Thanks, one and all.
I take the point about a thief that knows what they are doing but there are degrees of theft and I want to make it as difficult as possible.
A [very poor] analogy would be with a car ...
1) I leave the keys in when going to the kiosk to pay for my petrol;
2) I leave the car unlocked whilst away from it;
3) I leave the car locked but unattended; or
4) I add a Denver Boot and a Krooklok.
An opportunist scrote will easily go for Car 1, but it needs an increasingly keen one to up each extra layer of security - and, let's face it, if someone really wants my car (or iPad) they are going to get it no matter what I do to protect it.
What I'm after, or would like to see, is a security option which makes it very difficult to benefit from any iPad theft, thus deterring all but the most determined thief.
With the iPad, having no security codes whatsoever is, in my humble opinion, just plain dumb.
To have an iPad with codes, but a long "kick-in" interval is better than nothing, but still risky as any thief can go to the "Find My iPad" switch and turn it off.
Having a code, with an appropriate "kick-in" interval, is better but, as said above, still open to abuse.
But how much better to have the additional protection of the "Find My iPad" and associated options being protected by yet a further layer of code security thus requiring a determined and knowledgeable barsteward to go and initialise everything via iTunes?
I've never seriously programmed in anything other than COBOL and ICL VME (and played with BASIC), but I would guess that adding that extra - and possibly optional - layer of security would be relatively simple.
The more obstacles that are put in the way of any scrote the better!