"Unless they do check there is absolutely no point in doing it." Well, we're agreed on that. If they do have the people involved identified and on data bases they can instantly scan, that makes sense. I'm just doubtful if they actually are going to have that kind of ability in practice.

Even ifvthey have, all that wold acheve would be to allow them to say "This person is not on our list of suspected foreign terrorists", which doesn't actually get very far. It's something, but it's not a big something.

Obviously I'm not against measures that would reduce the danger of bombs on aeroplanes and that kind of stuff. But I am suspicious about what seem to be PR exercises which don't actually significantly reduce the danger, but are used as an excuse for not doing things that need to be done, in order to achieve that end.

"You also seem to have changed your tune with regard to the amount of support, equipment and training your well organised terrorists would have to have."

Not really - my point on that issue was that there is no reason to assume that the scale of resources required to carry out a campaign of organised violence is so great that only a national government could provide them. Just for example, there are plenty of wealthy individuals whose fortunes would be quite sufficient. That's where Osama Bin Laden fits in the picture.