| Mark Saunders inquest: jury point to police confusion Inquest jury rules that Mark Saunders was lawfully killed after a siege at his Chelsea home but criticises a 'lack of clarity' among police command. telegraph.co.uk |
London murders mapped Website records every time a life was taken in capital bbc.co.uk |
Men guilty of shopkeeper murder Two men are convicted of murdering a shopkeeper by hitting him over the head with bottles of wine during a robbery at his Huddersfield store. bbc.co.uk |
The 'what if' approach to airport security is here to stay | David Learmont BA boss Martin Broughton is rightly vexed about intrusive airport security, but terrorism paranoia means it is here to stayThe British Airways chairman's outburst about airport security arrangements was understandable, but it is nevertheless a pointless expression of frustration.Martin Broughton did not deny that security standards should be maintained at their present levels, but he did maintain that it could be done equally well without being so intrusive. In saying what he did, he was not telling any frequent flyer something they didn't already know, and he was not protesting about any newly adopted measures. His statement was made at an industry conference when he was among those who share his frustration and sense of powerlessness.Such is the paranoia among security agencies in Europe and North America – particularly the US transportation security administration (TSA) – that once a security measure or routine has been put in place, nobody dares to remove it for fear their decision may later be identified as the change that allowed a terrorist to breach the system. Although the TSA is, in the US, pilloried by the media and protested against by the public – and has been for years – it is totally immune to criticism. A summary of the criticisms levelled at the TSA by industry leaders such as Broughton and the travelling public alike boil down to the observation that the agency makes policy on the hoof, and that its policies are not based on scientific examination of risks and remedies, but on "what if" scenarios. The trouble with "what if" scenarios is that there is an infinite number of them, and any criticism of a security measure designed to counter a perceived "what if" risk, however small, can be destroyed by the statement: "Yes, but it could happen." There is no answer to that.A good example of the effect of the "what if" approach is the fact that professional pilots and cabin crew are subjected to the same security demands that passengers are, even though they, unlike passengers, are known quantities with special security passes whose backgrounds have been exhaustively checked.Crew are not the same risk as passengers, but they are treated as if they are. And the "what if" justification is this: what if al-Qaida were to train a follower as a pilot and insert him/her into the system, or groom a pilot over the years to become a disciple? There is no answer to that. The argument that the background checks to which crew are subjected would uncover any undesirable affiliations is countered by the "what if" camp with: "Ah yes, but what if they did not?"Security is supposed to be proportional to the risk as identified by intelligence. No one argues that flights into America, particularly by American or British carriers, are more likely to be attractive targets for Islamist terrorists, so no one objects to security being ramped up for them. But Broughton highlighted the fact that security for domestic flights in the US is less stringent than for international ones. Why should it be? The flights used to destroy the World Trade Center and damage the Pentagon on September 11 2001 were all domestic flights.Broughton is right. But history shows his words will have no useful effect. Nothing will change.Air transportGlobal terrorismUS national securityUnited StatesBritish AirwaysTravel & leisureAirline industryUK security and terrorismDavid Learmountguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Unions agree to council's pay cut A council that warned 7,000 workers it may have to dismiss and then re-employ them reaches an agreement with unions on savings. bbc.co.uk |