Farewell to David Warr

David Warr is stepping down as President of the Chamber of Commerce after two years in the post. He has been at times a controversial but stimulating President, and I have enjoyed his occasionally barbed comments about the States, and their mismanagement at Chamber Lunches.

He's also come out with some rather controversial and perhaps not wholly thought out ideas about GST and the lowering of the threshold for incoming goods at which GST becomes payable; it was a suggestion which didn't really make any economic sense in terms of the costs of collection. And in fact, in the Chamber lunch yesterday, he demonstrated one basic failing of that idea himself when he showed off his Kindle and mentioned that to buy a book electronically was an instant transaction, with no GST levied, because it just took place over the internet.

His leaving report makes some interesting reading, and is I think worth sharing more widely

David Warr: "The last two years have undoubtedly been turbulent and it doesn't look like that situation is about to change anytime soon. The big issues namely economic growth, population growth and growing unemployment numbers are as challenging and divisive as ever and for me have highlighted a huge weakness in the structure of our Government. Simply put, it's impossible to get things done in a time frame that is relevant to the prevailing conditions. "

"What I'm saying isn't anything new; it's been talked about for the last decade. The difference today though is that failing economic conditions are highlighting more than ever before the deficiencies of the current set-up. The danger is that whilst today we all feel rather smug that we don't have borrowings like Cyprus nor do we have to deal with the level of austerity the UK Chancellor currently faces we do have a long term structural problem in the form of changing demographics and a pension liability that would bring tears to grown men or women. "

I think he is right about the pension liability. Final salary pension schemes really do not exist outside of the public sector, and they are not sustainable in the long term.

My own preferred solution is to place thresholds on existing schemes, such as keeping final salary schemes up to a particular limit (say £40,000 for example), and then taking any final salary after that as based on that limit. The same principle, after all, is considered perfectly adequate when it comes to social security payments. Social security is only assessed as a percentage of income up to a particular threshold.

So this would be simply a mirror of that; those in the public sector who had benefited from the social security cap on payments would now have the final salary scheme capped in a like way. The advantage of this approach is that it does not penalise the lower paid, and reduces the overall pension liability of existing schemes. The only other way to deal with this fairly is to change the pension scheme to those now used in the private sector and commute the difference into a cash sum, but that would place an instant burden on the States, which would probably be difficult to bear.

What did David Warr say about the States?

David Warr: "Without a party political system we have 50 odd different opinions about what direction we should be taking and we have the post of Chief Minister which can't dictate policy to any of his Council of Ministers! No wonder it's challenging to get things done. "

I think I detect a slight hint that Mr Warr would prefer a Party Political system, but do we really want that? It might make decisions more quickly; it does not mean that those decisions would be any better. It would rather be that the whole apparatus of Party whips, jostling for power, Prime Ministerial patronage and the like would appear over here, but does that really improve matters? It drives out the more independent members to the back benches, and stifles debate, and for all that the States may take slightly longer to address some issues, it does mean it may be slightly less likely to get things catastrophically wrong. One has only to read Jeremy Paxman's "The Political Animal" to see how impotent the average MP is. Heaven forbid Jersey politicians should be cowed into silence by Party Whips.

Here's a passage from Paxman's book which should disabuse anyone from thinking that a Party system would solve problems:

"Where, once upon a time, governments impinged very little upon people's lives, there is now scarcely an area of human behaviour which is not touched by the law. Yet, while government is all pervasive, it is not, by its nature, particularly effective: the public knows from its own experience that ministerial boasts about the superiority of British health services, education or transport systems, are empty. So the opportunity which the politician thought he had to make an impact on the lives of the entire population is just as easily an opportunity for the citizenry to blame him for the failures they see all around."

David Warr: "So what does need to happen? Well we need to 'get real'. The demographic time bomb needs to be faced for what it means. It means we need a growing economy, it means we therefore will have to have a population that is much bigger than today. It means that if we want to keep our countryside we'll have to build much higher in St Helier. All unpalatable to many I know, but if we aren't all going to go back to living in tents, I'm unsure what the alternative is. "

On this, I disagree. The ageing profile of the population does cause a demographic time bomb, but it is more like a demographic humped-back bridge. Up until a certain point, there is an increased burden of an older population, but if you look at the statistics, once that is passed, the situation will reach a plateau, the balance will shift away from an imbalance of older population. We can see the start of this already with increasing pressure on Primary Schools.

What we need to do, therefore, is to plan for how to get past the demographic hump and come down on the other side. That does not necessarily mean increasing the population, and in fact, unless the increase comes in at least the under 30s, it actually contributes to make the demographic hill higher.

I pointed this out in more detail in 2008 in a blog posting, and I'd refer the reader there.
http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2008/10/demographic-time-bomb-or-tunnel.html

What is more, increased population leads to an increase in demands on infrastructure - an increase in demands upon services such as waste disposal, sewage treatment, electricity consumption and water consumption. There must be physical limits to growth set by the capacity of these services

I addressed some of those issues in more detail in 2012
http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2012/03/dangerous-visions.html

But where I do agree with David Warr is that we probably do need to build higher in St Helier, but that's not because of existing population, but to provide adequate housing for the existing population, which is a present facing a shortfall. 

One thing which David Warr brings up very briefly at the end of his report is worrying:

David Warr: "As President I've tried to be forthright when it comes to dealing with the reality of what we as a community face. It's resulted in a lot of personal abuse and at times I've worried for my business, but if we can't debate these issues in a grown up manner what kind of legacy will we leave for those that follow? The rise of the anonymous troll is a real challenge to our democracy, a problem that urgently needs resolving as they diminish debate. "

While I have often disagreed with Mr Warr (as can be seen above), we need debate as he puts it - "in a grown up manner".  The recent false letter in the JEP by "James Pearce", and the positive deluge of comments which followed demonstrate how political debate can be skewed by online Tweets and online comments on sites such as the JEP. I agree with David Warr that it is a worrying trend, and one which shows little sign of abating. And the anonymous troll can indulge in very vicious behaviour, making personal attacks on people, hidden as they are behind their cloak of invisibility.

In concluding I'd like to make two final points regarding David Warr. Firstly, when he speaks at Chamber Lunches, he does so with clarity, and makes his points very well. There is nothing of the rambling and verbosity of politicians that we see so often in Hansard. There is none of the descent into vagueness that bedevils so many politicians in interviews on the radio or TV. And there is welcome brevity. Points are made succinctly. We badly need more speakers of his calibre, and I hope he will continue to speak out on business matters. And the second - his coffee shop's coffee is excellent!

Money no object at the Waterfront Road

The Planning and Environment Minister has approved a planning application for the first office block to be built as part of the Esplanade Quarter.
 
However that approval is subject to a Planning Obligation Agreement to secure a package of highways and transport measures requested by Transport and Technical Services, and is subject to more than 30 planning conditions. 
 
The principal planning condition is for the Jersey Development Company to provide the Minister with a phasing plan, showing the timing of the major infrastructure work needed to enable the later phases of the Masterplan. These include the sinking of La Route de la Liberation and the provision of public amenity spaces.
 
The matter which really concerns me is the sinking of La Route de la Liberation.
 
This is the question asked by Deputy Baudains of Deputy Guy de Faye back in July 2008, which has probably been forgotten, and quietly swept away into a dusty filing cabinet somewhere; but it is in Hansard, and you can read it for yourself.
 
Question: With regard to the proposed sunken road at the Esplanade Quarter, would the Minister advise whether the annual maintenance and running cost of the fume extraction equipment is budgeted for within the suggested £500,000 annual spend, and would he further advise whether the fumes will be filtered before release into the atmosphere and, if so, the annual cost of so doing? Would the Minister further advise precisely where, and what height, the fumes will be released?
 
Answer: The estimated energy and routine maintenance costs for the tunnel ventilation plant are included in the suggested figure of £500,000 per annum for the total operating costs for the tunnel. There are no plans to filter the air exhausted from the tunnel. The pollution extract system will move the air through the tunnel prior to it being discharged at the tunnel portals. The air will not be filtered prior to discharge.
 
The key fact here is the cost - in 2008 - of half a million pounds for maintenance of the tunnel, once it is complete. This will surely be considerably more now, and this is a cost in perpetuity - something for all future generations to pay. It doesn't just occur in the question - it's in the original proposition notes as well.
 
In this time of cutbacks, you would think that States Members might just think again before going full steam ahead with that kind of project, one which would be considerably more costly than the steam clock.
 
Back in early 2008, when the plans were being discussed, we were still very much within the halcyon days of spend, spend spend - profligate States spending, and the £500,00 maintenance was passed by on the nod. I don't think we can afford that kind of "money no object attitude". The Masterplan was devised for a booming economy, not a slump.
 
We have to fund funds for a new police Station, a new hospital, and yet we are planning on removing a perfectly adequate road and replacing it by a tunnel which costs half a million pounds to maintain. It gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "sinking fund".
 
The Police HQ and the hospital are capital spends which give something back for the community. Quite what a sinking a road does apart from fulfilling some technocratic dream is unclear. Sustainable is a word which is often bandied about, but surely spending at least £500,000 per annum on maintenance is not sustainable in the current economic climate. It is time to call a halt!

Building no 4 Esplanade Quarter

I've just penned an objection to the plans - 'Building no 4' Esplanade Quarter P/2012/1141
(Applicant: States of Jersey Development Company)

This is what I wrote in my submission:
 
1: While I appreciate that office buildings are geared to functionality, there should also be aesthetic considerations relating to the outside of the buildings. That is a matter of subjective judgement, but I think to would be very difficult to justify the architectural merits of the glass monolithic cubes, of the kind proposed here and in following ones. They are bland, and touches of decoration to glass panels will not hide that fact. As something which is visible to tourists, or to visiting businessmen, do we really want an architectural statement of that kind?
 
2: The plans do not show that the old Victorian sea wall which runs along the current Esplanade car park will be preserved, and from the picture shown, it will be removed. This is a legacy of historic sea frontage, and as part of proposed new buildings is to provide a percentage for art, I would suggest that this would be a thoroughly worthwhile project. It could also be used in promotions as a statement that while Jersey has modernised for 21st century business, it has built on solid foundations laid down our ancestors. In this respect, I would note a recent interview Tim Nash in the Jersey Evening Post regarding China highlighted the fact that the Chinese culture (and businessmen) pay significant attention to historical legacy as an indicator of durability. As Jersey is planning on opening up markets to China, retaining a Victorian sea wall would provide an excellent marketing opportunity.

This blog gives me the opportunity to explore the matter of China in more detail.

It is easy to think that the Chinese might not be bothered with a Victorian sea wall. But the JEP interview with Tim Nash on 22nd April with Ramsay Cudlipp opened my eyes to how different their culture and values are.
 
"Studying China's history is extremely important in communicating with them. At Oxford we studied the ancient as well as the modern, and it helped because the challenge is often how you find common ground with one another. At one level, Jersey and China are at Polar opposites. China is massive and Jersey is tiny. People in China also laughed when I told them that Jersey had a population of 90,000 because to them 90,000 people is just a full football stadium, it's just an event, it is not a country or a place to live."
 
"So it is all about finding common ground, and in China, whether you are speaking to a taxi driver, a cleaner, a university professor, or a government official, one thing that will come out in conversation is that China has 5,000 years of history. It is deeply ingrained in the Chinese psyche that they stand 5,000 years downstream of history - which is strength and a weakness. It adds weight, but there can be certain fatalism about it."
 
So - as Tim explains - telling people in China that Jersey is an important offshore finance centre is a joke; Jersey is so small, so how can it possibly register? And yet if Jersey's past is mentioned, looking back to the Middle Ages and before, Tim noted that this suddenly commanded respect. It is not intuitive to us, because we don't have a tradition of seeing history in that light, and seeing the present value through the filter of times gone by. As Tim Nash comments:
 
"It would never occur to someone in Jersey finance or agriculture to start with that, but to people in China that is 5,000 years of history and that's worth something. You go from being the joke in the room to being the person who comes from somewhere that has something in common with them".
 
So there is a very good case for saying that a Victorian sea wall, incorporated into plans for modern office buildings, shows that Jersey is proud of its history, and that the new and old can co-exist; it's the kind of thinking that the Chinese would certainly respect, and as we look increasingly to the Far East for financial opportunities for Jersey business, that is something the planners would do well to remember. As Tim Nash reminds us, that's one link going back in our history, which is the kind of thinking valued highly in Chinese culture.

Last Saturday, I put up a poem to express what it means to lose a sea wall like this; it can be read at:
http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2013/05/sea-wall.html

If you want to see some old pictures of that wall, click here
http://tinyurl.com/o4gs2wm

If you agree with my arguments, or my sentiments, please help.

What can you do? Put an objection in to the plans.

Denise Carroll commented on Facebook that "If people don't do this and start standing up for themselves our once peaceful and beautiful Island will be lost forever and people will have nobody to blame but themselves."

And Save Our Shoreline have put up this easy to use guide:

HOW TO OBJECT TO 'Building no 4' Esplanade Quarter P/2012/1141

The applicants (the States of Jersey Development Company) wish to destroy the old sea wall instead of incorporating it into the design which would, we feel, be a sympathetic move to protect our heritage (and also fulfil the percentage of Art component) rather than import a Russian artist who resides in Wales to make opaque corporate glass panels on the ground floor. No doubt he is good at it but we doubt the design will reflect our heritage in the way that retaining and enhancing our old granite sea wall will.

We have been asked several times this afternoon how you can object so we have prepared an easy guide to cut out the hassle. So if you agree with our last post, please do! Time is short so please if you can send your objection in either in your own words or if you agree with the letter below use that.

http://www.jerseyinperil.com/reports/objection.doc

BY POST: Print the letter below, sign & date and send to the address.

BY EMAIL: send your letter or a copy of the letter in the picture (just send the picture as an attachment by email - if you aren't sure how to do that, print it and attach the scan to: John Nicholson, Senior Planner J.Nicholson@gov.je
 
ON LINE: the link is found from here:
https://www.mygov.je/Planning/Pages/PlanningApplicationDocuments.aspx?s=1&r=P%2F2012%2F1141  

The Name of the Writer

There is a letter which appeared in the JEP, purporting to be from James Pearce, of 17b Marett Court, which was critical of Deputy Montfort Tadier's recent interview in the French press. It began:
 
"FREE speech and speaking one's mind is all very well, but if, when speaking to a major newspaper, a States Member says something that's inaccurate, nonsense or just plain silly then they should be challenged on it."
 
In fact, the entire letter by Mr Pearce was full of rhetoric, but lacking in substance. And an investigation by Nick Le Cornu revealed even more about the writer:
 
"There is no 17b Marett Court. There are only flats with whole numbers. The woman at Flat 17 has no idea who James Pearce may be, a name not on the current electoral role"
 
The JEP has since acknowledged that the address is bogus, and the writer may well be using a false name. Not being able to track the writer, they are exercising caution over whether he is a real person or not.
 
There's been a lot of criticism on Facebook about how they should check their letters more thoroughly before printing them, for example: "The post should check before printing any letters, not very good from our local paper."
 
But how can they check, short of going round to the door?
 
If there is a postcode, addresses are relatively easy as postcode search software quickly gives the addresses on that postcode; that's what you see that on various online sites before purchases are made - you put in your postcode, and it comes up with a list of houses or flats at that postcode.
 
Names, however, are more tricky. They may not be in the phone book because they have decided to be ex-directory. They may not be on the electoral role. I do not know how Darius Pearce (no relation of the aforementioned James) can boldly state "I have taken the trouble to do my research and I can confirm that there is no James Pearce in Jersey"; there is simply no way that degree of certainty can operate unless you have access to detailed census returns (and they were completed accurately).
 
Short of going round to an address and making inquiries, how is the JEP to know whether a letter is genuine or not?
 
In 2010, a writer called "Ellie Light" wrote a letter which concluded:
 
"... today, the president is being attacked as if he were a salesman who promised us that our problems would wash off in the morning. He never made such a promise. It's time for Americans to realize that governing is hard work, and that a president can't just wave a magic wand and fix everything."
 
As Media Post news notes, this letter was published by at least 65 provincial newspapers in 31 states, as well as Politico, a USA Today blog, and at least two foreign publications, and the larger papers such as the Philadelphia Daily News, San Francisco Examiner, Baltimore Chronicle and Washington Times. But "Ellie Light" must be a fake, as it was discovered the addresses were false:
 
"In each case "Light" has claimed to be a local, claiming residence in states including Alabama, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia."
 
In practical terms, it is simply not possible for any newspaper to check every letter is genuine. There has to be an element of trust.
 
It is because of that element of trust, that the hoax letter writer can make their mark. Those of us with long memories will recall the "Henry Root letter" of 1980.
 
These were a series of letters sent by "Henry Root" to famous football clubs, publishers, chief constables, Margaret Thatcher, politicians, newspaper editors etc. by the real author William Donaldson, an English satirist.
 
There was often a rather nasty edge to the Root letters, a degree of unpleasantness in which he insulted those he had written to, or held them up to scorn and ridicule, and was pleased that he had deceived them with his fake persona.
 
A milder example is a letter to Harriet Harman, whom he addresses as being representative of "The National Council for so-called Civil Liberties"; he writes to her:
 
"I saw you on television the other night. Why should an attractive lass like you want to confuse her pretty little head with complicated matters of politics, jurisprudence, sociology and the so-called rights of man? Leave such considerations to us men, that's my advice to you. A pretty girl like you should have settled down by now with a husband and a couple of kiddies."
 
Fake letters and hoax letter writers are here to stay, and with the best will in the world, it is impossible to easily find them out. Fake addresses are another matter, and perhaps the JEP could exercise a little more vigilance there.

Islamic Monoculture and Women

I've been reading the BBC news story about Afghanistan, where a law to prevent violence against women has been halted amid angry scenes. So called "traditionalists" have called for the law to be scrapped. The country has had trouble enacting such laws. In 2009, a presidential decree banned violence against women, child marriages and forced marriages, but the MPs did not give it approval.

During this recent debate, mullahs and other traditionalist MPs accused President Karzai of acting against Islamic Sharia law by signing the decree in the first place. In particular, they demanded a change to the law so that men cannot be prosecuted for rape within marriage. And President Karzai has come under fire from women's groups for frequently changing his position on women's rights. In 2012, he endorsed a "code of conduct" issued by an influential council of clerics which allows husbands to beat wives under certain circumstances.

This kind of society makes our culture, where there may be the occasional wolf-whistle, seem very positive about women's rights. But we should not rest on our laurels too easily. The culture which begins with mild degradation can be the start of an attitude which leads to a much more violent outcome. There is still an awful lot of sexism in our culture, but it is held back, and constrained; it cannot let rip in the way that it is doing in Afghanistan. But there's still a frame of mind there, which can surface in conversations when men are speaking together. The seeds are there; they just never come to fruition. But they can erupt, and those are the circumstances which lead to women fleeing from a violent relationship, and going to the safety of the women's refuge. The very existence of a woman's refuge is a sign that our society is not perfect. We have no right to be smug and complacent.

But at least we don't have religious endorsement for violence against women. The days when they were legally treated as chattel - property - are behind us. The State does not endorse that, neither does the church. Afghanistan shows how States and religion can come together in Sharia law to provide what is, in effect, a very unholy combination.

And that is also the case in the Sudan, where Sharia law allows the State to enforce public morality; it has  reduced women's mobility and their participation in the public sphere. Gender segregation is implemented in all public spaces. For example, on public buses, women must stand separately in the back.

It is clear, from reading Aina Khan, a lawyer specializing in Islamic law who works in the UK, that Sharia law does not necessitate this. In the UK, she has used this to help women who have been in forced marriages to obtain annulments from the Sharia Council in the UK, and a nullity decree from English courts, because duress was used. There can be positive effects, although I notice she does not address the matter of a woman's testimony being considered half that of a man's.

But it is also clear that Sharia law can have a wide and differing interpretation depending upon the culture and political regime in which it is practiced. If we come back to the status of women's testimony, this is a disputed area, in Islam, with differences between scholars. That it should be so indicates a major problem with the kind of thinking involved. Both sides in this debate are looking at verses in the Quran, where in one case, with witnesses for financial documents, the Qur'an asks for two men or one man and two women.

What is not considered is legal fairness, where people are treated equally under the law, as a primary value in deciding these matters. This is the major problem. What happens, of course, as happens with any holy book, is that it is very difficult to differentiate between principles derived from the texts, and principles first held, and for which an interpretation of the text is used as a rationale, to back that up as a "proof".  That is why apartheid was so strong in South Africa, because it derived from a particular religious interpretation.

As a warning to Richard Dawkins, it should be noted that ideology can just as easily fill the void if no religion is present. However, the presence of a holy book can provide an easy path to legitimize discrimination. That's what just fulminating against all religion overlooks.

In Afghanistan, the Sudan, and elsewhere, women are not being treated equally. Sharia law is undoubtedly being used to provide legitimacy for the unfair treatment of woman, as equal with men under the law.  And there does not seem any way of challenging these applications of Sharia law that does not lead to violence against those providing a critique, as we can see in Pakistan.

Christianity has its own critique built into it from its founder. But whether Islam has such a strong tradition of internal critique is another matter.

In Mark's gospel, Jesus tells the Pharisees: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.". In other words, get your priorities right; look at the underlying intent, look at the scaffolding you have erected to preserve the law, and notice that you've completely missed the point.

One writer who I've found who puts this extremely Father Joseph Girzon

"Where there is a human need the law must bend. It is God's children who are sacred to God, not laws. Laws are to protect or assist God's children. If a law does not do that, it should be re-evaluated, and, perhaps, abrogated."

"One cannot help but think of religious laws and customs today that may have had meaning at one time but are a hindrance to the healthy practice of spirituality in our times. This is not to say that morality should change, but there are many religious laws that have nothing to do with the moral law. They are merely arbitrary ordinances that could be changed. Often people's attachment to traditions and customs resist changing them even though they may cause of occasion untold damage to many good people. When religious leaders see the damage done, one would think as good shepherds concerned for the sheep they would be the first to recognize the need for change. It is difficult to understand their obsessive attachment to customs and practices when they more often give rise to scandal than inspire goodness."

Why is there such an obsessive attachment to customs and practices that denigrate and downgrade women in countries like Afghanistan and Sudan?

There is firstly a commitment to monoculture. In Europe, the breakup of the Catholic Church at the Reformation, the wars of religion that followed, gradually led to a principle of toleration in which the dominant group did not feel the obsessive need to show that they were right by persecuting others who believed differently.

The kind of culture assigned particular roles and limitation to how women should behave. When you are born into a monoculture, raised in that culture, you tend to see everything through the eyes of that culture.  Outside voices that speak of difference are a threat to the stability and order of your world. It took world wars to shake up Western culture to such an extent that women gained significant recognition. Before the First World War, suffragettes were simply locked up in prison.

And people in positions of power, even in the West, get attached to that power and reluctant to give it up. In the power relationships between men and women in a monoculture, men are often very reluctant to cede any of that power.  In a monoculture, this emerges in violence and threats, which is not surprising, because that is the pattern of reaction that has been inculcated and fermented by the leaders.

There is no easy way to conclude this reflection, because this is a situation without conclusion. One ray of hope must be that the existing Sharia law allows differences of interpretation, and that may be a much needed wedge to break a monoculture. In a society where the brave and outspoken are assassinated, can seeds of doubt be sown? The prognosis is not good, but stranger things have happened. We must not give up hope.

Sea Wall

The new Waterfront plans for box like office blocks of steel and glass have left no place for an ancient part of Jersey's sea wall left behind when land was reclaimed in the late 20th century. It seems that it is cheaper to remove architecture of character and distinction that to think how to incorporate it into their plans.  I know we can't hang onto all the past, but there seems to be a mindset that doesn't even consider it. This is my lament for the wall while it is still here.

Sea Wall
 
I remember lapping of waves, a mellow June night
Oh, those were the days, such days long ago
And tourists promenading, and their delight
Memories caught up, with time flowing slow
 
I remember stormy weather, the roar of the sea
And waves breaking fierce, spray flying high
Sea waters flooding inland, flow over me
But now I am inland, and left high and dry
 
I remember so much, windswept and blown
Of the cries of seagulls, wheeling in flight
I am the sea wall built of good Jersey stone
But new plans remove me, this is my plight
 
New office block plans mean knocking me down
Remember me please, another lost part of town.

Guernsey Watch

I've been glancing over the sea to our sister Island of Guernsey, to see what's been going on over there.

The current scandal in China is rat meat sold as lamb. However, mouse would appear to be on the table in two Indian restaurants in Guernsey. The Guernsey Press reports of the closure of two Indian restaurants "after a string of hygiene problems". Pictures taken of the contamination include shots of a dead mouse, droppings and congealed dirt and grease.

The Environmental Health Office said: "I've had other establishments in Guernsey where there have been health problems. However, in these instances the problems have been very acute. On this occasion we had a number of issues that were brought together to make very poor standards and a definite risk of contamination and risk to public health generally.  It was particularly bad."

Meanwhile, there's a pay freeze being mooted for manual workers. They want a full, independent tribunal to set their wages. A minority have even threatened strike action.

The States, for their part, want to impose a wage freeze, while being happy to accept a pay rise of their own, tied to the movement in average wages. Writing in the Guernsey Press, columnist Peter Roffey says "I warned it would come back to bite them when they rejected a proposal to freeze their own pay just when they needed to severely restrict all other public-sector pay deals." Sounds familiar?

On the 16th May, the chief ministers of Guernsey and Jersey will be held one of their regular meetings in Guernsey today. Regular readers of the voting record will have noted "Out of Island" alongside Senator Ian Gorst's name recently, and now we know why. Whether it is proper for a States member to be absent during sessions of the States is a moot point; I do wonder why inter-Island meetings could not be scheduled for days when the States does not meet.

There was a call by the Chief Ministers for even greater unity between the islands, but this did not set any timeframe to establish a Channel Islands confederation. It seems clear that Peter Harwood, in particular, wants to increase working together without signing up to a particular ideology of confederation. He said that the move would take time, and needed to involve the backing of the other islands of Guernsey's Bailiwick.

Taking time was certainly the life choice of Thomas who died recently in Guernsey, aged 130. Thomas was a female tortoise, evidently named before her sex was determined. 130 years ago takes us back to 1883, which means that she survived the 2nd Boer War, the Great War, and the Second World War. She narrowly missed being hit by a bomb during the Blitz. Sadly, it was not old age but the infected bite of a rat which led to her death.

Delays are also hitting the buses. According to some users, there is little or no punctuality: "Revised routes were launched on Sunday but users have complained about the lack of clear information and late arrivals." Frank Villeneuve-Smith, communication director for the CT Plus, said delays were the result of an "unlucky inconvenience" as the new revised bus schedule launched in the same week as heavy road works. Jersey's new timetable has yet to be launched. Watch this space!

The business section of the Guernsey Press revealed some rather nasty mobile charges creeping up: "Commerce and Employment yesterday announced its plans to introduce legislation so it can charge 5% on all revenues earned by mobile operators from the use of spectrum. This is including, but not limited to, second-generation (2G), third-generation (3G), fourth-generation (4G) and fixed wireless access services" 

It is almost a foregone conclusion that any charges would end up hitting the pockets of the end consumer. Quite how this is justified is unclear, and one rather sarcastic commentator noted that "In a follow up statement, C & E. have announced plans to introduce a Spectrum tax for the general public, based on the amount of daylight absorbed into homes and the amount of fresh air breathed in by Guernsey residents per annum!"

And on a lighter note: "Legoland buildings and traffic lights all over the place - that's Guernsey, says Neil Ross' Emile. And how long before Sark has armed response tractors and horse drawn carriages with bullet-proof plating?"