Miliband says Murdoch's empire must be 'dismantled'

[Mathew]

Well you've just given me an example below of how the security utterly failed in one isolated attempt at an attack. The fact is that even among profiled people (usually dark skinned, Arabian features) which I disagree with anyway, the threat of terrorism is still so very low and does not mean we should sacrifice our liberties in the name of security because otherwise, whats the point of this so-called War on Terror you support?

You're not answering my question. You appear to be saying that you'd much rather have bombs go off mid-flight rather than spending 5 minutes of your time putting your bags through a scanner. Is this so?

So the security failed didn't it? so unless you are proposing we all strip down naked and even submit ourselves to prostate searches (because thats the latest bit of fear mongering, that a terrorist will implant himself with a bomb) then whats your point? then again, your apparent over-the-top fear of al-Qaeda is plain to see because despite the fact i've just posted statistics which show terrorism is hardly anything to be overly afraid of, you still think we should go through extreme lengths to protect ourselves from a threat which barely exists.

Yes it failed, hence why it's been upped since then. Prostate searches obviously won't happen, although there's technology where they see through clothes and see the naked body..... which I find odd on one hand. But on the other, it's making sure people aren't carrying stuff they shouldn't...

"Hardly anything to be overly afraid of" - you've used a lot of hedges in that sentence and you still can't deny that there is a threat there. Yet again, you're saying you'd rather have people blown up mid-flight rather than submitting yourself to a 5 minute search...

Thats so sad it really is, it makes me sad to see that you, like many others have given up your liberties in the name of a threat which doesn't exist. But whats more disturbing is that you actually say you 'enjoy' being treated like cattle as opposed to innocent human beings.

You've admitted above that the threat exists, despite it being quite a small one (which I can't deny), but yes... I am willing to give up the small portion of my time to ensure my flight is as safe as it can be. What on earth is wrong with that?

[-:Undertaker:-]

You're not answering my question. You appear to be saying that you'd much rather have bombs go off mid-flight rather than spending 5 minutes of your time putting your bags through a scanner. Is this so?

But bombs won't be going off because there is next-to-no threat.

Its like asking me do I think the bankrupt U.S. should spend all its GDP on a system to blow away asteroids in the slight case that a deadly asteroid could hit Earth tommorow - no I don't because the threat is so small, but that doesn't mean 'I want everyone on Earth to die'.

The example sounds ridiculous because it is ridiculous, just as the reaction to Islamic terrorism is.

Yes it failed, hence why it's been upped since then. Prostate searches obviously won't happen, although there's technology where they see through clothes and see the naked body..... which I find odd on one hand. But on the other, it's making sure people aren't carrying stuff they shouldn't...

If it comes to prostate searches for everyone or strip searches, you'd support that aswell then? afterall, as long as we're all safe from this next-to-none existant threat (which the numbers prove) surely its worth it? to what extent do you intend to go to with these measures? even if internal airport security was as i've suggested with extreme measures, you'd still *possibly* always have the risk of planes being targeted with surface-to-air missiles obtained - so what would we do then? just ban all air travel? .. because making planes strong enough to withstand that would cost too much and make flying uneconomical.

But then what would happen? the small terrorist threat which exists would then start to target trains etc and we have the same problem.

"Hardly anything to be overly afraid of" - you've used a lot of hedges in that sentence and you still can't deny that there is a threat there. Yet again, you're saying you'd rather have people blown up mid-flight rather than submitting yourself to a 5 minute search...

How about this then, there will be methods to make trains safer by 100% just they'd come with a cost along with searching people before they get on - lets say you object to this on the grounds of cost, the threat being next to nothing and liberty, would it then be the case that you would *rather* have people dying in a train crash? no it wouldn't, so what a silly thing to say.

I oppose it on the basis of the threat being almost none-existant which is something you can not dispute.

You've admitted above that the threat exists, despite it being quite a small one (which I can't deny), but yes... I am willing to give up the small portion of my time to ensure my flight is as safe as it can be. What on earth is wrong with that?

I haven't admitted anything, sure there's a threat just as there's a threat that next time I do something in the garden i'll have a deadly bacteria enter a small cut and I could end up dying from it - yet I still don't wish to wear gloves because I know the threat is next-to-none, albeit being higher than the threat of terrorism.

So-called 'conservatives' like you always make me laugh, you moan about the nanny state and health and safety which has the same mantra of 'protecting you' but when it comes to fighting the myth of Islamic terrorism, you're prepared to be searched, sent through body scanners and have OAPs felt up all in the name of security against a threat which barely exists.

[Mathew]

But bombs won't be going off because there is next-to-no threat.

I find it ignorant to suggest that you're looking into the future and claiming "BOMBS WILL NEVER GO OFF" when it's been proven time and time again that they do. That is a completely absurd statement.

Its like asking me do I think the bankrupt U.S. should spend all its GDP on a system to blow away asteroids in the slight case that a deadly asteroid could hit Earth tommorow - no I don't because the threat is so small, but that doesn't mean 'I want everyone on Earth to die'.

Well it's nothing like that in the slightest because the chance of an asteroid hitting is so slim and it's never happened before. What you're failing to realise is that bombs have made their way on aircraft, and so have knives, guns and the likes.... hence why there's security.

The example sounds ridiculous because it is ridiculous, just as the reaction to Islamic terrorism is.

Islamic or not, there are terrorists who choose aircraft to detonate them on.

If it comes to prostate searches for everyone or strip searches, you'd support that aswell then? afterall, as long as we're all safe from this next-to-none existant threat (which the numbers prove) surely its worth it? to what extent do you intend to go to with these measures? even if internal airport security was as i've suggested with extreme measures, you'd still *possibly* always have the risk of planes being targeted with surface-to-air missiles obtained - so what would we do then? just ban all air travel? .. because making planes strong enough to withstand that would cost too much and make flying uneconomical.

But then what would happen? the small terrorist threat which exists would then start to target trains etc and we have the same problem.

It really depends on how widespread implanting bombs into your body really is. If it's happened several times and hundreds of lives have been lost because of it. Sure. Thousands lost their lives on 9/11 because of lax security in airports and people smuggling weapons through to the aircraft. Are you suggesting we should scrap security and allow people to carry whatever they like on? Are you crazy?

How about this then, there will be methods to make trains safer by 100% just they'd come with a cost along with searching people before they get on - lets say you object to this on the grounds of cost, the threat being next to nothing and liberty, would it then be the case that you would *rather* have people dying in a train crash? no it wouldn't, so what a silly thing to say.

I oppose it on the basis of the threat being almost none-existant which is something you can not dispute.

Of course you can't dispute it and I realise the fact that everyone is being subject to security measures due to a small minority of people. But yet again I go back to my point - I would rather have a 5 minute search and be confident that my flight is safe.

I haven't admitted anything, sure there's a threat just as there's a threat that next time I do something in the garden i'll have a deadly bacteria enter a small cut and I could end up dying from it - yet I still don't wish to wear gloves because I know the threat is next-to-none, albeit being higher than the threat of terrorism.

This deadly bacteria had no intention to kill you. It doesn't have a brain. Terrorists must keep up with new things to fool airport security, and it's the job of the latter to progress at a faster rate. I don't think you quite realise possible adverse effects which would occur if security was lifted.. :rolleyes:

So-called 'conservatives' like you always make me laugh, you moan about the nanny state and health and safety which has the same mantra of 'protecting you' but when it comes to fighting the myth of Islamic terrorism, you're prepared to be searched, sent through body scanners and have OAPs felt up all in the name of security against a threat which barely exists.

What's the obsession with Islamic terrorists? You keep saying "barely" exists, so you're admitting that there is a threat there. Yes I'm prepared to put myself through a body scanner because there's a sense of security and safety.

I'm repeating myself yet again. At least my post count is rising.. :rolleyes:

[Ajthedragon]

lol, Miliband is just saying all this trash so that he agrees with the public's general opinion. Nothing more than bowing down to public pressure in order to gain the next set of votes. Bless him. Typical politician.

So agree.

I disagree with what he says. It was only prven that one paper did it, which has now been closed. Otherwise his business hasn't had any problems.

Ed just tryna get some votes.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I find it ignorant to suggest that you're looking into the future and claiming "BOMBS WILL NEVER GO OFF" when it's been proven time and time again that they do. That is a completely absurd statement.

I haven't said that, I've merely said that the chances of bombs going off are very minimal and that the threat does not justify the means you suggest. If you wish to worry about something concerning flying, worry about airline safety - there's much more of a chance of the plane crashing than a terrorist attack occuring.

But yet, you don't propose we build each plane to the strength of Air Force One because the chances are so small.

Well it's nothing like that in the slightest because the chance of an asteroid hitting is so slim and it's never happened before. What you're failing to realise is that bombs have made their way on aircraft, and so have knives, guns and the likes.... hence why there's security.

Er well it has happend before, many times in the history of the Earth and even mankind itself (the famous Siberian example in the early 1900s in Russia). So as the threat is so small, we don't do much about it because its not worth the costs of protecting ourselves against - the same with terrorism, the sacrifice of liberty isn't worth it against a small threat posed by Islamic terrorism.

..and Liberty is much more important than cost.

Islamic or not, there are terrorists who choose aircraft to detonate them on.

Indeed but we are talking about Islamic terrorism here. But this brings me to the point I mentioned earlier, why do we need all this security against the small threat posed by Islamic terrorism to this country (usually from the outside as opposed to inside) while at the same time we have terrorists in government in Northern Ireland from both sides?

I don't quite see why one is rewarded and enforced upon the people (Sinn Fein, the IRA and paramilitary Unionists) whilst the people are punished for the other one (Islamic terrorism) when actually the biggest threat came from and still does come from the issue of Northern Ireland.

It really depends on how widespread implanting bombs into your body really is. If it's happened several times and hundreds of lives have been lost because of it. Sure. Thousands lost their lives on 9/11 because of lax security in airports and people smuggling weapons through to the aircraft. Are you suggesting we should scrap security and allow people to carry whatever they like on? Are you crazy?

You've just suggested we perform prostate checks if the time comes for it upon people, I would ask you that same question of are you crazy as you should ask yourself. I think the fact that you are actually in agreement with my extreme example of prostate checks at airports just shows how paranoid you have become concerning this issue as have many. I would recommend a read of 1984 by George Orwell.

Hundreds of thousands lose their lives thanks to the motorcar industry every year. We *could* at enormous cost make cars much safer, never 100% safe because we know that isn't possible - but we realise, using logic that the threat posed by cars is very small even if its hundreds of thousands per year and that the costs outweigh the 'benefits' faced by a very small threat - the costs with fighting a small threat such as terrorism being our ancient civil liberties.

Of course you can't dispute it and I realise the fact that everyone is being subject to security measures due to a small minority of people. But yet again I go back to my point - I would rather have a 5 minute search and be confident that my flight is safe.

Dispute what sorry? i'm disputing what you advocate which is that we face such a large threat from Islamic terrorism at the airports despite the fact that through using numbers and so forth, i've shown you that actually there is next-to-no threat and that each time the security you advocate is needed is bypassed. No human system is fail safe, therefore why sacrifice our liberties to combat a very small threat?

This deadly bacteria had no intention to kill you. It doesn't have a brain. Terrorists must keep up with new things to fool airport security, and it's the job of the latter to progress at a faster rate. I don't think you quite realise possible adverse effects which would occur if security was lifted.. :rolleyes:

We are talking about threat level, not what has the intention to kill. The fact is that both kill, but we measure the risk and then make an informed choice. I could for example wear gloves, or even go further and wear a protective suit whilst pottering around in the garden because of the very small risk that I could contract a fatal disease/virus from the soil - but because i've measured the risk and used logic rather than being reactionary, i've concluded that the threat to myself is so small that those protective measures are not needed.

What's the obsession with Islamic terrorists? You keep saying "barely" exists, so you're admitting that there is a threat there. Yes I'm prepared to put myself through a body scanner because there's a sense of security and safety.

Because it is Islamic terrorism which our civil liberties are being destroyed in the name of. As I stated with the example of the IRA and Northern Ireland, the Conservative Party and our political class never destroyed our civil liberties to the extent they are now when it was the case that we faced a bigger threat (and still do) from paramilitary forces in Northern Ireland as opposed to Islamic terrorism.

I wonder if this scaremongering concerning Islamic terrorism has something to do with our continued and increasing involvement in wars in the Middle East? mmm I do wonder.

[GommeInc]

Pfft, just hot air he's spouting. He's the leader of one of the big 3 parties, it's what they do

I'm okay with airport security, but some countries go a bit OTT with it. The UK is pretty straightforward and quick, while places like Italy are so frustrating I nearly began swearing at this irritating Italian man, even though it was more a fault with the layout and structure of the airport, than the man himself

But I agree with Undertaker to an extent - if we relinquish freedom, then surely the terrorists have one?

[ifuseekamy]

Typical politician, raises an issue that the public see as a problem but offers no viable solution.