If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Airport Scanner
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
0
Comments
But seriously... I can just imagine some pervvy old man with a beard wanking over the outlines of people because he can't actaully see someone in real life. Icky.
Xx
Is that because it is too small for the scanners
Sorry you left yourself open there
hot young things are definately the minority in this world
Im sorry but a grainy black n white Xray like that, I'd pick google images minus safe search anyday.
And this, if i was gonna wank over people, wouldn't be some rubbishy x-ray picture
Xx
Xx
Well if it stops me from going boom then im all for it.
I'm like a real life action man. Minus the chiseled torso, natch.
nope, only restriction or I think special restrictions would need to be children etc.
So, me then.
Xx
Or blown up... thats a big personal invasion of me I think.
yeah admittedly im not keen on that happening either, kinda has a tendency to ruin your day
Yes, I agree that someone like yourself their would need special restrictions, maybe special staff with Disclosures or special training/clearence etc.
but then again doctors or nurses will/might see you naked, this is just another job where it is required, remember Airport security are very well vetted.
See, after certain things that happened to me that I wont go into... I don't really like people seeing me naked. I don't mind you know, pictures and stuff because that way you can forget about it and stuff... but actually knowing there is someone really close by looking at a picture of you, or someone actually (like a nurse) looking at you.
I just don't like it. I don't think I'd mind so much if it wasn't for previous stuff that's happened I guess.
Xx
Which is understandable and I would say a difference in circumstances but to the average person or situation I would say it is not invasive or to personal. obviously if people have had problems with this kind of thing before then I think there needs to be rules around it.
However I believe if you have a problem with it, can you not opt for a hand search instead?
Xx
No.
I get the pat down from the burly ladies EVERY time I pass security (must look shifty!), and personally I'd much rather someone see me naked for a second than manhandle my boobicles on public display.
And I'd rather the seeing naked AND the patting down than the getting exploded :thumb:
ETA: if children are exempt, do you think people might hide things on them?
I disagree. it's that I can't see who's seeing me that I find most distressing about it.
I've said before I'd far rather strip off in the middle of the airport, than use that system.
I'm very worried that the person has received an harassment warning (that is for telling the person they'd seen), rather than anything to do with looking too closely.
I'm not saying that harassment isn't a problem - but they have NOTHING in place to punish them for perving.
Now some will throw up their hands, beat their breasts, wrought their clothes asunder and make instant parallels to 1984, as such folk are wont to do, carping that this is a massive invasion of personal privacy, personal rights, yadda, yadda, yadda. Let them see my dong if they want. If it means getting on a plane versus not, that's fine with me.
Woman who works with the man walks through the scanner by mistake. Man being a bit of a perv makes some sort of lewd comment, ie "phwoar, just like I imagined". Woman gets offended, police are called, whole things gets called a gross invasion of privacy and the original critics of the damned things crawl out the woodwork.
At the end of the day, if it's a choice between death or my bits being displayed on a grainy black and white picture, then I choose the bits being on display.
:wave:
Only question I have, given the comments here from a number of people, is what would you consider to be excessive?
I don't question that scanners can be effective, I question whether the need is really there. I may be mistaken but I think you'll find that less since than 500 people have died, in an airplane, as a result of terrorist. That includes the 250 passengers killed on Sept 11th. Heathrow alone has 67 million passangers going through it per year.
However, what you must bear in mind is that you don't have to fly. If you want to fly, you play by the airport's rules. This is not the same as the ID card debate where there is less of a choice element to it.
No, that's not the case. The airport isn't allowed to make unreasonable demands. The question is what we allow to be considered unreasonable.
But of course, the bogeyman of terrorism is invoked to persuade us to accept this.
People were happy to fly without the scanners. Let those who want these scanners introducing for their safety stay at home.
I don't consider the scanner to be an unreasonable demand. As for the 'bogeyman of terrorism', this is a real threat. Whilst I don't for one minute believe that there is a terrorist lurking around every corner, the Christmas Day guy with the bomb in his pants, the guys who had the explosive liquids in the drinks bottles and Richard Reid prove that they are out there and willing to do this kind of stuff. Having shown the lengths that they are willing to go to, I don't think it's unreasonable for the airlines to take suitable precautions.
Yes, people were happy to fly without scanners in the past. People also were bombed and hijacked in the past. Your point?
Its not as if they pay that much attention at passport control.