UK Airspace to open from 10pm

Some good news at last.

Why this story is no surprise to me

The BBC reports on the detention at Newark-New Jersey Airport of a Bollywood film star for two hours, apparently because he has a Muslim name. This comes as no surprise to me from my experience of that airport.

In 2006 we returned to the UK from Mexico via New-New Jersey Airport, and the way passengers were treated in the name of security was preposterous.

When we were going through security to get back in to departures, having reclaimed our luggage from our connection, we were stood behind a white American man who was ordered, by security staff, to remove his shoes. He explained that he was wearing calipers and could not remove them. He was then ordered, with security staff arriving and standing around him with their hands on the gun holsters to "remove your shoes sir." Again, he explained politely that he was wearing calipers, he rolled his trouser legs up and revealed the metal and strapping. Now I would have expected anyone with a shred of decency to say politely to him "No problem, we need to sort this out, could you follow us to this room so we can sort this out". But oh, not in America. He was then grabbed by each arm, force marched to a desk, and another US security gut then shouted something about him being uncooperative and he would be required to undergo a DNA test. They then in full view started taking sample from his mouth whilst an armed guard stood over him.

We all know about the shoe bomber and 9/11, but this was a massive overreaction and appalled both myself and my wife.

So no, I am not surprised to read what happened to this Indian film star.

Is the government in cahoots with the travel industry

I note with some annoyance that the government are not going to tell people to not fly to Mexico, and for me personally I find this VERY annoying. Why ? Because I was due, in a few weeks to go on holiday to Mexico but now want to cancel. However my travel agent advise me that I cannot have a full refund unless the government explicitly says that travelling to Mexico should be banned. So instead I have had to cancel and will lose my deposit (which is not an inconsiderable sum).

It makes you wonder if the government are in cahoots with the travel industry on this matter.

Lock her up

I am pleased the Metropolitan Police, so quick in the past to shoot innocent people on the London underground, have finally got their fingers out of their back sides and arrested the protester who threw green custard at Peter Mandelson on Friday.

Whether you like Peter Mandelson or not, and I fall in to the "not" category, he is a minster, he ought to have had proper protection from any potential terrorist threat (especially as he was Northern Ireland Minister), and as a human being, he has the right to walk along our streets free from harassment and physical assault.

I tend to agree with what Peter Mandelson said on the Andrew Marr program this morning when he questioned why it was that some broadcasters (and the BBC were very much to blame in this case) seemed overly keen to offer the protester the oxygen of publicity, seemingly rewarding her illegal behaviour with the reward of an instant interview and a chance to pedal her politics live on air.

The way she was pandered to by Nicky Campbell on Radio Five Live with a total failure to question her methods, allowing her to claim she was standing up for democracy, and a lack of tackling her on her claims that she spoke for "the majority who oppose airport expansion", showed me that some radio broadcasters are nothing without briefing notes given to them by researchers.

I hope the police take the proper action against this woman and that she learns to accept that we do have democracy in this country and she can exercise it at the next general election.

People who really should stop preaching

Was I the only person who felt rather annoyed to see Oscar winning actress Emma Thompson lecturing us all on the need for less flights in the light of the go ahead for a third runway at Heathrow ?

I am assuming that Emma Thompson, when working on each film she has done in America, has not chosen to cross the Atlantic by cruise ship and I doubt very much that I will clock up as many air miles as her if I lived for one thousand years, so in the same way as the Green Party in Norwich have some of the most travelled councillors you would ever meet who like to lecture us in these parts on air travel, I get rather narked when receiving lectures from people who say do as I do, not as I say.

If the Stansted protestors have broken the law then arrest them and charge them

I am not fan of direct action. We live in a democracy and my opinion is that those Stansted protesters who claim to "speak for the people of Britain", as they claimed today, merely speak for a minority who wish to impose their view on the majority through illegal means.

So if those who broke in to Stansted today caused criminal damage and broke any other laws, lets see them charged.

Direct action and Stansted protests - The last refuge for those that have lost the argument

There is a place in the world for direct action. In places where free speech is banned, where human rights abuse go on in an unchecked way and where democracy is only a dream direct action can be the only way of registering your opinion. However, when it comes to the UK, a democracy, I have always been firmly of the opinion that direct action, or low level terrorism is the last stand of those who have lost the argument and who think that democracy is for other people, not them.

There are three basic points of democracy that have to be remembered at all times, even when elected politicians are making decisions you disagree vehemently with.

1) Democracy is not perfect, but it is the least bad system of running a country.
2) In democratic states you can please some of the people some of the time but you will never please all of the people all of the time, which inevitably means that some people will never be happy.
3) If you don't like the democratic politicians we have, if you don't like their decision making skills and if you think they are wrong, go out there, campaign on the issues you think you are right about and make sure that someone else gets elected in their place. Its as simple as that.

So when I see people from the anti Stansted Airport expansion groups storming parliament in an effort, so they claim to "speak to their MP's", forgetting that all the local MP's in that area speak to the anti Stansted expansion groups regularly, to me, they have lost the argument.

I saw on the local news this evening that these same campaigners were cheerfully swapping notes about how much fun they had had. Groups of middle class ladies more used to WI meetings chatting in an excited way about how they had been forced in to direct action because "the government won't listen to them". In short, this group expect the country to be dictated to by a few thousand people who chose to live near a major London airport and are now opposed to its long planned expansion ?

The odd thing is for me that when you hear radical Islamists on the radio justifying why some young people have become radicalised enough to bomb this country, their constant argument is that "the government won't listen so they have been forced in to this direct action". So what is the difference ? Okay, the Stansted brigade are not planting bombs, but they use the same reasons to justify their unlawful actions.

We need to be clear that storming parliament is never correct and should not be accepted as legitimate in out democracy. If the arguments for stopping Stansted are strong and true, they will stand up to scrutiny and the electorate will decide at the next election. If this government or any gives in to minority groups who threaten direct action, where will it all end ?

Democratic means are the way to deal with disputes and the middle classes in leafy Hertfordshire and Essex have to accept this like anyone else.

What have Heathrow Airport and Zimbabwe got in common ?

A few days ago BAA and British Airways were falling over themselves to get in front of the TV cameras in order to publicise what a wonderful job they had done on Terminal 5 of Heathrow Airport.

After the cock-ups on day one, they might have been forgiven for being less willing to face the cameras, but surely this was a first day mistake, a one off that would be put right ? No. On day two it was as bad and TV cameras were quick to highlight that the airport was taking very few passengers indeed which eased some of the obvious chaos from the day before, but meant BA couldn't hide from the fact that they were cancelling dozens of flights.

So on day three of the crisis at terminal 5, what have BAA and British Airways done ? Well the cancelled flights are as bad, as is the chaos and anger inside the airport. the only difference is, much like the way the press are banned Zimbabwe because they report the real truth, the press, and in particular the TV news have been banned from filming inside Terminal 5.

The next time that BA or BAA issue a press release wanting TV coverage the broadcasters should remind them of the Terminal 5 ban and tell BA and BAA to sod off.

What is it about Jamie Oliver that winds me up so much ?

My wife has been watching Jamie Oliver this evening whilst I mark books, but despite my concentration being mostly on my books, I cannot help myself from shouting out expletives at Jamie Oliver every so often.

His annoying obsession with referring to "herbs" as "herbage" makes me wonder if he also has "shittage" when he goes to the toilet and "sleepage" when he goes to bed each night, no doubt pre-empted by "shaggage". Whilst his obsession with saying "look at that little baby" or "turn that baby over" makes me what to shout "it's a lamb chop for Christ's sake, not a bloody baby". I guess I should be grateful he has not used the term "pukka" all evening.

Perhaps my dislike for him is not simply about him. I get annoyed by him speaking about Stansted expansion plans. Right or wrong, and he well may have a valid point about some of the issues, but people who live near airports have to expect aircraft noise and people who choose to move near Stansted should have known about plans for expansion, after all, it has been talked about for about 20 years.

To be honest, if I were transport minister I'd get the new airport runway built just to teach him a lesson. Oh, and that would be "runway-age" Jamie.

Praise the lord for enthusiasts

In any area of life, we inevitably rely on volunteers and enthusiasts to do things that we might hope the government could do, if only they had the money. Be it locally in Norfolk where a Charity has been set up to run the Cottage Hospital in Wells, or local history societies who do so much to raise the profile of towns and keep their history alive.

So I take my hat of to the volunteers who have raised £6.5 million and given up so much time to fully restore an Avro Vulcan Bomber to full flying specification.

I saw one of the Vulcan's fly in to Norwich Airport as a teenager when the government were selling them off as museum pieces for £5ooo a time, and it was an awesome spectacle. It was one I never thought I would see again, but thanks to the preservation group, others will be able to share that experience now.

No doubt environmentalists will complain about the carbon footprint, but personally, in this case, I don't really care. Sorry.

Colin McRae feared dead

With the news that Colin McRae's helicopter has crashed and he is feared dead, it seems, yet again, to highlight what a dangerous thing a helicopter is. The number of helicopter deaths seems to be rising, at least my anecdotal noting of reports of helicopter crashes leads me to that conclusion.

Whatever the case, this death, and those of his friends is a great shame. Colin McRae was a real motorsport legend, a genuinely exceptional talent.

How much CO2 are the Heathrow protesters putting out ?

Just how much CO2 is being emitted by protesters going to Heathrow to protest against people getting on planes that emit CO2 ?

How much CO2 is being thrown out of the back of police cars and extra security staff's vehicles to make sure that Heathrow is protected ?

It reminds me of back in 1996 or 1997 when a group called something like "Reclaim the Streets" has a march against the car in Coventry when I was at University there. Thousands of people marched through with anti car banners. A lovely principle were it not for the fact that the car park was full of very inefficient old Campervans with CND stickers on and a range of other old gas guzzlers painted in an array of psychedelic colours. It appears that virtually all the anti car protesters turned up by car !

So will the action at Heathrow change anything ? No, of course not. but it will allow a large number of middle class lefties the chance to live in a tent for a weekend, not wash and let their clothes get filthy before going home to mummy and daddy to tell everyone that they are changing the world.

Update - Small Town Scribbles appears to have thought along similar lines too.

Sick and tired of the aviation industry bleating about security costs

The aviation industry is moaning that they cannot afford the costs of extra security in the wake of increased security since 9/11 and wants extra money from the government.

Am I getting the industry mixed up ? Is this the same aviation industry that flies people to Spain for £19 ? Is it the same aviation industry who can afford to buy new airliners at a massive rate, each costing hundreds of millions of pounds ? Is this the same industry that is making good profits, so much so that the leading airlines are buying u[ foreign rivals (BA/Iberia and Air France/Alitalia) whilst the biggest operator of airports in the UK BAA was recently taken over by the Spanish ?

If you run an airline of an airport, you are also obliged to pay for the associated costs. If I ran a football club I wouldn't expect the council to mow the pitch for me. Why, because it is part and parcel of football. If I ran a nightclub, I wouldn't expect the police to pay the costs of my doormen. So why does a profitable industry like the airline industry think it is exempt from paying for the things that allow it to be profitable ? Good security means good profits. It's called the free market and if they don't like it then they should find a different industry to operate in.

A new logo for Ryanair

Remember how Ryanair protested when new safety checks were introduced on to airlines to prevent terrorist attacks in the summer ?

Now, as if caring about terrorism is not enough, they don't are about customer satisfaction either.

Might I suggest this change to their logo ?

Uttlesford Council votes to oppose Stansted expansion

Uttlesford District Council today rejected a planning application to expand the capacity at Stansted Airport submitted by the Spanish owned firm BAA who run the airport. The company intends to appeal against the ruling. Read about it HERE.

I like cheap flights, I like Stansted airport (very handy from Norwich and it is well designed), and if I moved to the Uttlesford District Council area knowing that their is a major international airport in the area that has long been earmarked for expansion, I would not expect to oppose it. However, there are more serious issues than noise pollution at work here and my liking of cheap flights is tempered by my concern about global warming.

There will have to come a time when a proper levy is put on aviation fuel worldwide (it cannot be done just in Britain because airlines will simply fill their planes up abroad so it will have little effect) so that something is done to halt the inexorable rise in air travel which is only fuelling the rise in CO2 emmissions and making the greenhouse effect worse.

So for whatever reasons Uttlesford District Council made their decision today, and it might well be for the very worst NIMBY reasons, I don't know, I think it is probably the correct one for the environment as a whole, and not just for a small part of East Hertfordshire and Essex.