Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-07-06-Speech-3-338-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110706.18.3-338-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Aviation security is a topic of endless discussion. It includes the safe transport of people (performing checks on people and baggage), and of freight and postal items. Which materials can be potentially dangerous? Liquids, gels and aerosols with a volume ‘greater than 100 ml’, firearms and explosives, and solid objects of a certain shape and size (for example, small nail scissors). The author of the report overlooks the fact that the European Commission has not found anyone who would justify this technically non-sensical regulation – a general ban on liquids, aerosols and gels (LAGs) on board aircraft – requested by the European Parliament for the seventh year. By the way, there are no similar regulations for underground trains or high-speed trains, despite the fact that passenger numbers and the risk of attack are comparable. Security scanners have two important unofficial functions. They are good business for the suppliers, and provide employment for large numbers of people. Their ‘reliability’ is not 100%, despite considerable technical progress. The question is: what are we really looking for? Are we capable of detecting the items we are looking for with the desired level of probability? This is the weak point of the whole operation, I suspect, and I have considerable doubts about it. As far as the matter of LAGs is concerned, I see in the background the exorbitant prices of drinks on board aircraft and in airports. I can see no other rational reason for the 100 ml limit on fluids. Despite my reservations regarding scanners, I think that many parts of the report are rational, and the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left is therefore supporting it."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples