• Media Enquiries

    07505 448925(24hr)

Alex Deane argues against full-body scanners on BBC Breakfast

Posted on February 5, 2010 by Big Brother Watch Posted in Body Scanners, Media coverage
  • http://www.fadercreep.com Fader Creep

    “Better than being blown up on a plane int it”
    Stfu. Gtfo.

  • http://www.fadercreep.com Fader Creep

    My god. Having watched the whole thing, anybody who really thinks “don’t like it, don’t fly” needs to wake up.
    “oh the majority writing in are for it”
    Well the masses are clearly fools.
    I can’t believe we are accepting this so easily, what happened to British resistance!!?!

  • LeChiffre

    It’s just a further disgusting humiliation of the travelling public.

  • Luawaving

    This seems a massive overreaction by government. The basic thing is that a determined suicide bomber will find a way anyway – the clue is in the label. Although I should be used to this by now I can’t quite believe that they can bring in something so invasive without any parliamentary or public debate. The sheep watching BBC breakfast TV have been softened up by Big Brother (the TV show) and Facebook to not even comprehend what ‘privacy’ means. It’s a losing battle if people don’t even see it as a problem; I really don’t know how you get around that.

  • ERM

    I’m going to be flying in April. Anyone know any way of having ‘Gordon Brown is a c**t’ written on a T-shirt or knickers so it shows up on the body scan?

  • zorro

    This is all about conditioning the public to further checks and searches and breaking down individual resistance – social conditioning.
    If there was a ‘real’ terrorist threat other measures including proper intelligent profiling would be used.
    This is ridiculous – random searches based on what exactly? No use whatsoever.
    Any committed and ‘real’ terrorist organisation would attack queues landside or use missiles to blow jets out of the air.
    What do El Al jets have for protection that other jets do not have…..?

  • http://faustiesblog.blogspot.com FaustiesBlog

    Typical BBC – the majority say it’s OK, so you must be abormal for thinking otherwise.
    Firstly, what proof do we have that this is a so-called consensus? Have they made this up as they did with ‘climate change’ data?
    Secondly, might this not be an attempt to stop us from flying, bringing the airlines to their knees so that they can be nationalised ‘in the national interest’?
    Watch BA becoming the next bailout ‘victim’, with strict ‘controls’.

  • Purlieu

    Perhaps they should also get some of those ADE-651 detectors to make the public feel safer, after all they work in Iraq.
    Oh wait ….

  • Spartan

    The majority of our fellow citizens are like bloody sheep. lf the government told them that wearing ‘tinhats with windmills on’ would protect them, they’d wear them.
    Alex is right about the IRA, not only about their ability to actually carry out attacks but our resolve to carry on with our lives. The IRA had handheld surface to air missiles but refrained from using them. lf they had used them, aircraft would have been falling at their will …. and if they were using suicide bombers it would have been complete devastation.
    Mr Shoe and Mr Underpants bomber were incompetent amateur nutters but thats the point isn’t it? Nowadays you don’t have to be competent to be a ‘terrorist’ to create terror. All you have to do is say you’re going to carry out a terrorist attack and no matter how viable or realistic it is, the government and mainstream media will do the rest for you!
    lt’s as though virtually everyone has lost the ability for rational thought. Airport Security … scanners, sniffer dogs, sharp implements blah blah blah. There has been two increases in security that are commonsense and work. One is cockpit cabin secure doors and the other is not government implemented but is the best one of all …. passengers will now react physically to any threat from other passengers.
    ln the meantime we’ll continue with the airport security circus but convieniently forget check-in, football stadiums, theatres, trains etc etc etc that are all public and impossible to be secure.
    Will the ‘sheep’ wake-up? … l doubt it.
    l fear no terrorist organisation …. but l do fear my own government!

  • http://www.torytottyonline.com Tory Totty Online

    Bravo Alex – point well made. Unfortunately, the way way live under the law has been undermined for the past 13 years, and too many people are now prepared to accept this.

  • Spartan

    There is a very large elephant in the room that is apparently totally invisible.
    We can travel with as many sharp instruments, batteries, liquids … infact virtually anything we so wish. We do this millions of times a day … everyday. We run a very small risk of being stopped and searched. The mode of travel l’m talking about is ofcourse the London Underground … the very place bombs went off on 7/7.
    Drop the farce at the airports and let’s get on with our lives!

  • fed_up

    I like the way everybody says these images aren’t indecent. So, if I’m made to go through one of these machines, and I comply, but remove my trousers and underwear when in the booth, as a protest, I take it I won’t be charged with indecent exposure.

  • Steve S

    Just for your info – thin film metal, like windscreen shades, with a thin aluminized coating are opaque to both the T-Wave and backscatter x-ray scanners. Cut one of these up and make briefs and bras (especially for your kids). This would not be illegal or dangerous.
    They won’t trip the metal detectors (too little mass), but will cause alarm in the scanner, as they can’t see your genitals. You will probably be required to show them your aluminized underwear, but they won’t get hi-res pix of your bits.
    If enough people do this, somebody might wise up.
    Protect your rights (and genitals!).
    This radiation cannot be good for your bits and the bits of your kids. What’s gonna happen if they find a percentage of sterility in 5-10 years?