Given the document below, you have to determine if "Yes" or "No", the summary is factually consistent with the document.

Document:
Four-year-old NAME_1 had his toy gun confiscated at East Midlands Airport . A four-year-old boy was frisked by airport security and then forced to hand over his plastic nerf gun after it was deemed a security risk. NAME_1 had arrived at East Midlands Airport with his parents, NAME_2, 44, and NAME_3, 38, with his brightly coloured toy - which fires sponge darts - packed in his hand luggage for their flight out to Lanzarote. But security officers, who were described as 'over-zealous' by the boy's father, then took exception to NAME_4's harmless toy when it was picked up on the system's X-ray machines. They demanded he hand it over, and they also performed a thorough patting down and inspection of the primary school child. NAME_5 has labelled the security checks 'ludicrous' and criticized how staff reacted in the situation. Mr NAME_6, a software engineer, said: 'Fair enough

Summary:
1. NAME_1 arrived at east midlands airport with his parents .
2. the four-year-old had his plastic toy gun packed in his hand luggage .
3. but security took exception to the toy when it was picked up on x-ray .
4. they demanded he hand it over and performed a thorough patting down .
5. NAME_5 has labelled the security checks 'ludicrous' and criticized staff .

Is the summary factually consistent with the document? (Yes/No)
Start your answer explicitly with "Yes" or "No", and if you answer no, explain which sentence is inconsistent and why.
 Provide exactly two different responses that are separated with 6 asterisk symbols: ******.
user