So, have I got this right:



The informed opinion is that the Olympics pose an increased security risk, and there has to be a layered response to any actual, or perceived threat. Where ever it comes from, be it a highjacked aircraft, or the traditional swarthy chap with a big rucksack riding around on London's Transport system. The pros and cons of any escalating response will have been war gamed many times, the collateral damage estimated,and the political briefings already written. Sounds sensible to me, although it is quietly understood that most of the advantages lie with the bombers. As one Irish terrorist opined 30 years ago....."yous have to be lucky all the time, we have to be lucky once"



That still holds true today





And on the other hand, what alternatives are being offered? Well, we have to give credit to IA for an excellent impression from Dads Army of Corporal Jones doing his famous headless chicken routine......"Don't panic....don't panic!"



I'm not convinced IA.



Perhaps someone could propose an alternative response, that offer something a tad more substantial in the defence of Mintballs et al?

It's one of the many reasons Heathrow is useless - it's in the wrong place because of prevailing wind direction - planes don't like cross wind when taking off or landing. There was a patch after 9/11 when all planes were diverted around London and had to approach Heathrow from the east. It was a nightmare.

Has that happened regularly, then?

Its a pity we have to put measure such as Ground to air missles on top of flats or fully armed Typhoon Fighters up over the capital, but it is far better that then wishing we had them after an incident. Hopefully they will not be needed and if they do need to take action against any aircraft they will have seconds to act and I suspect the decision has already been passed to the military to act if required.



I pose the question,



9/11 If US knew those planes where going to or thought they might have caused the death and destruction they did would they have shot them down ?



I think they would and think we would



I wonder how a Typhoon would square up against a small light aircrfat with no jet pipe, travelling slowly.

Not a declared Tory but very close to acting like one: [url=http://www.securityoracle.com/news/G4S-Appoints-John-Reid-As-Group-Consultant_14833.htmlEx Home Secretary Lord Reid appointed as Group Consultant to G4S[/url

The problem in 2001 is that the US authorities didn't know where the four jets were until they turned up on CNN / Fox News and given that the world had no other experience of hijacking other than that they always ended with a safe landing at an airport and then prolonged negotiations, sometimes successful, sometimes not, then I doubt that anyone would have given the order to shoot the flights down unless there was a definite proclamation that they were on a suicide mission.

Here's what will happen.



NOTHING.



A few un-named people will be arrested, then quietly released. Sky news will be getting carried away with non-existant terrorism stories.



David Cameron will tell the world that we're winning the war on terror.

Wouldn't need a Typhoon to take it down. I'm not sure what the slowest speed a Typhoon can do while staying airbourne if the aircraft needed to be 'intercepted'. I suppose if ground crews really think it is a terrorist in a small aircraft and they need to shoot it down then the damage it would cause on the ground would not be that massive. But then why use a light aircraft in the first place? Flying it into a crowded stadium would probably cause a few deaths but not a huge amount of damage in the grand scheme of things.



If there are terrorists hell-bent of flying planes into major sporting events then why choose the Olympic games with all the security measures surrounding it? The FA cup final or the Challenge Cup final would be much softer targets and would be just as devestating.

Probably because there'd be far fewer watching the FA or CC finals than the olympics

Just heard on 5Live that G4S are going to pay for the additional cost of the 3500 additional military personnel who will be pressed into service and that because of this they will make a loss of between £30 and $50 million on the contract. If i was a share holder I would be asking some serious questionsof the board of directors and senior management.

I am finding that seriously difficult to believe when you consider the uprate in charging they were allowed to factor in.



They may be hoping that no one looks too closely at the other contracts they've been gifted by the UK taxpayer

Being of a very sceptical nature I don't quite read (for instance) the BBC's report on the G4S statement [urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18837524[/url which states that the company will lose up to £50million of their contract - its a very fine and pedantic point but thats not the same as making an overall loss of £50million on your work.



Its clear that the Home Office are now saying that a large portion of the POTENTIAL earnings of G4S during the actual period of the Olympics would have been paid to cover wages for the 10400 staff and that as they won't now be supplying that number then they won't be receiving some of that money - a company man would therefore be justified in stating that they will lose £50m from the contract - see the difference - and that is all that the statement on the BBC News web site is saying (at the time of posting this message).