Security is vital – but so is common sense

IN the wake of the Flight 253 near-disaster, Struan Stevenson MEP (Platform, 31 December) states that, eight years after 11 September, flight security remains largely ineffective. I wonder on what basis he makes that statement. There may, for example, have been dozens – or even hundreds – of similar alleged attempts thwarted at an early stage – attempts of which Mr Stevenson would have been completely unaware.

However, he is closer to the mark when he questions "pointless" restrictions on all air travellers representing a victory for terrorists.

When the attacks on British troops at the Basra base were at their height, I happened to be at Tees Valley Airport, near Darlington, when a contingent of troops, in desert camouflage, was about to join a flight for Iraq. Some of them were on their way back from leave, having already experienced the Basra base being attacked by rocket fire from insurgents on an almost daily basis.

I was surprised to hear that troops were being asked to remove their boots whilst going through security. When a senior officer queried the sense of this, an embarrassed airport official said it was airport policy. The officer wondered why the soldiers would wish to blow themselves up when they could have waited for the insurgents to do it for them.

Well, it might have been "airport policy", and there might have been a very good reason for it at the time, but I doubt it.

When I served in the armed forces, we operated under the principle "security must make sense". I couldn't help feeling that this principle seemed no longer to be being applied by the authorities. By clogging the security machine in this way, there is a danger that a blanket refusal to apply common sense and operate a sensible security policy can only help the terrorists to outwit the airlines.

KEITH HALLEY

Newbattle Abbey Crescent

Dalkeith, Midlothian

Allan Burnett, head of counter-terrorism for the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, says "the alleged attempted bombing of a United States-bound airliner put the case for the controversial (full-body] scanners beyond dispute", (your report, 1 January). This is typical of the "politics of fear" that is practised within the UK – the first reaction is to control, inconvenience and tax the travelling public so as to give an impression of additional security. There was clear systemic failure by the intelligence services, who should have detained suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab at latest at check-in before he even attempted to get through security. Mr Burnett should be focusing on proper profiling of potential terrorist risks, so that low-risk passengers and frequent fliers are not inconvenienced.

It is a pity this fervour for body scanners is not extended to funding for our hospitals, where many more lives would be saved.

MICHAEL N CROSBY

Muiravonside

By Linlithgow, West Lothian