This news story, if it turns out to be accurate, should cheer up the retailers of booze at airports.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Liquids on aircraftOctober 26th, 2010 |
 5 comments to Liquids on aircraft |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
It’s not the retailers of booze at the airports that are the issue. At the moment, they get to charge inflated prices once you have gone through security. The people who will benefit from this are those poor people who travel a lot and like to buy a bottle or two of the local vino in a wine shop or supermarket or even a winery to bring back from wherever they have travelled to.
WeThey have been suffering grievously in recent years.The ban was always absurd anyway. Any chemist would have told you that the chances of the beards producing a genuine explosive liquid in their bath (or whatever the movie-plot was) are practically zero. Simply, they would blow themselves up first – and a good thing too.
I suppose it’s been kept in force this long because the ruling classes didn’t want to appear stupid.
Note the linked article says “The threat from Liquid…explosives became apparent in August 2006 following discovery of a plot to use such devices aboard multiple transatlantic flights.” (my emphasis). A plot there may have been, a significant risk there never was.
Well I got a flight from Crete about a month ago and picked up a 6 pack of Mythos beer in the Duty Free shop and got on the plane with no trouble at all.
The hassle I got was when the Steward noticed me drinking it and told me off for drinking “unauthorised alcohol” That is, not the gnats piss they sell at £3.50 for a tiny can. Bastards!
Andrew – what about the attack on Philippines flight 434 in 1994? The only reason that “only” killed one person is because the bomb was accidentally two rows in front of the main fuel tank instead of right over it, and was simply pointed in a direction which somehow didn’t rupture the fuselage. Simply turned around 90 degrees it would have torn the plane apart. And even then it destroyed the plane’s control cables and they had to land basically by steering the plane with throttles.
That was liquid in a contact lens solution bottle cooked up by a beard, so your optimism seems extremely misplaced.
Andrew Duffin, I think this brings up the possibility of planting evidence of a plot to blow up aircraft using crying babies.