Thnking of booking TL in Dec for 1 night and just wondering if there's anywhere decent for a meal close by Thanks

Moved and merged into Manchester Airport topic.

Mark

oap,

• There Is A Village Inn Pub Just Under 2 Miles From The Hotel, More Info Here
  
  • A Weatherspoon's pub About 3 Miles Away, More Info Here
  
  
  • The Slug And Lettuce, Wilmslow. Info Here

Gower

You can eat at the Travelodge and if you book on-line you can get 2 courses for £6. The food is typical pub grub but ok.

Thanks everyone

Airport stops scans on children.
I hope the PC civil rights group who want to protect children and therefore assume everybody must be a paedo who is employed at Manchester Airport these days, will take into account the fact that children have in the past been used as "mules".?
In their enthusiasm to quote the law, they forget about the rest of society, who are subject to the invasion in our personal lives, under the anti terrorism acts passed by Parliament.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/8313335.stm

Sanji

Hi All

Can anyone tell me what airlines will be flying direct from Manchester to New York for 2010 - I seem to recall that Delta are going to stop the service and BA.

Thanks
Nicky

nickyjl,

BA dropped MAN-JFK (BA1503/2) in October 2008 and Delta are dropping it on 8th Jan 2010 (DL154/5). Your options currently lie with Continental Airlines flying in to Newerk (CO100/1, CO20/1) or Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) in to JFK depending on your dates of travel. There is rumor of American Airlines introducing a direct MAN-JFK service, but there's nothing official as yet. Other altenatives include flights via Gatwick / Heathrow, Amsterdam, Frankfurk or Chicago, to name a few.

Darren

I certainly don't assume that everybody working at Manchester Airport is a paedophile but I still wouldn't want any child in my family being scanned by this machine without the assurance that it was safe for growing bodies. X-rays used indiscriminately can be very damaging - remember all those machines that used to be used in shoe shops to check whether kids' shoes fitted? They were abandoned because they were found to be unsafe and could cause damage. Also if I was pregnant, or thought there was a chance that I might be, I would be very reluctant to let them use it on me for fear of harm to the unborn child. The risks caused to possibly thousands? millions? of children have to be weighed up against the security risks and I'm not yet convinced that the risks of terrorists concealing explosives are great enough to warrant that health risk to all those children who could be subjected to this.

SM

Sanjii

You could ask why the hell Manchester airport's highly paid management never had a proper answer ready for such an obvious complaint before they announced the scanners. Whoever's right or wrong this argument should have been predicted a long time ago. To put it bluntly, someone isn't up to their job - and since their job is security that's a bit scary. Even if the scanner turns out to be legal and safe we all now have to wonder what else he forgot to check in various other projects.

The machine has been passed as being safe and 1 dental scan would equal the same radiological output as 20,000 scans through the new security scanner, there is a some radiation that we are exposed to when actually on the plane , so if people thought there was a health risk from the machine what about the health risk when on a plane?
Will people stop their children having dental xrays? do pregnant women let their teeth decay due to not wanting a x-ray? there is far more risk to damaging your health with poor oral hygiene than walking through the new x-ray scanner.
The reason under 18's will not be able to use the scanner is that it COULD be argued legally that it would produce an obscence picture as it would outline their genitals and this MIGHT be seen as child pornography which is obviously against the law and laws are there to protect children.

To gain a security pass and therefore work in secure areas you need to have a criminal records check, and other checks, so if you were on the sex offenders list you would not get a pass to continue your employment. Can convicted sex offenders travel? if so,they would in the departure lounge amongst children, the children protection agencies should be more worried about this than decent law abiding security workers viewing a ghost like picture.

SMa,

While I agree with you on the civil liberties issues, the x-ray issue is nothing to worry about. Passengers will be subject to far more radiation on the flight than passing through 100's of x-rays at airports. The machines are certified as safe.

As someone who works with under 18's on a regular basis, I can vouch for the very strict checks we have to go through via extended CRB checks that are required to be renewed every 3 years. I don't see that as a problem you wouldn' have security clearance if you had any previous convictions. The reason under 18's have now been excluded from the trial is a legal issue concerning the potential taking of indecent images of under 18's. I understand the machines are also set and locked (ie can't be adjusted) to a pre-determined strength of x-ray so the person using the machines cannot adjust them in order to get a better image of the person. It's set only to show up anything of high enough density to warrent a hand search. I still personally think it's a measure too far and anti-terror laws infinging on civil liberties, but then I can also understand the security aspect. It's a tough one really.

Darren

SMa wrote:

The risks caused to possibly thousands? millions? of children have to be weighed up against the security risks and I'm not yet convinced that the risks of terrorists concealing explosives are great enough to warrant that health risk to all those children who could be subjected to this.

i wonder what situation the airline/airport business and even the whole of the country would be in if the liquid bomb plotters who planned to blow up seven planes mid-alantic had been successful? i consider that a fair risk and a very convincing one to making sure our security systems are effective, including visible checks at airports as a deterrent, undercover intelligence and surveillance, and using the best technology available. Obviously you can't subject anyone to potential health risks and these machines need to safe for use not only for those using them but also those controlling the scanners every day, and the scanner has been checked and passed as safe.
They sound a great idea, but it is only a trial and all the relevant information will need to be closely analysed to see if they are effective and an enhancement to the current security procedures, not simply just a device to get people through the system quicker.

Do children get 'frisked' at security ?
If so, isn't an X-ray a better option than a stranger running their hands over the child ?

John.

john123 wrote:

Do children get 'frisked' at security ?

It depends on the circumstances. If the metal detector alarm sounds, they'll normlly be once-overed with the hand held device and asked about anything metallic that may have set it off, eg empty pockets and go through again. That normally resolves the problem but they may be hand searched if not. The main difference is, any touching (avoided at all costs) will be done under parental supervision at that point. It's when things are being done behind closed doors with no witneses or parental consent that you run in to problems.

Darren

nickyjl wrote:

Hi All

Can anyone tell me what airlines will be flying direct from Manchester to New York for 2010 - I seem to recall that Delta are going to stop the service and BA.

Thanks
Nicky

Hi Nicky ... there is some news today of Delta relaunching the service in May. Click HERE for more info in our Delta Airlines topic.

David

This topic probably needs/needed a thread of its own.

The predecessor to this scanner which is currently on trial at MA, was in use at Heathrow Airport between 2004 and 2008, but the machine required the passenger to have 2 "shots" taken (front & back) and sometimes a "side" view, which proved just as time consuming as the "pat down" method.
After further research, the technology was able to lower the dosage of radiation and this present scanner in use at MA is able to take a more detailed image of front and back, with the subject having to stand still for a few seconds only, while the beam is directed at the body.

It isn't the same as a normal x-ray that you would have at the hospital or the dentists because the standard medical radiography uses x-rays that pass completely through the body of examined person, whereas these scanner use low energy x-rays that are reflected from near the surface of the body, known as backscatter imaging.
As has been mentioned, you are exposed to more radiation using a mobile phone, during a one hour flight and far more radiation for those who prefer long haul.

Is it a step too far.?"¦. I can't make my mind up"¦
At first I thought "what is the problem, one genital is the same as the other and when you've seen one, you've seen them all." and surely the official looking at the scan will be looking for more important objects than the undeveloped genitals of children or the different shapes and sizes of the human race..
Do people really believe that ghost images of children would be preferred to the sick, filthy, deranged minds of paedophiles, who can get obscene photos with far more detail, to view and exchange on the net.?
And what about those detectives who spend their working day viewing obscene detailed pictures of children, in their efforts to expose/convict paedophiles.?

However, a spokesperson from MA said the images will only be on the screen for a few seconds and then destroyed, and it's implied (to me) that the images are relayed to a monitor with no USB port or any further functions except to zoom and "hold".

Although I prefer not to use Manchester Airport these days, it seems I have very little choice for a flight to Malaga next June, so, after a bit of delving on the Rapiscan web pages"¦
The images produced on the monitor which was trialed at Heathrow and requires back and front scanning, they can be zoomed, saved, archived/recalled, stored, printed or copied to a floppy disk for evidence"¦.and with computer technology, I would hazard a guess that the "ghost" image can be further enhanced or the parameters "unlocked" to show facial features that would stand up in court.
So, have these functions been removed from the upgraded "one pose" scanner or have they been conveniently omitted from the data.?
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.?

These scanners are going be rolled out across US airports after their trial in Los Angeles and New York, and the Department of Transport here in the UK will make a decision about their application after the Manchester trial.
In the USA they had the same concerns about privacy and there are systems using backscatter imaging that do not show the contours of the genitals.

There is a scanner sold by the same company that performs the same function as the present one in MA, (Rapiscan) which does not use radiation, and it doesn't outline anatomical features, and therefore protects privacy"¦.is it just a matter of cost, or technology racing ahead of the decision makers, and one system becoming outdated before it's applied.?

I believe we will have the choice of being scanned or having the usual "pat down" scanning, and then possibly stripped searched"¦..It's a matter of opinion which of the two systems are more intrusive.?
The people screaming about their modesty will probably be the first to strip themselves and their children down to the bare essentials at the first opportunity in the resort, and could unknowingly be sharing the beach with paedophiles anyway.

I'm the first person to stand up and say that I strongly object to being stamped, numbered, labelled, filmed and filed, but where aviation security is concerned, I'd do a Lady Godiva in Terminal 2, if it means some lunatic is not going to send me to my maker before my time.

I suppose there'll always be the choice that if you don't like it, then don't fly, use a boat, train or car instead.

http://www.rapiscansystems.com/rapiscan-secure-1000-single-pose.html
http://www.ecilrapiscan.com/static/secure1000.htm
http://www.rapiscansystems.com/rapiscan-wavescan-200.html

Sanji

john123 wrote:

Do children get 'frisked' at security ?

Most years, my daughter (now aged 17) has set the alarms off with her jewellery etc. Whenever this has happened I have always been called over to supervise while a female member of security carries out a more detailed check. It has never worried me, it has always been done in a professional and courteous manner and I feel safer travelling knowing the checks are in place.

As for the new scanner, well, I'm not really bothered either way. A human body is a human body, thousands will be seen each day and if you've nothing to hide then you've nothing to worry about.

cyberspacekadette wrote:

As for the new scanner, well, I'm not really bothered either way. A human body is a human body, thousands will be seen each day and if you've nothing to hide then you've nothing to worry about.

if you think of all the hand luggage that is x-rayed and then hand searched you would be surprised what some people carry and a few would be shocked, if they're easily shocked in "that way" adult toys etc, at first its probably funny, but like most funny things its becomes boring after a while and the intended shock has no effect, once you've seen it , thats it. So when security view the human body x-rays it will become just viewing an object which is slightly impersonal if you feel you have the body beautiful about yourself, but then you won't meet the person who has viewed the x-ray anyway.