It is but one example of the way in which travellers are now regarded as guilty until proven innocent.
In my case it was a walking stick, of the Nordic variety, that caused the furore last week. Since I was destined for a walking holiday in north Wales I thought it prudent to pop it into my hand luggage.
The journey out was no problem. No one at Jersey Airport security gave my walking pole a second glance. So a week later, on the return journey, I arrived at Liverpool Airport serene in the knowledge that I had checked my rucksack for liquids, gels, creams, batteries, guns, bombs, toothpaste, water, juice and anything else that was likely to cause offence.
I stood smugly in the queue. The security guys were on good form. Passenger after passenger was being hauled over. The woman in front had a small child in tow and her mug with juice was rapidly removed. My turn came all too soon.
‘I need to see that,’ said the bloke with the bouncer’s profile, pointing at the walking pole. ‘I’m surprised they didn’t ask you to check that in as hold luggage. Hollow, is it?’, he asked, adding with another bouncer-like stare. ‘Only proper walking sticks are allowed.’ With the emphasis on the ‘proper’.
The woman at the moving conveyor belt didn’t mention my obvious criminal intent. She just barked: ‘Where’s ya boarding card?’ with the kind of sneer normally reserved for naughty schoolgirls who have forgotten their plimsolls. Then, having removed boots and jumper – to show that I was not wearing a belt or carrying any loose change – I finally passed through the sensors without setting off any bleeps and with considerable relief reached the safety of the Other Side.
Has there been a spate of drug-related crimes involving women over 50, or what? Of course I know that people certainly do get on planes from the UK and arrive in the Island with drugs on their persons. I know they hide them in the most unlikely of places.
But do the security people have to be so patronising, arrogant, rude, bullying, intimidating and downright unpleasant to every single passenger that comes through the barrier?
Air travel has its amusements, nonetheless, especially if you book on one of these low-cost versions where seats are not allocated. People will do almost anything just to get what they see as a better deal.
Two wily characters sitting in front of me had obviously decided that airline seats should be like books, or bags of oranges – three for the price of two. Having occupied the window and aisle seats, they strategically placed their two large newspapers to conceal the empty seat in the middle. What a lark, they giggled. Ha ha.
Brilliant.
Compensating these investors is the right thing to do. Here’s why
A NUMBER of comments have already been published about the Economic Development Minister’s decision to award £600,000 to compensate 28 investors.
In the main, people seem aggrieved that public money should be spent on those who ‘gambled’ and lost. I am adding my own thoughts only because I reported on this case when it came before the Royal Court in 2007.
The court action was taken by the Island’s authorities against a small firm of independent financial advisers, Alternate Insurance Services Ltd. Their customers were just
ordinary Jersey folk, working in ordinary jobs, who wanted to put a few bob by for their families.
Mainly, they had saved their pennies over the years or perhaps had been left an inheritance and wanted to make sure that it was safe for the future. These people were not up there with the l(l)ks, or the J-cats, or the millionaire billionaires, or even the financial status of some of our States Members.
Whether the directors of Alternate Insurance were wily or just plain stupid is hard to say. But in the early 2000s nearly 30 of their customers trusted their advice and bought bundles of old endowment mortgages. In order to do this, some of these customers had to take out new loans.
Bear in mind that some of these folk were already retired or widowed. The three banks who loaned them the money – all based outside this Island – did not check whether they could afford to pay it back.
The problem part of the deal was that if the endowment mortgages lost value – and they did, when the dot.com bubble burst – the investors would have to stump up the extra to make up the value. And that was where they were hit hard.
The court concluded that none of the investors were fully aware of the commitment they were taking on. And I well remember some of the harrowing tears and palpable hardships that came out in the court hearing.
Unlike the UK, Jersey does not have an ombudsman or compensation scheme to refund unsatisfied customers of any kind, let alone those who have bought financial advice.
You could say the investors gambled and lost. But in my opinion a can of beans should contain beans. Not worms. Bravo to Economic Development for stepping up to the plate.
Revealed: One way to deflect the pointing fingers
I NORMALLY try to keep holiday periods as a news-free zone. But catching up this time has been easy. Can there be anything more to say about UK politicians’ expenses?
I can’t really blame the national media for milking the sordid details dry, particularly now that the story has changed from ‘all within the rules’ to allegations of fraud.
But even if the rules do allow MPs to claim for mortgage installments they are no longer paying, or to avoid Capital Gains Tax on the sale of second homes, it can hardly be said to be within the ‘spirit’ of those rules.
In a Channel Island context, it does make me smile when I think that the very same political authorities are ordering investigations into the affairs of their own constituents to make sure they are not trying to find ways of ‘avoiding’ their tax liabilities, let alone evading them, by using offshore finance centres. Kettles and black pots spring to mind.
A NUMBER of comments have already been published about the Economic Development Minister’s decision to award £600,000 to compensate 28 investors.
In the main people seem aggrieved that public money should be spent on those who ‘gambled’ and lost.
I am adding my own thoughts only because I reported on this case when it came before the Royal Court in 2007.
The court action was taken by the Island’s authorities against a small firm of independent financial advisers, Alternate Insurance Services Ltd. Their customers were ordinary Jersey folk, working in ordinary jobs, who wanted to put a few bob by for their families. Mainly they had saved their pennies over the years or perhaps had been left an inheritance and wanted to make sure that it was safe for the future. These people were not up there with the l(l)ks, or the J-cats, or the millionaire billionaires, or even the financial status of some of our States Members.
Whether the directors of Alternate Insurance were wily or just plain stupid is hard to say. But in the early 2000s nearly 30 of their customers trusted their advice and bought bundles of old endowment mortagages. In order to do this some of these customers had to take out new loans. Bear in mind that some of these folk were already retired or widowed. The three banks who loaned them the money – all based outside of this Island – did not check whether they could afford to pay it back.
The problem part of the deal was that if the endowment mortgages lost value – and they did, when the dot.com bubble burst – the investors would have to stump up the extra to make up the value. And that was where they were hit hard.
The court concluded that none of the investors were fully aware of the commitment they were taking on. And I well remember some of the harrowing tears and palpable hardships that came out in the court hearing.
Unlike the UK, Jersey does not have an ombudsman or compensation scheme to refund unsatisfied customers of any kind, let alone those who have bought financial advice.
You could say the investors gambled and lost. But in my opinion a can of beans should contain beans. Not worms.
Bravo to Economic Development for stepping up to the plate.
I NORMALLY try to keep holiday periods as a news-free zone.
But catching up this time has been easy. Can there be anything more to say about UK politicians’ expenses?
I can’t really blame the national media for milking the sordid details dry, particularly now that the story has changed from ‘all within the rules’ to allegations of fraud. But even if the rules do allow MPs to claim for mortgage installments they are no longer paying, or to avoid Capital Gains Tax on the sale of second homes, it can hardly be said to be within the ‘spirit’ of those rules.
In a Channel Island context, it does make me smile when I think that the very same political authorities are ordering investigations into the affairs of their own consitituents to make sure they are not trying to find ways of ‘avoiding’ their tax liabilities, let alone evading them, by using offshore finance centres.
Kettles and black pots spring to mind.
