Yesterday's Mail on Sunday had an emblematic story about the fatuousness of some anti-terror measures (there's no web link, I'm afraid).

A diabetic, Cliff Salmons, was ordered off a BA flight from Hong Kong to London as the plane was readying itself for take off. The reason: the captain refused to fly unless Mr Salmons put his pocket size insulin pens into the hold. He would, he told the captain, die if he could not inject himself during the 13 hour flight, and the hold was in any case too cold for insulin.

But the pens could be a weapon, the captain insisted, and Mr Salmons was taken off the flight.

Now if you think this is stupid, just wait. BA has put out a statement:

We apologise to Mr Salmons for his experience. The safety of our passengers is always our first priority and in the current climate any sharp objects can only be taken on board if a passenger has proof they are being carried for medical reasons...In this case, Mr Salmons did not have a letter.

Think about this. I can see the logic of simply refusing to allow any sharp objects to be taken on board. And I can see all sorts of other positions which BA could take on the basis of security.

But BA has simply taken leave of its senses. So much for the security which the airline vaunts. Under its procedures, you can take a syringe on board with you if you have a letter to say you need it.

No terrorist would ever dream of doing such a low down dirty thing as to forge a letter, would they?

It reminds me of this security loophole which Slate exposed last month (and which I have kicked myself for not writing about as, checking in on line whenever I travel, have always realised was a glaring loophole).