Apron Security
**Copied from a topic by Mongu**
Apologies – I tried to post this as a respone rather than a new topic but the browser was being awkward.
Typical lack of journalistic objectivity I think:
1. Exactly how long and how hard did the reporter work in order to “stumble” into these security lapses?
2. The inference is slightly misleading. The odd, rare, security lapse does not benefit hijackers or terrorists as in order for this to happen such things would need to be predetermined.
3. I actually missed the article – were any comparatives quoted?
4. I assume the airport was named but the airline was not. If the reporter is being truthful, why not? There is no danger of defending a suit if the assertions can be corobborated.
5. In all honesty, the report is hearsay and nothing more.
6. It is not clear what is being used as a yardstick hence it is difficult to determine if the results of the “investigation” are materially acceptable or not.
7. How were the sample targets selected. Was it purely at random (it should have been) or did the reporter hear something – maybe from a disgruntled employee?
Any comments in relation to the above, people?
Sign In
