Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Re: London cigarette case clarification

12/9/14 12:20:04 am:
Mxxxx: LS Sxxxxxxxx (LHR cigarette case)
DI today.10sep
1 year wage freeze.
Thsts ALL
Tony in sfo.
PJ was there

Latest posting on other chat groups! ! Great Job Boss PJ! !

12/9/14 12:21:16 am:

xxxxxx said: Hello all, the above text is in circulation
For your information, unlike CI (company inquiry) the DI (divisional inquiry)in which Ls Sxxxxxx went through was handed almost the wosrt deliberation.DIs are convened and deliberated by 2 Admin officers within the division and forfeiture of service increment is the worst case scenario. Terminations, demotions are only meted out at CIs never for DIs.Ls Sxxxxxxx's employment beyond 45 or 55 years old is now compromised (CA page 13 and 14).
Whoever claimed credit for any mitigation at the DI is definitely someone who flaws in many aspects.

BT: I was informed that the LS did not smuggled the cigarettes but he declared it to the London Custom.
However, the amount he brought into London was excessive. Just to clarify, if one declares the goods to the custom then it is NOT deemed as smuggling no matter how excessive or illegal.


Anonymous said...

If this is accurate infor then LS actually got the worst punishment.Why did PJ claim he got the LS off the hook? BS!

Anonymous said...

BT, in all fairness,i think de above message is misleading in many ways.Firstly,if the LS was not caught smuggling,but he declared his cigarrettes to the customs instead,why was he punished? LHR customs will tax the LS for any excess that he is entitled to bring in just like in SIN unless he was caught for not declaring and trying to smuggle.
As for his DI case,two reasons that no union. One,Toni already found him guilty and refused to mitigate for him..Two, he refused to let the yniin mitigate his case as he knows who useless they are!
As for PJ presence, I dont see how he can mitigate for the LS as he is not a union rep himself nor holding any portfolio. Thus,no way the inquiry commitee will allow him to be present for the hearing.The only reasons for his presence would be to lend support for the LS. Unless PJ,himself declares and claims credit for it..Its not fair at this moment to say that he is the one who fought for the LS..Even so,anyone please produce proof of it...

Anonymous said...

is this the auckland PJ?

Anonymous said...

This is the byeee PJ hehe

BT`s Secretary said...

Message is not misleading because crew should know that they are not to bring into a country they are night stopping more than they are allowed.LON Custom in the LS case did not formally charge him because he did declare the excessive cigarettes.Instead,the customs reported the matter to SIA,hence the DI on the LS.

Anonymous said...

Thot this bayeee left the company still around ?
big mouth big croc

Anonymous said...

For information, upon arrival into london.Any crew found with excess more than entitlement will be taxed accordingly if they declare it.For the LS case,he tried to evade tax by hiding his Mamasan bag onboard the crew bus which was later found by customs when all the crew disembarked for checks.He later admitted that the mamasan containing the cigarettes was his after custom officers probed.His case is trying to smuggle in cigarettes and company was informed.I was on his flightand witnessed the whole incident. For info, he kept quiet and did not own up when the mamasan was found! However when customs tried to trace back who sat at the seat where the loot was found,he knew he was cornered...I dont understand how the whole episode got so twisted that the LS went to declare his loot.For information, the declaration form that he signed didnt even indicates that he is carrying excess cigarettes...Get your facts right,guys!

Anonymous said...

Damn union politics.

people's career at stake and they use him as pawn... inlcuding damn management.

That being the case then union should strategise & win some concession from member's punishment.. what is the point if you fight but dont win anything?
Lose a pawn but must win the game.

Bloody stupid idiotic crew union.

3 months flying senior said...

He is very lucky to get away with a 1 year pay freeze. Very surprised that the company is so merciful and not give him the sack instead. Must have a godfather somewhere...

Anonymous said...

Hi 3 months senior
no sacking at that inquiry, infact 1 year wage freeze takes away his future employment after 45 years old.he is worst of.he got the most jia liat punishment. Ask Mr Pee J if he understands.