I'll get straight to my point. THEY SPENT 800,000 POUNDS !! Just to investigate drone sightings that were unverified. It's the 800,000 pounds that perplexes me. Instead of running around spending money on an investigation, THEY COULD HAVE BOUGHT AND INSTALLED A HIGH END DRONE DETECTION SYSTEM, like the one they used in the LAS VEGAS test. Now they are out 800,00) pounds + lawsuit losses. They could have used the money to prevent future false drone sightings and bought a system that truly and faithfully detects drones seen and unseen. Yeah, this is hindsight, but now they are out ,at least, 1 million pounds and have nothing to show for it. They could be using the best state of the art drone detection equipment to date, but they rushed into things and were overzealous in their response to unfounded sightings. I mean, come on, not one cell phone photo of the alleged drone or drones was captured? Anyway, this thread is about what they could have spent their money on, instead of wasting it, looking for a needle in a haystack. All airports should consider buying drone detection equipment, before they decide to perform an investigation, that may only lead to the capture of one man, when they can buy a drone detection system, that will capture almost all those that violate airport boundries now and in the future. It would also eliminate false sightings and stop airports from shutting down.