PDA

View Full Version : Ban on Muslim Cameras in Planes


Harold Gough
21st March 2017, 06:31 AM
Donald Duck strikes again!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-us-bans-electronic-devices-on-flights-eight-muslim-countries-royal-jordanian-airlines-a7640591.html

Harold

Zuiko
21st March 2017, 07:30 AM
I'm curious why these devices have been restricted but not mobile phones. My first thought was maybe some intelligence has emerged about a bomb risk, but then you wouldn't want these in the luggage hold either. Maybe it's just another of Trump's baffling whims?

Petrochemist
21st March 2017, 10:25 AM
Just more Trumped up nonsense!

Harold Gough
21st March 2017, 10:43 AM
I think they should make a new version of the film "The Men in Black" as "The Men in White" :D

Harold

RogerMac
21st March 2017, 11:41 AM
I was in Athens airport last week and they made me take my lens cap off and checked it was covering glass and not some plastic explosive. This was only happening to large cameras I suppose that this was on the grounds that small ones could not contain enough explosive to bring down a plane, I do not know where they were drawing the line.

Harold Gough
21st March 2017, 11:50 AM
I was in Athens airport last week and they made me take my lens cap off and checked it was covering glass and not some plastic explosive. This was only happening to large cameras I suppose that this was on the grounds that small ones could not contain enough explosive to bring down a plane, I do not know where they were drawing the line.

And do they allow for the crop factor? :)

Harold

Jim Ford
21st March 2017, 01:22 PM
Is there no beginning to the intelligence of the SCROTUS and his crew?

Jim

DavyG
21st March 2017, 05:46 PM
Is there no beginning to the intelligence of the SCROTUS and his crew?

Jim

This ban has now been introduced by the UK Goverment also:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39343971

Dave

iso
21st March 2017, 06:55 PM
This ban has now been introduced by the UK Goverment also:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39343971

Dave

So far all very jokey - but maybe there is a reason:(

PeterBirder
21st March 2017, 08:06 PM
So far all very jokey - but maybe there is a reason:(

Sadly, in the unstable times we live in there is undoubtedly a very good reason.

Fear of cameras by airport security is nothing new. On one of many visits to Iran, prior to the 1979 revolution (when the Shah and his SAVAK secret police had everything under control :rolleyes:) I had an interesting photographic experience. I had taken a camera with me (Olympus trip IIRC) and when I had the film developed at home there was a wierd out of focus shot I couldn't figure out. It eventually dawned on me that it was taken in Tehran Airport terminal by a security official. During the pre-boarding search my camera was found and I was asked to point out the shutter button. The security guy then held the camera at arms length, closed his eyes, made a fearful grimace and released the shutter. When he opened his eyes and found he wasn't in Paradise yet he gave a big grin and wished me a safe journey.

Iran was a wonderful place then. The only country I visited where I got shot at ( by the "good guys" who shot at everyone after dark ) and knew that wherever I went my movements were reported and conversations recorded. I can't imagine what it is like now.:D

Regards.*chr

cliff
21st March 2017, 08:13 PM
Just heard on the news that the UK has adopted the same measures as the US!

Just noticed the above post by DavyG, Ha, I was in to much of a rush, sorry.

Naughty Nigel
21st March 2017, 10:26 PM
I gather this follows an incident where a terrorist detonated a device in a laptop shortly after takeoff from an airport in the Middle East, blowing a sizable hole in the plane, but not bringing it down.

The terrorist was sucked out of the plane owing to cabin pressure and was killed, but the plane was able to make a successful emergency landing. No other passengers were killed but some suffered injuries.

Given this background the new restrictions would seem to make a lot of sense, but why were they not brought in immediately after the event, which I believe happened around two years ago?

Zuiko
21st March 2017, 11:11 PM
I gather this follows an incident where a terrorist detonated a device in a laptop shortly after takeoff from an airport in the Middle East, blowing a sizable hole in the plane, but not bringing it down.

The terrorist was sucked out of the plane owing to cabin pressure and was killed, but the plane was able to make a successful emergency landing. No other passengers were killed but some suffered injuries.

Given this background the new restrictions would seem to make a lot of sense, but why were they not brought in immediately after the event, which I believe happened around two years ago?

Seems a bit like the proverbial stable door and horse that bolted.....

PeterBirder
21st March 2017, 11:16 PM
I gather this follows an incident where a terrorist detonated a device in a laptop shortly after takeoff from an airport in the Middle East, blowing a sizable hole in the plane, but not bringing it down.

The terrorist was sucked out of the plane owing to cabin pressure and was killed, but the plane was able to make a successful emergency landing. No other passengers were killed but some suffered injuries.

Given this background the new restrictions would seem to make a lot of sense, but why were they not brought in immediately after the event, which I believe happened around two years ago?

The BBC report includes this assessment.
"It is not the result of a specific, identified terrorist plot, but of mounting concern in US and British intelligence circles at the ongoing interest amongst jihadist groups in the Middle East in blowing up a passenger plane in mid-air."

Given the apparently increasingly successful operations to defeat IS on the ground it seems quite likely that they are looking at alternative ways to cause mayhem and no doubt monitoring of their "chatter" is indicating this.

peak4
22nd March 2017, 01:03 AM
The BBC report includes this assessment.
"It is not the result of a specific, identified terrorist plot, but of mounting concern in US and British intelligence circles at the ongoing interest amongst jihadist groups in the Middle East in blowing up a passenger plane in mid-air."

Given the apparently increasingly successful operations to defeat IS on the ground it seems quite likely that they are looking at alternative ways to cause mayhem and no doubt monitoring of their "chatter" is indicating this.

Indeed and I understand the concern, but which is easier, bribing a sympathetic baggage handler to get something through airside security, allegedly as happened to the plane in Egypt, or getting a dodgy laptop through a personal hand inspection at the passenger security gate in full view of everyone?
Looks like I'll not be using Turkish Airlines via Istanbul for my next holiday, if I want to take my camera gear, which is a shame as they are superb to fly with.

Maria
22nd March 2017, 08:53 AM
I was in Athens airport last week and they made me take my lens cap off and checked it was covering glass and not some plastic explosive. This was only happening to large cameras I suppose that this was on the grounds that small ones could not contain enough explosive to bring down a plane, I do not know where they were drawing the line.

This happened to me and my hubby, travelling through Athens a few years back. We both had cameras with 3 or 4 lenses and they insisted on taking both caps off all the lenses and peering through them. My hubby has a full frame DSLR and we can guarantee that about 3 out of 4 times, airport security insist he takes it out of the bag, where it is examined and sometimes swabbed. It occasionally happens with me too but less often.

While I understand the need for security, I don't understand why it is safer to have these items (if tampered with) in the hold than the cabin - generally cabin bags are subject to more checks and I thought items like lithium batteries couldn't be carried in the hold. I certainly wouldn't want my expensive camera or laptop to be carried in the hold (and my hubby would refuse point blank) - I've heard too many stories of items stolen, not to mention broken.

I don't have any plans to visit any of the affected countries and will avoid going to or through them in future. I'm just hoping this doesn't spread and become the norm - that would be the time I give up air travel!

Harold Gough
22nd March 2017, 09:42 AM
Items in the hold may be uninsurable:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-4235178/How-hand-luggage-hold-not-covered.html

Harold

DerekW
22nd March 2017, 10:01 AM
During the time when computers and cameras etc could not be carried into the cabin I had a Peli case custom fitted to hold the E1, a couple or so lenses and the laptop and cables. This was to go in the hold - I spoke to the insurance company before travelling and explained why I was having to put the luggage in the hold and they agreed to cover items.
The Pelican case was locked with cable ties and a TSA security lock (so the US TSA chaps could get into the case).
The camera annd computer survived several trips including internal flightsin the US.

So ask the insurance company for them to cover the cameras etc going into the hold.

Maria
22nd March 2017, 10:05 AM
Just checked my travel insurance wording (Insure for all) and it would not be covered.

Under exclusions:

For valuables within checked-in luggage or in luggage compartments/racks not immediately adjacent to you on any form of public transport (other than hand luggage that stays with you at all times).

Petrochemist
22nd March 2017, 12:06 PM
Just checked my travel insurance wording (Insure for all) and it would not be covered.

Under exclusions:

For valuables within checked-in luggage or in luggage compartments/racks not immediately adjacent to you on any form of public transport (other than hand luggage that stays with you at all times).

Most travel insurance will have a standard exclusion clause like that. If the situation is explained to them they'll typically come up with an excess premium to provide extra cover. It may not be worth taking out but it's worth checking!

I remember years ago my brother had a classic car to insure. It turned out the difference between 3rd party & fully comp. was 1.5x the value of the car. Sometimes taking the risk yourself is better than paying someone else to cover it!

pandora
22nd March 2017, 06:06 PM
Naughty Nigel = The terrorist was sucked out of the plane owing to cabin pressure and was killed, but the plane was able to make a successful emergency landing. No other passengers were killed but some suffered injuries.

If it was just after take off he should have still had his seat belt buckled - serves him right.

Naughty Nigel
22nd March 2017, 06:11 PM
I'm just hoping this doesn't spread and become the norm - that would be the time I give up air travel!

Given the tragic events in London this afternoon I suspect most of us will be slightly more sympathetic to the need for security.

Naughty Nigel
22nd March 2017, 06:18 PM
If it was just after take off he should have still had his seat belt buckled - serves him right.

I'm not sure what altitude the plane had reached, but they usually switch the seat belt signs off well before reaching cruising altitude.

He clearly didn't want to wait for the drinks trolley and airline food though.

Maria
22nd March 2017, 06:54 PM
Given the tragic events in London this afternoon I suspect most of us will be slightly more sympathetic to the need for security.

I sympathise greatly with all those caught up in the latest events in London and I do understand the need for tight security. I'm quite happy to undergo having my camera equipment checked, swabbed, etc. I simply won't be travelling to any countries where I have to put it in the hold. I'm not willing to risk what amounts to a good few thousand pounds worth of equipment being stolen or damaged in the hold.

Naughty Nigel
22nd March 2017, 08:38 PM
I sympathise greatly with all those caught up in the latest events in London and I do understand the need for tight security. I'm quite happy to undergo having my camera equipment checked, swabbed, etc. I simply won't be travelling to any countries where I have to put it in the hold. I'm not willing to risk what amounts to a good few thousand pounds worth of equipment being stolen or damaged in the hold.

You may remember we had a similar situation in the UK a few years ago after the 'Shoe Bomber' incident.

Whilst a laptop and/or tablet is 'nice to have' I managed perfectly well without them. In fact I found the lack of hand baggage (to carry) was very liberating. :)

You can do most things on a phone now anyway.

Maria
22nd March 2017, 08:57 PM
You may remember we had a similar situation in the UK a few years ago after the 'Shoe Bomber' incident.

Whilst a laptop and/or tablet is 'nice to have' I managed perfectly well without them. In fact I found the lack of hand baggage (to carry) was very liberating. :)

You can do most things on a phone now anyway.

I can live without a laptop or tablet - and my phone is far from smart! I do not want to travel without my camera though. Part of my enjoyment of travel is to take photographs and we often plan destinations with that in mind. Photography extends and enhances my enjoyment of the holiday when I return home and leaves me with lasting memories, through those images.

It's not clear whether the UK ban includes cameras - in light of today's events, this item has been rather overshadowed - and besides, I have no current plans to visit any of the countries involved. The worry is that it will become the norm for flights to other destinations.

Naughty Nigel
22nd March 2017, 09:11 PM
It's not clear whether the UK ban includes cameras - in light of today's events, this item has been rather overshadowed - and besides, I have no current plans to visit any of the countries involved. The worry is that it will become the norm for flights to other destinations.

I don't think the ban does include cameras, but I wouldn't be surprised if it extended to all electronic devices fairly soon, and on all flights.

Indeed, I think it is highly likely that all hand-baggage will be banned from flights; for a while at least, as happened after the 'Shoe Bomber', Richard Reid, tried to bring down a plane in 2001 if I remember.

This is a particular problem for me as I regularly fly abroad to carry out surveys, and need to take instruments and cameras with me. I think I might look at the train as an alternative.

Wally
22nd March 2017, 09:14 PM
... You can do most things on a phone now anyway.

There-in, remains the problem, especially when one considers the glut of so-called 'smart appliances' and the apparent ease of hacking into the systems.

Be interesting to see the numbers complaining about withdrawal symptoms when they have to part with their 'mobile comfort blanket' when travelling.

Naughty Nigel
22nd March 2017, 09:20 PM
There-in, remains the problem, especially when one considers the glut of so-called 'smart appliances' and the apparent ease of hacking into the systems.

Be interesting to see the numbers complaining about withdrawal symptoms when they have to part with their 'mobile comfort blanket' when travelling.

Not just 'smart appliances', but aircraft systems themselves were are told, especially where planes are fitted with WiFi! :eek:

Psychologists believe the withdrawal symptoms are due to an effect known as FOMO, or Fear of Missing Out. :rolleyes:

I often forget to take my phone with me when I go out, so no withdrawal symptoms for me. :)

pandora
23rd March 2017, 09:41 AM
Well why would a would be terrorist bother to set up a digital device as a bomb to bring down an airplane when he/she can more easily drive a car into a crowd and wipe out dozens of people with seemingly little or no chance of being foiled in advance? The current Westminster Bridge catastrophe for example.

Zuiko
23rd March 2017, 10:05 AM
Well why would a would be terrorist bother to set up a digital device as a bomb to bring down an airplane when he/she can more easily drive a car into a crowd and wipe out dozens of people with seemingly little or no chance of being foiled in advance? The current Westminster Bridge catastrophe for example.

They can potentially kill more people by destroying a plane and perhaps this carries more kudos within the sick world in which they live. However the real purpose of terrorism is to create fear amongst the population to the extent that it severely disrupts our lives and leads to the breakdown of our society. To this end it pays to be diverse with their threats, leaving us unsure when, where or how the next atrocity will occur.

Harold Gough
23rd March 2017, 10:08 AM
Well why would a would be terrorist bother to set up a digital device as a bomb to bring down an airplane when he/she can more easily drive a car into a crowd and wipe out dozens of people with seemingly little or no chance of being foiled in advance? The current Westminster Bridge catastrophe for example.

Because air travel is essential to the world economy and to the tourist trade, which is about all some poorer countries have.

Harold

Maria
23rd March 2017, 10:30 AM
Well why would a would be terrorist bother to set up a digital device as a bomb to bring down an airplane when he/she can more easily drive a car into a crowd and wipe out dozens of people with seemingly little or no chance of being foiled in advance? The current Westminster Bridge catastrophe for example.

It's a rather scary world that we live in now and much as I believe that we shouldn't let terrorists rule our lives, it does put me off visiting certain tourist destinations. I'm not a fan of crowds and big cities at the best of time, mostly preferring nature and the quieter places in our world. I'm not sure what can be done about these random acts and don't understand the mentality of those behind them.

Naughty Nigel
23rd March 2017, 10:31 AM
Well why would a would be terrorist bother to set up a digital device as a bomb to bring down an airplane when he/she can more easily drive a car into a crowd and wipe out dozens of people with seemingly little or no chance of being foiled in advance? The current Westminster Bridge catastrophe for example.

Good question.

From a UK perspective, aviation security is much better now than in the past, so it has become increasingly difficult to mount terrorist attacks on aircraft. Sadly, as we have seen, security in some other parts of the world is much more lax.

However, the aim of a terrorist is to terrorise people in as many different situations as possible; hence their attacks on everything from aircraft to trains to cafés to concert halls to Christmas markets and Westminster Bridge.

In short, a committed terrorist will do whatever it takes to scare people from what they would normally do, whether that be taking a flight, enjoying a concert or simply walking the streets of London.

It is up to all of US to defy their depraved aims and objectives.

Zuiko
23rd March 2017, 10:48 AM
Good question.

From a UK perspective, aviation security is much better now than in the past, so it has become increasingly difficult to mount terrorist attacks on aircraft. Sadly, as we have seen, security in some other parts of the world is much more lax.

However, the aim of a terrorist is to terrorise people in as many different situations as possible; hence their attacks on everything from aircraft to trains to cafés to concert halls to Christmas markets and Westminster Bridge.

In short, a committed terrorist will do whatever it takes to scare people from what they would normally do, whether that be taking a flight, enjoying a concert or simply walking the streets of London.

It is up to all of US to defy their depraved aims and objectives.

I'm with you.

Ricoh
23rd March 2017, 11:17 AM
Good question.

From a UK perspective, aviation security is much better now than in the past, so it has become increasingly difficult to mount terrorist attacks on aircraft. Sadly, as we have seen, security in some other parts of the world is much more lax.

However, the aim of a terrorist is to terrorise people in as many different situations as possible; hence their attacks on everything from aircraft to trains to cafés to concert halls to Christmas markets and Westminster Bridge.

In short, a committed terrorist will do whatever it takes to scare people from what they would normally do, whether that be taking a flight, enjoying a concert or simply walking the streets of London.

It is up to all of US to defy their depraved aims and objectives.

Death, as witnessed yesterday, is a high price to pay. As far as I'm aware, backed by common sense, you don't get a second chance at life, when it's gone it is sadly gone.

Wally
23rd March 2017, 12:45 PM
Reading an article today it seems there are worse things to worry about than wholesale international terrorism?

Believe it or not, the I'net is up in arms - pun intended - that Wonder Woman has taken time off from fighting crime to shave her armpits.

After reading through the blurb, I've gone from terrified to petrified at what snippet of news is next to hit the major news outlets?

drmarkf
23rd March 2017, 06:56 PM
Death, as witnessed yesterday, is a high price to pay. As far as I'm aware, backed by common sense, you don't get a second chance at life, when it's gone it is sadly gone.

It's worth keeping in mind st times like this that by far the most dangerous thing most of us do is travel on the road.

I looked up the number of deaths and serious injuries per year on London's roads, and it's something like 2000 per year (300-odd deaths). That's just under 40 per week.

So, when some of my friends tell me they're going to stop going to London because of fears of terrorism (as a couple of them do every time something like this happens) I'll politely ask them why they've been recklessly driving in London for the past 40 years...

This is Western Europe, for goodness sake, not Aleppo. We must carry on doing exactly what we have been doing, otherwise they've won.

Of course, other powerful reasons for terrorist actions are to impress potential recruits that they can radicalise, and to sow discord between Islamic and other people in the targeted country.

Iron fist responses, such as those likely to be perpetrated by the Trump regime and other totalitarian governments in Europe and elsewhere, have never worked and, again, are mainly done to make those governments look strong in the eyes of their supporters. Therin lies the death of democracy and our freedom, and that needs to be resisted just as hard as we resist terrorism.

Zuiko
23rd March 2017, 08:22 PM
It's worth keeping in mind st times like this that by far the most dangerous thing most of us do is travel on the road.

I looked up the number of deaths and serious injuries per year on London's roads, and it's something like 2000 per year (300-odd deaths). That's just under 40 per week.

So, when some of my friends tell me they're going to stop going to London because of fears of terrorism (as a couple of them do every time something like this happens) I'll politely ask them why they've been recklessly driving in London for the past 40 years...

This is Western Europe, for goodness sake, not Aleppo. We must carry on doing exactly what we have been doing, otherwise they've won.

Of course, other powerful reasons for terrorist actions are to impress potential recruits that they can radicalise, and to sow discord between Islamic and other people in the targeted country.

Iron fist responses, such as those likely to be perpetrated by the Trump regime and other totalitarian governments in Europe and elsewhere, have never worked and, again, are mainly done to make those governments look strong in the eyes of their supporters. Therin lies the death of democracy and our freedom, and that needs to be resisted just as hard as we resist terrorism.

Well put, Mark, I entirely agree.

Naughty Nigel
23rd March 2017, 10:08 PM
Death, as witnessed yesterday, is a high price to pay. As far as I'm aware, backed by common sense, you don't get a second chance at life, when it's gone it is sadly gone.

That is true, but then living a life cowed to terrorists is no life at all in my book. If you never takes a risk you will never achieve anything.

Life is for living and enjoying. I may have a slightly skewed view on this matter as I have done many risky things in my life, including racing motorcycles on the Isle of Man and in Northern Ireland. I have no idea how fast I was riding as racing machines don't have speedometers, but it would have been close to 180 MPH on narrow, twisting roads, often between a hard rock face and a drystone wall.

Looking back, I would say I have probably had more close shaves on open roads than when racing.

It makes good sense to avoid obvious and unnecessary risks, (I have no interest in sunbathing on Egyptian or Turkish beaches anyway), but when you start worrying about flying with major UK airlines, or getting on a train, I would say you need to get things in perspective.

Ricoh
23rd March 2017, 11:05 PM
I've had my share of risk taking flying single engine a/c, nearly coming to a sticky end on two occasions. The risk provided a certain buzz, especially when I walked away. But such things are premeditated and training for an emergency is a life saver. I like to be in control of my destiny as much possible.

Naughty Nigel
23rd March 2017, 11:35 PM
I like to be in control of my destiny as much possible.

Don't we all! :)

Only an automaton would be happy to have their destiny determined by others.

However, getting back on topic, I strongly believe that our tacit acceptance of the will of certain groups puts us at greater risk, not less.

We collectively vote our politicians into power. One of their primary responsibilities is to create legislation to protect the public. It is the job of the Police, Health & Safety Executive, HM Customs & Revenue and other agencies to enforce this legislation.

Crucially, there is only room for one set of laws in this country, and these laws must apply equally to all. The suggestion that we should allow Sharia Law, or incorporate Sharia Law into our legislature is treading a very slippery slope in my view. (Likewise any other legislation which is incompatible with British values.)

Give a quarter of an inch and they will take a yard!

Harold Gough
12th May 2017, 08:16 AM
The latest is that laptops will be banned on ALL flights to the USA:

https://www.grahamcluley.com/reports-claim-us-will-ban-laptops-cabins-flights-europe/

Harold

Zuiko
12th May 2017, 09:03 AM
Crucially, there is only room for one set of laws in this country, and these laws must apply equally to all. The suggestion that we should allow Sharia Law, or incorporate Sharia Law into our legislature is treading a very slippery slope in my view. (Likewise any other legislation which is incompatible with British values.)



You may have noticed that I hold somewhat liberal views and more than once I've been accused of being a bleeding hearts left-wing socialist do-gooder (usually on MSN comments :D) but you have touched upon a subject where I firmly believe in no compromise whatsoever. Sharia Law is alien to this country, our beliefs, morals and traditions - in short, our whole way of life. It is the very anathema of liberalism. Anyone who wishes to impose this upon us is simply incompatible with core British values and needs to find another place in the World that is more to their liking to call "home."

Naughty Nigel
12th May 2017, 09:06 AM
The latest is that laptops will be banned on ALL flights to the USA:

https://www.grahamcluley.com/reports-claim-us-will-ban-laptops-cabins-flights-europe/

Harold

Will this include iPads/tablets I wonder?

Naughty Nigel
12th May 2017, 09:10 AM
You may have noticed that I hold somewhat liberal views and more than once I've been accused of being a bleeding hearts left-wing socialist do-gooder (usually on MSN comments :D) but you have touched upon a subject where I firmly believe in no compromise whatsoever. Sharia Law is alien to this country, our beliefs, morals and traditions - in short, our whole way of life. It is the very anathema of liberalism. Anyone who wishes to impose this upon us is simply incompatible with core British values and needs to find another place in the World that is more to their liking to call "home."

What worries me is that many of those who would impose Sharia Law on the UK have made hell-holes of their own countries, and they show every intention of doing the same here.

This is not racism or xenophobia; just a simple statement of fact.

Ricoh
12th May 2017, 09:14 AM
The higher the probability of arriving at your destination the better.

By the way, is this going to continue as a photography forum? :)

Ricoh
12th May 2017, 09:21 AM
You may have noticed that I hold somewhat liberal views and more than once I've been accused of being a bleeding hearts left-wing socialist do-gooder (usually on MSN comments :D) but you have touched upon a subject where I firmly believe in no compromise whatsoever. Sharia Law is alien to this country, our beliefs, morals and traditions - in short, our whole way of life. It is the very anathema of liberalism. Anyone who wishes to impose this upon us is simply incompatible with core British values and needs to find another place in the World that is more to their liking to call "home."

I have an idea, let's build a stonking-big wall around our shore line, 150' tall. That should do it. Ban aeroplanes, search every last inch of ships pulling into port.
And guess what, who's going to pay for it....

Naughty Nigel
12th May 2017, 09:24 AM
I have an idea, let's build a stonking-big wall around our shore line, 150' tall. That should do it. Ban aeroplanes, search every last inch of ships pulling into port.
And guess what, who's going to pay for it....

The Mexicans! :D

Oh sorry, wrong President. ;)

Ricoh
12th May 2017, 09:25 AM
Yeah, let's get the Mexicans to pay for it, why not?