issi noho
Sadly, it's a target if you're a terrorist.
You're presuming of course that you have instant and complete knowledge of the threat to the aircraft from reading a note. The note was read by the cabin/aircrew. It wouldn't have been read by anyone else for quite some time.
Thanks for the advice, I'll gladly stick to reading Clancy and go back to the dust bowl if you promise to keep up with your written english lessons.
My what a big boy you are...
Sunfish
Take the point on the Menendez case. From what I have read, a lot of very serious errors occurred. Not sighted on the intricacies of it except what is in the public domain. Will be interesting to read the results of any inquiry.
Sadly, our (and I mean UK PLC) CT capability is nowhere near as big and as capable as we would like to think and things are constantly evolving. Despite being considered amongst the best prepared and trained countries in the world, there are many interfaces between different organisations which could be resolved more effectively. It should be as you suggest, simple. The reality is a damn sight more difficult and unpredictable.
Hence, my default position. Treat the threat as worst case, within the manpower/capability you have in place. It would be nigh on impossible to ramp-up the security screen once a breech had occurred. It does, as I have already commented, place additional people at increased risk for a period of time, as in this case. However, with hindsight, it is very easy to be critical of an area which very few have visibility of.
Sadly, a squad of ten and some painted lines doesn't quite cut the mustard. It would take more than that just to man the telephones to political Lord's and masters!
Radar
Hopefully, noone starts pumping ammunition into anyone. However, if there was an unplanned and unbriefed evacuation from the aircraft ordered by the Captain, an additional and unneccessary risk factor would be created. Do you think that the Captain would be similarly investigated for his actions? I think both sides should have a good lawyer!
The issue with differing SOPs is valid. However I suspect at a static event, for example a cinema, the criteria post Jul 05 may not be as clear cut as you believe. Thank you for your considered, non insulting response!