Much speculation at the Dorsbult Bar over how much luggage Winnie Madikizela-Mandela was carrying on that British Airways (BA) flight from London to Johannesburg to have been charged R9 000 for excess baggage on a first-class ticket.
If BA stuck by the book she would been carrying nearly 100kg of luggage. But, as every seasoned traveller knows, it is a discretionary levy and it would take some effrontery for any airline to go by the book in penalising a passenger who has already forked out more than R45 000 for her ticket – not to mention the two bodyguards who were apparently travelling with her.
But considering that the Mandelas are the closest thing we have to the royal family (soap opera et al) she may be interested in the story of some luggage hassles suffered by King George VI when he came out to South Africa in 1947.
Previously secret papers, just released by the public record office in London, disclose that there was much to-ing and fro-ing at British customs over whether they ought to examine the 594 items of luggage accompanying the 30-strong royal party, in search of dutiable items, when it returned to English shores.
Eventually they decided searches would be lese-majesty and instead customs sent officials to Buckingham Palace to make polite inquiries.
As well as fabulous donations to the crown jewels made by the South African government and De Beers, which were not taxable, the haul included 334 bottles of Best London Dry Gin, 143 bottles of Cutty Sark Scotch whisky, 206 bottles of sherry, 104 bottles of royal tawny port, 18 bottles of Chateau- Lafite claret 1923, 21 bottles of Bisquit Dubouche brandy 1830, 19 bottles of household brandy, 12 bottles of rum, seven bottles of kummel, seven bottles of curaao, five bottles of Grand Marnier, 28 bottles of Rudesheimer Bronnen hock 1934, 102 bottles of Moselle Berncasteler, 36 half-bottles of Moselle Berncasteler, 29 bottles of Perrier Jouet champagne, 50 half-bottles of Perrier Jouet, one bottle of Krug champagne 1928 and 12 bottles of sacrament wine. Duty levied? 147.
Heinz have protested volubly at the news that baked beans have been cut from the diet of the English soccer team at the World Cup.
Lemmer shares their bewilderment; considering England’s performance so far one would have thought they would have been happy to take advantage of the law of physics which has it that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Unfortunately for the Springboks, the English rugby authorities have announced their touring party, due to reach these shores soon, will remain loyal to the humble baked bean.
Having suffered Irish fists in the scrums they will now have to endure English … Well, for decorum’s sake, let’s leave the subject with the observation that, in view of the fact that half of England’s top rugby players have chickened out of the tour, they don’t need baked beans to be judged windy.
One of Lemmer’s colleagues in France, who pays attention to such things, has noted that South Africa is emerging from the World Cup as overall winners in at least one respect: our anthem, timed at four minutes, takes longer to sing than any other at the competition.
This compares to the English who spend a mere 45 seconds adjuring the Almighty to take care of the lady in the funny hat. The Brazilians, who clocked in at a miserable two-and-a-half minutes, make up for it by managing to evoke the fleshy delights of the Rio carnival, their citizens warbling at one point in Portuguese: “We, with breasts bared, defy, oh freedom …”
On the subject of the World Cup, could someone in Tony Blair’s Labour Party – which is competing against South Africa to hold the 2006 competition in Britain – explain why, in 1996, Labour MPs put their names to the following motion in the Commons: “This House believes the claim by an African nation to be superior to that of any European country staging the competition yet again; and further believes that the 2006 World Cup should be held in South Africa.”
A letter from Pieter Venter, African National Congress parliamentary media officer, expressing his disappointment with the National Party’s former MEC for education in the Western Cape, Martha Olckers, over her backdown in the face of male chauvinism in the party.
According to Die Burger, Olckers has offered a humble and “unqualified apology” to her male colleagues – after accusing them of forcing her resignation over an unsubstantiated allegation that she had had an extra-marital affair and then failing to take action against male colleagues who found themselves in a similar position.
“Just when we thought the NP had a woman in its ranks who would stand up to chauvinism and hypocrisy!” writes Venter. Over to you, Martha!
Representatives of South Africa’s haves and have-nots clashed in Hamburg this week … although, in the end, it was a bit difficult to figure which was which.
The occasion was a Europe-SA business and finance forum at which Minister of Finance Trevor Manuel and Reserve Bank governor Chris Stals were anxiously trying to reassure foreign investors that all was rosy for them in South Africa despite the market ructions.
Smouldering in the audience was the president of the National Union of Mineworkers, James Motlatsi. Unable to take it any longer Motlatsi leapt to his feet and delivered a passionate “What about the workers?” speech, decrying the preoccupation of the gathering with the fears of the well-heeled to the exclusion of the poor and starving back home.
The German hosts managed to calm down the South African delegates and it was to be hoped that any hurt feelings would be soothed on the flight home. Alas, it was not to be. They were all on the same flight, sure enough. But the representatives of the government were travelling economy, while the champion of the down-trodden was … you guessed it … in first class.
Britain’s Sunday Telegraph took a pasting this week, over its report that South Africa had sealed a secret arms deal with Libya.
Lemmer could not help but feel, however, that a presidential representative took the denial a bit far when he went on radio to assure listeners that the claim was untrue. “We don’t believe in trading in arms secretly,” he said.
So why did the government-owned Denel go to court last July to prevent the Mail & Guardian from disclosing that it was selling arms to Saudi Arabia?