EWL has it in one - this thread is (should be) about QF not wanting to give a book publicity, and in executing this policy, has unwittingly given it more publicity than if it had just kept schtum - thus calling into question the thinking behind its decision and therefore the competence of those who made the decision.
And for the armchair lawyers out there... what about bailment on terms after the bag was surrendered? It amazes me that apparently no-one in her camp has sought to go after QF or SACL etc. on civil grounds in Australia, where the burden of proof would be lower, namely simply the balance of probabilities. A half-decent QC/SC should be able to get a few jurors on-side quite quickly, given the camel-suit incident and other bits & pieces that have popped up in the news. That, then, could not harm her appeals in Indo courts.
One thing I have learnt from this is to always demand that the weight of the checked be recorded at check-in. IME it's rarely done. I've been given some funny looks but I'd rather get a funny look at check-in than to have to explain something in a small room at the other end...
She's not at all helped by all these other nongs who seem to get pinged in Indo on a regular basis these days. Don't these people read the papers/watch TV, etc. and
see what happens to them?
