Racism or Justification?

Over the past couple of weeks security in our airports has been tight, further to alleged terror attacks being planned on flights between UK and the USA. Now as security is relaxed, airport security are being told to "look out for" possible terror suspects.

The problem is that the Muslim Community are raising the issue that this amounts to racist discrimination. Just because someone is part of an ethnic minority, where some members have previously been blamed/guilty for terrorist activities, does it give the Government/Police the right to judge each member of this minority as a possible terrorist?

This is just one of the recent examples where it has been argued that passengers have been targeted just based on the colour of their skin.

The above article states that "People should keep an eye out for suspicious behaviour but nervousness is not enough."

It may be argued that suspicion is increased by the ethnicity of the individual/group. The police may justify this by stating that they must identify any possible connections to terrorist activity including race/background/location and flight details. These ethnic groups have allegedly been involved in previous terrorist scares/attacks isn't it right that they take special care to fully check passengers of this race?

Should security not be vigilant of everyone no matter of race/religion?

It has been argued that Asian/Middle Eastern passengers are being discriminated against, that it is being assumed that they are all related to terrorism in some way.

Does this link to racism? The same argument is raised across the UK that black people are not treated equally with Caucasians where the police are involved (arrests/stop and search etc.)?

Occupier's liability

Recently I have been considering putting barbed wire at the top of our boundary fence (between our front garden and waste land, away from the public highway) in order to prevent the local kids climbing over it continuously and causing damage to the already old fragile frame. Then I sat back and considered, what if some stupid kid injures themselves?! I would be liable! Where did the law go wrong? Under the Occupier's Liability Act we are liable for anyone who enters our property whether they are invited or trespassers! So basically a burglar can come in and if he injures himself whilst in the property can sue the property owner for personal injury! How does that work then? He shouldn't be there in the first place, he is a trespasser! If in the middle of the night you met face to face with an intruder would you think twice about knocking him out? You aren't even entitled to protect your property unless you use "reasonable" force, how are we supposed to know if they have a gun/knife on them? Should we just let them take our stuff? And what is the definition of reasonable? - The answer to this is that there isn't one within the law, everything is reasonable this and reasonable that, but just what is reasonable? To different people it may be different things in different circumstances! The law is in much need of change, but with "reasonable" being used throughout the legal system nobody can be bothered or just don't want to.

Glad I got that off my chest it has been bothering me for a while now!
Anne