Re: So are we saying...
"Not at all - we're saying we should test whether those tiger teams have done a good job not assume they have, and since the threat surface is continually evolving and that State hackers would potentially have new & different insights to other professional testers"
Which is fine, but a bank, a commercial concern that is in business to make a profit should be paying for that oversight itself, just like they pay accountants to conduct audits on their financial operations. Why should we pay for government to carry out a security audit on banks to allow twats like David Cameron to be seen to be 'doing something?'
"it does no harm and possibly a lot of good."
It does me plenty of harm if I end up paying for it. Which at some level, as a taxpayer, I will.
"Did you know that but just wanted to take a cheap shot at banks,"
I made a valid comment, whereas you sound like you're possibly defending a vested interest.
"or did you not think before commenting?"
Yes, I did. Try it some time yourself.