travelers beware

[JohnK]

I've had this in syd for the last few weeks. They even turned up the walk through detector to pick up shoes and were making everyone remove shoe 2 weeks ago.

I gave up on shoes a long time ago. I just take them off everytime and place them on the belt to be screened.

 

[medhead]

Guns are not illegal, if licenced. But it is illegal to attempt to carry it on a plane without lawful excuse.

I didn't say that guns are illegal! ohh and the owner is licensed not the firearm.

I was trying hard to limit the pedantry of this dialogue,

My pedantry was not about the difference between a licence and registration. Just about the spelling

This is one of the reasons why we have a permissive policy of confiscation only, which in turn is one of the reasons the entire policy is a waste of time. An attempted illegal carriage of dangerous liquids will appear perfectly harmless and go undetected, in part because it seems like such a harmless mistake.

But that is the point - if the system works as it is suppose to work, such you're not going to catch anyone, but you are going to stop people from carrying on board a dangerous liquid. From that point of view it isn't a waste of time. But I put in a big, massive caveat - if it works as it's suppose to work.

Your pointing this fact out does not defend the policy; nor does it undermine the analogy. The comparison was drawn simply to show that there must be a disincentive attached to attempts to breach security. The analogy shows that there are two classes of item that both potentially represent threats (in this way, they are analogous), and yet only one of them is subject to penalty (in this way, they are differentiated).

The illegal act that I was referring to in my post (vis. attempting to illegally enter a restricted airside area with an unlawful quantity of liquids) referred to the conduct of entering an area with said liquids. Again, for the sake of brevity, I didn't write out that entire phrase in full each time, although it makes no practical difference when we are discussing security screening procedures at entry points.

Just to be clear I'm certainly not trying to defend the LAG rules as they are currently enforced/implemented. But I do think they are valid in principle.

In terms of the act of fronting airport security with excess liquid - what i'm saying is there is no such unlawfully act as you've written out there. There is a restriction on taking liquids on flights. But I'm saying there is no law against taking liquids on a flight and there is no such thing as an unlawful quantity. A restriction is not a law. I'm restricted from taking glass into a footbal stadium that doesn't mean I'm breaking a law if I have a glass on me when front upto the entry of a football stadium.
Maybe that is being pedantic as well, and I did understand what you wrote, but it is an important distinction, IMO.

I gave up on shoes a long time ago. I just take them off everytime and place them on the belt to be screened.

If i ever get to that point I'll start wearing thongs to the airport - suit or no suit

 

[anat0l]

If i ever get to that point I'll start wearing thongs to the airport - suit or no suit

That's what slip-on shoes are for

Yes you can get slip-on formal shoes - it's not hard, and they're great.

 

[Will]

In terms of the act of fronting airport security with excess liquid - what i'm saying is there is no such unlawfully act as you've written out there. There is a restriction on taking liquids on flights. But I'm saying there is no law against taking liquids on a flight and there is no such thing as an unlawful quantity. A restriction is not a law. I'm restricted from taking glass into a footbal stadium that doesn't mean I'm breaking a law if I have a glass on me when front upto the entry of a football stadium.
Maybe that is being pedantic as well, and I did understand what you wrote, but it is an important distinction, IMO.

Excerpt from the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005

"4.22G Offence — LAG product passing through LAGs
screening point
(1) For paragraph 44 (2) (aa) of the Act, a person commits an
offence if:
(a) the person passes through a LAGs screening point; and
(b) the person is not an exempt person; and
(c) the person has a LAG product in his or her possession; and
(d) the LAG product is not in a LAGs container that is in a
sealed LAGs bag.
Penalty: 20 penalty units.
(2) Subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability."

Note that subregulation 2 establishes that there need be no intent proved by the prosecution - even if you can prove that you accidentally caried the water with you, you are still guilty of the offence. And the maximum penalty is over $2000!


Also FYI, in Victoria at least, the Major Events (Crowd Management) Act establishes an offence of bringing prohibited items (such as glass) into certain prescribed venues eg the MCG.


As for spelling, I gracefully accept your criticism Thankyou.

 

[JohnK]

If i ever get to that point I'll start wearing thongs to the airport - suit or no suit

That's what slip-on shoes are for

Yes you can get slip-on formal shoes - it's not hard, and they're great.

Hey you stole my line. :shock:

Don't get me started on thongs or any open heel shoes. Flip, flop, flip flop.... It drives me nuts especially when the "ladies" wear them in the office....

 

[docjames]

"4.22G Offence — LAG product passing through LAGs
screening point
(1) For paragraph 44 (2) (aa) of the Act, a person commits an
offence if:
(a) the person passes through a LAGs screening point; and
(b) the person is not an exempt person; and
(c) the person has a LAG product in his or her possession; and
(d) the LAG product is not in a LAGs container that is in a
sealed LAGs bag.
Penalty: 20 penalty units.
(2) Subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability." QUOTE]


So you can be exempt? Who qualifies for the exemption?

///opens can of worms////

 

[medhead]

Excerpt from the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005

Note that subregulation 2 establishes that there need be no intent proved by the prosecution - even if you can prove that you accidentally caried the water with you, you are still guilty of the offence. And the maximum penalty is over $2000!

Also FYI, in Victoria at least, the Major Events (Crowd Management) Act establishes an offence of bringing prohibited items (such as glass) into certain prescribed venues eg the MCG.

That is very informative. thanks

But note the "and"s that means it is only an offence if you past through the screening point. (Also it doesn't mention quantity of LAG.) So turning up and being caught is not an offence, you have to pass through and not be exempt and have LAG that isn't in a sealed LAG bag to commit an offence. Truely bizzare law

"4.22G Offence — LAG product passing through LAGs
screening point
(1) For paragraph 44 (2) (aa) of the Act, a person commits an
offence if:
(a) the person passes through a LAGs screening point; and
(b) the person is not an exempt person; and
(c) the person has a LAG product in his or her possession; and
(d) the LAG product is not in a LAGs container that is in a
sealed LAGs bag.

On the spelling - yes, i can be an extremely pedantic pr*ck.