Hello everyone, thank you for your replies and sorry for the delay logging back in.

Firstly, Steve, sorry you felt like i was pulling you about. I honestly dont need any back up or people on my side when discussing this topic. I have my experience and due to the name of this forum being Holiday Truths, i thought it was a great forum to share my experience.

I'm certainly not here to cause arguments or try and change peoples beliefs.

I joined your forum and posted in the hope that it gives people further information / a different opinion, to the norm maybe, on body scanners at airports.

I also have nothing to hide and was a frequent business flyer from this airport.

Back in Oct 2010 I refused to go through one at Manchester ( Ive been told Im only the 3rd person to refuse). I offered to go to a room and strip to my underwear. Not that I wanted to do this, however, I didnt want to go through the scanner either due to my beliefs (dont want to be xrayed and i dont like the loss of rights - we lose more and more!).

I had no choice though., I was refused boarding and even though the discussion with airport staff had been just that, a discussion (no argument, i didnt kick off or aything like that i just discussed the situation with managers) armed police were called, i was questioned and escorted out the airport.

My details have been sent to the government (I was told because such a small % of people refused, my details would need to be logged), the passport people and it's been recorded with greater manchester police.

Whatever peoples views are on the machines and the technology being used, my point is, as a person, who has never and would never dream of being a security threat (which they even confirmed 15minutes into me refusing and discussing it with the airport staff), I had my rights taken away.

I should have the choice as to which form of security check i undertake.

Alongside having it writing that i did offer the same level of security check on the day, the government has also admitted that i did not break any laws. An outstanding question back to the airport is why they called the police - On the day they said that its in governments guidlines to contact the police, but the government have said it isnt and its the airport which makes that decision. It appears the airport doesnt even understand the policy which when it involves the police, is a little worrying to say the least.

I mention beng only the 3rd person to refuse because by all accounts, even if an opt out policy was in place, not many would use it? although i did mention on the day, to be fair, by the time youve paid your ticket and maybe have your family with you, going on that hard earned holiday, how many people when faced with this could turn round and say, no, im not doing it.

I have put the question forward that if they did offer a policy, by all accounts, to cater for such a tiny % f people there would be no impact to Q time or resource within the security area. After al, a passenger survey, conducted at MIA, says 95% of people dont mind them..

However, according to steven may, they wouldnt want to put in an opt out policy.. in case people did opt out! and yes, he confirmed its all driven by budget and resourcing costs. We discussed security threats and like ive pointed out, the trial may have met budget and time objectives but there certainly isnt any proof whatsoever that it had contributed to the 'war on terror'

So, turns out, they arent as confident of their survey results either. But then, like ive mentioned in emails.. how accurate is the date collated? It appear both the government and the airport agree with my challenge. Maybe they know the average person has not looked into this and really thought about what it means.. They are clearly worried about giving people the choice and that having an impact on targets and budget etc.

In the EC document, future deployment plans are stated and how they will be implemented in every airport and used as the security procedure for all passengers.

All information provided is 100% researched and is a balanced view. I understand we have radiation blasted at us, day in, day out and of course, thats the offical line you get given. However, I also find it amazing that the same people refuse to acknowledge a level headed approach and wont admit, that even in their own documents, there is a clause saying fingers crossed regarding long term health effects, especially on pregnant women and children (and of of course, 1 in 20 of people with different dna strands).

This little gem is even on the government website (see if you can make head nor tail of this one):

Whilst there are stages of pregnancy where a fetus is considered to be more susceptible to harm from radiation, the backscatter technology ensures that negligible doses are absorbed into the body (where the fetus is) and the fetal dose is thus much lower than the dose to a pregnant woman. Therefore for this comparison, which due to uncertainties only provides indicative risks, maternal and fetal dose can be considered the same. Similarly, because of the uncertainties at these low levels of exposure the risks to children, people with any type of illness or people undergoing any type of medical treatment are considered to be comparable to the risks to adults.

I have written many emails to the government and the responses i recieve are very interesting.

I am happy to answer any further questions or provide emails. As I say, Im not here to argue peoples points of view.. im just hear to give a different opinion

I just wanted to make sure people who are booking travel understand their rights regarding this issue. I knew they were there and knew that if you refused, the policy is you cant fly. However, i had no idea that my offer of strip to underwear search would be refused, that armed police with machine and taser guns would be called, that i would be escorted out the airport or that my details would be put on some form of watch list!

If it stops some religious nutcase blowing up a plane then i would have no problem with it.

likeabird

Enough of the politeness, the comment "due to the name of this forum being Holiday Truths" is patronising.

GMP and HMG are not the only people who've checked up on you. You've posted exactly the same initial rant on a least four other boards and have now posted the same follow up, with the same apology for delay on at least one of them. And on those sites you got the same not interested response as here. In the time you've spent in front of your computer trying to start a campaign you've probably absorbed as much radiation as you would have done going through the scanner!

Manchester Airport has to have systems that can safely handle in excess of 20 MILLION passengers a year (I realise that at the moment numbers are down a bit from that). If they allowed an option and just 10% took it up that would be 2 million, which would need a lot of resources and would cost a lot of money - which the 18 million who are happy would still be charged for. Just bear in mind that at one point Manchester, not waiting for things to go wrong, had more explosive detectors checking bags than all US airports combined! Some of us use Manchester BECAUSE the security is so strict. When they brought these scanners in they posted their policy on their website including the sentence "Any selected passenger who refuses to use the scanner will be denied travel." - that page hasn't changed since April 2010 so why did you turn up expecting special treament in 6 months later? It wasn't a secret, it was on every TV news channel, in all the papers and discussed here a year ago. You may have a view on it and that's your right - many on this site don't like the way Ryanair treat their passengers but we don't buy Ryanair tickets, turn up at checkin and demand special treatment - we just boycott them. You have the right to boycott Manchester Airport - actually you may have to because they've had a policy of blacklisting people who cause trouble for many years and all their airlines sign up to it!

GMP have always been a bit OTT, remember their chief constable in the 80s, with the extreme religious views who was so right wing he embarrased the Thatcher Government? But they are responsible for securing one of Europe's biggest international airports - and being on the south side of Manchester doesn't help, I've seen armed police on the trains round there!! The airport police are permantly armed - so what do you expect them to do when dealing with you? Maybe leave the guns at reception and change into an old Dixon of Dock Green outfit??

I think your campaign would be more at home in the pages of the Daily Express, they like anything with a health scare and now you've been brought to the attention of MI5 they've got the added bonus of linking it with Diana's car crash!

My last post on the subject; the average person will recieve about 360 mrem of background radiation per year (depending on where you live), roughtly 1 mrem per day. Divide by 100 for the mSev figures. Backscatter body scanners will subject you to roughly 1-2 rmen per scan. That's at most 2 days worth of normal background radition or 0.5% of your annual exposure per scan. The following is an approximation as it depends on the flight, but on a average short haul flight, you're subject to around 0.24 mrem per flying hour of radiation. On a long haul flight, due to being at a higher altitude for longer, the exposure is more like 0.3 mrem per flying hour. On Concorde, with it flying at an altitude over 50,000ft, it was more like 0.97 mrem per flying hour. I'll let you work our the maths. Cabin crew get up to about 400 mrem per year while working, the average being around 200 mrev. If people knew the figures for flying, would they choose to fly? Of course they would. If you want to travel by air, it's your choice if you want to be exposed to extra radiation. If you choose no, there's always a ferry or train.

Darren

well said steve

Likeabird

I really do think that if you feel so strongly about this from a health point of view, you should just not fly. The fact that you are only the third person ever to refuse this shows how inconsequential it is to most of the population, who know they are exposed to more sitting at their computer posting on forums etc. You are putting what is a negligible health threat to you above the safety of all others. TBH your post actually sounds like that of a fanatic and maybe it is just as well that you are scanned or travel by boat and train. There are far bigger issues in the world that you could take on if you have endless time to devote to a 'cause'.

Doe

If the exposure was so bad I'm sure we would have already seen and heard about the airport staff at the 3 airports chosen to test the scanners staging major strikes to complain!

I haven't heard scanners of being a reason for a staff strike as yet - but I will keep my eyes and ears open, just in case....

Shell
Limassol, Cyprus

Let's not bring the railways into this chaps!! BTP already have mobile scanners which they randomly set up at major stations and I seem to remember going through a scanning process last times I travelled on both Eurostar and Spanish AVE trains!! Not the same type as the ones that are being discussed at MAN but I as said before, radiation takes various forms!

Likeabird: If you're so against abiding by the rules whether it be for health or religious reasons don't fly..Simples!

As a holiday maker who travels on his own, and most of the time flying from manchester, and having my own medical prolems, I would have no problem going through the body scanner, I would even jump at the chance

when I go on holiday I look forward to the securty search, as I think it all form part of your holiday, especially when they tell you to take your belt of your troursers, hold your arms up, and as you are doing that, your trousers fall down

when I go on holiday I look forward to the securty search, as I think it all form part of your holiday, especially when they tell you to take your belt of your troursers, hold your arms up, and as you are doing that, your trousers fall down

Let me know when and where you are travelling to and from next time so I can be there and claim damages for indecent exposure

Shell
Limassol, Cyprus

wow - labeled a fanatic, put on a blacklist and investigated by the MI5!, just for having a different opinion and being a bit outspoken on something. An opinion which isnt in anyway a threat either. I offered the same level of security check, i am not a nutter, trouble maker or anything else. They can have me on any list they want.

I would post a reply with why I feel so strongly, so, my side of the argument you put forward to me... but I imagine it won't go down well and will just be deleted! So, at this point, I won't waste the energy on it.

Youre right, I have been on other travel forums to try and spread the information, so if people dont want to go through a scanner, they can make an informed choice before buying tickets.

My only purpose joining your forum was to let people know that the UK operate a no opt out policy.

Thanks

LikeAbird wrote:

I would post a reply with why I feel so strongly

You have already made your opinion quite clear and everyone accepts and respects that. However, in this day and age and with the threat of terrorism, you either accept the current security measures, or don't fly. It's as simple as that unfortunatley as you found to the cost of missing your flight. Although you may have offered a level of security check, it's something that is not practical at a major international airport. There simply arn't the staff or facilities to carry that out. You can raise as much awareness as you want and fight your corner, and I'm sure most will support support you in respect of freedom of choice, including myself, but it's not going to change anything I'm afraid in respect of aviation security.

One of the reasons the police were called when you refused the security check was due to training. Anyone who doesn't follow procedure, under the conflict resolution model is classed as uncooperative or potentially incooperative where a situation can sometime deteriroate. At a major international airport, that is generaly going to involve armed police arriving. The fact you refused to go through a security system raised alarm bells. As I mentioned before the question is 'why has this person refused to go through, what are the potentially hiding?'

People are already well aware of body scanners at Manchester, Heathrow etc. It was all over the media for weeks after the Detroit incident with press coverage for weeks on the scanners afterwards. There's also lots of information on airport websites. But again, if you are singled out to go through one, you have no opt out. There can't be otherwise everyone would and it would be pointless having them. The vast majority of air travellers accept the security situation and get on with it. It's a minor part of air travel and a necessity. I'm going through Manchester in 7 weeks. If I'm singled out to go through the body scanner, I'll gladly go through it. If the person behind me refuses to go through would I want them on my flight? Probably not.

You're fighting a losing battle and although everyone would support the right for choice, in the case of aviation security, that choice is only really you accept the security or you don't fly.

Darren

likeabird

It wasn't the opinion that annoyed me, I deal with "it's only me, why bother with rules" everyday so I just learn to ignore it! It was the fact that you went round "fly posting" on as many sites as you could find, a text you had prepared as part of your campaign when you should have just started your own site. You don't appear to have ever had any intention of becoming part of this or any other "community".

I would rather have the body scanner than all that messing of taking everything off.When we went away in march they had me take everything off (except pants and top)even a little scarf I had around my neck had to come off, and I am a pensioner! a young guy behind me got all flustered and his wallet which he had in his hand had to go in the box,when he finally got his belongings back his wallet had gone I felt so sorry for him so I do think that the chaos that is security needs a better system
Jeanie

Dazbo HT Mod wrote:

You have already made your opinion quite clear and everyone accepts and respects that. However, in this day and age and with the threat of terrorism, you either accept the current security measures, or don't fly. It's as simple as that unfortunatley as you found to the cost of missing your flight. Although you may have offered a level of security check, it's something that is not practical at a major international airport. There simply arn't the staff or facilities to carry that out. You can raise as much awareness as you want and fight your corner, and I'm sure most will support support you in respect of freedom of choice, including myself, but it's not going to change anything I'm afraid in respect of aviation security.

thanks

Dazbo HT Mod wrote:

One of the reasons the police were called when you refused the security check was due to training. Anyone who doesn't follow procedure, under the conflict resolution model is classed as uncooperative or potentially incooperative where a situation can sometime deteriroate. At a major international airport, that is generaly going to involve armed police arriving. The fact you refused to go through a security system raised alarm bells. As I mentioned before the question is 'why has this person refused to go through, what are the potentially hiding?'

So, training needs to be looked at? All the airport staff agreed i wasn't being uncooperative in an aggressive away, wasn't a threat, could see that i was in conflict with myself as to what decision to make... its a big stand to take, i know this, and does have an ongoing impact. They also knew i was a frequent flyer from the airport, twice a month, and after being in their company for 45minutes before the police were called, the situation was not going to ‘deteriorate' The airport told me they had to contact the police (had no choice) as its within government policy... no mention of a conflict resolution model. The government have confirmed it's not within their policy.

So, because I didn't want to go through the scanner, but offered the same level of security check (so nothing to hide) and wasn't aggressive in any way, i still get treated guilty until proven innocent. Its sad to see this culture slowly coming in more and more?

Quite honestly, im just really peeved by the whole thing!

Dazbo HT Mod wrote:

People are already well aware of body scanners at Manchester, Heathrow etc. It was all over the media for weeks after the Detroit incident with press coverage for weeks on the scanners afterwards. There's also lots of information on airport websites. But again, if you are singled out to go through one, you have no opt out. There can't be otherwise everyone would and it would be pointless having them. The vast majority of air travellers accept the security situation and get on with it. It's a minor part of air travel and a necessity. I'm going through Manchester in 7 weeks. If I'm singled out to go through the body scanner, I'll gladly go through it. If the person behind me refuses to go through would I want them on my flight? Probably not.

I was aware of the trial but i wasn't aware the UK didn't have an opt out policy, whereas other trial countries do. Every person ive spoken to about this wasn't aware you couldn't opt out and request a full body pat down. People know about these due to the news coverage of the TSA.

Over whether having an opt out policy is pointless, surely, whilst trialling only 1 at Manchester you could say the entire trial was pointless in terms of security, as the person standing next to you could be carrying whatever. You mention resource within the security areas and not being able to cope with opt out demand... in the USA the opt out policy is in place and as you say, most people don't mind and go through the scanner (most likely some of the TSA horror stories play a part in that though!). A high % of people wouldn't opt out?

In the time the first manager spoke to me, the search could've have taken place and i could've been through security (and that was way before her manager got called or the police)

The government advisor informed me that alongside resource costs, the government thinks that although the security check i requested offered the same level of security, I would find "that form of check intrusive and a great invasion of my privacy"... They may have a good point, if I hadn't requested it.

I should have the right to make up my own mind what I find intrusive or invasion of privacy... If there is an alternative way of screening which offers the same level of security, as a fare paying passenger to travel out of my own country, I should have the right to choose. Surely?

Dazbo HT Mod wrote:

You're fighting a losing battle and although everyone would support the right for choice, in the case of aviation security, that choice is only really you accept the security or you don't fly.

Darren

Yes, I know this really but i thought i should still try and inform people who are concerned about them (small numbers, i know!).. while they still have a choice as to what airport to use

I think of the kids I know in my life, who haven't yet had the chance to travel to see other countries. How difficult are we making it for our own, innocent, next generation of travellers to leave their own country? I feel I have to speak out so at least when Im sitting in a chair, banging on about how it used to be, I can say.. I did try to keep some choices and rights in place for you.

Some might read this and think im being dramatic, but actually, if security and the big brother society we're allowing to be created, continues to accelerate at the same speed seen in recent years, the kids of tomorrow could be so restricted it really doesn't bare thinking about.

You quote information regarding the level of radiation, as im sure you must know, i have researched these machines and looked at a number of official documents... the facts of the matter are:

- We know we get blasted with radiation everyday
- We know people will walk through the scanners and not die
- We know people will walk through the scanners and not be instantly struck down with some dodgy DNA strand repair illness
- We DONT know that if this form of security check is completed, on mass, that in 5, 10 <insert number> years time we wont have a cancer epidemic on our hands

(see Dr Brenner and his HUGE backtrack which surely, coming from him should be listened to?)

I just wonder, are we really living under such a shadow of danger and threat that we have to have travel rights taken away and be put through machines we don't really know enough about? Should totally innocent people be subjected to being treated like a criminal? I know we've lost a lot of people to terrorism and need to be aware but do you feel the vibe in your every day life, that the threat of a terror attack is really only a sniff away? We should speak to people living in certain parts of Ireland and the UK back in the 80s, see what their take on it is...

What happens if internal bombs (already one report) appear on the scene? Full x-rays, it is then? Where does it stop?

Anyway, we both have different opinions on the subject and thank you for not deleting my posts and banning me!

steve8482 wrote:

likeabird

It wasn't the opinion that annoyed me, I deal with "it's only me, why bother with rules" everyday so I just learn to ignore it! It was the fact that you went round "fly posting" on as many sites as you could find, a text you had prepared as part of your campaign when you should have just started your own site. You don't appear to have ever had any intention of becoming part of this or any other "community".

Yes, im sure you are the type who does ignore it...

So, all because I put a well thought out post on maybe 6 or 7 sites across the entire net, not knowing at that point if i would become a regular poster or not you get so annoyed that youre not capable of being able to answer politely? I also got the distinct feeling you were trying to worry me by talking about how i would be investigated and being put on watch lists (honestly, do you really think im not already aware of this? or bothered.) you put some rambling rubbish about lady di and the MI5.

Why would i start my own site when there are already established travel sites with followers? You mention campaign... i wouldnt call it much of a campaign, would you?.. i doubt posting something on around 7 sites is going to change the world, ey? I know i cant campaign to change it, so decided to spread the message. Not sure why you think its strange i logged back into different sites, within the same time frame, and said sorry for the delay in replying...im not sure what your point is here but i guess, deep down, im not bothered either

LikeAbird wrote:

So, training needs to be looked at?

No, it doesn't. It is Home Office approved and accepted. I'm a holder of the relevant qualifications myself and go through refresher training annually.

LikeAbird wrote:

no mention of a conflict resolution model

It wouldn't be, it's just the way officers are trained to deal with situations.

I think we are just going around in circles now.

Darren

HT is a forum with the explicit aim of assisting people. It is not a vehicle for those who obviously have a personal agenda.

My personal view is that likeabird is trying to use the site with a specific aim of causing problems for the rest of us. It is very simple. The rules state that you may be asked to go through a body scanner. Stripping to your "Victoria Secrets" is a red herring. You are viewed by the security staff as a possible threat or a troublemaker. In either case I personally have no hesitation in stating that I hope that if you turn up they very quickly show you the exit.

Like many others on 7/7 I spent hours worrying in case my son was a victim. The sense of relief when I found he had not been able to board the Northern Line train was tremendous. He should have been on that train. You may consider your rights are being infringed. My right to travel in safety is being put in danger by such a selfish attitude that you display.

Take your campaign somewhere else.

fwh