Planespotterx From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1985 times:
Ive seen the video report, it makes for very scary viewing, the fact a reporter can gain "easy access" onto the Apron without having to pass a single X-ray or security check.
Also he was allowed to roam the Apron for 15 minutes, only to be passed by a security van and even that didnt stop to ask him questions or enquire why he was there.
So basically he sneaked into a unclosed office holding sensitive security and access codes, went onto a closed section of LHR, climbed down the steps onto the Apron, walked around for 15 minutes and in all this time he was only asked what he was doing around so late ONCE in the terminal.
I think BAA have made yet another balls-up, and its about time someone told them they own the airport and not London itself (threatening to close off the perimeter fence area to stop TV crews reporting there anymore.)
I mean to be honest im glad it was a reporter and noone else with a "motive" carrying explosives or guns.
One final note, I wish SkyNews wouldnt call the area the "plane-spotters observation deck" because everyone knows that was closed off to prevent reasons like this, and gives spotters a bad name.
Catatonic From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1155 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1886 times:
It's not as bad as the MAN report though, that reporter even got on a plane! Makes me feel a bit safer that reporters do this kind of thing because at least now they are going to do something about it.
FLVILLA From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 394 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1863 times:
I have just seen this report, and yes there is obviously some problems with security that needs to be sorted out. But then again anyone could get a job at an airport anywhere in the world and do the exact same thing. I just don't like it when they make it out to be LHR's problem only, it's universal.
And I disliked one viewers e-mail where a lady said that her and her husband had recently traveled to New York and went on about how much security there was at the airports with fingerprinting, photo's etc Why doesn't someone tell the news companies that the travelers have to pay for it!! If travelers want BAA and the appropriate security services i.e. immigration etc to have this similar technology then they will have to accept higher prices !
I hope in life i can work to live, not live to work