States of Jersey may act if Blue Islands airline delays continue
The government added: "Delayed and cancelled flights can cause a great deal of stress, particularly for people travelling for hospital appointments and other important engagements. "Blue Islands provided crucial lifeline services for Jersey throughout the pandemic and continues to contribute to our growing network through flights to a range of European and UK destinations. "We know that Blue Islands takes their responsibilities seriously and we expect them to achieve more effective operations as soon as possible."The government said it remained in "constant contact" with the company and that it would "continue to monitor the situation and consider further potential action where necessary".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Evening Standard
a few seconds ago
- Evening Standard
Auto-enrolling young people on voting register being explored
This came in response to Liberal Democrat peer Lord Rennard, who said: 'Will the Government now implement the unanimous cross-party recommendation of the House of Lords select committee and automatically include 16 and 17-year-olds on the electoral registers at the same time as they are given their national insurance numbers?'
The Independent
a few seconds ago
- The Independent
In its handling of the Epping asylum hotel protest, what exactly has Essex Police done wrong?
When I see the images coming out of the protests in Epping, I see home-made cardboard placards with slogans such as 'Save Our Kids', 'Protect Our Kids', 'I'm not far-right – I'm worried about my kids'. Fair enough. These seem to be local folk, and they're concerned about what's been going on around the Bell Hotel, which has been requisitioned by the Home Office to house some asylum seekers. Much of the activity there seems genuine. The fact is that an irregular migrant has been charged with certain offences – three counts of sexual assault; one count of inciting a girl to engage in sexual activity; and one count of harassment without violence. Essex Police now face an impossible job, and are perfectly open about this. Superintendent Tim Tubbs has said that the 'impact on the community is not lost on me'. The police have stepped up patrols, and have belatedly issued a dispersal order that gives officers the power to tell anyone suspected of committing or planning antisocial behaviour to leave the area, or else face arrest. Some local residents have demanded the hotel be closed, and have been making their feelings known on the street for the best part of two weeks now. That is their right. They can, if they want, shout 'Paedo protectors!' at police officers, despite the man in question having pleaded not guilty. What they don't have a right to do is to attack the police and cause affray and disorder. Yet that seems to be the attraction for many who have descended on this normally quiet corner of Essex, as well as at sites in London and Norfolk, to cause trouble and give the impression that there's some sort of political revolution – a fascist revolution – afoot. It is also the right of those who don't live in the area to make their views known there, and the duty of the police to protect all concerned under the law. The Essex police can manage that. But they can't deal with a mass civil unrest. The work of the police and the safety of all involved, and that includes asylum seekers who've committed no offence whatsoever, is being jeopardised because of the intervention of organised far-right groups, certain politicians issuing self-fulfilling prophecies about 'societal collapse' and a mass of misinformation being amplified in social media. It is similar to what went wrong last year when certain politicians went around 'asking questions' about the ethnicity of the Southport murderer. Rumours – incorrect, as it turned out – that he was an 'illegal migrant', and a Muslim straight off a small boat, took hold across the country. And so the rumour mill has fuelled the Epping protests. First, a claim that police 'bussed in' a left-wing mob of counter protesters. Untrue, according to Essex Police. The counter-protesters with placards saying 'Refugees Welcome', as is their wont, were neither violent nor 'bussed in': they were escorted on foot by police to protect them from being beaten up on their way, and shoved in a van at the end of proceedings for the same reason. That seems like a legitimate role for any police force. People who were peaceful were given protection. People who used violence were arrested. Again, perfectly legitimate. The 'bussed-in' story – which featured on the front page of one major newspaper – was given further credence by Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK. The man who played an unhelpful role in last July's riots said: 'Essex Police were literally escorting and bussing masked thugs to and from the protest in Epping. They were caught red-handed helping to light the fuse that led to violence. This is simply unacceptable.' No, Nigel – what is unacceptable is for you to undermine the forces of law and order in such an irresponsible and untruthful way. Reform UK claims to want to be toughest party on crime, and yet its leader is putting this sort of nonsense about the police around. Escorting people on their lawful business to protect them is part of normal police work, and they do it all the time – every time there's a football match, they need to make sure the away supporters don't clash with the home supporters. The police can be criticised, but they also have a right to operational independence, free of political interference so they can do their job impartially. Farage can call for the chief constable of Essex to quit, but he shouldn't be exerting that kind of pressure. The same goes for judges doing their job and implementing sentencing rules set down by parliament. Why? Because, otherwise, politicians could order coppers to arrest people they don't like, and then tell judges to lock them up – and that is hardly an ideal situation in a free society. Nor is implying that the police, with their response, lit the fuse for violent action – they were acting under the law and their oath to keep the King's peace. If an MP such as Farage doesn't like that, then he can campaign to change the law. Farage calls the troublemakers at these events 'a few bad eggs'. Maybe – but when a neo-Nazi organisation such as Homeland is getting involved on the Facebook pages, when Tommy Robinson is taking an interest, and, yes, when a politician who thrives on grievance such as Farage is making irresponsible statements, then the riots start, and they solve nothing. The people of Epping do want to protect their kids, they want the politicians to do something more, they want to have confidence in the police. Their pleas have not been responded to adequately. They are right to go out and demonstrate. But it appears these worried parents are also being cynically exploited by people who want to use their anguish for their own political projects, and understand no more about Epping than they did about Southport last year. We really don't need any more summer riots.
The Independent
a few seconds ago
- The Independent
Keir Starmer can rightly be proud of the historic trade deal with India
Boris Johnson didn't say which Diwali. When the architect of Brexit promised a trade deal with India 'by Diwali', he could not have imagined that the deal would actually be signed three years later by a Labour prime minister who had fought the 2019 election on a promise of a second referendum to try to keep Britain in the EU. It is a paradox that two of the few achievements of Keir Starmer's premiership were made possible by something that he so tenaciously opposed as the shadow minister responsible for Labour's Brexit policy. But he is entitled to boast that he has negotiated deals where his pro-Brexit predecessors tried and failed. Admittedly, the American deal is merely an attempt to limit the damage done by Donald Trump's tariffs – but that is better than not limiting the damage, and it is better than the terms that would apply if we were still in the EU. And the trade deal signed with Narendra Modi, the Indian prime minister, today is a genuine step forward. On its own, it is worth billions over time, as average tariffs charged by India on imports from the UK will drop from 15 per cent to three per cent. The potential market for Scotch whisky alone is vast, in a country that loves the stuff despite large parts of it being teetotal. This deal may be even more significant in the long term as a first step towards preferential access to the market of the most populous country in the world, whose economy is growing fast. Starmer's opponents will find fault, but they are likely to tie themselves in knots in the attempt. The Conservatives cannot seriously criticise a deal, much of which was negotiated by them in government. Apparently, one crucial breakthrough in the negotiations between Jonathan Reynolds, the trade secretary, and Piyush Goyal, his Indian opposite number, came when Reynolds finally signed off unchanged on everything that had already been agreed by Kemi Badenoch, his predecessor. One of the sticking points under the Tories was that India sought more visas to allow workers to come to the UK on short-term contracts. This would also have been an obvious opportunity for Nigel Farage to attack the deal if Labour had agreed to a big increase. But Reynolds didn't. Instead, he and Goyal settled on a tiny gesture, allowing 1,800 extra visas a year for Indian 'chefs, musicians and yogis'. The Conservatives and Reform have tried to make an issue of a reciprocal social insurance agreement, by which Indian workers on short-term contracts in the UK would not be taxed twice on their earnings. This was trumpeted in the anti-Labour press as favourable tax treatment for immigrants, but it is no such thing: it is an agreement that temporary workers who pay social insurance in India would not also have to pay national insurance contributions here. In any case, that particular side deal has not been finalised, so the play-acting indignation of Badenoch and Farage should be on hold. Today, the leader of the opposition and the leader of the real opposition should take time out from talking the country down to congratulate the prime minister on negotiating a deal that is in the national interest. They would not need to point out that it would be even more in the national economic interest to make trade easier with the EU. They would not be expected to congratulate Starmer on the progress he has made on that front, with the hope that an actual deal with the EU could be signed by the end of this year that would, like the Indian and US deals, give Britain a small but significant economic boost. But Badenoch and Farage should praise the prime minister today, and agree that, if we are going to be out of the EU, we should at least make use of Brexit freedoms to secure preferential trade deals where we can.
