I watched a television programme last night about the emergence and power of TripAdvisor.com, the website which allows members of the public to rate their travel experiences, whether it be airlines, tour operators, hotels or B&B. Sounds like a good idea doesn’t it? I’m sure we’ve all had disappointing or unpleasant experiences with inefficient airlines, poor meals, lumpy hotel beds and rude restaurant staff.

However, the programme demonstrated the other extreme and showed us just how, in the hands of the wrong people, power can corrupt. Some of the people featured admitted that they regard themselves as full time investigators for TripAdvisor – impliedly admitting too that they, quite clearly, have nothing better to do.

You may remember, early last month, my story of how I was prevented from taking my tennis racket on to a flight departing from Manchester on the basis that it was “an offensive weapon”. Well, a few weeks later, I flew out of Manchester again (minus my tennis racket, of course) in the company of a gentleman who I shall  not identify other than to call him Fred and tell you that he is 80 later this year! Since the majority of his flying was in the rather more gentle and civilized pre-2001 era of air travel Fred was not familiar with modern airport security and so I gave him detailed instructions of what is and isn’t allowed in hand luggage these days. Once we’d checked in and picked up our boarding passes we moved on to security satisfied that we would sail through without any difficulty. I went through the x-ray no problem but the beep went off when Fred tried to pass through. He was asked to go through the full body scan, evidently the most detailed scan of all and the one where you stand by the machine perfectly still with your hands above your head.

He passed it without any further delay and on we went to the departure lounge where, to his horror, Fred discovered that he had inadvertently brought along his pocket Swiss Army penknife having forgotten to remove it from his trousers! The question was, how on Earth did he manage to get through security and that all-singing and dancing modern scanner?

Anyway, the problem would be returning home from Spain since neither of us had hold luggage in which to place the penknife. So, on the day of his return Fred decided that he would take the penknife through airport security and explain to the official that  it was no more than a grooming tool containing, as it did, a pair of scissors, a nail file and a tooth pick. He was indeed stopped this time but the Spanish official, evaluating the risk and displaying a little imagination allowed him to travel with the penknife in his pocket.

So what does this tell us? Well, perhaps Spanish officials (or at least this one) are more lax and easy-going than their British counterparts and are capable of exercising a discretion based on common sense. More significant and worrying though is that the top of the range and no doubt extremely expensive Manchester scanner didn’t pick up the penknife. Various questions therefore arise. What else would the scanner fail to detect? How good is UK security and how much of it is just for show to give the appearance that the authorities know what they are doing. In short, how safe are we?

A really offensive weapon!

I recently flew out of Manchester on an international flight, though this story I’m sure could apply to virtually any of our airports. I was travelling light and took a small bag (just about within the limit) and a brand new tennis racket in its pvc case. I checked in without problem and then joined the long queue for Security. As somebody who normally flies in excess of 50 times a year the queues don’t bother me at all because I want every passenger and his/her bag to be thoroughly screened if it means we all fly safely.

When I reached the front of the queue I took off my belt as requested and placed it along with my bag in a plastic tray which then went through the x-ray machine. At the other end I waited for my bag and was about to pick it up when the Security officer came over to me and said he had some bad news. I asked him what the problem was and he said I couldn’t take my tennis racket on the plane since it was classified as an offensive weapon (obviously he’d never seen me play tennis!). At first I thought he was joking but he clearly wasn’t and he said that I would have to check it in to the main hold which would mean going all the way back to the check-in desk and then renegotiating Security.

There is never any point in losing your temper or having a go at Government officials because they are simply doing their job and so I politely asked how this could be and he said it was a recent directive from the Department of Transport (or whatever it’s called these days). I told him I couldn’t believe it and the sympathetic look on his face told me that he shared a similar view. I shook my head in disbelief and off I went contemplating the awful incident the officer’s vigilance had just averted – Captain to passengers “There’s no cause for alarm ladies and gentleman but the man in seat 7A has got a tennis racket….Omigod, he’s taking it out of the case…”

I checked in the offending item, rejoined the queue and, would you believe it, this time I was asked to take my shoes off even though no such request had been made when I first went through some 20 minutes earlier. You see, that’s the other thing, there is no consistency. On a number of occasions I’ve flown down to London Heathrow to catch a flight to the USA and have been surprised at how, for example, I have been asked to remove my shoes even though it wasn’t deemed necessary in Manchester. Give them the benefit of the doubt though, maybe it’s just a random request. Most bizarre of all though is to land in the USA and then go through a full screening again even when I’m actually leaving the airport. What on Earth is that all about?!

Of course we live in dangerous times and we need the full protection of the State to keep us safe. It’s a vital job and I really am grateful but can we please show some consistency and a little common sense? As for the nameless bureaucrat who deemed a tennis racket an offensive weapon, well wouldn’t it be nice if he could explain his decision and at the same time explain how I was allowed to proceed with two alloy bicycle handle bar extensions in my bag which really would be a nasty weapon in the wrong hands. Also, why was my travelling companion allowed to carry a safety razor in his hand luggage? Whilst were on the subject, how come passengers are allowed wine in glass bottles and those in Club Class and beyond are actually allowed to eat with metal knives and forks? Clearly, somebody needs to get a grip of this.

We’ve all stood in dog excrement at some time or another haven’t we? It’s not very pleasant, it sticks to your shoes like glue and stinks to high heaven. So, when the law changed and dog owners were compelled to pick up after their animals we all thought it was a great idea.
Doggy waste would now be placed in plastic bags so that neither we nor our children, in particular, would ever again walk the stuff on to our nice clean carpets. Unfortunately, there has been a downside because, whilst most dog owners behave responsibly, others simply throw the waste-filled bags on to pathways, on to pavements, into hedges, and even on to the branches of trees. How crass and anti-social is that? At least  excrement left on the pavement  is biodegradable and will eventually rot or be washed away by the rain whereas, in a bag, it is a filthy eyesore and will remain so for as long as it takes the plastic bag to rot. Can we suggest, ever so politely, that those irresponsible dog-owners either use freely available biodegradable waste bags or use the bins provided by local council. Failing that can you just take the waste back home with you.