Heathrow strike irresponsible?

MorningStar · 12-08-2005 10:03am #1

While I understand a strike may seem like the only option but given the current risks in London is it not an irresponsible act? I mean how easy would it be for a person with a back pack to mingle in the airport. With all the mixes of races at airports it's particulaly undetectable. A strike is a last resort but given the current risks surely it simply isn't an option.

HelterSkelter · 12-08-2005 10:05am

MorningStar wrote:

While I understand a strike may seem like the only option but given the current risks in London is it not an irresponsible act? I mean how easy would it be for a person with a back pack to mingle in the airport. With all the mixes of races at airports it's particulaly undetectable. A strike is a last resort but given the current risks surely it simply isn't an option.

You should apply for a job in the Evening Herald if you can come up with crap like that.

Haha, just noticed your username now, how appropiate!! lol

Lump · 12-08-2005 10:09am

They should be sacked, the BA staff that is. They are partaking in an illegal work stoppage. The strike is not supported by the union, the union has asked the BA staff to go back to work, they're refusing. FIRE THEM. The Gourmet gate staff have to fight their own battles. BA staff, fair enough are supporting workers, but they are supporting workers in a different company. I hate unions, but what I hate even more are people walking out of work when they're not being supported by the union.

John

HelterSkelter · 12-08-2005 10:22am

Lump wrote:

They should be sacked, the BA staff that is. They are partaking in an illegal work stoppage. The strike is not supported by the union, the union has asked the BA staff to go back to work, they're refusing. FIRE THEM. The Gourmet gate staff have to fight their own battles. BA staff, fair enough are supporting workers, but they are supporting workers in a different company. I hate unions, but what I hate even more are people walking out of work when they're not being supported by the union.

John

If you hate unions do you also hate IBEC (employeers union), IFA (farmers union), IIF (Insurance Companies Union), Law Society (Lawyers Union) etc, etc

MorningStar · 12-08-2005 10:39am

HelterSkelter wrote:

You should apply for a job in the Evening Herald if you can come up with crap like that.

Amazing insight! State why it is a "crap" view? If I thought of it do you think the terrorists haven't? If something does happen the damage they will do to unions and strikes would be forever and around the world. I would say the police are considering this a huge target right now.

Calina · 12-08-2005 10:50am

MorningStar wrote:

Amazing insight! State why it is a "crap" view? If I thought of it do you think the terrorists haven't? If something does happen the damage they will do to unions and strikes would be forever and around the world. I would say the police are considering this a huge target right now.

They might be, or they might not be. But frankly, the current bunch of artists are good at striking where they are most unexpected. So if you or a lot of people think this is an obvious target, then the chances are the terrorists have already discarded it as too obvious.

MorningStar · 12-08-2005 11:01am

Calina wrote:

then the chances are the terrorists have already discarded it as too obvious.

Why would they discard an obvious target? It' not like they are trying to be cool and different. They want maximum damage with maximum impact. Attacking Heathrow while it is full would do that AFAIK.

HelterSkelter · 12-08-2005 11:02am

MorningStar wrote:

Amazing insight! State why it is a "crap" view? If I thought of it do you think the terrorists haven't? If something does happen the damage they will do to unions and strikes would be forever and around the world. I would say the police are considering this a huge target right now.

It's crap because you are just scaremongering. There are lots of places where somebody with a back pack could mingle, train stations, bus stations, museumes & other tourist attractions, shopping centres, cafes, restaurants, pubs, airports with no strikes, etc. What makes you think an airport with a strike as anymore of a target than any of these other places? This is the kind of crap the papers come up with. Similar to the drawings of planes hitting liberty hall in the aftermath of the twin tower attacks.

DublinWriter · 12-08-2005 11:07am

MorningStar wrote:

While I understand a strike may seem like the only option but given the current risks in London is it not an irresponsible act? I mean how easy would it be for a person with a back pack to mingle in the airport. With all the mixes of races at airports it's particulaly undetectable. A strike is a last resort but given the current risks surely it simply isn't an option.

It would be if it were the police or the security staff that were going on strike.

Meanwhile back on planet earth...

Calina · 12-08-2005 11:22am

MorningStar wrote:

Why would they discard an obvious target? It' not like they are trying to be cool and different. They want maximum damage with maximum impact. Attacking Heathrow while it is full would do that AFAIK.

Yes, but I'm not convinced of your expertise in this matter and their biggest hit to date was very different - the WTC wasn't exactly run of the mill as targets go.

Also, I don't know how much time you spend in Heathrow but it's pretty much always full. Today is not going to be so much more of an impact.

Also it was a wildcat strike. Most of the recent terrorist attacks are planned months and years in advance.

MorningStar · 12-08-2005 11:44am

It's a possibility. To dismiss it considering the recent attacks in London on transportation without any consideration is as bias to say it will happen. I never said it would just wondering if others thought it was irresponsible. Considering it is a wildcat strike it is and as Heathrow is always a target during an increase confusion people may up plans.
To suggest there are no more people there seems to miss what is going on and the fact they aren't in the more secure areas past the security checks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4144386.stm

Never claimed to be an expert either and I don't think you have any expert knowledge either.

Maybe you could all learn to discuss things instead of casting insults at me for asking a questions . I mean Dublinwriter, Calina and Helterskelter in case you didn't know

Calina · 12-08-2005 12:07pm

MorningStar wrote:

Maybe you could all learn to discuss things instead of casting insults at me for asking a questions . I mean Dublinwriter, Calina and Helterskelter in case you didn't know

I do not recall casting insults at you and having checked down through my posts on this subject, if you feel I have cast insults at you, then forgive me for suggesting I think you are over-sensitive to people disagreeing with you. You may of course consider that an insult, but so be it.

In any case I do not think you have adequately addressed any of the points that I have raised highlighting why I feel it's less of a risk than you make it out to be.

I do not pretend to be an expert in the area of international terrorism. But I would venture to suggest that your original post displayed little consideration of how it has worked to date and in answer to your short question: No I don't think it's irresponsible out of security concerns.

I do however consider it to be irresponsible on grounds of fighting for social justice but that is a debate for another day and thread and I don't intend to start it now.

BrianD · 12-08-2005 12:20pm

MorningStar wrote:

While I understand a strike may seem like the only option but given the current risks in London is it not an irresponsible act? I mean how easy would it be for a person with a back pack to mingle in the airport. With all the mixes of races at airports it's particulaly undetectable. A strike is a last resort but given the current risks surely it simply isn't an option.

Yada Yada Yada. Let's be up front there is no increased risk to Heathrow Airport since the advent of modern terrorism as we know it. It has been the same risk that every airport has faced since the 1960's - it had not dimished or increased. In fact the last people to attack Heathrow were our own homegrown terrorists.

HelterSkelter · 12-08-2005 12:21pm

MorningStar wrote:

Maybe you could all learn to discuss things instead of casting insults at me for asking a questions . I mean Dublinwriter, Calina and Helterskelter in case you didn't know

Insults?!! I didn't insult you. I used the word crap. Would you prefer me to replace it with a more politically correct equivalent even though it has the same meaning? Would it still be an insult? I agree with Calina, you are being a bit sensitive.

MorningStar · 12-08-2005 1:48pm

HelterSkelter wrote:

You should apply for a job in the Evening Herald if you can come up with crap like that.

Haha, just noticed your username now, how appropiate!! lol

This is an insult so you know! No need to use any such language and dismiss somebodies views. It is an insult to dismiss views off hand as all three did. I'll leave you to think you are all so witty now

With a name like yours you think you would know what my name means!

HelterSkelter · 12-08-2005 1:53pm

You shouldn't post on a forum if you can't take people disagreeing with your views.

MorningStar · 12-08-2005 1:57pm

HelterSkelter wrote:

You shouldn't post on a forum if you can't take people disagreeing with your views.

You didn't disagree you insulted me and disagreed with me. You might not understand that but you did I asked a question and you attacked the view as crap which is offensive and insulting. I never stated a view and you still don't understand that

HelterSkelter · 12-08-2005 2:24pm

MorningStar wrote:

This is an insult so you know! No need to use any such language and dismiss somebodies views. It is an insult to dismiss views off hand as all three did. I'll leave you to think you are all so witty now

MorningStar wrote:

I never stated a view and you still don't understand that

Is it a question or view, make up your mind.

Calina · 12-08-2005 3:05pm

MorningStar,

you have claimed people here have dissed your view, and then you claim that you never voiced a view? As these are mutually exclusive, I'm at a loss to understand what the problem is here.

Is it your view that a strike at LHR represents an additional security risk to the airport? This is a question which requires a yes or no answer which may just get us back on track.

I find it particularly insulting that you accuse people who have clearly stated that they disagree with your original hypothesis and supply supporting argument and examples for that of insulting you and being unable to debate. I feel you are implying that I do not have a right to hold an opinion which is contrary to you and this is something I cannot possibly agree with.

So once more with feeling: London Heathrow is daily an extremely busy airport. It daily experiences the factors you cited as possible leads to an increased risk. It certainly has a number of stranded passengers but this is not the first time it happened since September 11th.

Secondly, most terrorist attacks are planned months in advance. Opportunism is not dependable in success terms and what people out to create mayhem want us dependable mayhem. Showing up where they're expected is 1) likely to be unsuccessful and 2) likely to damage future plans. Put bluntly, it's a bad investment of time and effort.

Thirdly, you can be sure that every event in the UK down to weekly football matches in the UK is enjoying heightened security as a result of recent events. Would you suggest that the vast array of different cultures who support various football teams and who may want to attend football matches implies that said football matches should be cancelled?

The strike in Heathrow this morning is wrong on a number of counts. It is counter productive - strikes are a lot more effective if they come with some level of public support and at least some warning. Sympathy/wildcat strikes are not likely to generate it, and it is damaging to working solidarity in the UK and particularly damaging to the BA workers' own route to negotiation for their own rights and requirements, never mind what is happening in Gate Gourmet.

DublinWriter · 12-08-2005 5:22pm

HelterSkelter wrote:

Is it a question or view, make up your mind.

Maybe it's a qiew, or perhaps a vuestion?

Someone close this thread, quick.

dowlingm · 12-08-2005 7:02pm

MorningStar wrote:

While I understand a strike may seem like the only option but given the current risks in London is it not an irresponsible act? I mean how easy would it be for a person with a back pack to mingle in the airport. With all the mixes of races at airports it's particulaly undetectable. A strike is a last resort but given the current risks surely it simply isn't an option.

MorningStar - no insult intended now so be cool - as I understand you the strike is linked to "the current risks in London" because in a shutdown situation? Do you then propose making airside workers "essential services"?

The GG strike did not halt BA services. Secondary action by BA bagchuckers and airside bus drivers did, on the grounds that GG workers used to be in BA pre-outsourcing. BA cabin crew, check-in staff and reservation staff, none of whom joined the action, are taking the flak.

I don't know if you've been to Heathrow but it's pretty busy at the best of times and there are plenty of police in flak jackets and Heckler and Koch rifles on the lookout. You can be sure the alert level of those police and their numbers were elevated when this started.

Don't be so precious - if someone insults you they look the fool until you retaliate. Your first post was not an example of clarity and it took me a couple of reads before (I think) I got it.

Heathrow strike irresponsible?

Comments