The Sunday Telegraph reports that "Schools to get scanners to stop children with knives"
"The proposal, from Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, follows the conviction last week of Alan Pennell, 16, for the murder of Luke Walmsley, 14, in a school corridor - a knife attack that prompted a public outcry.
The police will allow head teachers concerned about the growing number of children taking weapons to school to use a mobile X-ray device.
The scanners, which cost £100,000 each, are normally used by officers to assess potential criminals, terrorists and drug dealers.
Sir John believes that the equipment could play a vital role in averting other tragedies in schools.
"We would use them in any place the headmaster felt there was a problem with knives," Sir John said in an interview with The Telegraph.
"We would also work with the headmaster in hotspots outside schools . . . places where we know knives are carried."
The Metropolitan Police has two of the American-made Secure 1000 scanners. They are used to identify quickly whether a person is carrying weapons, drugs or bombs.
Officials said that the offer would at first apply to Greater London but could be extended to the rest of Britain.
The 4ft-long machines, similar to an airport luggage scanner, use low-level X-rays to penetrate clothes, but not the body. They produce a digital image on a monitor within seconds, reducing the need for a full body search.
They were first used in April in a drugs and guns crackdown in east London and helped to uncover 15 handguns, a rifle, a pump-action shotgun and various other weapons.
Sir John said that his force was about to acquire more of the machines, including a hand-held version that would be easier to use. "There are more machines in the pipeline," he said"
The production of an image showing children without their clothes is totally unacceptable, not necessary to detect knives and is almost certainly illegal under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 section 68 Interpretation of Voyeurism
"68 Voyeurism: interpretation
(1) For the purposes of section 67, a person is doing a private act if the person is in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy, and-
(a) the person's genitals, buttocks or breasts are exposed or covered only with underwear,"
What is wrong with a traditional metal detector portal gateway or hand held wand, as is used in aitrports throughout the world, which simply bleeps but does not create an electronic digital image looking under your or your child's clothes ?
If these images are even temporarily stored electronically, as they must be inherently in the design of such systems, then this constitutes "making, adistributing or possessing" child pornography c.f. Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 section 84 etc.
Passive Millimetre Wave radar imaging suffers from the same "see under your clothes" problems, but so called "low intensity X-Ray" imaging must raise even more health worries.
Where are the independent clinical trials, rather than the claims by the manufacturers, as to the long term safety of this procedure ?
The "low intensity X-rays" are going to be routinely administered to children, presumably every day of the school term. What might be a safe X-ray dosage for the occaisional airline flight, needs to be looked at much more critically when it becomes a cumulative daily dose directed at growing children, year in year out.
This has got to be orders of magnitude more of a health risk than those which concern so many parents about the proximity of mobile phone base station transmitters or high vo;ltage power lines near to schools. is the school,
Who will pay the legal court costs and damages when the cases start to be filed in court, in a few years time, claiming that this X-ray scanning is partly or wholly to blame ?
Just how exactly are these two £100,000 machines going cover the hundreds of schools within Greater London ?
If these two machines or the "others in the pipleline" are diverted for use at schools, what about the terrorists and gun carrying drug dealers who they were meant to be detecting ?
It is astonishing, that given the high level of anti-terrorist alert which we are supposed to be on, that these machines are not being used at say the Houses of Parliament or at Railway or Tube stations.