Passports pass the pricey point!

Today David Cameron announced the spending reveiw of defence. It was all about keeping us safe for the best price. How best to defeat the enemy and all that. Sounded OK as far as it went. But I get a sneaking feeling that in this modern age of terrorist warfare, where the odd bearded wonder is the actual problem, not a whole army of well disciplined foes, that it is the "man on the Clapham omnibus" that gets to pay for it all. And in more ways than one.

Only yesterday I was thinking again of renewing my passport. Can't go anywhere foreign without one, not these days. So much for the single market of the great European experiment. I would like to pop over to France but have to fork out £77.50 for the privilege. Now, OK, that boils down to £7.75 each year for a ten-year passport, but it's the reasons behind why the Passport Office is in charge of such inflation-busting price rises that gets me.

I saw this on Wikipedia and immediately thought that both the terrorists and the mandarins have a hand in weedling cash out of the citizen. If there were no terrorists it is perfectly plausible to think that the cost of renewing a passport would be no more that £25. But there is a whacking great premium because of Osama and his gang, fraudsters and official inefficiency. My last passport was issued in the USA by the Washington Embassy. I now see that in similar circumstances today I would be stiffed for £124!

From Wikipedia -

The cost of obtaining a standard passport over the years has increased greatly. While consumer prices in the UK have increased by 24% from early 1998 to 2009, the price of a passport renewal increased by 269%.
£77.50 - 3 September 2009 - an increase which the Government said was necessary due to a falling number of passport applicants, and also to pay for enhanced passport security measures. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats said that people were paying for the price of introducing ID cards.
£72 - 4 October 2007 - due to an increase in the consular premium added by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office.
£66 - 5 October 2006 - for the introduction of the latest generation passport, anti-fraud measures and interviews for first-time applicants.
£51 - 1 December 2005 - to reflect the cost of implementing key anti-fraud measures.
£42 - 2 October 2003 - to pay for new anti-fraud measures.
£33 – 21 November 2002.
£30 – 14 January 2002.
£28 – 16 December 1999 - to fund a major overhaul of the Passport Agency following the summer crisis.
£21 – 26 March 1998.
£18 - November 1992.
The above fees apply for passports issued in the United Kingdom by the Identity and Passport Service. Passports issued outside the UK by the Passport Section of a British Consulate, Embassy, or High Commission currently cost £124.

If the spending on defence could get rid of Bin Laden and the spending on security could get rid of fraudsters, we might get our money's worth on passport production. Otherwise we will not get the value for money that David Cameron talks about. Just more shelling out for a poor return.

Airport body scanners 'may be unlawful'

There's been an awful lot of talk about body scanners recently, mainly from those who think it unseemly that their private parts and other bits may be seen by ogling airport operatives. Personally I'm not bothered by that aspect. I'm more concerned by the burgeoning industry that is making a fast buck out of terrorism. How much are these body scanners? Apparently they cost $150,000 to $200,000 a pop. Then there are all the other ways to make people part with their cash in the name of fighting terrorism, such as dawdling in front of airside stores for a couple of hours.

I remember during Ted Heath's three-day week arrangements of the 1970's how people made money out of us, such as selling candles or flogging portable gas heaters. Now everyone is entitled to earn a living, but I think this modern day saintliness proffered by government agencies in the name of fighting terrorism is a lot more sinful than they would like us to appreciate. After all, if they eventually got round to spraying that poppy crop in Afghanisatan it would bring tears to the eyes of the arms traders. Am I being too cynical today?

American muslims ordered off jet

Being a muslim in the USA today is not exactly the same way of life that others expect or accept. Officials ordered nine Muslim passengers, including three young children, off an AirTran flight headed to Orlando from Reagan National Airport yesterday afternoon after two other passengers overheard what they thought was a suspicious remark. Thought is the operative word here.

All nine are native-born Americans. However, some would seem to be more American than others when it comes to security. AirTran spokesman Tad Hutcheson agreed that the incident amounted to a misunderstanding. But he defended AirTran's handling of the incident, which he said strictly followed federal rules. And he denied any wrongdoing on the airline's part. "At the end of the day, people got on and made comments they shouldn't have made on the airplane, and other people heard them," Hutcheson said. "Other people heard them, misconstrued them. It just so happened these people were of Muslim faith and appearance. It escalated, it got out of hand and everyone took precautions." It's all alleged stuff. Who said what when.

No doubt it is best not to discuss the possibility of the jet engines falling off. However, I suspect that if this had been a group of white born-again Christians going to charismatic knees-up in Florida nobody would have batted an eyelid. If a muslim had mentioned he had overheard inappropriate talk, would the airline have acted in a corresponding manner?

We all make assumptions, but the world is such that some have to live with more than others do. In that, I suppose change will take a little longer this year!

German commandos storm KLM flight

In a daring assault on a KLM flight, German commandos have arrested two men on an aeroplane preparing to take off from Cologne airport. A Somali, 23, and a Somali-born German, 24, were suspected of planning attacks and were detained after several months of surveillance, police said.

This is a good result, all the better for catching them in the act. All the more evidence means all the more likelihood of a conviction.

Plus, with German efficiency, the plane was cleared for departure just over an hour later and has since landed in Amsterdam.

As they say in parts of London, "That's what I call a result!"

High in the Sky!

The BBC reports that an air stewardess has appeared in court charged with drinking alcohol before working on a plane. Monika Lukomska, 24, is alleged to have been working on a BMI Airbus A320 while over the drink-drive limit when she was arrested. This was on a flight from Aberdeen to Faro.

What I don't get about this story is that her solicitor Mike Munro told the court he needed more time to look into the act under which she was charged because he had never dealt with such a case before. That got me searching the net for the relevant act. It's the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003. Now I'm no lawyer and I'm no expert, but I can read! The section that is relevant is 93.

There is no double-meaning in the section at all. It is crystal clear that drinking over the limit is a criminal offence whilst performing an "aviation function" which in this case is "acting as a member of the cabin crew of an aircraft during flight". One bit of law that the drafters wrote up properly and Parliament saw fit to pass.

Mr.Munro has only to read it and take his client's instructions. What time does he need to "look into the act". It's this type of timewasting that causes the legal system to have a monumental bill which the taxpayer has to foot. I'm all for due process and the rights of the individual but I defy anybody to say that section 93 of this act is not clear or that being intoxicated on a plane whilst conducting an aviation function is not in contravention of the act.

She either was or she wasn't. That's all there is to it!

Skybus Airlines goes bust - cancels all flights!

"All aboard! $10 a seat, and enjoy the flight!" Ten bucks only? What sort of airline were they contemplating. Cheap's not the word. It was certainly not a "robust business model". That will come later when those that were running the airline plead innocence, saying they did in fact have a "robust business model". This is business-speak for "we hadn't a clue"! One analyst said, "They had a dumb model". More like it.

The only people to benefit were those who flew whilst the cheap fares lasted. But what of money for maintenance and security? Doesn't bear thinking about, does it?

The free market is supposed to weed out those businesses that don't offer good service or properly made products. However, it must be up to the regulatory authorities to keep at bay moronic types masquerading as entrepreneurs and business operators. The customer may be in control over purchase decisions but a decision leading to unforeseen disasters and pecuniary misfortune should be avoided.

Skybus Airlines may have had a laudable proposition but just clear thinking should have told them that $10 a seat wasn't going to make a business success!