Russell Brand’s account of not being allowed in the U.S.

Admittedly, Russell Brand, the British comedian and actor, probably best known in the U.S. for his role as Aldous Snow, a rock star in the movie Forgetting Sarah Marshall, can go a bit over the top with his humor.

Because he will be hosting the MTV Video Music Awards tonight, he is on U.S. entertainment radar again. However, it’s an earlier appearance on David Letterman in May that caught my attention.

This account of why he missed his first scheduled appearance on David Letterman pokes a bit of fun at U.S. immigration without being anti-American. According to him, Brand wasn’t allowed back in the U.S. after a trip to Britain to promote the movie because of his past record. Although he doesn’t specifically state his past problems, they have to do with drug issues for which he has had treatment.

Basically, Brand’s hilarious style of story-telling captures an interesting cast of players and circumstances at U.S. immigration. I do think he’s embellishing, but it’s funny. For example, he describes a Gambian man wearing an American flag tie under going questioning and hones in on the stereotypes of people who look suspicious.

Brand never does say how he cleared his record to be allowed back into the U.S. after being sent back to Great Britain.

When Brand was in the U.S. filming Forgetting Sarah Marshall, he probably had a work visa which would be different from the type of visa he would have to make talk show appearances. That’s my assumption.

It just seems odd he would have been granted a visa for one circumstance and denied entry for another. However, Brand is not that well known–yet, so perhaps the immigration officers didn’t believe him. That’s also what Brand conjectured. Since he is a comedian, who can be sure of the truth and what makes for good entertainment?

There is a funny part at the end of the interview when he talks about what it was like to be in Hawaii during the filming of Sarah Marshall. Being in paradise too long is like “being hit over the head with a rainbow.”

Getting around London is going to become even more expensive

You might have thought that London was already expensive, but next year you can look forward to budgeting even more money when visiting the English capital. Mayor Boris Johnson plans to raise London Underground train and bus fares next year by an average of 6% above the inflation rate.

What exactly does that work out to? The cheapest London Underground fare which you can get by using an Oyster prepaid card will rise to £1.60, or $2.85, in January from the current price of £1.50. That doesn’t seem like a huge change, but for people — and even tourists — who use public transportation on a frequent basis, it certainly feels like it.

The current London Underground cash fare for a ticket — £4 — is reported to be the highest in the world for a subway system; apparently the city really wants to keep its ranking.

Views of London like you’ve never seen before

The Boston.com segment “The Big Picture” has an overview of some fantastic photos of London “from above, at night”. They are the work of aerial photographer Jason Hawkes and are the most beautiful aerial photos I have ever seen.

The photos were taken from a helicopter, using a digital camera mounted on a gyroscopic mount and the article has photos of most major London attractions, including the London Eye, Tower Bridge and Big Ben. If you love London (who doesn’t?) then I highly suggest checking out these photos, as well as some of the other work of Jason Hawkes.

(Photo from jasonhawkes.com/Boston.com)

London notes: Some UK airports up for sale soon

There’s been a couple of big stories in the London newspapers this past week. One is the full fledged anticipation of the 2012 Olympics after the so-called “hand off” on Sunday, as Josh wrote about recently. Another is the fact that shamed pedophile (and former British pop heartthrob) Gary Glitter is back on British soil after being released from jail in Vietnam (he served three years on charges of sexually abusing children).

But another story, which hasn’t been as hyped, could impact you as a traveler more.

BAA, Britain’s largest airport operator, is expecting a ruling from the country’s Competition Commission that will order a break-up of its airport holdings, on the grounds that one company owning so many of Britain’s major airports is not good for the country.

The result? BAA is likely to have to sell two of its airports, maybe more.

BAA owns giant Heathrow, and also Gatwick, Stansted, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Southampton.

Most pundits are speculating that Gatwick or Stansted are on the block (and perhaps both), as are Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Obviously, holding onto Heathrow will keep BAA a powerful market player.

What does this mean for you?

Any time competition trumps monopoly the consumer could win, in terms of better and more varied service and better prices. There are rumors flying around that a group of airlines is thinking of pooling its money and buying a BAA airport. Ryanair is one airline denying that it’s looking into buying an airport (in this case, Stansted, a major hub for the carrier). With airlines in control, they could save on costs and, in theory at least, pass that on by way of lower fares.

The BAA isn’t buying the competition argument, however. It says that owning Heathrow really doesn’t translate into a competition issue with other British hubs because Heathrow isn’t vying against them for business. Heathrow is going up against other European and International hubs, like Paris, Amsterdam and Dubai.

London notes: The city is cracking down on knife-wielding thugs

People in Britain like to point out how relatively uncommon, if not to say unheard of, gun violence is in their country. What they tend to overlook is that you are far more likely to get a knife stuck in your ribs.

OK, that’s a bit of an overstatement. But here in Europe’s largest city they are cracking down on knives in a big way.

Last night, surfacing from the Angel Underground stop at around 8 p.m., I saw at the station’s entrance police hastily setting up portable metal detectors — two of them — through which they would choose people at random to walk.

Others seeing this might have been confused at first. But only the night before, walking through Leicester Square in London’s tourist-heavy West End, I came across the same kind of checkpoint: Two metal detectors right in the middle of one of the square’s thoroughfares, maybe eight police officers, and a line of mostly younger-looking night revelers who had all been stopped and told to walk the line, so to speak.

It was a seriously odd sight in the middle of the heavy flow of foot traffic, these detectors, surrounded as they were by the humming clubs, theaters and pubs of the district. It seemed almost funny. I stopped and asked an officer what was going on.

“Metal detectors,” he said.

“I can see that. But what are you looking for?”

“Knives.”

London is about three months into a massive initiative to curb a significant surge in knife violence this year, which has already claimed the lives of nearly 25 Londoners, mostly teens.

Just last night, a man was stabbed in the South London neighborhood of Brixton, and a youth was stabbed to death in east London.

Local surgeons here are telling newspapers that roughly one in three trauma patients they see these days are victims of a stabbing.

The Evening Standard recently did a survey of city hospitals and reports that there have been 424 patients treated for stab wounds this year, and calls roughly half of them serious cases. Royal London Hospital alone has seen 100 serious stabbing victims so far this year (compared to 71 this time last year). London’s Helicopter Emergency Service tells the Standard that it has treated 121 stabbing victims, of which 19 died on the scene. Medics say they’ve performed open heart surgery on 10 patients on London’s streets this year.

What’s going on?

Gang violence has been on the rise, and this being a decidedly antigun society (pretty much any gun is illegal here), knives are often the weapon of choice. That in turn drives others to carry knives on them for protection.

“A lot of people think that it’s better to be safe than sorry, and the only way they can be safe is maybe if I carry something, you know,” Londoner Leila Shire tells The Washington Post.

Out walking yesterday, I asked a few Londoners what was behind all these stabbings. Were the streets becoming unsafe? Some say yes, some say no.

“I wouldn’t say Londoners are that worried,” said a man named Harold Baker. “I think there is this feeling that these troubles are happening far removed from the center.”

“So, out of sight, out of mind?”

“You just asked whether I’m worried. I can’t say that I really am, no,” he said.

I put the same question to a woman who gave her name as Margaret and said she lived near Croydon — a decidedly doggier area of London — and had three children. “You just worry about kids,” she said. “No parent would want their children carrying weapons.”

Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown in June said teenagers as young as 16 caught carrying knives could face prosecution (the age used to be 18, and they usually first received a warning).

It’s unclear whether this metal detector and stop-and-search campaign has had much of an impact since revving up this past May. That month, police randomly sopped 4,200 youths and found 5 percent carrying knives, according to the Post. No recent data has been published.

Authorities say they are still letting most off with warnings. And police say overall knife crime countrywide has actually decreased 16 percent from last year (though London incidents look to be on the uptick), despite the fact that those involved in knife crimes these days increasingly turn out to be kids in their mid-teens, says the Post.