Skip to main content

Airline Security 2006 (imitation grenade imported by air)

This imitation grenade was imported into the UK last week.
It is a cigarette lighter. That is, therefore, entirely lawful. However, you would have expected someone to have checked whether or not it was a real grenade.

What happened is that on this particular flight in the departing airport the security guards were quite busy searching some people of Asian origin. However, they just waved through the individual depicted with the grenade lighter and a clip lighter which he had in his duty free bag.

The grenade is very comparable in weight and size to an anti-personnel grenade.

I have written to the Government (Home Secretary: John Reid) raising this issue with the name of the airport the flight started in.

I accept that there are arguments about whether we have gone a bit over the top in terms of airport security in the UK. In particular the idea that certain gel filled prostheses need to be removed and searched seems dubious. I am not sure whether or not the government have it right, but we do have to trust the judgement of the security services on this.

However, if it is possible to bring in an imitation grenade by air I would ask the question as to whether or not it is possible to do the same with a real grenade.

Obviously I am not going to identify publicly the air route that this came on, but I do think the government do need to check that basic security requirements are being complied with in other countries.

There is also a question as to whether it is made very simple to import weaponry simply by doing it on a low security route which is not checked in the UK.


UK Daily Pundit said…
Who's the man in the picture that's what the bloggers want to know?

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).


R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…