It would seem that the War On Global Footwear is over. The last two Thursdays have seen me going through LHR Terminal 1 without having to remove my shoes.

Presumably Al-Quaeda sent BAA a note, saying

Righteous Al-Quaeda Brethren in Jihadi Alliance under The Most Holy One to Western Materialistic Fascists, Greeting.

We promise no longer to attack your Western aggressor aviation industry by means of the bombs hidden in Shoes, honest we do. Therefore please call off the security shoe-removing behaviour which is causing us all to spend too long in Airports.

Yours in Faith
Osama

Update 26 Oct

War on Footwear back on, sadly. Presumably Al Queda were just on half term.

Oh, also LHR now have a War on Loading Your Own Tray.

Perhaps I'm just missing it — perhaps it's not a War on Terror, but a War on Catching Your Flight...

No, I'm sorry, I've spent too long fuming about this, so have to rant somewhat. Please excuse me...

Once again last night, coming home through LHR I was confronted by the sheer stupidity and theatrics of the security regime. In the last 6 months, LHR's security policy has moved from Occasionally, you will have your shoes checked to Randomly, you will need to put your shoes through the scanner to everyone will always have to have their shoes scanned.

Being a bolshie person who doesn't give in to implied orders, but waits to be explicitly told to do stuff, and even then challenges them, I enquired why this might be so. And the astounding answer was along the lines of:

Mumble, mumble, terrorism, mumble, mumble, current security climate, mumble, mumble, Shoebomber, mumble mumble.

Or, to put it another way, the best excuse they could come up with was a failed attempt nearly 6 years ago which hasn't been repeated since and has never happened under a British airport security regime, leaving two possible interpretations:

1. They're extremely slow on the uptake
2. It's all about being seen to be tough, without having any real impact on risk

The paranoid civil libertarian would naturally pick on the second explanation, as preparing the travelling public for any number of future restrictions (hell, why don't we all fly naked. And ban all fluids from aircraft). However, I prefer the third option of Random order from on high, which seemed like a good idea at the time but is so pointless even the staff can't work out (aka the Cockup theory). Well, it's better than the plain stupid the time taken to take off shoes lets them scan all the other things you now have to split out into separate trays theory.

I wouldn't even mind so much if the 'higher up' source was HMG, as then at least there'll have been some oversight from an intelligence source (what am I thinking?), or perhaps it's a BAA-wide policy. But no, it only applies to LHR.

How do I know? Because at EDI, another BAA establishment, they don't have a War on Footwear. Oh no. At EDI, they have a War on Belts. Yes, you have to take off your belt and put it through the scanner, while you walk through the metal detector (which I might add doesn't detect mobile phones as I discovered by accident on Monday), holding up your trews. Fair enough if it's a whacking great big thing with studs, clan crests and the like on it. But where can I hide a bomb in a modest thing with the smallest of buckles strictly needed to hold the thing together?

Or maybe they're just all scared in case I'm trying to smuggle on Holy Water... And don't get me started on that hoax.

Next time TB et al claim we went into Iraq to remove a repressive dictator and therefore we're on the side of the angels, let's all point to this. These are the Craig Murray memos to the FCO, detailing why our 'ally' Uzbekistan is as bad as Saddam's Iraq ever was. Just as in pre-Kuwait Iraq, we're prepared to put up with just about anything as long as they're useful.

http://www.blairwatch.co.uk/node/714

Last week saw the re-introduction of ID Cards, now with the ostensible mandate of being in the Labour Manifesto. Our Listening Government has apparently amended the proposals from last time out in response to genuine concerns over purpose, cost and privacy, but to be honest, it looks the same to me. And as I noted yesterday, it's not good. The Government's argument is based on a number of false assumptions and falser deductions from it.