niknak – you’re either having a laugh or what you’ve written above is a wind-up, right ?!
I.e. w.r.t :
Dont forget that the provision of "front line" security screeners, is the last part of a very intricate process.
Oh no it’s not.
And w.r.t :
They only follow orders from their employers, who follow orders from the UK TRANSEC or the appropriate authority.
That’s as in “Ve ver only following ze orders !”, apart from which I suggest that you look up the meaning of words ‘appropriate authority’, e.g. I imagine that you’re implying that Government Mandarins are sufficiently ‘expert’ and well briefed w.r.t. what
we do as to be able to enforce their self-invented policies upon us ?
If so, then please be so kind as to rearrange these words, ‘could not p1ss they a organise in brewery up’ - actually the flip-side of all this is that there follows from it a pervasive belief ( in our present Government ) that the transport industry ( and the CAA ) are too inept as to be able to put in place things which might actually work and / or be of benefit, and as such only the Government can be trusted to do a good job and know what's best for us !
E.g. Let’s have a look at recent edict from these self-assumed ‘authorities’ that our present flightdeck doors must be replaced ( at vast expense ) with ones that are armoured to a ballistic-level ( i.e. capable of not being broken down and also of resisting being shot-through ).
Now I know for a fact that even the CAA think it’s not a worthwhile move but they’ve been told to ‘follow ze orders !’.
I.e. The fact that a terrorist armed with a gun ca
n’t shoot you through the flightdeck door ( coz it’s armoured ) will not prevent the said same terrorist from spraying the flightdeck with bullets from the forward toilet and / or galley – because these areas, adjacent to the newly armoured door, are NOT armoured – so is it me, or is this just plain stupid logic that’s being applied here by the Mandarins ?!
Nb. Their ( the authorities ) real need here is to be seen to be doing something ( in the eyes of the voters ), rather than that ‘something’ actually being properly thought through and / or of any value.
W.r.t :
Intelligence is the major source of prevention of terrorism, and it will frequently go unreported because either it is not newsworthy, or the news is not released because it's part of a bigger operation.
What you’re are suggesting is that a level of cooperation and integration exists between the security services, which in fact it does not !
I.e. From my knowledge of it, the security services are riddled with self-serving and ( unsurprisingly ) secretive types who’re loath to disseminate information / data which they see as belonging only to them ( and this even after 911 ). As they say, “It’s a need to know basis, and nobody else needs to know !” And is it any wonder ? E.g. the histories our security services were awash with loathing and discrimination ( as per comments by
Sir David Petrie ), and still are ( imho ).
And certainly the mechanism by which information is promulgated between the various agencies is more by accident than design – i.e. there is NO formalised system for doing this.
E.g. You’d be fooling yourself if you think that MI6 feel that they should tell Special Branch ( and vice versa ) about covert operations which might be targeting terrorists albeit that both services are maybe watching the same people. Indeed one would imagine that the way that seems to work best is when MI6 types manage to leave their laptops in the back of London taxis for the police to find !
Nb. For some background w.r.t some of the above, see also:
BBC - Blair rebuked over security services
BBC - Second spy loses laptop
BBC - Spy chief doubted 'incompetent' police
W.r.t. :
By all means bicker about having your nail clippers taken away from you, (when big signs before check - in tell you otherwise), but save your real gripes for when your plane is hijacked foloowing a failure of UK/European/US security procedures.
Uhm, might I suggest that
you’re obviously not seeing the bigger operation – I would be the first ( well, maybe not ) to hand over implements which might be used for acts of violence on-board ( say, anybody know the last time somebody used a pair of nail-clippers to perpetrate an act of air-piracy ? ) but let’s have a level playing-field shall we ?
I.e. Across many EU and other worldwide airports it’s possible to be searched / scanned, but then go airside and then purchase all manner of items that one might subsequently use in an aggressive manner ( e.g. Swiss arms knives, cutlery gift sets, glass bottles full of highly flammable spirits, etc… ), indeed one airline I recently flew with has very nice manicure sets for sale as part their in-flight sales stock ( complete with nail clippers & files ! ) – so as they say, ‘go figure ?!’
So in summary, what we've got are security forces that are loath to cooperate with each other, government departments issuing poorly researched edicts all done in the name of improved security ( but where in reality it’s purely ‘spin’ in order to be 'seen' to be doing something ). In the meantime airlines are having to spend vast amounts to comply with the new security policies, plus many of the front-line airline folks realise that it’s all a crock of ****, to say nothing that we’re all paying for it one way or another - so oh what a waste of money, energies, and time !
Ps. And don’t even start me on the so called ‘locked flight deck door’ policy !