shoes

Frome, in Somerset, has been named one of the best high streets in the UK, and is home to a wealth of independent shops – but some residents are not happy with the situation

Frome in Somerset is frequently celebrated as having one of Britain’s finest high streets, thriving whilst countless other locations struggle to survive. Yet even in this success story, empty shopfronts remain, including a former Shoe Zone where the faded lettering of its sign can still be spotted.

One local complained that residents must now venture elsewhere to purchase footwear. Another source of frustration centres on newcomers from the capital relocating to the area – dubbed FILTH (failed in London, try here) – who attempt to transform the town.

One shop owner, who preferred to remain anonymous, explained to the Express: “We like it as it is. When new people come in they want to change everything.”

READ MORE: ‘Secret’ stairs that lead to one of UK’s most iconic cathedral city landmarks

She revealed that these outsiders want to turn Frome into “cafe central” featuring outdoor dining and additional pedestrianised areas. A customer in the shop remarked: “We don’t want any more Londoners. We’ve fulfilled our quota, now we’re feeding them to the pigs. “People born here struggle to stay here,” explained Alice Cleaver, 29, manager of homewares shop The Shop Next Door.

“Rent is absolutely crazy.” Finding affordable accommodation took her two years through personal connections.

“If you try and go through estate agents, you’re f*****,” Ms Cleaver added. The average sold house price in Frome stands at £346,382, according to Zoopla, significantly above the UK average of £282,776.

During the first four months of 2024, 168 Frome properties entered the rental market, with the average monthly rent at £1,123, according to Rivendell Estates. This represented a marginal decline of 0.09%.

Currently, you can expect to pay between £800 and £900 monthly for what the businesswoman describes as “s***holes”. In 2023, Frome Town Council declared a housing crisis as rents spiralled beyond locals’ reach. However, the area’s prosperity benefits independent enterprises.

Ms Cleaver remarked: “There’s a lot of money here… business is going really well. “There are a lot of people moving here all the time from London,” she continued. “It’s totally understandable.”

The manager has numerous friends from London, and she views Frome through their perspective. “It’s a great town,” she explains. “A lovely place to live.”

Yet she noted: “It feels like we’re not the ones that are supposed to be living here. I’ve found somewhere affordable, but this is not the town for us. I don’t really make enough to afford to live here, you just have to find someone you know.”

Despite the town’s comparatively affluent residents, some shops are still finding conditions “tough”, and a monthly market, which draws 12,500 visitors, enhances businesses’ earnings. Garry Yoxall, 60, owner of the Pedestal Gallery and PostScript, a printing service, revealed that local shop owners maintain a Whatsapp group to share advice and alert each other about potential troublemakers.

“You know everyone in the town; there’s a network,” he said. He believes that money from Londoners relocating (DFL) has led to Frome’s evolution as it attracts people “looking to get away from the town”.

“You just have a look around the town. The geography, the architecture, the scenery. It’s just the right size, and not too disparate. Success breeds success,” said the former Shell employee, who is now a fully paid-up member of Greenpeace.

His gallery, which showcases contemporary paintings and sculptures, including works by Peter Hayes admired by Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich, hasn’t experienced a loss-making month since its opening last year.

Owning a gallery has always been his dream, and when the premises opposite his first business became available, Mr Yoxall seized the opportunity.

Before this, he felt the town “wasn’t ready” for such a venture. On market days, Mr Yoxall can earn up to £1,000. He noted that middle-ground purchases, typically made by younger people starting out, are “just not there anymore”.

However, high-end purchases persist, and he can still rely on low-end gifting. The businessman also benefits from low staff costs and “reasonable” rent. Truly Sopel, 46, who operates a dynamic underwear design house in Frome for the past 19 years, has seen the town evolve.

“Over time its sort of independent shops have actually attracted a lot of forward thinking creative individuals who are really passionate about what they do,” she said. “Retail sense, I think that’s what makes it work.”

The area has seen an influx of new residents, their friends and families, Ms Sopel added, with plenty of Airbnbs and good connections to London making it a “tourist attraction”. She said: “Certainly until 2016 or 2015 it was me selling stuff to local people.

“But everyone I’ve sold to today is a visitor. I nearly left six years ago. Thank God I didn’t.”

Andy Le Grange, 64, the owner of Just Ales 2 micropub, attributes the town’s success to its independent councillors, who aren’t tied to any political party. “If you don’t work for Frome, you won’t get elected,” he said.

“That makes a hell of a difference.”

Instead of top down, the town operates from the bottom up, the publican added. But Frome hasn’t always been like this, as John Szymanski, 40, a fashion designer and clothes maker hailed as one of the town’s greatest successes, pointed out.

“I’ve known Frome when it wasn’t like this at all – basically a s******e,” he said. The businessman added that those who rent out shops are reasonable. Mr Szymanski said: “Landlords understand it’s not easy having a small business; they just want to help.” During the pandemic, they adopted a “pay when you can” policy. “If you can’t, don’t worry,” they reassured. He also mentioned

an influx of Londoners. Mr Szymanski stated: “Normally they first come in [to his shop] when they’re looking for a house. “They say, ‘We’ve seen something we like’. I say, ‘Put an offer in. If you don’t, it’ll be gone within three days.”

He added: ” Celebrities live around here as well. That’s the draw.” Babington House – a Georgian manor in the heart of Somerset, complete with bedrooms, a spa and cinema for members, managed by Soho House – also attracts newcomers, the designer said.

He often observes people rushing for the train to London outside his shop window, where he still conducts most of his business, seemingly resisting the trend of online shopping that has affected other UK high streets.

However, he still enjoys success online, including selling his flower bag on TikTok. John said 23 have been dispatched worldwide, including to America, Japan, Hungary, Norway, Switzerland and South Africa.

A travel expert warned against taking one item of clothing off on a plane, and it’s left some people feeling a little bit queasy, especially when they know the potential consequences

Appropriate aircraft attire is so important, yet countless passengers continue to disregard this guidance, sporting leggings, crop tops, and man-made fabrics. With so many adorable airport ensembles to choose from – tracksuits and trainers being perennial travel staples – many holidaymakers prefer to touch down at their destination already dressed for summer in flowing floral frocks or shorts paired with sandals, primed to bask in the sunshine.

However, a travel guru has revealed crucial information you’d be foolish to dismiss, as ignoring her advice could lead to revolting health consequences that you definitely don’t want occurring before your getaway begins.

Kate Van Dyke, who serves as Travel and Leisure’s associate social media editor, declared: “Before you head to the airport for your next trip, here’s what not to wear on the plane.”

She implored travellers to “leave the open-toed shoes in your suitcase,” explaining that you’ll “be doing your neighbour a huge favour”.

The expert also cautioned that it’s “probably been a while since that carpet and under the seats were deep cleaned”.

But what makes exposing your bare feet on an aircraft so revolting?

Removing your footwear during flight subjects your feet to numerous bacteria and potential dangers.

Aeroplane floors are seldom given a proper scrub between journeys, meaning passengers risk encountering bacteria, fungi, and viruses that could trigger infections like athlete’s foot, plantar warts, or potentially more severe skin conditions – particularly if you’ve got any cuts or grazes.

Carpet surfaces frequently harbour bodily fluids, food spillages, and various other nasties, heightening the chances of picking up something rather unpleasant.

Moreover, the arid cabin atmosphere and cramped conditions can leave your skin more vulnerable to irritation and cracking, which only amplifies infection risks.

While the likelihood of contracting something genuinely serious remains fairly minimal for most healthy individuals, it’s typically more sanitary to keep your footwear – or at minimum your socks – firmly in place throughout your flight, particularly during loo visits, as what appears to be water might actually be something considerably more revolting.

Kate also cautioned against wearing “avoid strong fragrances,” while airborne, so although you might fancy dousing yourself with 100 spritzes of that gorgeous perfume you spotted in Duty Free, if it’s likely to offend fellow passengers, it’s probably best avoided.

She explained: “Scents spread far and wide when you’re in an enclosed space like a plane cabin, and your favourite fragrance may be overpowering to others.”

In the comments section, some travellers insisted there was “nothing like” removing your shoes “on a flight,” declaring “sorry not sorry”.

“I had to tell the man behind me to put his shoes back on. The smell was about to knock me out,” one person joked. A woman advised: “Avoid all fragrances, because they can set off some serious migraines for some of us.”

One bloke revealed: “I hate to say it, but I wear shoes that I can run in in case there’s an emergency.”

The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced on Tuesday that it was scrapping a policy requiring people to take off their shoes while passing through airport screenings.

The policy, long a source of ire for travellers, had its roots in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the US, when authorities sought to bolster security around air travel through a host of measures.

Many more rules have been added in the time since, some criticised as arbitrary and needlessly intrusive, and have been supplemented by the integration of measures such as facial scanning technology at airports across the country.

What’s behind the change, what rules remain, and could other policies change next?

STARS, STRIPES, AND SHOES ON! 🇺🇸👟

Under the leadership of @Sec_Noem, DHS is announcing a new policy today which will allow passengers traveling through domestic airports to keep their shoes on through security screening at TSA checkpoints.

This policy change will drastically… pic.twitter.com/clyk46RXvI

— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) July 8, 2025

What was the ‘shoes off’ policy?

The “shoes off” policy was first implemented by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in 2006 and required travellers to remove their shoes as they advanced through airport security screenings to check them for possible explosives.

Those enrolled in TSA PreCheck, a programme in which people who pass a basic security check are allowed to bypass certain airport security measures, had already been allowed to pass through screenings with their shoes on.

Why was it implemented?

The policy was the result of a failed December 2001 attack by a British man named Richard Reid, who packed explosives into his shoes and tried to detonate them during a flight from Paris to Miami.

The incident, like many attempted attacks carried out in the post-9/11 period, was highly amateur: Reid, a petty criminal who became an Islamic fundamentalist, was foiled after an airline worker noticed that he was trying to light his shoe on fire with a match.

But the failed attack played into fears that were prominent during the post-9/11 era. And, when it came to safety, why take a chance?

“TSA can’t just rely on the next attack being as incompetent as this one was,” Jay Stanley, a privacy advocate and senior policy analyst at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), told Al Jazeera.

The agency asked people, on a voluntary basis, to consider removing their shoes while passing through screening so they could be checked for explosives. TSA later made the policy mandatory in August 2006.

Why was the policy scrapped?

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said in a statement on Tuesday that eliminating the policy would remove a source of strain on travellers and reduce TSA wait times at airports, and was no longer necessary due to technological innovations.

“We expect this change will drastically decrease passenger wait times at our TSA checkpoints, leading to a more pleasant and efficient passenger experience,” she said.

The change was effective immediately.

What other policies remain in place, and could they change?

While the “no shoes” policy is gone, travellers expecting an easy, stress-free trip to the airport should temper their expectations as many other security measures remain in place.

Passengers will, for example, still have to remove their belts, coats, laptops, and certain items from their bags while passing through security. Rules limiting gels and liquids in carry-on items to 3.4 ounces (100 ml) still apply, and checked bags must also be subjected to X-ray screenings.

Canines used for detecting bombs and drugs are still frequently used, and full-body scanners were brought to airports after another failed attack in December 2009, in which a man tried to detonate explosives smuggled onto a plane in his underwear.

Noem has suggested that DHS is reviewing some rules, but did not offer further details.

Are those measures effective or just security theatre?

Travellers have long fumed about an ever-growing list of measures that can seem arbitrary and do not always have a clear utility.

While the government argues that the increases in airport security reflect efforts to patch up vulnerabilities exposed by the 9/11 hijackers and subsequent failed attacks, some experts say that certain measures provide the impression of security more than provable benefits.

“People are hesitant to push back against new rules because nobody wants to be seen as responsible if there’s another attack,” said Stanley.

“Security theatre has always been a part of this, where you make a big show of security in order to give people the impression of greater safety.”

But enforcing so many rules can be difficult for agency workers themselves, who have the industrial-scale task of screening around two million travellers per day.

A 2015 report from the agency’s inspector general found that TSA officers had failed to detect weapons, explosives and other prohibited items brought through security by undercover agents to test the effectiveness of the system in 95 percent of cases.

Despite such concerns, TSA has continued to grow in size and scope each year. The agency has a workforce of nearly 63,000 people and a budget that is set to reach more than $11bn in 2025. In 2006, when “shoes off” was first implemented, it was around $6bn.

What new technologies are being used in airport security?

In her statement, Noem said that one of the reasons that the “shoes off” policy could be safely discarded is that “cutting-edge technological advancements” have rendered it unnecessary.

One that travellers may have noticed is the greater use of facial recognition technology, a development some privacy advocates have viewed with concern.

What are the privacy concerns?

Petra Molnar, a lawyer and author of the book, The Walls Have Eyes: Surviving Migration in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, told Al Jazeera that in an era of heightening restrictions on movement, airports have become testing grounds for new technologies, with civil liberties a largely secondary concern.

“With increasingly more digital technologies used at borders, airports have become epicentres of surveillance tech, with facial recognition and biometric technologies augmenting to physical surveillance practices,” said Molnar.

“Airports and borders are often one of the first places where new surveillance technologies are tested out, often with little regulation and oversight. Airports are the true testing grounds where unregulated technology experiments can run unchecked.”

While the decision to scrap the “shoes off” policy is a rare example of airport security measures being dialed back in the name of efficiency and convenience, it also comes at a time when those traveling or returning to the US are increasingly wary of being pulled aside and questioned about their political views on topics such as Israel’s war in Gaza.

The administration of President Donald Trump recently warned, for example, that international students entering the US must make their social media profiles available for inspection by authorities.

“The goal of security measures should be to ensure that nobody can get through this security process if they pose a threat,” said Stanley. “The problems start when the government tries to categorise people by traits they believe could make them a risk, and to do that, you need to go into people’s lives and find out more about them.”