Liquid on a Plane

Earlier this week, in the House of Lords (British Parliament), there was a debate among the Lords about the restrictions on carrying liquids onto a plane. Baron Bassam of Brighton was giving a report on how well things are going with the liquid restrictions:

We continuously monitor the effectiveness of, in particular, the liquid security measures…The fact that there has not been a serious incident involving liquid explosives indicates, I would have thought, that the measures that we have put in place so far have been very effective.”

So because there’s been no incidents with explosives and liquids, the security measures must be great! It’s of course the same reason there are no elephants in my backyard — I have tight security to keep them out.

The Baron of Battersea asked:

My Lords, when these measures were first introduced, there was a complete prohibition on taking tubes of toothpaste or any liquids. This was subsequently changed. Why?

The good Baron Bassam replied:

I can only assume that it was because the level of threat from a tube of toothpaste was considered rather less than that from a bottle of liquid.

Ahh! Of course. Then came the best question ever asked in this context. The Baron Elton asked:

What damage can be done by 105 millilitres of liquid that cannot be done by 100 millilitres of liquid?

Baron Bassam baffled:

My briefing does not extend to that. I suspect that this is based on science.

I dunno, this story just makes me snicker.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • I for one, am thankful they made up this rule. Don’t you remember the days when people would take the plane and all its passengers hostage with a bottle of Evian?

    I was soo scared to fly.