THE silence, as is always the case, has been absolutely deafening. Not a word of explanation, never mind apology, from anyone, and so everyone now has to assume that one of this Island’s prize assets is not that at all – it’s a potentially lethal commodity.

I am referring to the letter from Jeff Gillard, whose wife the other week thought she’d spread a little Jersey happiness by taking to family in England some Jersey Royal potatoes, a sprig or so of mint – without which Royals would not really be Royals – and a pack of Jersey butter.

It was the butter which caused the problem but Mrs Gillard should have known that. After all, you couldn’t have Jersey butter without a Jersey cow and despite the wonders of modern science, Dreaming Itaska’s Darling Milkmaid or whatever the lovely creature’s name is, couldn’t produce an ounce of butter without the romantic involvement of a Jersey bull.

About 20 years ago, perhaps even more, the Royal Court decreed in some case or other – I can’t remember the details but I’ll never forget the result – that Jersey bulls are actually dangerous. They are animals not to be trifled with, according to the then Bailiff and whichever Jurats happened to be adjudicating.

So there we have it, Mrs Gillard. It’s because Jersey butter can’t be produced without the assistance of a dangerous Jersey bull that some jobsworth from the mob at Airport security told you that one of the principal ingredients of the meal you and your family in England were going to enjoy that evening is a potential danger to an aircraft, its crew and its passengers and that you had to make do with a nob of off-white stuff from Tesco’s. I bet they didn’t taste the same.

I know it sounds a bit far-fetched but in all honesty I cannot think of any other explanation for why anyone should be told – by inference if not expressly – that butter is classed as a liquid and therefore cannot be taken on board an aircraft in hand luggage because it is potentially dangerous.

I know it won’t happen – I said earlier that the silence is absolutely deafening when it comes to explanations about the apparently arbitrary way in which these security rules are implemented – but I would love someone to show me the rule, regulation or whatever that classifies Jersey butter as a liquid. I’m not holding my breath.

Some time ago I wrote about an acquaintance – a regular traveller – who went through security at a small handful of airports (including Jersey and Guernsey as it happens) within a matter of a week or so. At each the procedure was different and in Jersey the man wanted to know what was in this chap’s back pocket.

He produced his wallet and while the section containing currency notes (and nothing else) was being closely examined, he asked what precisely the fellow was looking for. The Trappist monk’s vow of silence kicked in immediately and the mute handed back the wallet and my acquaintance was then able to continue his journey.

He didn’t complain; no one to whom I’ve spoken who’s been put through the hoop does. They all say that they honestly believe that somehow their card will be marked and they’ll be given the full treatment every time they travel.

If there is a response to this, I’m likely to be told that I’ve got it all wrong, and perhaps I have. At least I hope I have. What those who search – and the Airport authorities under whose aegis this is all carried out – should understand is that more often than not, it’s the perception that lingers longest in the memory.

But to go back to where I started, if track records are anything to go by, the silence will continue to be deafening.

Although I have a measure of sympathy with those who have commented on the recent Heritage Trust statements on their financial difficulties, to accuse that lot in the Big House – as did Vicky Toole in a recent letter – of ‘having decided that it is not the responsibility of government to provide support to sustain Jersey Heritage and secure its future’ seems to me to be going a bit too far.

Ms Toole says that this inaction on the part of our governing body demonstrates an appalling ignorance of the needs of the populous, ‘especially in straightened times’.

Times are indeed straightened, Ms Toole, which is why, despite my frequent criticism of our elected representatives – most of it usually centres on the way some of those in the BATD Club (B….r All To Do) seem to devote much of their energies contemplating the government’s navel – I don’t envy them in determining where the resources in a diminishing pot of public money are best spent.

Spending on health, law and order, education, social services and virtually everything else is being scrutinised as never before (hopefully) and ministers are faced with an almost impossible task in determining where to cut and where to spend.

Ms Toole’s letter made liberal use of quotations when she sought to condemn the government out of hand – Matthew Arnold and Thomas Wolfe were quoted somewhat selectively, I fear.
I don’t know which book of quotations she found them in but in mine – the Oxford Quick Reference, cheap and cheerful but it serves its purpose – I found one which summed up my thoughts as I read her letter.

Kenneth Williams, in his book Acid Drops (you can get it for a penny on Amazon), wrote: ‘The nice thing about quotes is that they give us a nodding acquaintance with the originator which is often socially impressive.’

And finally … I see that the new Sunday Trading Law proposes to give Constables discretion on allowing any shop to open on Sundays. Why? All that will do will bring back the ludicrous postcode lottery.