I would be in favour of selective screening and even letting passengers have a say in the people they have concerns about. The sad fact is that I now do look at people in Muslim dress with suspicion. I am not religiously bigoted but saddly this sense of discrimination is something that Mulims have brought on themselves through the actions of a small number and the inaction of many.

The sad thing about security is that it is mindless. I went through Gatwick last month flying to the USA and they were doing the random checks at the gate. I assume that they check every 10th or 20th person or something like that.
There was this really weird looking guy, white but weird. Probably not a terrorist but I would not have been surprised if he had been carrying something. Had I been on duty, I would have wanted to check his bag but because he was not number 20, they let him pass and checked some harmless looking woman.
I know I sound prejudiced against weird looking people but if I had to share a seat with someone, I would definitely not want to be with him. I suppose the checkers cannot be seen to be selective. I understand that but still think they are missing a trick or two.

British people used to be able to queue patiently. We learnt it from our parents who managed in much harder times of war. Now, people are always in a hurry and think it is me, me, me that is important. Let me tell them that it is not.

The trouble with the idea of selective screening is who does the selection? If it were the same stupid people that manage the bins in our area and say how much we can put in and when and where they have to be put out then we would be in deep trouble. It is ok saying about common sense but so few people in authority seem to have any common sense.

I agree that it is sad that we have to put up with all of this delay and standing in line but what are the alternatives? Until we can sort out the political mess, there are bad people out there that actually want to kill us.

I know what you mean. I am a mother and should be more tolerant of other people's kids but some parents really are self-centred, inconsiderate pigs. They must know that travel is stressful - why do they have to make it more so buy allowing their brats to run around out of control?

I have the same problem. I was stopped and had the extra search. I do not think that I look like a terrorist but they were very nice and apologetic about it. I hate to use the phrase but I guess they were only doing their job.

There were these three guys in front of me and they were middle-eastern of some kind and they knew that they stood out and were almost taunting the staff to pull them aside. I reckon if they had been stopped there would have been all kinds of fuss about them being selected because of how they look which would have been unfair on the staff as it was them that was calling attention to themselves.
What my partner said was that they could have been covering for someone else slipping through who actually was a danger - like a diversion that they do.

I’m pro to the latest extra security measures; we need effective deterrents. I had no problem removing my shoes at Heathrow security, very thorough.

Do you really want this Government to be deciding who should and who should not be checked? Can you trust them to have the right balance as you call it? Any kind of selective screening has the potential to be abused.

I do not want to be in a country that discriminates against people just because of the way that they look. People should not put up with this idea. We are all equal here and it is not up to an airline to say who is allowed to go or not to go.

I do love these online debates - you get to hear such diverse opinions and views. Of course we have to use selective screening. If we are going to have the cost and disruption of screening then it has to be made as effective as possible. Screening and searching the author's sister was a waste of time and resource in the name of political correctness.
Can we please get real and recognise from where the threat is coming and concentrate on that. If, next year, there we have a threat from the extreme right-wing of the women's institute then we can focus on elderly ladies. For the moment, I fear the religious extremists.

Who wants to see dodgy looking people pulled aside and checked? I do for one. I just cannot see what is wrong with the idea. It is the Muslims that are causing the problem, I am sorry for the innocent ordinary ones, but they have to sort their own people out.
There was this guy on the TV spouting on about that they had to terorise non-belivers into converting to Muslim and that any measures were ok because their bible said so. We have stop the nonsense and it is better if the sensible Muslims do it. Until they do, they all have be treated the same and that is with suspicion.

I agree that we should be more selective. I would be quite happy to look at 100 of my fellow passengers and decide which ones that I would be comfortable travelling with. I might end up with 50 'suspects' but it would be a good start.

It does piss me off that I have to go though all this security because of the so called "Islamic threat". We really have to decide, and I guess the Islams have to decide whether they want to be part of a normal society.
We seem to have leant over backwards to give them resect for their religion. They have their mosques etc and we accept that but, if they want to live in Britain, they have to be part of our society and put their religion second. If they cannot do that then they should go to a county where Islam is the national religion.
My parents were CofE and went to church and sent me to Sunday school but they did not bang on about it all the time. They certainly did not want to blow people up with bombs, nails and ball bearings.

This is crazy. How can you say that you can tell who is and who is not a terrorist? What if someone has asked them to carry stuff onto the plane. I saw Bridgette Jones and you can see how easy it is to get conned not by the bad guys direct but because your friend said it was alright.

No one should be excluded from the DFT security procedures. With such a large volume of travellers, there is simply no time for airport security staff to assess if each individual fits a terrorist profile.

We had the problems up here and it involved doctors. How can you believe that doctors who have gone through all that training and have to be pretty smart would get involved? If you were being selective, would doctors not be one group that you would think might be safe? One of them did not even look very middle-eastern.

There is almost a collective madness about terrorism. The harder we try to protect ourselves the harder they try to get around the protection. It is bound to happen again no matter how hard we try. So why do we bother and put ourselves through all this mess?

I find the whole security thing quire frightening. They did a body search on one woman and I would not want them doing that to me and I don't know if I can say no to it. It is so unfair that we have to go though all this. I get really upset for the people traveling with children.

I already commented once on this and I have now read the entry from Ken Thomson about the doctors in Glasgow. I have to admit that when 'educated' muslims want to blow us up just because of the religious differences then it is necessary to focus on all Muslims. I am definitely not anti-Muslim. I have no knowledge about or interest in their religion. If they want to pray to Mecca then fine but I just do not want them trying to tell me what I have to do or wanting to kill me because I am a non-believer.
I would be sorry for an innocent Muslim being screened just as I am sorry that I am being screened but until the threat goes away, and as long as we know it comes from that particular religious group, then that is where we have to concentrate the efforts.

I want to avoid being blown up but I do object to the search and scan procedures and the endless queues and delays at the airports. I do not know the answers but I would have hoped that there was a better solution.
I certainly do not believe that all Muslims are bad, far from it, we have some here and they are ordinary people who have their own beliefs just like the Jews and the Baptists etc. The sad thing is that we are now talking about it and focusing on them because of things that awful people have done. Having said that, I do think we have to be more selective with our searches.

This article and discussion is actually very important. There clearly is a risk and the terrorists are going to try to kill more people unless we are vigilant.
So, I have to ask if the checks etc make us safer, and do they reduce the risk? I have to presume that the answer is yes. Then I ask, can we make them more effective and can we make them less intrusive? I think the answer is also yes but it involves profiling and stereotyping. My question is then whether the unfairness of stereotyping is outweighed by the effectiveness argument?
I guess that I would like to hear from some of the reasonable Muslims who would bear the brunt of this stereotyping.

I am new to this site and just read this article and agree totally that we have to do something to improve the screening. I suppose that I would not want to target Muslims as I would not want to be targeted myself but we could certainly exclude some people and make the system better.
I am sorry for the many good Muslims but the truth is that the threat does come from within their communities.

They cannot start stereotyping/profiling every Muslim passenger because of the small percentage of them that have committed acts of terrorism. The security measures are a pain but very necessary, no one should be excluded.

I think the new 'body scanners' are an excellent idea and the fact that you wont be allowed to fly if you refuse. Safety should be our top priority!!

This new system is extremely necessary. On September 11, the hijackers all set off the metal detector alarm. Despite being checked with a hand-held detector, the screener failed to find the items that caused the alarm. They then all boarded the aircraft.

Admittedly it will be a little weird/embarrassing to walk through these new airport security full body scanners, but if it proves an effective deterrent to terrorists I'm all for it.

I think this is a no win situation. If security is clamped down then obviously checking in procedures are going to take longer but if they aren't then risk of terrorists slipping through the net is greater.

I agree with Charlotte. If security is abolished then the aircraft are going to be easier to attack when it comes to terrorism, but on the other hand if we do get checked we can feel reassured that the airport staff are working at their utmost ability to protect us.

How did we get into this state? Why do Muslims want to kill us? Can it really be that their religion tells them that they have to make us convert to their ways or have the right to kill us. That has to be stupid and it is hard to believe that they really believe it.

The sad truth is that the "terrorists" (aka criminals) have won. They are willing to take extreme risks for what they believe in, as we have become more and more risk averse. We've forgotten the risks people took to obtain or defend the freedoms we take for granted and now demand a perfect, risk free, environment in which to enjoy them.
Result? We are creating and accepting more and more constraints on how we live, becoming, slowly, but apparently inevitably, precisely the sort of government managed society that is the antithesis of the of the freedom we say we want. It's not just airport security (and the talk of extending it to other means of travel), it's also storing all our emails and tweets and a growing litany of other intrusions.
The ONLY answer it to be prepared to accept more risk, that it can NEVER be completely eliminated and that the "precautionary principle" is not as wise as it seems. The price of freedom is being prepared to unexpectedly lay YOUR life on the line!