First, getting rid of hand luggage will greatly speed the boarding of
aircraft. It takes bloody ages to get on because as you make your way down
the aisle, you have to wait several times for people while they muck about
trying to get their stuff into the overhead bins. Now, admittedly this is
partly due to the airlines and/or their check-in agents completely failing
to impose the rules on hand luggage sizes and quantities, but even if
everyone does stay within the "one modest-sized bag" restriction, it can be
a bit of a log-jam. I reckon that you could at least halve the boarding time
if you only permit people to take a few bits that will fit into the seat
pocket, leaving only coats/jumpers to go overhead.

Second, and going back partly to the above point, to impose draconian
restrictions on cabin baggage will mean that, at last, we have aircraft
flying around without their overhead bins massively overloaded. The overhead
bins are generally labelled with their maximum weight capacity, yet time and
again I've seen them crammed full with heavy stuff that more than likely
goes over the load limit - thus posing a risk in the event of an
accidentally heavy landing, a crash into flat terrain, etc.

Third, it'll reduce the number of people who have to clamber over me to get
at their luggage yet again. I'm reasonably tall, so I tend to ask for aisle
seats so I can stretch out a bit from time to time. In a wide-body aircraft
this generally means people asking to get past to go to the toilet (fair
enough) and, often, to get yet another item from their bag which they use
for five minutes and then put in the seat pocket (or, worse, back in their
bloody bag!).

I'd have no problems, then, with people being permitted just a book or two,
their travel papers, newspaper, pen, Gameboy or similar, walkman, laptop PC
(maybe), prescription medicine, baby-related stuff and not a lot else.

David C

[Tim Ward]

Post by David Cartwright
First, getting rid of hand luggage will greatly speed the boarding of
aircraft.

Ah, right.

Would you rather:

(1) Turn up at the destination airport five minutes earlier in order to
spend extra time boarding because of all the faffing around with carry-on
bags?

Or:

(2) Leave the destination airport an hour later because you had to wait for
your checked bag to be unloaded?

Bit of a no-brainer, for one or two night shorthaul business trips, no?

[David Cartwright]

Post by Tim Ward
(1) Turn up at the destination airport five minutes earlier in order to
spend extra time boarding because of all the faffing around with carry-on
bags?
(2) Leave the destination airport an hour later because you had to wait for
your checked bag to be unloaded?

Actually, I'm one of the people this would probably affect negatively.
Historically I'm one of those who has managed to do a five-day trip to the
US with just carry-on luggage!

You're right that the main type of person affected by this would
theoretically be the business person doing a quick same-day-there-and-back
between A and B. Hang aabout, though: what exactly does that person have to
take with him/her? In my case it's probably a wallet, laptop PC (I said in
my last posting I'd probably like to relax the rules so you can take them),
phone, money, notebook, house/car keys, and not a lot else. So no problem.

If you're staying overnight, then you're into the realms of packing clothes,
toiletries, etc - and if you've got these plus the aforementioned business
stuff, can you really fit it all in a bag that's _officially_ within the
size limit and weight limit of hand luggage?

Oh, and try doing a quick jaunt from (say) Norwich to Manchester with
someone like Eastern. If you rock up at the door of the aircraft with a
briefcase, they'll take it from you and put it in the hold anyway, because
the aircraft is just too small for it to fit anywhere in the cabin!

D.

[pietro]

Post by Tim Ward
(2) Leave the destination airport an hour later because you had to wait for
your checked bag to be unloaded?

London's airports are pretty slow when it comes to baggage
reclaim, but in 40 years travelling into LHR, City, Gatwick and
dear ol' Stanstead, never have I had to wait one hour for my baggage.

Post by Tim Ward
Bit of a no-brainer, for one or two night

That's relative

P

[Eeyore]

Post by pietro

Post by Tim Ward
(2) Leave the destination airport an hour later because you had to wait for
your checked bag to be unloaded?

London's airports are pretty slow when it comes to baggage
reclaim, but in 40 years travelling into LHR, City, Gatwick and
dear ol' Stanstead, never have I had to wait one hour for my baggage.

I've had to wait up to 3 days for mine ! Not much good for a weekend trip is it ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

Post by Tim Ward

Post by David Cartwright
First, getting rid of hand luggage will greatly speed the boarding of
aircraft.

Ah, right.
(1) Turn up at the destination airport five minutes earlier in order to
spend extra time boarding because of all the faffing around with carry-on
bags?
(2) Leave the destination airport an hour later because you had to wait for
your checked bag to be unloaded?
Bit of a no-brainer, for one or two night shorthaul business trips, no?

Carry-on only is the only sensible way for short flights.

Graham

[Chris]

Post by Eeyore

Post by Tim Ward

Post by David Cartwright
First, getting rid of hand luggage will greatly speed the boarding of
aircraft.

Ah, right.
(1) Turn up at the destination airport five minutes earlier in order to
spend extra time boarding because of all the faffing around with carry-on
bags?
(2) Leave the destination airport an hour later because you had to wait for
your checked bag to be unloaded?
Bit of a no-brainer, for one or two night shorthaul business trips, no?

Carry-on only is the only sensible way for short flights.

Personally, my carry-on has always been what I need for the journey

[Eeyore]

Post by David Cartwright

Post by David Wright
Just an idea about Ryanair - have they not just abolished check-in luggage
in favour of an increased hand-luggage allowance?

Although the rules that have been introduced in such a rush in the last 24
hours are probably a bit over-the-top, I for one hope that they'll keep the
majority of aspects of the ban on hand luggage.

I do hope not or I'll stop flying out of the UK.

Post by David Cartwright
First, getting rid of hand luggage will greatly speed the boarding of
aircraft. It takes bloody ages to get on because as you make your way down
the aisle, you have to wait several times for people while they muck about
trying to get their stuff into the overhead bins.

Those *CUSTOMERS* are so bloody inconvenient aren't they ? I expect you'd prefer
an empty aircraft ?

Post by David Cartwright
I'd have no problems, then, with people being permitted just a book or two,
their travel papers, newspaper, pen, Gameboy or similar, walkman, laptop PC
(maybe), prescription medicine, baby-related stuff and not a lot else.

On a long haul flight I take up to 3 x 2 litre bottles of water to compensate
for the lack of anything decent to drink on-board with a view to minimising my
risk of DVT for one.

Your idea of restricting carry-on stuff stinks of nebulous authoritarianism and
would kill business class overnight btw.

Graham

[Peter]

This is getting really good

http://www.meteox.com/

[Julian Scarfe]

Post by Peter
This is getting really good
http://www.meteox.com/

Oooh. Yeeees. :-)

Julian

[Steve Firth]

Post by David Wright
Just an idea about Ryanair - have they not just abolished check-in luggage
in favour of an increased hand-luggage allowance?
Bit tricky now, that most Hand Luggage is seemingly banned.

This is intriguing me because Ryanair flights from Pescara were subject to
these restrictions early this year. Only Ryanair flights to Stansted were
affected. I work in security for an Italian law firm and used my
connections to try and find out WTF was going on (no pre-announcements to
passengers, simply turn up and find a full blown stupid set of restrictions
in place). The airport security manager would only say that this
unprecedented level of security was only to apply to London flights and
that no electronic items, liquids cameras etc could be taken on the
flights.

I'm now wondering if he jumped the gun and that a contingency plan at this
level existed that far back (March/April).