You do realise that is the official corporate motto of BAA?

On the other hand I find the security people at Gatwick South friendly and professional. Which is remarkable given the number of liquid laden idiots (who plainly haven't bothered to read any of the messages about prepare for security etc) they have to deal with.

A friend of mine told me the other day...

She'd gone throught staff search at LGW N and had her bag searched. She was told by the woman who searched her bag that she should put her camera in the hold, as cameras aren't allowed airside (the woman obviously didn't have a clue). My friend burst out laughing because it was so ridiculous. She got reprimanded by the woman for laughing. :ugh:

Gg

Wow!

Great set of posts.

Not only am I not alone, but I feel pathetically grateful that I didn't end up in the British equivalent of Guantanamo Bay!

PS: Forgot to mention that bloody-minded extended bag-check done deliberately to hold me up failed to detect one lip balm and one part-used mini tube of toothpaste collected from VS a couple of weeks ago. Ha! Gotcha!

Unfortunately this is actually true .... while pax can snap away happily staff at most major UK airports are not allowed cameras airside without prior written permission.

The rules have existed for ages but only recently have been enforced for some reason ..... perhaps it had something to with airside tours being posted on u-tube after being obviously filmed from a catering vehicle :eek:

Annoys me as I quite liked to have the camera with sometimes.



Of course, as with all well thought out rules :rolleyes: ..... they apparently haven't thought what to do about mobile 'phones with cameras :E

Hmmm so what heppens if your phones got a camera then?

Euorotunnel Security
 

Compare and contrast flying, with the Eurotunnel! It occurs to me that they may be a bit too relaxed but it suits me. I have been thru 3 times this year and it almost too easy. Check in with a camera verifying the number plate and a machine checking your credit card, prints a boarding pass and you are done in 2 minutes. Security asks questions about pets and gas cyclinders, I have had the car 'swabbed' for traces of explosives and that's is it. In what way a train being blown up under the sea is thought to be less of a problem than an aircraft being blown up I don't know. I now don't bother with flying anywhere unless there is no other way; as retired person I don't have to go anywhere on business and I have adjusted my holidays to whatever I can do by car/tunnel/ferry

It's not just me then
 

I'm sad to say that I've been experiencing grief from security staff at UK airports. I thought it was me, that I must look resentful of the whole stupid farce, and it shows on my face, so I'm simply sport for them.

I've read through this thread, and can relate totally to the "lets scan your shoes 2x in 7yards" at Gatwick, plus the totally unpleasant and threatening behaviour at Luton security, which is an airport that I now totally avoid.

I have 3 flights coming up, and this is how BAA and other UK airports make me feel :(

@42psi Really? Won't allow cameras airside? Eek!

There's no way I'm putting my SLR and lenses into the hold - just no way. I'm an enthusiastic amateur photographer, not a pro, so I don't have and can't justify a solid metal case that makes it slightly more challenging for bag handlers to damage the stuff inside. I've checked cameras through security every time but, if my normal camera bag were to be confiscated and checked in, I'd rather not fly, thanks.

Won't be long before we have to check-in naked....

But hang on a minute!

There is a "Dixons" airside, selling......... Cameras, memory cards, video cameras, tape, batteries, and something called extended warranties?

Not only that, but they have staff who will put the whole kit together for you and show you how to use it. Of course that is after you have shown mock interest in the extended warranty.

Are these security cleared cameras, much like the security cleared water and other 101+ mg liquids, that are magically transformed by being loaded in to the goods elevator?

Staff are not meant to take cameras airside - for passengers, its [still] OK. The previously mentioned security screener at LGW was talking absolute crap if it was related to screening a passenger

A

59A

All inconvenience/BAA/security nightmares aside, I'm interested to know why you felt the need to tell the security officer that 'you're not my mate'. I mean, it is something that people say all the time, often without thinking, just one human being to another. I'd be horrified if I'd called someone 'mate' and they'd replied 'I'm not your mate' when all I'm trying to do is be friendly. Out of interest, if it was someone in the street, would you say the same thing. I'm not having a go, just wondering what would possess someone to say such a thing.

I agree. It is irritating to be addressed in a casual manner like that. I would prefer to have MINIMAL contact (verbal or otherwise) but since I go through on a daily basis.........

I've clarified my post, I don't think it is irritating at all to be called 'mate' in most circumstances, especially if the person is just being friendly and it's part of their culture - as opposed to being forced. Funnily enough, I DO object to being referred to as 'geeza', which happens from time to time but I would never say anything.

It's certainly not considered professional to be called mate in the above circumstances in the UK. I know a lot of people do it but that doesn't make it good manners as many people consider it off putting and discourteous to be addressed in such a laddish manner.

However Brown's Britain is lowest common denominator so you pays your money....

VS - I think Skipness and eastern-wiseguy are right. It is unprofessional and discourteous in this context in the UK.

On the other hand, I agree with you. 99.9% of the time I would let it go. But there comes a point where one has been riled so much that you think - why should I? Unfortunately, it is symptomatic of grubby Britain that this is becoming widespread, just like being addressed on first name terms by a vast range of service sectors, just like going into SpecSavers for reading glasses and being spoken to r e a l l y s l o w l y and in LOUD VOICE just because you are over 50.

"Mate" is perfectly acceptable when used by black cab drivers, market traders and as a formal greeting in Australia. In other contexts, I think "sir" or "madam" is polite, neutral, and guaranteed not to cause offence. The problem is that chippy people think they are being forced to be servile - they are not, it is just polite.

Again, the Americans have it right on this one. Say what you like, but they are never less than courteous.

I don't want, nor expect, to be called "mate", "chum", "pal", "geeza", or whatever, neither in the street nor at an airport terminal, by people who are not intimate friends.

I remember an incident when I held a door open for a group of juveniles, most of whom just passed through, some passed through and grunted, and the last one said "cheers mate".

My children still speak of my response which was along the lines of "we are not acquainted and we are not drinking together".

But I am of course a boring old fart.

Funny how things change by location - in Yorkshire, calling someone you don't personally know 'mate' or 'love' is generally accepted as both polite and friendly (though not professional). I'd forgotten that other places view it differently.

In Cornwall it's "my 'an'some" and "my luvver" or "my bird". But no-one there is stupid enough to use such familiarity in circumstances where people are likely to be very offended. UK airports take note.
Poor Britain. It's all very well moaning about the situation in forums like this but, until you get off your collective butts and really take matters into your own hands, you are going to be prey to the cretins who have been put into positions of 'authority' by 'Blurr', 'Broon' and their cohorts.
Political correctness, over-emphasised terrorist threat, 'elf 'n' safety' - it's all the staff of life to these fools. What really matters to them is reducing the unemployment register and what better way than to invent jobs like these to get the otherwise unemployable off the permanent dole?
You could start by acting as an electorate and demanding that all MP's and Civil Servants join the same queues and undertake the same humiliating and totally pointless inspections as everyone else. Guess how long it would be before things changed for the better? :}

Fair points, was just curious.

However, another way to look at it could be that this job in particular can be an awful job, that is hard to fill. You're up against it all day long. This person in particular is probably doing what he can to make the job bearable by trying to engage with passengers. He may go about it the wrong way in some eyes but he is trying in his own way. If a passenger publicly admonishings him, in front of other passengers and his colleagues, then that passenger is doing his bit drive this person out of the industry, thereby leaving behind the disengaged, outsourced, cheap labour that this forum loves to hate.

Wings folded, that was very brave of you. I take your point, they were ignorant and rude but if you'd done that were I live, you'd probably wake up in hospital.