Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

Notices

Go Back   Film and Darkroom User > General discussions > Top Tips

  ***   Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks   ***

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 26th January 2024, 09:05 AM
John King John King is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: County Durham
Posts: 3,291
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
I hate to disagree with another King ....
But I think, without actually researching the UK legislation, you will find that the enabling legislation for the searches and screening will provide that lawful excuse - it probably gives them total discretionary authority.
Sorry Matt but in this case you are incorrect. If the facilities exist for a hand search and as I mentioned there wasn't a specific threat then deliberately putting items through a test after a due warning to the operator that that may damage them is being reckless. The legal definition of recklessness in English Law, very briefly is heedless to the possible consequences

It is a point that would have to be thrashed out by some very expensive Barristers but taking it as it is read then under the 1971 Act as it stands it is quite clear.

I can say without fear of contradiction it will not affect me because I don't fly. I detest being kept waiting with precious little information
if a flight may be cancelled where even the price of a coffee is exorbitant. Even the thought of being several thousand feet in the air in an aluminium tube with possibly obnoxious drunken travelling companions with no way of avoiding them, and have taken the decision - not for me.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 26th January 2024, 01:41 PM
Terry S Terry S is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Southend on Sea, Essex, England, UK
Posts: 3,757
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snusmumriken View Post
Results of an experiment by YouTuber Lina Bessanova. See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRlReCTzDV8

She talks a lot (albeit engagingly), so I watched it at 1.5x speed.
And back to the original post.

I've just watched it and had to whizz through huge parts of it, as it's way too longggggggggg!!!! There is so much information being given, I just couldn't take it in. And I have to agree with John King's comments, having spotted a couple of incorrect points in the bits that I watched:

Quote:
Originally Posted by John King View Post
Just because someone has a lot of followers world wide that does not make what she is saying is correct. Like E Bay so called bargains, I treat UTube information with a great deal of scepticism. She appears to talk the talk but like a certain American politician you take what is uttered with a certain amount of salt.
But as mentioned, the best place to start is looking at the info on the film manufacturers website, which she basically concludes is right. And how many of us go through about 6 to 8 scanning machines at one go, with the same film?

Until the full installation of CT scanners, I think two passes through the x-rays for a holiday is fine. The end of last year was my last trip of that year and the film were perfect when developed when I got home.

Now CT scanners are something different all together, so I'll be checking the info on Ilford's technical pages for any updates just before my next trip.

Terry S
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 26th January 2024, 11:34 PM
MattKing MattKing is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Delta, BC, Canada
Posts: 112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John King View Post
Sorry Matt but in this case you are incorrect. If the facilities exist for a hand search and as I mentioned there wasn't a specific threat then deliberately putting items through a test after a due warning to the operator that that may damage them is being reckless. The legal definition of recklessness in English Law, very briefly is heedless to the possible consequences .
The definition is essentially the same as here in British Columbia.
And I'm afraid my quarter of century practicing British Columbia law leads me to the likely conclusion that the wording of the empowering legislation will determine how fettered - or not - the security inspection discretion is. I'd be prepared to bet that that legislation gives the inspectors essentially unfettered inspection.
In my younger days, I worked as a Canadian Customs officer, with similar almost unfettered discretion respecting scope and necessity for search.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 27th January 2024, 09:47 AM
John King John King is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: County Durham
Posts: 3,291
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
The definition is essentially the same as here in British Columbia.
And I'm afraid my quarter of century practicing British Columbia law leads me to the likely conclusion that the wording of the empowering legislation will determine how fettered - or not - the security inspection discretion is. I'd be prepared to bet that that legislation gives the inspectors essentially unfettered inspection.
In my younger days, I worked as a Canadian Customs officer, with similar almost unfettered discretion respecting scope and necessity for search.
Note my comment. If facilities exist. to perform a hand search that precludes them from wantonly or recklessly risking damage to a persons property when it is unnecessary and they cannot be bothered to do a physical search. Comparing Canadian law and UK law is not a wise mix there will be fundamental differences.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 27th January 2024, 10:53 AM
MikeHeller MikeHeller is offline
Print Exchange Manager
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Wales
Posts: 1,277
Default

With all this discussion about legal definitions, it seems to me that legality has rarely prevented the Gov't and its agents from doing whatever they wanted to in practice.

We should keep this forum to the discussion of furthering our use of film & D/R rather than arguing about the rights and wrongs of the powers-that-be intentionally or incidentally restricting that activity.

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 28th January 2024, 10:36 PM
JOReynolds JOReynolds is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: St Albans UK/Agde France
Posts: 1,072
Default Lina Bessanova

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeHeller View Post
Who or what are Lina Bessanova and their investigation?
Lina Bessanova is a Russian-born lecturer in Photography at the University of Florence, Italy.
I come from a photochemical engineering background and I am always glad to view her stuff. She produces videos of real substance, backed by proper sensitometry, with examples. She also speaks English for the camera, German for sponsorship and Italian for her students.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 30th January 2024, 01:26 PM
JOReynolds JOReynolds is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: St Albans UK/Agde France
Posts: 1,072
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John King View Post
Just because someone has a lot of followers world wide that does not make what she is saying is correct. Were these tests done under controlled conditions or as a result of casually passing xray scanners and knowing the exact technical date of each one of them. She appears to talk the talk but like a certain American politician you take what is uttered with a certain amount of salt.
You should not comment, in these pages or any other, on something you have obviously not viewed.
There has been a lot of unscientific chatter about the risk to film of high-power CT scanners. Ms Bessanova's research involved about 35 rolls of film, B&W, colour neg and pos, of varying ISO. She passed them through two different airports' security scanners five times and compared the Dmin of unscanned and scanned film, processed under the same conditions. It's the most thorough investigation I've seen and I don't think it could have been more exhaustive.
Before dismissing her work, watch it yourself - you might actually learn something!
The sponsorship, by the way, was limited to providing the sample film.
Reply With Quote
Reply
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ilford Safety Film 100ft MK5 archglencoe Photography in general 17 1st September 2023 10:29 PM
Safety Equipment Quendil Equipment miscellaneous 37 19th November 2019 02:13 PM
Airport x-ray film fog test GoodOldNorm Monochrome Film 2 26th August 2018 04:26 PM
Airport contraband PaulDiz Photography in general 17 12th June 2016 10:16 AM
Safety stuff AmericanMrs Manufactured brews 13 7th October 2010 04:42 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.