So Angry!

[argomac]

Sorry guys but I need to rant to someone. My hands are actually shaking from rage as I type this.
Now I know that after the attempted terror attacks last week, security at UK airports has been stepped up a notch, and I understand why to an extent.

But...

When it comes to babies, a little common fucking sence and decency wouldn't go amiss.
My boyfriend's mother was over visiting for the weekend, and brought his nephew over with him. He's 20 months, smart, such a wee character and an absolute delight. We had a great weekend all together (apart from watching the same three episodes of Balamory over and over and over and over and over). I'm not usually around kids, so I was totally exhausted. Ge has so much energy when it comes to playing and running around but it was a great way to spend my weekend.
And yesterday they left. I had to go to work, so my partner drove them to the airport.
She called later that night to say that they had made it home. But also told us about the airport. Naturally, the child being not even two years old, he had a bottle of milk. Now it was understood with the new rules, that the milk would have to be tasted, and she was prepared for that. However, since it took so long to get through customs and check-in, the milk had actually curdeled. Clearly she wasn't going to give it to the baby, so simply said she would throw it away. But no, she was actually forced to drink the milk, regardless of the fact it was off, to prove it wasn't a bomb. After that, she was not allowed to actually purchase more milk for the kid. Now this baffles me. Its not like she didn't have money, but not one coffee shop or airport store would seel her milk for the kid, or even provide her with water.
Later when the child needed his nappy changed, it transpired that someone had vomited all over the baby-changing facilities, and therefore wasn't sanitary to change him.
Nobody would clean it up, or allow her to change the baby elsewhere.
Now really, someone please explain to me why a baby had to suffer through a flight, hungry and and dirty, before I take this rant to BAA. The thought of this delightful child being in so much discomfort just breaks my heart.

 

[argomac]

Yeah I get that. But I dont think it justifies refusing any kind of service to feed or clean a baby. Surely milk or water from within the airport bought legally would be ok?

 

[slobone]

Yeah I get that. But I dont think it justifies refusing any kind of service to feed or clean a baby. Surely milk or water from within the airport bought legally would be ok?

I'd wondered about that too. My local airport has a well-stocked snack bar beyond the security checkpoint. I've been assuming it would be OK to buy a bottle of water there to take on the plane, because I get dehydrated easily. But maybe not?

Because the only other choice would be to drink the "water" from the bathroom tap or wait for beverage service -- which they don't even have on the route I take the most often.

 

[Dobson73]

Yeah I get that. But I dont think it justifies refusing any kind of service to feed or clean a baby. Surely milk or water from within the airport bought legally would be ok?

Not at all. The Airport worker is a friend of the passengers. The Airport worker has security clearance to be Airside and so quite happily concocts his/her part of the plot. An innocent looking woman with a baby throws away her curdled milk and buys some new "milk" from her accomplace in the coffee shop, puts one and one together and ka-boom.

So no, I'm sorry your partner's Mum has to suffer in this way but sadly, it's the way of the world right now. Security were right in what they did, I think.

 

[Lube]

Dont blame air port staff or BAA, blame Islamic Fundamentalists. Its their sick beleifs which are causing all this.

That's a little simplistic, isn't it?

I mean, why are they so angry?

There has to be a reason, no?

 

[NickCole]

That's a little simplistic, isn't it?

I mean, why are they so angry?

There has to be a reason, no?

Sure there's a reason they're angry.

There's always a reason for anger.

But that never justifies visiting that anger on innocent people.

As to the bad experience with airport security and the child, my sympathy goes to the woman who had to drink curdled milk but the truth is we each have a responsibility to be informed about the rules and to be properly prepared for our individual situations. It was her responsibility, not airport security's, to prepare properly for the child's comfort during travel. She should have brought water in a bottle, not milk. That's easy to say after the fact (I might easily have made the same mistake), but still it is OUR responsibility to know the rules and adhere to them.

It is, however, disgusting and unacceptable that the diaper changing facility wasn't clean and sanitary. I would file a complaint about that.

 

[Dobson73]

It's understandable why they did this, but they went about it a little too harshly and it could've been handled a lot more civil then it sounds. Just because of what happened doesn't give them the right to treat people like this.

And is it because they're a little bitter that after they're so high on security, that a little kid snuck through security and all of that without getting caught, and got on a plane with being noticed at all?

"A Little Bitter"? About what? Not being in on the kill when the British Police sprung the potential bombers? That they didn't detect their liquids? Or that they have to wear a synthetic fabric that doesn't breath?

Bled, but who's carrying the Little Kid? Crazy Mumma and her array of liquids and lotions to blow the aircraft out of the sky. She's made enough to do it and sacrafice her kid in the process.

And we weren't there so we can't say whether it was or wasn't a civil exchange. We can't make a judgement based on one person's position who wasn't there, either.

 

[Lube]

Sure there's a reason they're angry.

There's always a reason for anger.

But that never justifies visiting that anger on innocent people.

Never?

I just don't like pat answers.

But I'm going to be accused of hijacking this thread, so I'm bowing out now...

 

[argomac]

wow. wasn't quite expecting such a response. thanks guys. I get why security had to act they way they did (to a degree), but I think there was still a lack of clarity about the rules etc. As NickCole said, it was our repsonsibility to prepare for the baby's comfort and safety, to know the rules and adhere to them. However, this was after the extreme strict rules on handluggage had been relaxed. No more clear bags, you can have a bag within a certain size. And she didn't prepare for the flight any differently than that on the flight over, 3 days earlier. I guess there's just too much confusion right now. And its sad, especially for the baby.

 

[argomac]

^ OK, but don't you think in the type of of unforseen scenario would warrant some type of water to even be allowed? What happens if someone passes out from dehydration?

 

[frankfrank]

But I'm going to be accused of hijacking this thread, so I'm bowing out now...

Better than, than hijacking the plane, hehehehe

 

[NickCole]

Sure there's a reason they're angry.

There's always a reason for anger.

But that never justifies visiting that anger on innocent people.

Never?

Never.

I just don't like pat answers.

I don't know what you mean by "pat answer" in this context but if you think there's a situation in which someone is justified in taking out their anger on an innocent person I'd be interested to read it.

But I'm going to be accused of hijacking this thread, so I'm bowing out now...

If someone accuses you of that tell them to scroll past if they don't like it!