As Tan has pointed out above, the people who are responsible for making the rules have shown that they have no real concept of what really is required when it comes to some aspects of security. They have succumbed to their political masters overwhelming desire to be loved so that they can announce in their next soundbite that they have done everything in their power to make flying more secure.
Following the argument that a pilot could be influenced to smuggle a weapon to someone airside who would then use that weapon to hijck a different flight is pretty flimsy. If Customs, Immigration and Police officers are not required to be searched the assumption must be that they are not subject to depression and therefore coersion. I don't know what level of checks and medicals members of those agencies are regularly put through but I doubt it is as regular as we pilots have to jump hoops. The logic used is as sensible as banning all flying which will reduce the risk to zero. While they are at it, why not ban all vehicles on the roads because they could be used to transport explosives to a vulnerable area.
It just goes to show how utterly pathetic the people who are responsible for putting all this 'security' into action are when it comes to lateral thinking. They are in fact so predictable that any group of highly organised terrorists would have a field day predicting where the loopholes are. Thankfully, most of us and our customers are in a new mindset when it comes to dealing with anyone standing out as suspicious once on the aircraft. Instead we have imbecilic dictats which impede the ability of many of us in the industry and our customers to operate efficiently and comfortably.
The report mentioned above quotes that the danger from organised crime at airports is of little consequence in the overall security requirements for 'designated' airports and that concentration on anti-terrorist measures is more immediate. How many high profile robberies have we had at major 'designated' airports since 11/9 compared to terrorist or 'security' ones?
Until the faceless people in grey suits whose jobs involve making security rules that they present to their political masters involve those of us who have to deal with daily farce that we are faced with every time we go to work then we will continue to see stories of incompetence and pig-headed ignorance from those employed to carry out the duties of keeping up the appearance that security is working for cosmetic purposes.