Honestly – not the best policy ;)
Once again, a mother may be forced to leave New Zealand, meaning either he Kiwi born child has to leave with her and not see his father, or stay and be parted from his mother.
Ferisita Sapalia, who is Indonesian, and was married to a Kiwi Citizen (origianlly from France). They had a child, but thier marriage broke down last year. Ferisita did the right thing and advised INZ of the change in circumstances, as she was applying for residency under the partnership scheme.
Not telling INZ would mean effectively not passing the Good Character requirements necessary to immigrate here. Telling INZ means as far as they are concerned she is no longer eligible for residency.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
Immigrant carers are being kicked out of NZ after the Christchurch Earthquake.
Filipino rest-home workers say they feel “used” after working 18-hour days following the February earthquake, only to be discarded once New Zealand is “done” with them.
Several Filipino caregivers in Christchurch have had their work permit applications denied in recent weeks, with Immigration New Zealand saying there are Kiwis, made redundant because of the February 22 quake, who can do the job.
This is just so sad. The employers actually cannot find Kiwis available to do the work, the Filipino workers cannot find other work (or get a work visa for another job), and the Kiwis out of work because of the earthquake apparently do not want to work as caregivers.
So basically – everyone suffers, and sending the immigrants home won’t make the slightest bit of difference except that the people in the Care Homes will no longer have enough staff to look after them.
This is one of those situation where as Immigrants we just need to accept that political expediency will always be vastly more important than our personal need to be where we want to be. Immigration need to be seen to doing whatever they can can to ensure that Kiwi’s unemployed because of the earthquake are not disadvantaged. I do understand and agree with that – but what about when those Kiwi’s won’t do certain jobs?
I also think its vitally important that potential immigrants understand that Work Visas are for temporary work shortages. They are not permanent – and Immigration does have the right – and sometimes actually has no choice – to refuse to renew a work visa.
Those denied their visas were sent a letter saying they were overstayers in New Zealand, she said.
Well, way to go INZ! That is where I feel they step over the line. There is just no need to behave like that given the circumstances. Would it really kill INZ to give these people a visitors visa for a few months rather than label them “overstayers”? These people have to go through hell now – with their dreams shattered – and INZ labels them as criminals because they just have the sense to come up with a better solution. Clearly the careworkers have not broken any laws – they have – like many other before them – ended up in an illegal situation because of the Immigration Department and its nutty rules.
Immigration New Zealand head Nigel Bickle said work visas could not be granted when Kiwis were available to do the job.
“available” to do the job and willing to do the job are two entirely different things.
About 600 rest-home staff were made redundant after the February quake.
And I would those people would be stepping forward to take the places that INZ are making available to them. Because this is what INZ are seeing – there’s 600 care workers who need a job – and they cannot allow an immigrant to take that job instead.
Work Visas – despite what many people will have you believe – you are never guaranteed that they will be renewed and you have no right to stay permanently. If you come here on a Work Visa – or anything that isn’t a Permanent Residence Visa – make sure you have a plan to get back home .
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
Would you apply for a mortgage for someone else…
Filed under: Banks, Economics, General Budgeting, Interest Rates, Credit Cards & Mortgages in NZ, Property & General Investing
and then complain when you realise that you were scammed and the mortgage broker lied to you when they told you it was to help a British couple out whose money was locked up in the UK???
Much as I would like to help people make the move to New Zealand – the answer for me is
NO WAY IN HELL! 
Because call me nuts – but isn’t it fraud to apply for a mortgage or loan under you own name, when you know its actually for someone else, especially when you are doing so on the promise of being paid money by these people when the loan draws down, and then a monthly fee from them?
This is what has happened to a couple on the Kapiti Coast. They got scammed by Kerry Brundle, a mortgage broker. And they have finally woken up and gone to the police – along with many other victims who for some utterly inexplicable reason took out loans to give this woman money. The mortgage payments were supposed to be met by Brundle, or some other fictitious character and then the people scammed were also supposed to receive a payment when the loan was drawn down, and then ongoing payments each month. To say “Thank you”.
Mark Mason can testify to how persuasive Ms Buddle could be. He took out a $42,000 mortgage on his house in Paraparaumu in 2008 so he could lend her money to renovate her home. He has since had to sell his house to avoid a mortgagee sale.
“She said it would be good for both of us. I trusted her, she was a friend. I thought this has got to be easy – get $1000 upfront then $100 a month – for signing a piece of paper.”
Were they all barking nuts???
Why oh why oh why would you mortgage your house, risk yours and your families financial future to give money to someone else? Charity is one thing – stupidity is quite another. If you have the money and want to help people – that’s great: laudable and entirely your choice. But when you are prepared to sign loan documents under your own name knowing full well that you are lying about the loan being for you in exchange for money, I’m afraid any sympathy I have goes out the window. To me – this is what greed is – you do something which highly unethical, because someone is going to pay you money to do it.
That doesn’t diminish how much of a snake Kerry Brundle is – living like a millionaire on the money she scammed out of people. There are an awful lot of people out there pretending they have a lot of money when they don’t, so she will not be the last person to get caught for trying to live off other people’s money I’m sure.
Why do people do this?
We were prepared to take a certain amount of risk when taking out mortgages to buy our investment properties. But always – we ran the numbers, listened to advice, and remembered that if we screwed up or things got difficult – we were risking not just our home and future – but that of my Parents and brother as well. I sure as hell would never risk that to borrow money for someone else! If I give money – for any reason – it is money I can afford to give – and I give it because I want to – not because someone will pay me to do so.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
Meeting with IAA – What is immigration advice?
Filed under: Getting to New Zealand, Immigration Advisers, NZIS & Immigration issues
So to recap – my issue with the IALA is that the way it is written means that immigrants are the only section of the New Zealand public who are not allowed to give each other advice. Talking to Mr Smedts, the issue still revolves around whether the advice you give is “informal” or “Formal” and my own person piece of irritating claptrap “systematic” or “not Systematic”. Since nearly two years down the line, no one can actually tell me what those two things mean – we are still basically nowhere further on than when I first discovered that the IALA didn’t actually do what it was supposed to do.
As far as I am concerned, any advice I do happen to give to people is always informal and is in no way systematic and is therefore not covered by this law. I have never been an Immigration agent, am not an immigration agent and never want to be an immigration agent. I still find it quite offensive that this law essentially says that immigrants are too stupid to know that the advice they are given on forums or by people they meet on their journey is not being given by someone who works in the industry. (I would say who is not qualified to give the advise – but as yet no immigration agent is actually qualified – though that will change in the future).
Mr Smedts was surprised to hear from me that his staff have already told me, and his newsletter of November 2009 already states, that Blogs and Forum owners are deemed to be acting systematically (and therefore are giving what, under the law, is now called “immigration advice”), whereas people posting on forms are unlikely to be. I tried my best to explain that there is bugger all difference between advice no matter where it is written (blog, newspaper, forum, book) but I think we reached an impasse there to be honest.
Then we still have an issue that the IAA believes that an awful lot of harm and damage is being done to immigrants by this “informal advice” on blogs and forums. I would like to see one piece of immigration advice written on a blog mind you – because I would bet there isn’t any – other than what I have written that the IAA could deem to be advice if they chose to. (If you happen to be reading this and know of, or write a blog on such issues – do let me know!)
Yet, as part of the preparation for this meeting – I reviewed the three Bill Readings that the IALA went through.
And I still can’t see one speech by any politician from any party who even vaguely suggested that the harmful “advice” they were trying to prevent us from being harmed by was ever from another immigrant. The only people who ever mentioned it – in the submissions – were (you guessed it) Immgration Agents with a rather large vested interest in forcing immigrants to pay them money for advice they could have got for free before.
In fact the most classic illustration of what went so utterly wrong when the IALA was written is this, from the very first reading of the bill in parliament:
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) :
This bill, though, could be termed the “Tuariki Delamere Protection Bill”. It is a bill to protect people from those who take advantage of immigrants who perhaps do not have a finely tuned grasp of English and are in a very vulnerable position. Those people deserve protection. The Serious Fraud Office said that Mr Delamere received $1 million from his Chinese partner in exchange for part of his company. It went on to say that he recycled the money to trick the Department of Internal Affairs, so that seven immigrants—supposedly millionaires, but who were in fact subject to misinformation—gained entry to New Zealand. Those people then found that their residency had been revoked, and they have since left the country. On looking for information regarding this bill and why this country might need it, I found that the New Zealand Herald was very enlightening. I quote from a piece from 16 November: “The SFO alleges Delamere falsely told the Immigration Service that seven clients had each invested $1 million of their own money in New Zealand—qualifying them for residency under the business migration category.”
So look – the IALA was set up to stop people like Mr Delamere causing harm and damage to immigrants (and the reputation of NZ), not other immigrants like me. So why:
Now to be clear – Tuariki Delamere was acquitted of all charges. Not because he didn’t recycle $1,000,000 dollars of his business partner’s money through 7 immigrants – but because technically it wasn’t illegal to do so at the time. It was however contrary to the whole sodding point of the immigration laws and beyond unethical and considered exactly the kind of thing that a new law was needed to prevent.
It was never considered necessary to write a law making it illegal for me to answer questions on how to immigrate to New Zealand.
Yet he has a licence and still makes a lot of money from immigrants to act as their agent, and I, according to Mr Smedts should not do anything more than cut and paste from the Ops Manual. If I do, I am customising the advice, and therefore am giving “immigration advice”.
An example I asked about.
Say I am asked by someone who has had a Kidney Transplant if they can emigrate here? My Answer would be (if it was legal) that you will basically have a bloody hard job getting in, because transplants are an Apendix 10 condition and that means you do not have an acceptable standard of health. You would have to apply for and be granted a Medical Waiver. I would then copy and paste the relevent bits of the ops manual with links as to where to find them.
Mr Smedts would prefer that all I do is the copy and paste bit. Saying you are going to have a really hard time of it is customising the advice, no matter how true it is. I have no idea why- it makes no sense to me, and to be honest I don’t think it ever will. And by the way – this didnt stop a fully licenced agent from NOT telling a client of his this information and costing the an awful lot of money in INZ fees, and the RRB & INZ [RRB case 15350 if the link doesn't work] taking a very dim view of the crap “advice” the licenced agent gave his client.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
Glad my family is through this nightmare already.
Wealthy parents jump the queue
Ally Wang wants to work fulltime but says she can’t do so until her parents Zhi and Ying Xu are given residency and can help look after her son Kevin and daughter Cathy. New immigration schemes aimed at wealthy retirees have attracted 27 applicants who are prepared to invest a total of nearly $26 million. The parent retirement policy, launched last year, has drawn 22 applications from nine countries, with the highest numbers coming from China and the United Kingdom. Each applicant has to have a settled child here and invest at least $1 million over four years to gain permanent residency. They need to have good health but will not need to have health insurance, and as permanent residents they will be entitled to the normal health and welfare assistance. However, the scheme has been criticised as being unfair, as applicants jump the queue of the regular parent immigration schemes.
I beleive I said that a while back.
MP Raymond Huo, Labour’s Chinese community affairs spokesman, said the scheme gave New Zealand a bad look overseas. “It is one thing for a country to be selling off its assets, but this policy shows the world that even our immigration visas can be bought,” he said. Mr Huo said letting rich parents jump the queue over legitimate applicants who are less wealthy would just create resentment within migrant communities.
I could not agree more. While I understand the need to bring foreign money into the country up to a point – the miniute you make immigration more about money than skills and settlement facorts you change the entire ethos of the system. Its not about how good you are for the country – its about how much money you will pay to get in.
Immigrant single-mother Ally Wang says she desperately needs her parents here to help her look after her children so she can find fulltime employment. The 36-year-old, who works part-time in a GP clinic as an administrator, feels it’s “extremely unfair” for the Government to overlook her needs “just because mum and dad do not have $1 million to spare”.
Ms Wang, who has a 12-year-old son and an 8-year-old daughter, has been waiting since 2009 for Immigration to give the nod for her father, Zhi Wang, 67 and mother Ying Xu, 61, from Guangzhou, to come and live with her. Instead, what she received last week was a request from the department to “update her income details” because it said her current income wasn’t enough to support her parents.
“The the only way I can earn more money is to find fulltime employment, and I can only work fulltime if my parents are here to help me take care for my children,” Ms Wang said.
Now – this is a bit odd to be honest. You have to have the required income BEFORE you can sponsor your parents. Not “if you let my parents in I will be able to work more and thus afford to sponsor them because they will provide childcare”.
When you sponsor family – you have to prove an income of just under $30,000 a year – which is not a whole lot. But that’s the deal we all have to work with. Unless your parents have a stack of cash they can bribe NZ with of course.
The main issue here is that 22 parents did not have to wait till thier children proved thier worth to New Zealand, and are willing to pay $1,000,000 each to jump the queue ahead of the rest of the people who are sat there waiting for INZ to do its job. I personally think this is shameful. NZ has said quite clearly it can be bought, and that the wealth of our parents is vastly more important than the skills we bring. I guess that why our MP John Hayes asked if my dad was “a man of means”. Thats all he cared about when we needed his help. He must be so proud of this new system.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
How are the IAA doing?
Yeah -so we all know this is my chance to vent right? No one is expecting this to be a positive “haven’t you all done well” post?
Cool.
The upshot is that after 2 years, and all offshore consultants needing to be licensed a year after all NZ based consultants – there are now a whole 521 licensed advisers. Actually thats not true: according the IAA Newsletter:
On 1 January 2010, there were 344 licensed advisers – on 21 November 2010, there were 521.
What they meant was:
So actually there are only 434 fully licensed advisers. And 87 limited or provisional advisers – which is not the same thing. There are 170 TTMRA registered advisors – that’s Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition agreement. It doesn’t say whether thats included in the 434 or not. Under that agreement:
a person registered to practise an occupation in Australia is entitled to practise an equivalent occupation in New Zealand, and vice versa, without the need for further testing or examination.
I’m slightly concerned that they only turned down 14 applications – but that could just mean that most of the worst consultants just didn’t bother to apply – either becuase of the cost or they thought they wouldn’t get through anyway. Given that migrants are still being misled by thier advisers so the process can’t be as rigorous as it should be, I would of course question that.
So, how are they doing financially?
Really badly as it happens. This was quite hard to find as the IAA don’t seem to produce and publish it’s own financial reports for us to look at (quelle surprise). It’s hidden in a department of labour report (which hubby found – thanks).
So what does this actually tell us?
Well basically, as I understand it the IAA is supposed to be self funding (from the original parliamentary bill readings and submissions). The fees that an agent pays for licencing should cover the cost of processing the licence, and the levy they also pay should cover all other costs of the IAA, including the Tribunal which is supposed to police them but doesn’t actually exists as yet. (They have finally appointed someone to head the tribunal though – which is nice).
Unfortunately, these plans were based on the fact that there were supposed to be about 1000 onshore advisiers registering. The fact that this didn’t happen means that income from fees and levies just can’t hope to fund the IAA. So either the fees and levies go up – or the IAA is never going to be self funding. Of course, no one in parliament gives a toss or seems to be prepared to even notice that they made an almightly cock-up with thier budgeting assumptions.
But basically, the IAA is so far out of pocket by $1.8m. Given that they are nothing more than a marketing agency for about 500 agents – they should bloody well cough up and fund it themselves and stop expecting my taxes to pay for thier aggrandisement. Talk about adding insult to injury.
Any good news?
Well the IAA again claim that they got a really good score on a customer sat survey:
In September, the results of the 2010 migrant survey were announced. 75% of migrants were satisfied or very satisfied with their adviser, up from 63% in 2009.
But this is still only looking at people who use agents to process thier application – with no analysis of how well people who don’t spend a fortune on advisers get on. Nor does it take into account the number of really honked off people who are ignored when they try to raise an issue, or the fact that many people don’t complain because they just bugger off and leave New Zealand.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
Seems the ombudsman gives a crap about some immigrants.
Filed under: Getting to New Zealand, NZIS & Immigration issues
While they may have done absolutely sod-all about how INZ treated our case, and basically let INZ walk all over them, they have just beaten INZ up over their treatment of a load of Pacific Islanders who were also let down. These were people who were “advised” by the now defunct “Pacific Division” set up my Mary Anne Thompson, and disbanded after issues of corruption were highlighted by the Attorney General.
13 people – who have been in New Zealand illegally -have now been granted residence subject to police and medical checks.
Now, it’s all very well doing this – its the right thing: INZ let people down and behaved appallingly. The division was badly run, and applicants were badly advised.
The Ombudsman ruled that the information the families were given during the 2005 meetings was confusing and misleading.
Um – but so are hundreds of other people applying to immigrate to New Zealand. INZ still continue to give misleading information , still treat some applicants like crap, and they still get away with it (as do licensed advisors). While I am glad the Ombudsman has at least done something for these people, I fail to see why they can’t be bothered to do it for the other applicants like us, who have suffered mistreatment at the hands of INZ. This is at the end of the day grossly unfair, and still does nothing to force INZ to ensure that the information they give to all applicants is correct, and hold them to account when it isn’t.
Especially when many of us, when faced with INZ misinformation – still do not overstay illegally.
Somedays I do get really fed up with staying on the right side of the law, and really can’t always see the bloody point.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
Can the Exchange rate actually get any worse?
Filed under: Economics, General Budgeting, Getting to New Zealand
Having lunch with mum the other day, she told me that she had been checking the exchange rate, looking to bring a bit more money over, and seen that it have actually gone below $2 to the £!
She was right. On the third of January this year, the interbank rate was a sickening $1.986 for every £1.
I actually had a look back to see when it last went that low, but unfortunately first I came across what it was like before it went into freefall.
In fact I had to go back to the earliest date allowed on the charts at HifX, and even going back as far as 1998, the rate for people moving money this was has never been so bad.
On the plus side (I guess) this is an absolutely great time for anyone with $NZ sitting around with nothing to do. You can convert it to £ or $US and wait for the cycle to come round again. Now there are people who claim that this might not happen – that actually $2:£1 might be the new “normal”, but always before these things have worked as a cycle. Oddly you get the same argument with house prices – we shouldn’t this time be expecting house prices to rise again, and we should all get used to lower house values. I’ve noticed these are generally the same people who poured scorned on others who were claiming that there wouldn’t be a downturn in the housing market – that this time would be different.
The thing is human behavior is what causes these cycles – and at some point house prices, interest rates and the exchange rate will start improving. The real problem is that there is no way to tell when that will happen.
Unfortunately this just means that right now it is going to be very hard for most people to emigrate if they are relying on fund from their home countries. I thought we were hard done by when we moved and were getting a paltry $2.50! You notice when it was nearly $4 to the £? Thats when there was a huge spike in immigration to New Zealand – whereas at the moment, immigration is pretty low.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
One rule for some, another rule for everyone else.
As part of some applications to immigrate to New Zealand, you have to prove a certain level of income and/or settlement funds, basically to show that you wont be a drain on the country. Some people can get into trouble if it is discovered that those funds are not actually the applicants. Some, not all.
An international school in Auckland lent an Indian student $10,200 to trick immigration officials into thinking he had enough money to study in New Zealand, a court has heard. The Kingsland Institute lent 21-year-old Nitin Kumar the cash to put in his bank account “for the sole purpose of misleading Immigration New Zealand”, the Immigration Service told the Auckland District Court.
A definatle no-no in anyone’s book I would imagine, and I cant fault INZ for taking them to court.
A licensed immigration adviser at the school, Chheogyal Lepcha, this week admitted supplying false information to enrol Mr Kumar in October last year. After Mr Kumar had partly filled out an application for a student visa, Lepcha added extra information and changed one answer to say Mr Kumar had received professional immigration advice, which was not true.
I assume the IAA will immediately be suspending this guys license and refusing to renew it? After all – great job they did there of protecting the poor immigrant – and INZ. Says it all really as to why the IAA should be kicked up the backside. Theres so few licensed advisors now that there is no excuse for any of them being allowed a license and able to carry on behaving like this.
The prosecution summary of facts said Mr Kumar told the school he was worried that he could not afford the $17,700 course or show he had $10,000 to support himself, as required by immigration rules. The Kingsland Institute supplied Immigration with a receipt showing he had paid the full $17,700 and a school representative lent him $10,200 to trick officials. Lepcha was remanded on bail until March. The institute’s director, Donald Han, has pleaded not guilty to charges of providing false and misleading information under the Immigration Act.
Well, at least the law took care of the Advisor. Interesting though – I can’t find Mr Lepcha listed at the IAA at all, not under the currently licensed advisors, or under the canceled or un-renewed licenses. So it’s possible that he actually was never licensed. Now that should mean that the IAA need to investigate to see if he was acting as an unlicensed advisor – but its worth bearing in mind that one of the exemptions if for people giving advice to international students.
However the really interesting thing about all this is that a few years ago, before licensing came in, one Tuariki John Edward Delamere (and ex-Immigration minister in the NZ government) was prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office for doing much the same thing. He “recycled” $1,000,000 in supposed investment funds through 7 applications for 7 different Chinese applicants applying under the investor category – the money apparently supplied ny his Chinese business partner.
He claimed he wasn’t guilty, because in law, there was actually nothing to stop him doing so, and the jury agreed and he was acquitted. But where this gets really curious is in the fact that this was highlighted, both in readings of the IALA before parliament, and in some of the submissions on the IALA as to why immigration agents needed to be licensed: to stop people like this giving the industry a bad name.
And yet Tuariki Delamere is a licensed immigration advisor, and the one most likely to be in the news fighting to stop overstayers being deported.
I believe he has been working for the Ram family, he also tried to embarrass the PM at Waitangi Day to stop the deportation of Rhonda Aylward. So the question is: how is it that an Ex Immigration minister can exploit a loophole, recycle funds not belonging to the applicant, set a precedent in court that this is not illegal, create one of the main reasons why we have the IALA and IAA shoved down our throats – and he gets a license. But I don’t have the freedom to blog about immigration issues, or help people going through the same crap we did, and this Mr Lepcha is facing jail over $10,000 that also didn’t belong to the applicant. Call me thick – but isn’t it the same thing?
And why did he lose his job as the Immigration Minister:
In late 1999, however, he lost his role as Minister of Immigration after a scandal regarding the application of immigration rules. Specifically, it emerged that Delamere had approved permanent residency for a group of Chinese businessmen provided they invested generously in various Māori development schemes. Delamere was widely criticised for using his authority to ensure that money was given to certain groups. Delamere himself claimed that his actions were a perfectly reasonable method of addressing Māori development needs. Although he lost the immigration portfolio, he retained his other roles
Hmmm.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
WTG! One Kiwi gives naked scanners the finger!
With thanks to Deborah for the heads up 
Following on from my blog the other day about the new TSA “security” measures that are causing a ruckus in the US, it turns out that Heathrow and Manchester have the same measures in place. And one James Holder from Auckland refused to be scanned, after he got pulled out for the extra measures when he had gone through a metal detector without setting it off.
Is it just me, or would it at least make some semblance of sense if you were put through the second scanner if you set the metal detector off rather than if you go through the metal detector and don’t set it off???
Mr Holder was in Europe for work and was on his way home when he was selected for scanning this week. He said he politely refused the scan.
He said it was a step too far in personal invasion and he did not wish to see it enforced upon every traveller.
“It’s the principle that gets me. Some dodgy looking security officer inspecting my nude body on the screen magnifying areas that are of interest. What happens if they make this the standard procedure?”
He was happy to be stripped, searched, and patted down, but British airport security told him that was no longer a choice.
“Apparently it’s the body scanner or nothing … The law it seems offers no rights to another option.”
The Good News?
In New Zealand the body scanners are prohibited under the Aviation Crimes Act.
The Event
Just started watching this (and yes – I know it’s fiction), but someone phones the airline and says “There’s a terrorist on board that plane”, and the numpty in charge faffs around for a few minutes trying to work out if this is a joke or not, allowing the plane extra time to get away. Not to mention the fact that someone actually managed to get a gun on the plane, and it seems if the pilot is in fact the terrorist – you’re screwed cos he lock out the Air Marshal from getting in to the cockpit to save the plane.
Special Underwear now available!
CargoCollective has produced a range of undies that have the 4th Amendment written on them, in a metallic ink that apparently shows up at the scanners. Now that’s funny.
Funnier would be a nice set with this image on it – though I imagine that would land you in jail pretty smartly.
No sense of humour these “security” guys – that’s the problem! You can’t be a proper security expert without a warped sense of humour.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
Avalon’s Guide On Facebook
-
