Same thing. Security/Securing themselves against terrorist exists in the UK, beyond the property of the airports.

Instead, our TSA is spending its money on new uniforms for screeners who enforce stupid rules about liquids and shoes.
=======================================================

Terrorist found weaknesses in the system, your response to reduce it would be……..???? Full body X-ray machines? Profiling? Civil Liberty issues…anyone?
now mind you, this country has some 35,000 FLIGHTS per day in addition to HUNDREDS of AIRPORTS. Safety does come at a price, but too high of a price and no one is willing to pay for it.

Actually, it was old-fashioned intelligence and police work that foiled the plot. It had nothing to do with the sort of “security measures” that the TSA imposes at airports. Indeed, if intelligence and police work hadn’t foiled the plot before the plotters got to the airport, mass screening would not have stopped it no matter how much the screeners hassle passengers.

Mass screening can only react to security breaches after they’re discovered, typically by adding some new ill-conceived restriction or hassle at checkpoints. The reaction might reassure some people that the government is Doing Something, but my question whether that’s worth the price in hassles and dollars. If we’re going to have effective security, the resources and priorities would be better spent on intelligence and police work to foil plots long before they get near the airport. Instead, our TSA is spending its money on new uniforms for screeners who enforce stupid rules about liquids and shoes. I can only wonder whether the continuing emphasis on ineffective airport screening might mask a deficiency in less intrusive measures that actually are effective.

According to the Sky Marshalls that I have talked to, they are out there, and still testing the system. WE WIN when we keep one step ahead of the enemy—> Terrorists.
No one said, flying was safe. What we try to do is make it SAFER. And, thanks to SECURITY MEASURES in the UK, a terror plot was foiled. And, because of that, technology responses too!

The European approach of rationally assessing the value and effectiveness of the airport security approach that the TSA effectively dictates worldwide is a threat even greater than terrorism. It encourages articles like this one, which give Americans subversive ideas such as asking why the TSA can’t use advanced technology to reduce passenger hassles like the Europeans are doing. Kip Hawley has brilliantly countered this threat by spending $13 million to dress up screeners with flashy new uniforms that include a picture of the Twin Towers. That emphasizes the professionalism of the screeners while not so subtly reminding passengers of the fear and terror they felt on 9/11. Americans seem to be losing that fear and terror, and are starting to criticize and ask dangerous questions about the TSA and the Bush administration. The new uniforms are a necessary step toward restoring the proper balance that existed when the TSA was first established.

It seems that the main value of airport screening is to remind us that we need to be very afraid, and that our Leaders doing something about the threat. The more hassles are involved, the more effective the TSA is at this mission. Whether it actually does anything to protect aviation is largely irrelevant. The imminent departure of the Bush administration is an excellent time to start asking necessary questions about the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the TSA and the rest of the “Homeland Security” apparatus.

(And Frank, when people stop being angry about the TSA and stop questioning its value and effectiveness, the terrorists will have won. Terrorists win when they bog the enemy down in increasingly costly but dubiously effective “security” measures. They win even more when they transform a free society into a repressive security state where people are as terrified of their own Leaders as they are of terrorists.)

The United Kingdom has been subjected to Terrorist ATTACKS for DECADES!
Their decision to REDUCE the threat of harmful liquids onboard flights was proactive and necessary. They are SECURITY EXPERTS in the UK working to resolve this issue in a timely manner. And, they’re almost there. You criticize the TSA for inconveniencing you with the LIQUID RULE, yet you endorce psychological screening? Hmmmm, that makes showing up at the airport 30 minutes before your flight leaves……………………not possible. Ever fly out of Tel Aviv? I have and you better arrive several HOURS in advance of your flight. And, that wouldnt work in the US, people wouldnt and couldnt handle the inconvenience and resort to taking to the roads. MOST people want to be in a security line less then 20 minutes or they get ANGRY. Reducing the liquids out of that equation assists the TSA in doing their job.

If you’re angry over a THREE OUNCE liquid RULE, then the terrorists have won.