They might make us feel indispensable, but mobile email gadgets are bad for relationships, bad for work and bad for the soul
Published in the Evening Standard
We all know the problem. Even if you're lucky enough not to have travelled through Heathrow recently, you'll have read the tales of woe in the pages of the Standard and elsewhere. If it isn't queues at check-in that take an age, it's the long, shuffling march through security. If it isn't bags that go missing, it's the Soviet-style inefficiency and sheer human congestion of an airport used by 67m people a year - 50% above capacity. Adding insult to injury are those gleaming "retail opportunities" airside: visual confirmation that the priorities of BAA lie not in the essential task of running an airport, but in the lucrative business of persuading passengers to part with their cash, if only to alleviate their misery.
You'll know too that this is more than just a royal pain for those who have to endure it, ensuring that every holiday gets off not to a flying start but a grim one. It is also bad for the British economy and for London. Kitty Ussher, the minister responsible for the City, fears the "Heathrow hassle" is deterring international firms; Ken Livingstone says the airport "shames" the capital.
There's no shortage of possible solutions, starting with the obvious: break BAA's virtual monopoly on air travel in the UK, starting with its triple grip on Heathrow, Stanstead and Gatwick. The whole point of privatisation was meant to be competition, yet BAA represents the worst of both worlds: a state-like monopoly coupled with corporate greed.
There are more radical options, too. Some suggest splitting Heathrow in two, with Terminal 5 coming under new, non-BAA management. Or what about shutting the entire place down and building a new mega-hub in the Thames Estuary?
Such plans will take years and cost billions. What are we supposed to do in the meantime? Tomorrow I will deliver my own, personal answer to that question as I take the family off on our summer holiday. Chastened by the washout months and in need of a reliable dose of sun, we're breaking our recent habit of holidaying in Britain. We're going to the south of France - but we're going by train.
For the first time in years, I'm looking forward not only to arriving at our destination, but to the journey itself. No wading into the heaving mass at Heathrow, suffering an ordeal that slices several days off your break just to get over it. Better still, no actual flight. I'm sure most parents of young children will share my aversion to air travel: the constant getting up and down, the screaming, the attempt to keep wriggling toddler bodies confined in a narrow space, the evil stares of other passengers wanting some peace and quiet.
I confess it's not only the kids; I loathed flying even before children came along. The notion of being in a metal tube 30,000 feet in the air, entirely powerless should disaster strike - the palms grow clammy at the mere thought. But you don't have to share my barely-repressed fear of flying to love the train. Instead of flying over endless stretches of blank cloud, you are travelling through a country, seeing its ever-changing landscape. Who needs the dull sedative of the head-rest TV screen when you have the wide vista of a train window, revealing the countryside of France or Italy roll by?
You only have to see the instinctive reaction of my kids. Of course getting on a plane is a thrill, but their excitement about the journey we'll make tomorrow has been building for weeks. We could have got the high-speed Eurostar to Avignon and made it in little over six hours. Instead we'll be on the ferry to Calais and then the overnight sleeper heading south, thereby satisfying two little boys' delight at the very notion of a bed on a moving train.
To cap it all, this is foreign travel without a guilty conscience. Eurostar estimates that a train journey with them emits a tenth of the carbon generated by a flight to Paris.
Of course the drawback, and it is real, is cost. Adult tickets on the fast train to Avignon go for less than a hundred pounds, but that's still more than you'd expect to pay with one of the budget airlines. Now, for many it's worth paying the extra just to avoid the hell of Heathrow. But others will need a push.
Which is why I'd like to see our government giving rail travel some serious economic help. It's nothing our European partners don't already do: France's superfast TGV is only possible, and affordable, thanks to massive state subsidy. But we now know, thanks to the Stern report, that the environmental cost of aviation will eventually translate into an economic cost - so whatever money we spend shifting people from the skies to the railways will be worth it.
Right now, we effectively do the opposite, thanks to the 1944 Chicago Convention which prohibits the levying of fuel tax on international flights. It means we're giving the airlines a huge economic advantage, one that in the era of climate change is surely indefensible.
If we act, the potential is enormous. When the new Eurostar terminal opens in St Pancras on November 14, we will get a glimpse of what's possible. Why shouldn't the train become the standard way we travel to Europe? From November, it will take little over two hours to reach Paris and French engineers have successfully tested locomotives that go at nearly twice that speed. So why not connect Eurostar with an entire high-speed European network, so that Rome or Madrid come within easy reach of London, with no need to go anywhere near an airport?
Of course we could start closer to home, improving our railways to the point where the domestic flight becomes a thing of the past: if you could get to Manchester in 85 minutes, why would you ever fly? There are some who already dream of superfast maglev - magnetic levitation - trains running through airless tunnels, even under the ocean. The lack of air resistance would make speeds of 5000mph possible: London to New York would take less than an hour.
It may be a dream, but our grandparents felt that way about the channel tunnel. Either way, we do not have to resign ourselves to our fate as we slouch glumly towards Heathrow. There is an alternative. To recall a slogan of my youth: this is the age of the train.
If going green means forgoing the annual ordeal by aeroplane, I'm all for it.
Published on the Guardian's Comment is free
Published in the Evening Standard
They say justice delayed is justice denied and the family of Jean Charles de Menezes must be feeling the truth of that twice over. More than two years have passed since the 27 year old Brazilian was shot dead by police at Stockwell station. Yet after 25 long months, still no one has been brought to account for his death.
Today the Independent Police Complaints Commission publishes the second of its two reports on the affair. Its first, still not published, recommended that none of the 11 officers involved in the tragedy face disciplinary action - including the two men who fired the fatal seven shots into Menezes as he sat on a Tube train that Friday morning in late July 2005.
This second probe, known as Stockwell 2, focussed not on the events on the ground but on who knew what and when they knew it back at Scotland Yard. According to a leaked account in yesterday's Guardian, it too will not cause much discomfort for the top brass at the Met.
The Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, is set to be cleared, his word accepted that he only knew that an innocent man had been killed some 24 hours after the event. Sure, there will be criticism for Andy Hayman, the overall head of counter terrorism and intelligence, for failing to pass on to Sir Ian earlier than he did growing fears that the Met had got the wrong man. But even that, it seems, will stop short of serious punishment and will take the form of "words of advice", which sounds like human resources department jargon for a slap on the wrist.
Three other officers, including two in Sir Ian's private office, were set to be criticised in today's report, but they took legal action over the IPCC's procedures - and so most of the flak that was coming their way has been excised from the document. Add to that the fact that Cressida Dick, the commander in charge on the day and the person understood to have given the fatal order to shoot, was promoted earlier this year and a pattern begins to emerge.
Viewed most starkly, it looks like this: an innocent man can be killed in London and somehow no one is guilty. Two years of inquiry and investigation are not enough to bring even a single person to account.
Don't get me wrong, I know this was not some clear-cut crime, with a victim and a cold-blooded killer. I understand, as surely every Londoner understands, that the police were in an impossible situation that morning. A day earlier, a gang of four would-be suicide bombers had threatened to repeat the carnage that had taken 52 lives just a fortnight earlier. If the officers who pursued Menezes genuinely believed he was one of that quartet, that he was a ticking bomb poised to blow, then they had little choice but to stop him - by whatever means necessary.
Nevertheless, that cannot immediately absolve the police of all guilt for what happened that day. For the awful truth is that officers made several key errors which led to the shooting of Jean Charles and it is for those that the Met - including, perhaps, individual officers - should be held responsible.
Those serial mistakes were exposed most clearly by a landmark Panorama documentary last year. It showed first the incompetence which led police to mistake Menezes for Hussein Osman, one of the failed bombers of July 21. When the electrician left his flat, a moment when he could have been fully observed, the surveillance officer on duty was elsewhere, answering a call of nature. Later a colleague radioed base to say he wasn't sure the suspect was Osman, but he did have "Mongolian eyes."
Police then followed de Menezez as he made a 33-minute journey from Tulse Hill to Stockwell. Not once did they stop or challenge him. Of course, they were powerless when he was on a bus: if he had been carrying a bomb, he might have blown himself up there and then. But when he was on foot they could - from a distance, thereby protecting themselves - have ordered him to freeze and even undress, so giving him the chance to prove he carried no explosives. But they did not.
Mistakes were made at each stage, in the gathering of evidence, in the analysis of it and even in the interpretation of the order to shoot. "The whole thing was a monumental intelligence cock-up," says the acclaimed filmmaker Peter Taylor, who authored the Panorama film. And that assessment leaves aside the allegations that Special Branch officers falsified the log recording the precise events of the day - a charge which amounts to perverting the course of justice.
You don't have to believe that the men who pulled the trigger, or those who told them to do it, should be tried for murder to want to see someone answer for these actions. But some process of accountability, some formal reckoning, is surely required. It may yet come: four senior officers, including Ms Dick, have been told that once a criminal prosecution of the Met under health and safety laws is out of the way, a decision will be taken on whether they should be disciplined. "Somebody should be brought to book, so that the whole thing is not washed over and forgotten," says Taylor. "That's the very least that is owed to the family."
But it's not just the wholly understandable emotional needs of Jean Charles's parents and relatives that are at stake here. A reckoning for past mistakes is always necessary if they are not to be repeated in the future. The Met insists it has learned the lessons of De Menezes's death - but those lessons can hardly be seared into the Met's consciousness if it believes that no one was to blame.
It's developing into an unfortunate British habit this, staging long, elaborate inquiries that eventually point either at some vague, "systemic" failure or which locate no culpability at all. One recalls the two-year investigation, costing
The love-ins with Bush are over, and it's not just body language. A deeper strategic shift in tackling terrorism is emerging