Jeremy Clarkson On Implementing Body Scanners At Airports
allanbonnetracy
normal lives as normally as possible, without intrusion, because if we
allow our lives to be inconvenienced by a small number of terrorists
then they have won.
Well, putting aside the no small point of the wickedness of America’s
wars on Islam and the entirely understandable reaction to them from
the Islamic world, let’s just say Jeremy’s comments are OK so far.
However, the odious Clarkson then goes much further claiming there’s
little point delaying parents with kids and scanning toddlers or
grannies or holidaymakers, and the like, that are so obviously not
going to blow up an aircraft (really?) but only to keep a close eye on
those most likely (you know who they are).
Well Jeremy, why don’t you say who those most likely are, you’re
certainly not immune to the odd bit of racist bigotry?
Why not just say we should single out innocent Muslims for special
treatment maybe because it does start to sound rather odious in a
diverse multi-cultural society?
Surely, four hours delay and millions of pounds of security resources
are a small price to play to ensure the maintenance of our diverse,
tolerant and inclusive (to all religions and races) country.
To help Muslims feel included and to help us to feel included equally
as part of the problem rather than unreasonably apart from it. Surely,
the problem of one culture is a problem for us all in an inclusive
society, a shared responsibility.
However, Clarkson’s comments do bring to mind, in our increasingly
diverse and commendably more PC aware society, how exactly will a
Labour government implement the new measures.
Albeit, a government superbly well equipped with the appropriate and
measured instruments of state to consider these things when
implementing the additional security measure of body scanners designed
to display ones’ boobies, todger and bollocks, as appropriate and in
graphic detail.
Well obviously, there’s the special training required for the
operatives on how to contain any juvenile sexist behaviour and also to
accommodate the special needs of convicted paedophiles when exposed to
consensual harassment by naked flirty children.
But, most difficult of all is how in such a diverse and tolerant
society we can accommodate religious and racial differences in a way
that avoids any offensive measures that could be deemed as possible
hate crimes.
In short, I believe Muslims will find it deeply offensive and entirely
contrary to the tenants of their religion to reveal their nakedness in
anyway.
Now clearly, we have precedent, the NHS are to be commended in the way
that they have provided female doctors for burka wearing Muslims, for
whom it would be deeply distressing to have their private parts (i.e.
noses, mouths, skin generally) revealed to members of the opposite
sex, so it can be done.
Similarly, men are also expected to be suitably modest where the
nakedness of one’s private areas are concerned i.e. wedding tackle,
Lucozade bottles and shoe heels.
I trust we can rely on our government, with its already a tremendous
record on diversity and multi-cultural concerns, to ensure that all
Muslims should be protected from deeply unpleasant practices forbidden
by, and commanding our respect from, their religion.
Perhaps separate queues for Muslims, without scanners, leaving
security personal to concentrate on what, after all, is a much greater
and hugely dominant proportion of the population.
Respect in all things really is a mark of a civilised but diverse
society that the Clarksons of this world seem to be all too immune
from.
Fred Finisterre
too hard to blow up planes, they'll just blow up trains/theatres/shopping
centres etc. instead.
Fred.
Usenet Nutter
You slam one door another one gets opened up.
Alan
"Fred Finisterre" <finis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:I5adnchd_Lv1v9zW...@giganews.com...
are so heavily protected. A high speed train between London and Edinburgh or
Glasgow at say, 7.00pm on a Friday would cause as many deaths, probably more
unless you can time the aircraft to be over a populated ground area.
Alan
Martin Jay
<finis...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, the 'terrorists' do seem to be fixated on planes. I suppose they
see blowing up a plane as having a more shock and wow factor.
But the failure to success ratio must be extremely high. They'd get
far more bang for their bucks if they picked on softer targets.
After a few big explosions we'd get the message and they could conduct
their terrorism via the telephone, simply calling in their attacks
using a code word. :)
--
Martin Jay
Back the Ban: <http://www.backtheban.com/>
League Against Cruel Sports: <http://www.league.org.uk/>
middl...@googlemail.com
Exactly. Which is probably why the bomber was trying to blow the
plane up shortly before landing. Blowing up a plane (death of fellow
pax, death and destruction on the ground below and a big fireball in
the sky for all to see) is a far bigger "statement" and will inspire a
lot more fear in the minds of your enemies than trains or shopping
centres.
Bert Hyman
news:4b79504e-e00c-472b...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com
allanbonnetracy <allanbo...@ireland.com> wrote:
> Well, putting aside the no small point of the wickedness of America�s
> wars on Islam
Hey! That's funny!
> and the entirely understandable reaction to them from
> the Islamic world,
Their "reaction" was so swift that it preceded any incident.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Mentalguy2k8
"allanbonnetracy" <allanbo...@ireland.com> wrote in message
news:4b79504e-e00c-472b...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>Why not just say we should single out innocent Muslims for special
>treatment maybe because it does start to sound rather odious in a
>diverse multi-cultural society?
Maybe you could work at Heathrow's departure lounges and point out all the
innocent Muslims, so they won't be targetted. Problem with this situation is
that it's probably slightly more productive to target non-white people
seeing as they are exclusively the ones who have been trying to detonate
explosives on transport.
AC
"Alan" <m...@me.com> wrote in message
news:N4SdnbideOEctdzW...@brightview.co.uk...
Terrorists like planes because the airlines are often national symbols, they
are international in nature(usually) so affect two or more countries in one
hit, and an international flights blowing up makes more international news
than anything domestic. Basically they are harder to blow up, but the pay
off far out weights the risk.
Even an attempted bombing has value. Look at this one, the guy got caught
and its still huge news. A bomb found in a UK shopping center wont bother
the Americans much. A bomb found in a BA flight to New York will make them
freak. As we see.
AC
Morning Star
"Martin Jay" <mar...@spam-free.org.uk> wrote in message
news:690.1262562...@spam-free.org.uk...
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 23:04:07 -0000, "Fred Finisterre"
> <finis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>What's the point in wasting time and money on these scanners? If we make
>>it
>>too hard to blow up planes, they'll just blow up trains/theatres/shopping
>>centres etc. instead.
>
> Yes, the 'terrorists' do seem to be fixated on planes. I suppose they
> see blowing up a plane as having a more shock and wow factor.
>
> But the failure to success ratio must be extremely high. They'd get
> far more bang for their bucks if they picked on softer targets.
>
> After a few big explosions we'd get the message and they could conduct
> their terrorism via the telephone, simply calling in their attacks
> using a code word. :)
The British and American foreign legions, known collectively as "Al Qaeda",
have been assembled to facilitate with the implementation of fascist
security laws.
Mentalguy2k8
"AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:4wa0n.31805$hP3....@newsfe30.ams2...
I agree, and I would add that if done often enough, will dissuade people
from flying.
Richard
wrote:
If terrorists were able to blow up the houses of parliament, they
would gain massive public support, notwithstanding shock horror
headlines in the corp media......................
Mike Hall
If the government blew up their own buildings first, then the
terrorists would look very stupid and behind the times.
Mike Hall
Uncle Spam
> "AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
>
> news:4wa0n.31805$hP3....@newsfe30.ams2...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Alan" <m...@me.com> wrote in message
> >news:N4SdnbideOEctdzW...@brightview.co.uk...
>
> >>news:I5adnchd_Lv1v9zW...@giganews.com...
> >>> What's the point in wasting time and money on these scanners? If we make
> >>> it too hard to blow up planes, they'll just blow up
> >>> trains/theatres/shopping centres etc. instead.
>
> >>> Fred.
> >> Yes, I agree. I've never understood the logic of blowing up aircraft as
> >> they are so heavily protected. A high speed train between London and
> >> Edinburgh or Glasgow at say, 7.00pm on a Friday would cause as many
> >> deaths, probably more unless you can time the aircraft to be over a
> >> populated ground area.
>
> >> Alan
>
> > Terrorists like planes because the airlines are often national symbols,
> > they are international in nature(usually) so affect two or more countries
> > in one hit, and an international flights blowing up makes more
> > international news than anything domestic. Basically they are harder to
> > blow up, but the pay off far out weights the risk.
>
> > Even an attempted bombing has value. Look at this one, the guy got caught
> > and its still huge news. A bomb found in a UK shopping center wont bother
> > the Americans much. A bomb found in a BA flight to New York will make them
> > freak. As we see.
>
> I agree, and I would add that if done often enough, will dissuade people
> from flying.
...which would be good for the environment....
MM
<allanbo...@ireland.com> wrote:
>Basically, Clarkson believes we should be allowed to get on with our
>normal lives as normally as possible, without intrusion, because if we
>allow our lives to be inconvenienced by a small number of terrorists
>then they have won.
>
>Well, putting aside the no small point of the wickedness of AmericaīŋŊs
>wars on Islam and the entirely understandable reaction to them from
>the Islamic world, letīŋŊs just say JeremyīŋŊs comments are OK so far.
>
>However, the odious Clarkson then goes much further claiming thereīŋŊs
>little point delaying parents with kids and scanning toddlers or
>grannies or holidaymakers, and the like, that are so obviously not
>going to blow up an aircraft (really?) but only to keep a close eye on
>those most likely (you know who they are).
What's odious about targeting the most likely contenders? Makes sense
to me.
>Well Jeremy, why donīŋŊt you say who those most likely are, youīŋŊre
>certainly not immune to the odd bit of racist bigotry?
Who cares about bigotry if a terrorist attack can be avoided?
>Why not just say we should single out innocent Muslims for special
>treatment maybe because it does start to sound rather odious in a
>diverse multi-cultural society?
How do you know they're innocent? How do you know ANYone is innocent?
But can you list all the recent terrorist attacks that were carried
out by white, Anglo-Saxon grannies or toddlers?
>Surely, four hours delay and millions of pounds of security resources
>are a small price to play to ensure the maintenance of our diverse,
>tolerant and inclusive (to all religions and races) country.
>
>To help Muslims feel included and to help us to feel included equally
>as part of the problem rather than unreasonably apart from it. Surely,
>the problem of one culture is a problem for us all in an inclusive
>society, a shared responsibility.
Why "unreasonably"? All the evidence points to utter reasonableness of
the assumption.
>However, ClarksonīŋŊs comments do bring to mind, in our increasingly
>diverse and commendably more PC aware society, how exactly will a
>Labour government implement the new measures.
>
>Albeit, a government superbly well equipped with the appropriate and
>measured instruments of state to consider these things when
>implementing the additional security measure of body scanners designed
>to display onesīŋŊ boobies, todger and bollocks, as appropriate and in
>graphic detail.
>
>Well obviously, thereīŋŊs the special training required for the
>operatives on how to contain any juvenile sexist behaviour and also to
>accommodate the special needs of convicted paedophiles when exposed to
>consensual harassment by naked flirty children.
I'm quite certain the operatives will be screened, and, anyway, aren't
you arguing against yourself? One minute you want all-inclusive
scanning, the next you're complaining about operatives getting their
rocks off with naked flrty children.
>But, most difficult of all is how in such a diverse and tolerant
>society we can accommodate religious and racial differences in a way
>that avoids any offensive measures that could be deemed as possible
>hate crimes.
We don't have a tolerant society and never will. We have a thin veneer
of respectability and that's about as much as you can expect when you
bundle millions of human beings together.
>In short, I believe Muslims will find it deeply offensive and entirely
>contrary to the tenants of their religion to reveal their nakedness in
>anyway.
Tough. If *I* have to do it, then so must they. Off with the burka!
Off with the turban! Safeguarding must mean there is NO excuse.
>Now clearly, we have precedent, the NHS are to be commended in the way
>that they have provided female doctors for burka wearing Muslims, for
>whom it would be deeply distressing to have their private parts (i.e.
>noses, mouths, skin generally) revealed to members of the opposite
>sex, so it can be done.
Politically correct claptrap. I take the Straw line: Somone in a
burka, you can't converse with them properly because you don't get the
body language.
>Similarly, men are also expected to be suitably modest where the
>nakedness of oneīŋŊs private areas are concerned i.e. wedding tackle,
>Lucozade bottles and shoe heels.
>
>I trust we can rely on our government, with its already a tremendous
>record on diversity and multi-cultural concerns, to ensure that all
>Muslims should be protected from deeply unpleasant practices forbidden
>by, and commanding our respect from, their religion.
Huh, this is the religion by which some swear death and destruction
upon infidels?
>Perhaps separate queues for Muslims, without scanners, leaving
>security personal to concentrate on what, after all, is a much greater
>and hugely dominant proportion of the population.
Separate planes for anyone who won't use a scanner. Dead simple.
>Respect in all things really is a mark of a civilised but diverse
>society that the Clarksons of this world seem to be all too immune
>from.
I think Clarkson is a complete wanker, but I'd far rather live in HIS
world than in yours.
MM
MM
<finis...@gmail.com> wrote:
That won't have the same shock and awe effect, though.
MM
Lou Ravi
> On Jan 4, 1:31 am, "Mentalguy2k8" <Mentalguy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
>> news:4wa0n.31805$hP3....@newsfe30.ams2...
>>> "Alan" <m...@me.com> wrote in message
>>> news:N4SdnbideOEctdzW...@brightview.co.uk...
>>> Terrorists like planes because the airlines are often national
>>> symbols, they are international in nature(usually) so affect two or
>>> more countries in one hit, and an international flights blowing up
>>> makes more international news than anything domestic. Basically
>>> they are harder to blow up, but the pay off far out weights the
>>> risk.
>>> Even an attempted bombing has value. Look at this one, the guy got
>>> caught and its still huge news. A bomb found in a UK shopping
>>> center wont bother the Americans much. A bomb found in a BA flight
>>> to New York will make them freak. As we see.
>> I agree, and I would add that if done often enough, will dissuade
>> people from flying.
> ...which would be good for the environment....
Oh, so that's why the colour of Islam is green then.
aquachimp
> Innews:4b79504e-e00c-472b...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com
>
> allanbonnetracy <allanbonnetr...@ireland.com> wrote:
> > Well, putting aside the no small point of the wickedness of America’s
> > wars on Islam
>
> Hey! That's funny!
>
> > and the entirely understandable reaction to them from
> > the Islamic world,
>
> Their "reaction" was so swift that it preceded any incident.
>
>
Irony meter entirely on the blink? Or was did it just happen to fail
over those points?
Cynic
<Mental...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Maybe you could work at Heathrow's departure lounges and point out all the
>innocent Muslims, so they won't be targetted. Problem with this situation is
>that it's probably slightly more productive to target non-white people
>seeing as they are exclusively the ones who have been trying to detonate
>explosives on transport.
What you say is simply not true. White caucasians have also been
guilty of trying to blow up airliners.
--
Cynic
StivH
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 23:04:07 -0000, "Fred Finisterre"
>
> >What's the point in wasting time and money on these scanners? If we make it
> >too hard to blow up planes, they'll just blow up trains/theatres/shopping
> >centres etc. instead.
>
> That won't have the same shock and awe effect, though.
>
> MM
I dunno about that - imagine: this week a red double decker at
Picadilly Circus, next week a major shopping centre. Then, a train. A
cinema. A pub. The departures terminal at the airport and the
attendant queue for the security desks. *Your* local high street. A
kids' play area in a big housing estate.
If I was trying to instill fear in a population, I'd go for seemingly
random, totally indiscriminate bombing to make you feel like you're
not safe anywhere. Of course, it'd kill off pretty much any public
sympathy, but I reckon folk would be scared alright.
I remember being stuck in a security queue at Gatwick for 2.5 hours -
the entire terminal building was shoulder-to-shoulder, and the queue
ran 2 lengths of the building on the pavement outside before
overspilling onto the road. It was first thing in the morning and only
1 security desk was open, apparently because the other desks were not
yet equipped with the then-recently deployed digital imaging boxes. I
thought then how ironic it would be if a bomb went off in the middle
of *that* crowd!
Cheers
Steve
Bert Hyman
aquachimp <aqua...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
Are you suggesting that the post was to be taken as an ironic comment,
as some kind of joke?
Jokes of that sort don't usually work on USENET because there's nothing
that's so outre or stupid that someone won't include it in his posts
and be completely serious.
I suppose if you knew the poster, you might have known his intent.
Fred X
> If terrorists were able to blow up the houses of parliament, they
> would gain massive public support, notwithstanding shock horror
> headlines in the corp media......................
Yet we burn effigies of the last person to try that. Go figure...
Fred X
Francis Burton
Bert Hyman <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> Irony meter entirely on the blink? Or was did it just happen to fail
>> over those points?
>
>Are you suggesting that the post was to be taken as an ironic comment,
>as some kind of joke?
But Stephen Fry said that "Americans are no more irony illiterate
than Britons or anyone else". What's going on??
Francis
Shaun
<allanbo...@ireland.com> wrote:
>Basically, Clarkson believes we should be allowed to get on with our
>normal lives as normally as possible, without intrusion, because if we
>allow our lives to be inconvenienced by a small number of terrorists
>then they have won.
>
>Well, putting aside the no small point of the wickedness of America=92s
>wars on Islam and the entirely understandable reaction to them from
>the Islamic world, let=92s just say Jeremy=92s comments are OK so far.
>
>However, the odious Clarkson then goes much further claiming there=92s
>little point delaying parents with kids and scanning toddlers or
>grannies or holidaymakers, and the like, that are so obviously not
>going to blow up an aircraft (really?) but only to keep a close eye on
>those most likely (you know who they are).
>
>Well Jeremy, why don=92t you say who those most likely are, you=92re
>certainly not immune to the odd bit of racist bigotry?
>
Muslims aren't a race, they're followers of an irrational. medieval,
belief system
>Why not just say we should single out innocent Muslims for special
>treatment maybe because it does start to sound rather odious in a
>diverse multi-cultural society?
>
If you try to stop Islamic terrorism by focusing all your resources on
Muslims, then Chinese members of the IRA and Eskimo followers of the
Tamil Tigers will escape justice.
Calum
> Well Jeremy, why don�t you say who those most likely are, you�re
> certainly not immune to the odd bit of racist bigotry?
He doesn't need to; the new US security procedures do that for him, by
forcing additional screening for travellers from 14 "terror-linked
countries".
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Basil Jet
>
> the new US security procedures do that for him, by
> forcing additional screening for travellers from 14 "terror-linked
> countries".
Apparently Cuba is on of the 14 terror-linked countries... Does anyone know
why? I'm surprised Britain isn't on the list.
--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.
aquachimp
> Innews:cee07163-825a-4391...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com
>
>
>
> aquachimp <aquach...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Jan 4, 1:05 am, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> >> Innews:4b79504e-e00c-472b...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.c
> >> om
>
> >> allanbonnetracy <allanbonnetr...@ireland.com> wrote:
> >> > Well, putting aside the no small point of the wickedness of
> >> > America’s wars on Islam
>
> >> Hey! That's funny!
>
> >> > and the entirely understandable reaction to them from
> >> > the Islamic world,
>
> >> Their "reaction" was so swift that it preceded any incident.
>
> > Irony meter entirely on the blink? Or was did it just happen to fail
> > over those points?
>
> Are you suggesting that the post was to be taken as an ironic comment,
> as some kind of joke?
I noticed huge chucks of it must have been written with the author's
tongue bulging his cheek outwards considerably.
Some bits even have a trollish quality. And you bit on the biggest.
"Surely, four hours delay and millions of pounds of security resources
are a small price to play to ensure the maintenance of our diverse,
tolerant and inclusive (to all religions and races) country."
...being an example as the monies spent are directed to fighting a
political virus and not spent to ensure diversity, tolerance and
inclusiveness. In fact fending off something is not about tolerating
it, let alone bringing it into the fold, so it's also a self
contradicting statement. It's an obvious trolling piss take.
"To help Muslims feel included and to help us to feel included equally
as part of the problem rather than unreasonably apart from it. Surely,
the problem of one culture is a problem for us all in an inclusive
society, a shared responsibility."
In the context of the rest, that can be taken to be read as sarcasm.
>
> Jokes of that sort don't usually work on USENET because there's nothing
> that's so outre or stupid that someone won't include it in his posts
> and be completely serious.
Ah but, reading:
"However, the odious Clarkson then goes much further claiming there’s
little point delaying parents with kids and scanning toddlers or
grannies or holidaymakers, and the like, that are so obviously not
going to blow up an aircraft (really?) but only to keep a close eye on
those most likely (you know who they are)."
You can see the "(really?)" and this denotes sarcasm, whilst "(you
know who they are)" has an almost monty python-esq ridiculing.
>
> I suppose if you knew the poster, you might have known his intent.
He's certainly not writing like the "normal" Tracy, beyond that, I
don't know who it is, but I clearly don't need to to see it for what
it is.
>
> --
> Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN b...@iphouse.com
Francis Burton
Basil Jet <jo...@journeyflow.spamspam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Apparently Cuba is on of the 14 terror-linked countries... Does anyone know
>why? I'm surprised Britain isn't on the list.
I heard (on the radio recently) that Cuba is considered to be
a major *funder* of terrorism. How can they afford do that?
Francis
Norman Wells
How much is a bottle of peroxide?
Why I Like BT
news:4b79504e-e00c-472b...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> normal lives as normally as possible, without intrusion, because if we
> allow our lives to be inconvenienced by a small number of terrorists
> then they have won.
>
>
JC is an entertainer who thrives on controversy. What he *actually*
believes we don't really know.
Fred X
Have you never heard of a cigar bomb? :)
Fred X
Fred X
<jo...@journeyflow.spamspam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Calum wrote:
>>
>> the new US security procedures do that for him, by
>> forcing additional screening for travellers from 14 "terror-linked
>> countries".
>
> Apparently Cuba is on of the 14 terror-linked countries... Does anyone
> know
> why? I'm surprised Britain isn't on the list.
>
Because the US is still sulking over the Cuban Missile Crisis that
happened almost half a century ago.
Fred X
Lucky
"Fred X" <alex...@himki.net> wrote in message
news:op.u537n...@skynet.wag54gs...
It's one of the pitfalls in Mario Brothers
Lister
Eh? Is it?
johannes
Fred Finisterre wrote:
>
> What's the point in wasting time and money on these scanners? If we make it
> too hard to blow up planes, they'll just blow up trains/theatres/shopping
> centres etc. instead.
>
> Fred.
Scanner wont waste time. You just walk through like you do now through the
arc. It could even be quicker.
Harry Merrick
You only wish!! Apparantly, specially appointed staff have to trained to use
these machines, and have to be totally discreet because the scanner shows
one as naked! - I do wonder how they will find bombs up someones anus,
however! Oh joy! We are all about to have full body searches! A gay persons
heaven. I forsee much longer delays.
--
Harry Merrick.
BigAl
Muslims should be checked at all times when entering our country.
Robert Henderson
<4b79504e-e00c-472b...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
allanbonnetracy <allanbo...@ireland.com> writes
>Basically, Clarkson believes we should be allowed to get on with our
>normal lives as normally as possible, without intrusion, because if we
>allow our lives to be inconvenienced by a small number of terrorists
>then they have won.
>
>the Islamic world, let’s just say Jeremy’s comments are OK so far.
>
>However, the odious Clarkson then goes much further claiming there’s
>little point delaying parents with kids and scanning toddlers or
>grannies or holidaymakers, and the like, that are so obviously not
>going to blow up an aircraft (really?) but only to keep a close eye on
>those most likely (you know who they are).
>
>certainly not immune to the odd bit of racist bigotry?
>
>treatment maybe because it does start to sound rather odious in a
>diverse multi-cultural society?
>
>are a small price to play to ensure the maintenance of our diverse,
>tolerant and inclusive (to all religions and races) country.
>
>as part of the problem rather than unreasonably apart from it. Surely,
>the problem of one culture is a problem for us all in an inclusive
>society, a shared responsibility.
>
>diverse and commendably more PC aware society, how exactly will a
>Labour government implement the new measures.
>
>Albeit, a government superbly well equipped with the appropriate and
>measured instruments of state to consider these things when
>implementing the additional security measure of body scanners designed
>graphic detail.
>
>Well obviously, there’s the special training required for the
>operatives on how to contain any juvenile sexist behaviour and also to
>accommodate the special needs of convicted paedophiles when exposed to
>consensual harassment by naked flirty children.
>
>society we can accommodate religious and racial differences in a way
>that avoids any offensive measures that could be deemed as possible
>hate crimes.
>
>contrary to the tenants of their religion to reveal their nakedness in
>anyway.
>
>that they have provided female doctors for burka wearing Muslims, for
>whom it would be deeply distressing to have their private parts (i.e.
>noses, mouths, skin generally) revealed to members of the opposite
>sex, so it can be done.
>
>Lucozade bottles and shoe heels.
>
>I trust we can rely on our government, with its already a tremendous
>record on diversity and multi-cultural concerns, to ensure that all
>Muslims should be protected from deeply unpleasant practices forbidden
>by, and commanding our respect from, their religion.
>
>security personal to concentrate on what, after all, is a much greater
>and hugely dominant proportion of the population.
>
>society that the Clarksons of this world seem to be all too immune
>from.
Splendid piece of satire. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
aquachimp
You say that like as if at present they are the only ones who are not
been checked. Or do you not travel enough to know that we all get
checked?