But how far do you take it? Strip search every passenger? Because if you want absolute security that’s what you will have to do.
I’m willing to put up with a certain amount of inconvenience if I can see an actual benefit to my security. But making people stay in their seat for the last hour of the flight and not displaying the in-flight maps showing the plane’s current position are just stupid knee jerk reactions which will make no difference whatsoever to the safety of anyone on board. Nor can I see any justification for some of the restrictions on taking cosmetics, medicines, baby food and other things.
Governments (and it is them not the airlines who make these rules) feel they have to do something but sometimes they have to be honest with people and admits that there are limits to what they can do to protect them from people absolutely determined to do them harm. I think the current regulations are more than sufficient and I don’t see any evidence that people are being put off flying because they don’t feel safe.

I’m stating my own personal view. As I don’t actually have the power to dictate which security measures are in place I am hardly making a judgement on beghalf of other people.

I don’t equate terror (or even caution and concern) with inconvenience .If people feel that airlines are as safe as they can be, they will continue to fly. If they aren’t reassured they will stop flying. This is closer to the aims of terror. Although realistically the ultimate aim of Al Q is not to put Richard Branson out of business. If we have to suffer some inconvenience in order to prevent continuing success for terrorists, then we should do so.

Why do you feel the need to take your computer, your anti-wrinkle cream, or your gun in there?

Just don’t expect the rest of us to believe you need to take your carry-on baggage with you. You don’t need that to take a piss. You do not need electronic support. You have been piddling and pooping since the day you were born. Ask your Mammy. That’s the great thing about human bodily functions, they happen without regard to technology. As they always have done and always will.

“Obviously different people will have a different view, some may be willing to put up with more inconvenience than me, people view risk in different ways.”

What gives you the right to make that judgement on behalf of your fellow passengers, or the people who live under the flight path of your airliner?

No, I’m not joking. I don’t want to abandon all security checks but I do want them to be proportionate to the risk I actually face. Can anyone explain why making me eat baby food makes me or anyone else safer – it’s just stupid. Obviously different people will have a different view, some may be willing to put up with more inconvenience than me, people view risk in different ways. But when I went away this Christmas I was in far more danger from driving to the airport than anything untoward happening on the flight, but I wasn’t tempted to undergo the extra hassle and expense of getting the train instead.