Our route structure manages many things, but there has to be some room for ATC initiative. F@ckwit spoutings from Winstun don't affect the problem that ATC like myself have employers who have the right to issue instructions to me and my colleagues. Unless such instructions conflict with what I believe to be safe practice I don't have any alternative than to follow them. There is no point in bagging individual controllers, but I at least understand your frustration and won't expect you all to stop doing so. Even offering an opinion on ASA policy, (erm, like what I'm doing now,) is against my conditions of employment, which is why we hide behind the labels like KARRANK%, Topzalp, WWT, Neddy, ferris, etc... Another amazing DICK SMITH innovation
On the other hand, if I have a reason not to give direct tracking I won't, even if you ask 42 times...
On the other, other hand, if there is the remotest possibility of conflict with two aircraft (thinks: "well they come within 25nm of each other, but they are vertically separated, umm, AH! he might change level" TRACK DCT) we can sometimes unreasonably justify track shortening, just not if you the only aircraft in the sky.
Reasons the instruction is stupid:
We have race-track separated routes into SY & AD, yet when the curfew is on THEY AREN'T REQUIRED. The traffic at night just doesn't justify them, especially with noise abatement at AD putting arrivals and departures over the same end of the runway.
Some routes have procedural separation built in for occasions when the radar isn't working or to avoid Restricted airspace. Leaving the route there is nicely "failsafe", I don't have to reclear everybody when the sh1t hits the fan. An example is B469 north of AD, the only reason it goes through PAG is to miss R265 and give flights departing AD for the north a chance to get over crossing traffic. If R265 is released to us and the radar is working THERE IS NO REASON to not track-shorten.