I HAVE some sympathy for the States Senator who has voiced objections to the widespread distribution of Tamiflu to the healthy.

I, too, am unhappy about the idea of taking these tablets – which are said to have some accompanying side effects, including nausea – over a ten-day period, in order to lessen the symptoms of an illness that I may or may not contract.

I am certainly not against prevention, far from it. I have had an annual flu jab now for a number of years and intend to continue doing so. But I have to say that if my children were still of school age, I would have more than a twinge of anxiety about the current take-the-drugs-and-you-don’t-have-a-choice trend in health care.

According to those who have had swine flu, the symptoms seem to vary from person to person, but by and large seem milder, if anything, than ‘ordinary’ flu. Is there, I ask myself, something more sinister about this bug which the authorities prefer to keep to themselves? Senator Ben Shenton has taken his argument further, alleging that the Health department is treating the public ‘like sheep’, rather than allowing people to make their own choices.

Actually I have some sympathy with this, too, in the light of two letters that I received earlier this month from the Health Department.

As women, we are constantly being advised to submit ourselves for various scans and tests designed to detect the early stages of cancer, and the Health Department is extremely keen to make sure that we do. So much so that, within a month of one letter arriving telling me that I ‘must’ make an appointment, I have now been sent a second letter ordering me to call my GP immediately and to notify the department forthwith.

I do understand the wisdom of these checks and, no doubt, if they were not available to us in Jersey, I would be among the first to start lobbying for them.

But I also object to being ordered to submit to any medical procedure, no matter how sensible. We are, after all, under no obligation to submit our own bodies for testing simply on the orders of a faceless computer somewhere in the bowels of States officialdom.

At the very least, there should be an element of free will, so that people are provided with a degree of personal choice and dignity.

It’s time that the JFSC grew sharks’ teeth
Encouraging noises are coming from the housing market and a couple of building societies active in the Island say that they are ready to offer more generous terms.

This includes Jersey Homes Loans, the offshoot of the Kent Reliance building society based in the UK, which previously built up quite a following during the big bad years of the credit boom when properties were selling rather more quickly than they are at the moment.

These lenders are no doubt seeing a possible quick win from the number of new-build, lower-cost developments currently coming on stream, as well as realising that, by and large, the Jersey borrower is probably a relatively safe bet, even given the rise in the jobless figures.

One of the differences between Jersey and the UK is that Island residents have only a limited field of competitors to choose from.

This is because the Jersey Financial Services Commission, under starting orders from the States, will not allow building societies which are not among the top 500 banks to take deposits from savers.

The rules are, of course, more relaxed in Guernsey, although in hindsight this has not proved a good thing in the case of Landsbanki.

Another thing the Jersey borrower needs to be aware of is that there is currently no financial regulation of the lending market in the Island.

Whereas in the UK banks, building societies and loan companies have certain legal obligations to their home regulator, the Jersey Financial Services Commission has no similar remit.

Anyone, regardless of background, can set up a personal loans service and offer to lend us cash for whatever interest we are prepared to pay.

I discovered this some years ago when I went to interview a new start-up personal loans company, which has since grown to sizeable proportions.
When I asked what kind of interest rates were being offered, the chap said something to the effect that it depended on the circumstances.

And he then refused to give me even a nominal indication of the rates that his company would be offering

So, perhaps, for our own comfort – and with the forthcoming introduction of a financial ombudsman service – the non-regulation of lending in Jersey should change.

Or we could find ourselves harbouring more than a few loan sharks.