Lying Prats of The Year - Heathrow Airport

 

Staff at London’s Heathrow Airport
allowed to wear ‘Free Palestine’ badges because it indicates to travelers they can speak Arabic.

Airport bosses told a Jewish passenger who complained about a staff member who was wearing the symbol that the badge ‘indicates an employee… pic.twitter.com/dgpo4tGZiD

— Oli London (@OliLondonTV) June 30, 2024

Heathrow Airport is really scraping the barrel with this pathetic justification for some staff wearing the political bade of Pallywood.

Claiming that it is to show they speak Arabic is of course an utter lie, as the majority of those wearing this won't be able to speak the language.

Secondly, if they really want to convey that, why not simply have the multilingual staff wear a badge that says "I speak Arabic" in Arabic?!

www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts

Snow Business Like Snow Business

Over a year ago I wrote about BAA being unable to keep Thiefrow open during the snow.

Well here we are, some 13 months later, and BAA have once again demonstrated that they are unable to manage a piss up in a brewery.

Last night's "staggering" snow fall, of but a few centimetres, has caused BAA to cancel vast swathes of scheduled flights from Thiefrow today.

Evidently no one told BAA that snow was coming...oh, hang on a minute!!

Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.

www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts

Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries

The Dangers of The Sun

As we bask in the warm fuzzy feeling of a post Murdoch world (if the politicians and police who sucked at his teat have their way), let us not forget the children!

Nanny, now that the school holidays are once again foisted upon the adult world, is more than a little concerned about the adverse effects that the Sun (the star not the paper owned by News Corp) may have on kids.

It should therefore come as no surprise to learn that the All party Parliamentary Group on Skin (FFS! don't our politicians have better things to do with their time? - one trusts that it has no connection with cosmetic companies that produce skin care products?) recently conducted a survey of some parents and found that (shock horror!) 40% of their sprogs had got some sunburn at some stage at school.

Big deal!

I regularly had sunburn when playing cricket at school too!

It happens.

Very sensibly our school also insisted that jackets still be worn when outside in the sun, dignity and dress sense should always come before personal comfort;)

Anyhoo, Richard Clifford of Skin Cancer UK says that this sunburn issue is "entirely unacceptable" (why?) and wants mandatory sun rules for schools.

Current guidelines are not compulsory.

It seems that some people want teachers to apply suncream to the kids..now you know what happens next don't you children?

Yes, that's right, the teachers (if they started liberally applying cream to little Johnny and Millie) would be done for child molestation!

The solution?

Obvious isn't it?

Never ever let the kids out in the sun!

That way the schools will never run the risk of being sued by some parent on the make for little Johnny's sunburn.

BTW, I am also gemused to read that in some parts of Britain rickets has made a return.

What causes rickets?

A shortage of vitamin D.

What's a good source of vitamin D?

The Sun!

Aha!

Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.

www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

Celebrate the joy of living with booze. Click and drink!

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts

Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries

Behavioural Insight - The Nudge Theory

A belated Happy New Year to all my loyal readers!

I am gemused to see that Cameron has been seduced by the idea (laudable) of cutting back on government legalisation that is designed to force us to behave in ways that the government wants us to, but has instead decided to replace it with a concept known as "behavioural insight" (aka "nudge theory") which attempts to manipulate us into behaving in ways that the government approves of (eg giving more to charity, paying more taxes and drinking less)...not so laudable.

How does it do this?

Via a combination of subliminal messages and appealing to the innate human desire to be part of the social "norm" (ie "decent people like to pay more taxes", "the majority of people don't drink to excess" etc).

The theory is that people will comply with whatever "group norms" the government tells us are in play. This technique is used by dictatorships to control their populations, in extremis the state uses the "group norm" approach to encourage the population to spy on and bully those who do not comply with "approved group norm" behaviour and indeed to alienate and ostracise certain social/ethnic groups.

So enamoured is Cameron with this theory, that he has set up a secret group of "experts" who are advising him on how to apply it across government departments (see yesterday's HMRC Is Shite for one such example). Indeed so secret is the work of this group that

Nanny won't tell anyone who is in it, or what they are doing.

Anyhoo, whilst Nanny tries to play mind games with us (latest advice from the "nudge theory think tank", abolish rounds and adopt a tab system instead for paying for drinks in pubs) it is worthwhile remembering what governments are actually meant to do.

Governments are meant to provide us with a "plug in and play" environment in which we are able to live our lives freely, without hindrance, and to conduct our business with as little bureaucratic interference as possible.

Has the government provided us with a "plug in and play" environment?

No, it has not!

1 The train services treat their customers as prostrate milch cows, ripping them off with ever higher fares in return for a substandard cattle truck service.

2 Heathrow airport (the alleged hub of our airport network) regularly turns into a poorly managed refugee camp at the slightest hint of inclement weather.

3 Refuse piles high on the streets thanks to the incompetence of our overpaid unelected council officials.

4 The police store data on victims of crimes who dial 999.

5 The UK is £4.8 Trillion in debt etc.

In short we have become a third world country where the government chooses to play mind games, rather than get down to the business of fixing the shite infrastructure and broken local "democracy".

Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.

www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

Celebrate the joy of living with booze. Click and drink!

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts

Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries

WankiLeaks

Well I have to say that this coalition government is certainly beginning to show its true colours.

Despite the paralysis of Heathrow, one of the world's largest airports (a vital economic hub for the UK), the government showed a "can't do/won't do" spirit and a remarkable lack of leadership wrt actually trying to resolve the problem. All it did was to send the hapless, hopeless and somnambulistic Transport Secretary to meet with the witless board of BAA.

Meanwhile another member of the government (a foolish elderly man easily flattered by the attention of two young female reporters posing as constituents) declared war on Rupert Murdoch. Should government ministers be taking their personal prejudices and vendettas into their day jobs?

The final layer of icing on this cake of folly was added by Nanny's Culture Secretary, Ed Vaizey, who has come up with an internet censorship plan to rival the great firewall of China. He want to ban porn on the net, and block it "at source".

The excuse that he uses, as indeed all Nannys use, is that the ban would "protect the children".

Funny that I thought we lived in a world designed and run for/by adults, not vice versa.

As in the days of the Lord Chancellor (who would censor scripts for "smutty" references to "bananas" etc), the problem comes with the definition of what exactly is "pornographic" (ankles, boobs, feet??? All of these are capable of arousing some people but not others).

The reality would be that, even if it were feasible to block porn (experts contend a firewall such as China's would have to be constructed) other non porn sites would also be blocked (and most certainly would be tempting Nanny to block them).

However, I dare say that in the fullness of time a site would arise (WankiLeaks) that would enable people to jump over the wall to look at all the porn they needed.

Do not be too relaxed about this, as noted above the coalition has been showing its true colours recently; governments that lack leadership, declare private wars on sections of the media they don't like and who try to censor the net are not to be trusted.

Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.

www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

Celebrate the joy of living with booze. Click and drink!

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts

Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries

Nuts!

Despite the remarkable failure of BAA to keep Heathrow, one of the world's busiest (yet truly awful) airports, open during the inclement weather my partner (Eva) managed to fly back from Stockholm yesterday without any delay or fuss.

How?

Oh, simple, she flew Norwegian Air to Gatwick (an airport not "managed" by BAA).

Her journey though was not without an element of Nannyism.

On board the flight she was about to open a chocolate bar that contained nuts.

Can you guess what happened next children?

Yes, that's right, she was forbidden from opening it.

For why?

Seemingly, somewhere on board was a person with a nut allergy.

Now if this person was sitting next to her, was going to lick the bar or sniff in the nuts I could understand the concern. However, this was simply not the case.

An overreaction yes?

Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.

www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

Celebrate the joy of living with booze. Click and drink!

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts

Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries

Quel Surprise - Not!

How amusing I see that, despite denials that airport scanners would be misused, police recently warned an airport worker about a crude remark he made about a colleague's breasts as a newly-installed security scanner took a full body X-ray of her.

Seemingly Jo Margetson walked into an X-ray machine at Heathrow by mistake, whereupon the incident allegedly occurred.

She claimed that she is now "totally traumatised".

Can anyone tell me why the police were called in though?

Surely the employer could have handled this?

If Ms Margetson is really so "traumatised", she could undoubtedly sue the worker for the alleged damage done to her?

Why did the police need to become involved?

Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.

www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

Celebrate the joy of living with booze. Click and drink!

Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries

Swedish Lessons

In keeping with the Thiefrow (sorry I mean Heathrow) Terminal 5 theme, I would like to draw your attention to this little article from a Swedish site E24:

Pommes-fritt på nya Heathrow-terminalen

Londonflygplatsen Heathrow har öppnat en ny jätteterminal - där man förbjudit förekomsten av pommes frites och annan snabbmat.

Monsterflygplatsen Heathrow, med Europas största flöde av privatpassagerare tillika den flygplats som slussar vidare flest internationella passagerare i världen, har fått ett rejält tilltaget terminaltillskott.

Den nya terminalen är tidsenlig på många sätt. Framförallt är den befriad från transfetter och osund kost. I sann Jamie Oliver-anda har man bestämt sig för att förbjuda snabbmatsrestauranger till förmån för sunda och miljövänliga alternativ, rapporterar norska Aftonposten.

Den etablerade brittiska pubkedjan JD Wetherspoon har därför tvingats radera frityrstekarna och fish-and-chipsen från sitt utbud på Terminal 5.

Bygget av Terminal 5, som den nya terminalen heter, har tagit nästan åtta år. Men terminalen har varit i pipeline längre än så. Redan 1982 inleddes en debatt kring huruvida man skulle bygga ut Londonflygplatsen Stansted eller satsa på att bygga ut Heathrow.

Tio år senare bestämde man sig slutligen för att satsa på en femte terminal för Heathrow. Sammanlagt 80 000 personer har varit involverade i bygget.

Terminal 5 kommer att besökas av uppskattningsvis 30 miljoner passagerare årligen, vilket ökar Heathrows totala kapacitet till 90 miljoner passagerare per år, en ökning med 22 miljoner passagerare eller dryga 30 procent, från dagens 68 miljoner passagerare.

Den totala kostnaden beräknas till 4,3 miljarder pund, motsvarande 52 miljarder kronor i dagens penningvärde.

How very cosmopolitan of me!

The title says:

French fries-free new Heathrow terminal!

It goes on to say that that the established British pub JD Wetherspoon had to remove deep fried steak and fish-and-chips from the menu in Terminal 5.

Most assuredly, we should boycott Terminal 5!

Here endeth today's Swedish lesson.

Knobheads of The Year - BAA II

Hearty congratulations to BAA for thoroughly screwing up the first day of operations of Terminal 5 Thiefrow (sorry I mean Heathrow).

Chaos reigned supreme yesterday as check ins, baggage belts and lifts failed. I understand that today is pretty shambolic too.

How ironic that I gave them the "Knobheads of The Year" Award yesterday!

Now let me see, what have I said on several occasions about BAA's competence...errmmm???

Oh yes, this is what I said:

"BAA are shite, and regularly manage to screw up simple tasks such as baggage handling. The effective, efficient and secure control of personal data such as prints is way beyond their capabilities."

The words "brewery", "piss up", "couldn't" and "organise" spring to mind...if someone could please arrange them in the correct order for me...

Suffice to say, given the dismal performance of BAA wrt terminal 5 Thiefrow, how on earth can they be trusted with our fingerprint data?

I am absolutely certain that BAA, in it current form, will cease to exist in the not too distant future. Let us hope that whatever rises from the ashes is an improvement.

BAA, well deserving knobheads of the year.

corporateresponsibility@baa.com

Knobheads of The Year - BAA

Today, in hour of the opening of Terminal 5 Thiefrow, I was going to award BAA my prestigious "Prats of The Week" Award, for their truly appalling scheme to fingerprint everyone (including domestic travellers) at Terminal 5 Thiefrow.

I now have to state publicly, and on the record, that this award would have been a grave mistake.

I formally and unreservedly apologise to BAA for almost besmirching their "fine" name, by thinking of giving them this award, and herewith and immediately withdraw the award.

What?!!!!!! I hear you ejaculate (can I say ejaculate here?).

Have you lost your cajones Ken?

Fear not loyal readers and anti Nannyers everywhere, I have not lost my cajones. BAA are in fact to be awarded my ultra prestigious "Knobheads of The Year" Award.

For why?

Well, it seems that their idiotic and badly thought through scheme to fingerprint everyone at Thiefrow Terminal 5, which is being investigated by the Information Commissioner's Orifice (ICO) as it is illegal, has been put on hold.

A spokesman for BAA slimed:

"Following a meeting with all relevant parties, including the Information Commissioner and the Border and Immigration Agency, the introduction of fingerprinting for domestic passengers and international passengers transferring on to domestic flights at Heathrow will be temporarily delayed."

BAA said that it will hold further talks with both the Information Commissioner and the Border and Immigration Agency before deciding its next move.

For the time being instead of leaving a fingerprint before passing through security, passengers will be photographed.

BE WARNED

This measure is only "on hold", BAA have spent a lot of money on installing the fingerprint scanners and are as keen as mustard to use them; they will try every trick in the book to implement this.

Here's why thier scheme is a load of old bollocks:

• BAA are shite, and regularly manage to screw up simple tasks such as baggage handling. The effective, efficient and secure control of personal data such as prints is way beyond their capabilities



• BAA are on the point of bankruptcy, what happens to this system when they collapse?



• The security services will of course take these details, no matter what BAA say



• This will add to the delays and frustrations of the hapless passengers who have to endure Heathrow's primitive facilities (note Terminal 5's design was buggered about and ruined, because BAA couldn't afford to build the original design)



• There is no need to fingerprint domestic passengers, this could be done purely for international and transit passengers at their point of arrival (even if there really is a security need for prints...which I doubt)



• The UK is the only country in the world that is going to fingerprint domestic passengers. Why?



• They will photograph everyone anyway, the prints are not needed

Anyhoo, in celebration of today's grand opening of Terminal 5 Thiefrow I am proud, nay honoured, to award BAA "Knobheads of The Year"

Feel free to tell them that they have won, via this email address: corporateresponsibility@baa.com

They had better hurry to pick up the award, given their appalling gearing levels BAA are not going to be around for much longer!

BAA well deserving "Knobheads of The Year"!

BAA Truly is Shite II

Hah!

Further to my article about BAA wanting to fingerprint its hapless passengers who have to endure the shopping mall that is Terminal 5 at Heathrow, it seems that even Nanny is worried that this is a step too far.

The Home Office denies ever having told BAA to use fingerprinting as an extra security measure, and the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) says that the plan may be illegal.

The ICO believes that this is another step "on the road to a surveillance society", and has warned BAA that it might breach Data Protection laws.

A spokesman for the Information Commissioner said:

"Our concern is with the surveillance society. Is this another step on the road towards that kind of society? Why do they need fingerprints, and why four? Why are other airports able to operate with just photographs, and is this a proportionate response?"

Good for the ICO!

The ICO have issued the following advice to passenger, when asked for fingerprints passengers should demand to know why they were being taken, what would be done with them and how long would they be kept.

Make the system inoperable by sheer bloody mindedness.

Vent your spleen on BAA via this link corporateresponsibility@baa.com

BAA Truly is Shite

Congratulations to BAA (Britsh Airports Authority) for out "Nannying" Nanny.

How has this historic achievement been effectuated? (Can I say effectuated on a public website?)

I shall tell you...

When Terminal 5 at Heathrow opens on 27th March, all passengers passing through its portals (including British citizens flying on domestic flights) will be fingerprinted and photographed.

For why?

BAA claim that it's because the design of the building mixes transit, international and domestic travellers all in one huge shopping mall.

BAA also claim that the photos and prints will be destroyed after 24 hours, and will not be given to the security services.

Well, here's why this is a load of old bollocks:

• BAA are shite, and regularly manage to screw up simple tasks such as baggage handling. The effective, efficient and secure control of personal data such as prints is way beyond their capabilities



• BAA are on the point of bankruptcy, what happens to this system when they collapse?



• The security services will of course take these details, no matter what BAA say



• This will add to the delays and frustrations of the hapless passengers who have to endure Heathrow's primitive facilities (note Terminal 5's design was buggered about and ruined, because BAA couldn't afford to build the original design)



• There is no need to fingerprint domestic passengers, this could be done purely for international and transit passengers at their point of arrival (even if there really is a security need for prints...which I doubt)



• The UK is the only country in the world that is going to fingerprint domestic passengers. Why?

Just to put this truly in perspective, I have travelled to Beijing, Moscow and Pyongyang; I have never had to give my fingerprints at these airports.

All in all BAA are taking actions way above their lowly station in life.

I suggest that people bugger up their new system by spraying plastic skin on their fingers, thus making the system inoperable.

Vent your spleen on BAA via this link corporateresponsibility@baa.com

The Moral Dilemma

Nanny is only able to survive because people are either passive or pro active in their support of her policies.

The pro active people shrilly spread and enforce Nanny's edicts re smoking, breast feeding, fat consumption, drinking, obesity etc etc.

The passive people meekly shrug their shoulders, and claim that there is nothing that they can do to stop the ongoing encroachment into our liberties and daily lives.

Nanny gets away with it, because we let her. Her rules would be unenforceable, were we to all stand up and say "NO".

I was therefore highly amused yesterday when I saw both the "passives" and "pro actives" united in a moral dilemma, which resulted in two of Nanny's edicts being royally broken in full public view.

In an enclosed shopping centre in my "beloved" Croydon, a man was drinking from a can of lager and having a fag.

For shame!

Two of Nanny's prime edicts broken, and in public too!

Both the pro active (anti smoking, anti drinking Nanny shrillers) and passive shoulder "what can I do about it?" shruggers, walked past tut tutting and sucking their cheeks in as if sucking on a particularly bitter lemon.

Yet they did nothing?

They allowed Nanny's rules to be broken.

Why was this then?

Why didn't anyone tell this bloke that he as breaking Nanny's prime edicts, drinking in a no drink area and smoking in a public enclosed place?

Why didn't they stop him?

I shall tell you...

He was in a wheelchair, and as such Nanny's minions were faced with a moral dilemma that they couldn't handle.

My complements to the gentlemen for exposing the hypocrisy and ineffectiveness of Nanny's rules. The rules are unenforceable, if the passive "shruggers" stop allowing themselves to be pushed around by Nanny and the "shrillers". In this case, the "shrillers" were neutered by their moral dilemma.

Whilst we are on the subject of moral dilemmas, here is some advice to the rag bag collection of eco campaigners who are camped out at Heathrow airport.

Were it not for the monumentally crass handling of this by BAA and the police, we would never have heard of this nonsense. Now it has become a major issue; as Nanny, BAA and the police have tried to convince us that these people are terrorists and a threat to society.

Anyhoo, my advice the the eco warriors is this...the greatest source of dangerous emissions that is damaging the atmosphere in the UK and other Western countries comes not from the car or from planes, but from the methane produced by our dairy and beef industries.

Were the eco campaigners really serious about reducing emissions, they would be advocating the extermination of all cattle. The trouble is that would pose a bit of a moral dilemma to these people, and of course airlines are a far easier target!

While I am on the subject, whilst Nanny and the media work themselves up into great apoplexy about the dangers to our sprogs from lead in the paint on imported Chinese toys...what about the dangers to the workers making these things for a pittance?

Rules and causes are great...if you don't have to think the consequences of them through first!

Nanny Bans Sarnies

Well it had to happen, not content with moaning about salt, sugar, fat...you name it...Nanny has launched a withering tirade on the humble sarnie (sandwich for the non Brits reading this).

It seems that some sort of test, doubtless very "scientific", was carried out by some sort of "interested" group (ie partisan, anti salt) into the salt contents of a range of sandwiches.

Shock horror....

They found that sandwiches contain salt.

Well of course they farking do...salt adds flavour...nit wits!

Anyhoo, the worst offender on the range of sarnies that were tested was the Pret A Manger "All Day Breakfast" (note Pret and I have some issues re their Heathrow outlet). Seemingly this evil sarnie contains the salt equivalent of a Siberian salt mine, or 7 bags of crisps (and we all know how much Nanny hates crisps, don't we children?).

The astute amongst you may observe the title of the evil sarnie..."All Day Breakfast".

In other words it contains; bacon, sausage, egg, tomato etc...therefore of course it is going to be salty, and hardly likely to be chosen on a daily basis by someone on a diet who is concerned about all matters of health.

It's a treat, not a way of life.

The trouble with Nanny is that she refuses to distinguish between a one off indulgence, and a thrice daily ritual. All Nanny wants to do is to remove every last vestige of pleasure from our lives, and make the world a drab grey place.

As to the salt content of the sarnie...do I give a fark?

No I don't.

My suggestion is that we all stick two fingers up to Nanny and go and buy as many of these evil sarnies as possible (but I don't like Pret!), therefore make your own...and remember to add lots of salt for added flavour.

Nanny really needs to get a life!

Nanny's Airport Security

Following on from the recent alleged terrorist plot, Nanny has ratcheted up the security measures at the airports and in doing so has engendered a mild sense of hysteria in some people.

A couple of days ago a woman was handcuffed on a plane, as she suffered a panic attack and was found to be carrying some hand cream. Today it was reported that a man was given a sound kicking, when he was suspected of trying to light his own farts.

Luckily a sky marshall was on board the plane, and saved the day by inserting a large rubber bung up the fart lighter's arse.

As a result of this incident Nanny will be upgrading her security advice to airlines and insisting that all passengers have a rubber bung inserted up their arses.

Additionally, she is insisting that these new custom designed security seats be installed as soon as possible.



To see a detailed picture of the Electric Commode, please click this lick The Electric Commode.

Postcards of the above design can be purchased here Electric Commode Postcards.

OK folks, maybe part of the above was a slight exaggeration!

However, I would contend that the security measures and ensuing hysteria have done little to improve the long term (read that bit carefully) security of the UK or of passengers departing from UK airports.

• The current level of security checks are unsustainable.



• BA has had to cancel 13000 flights since last Thursday, this is economically unsustainable.



• Over 20000 bags have been "lost/misplaced" since last Thursday. Fortunately the baggage handlers at Heathrow are a very honest bunch of people, and as such passengers can rest assured that their "lost" bags will not be interfered with in any way.



• Despite the security checks a 12 year old boy managed to get on board a plane, and a man returned to an empty plane to look for a lost wallet.



• Aside from the increased security at British airports, European airports are as they were before. As such, were you part of the "crescent of evil" you could simply pop over on the channel tunnel (which has no extra security) to France, board a flight there back to London and as a transfer passenger board a long haul flight with your tube of toothpaste still on your person.



• As for the rest of us travelling by train or tube, tough luck, the security remains as before.

Nanny is good at raising bogeymen and imposing draconian rules, but she is not good at managing the consequences. Clearly the current security measures will have to be relaxed, otherwise the airline industry will grind to a halt.

Here are a few simple ideas that I have for improving the situation:

1 Allow only one small clear bag onto a plane, containing "safe" items. The previous situation, whereby people were bringing all manner of crap on board was a ridiculous nonsense anyway.

2 Ensure that people only book into the hold of a plane 1 item of baggage per person, with a maximum weight. The vast array of ski equipment, boxes and bits and bobs that some people carry severely delays the check in process. Should you wish to transport your kitchen sink, then place the extra load on board a separate plane specially designated for delivery of such items.

3 Do away with 100% hand searches of people and their carry on luggage, instead use profiling to identify the high risk traveller. Therein lies the problem with Nanny, she seeks to zeroise risk, rather than manage it.

None of the above are radical or new ideas. However, at the moment, it seems that the relevant authorities are behaving in some senses like headless chickens and not sitting down calmly and working through what really needs to be done.

In the meantime, the alleged terrorists much be rubbing their hands with glee as they see the chaos that they have caused.