Look A Like

Battle-axe Angela Jeune

from Coronation Street

seeking to be crowned again

and blast her way back onto

our screens, seeking a rover's

return.

Deputy Vera Duckworth

of St Brelade No 1

seeking re-election

Is it my imagination, or does Deputy Angela Jeune look like Vera Duckworth, the character from Coronation Street?

Look-A-Like

Freddie Cohen, "Foreign Minister"

for the States of Jersey

Alan Partridge

Chat Show Host

who has the gift of the gab

trying to make a come-back

Has anyone noticed the resemblance between the character Alan Partridge, and Senator Freddie Cohen?

Deathday

(tomorrow is now 2 years since Annie died)

Today is the day, my dear, when you left me;

I still remember that phone call, a shock to me:

So sudden, and I had spoken the night before,

And emailed. Now this – the sudden door,

Closed in my face, the news of your death:

So swift, the ending of a life, a final breath;

How I always worried when we slept at night,

Whether you would live through any night;

But it still came a shock, a thief stealing in, unseen,

All the lost time, regrets of what could have been;

Then my hand trembling, fumbling key in lock,

I remember driving, weeping, still in shock,

There to the hospital, to where you lay so still,

As if sleeping, and I wished that by an act of will,

I could say, awake, and you would rise and walk;

But I wept bitterly, no more conversation, no last talk;

And time has eased the burden, year by year,

That sensation of grief, almost so much like fear;

But the loss remains, the photo of you and me,

Still on the bookcase, a reminder that I see,

And so happy memories, your sharp mind,

Those are still there, not shut behind a blind:

Your love of Star Trek, and when I see it today,

I think of you, and I rejoice, this is our way;

My life changed the day we met, never the same,

And the day you died, it was as if I became lame;

I will remember you, until the day that I too die,

And may our ashes be scattered, so together lie.

An Independent Muddle

Sir Philip Bailhache's Manifesto states:

As was recommended by the Clothier Panel, the number of members should be reduced to 42. How does one get there?

I do not support the removal of the Constables from the States. The Constables represent an important link with the parishes. It would diminish the office of Constable if they ceased to be in the States. With 12 Constables there would then be 30 other seats. There are ways of dividing up those seats which require discussion.

What a mixed message! I'm always amazed by people who hark back to Clothier like Sir Philip, and say the problem was with the cherry picking, and we should do what it recommended. It recommended removing the Constables, actually! Why pick part of it to suit (reducing numbers) and then ignore the rest? If we are going to say Clothier was wrong on Constables, who is to say he was right about recommendations about reducing numbers? Why should Clothier be quoted as "an authority", and justification for change, if he is then ignored where Sir Philip disagrees with him?

Sir Philip Bailhache's statements on this matter are quite incoherent. We expect better from a trained legal mind.

And then we have his statement on independence, also from the manifesto:

I do not advocate independence from the United Kingdom.

I am, however, a fervent supporter of Jersey's constitutional rights to self-government and judicial independence, which we have enjoyed for more than 800 years. We have no representation at Westminster nor in the European Parliament. Decisions affecting Jersey people should be made in Jersey by our elected representatives in the States of Jersey. If external forces threaten us, we should be willing to assert our rights and to protect our political and fiscal autonomy.

Does this mean he supports independence or not? Is it an option of last resort, a nuclear option should it prove necessary? He really doesn't make this at all clear; what we have instead is a complete fudge. No one reading that manifesto would believe it was the same man who only a short time ago came to a very different statement of views in 2010.

Does he change his mind so rapidly (and invisibly, as he hasn't retracted from his earlier position publically)? Or is he downplaying the issue for the election, and giving the electorate a fudged answer? Is that level of clarity the best we can expect from a trained legal mind? Here is the situation in 2010:

MINISTERS must prepare for independence from the UK as the constitutional relationship between the two jurisdictions worsens, according to former Bailiff Sir Philip Bailhache. In the latest edition of the Jersey and Guernsey Law Review, Sir Philip writes that Islanders are increasingly being treated as 'not quite British' and that ministers should start preparing for the worst so that they are not caught out if the relationship breaks down completely. And he criticises ministers for ignoring a two-year-old report recommending that research and preparation for independence be carried out.

And lest anyone think that it is JEP misreporting him, in 2009, he wrote - in his own words - that we were "One or two steps from sovereignty".  In the Jersey Law Review, he penned an article which said, inter alia:

It is often said by ministers in Jersey, and perhaps in Guernsey too, that the constitutional relationship between the Islands and the UK is strong and in good shape. One understands that it is prudent to be restrained, and that ministers cannot always speak their minds as openly as they might wish. But in the author's view [i.e., Sir Philip Bailhache], the constitutional relationship currently leaves much to be desired. Apart from a short period when Lord Falconer was Secretary of State with responsibility for the Crown Dependencies, and viewing matters in the round, the Ministry of Justice seems increasingly to be unable to prevent other parts of Whitehall from ignoring the interests of the Channel Islands.

Do these examples demonstrate "a respect for [the Islands'] autonomy in domestic affairs"? In the author's submission, the evidence of the last 12 years suggests that that respect has often been lacking. The view is that the Crown Dependencies should not be permitted to stand in the way of the UK's domestic interests, and compromises seem more difficult to achieve. In the context of the EU tax package there was probably no specific intent in 1998 to cause harm to the Islands. The principal object was to protect the UK against tax harmonisation in Europe which would have damaged the City of London. In the context of the Borders Bill there is no specific intent to damage the interests of Islanders. What has probably happened there is that the Crown Dependencies have been offered as sacrificial pawns in order not to damage relations between the UK and Ireland, just as the commitment of the Crown Dependencies to the tax package was given in order to placate Luxembourg and others in 1998. Is this all part of the evolving constitutional relationship? It is not how the relationship began. For centuries the Channel Islands offered loyalty to their distant Sovereign and in return were offered protection. The loyalty is still there, but the protection of Her Majesty's Government seems less enthusiastically given.

Does this mean the end of the current constitutional relationship of dependency? Not necessarily. It may be that we are just going through a bad patch, as has happened in the past. But it may also be that the relationship has had its day; that the UK's closer engagement with its European partners leaves no room for the quirky ambiguities for which the British are renowned; that historical affection is giving way to envy and suspicion of so-called "tax havens" stoked by a hostile press.

It is submitted that, at the very least, we should be ready for independence if we are placed in a position where that course was the only sensible option. Nothing is lost by adopting the recommendations of the CRG for further research and for preparations so that, if the crisis comes, we are not caught like the proverbial rabbit in the headlights. In the author's further submission, it would also be a responsible action to continue with the work begun by the CRG, and to commission an inquiry into the wider issues inherent in independence. What are the advantages and disadvantages?

Alan Binnington was of course right to urge caution; but caution does not mean that we should be inert. Whether the finance industry would be concerned about independence is open to doubt. All investors cherish stability, and sovereignty may be the best way to ensure that stability in the long term.

So let's look at a few statements:

The Manifesto:

I do not advocate independence from the United Kingdom.

The Jersey Law Review Article:

We should be ready for independence
Caution does not mean that we should be inert
Sovereignty may be the best way to ensure that stability in the long term.

Can the author of the Manifesto also be the author of the 2009 article? If you asked any member of the general public, in a randomised trial, without saying who the author of the manifesto, and the writer of the article were, I'm sure most people would think they had been written by two different people, with different opinions.

He may consider that he is covering himself by the words "we should be willing to assert our rights and to protect our political and fiscal autonomy" in the manifesto, but that is surely a slippery way with words that muddles matters and gives the electorate a quite different perception. Is it right to muddle matters? Surely a degree of clarity would be more honest to the electorate?

When he said that was it deliberately calculating to be misleading? Or this just kind of verbal sleight of hand something that just comes naturally? And do we want someone who presents his policies like that in the States?

Either way, he is clearly presenting a manifesto to the public in such a way that it would muddle and mislead.

References  
http://www.philipbailhache.je/my-manifesto/
http://www.thisisjersey.com/2010/01/21/ministers-must-prepare-for-jersey-independence/
http://www.jerseylaw.je/Publications/jerseylawreview/oct09/JLR0910_Bailhache.aspx

Lime Grove: Questions Senator Ozouf Must Answer

The Jersey Evening Post, as readers have noted elsewhere, has a habit of being selective about what appears in the online area. Some letters, such as those endorsing Sir Philip Bailhache as Senator, or Pierre Horsfall arguing against an open ballot for Chief Minister, or Freddie Cohen defending Portelet, are approved and appear online.

Others, such as that by John le Fondre which makes extremely important critical remarks about Senator Ozouf's handling of Lime Grove, are lost to the wider readership, which is a shame. There is no indication of the rationale behind the selection process, whether it is done by deliberate process of selection (which is never given to the readership), or on a whim after a lunch time drink (the Private Eye "lunchtime" O'Booze scenario), but it is curious that this letter should not be available.

So I've transcribed his letter, and it is available for anyone to read below:

Letter from Deputy John Le Fondre regard Philip Ozouf (Treasury Minister) and Lime Grove

FOLLOWING the Scrutiny report on the failure by the States to acquire Lime Grove, I note that the panel has issued a further communication in which it is stated: 'The balance of the evidence appears to support the position of Jersey Property Holdings (JPH)' and therefore not that of the Treasury Minister and: 'We have also been left with questions as to the conduct of States business, the management and treatment of employees and the conduct of the Treasury Minister and his team.'

The most significant outcome of this review has been the referral of this matter to the Comptroller and Auditor General. I believe that this is unprecedented, certainly in my time in the States. If the panel's concerns are substantiated the consequences will be extremely serious. Whereas the Scrutiny panel is made up of politicians, the Comptroller is a totally independent authority and his views cannot be accused of political bias. Thus while this may not have been particularly well communicated, the referral would seem to be an appropriate course of action.

It is important that readers consider the reasons why the deal failed, the consequences for the failure, and how this has all been handled. Is the way that decisions appear to be have been made symptomatic of good and efficient government? The report highlights a number of questions that remain unanswered including, was it acceptable for individuals with limited experience of property matters to take over the purchase of Lime Grove and is it acceptable to base decisions on advice from shadow advisers rather than property professionals? The further examination of these and other questions is essential, and depending upon the outcome, could lead to potentially serious consequences.

What is fact is that the Treasury Minister and the acting CEO took the project away from the professionals at Property Holdings last November, and the deal eventually failed in July/August this year, eight to nine months later. The minister himself has stated that he is not a property expert. Yet he publicly challenged the two externally produced professional valuations, and described the basis on which they were prepared as `not appropriate' for this property.

Equally, the minister has stated that the business case submitted by JPH was not capable of being signed, yet the external independent professional who reviewed the business case has stated on record that the business case was very robust.

The minister compromised the original deal in pursuit of reducing the price by £500,000 against advice. The logic of that approach should be weighed up against the fact that each resulting month of delay appears to be costing £90,000 to £100,000 in lost savings. Did the minister take appropriate professional advice to arrive at his decision? Or was he listening to a shadow adviser'? If the latter turns out to be true, is this the type of decision making appropriate for a minister?

To clarify one matter, the acting Chief of Police confirmed to me in December 2009 that for operational reasons the preferred option of the police was to be on two sites - to acquire Lime Grove for offices, and to construct an up-to-date `blue light' police station at Rouge Bouillon.

Given my experience of this project i am surprised at recent suggestions that the south side of Green Street car park might be an option for a single site location, including the 'blue light' emergency service and facilities for police custody cells.

The Green Street site was not available for JPH to consider as an option as it was originally earmarked for sale for residential development to provide funding for the eventual reconstruction of Green Street car park. Although this site might be appropriate for an office block, it does appear to be a problematic location for the police 'blue light' service. Accessibility to the site even for cars looks difficult and potentially dangerous, and one might question the sense of introducing a new emergency operation into a residential, and congested, area.

The impact of the likely loss of car parking spaces, particularly after the recent closure of parking at Gas Place must also be an issue. However, I am not privy to the present decision making process.

My concern is that there might be an attempt to force through a lower cost sub-optimal solution in a vain attempt to justify the delays that have arisen. In my opinion the most appropriate solution would be to revert to the Plan B option, identified by JPH in 2009, of developing a single building on the Summerland site. While my recollection is that this was more expensive, it is critical to now deliver the best alternative solution for the police, not a politically expedient panacea and in so doing relaunch the annual savings that have been delayed.

To coin a much maligned phrase 'all in all very messy and totally unsatisfactory'.

I shall await the Comptroller's review with interest.

GST and the Senators

Philip Bailhache on GST: "No one likes paying tax, but GST is an effective and reliable way to raise revenue. GST should be broad, simple and low. It should not be allowed to rise beyond 5% for the foreseeable future. In the interests of simplicity and cost efficiency, it should be a flat tax with few or no exemptions.

Voteje - Freddie Cohen on GST: " ". Yes, he says nothing.

Rose Colley on GST: "Maintaining a stable low tax economy with income tax not increasing above 20% and the immediate abolition of GST on food."

Linda Corby on GST: "Remove GST off food and other essential items. It should never have been passed in the first place against the wishes of the people."

Lyndon Farnon on GST: "GST must not be allowed to increase above 5%".
Translation: I won't vote for exemptions, so there.

Mark Forskitt on GST: Hasn't made a clear statement on vote.je. But he states here, and in speeches against GST:

 "GST is a regressive tax and I believe in progressive taxation. I campaigned against its introduction because of that. I would rather have consumption taxes on inessential , planet and life damaging, and luxury items. There is no sign of that happening soon locally, so I support the next best option on the table - removal from essentials like food, domestic power and water."

Ian Gorst on GST: Hasn't made a clear statement on vote.je. or his online manifesto, but did vote in favour of both parts of "Goods and Services Tax: exemption or zero-rating for health foods"

Syvia Lagadu on GST. Hasn't made a clear statement on vote.je. or her online manifesto. "Let's see if we can move back to a low tax economy" doesn't really commit her to anything.

Frances Le Gresley: doesn't mention GST on vote.je. On manifesto site says "I have been consistent in voting against GST exemptions as I have been convinced by the arguments that compensating low income households through the benefits system is the best way to mitigate the effects of this tax. I voted against the increase in the rate of GST to 5%." However, did vote for
exemptions on healthy food.

Darius Pearce: Apparently will vote on any matter by collecting votes from the public, and voting that way. God help us all if he gets elected. He might vote for exemptions one day, and against the next! An idiot choice.

David Richardson: doesn't mention GST on vote.je. In the JEP says "That there should be no exemptions."

Stuart Syvret: consistently in favour of exemptions to GST.

Chris Whitworth: doesn't mention GST on vote.je. May propose an exemption on cardboard cut-outs.

A Note on Exemptions

There are huge exemptions to GST of course. All the banks and trust companies don't pay it, and have it at zero rate (exempt) on any invoices. They pay 10% of their profits, and a notional sum to ensure they have a special status. And for this privilege they pay NO GST, and businesses have to flag them up in their accounts as ISE status - so much for "complexity". If they have electrical work done, or buy expensive computer equipment, they also get all that GST free.

A pensioner pays GST on winter fuel. A bank or trust company can turn the heating up, and claim it as a business expense, and NOT pay any GST on it. How that can be right is beyond me!

Now if fuel was exempt, it would be simple to sort, because all the utility companies have a domestic tariff, and their software already has that classified. Food would be more problematic, but fuel can hardly be fiddly. They have to keep separate GST codes for all the banks and trust companies which are ISEs as zero rated anyway!

Banks and trust companies pay a flat annual fee as an ISE. The ISE fees are NOT GST. They are a standard rate paid annually. They are more like the equivalent of the old exempt tax fees or corporation tax fees.

ISE status can be obtained by a Jersey Trust company through an annual registration and payment to the Comptroller of Income Tax who will maintain a list of ISE's.

The following fees are payable, in aggregate, for each calendar year regardless of the date of application (no apportionment for period of less than one year):

. Banks (deposit-taking business) - £30,000;

. Trust company business - £7,500 for affiliation leader plus £200 for each participating member and £200 for each ISE administered (and listed by it);

. Fund services business (not registered as a managed manager) - £2,500;

. Entity holding a CIF permit as a functionary (but not a managed manager nor collective investment fund) - £2,500;

. Entity holding a CIF permit as a managed manager - £500;

. A collective investment fund (if listed by the Comptroller)- £200;

. An entity which is a body corporate or partnership, limited partnership or limited liability partnership, which is not included in any of the other entities in this list - £200

. An entity that is a trustee, which is not included in any of the other entities - nil

. A collective investment fund (which is not included in any of the other entities in this list) - £200

. An Anstalt, Stiftung or foundation - £200

 

Paganism: A Very Short Introduction - Part 2

I've been reading "Paganism: A Very Short Introduction" by Owen Davies, and he packs a huge amount in to 144 pages. Here are a few more notes.

Regarding the term "pagan", which has become something of a contested term, as having origins as "country dweller". Davies notes that its meaning changes over time. It is clear that by the 5th century it was being used by Christians as a cultic term, which he notes was ironic, because while it carried overtones of rusticity - the yokel beliefs - it was mostly in the urban centres that the main resistance to Christianity lay. So it was being used as a term that was both description and derogatory, much as anthropologists like Frazer used the term "primitive".

What is remarkable in the later history is the extremely rapid way in which Paganism gave way to Christianity. When Rollo the Viking settled in Normandy, but was defeated at first by the Frankish King, Charles the Simple (879-929), he was granted control of Normandy (as a buffer zone) and part of the deal was to convert to Christianity, and he was duly baptised as Robert.

As was the custom, all his subjects converted as well. His son, William Longsword, was a devout Christian, and sealed the alliance by marrying a Frankish princess. What strikes me as so totally different from the way in which we frame belief is that changing from a Pagan system to a Christian system is done almost casually, as a political act, and then the subjects follow their leader, literally. But the assimilation, even at the top, is so rapid, that by one or two generations, Christianity is established in the practice and thought of the population, not just as following the leader, but as something believed by the next generations.

The downside is, of course, that the same kind of rapid assimilation seems to have happened with a lot of Christians later in lands that had been conquered by Islam. While there was freedom for them to practice their faith (as long as they didn't proselytise), the dhimmi status (2nd class citizen paying extra taxes) also led to fairly rapid assimilation of many of the peoples, as if you wanted to move up the social scale, you had to convert.

And, of course, both religions soon came to exercise a stronghold of power of the peoples who had converted. In Christianity, the strictures against deviance only emerged as an official force with the establishment of inquisitions from the 12th century onwards. Islam, by contrast, had built in strictures which mandated the death penalty for apostasy (and which are still in place today).

Looking across the oceans, in the Americas, there was a difference between the Catholic approach, in which the explorers and adventurers played into their status as demigods, and that of Francis Drake further north in North America, where he made it very clear to a local Chief that he was not a god, and not to be worshipped. Drake ordered that the Bible be read to the chiefs of the local Miwok tribe, and with gestures towards the sky, made it clear he was a man, and not a god. He was there to trade and treat with them, as another human being. Cortes, on the other hand, played the part of a god for all he could, and doesn't seem to have been much criticised by the Catholic church for that at the time.

The case of Scandinavian Paganism is interesting because we think we know a lot with texts about Odin, Loki and the Norse gods. In fact , this is not the case, as Davies points out. He notes that there is actually very little known about the ancient paganism there, because the Icelandic sagas (our principle source) were written between the 12th and 14th centuries, long after the Viking settlers of the 9th cent, and 200 years after the adoption of Christianity. "While the authors of most of the sagas and eddas draw no doubt upon oral stories, some of their work is clearly the product of poetic imagination".

So it is very difficult to determine what is oral story written down, how it has been altered (after all this was written down by Christian monks), and get behind that. The archeological evidence shows some evidence of a highly localised religion, based on animal sacrifices or blot; the stories suggest that these were done "to strengthen the gods and make them more predisposed to helping humanity". But the sagas depict indoor sacrifices in large halls, whereas the archeological evidence - in contradiction to that - suggests outdoor sacrifice in groves. Sites such as that at Froso suggests that animals were hung from a tree to represent Yggdrasil, the world tree associated with Odin.

There are some wonderful Viking names - Ivar the Boneless! certainly not spineless as we might interpret that, he came to England, and established himself by conquest as King of York. Wikipedia notes that:

‎"There is some disagreement as to the meaning of Ivar's epithet "the Boneless" (inn Beinlausi) in the sagas. Some have suggested it was a euphemism for impotence or even a snake metaphor (he had a brother named Snake-in-the-Eye). It may have referred to an incredible physical flexibility; Ivar was a renowned warrior, and perhaps this limberness gave rise to the popular notion that he was "boneless". The poem "Háttalykill inn forni" describes Ivar as being "without any bones at all"."

Unlike the older study of paganism, Davies stresses ambiguity, locality, and fieldwork in archeology. I hope that books like his will exorcise the baneful influence of writers like Sir James George Frazer (1854–1941) whose Golden Bough is still used as reliable by many people, although not in academia, where its flaws are all too apparent.

I read it a few times in the 1980s, and it struck me that the main problem is that Frazer tends to propounding relationships between phenomena that are in fact unrelated, and do so by taking selections which support his own case, ignoring those which do not.

Though Frazer was a pioneer in using anthropological data, his methodology was seriously flawed. Victorian anthropologists like him brought together supposedly similar customs of different peoples in different times and places without the slightest regard for their original social context, and without any notion of looking at fieldwork.

It is this method, for example, that allows Frazer to associate Celtic fire festivals with Scandinavian ones, and then, because his argument needs it, to assume conveniently that a practice found only in the former (tossing human images into the fires) must, at some point, have also occurred in the latter, and he presents this as fact, even though there is no evidence for it. He also overlooks the fact that while the Nordic fires occur in midsummer, as in the festival of Diana, the Celtic festival occurs only in the spring and fall. After a close look at such loosely made connections, we find ourselves asking what, apart from the mere co- incidence that there is fire in each, allows Frazer to connect these festivals at all.

It was this facility to group things with a very loose family resemblance that led Wittgenstein to ruthlessly expose the inadequate logic of Frazer's work. A modern example of the kind of approach to Frazer is found in "Pagan Channel Islands" where suppositions rapidly take on the status of fact, mainly to fit the author's thesis.

Sooner than you think.

BBC Radio Jersey's challenge - a poem with three of the words - ubiquitous, sorry, Jersey and car.

I could have added sorry, but that might have been showing off.

And so - a poem linked to peak oil, and the prospect that one day petrol cars will be defunct...

Sooner than you think.

Ubiquitous rusting shells, as I pass by,
Once the glory, joy of salesman's eye;
But now, no more, those days no more;
And I see the hungry faces at the door,
As I ride by a house, brickwork decayed;
Didn't they listen? Peak oil to be paid:
A future cost, and so one dreadful day,
The pumps ceased, petrol went away;
And Jersey fell to silence on the road,
Where once the motor car bestrode;
No more fumes, and no more speed,
And I ride by upon my trusty steed.

The Gardener's Calendar - October 1863

Another extract below from Whitnash Parish Magazine, in 1863, with the section that begins October and the gardening tasks. There's a mention of a poor crop of walnuts, and I thought for this extract,  I'd look at walnuts in England, as they are mentioned as a poor crop for that year. Walnuts do not feature much in our October foods, and we have increasingly lost the seasonality and limitation of having mainly the home grown.

Walnuts first seem to have been introduced to England at the time when it was part of the Roman Empire. Lyn Nelson notes that this came about in the Southeast, along with other fruit and vegetables that we take for granted as "home grown"

The greatest Roman influence on this sector of the economy lay in the introduction of new crops, such as cabbages, peas, parsnips, turnips, carrots, plums, apples, cherries, and walnuts.(1)

By the time of Chaucer in the late 13th and 14th century, walnuts were part  of the food chain, and cultivated for domestic use:

The range of vegetables was probably less diverse than it is today, especially because of the difficulties of preservation. Onions, leeks, cabbage, garlic, turnips, parsnips, peas, and beans were all staples. Among fruits, plums, cherries, pears, grapes, strawberries, figs, and apples all grew in England. Nuts, particularly walnuts and hazelnuts, were also to be found domestically. Other vegetable foods were imported, such as almonds and dates. (2)

There is good archaeological evidence from late-thirteenth-century Southampton of a diet which, at least in the wealthier households, included hazelnuts and walnuts, raisins and figs, strawberries and raspberries, plums, cherries and sloes (3)

By the time that William Cobbett rode across England in 1893, noting all kind of information about the countryside, the cultivation of walnuts was plentiful. I've given a larger extract of each of these, so that the reader can see the walnuts and their place alongside the other cultivated crops:

Very near to Bratton Castle (which is only a hill with deep ditches on it) is the village of Eddington, so famed for the battle fought here by Alfred and the Danes. The church, in this village, would contain several thousands of persons; and the village is reduced to a few straggling houses. The land here is very good; better than almost any I ever saw; as black, and, apparently, as rich, as the land in the market gardens at Fulham. The turnips are very good all along here for several miles; but, this is, indeed, singularly fine and rich land. The orchards very fine; finely sheltered, and the crops of apples and pears and walnuts very abundant. Walnuts ripe now, a month earlier than usual.

In coming from Wootton-Basset to Highworth, I left Swindon a few miles away to my left, and came by the village of Blunsdon. All along here I saw great quantities of hops in the hedges, and very fine hops, and I saw at a village called Stratton, I think it was, the finest campanula that I ever saw in my life. The main stalk was more than four feet high, and there were four stalks, none of which were less than three feet high. All through the country, poor, as well as rich, are very neat in their gardens, and very careful to raise a great variety of flowers. At Blunsdon I saw a clump, or, rather, a sort of orchard, of as fine walnut-trees as I ever beheld, and loaded with walnuts. Indeed I have seen great crops of walnuts all the way from London. (4)

By these means I got hither, down a long valley, on the South Downs, which valley winds and twists about amongst hills, some higher and some lower, forming cross dells, inlets, and ground in such a variety of shapes, that it is impossible to describe; and, the whole of the ground, hill as well as dell, is fine, most beautiful corn land, or is covered with trees or underwood. As to St. Swithin, I set him at defiance. The road was flinty, and very flinty, I rode a foot pace; and got here wet to the skin. I am very glad I came this road. The corn is all fine; all good; fine crops, and no appearance of blight. The barley extremely fine. The corn not forwarder, than in the Weald. No beans here; few oats comparatively; chiefly wheat and barley; but great quantities of Swedish turnips, and those very forward. More Swedish turnips here upon one single farm than upon all the farms that I saw between the Wen and Petworth. These turnips are, in some places, a foot high, and nearly cover the ground. The farmers are, however, plagued by this St. Swithin, who keeps up a continual drip, which prevents the thriving of the turnips and the killing of the weeds. The orchards are good here in general. Fine walnut trees, and an abundant crop of walnuts.

The soil is somewhat varied in quality and kind; but, with the exception of an enclosed common between Funtington and Westbourn, it is all good soil. The corn of all kinds good and earlier than further back. They have begun cutting peas here, and, near Lavant, I saw a field of wheat nearly ripe. The Swedish turnips very fine, and still earlier than on the South Downs. Prodigious crops of walnuts; but the apples bad along here (5)

Port and walnuts became an after dinner combination, in those days when the women would retire, and the men would remain and drink port, and eat walnuts. There's a celebrated passage in G.H. Hardy, where he describes (in a Mathematician's Apology) a book he read, and the mystic that he wished to be part of, in obtaining access to the Senior Combination Room at a Cambridge College. It is the tale of two students, Brown and Flowers, who are friends and one fails because of gambling, and one makes it, and walnuts feature yet again!

Brown succumbs, ruins his parents, takes to drink, is saved from delirium tremens during a thunderstorm only by the prayers of the Junior Dean, has much difficult in obtaining even an Ordinary Degree, and ultimately becomes a missionary. The friendship is not shattered by these unhappy events, and Flowers's thought stray to Brown, with affectionate pity, as he drinks port and eats walnuts for the first time in Senior Combination Room.

The Gardener's Calendar - October 1863

The days are sensibly dwindling, being now less than twelve hours long; but still October has its own charms which make it one of the pleasantest of the year. The hues of Autumn give a warm colour to the landscape, and the foliage of the trees is rich with many a varied tint, changing from day to clay. October is remarkable for the calm, quiet, soothing weather which sometime prevails throughout the month, as though the summer were pausing before its final plunge into the mists and cold of winter.

The harvest has been now fully garnered in our part of the country, and great rejoicings in the House of God, and in farmer's homes, have testified their thankfulness to the Almighty for his great bounty. The produce of the orchard has not fulfilled the promise of early blossom ; some crops, as walnuts, have almost entirely failed, while apples, pears, and stone-fruit have yielded but a moderate return.

The Garden: Clean, lightly fork, and manure asparagus beds. Earth up celery, store onions. A small breadth of German greens, planted now, will afford a supply late in spring. Thin winter spinach ; keep the soil well stirred among all growing crops. Plant cabbages for late spring use, lettuce and endive in very sheltered situations, parsley, in pots or boxes, to be protected for use in severe weather.

Root crops should be speedily stored when dry. Get all vacant land manured and trenched as soon as possible. Take up and pot such plants as it is desirable to preserve for another season. Prepare flower beds for their spring occupants. Many annuals make excellent spring beds, but Van Thon tulips, turban ranunculuses, aneanonies, &c., are the best for this purpose.

OCTOBER.

Now o'er the woods what gorgeous hues,
Like sunset tints, are blending;
And every breeze the red leaves strews,
A shade of sadness lending.

Long summer evenings seem the days
With Autumn', glory glowing ;
And many a foot the woodland strays
Where Autumn's fruits are growing.

The tree that glads the traveller's heart
Is gay with crimson berry.
Thy flowers, oh, Summer ! may depart,
Yet is October merry,--

Merry, with clusters black and red,
O'er bush, and bower, and tree ;
How could the forest birds be fed,
Kind Autumn, but for thee ?

Rich blackberries allure us now,
Staining our eager fingers ;
And, clustering on the hazel bough,
Full many a ripe nut lingers.

And rosy apples, false as fair,
And purple sloes inviting--
All in our love had once a share-
Our hopes and fears exciting.

Ah! those were happy days of yore :
And, pondering on their pleasure,
Who would not be a child once more,
The wild-wood fruits to treasure?

Links
(1) The Western Frontiers of Imperial Rome, Drummon and Nelson, 1994.
(2) Daily Life in Chaucer's England. Jeffrey L. Singman, Will McLean, 1995
(3) Medieval England: A Social History and Archaeology from the Conquest to 1600, Colin Platt, 1994.
(4) Rural Rides in the Counties of Surrey, Kent, Sussex, Hants, Berks, Oxford, Bucks, Wilts, Somerset, Gloucester, Hereford, Salop, Worcester, Stafford, Leicester, Hertford, Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridge, Huntingdon, Nottingham, Lincoln, York, Lancaster: With Economical and Political Observations. Volume: 2. William Cobbett, 1893
(5) Rural Rides. Volume: 1. William Cobbett, 1893

Beauty Tips for Politicians: How to maintain a Thick Skin

Beauty Tips for Politicians: How to maintain a Thick Skin

Maintaining a thick skin is absolutely essential for all politicians, especially the one who are campaigning in their own constituencies.

Philip Ozouf Tweet: "At St Helier hustings Mike Higgins likened me to Nazi Dr Goebbels. This personalised politics that is wrong & upsetting. He needs to apologise."

This is causing a stir, while the question about of the former Bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache, and his part in the Roger Holland affair, has gone unreported in the BBC News or the JEP report on the Hustings. It confirms my opinion, that the Hustings themselves may not be well attended, but they are reported - the general public get information selectively from the Hustings, and there may be significant omissions based upon editorial whim. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but there does seem to be a certain bias towards Sir Philip in the JEP, and perhaps anything detrimental to his campaign would be likely to be omitted.

But there is also the idea of "old news", that the anything in the past, is distant, not newsworthy, and should not be resuscitated, especially not where news space is in short supply - the idea that "we dealt with that at the time", so it does not need raising again. Newspapers and news media are prone to this, and they also tend to run with the sound-bite, the kind of story that can be built up in an instant, and involves, preferably, a clash between politicians.

Now here is a story which - in the UK - also involved Goebbels, and no apology was demanded, no apology given - it was taken as very much part of the cut and thrust of politics:

Chris Huhne, the energy secretary, accused his cabinet colleague Lady Warsi of descending to Goebbels-like propaganda after she claimed the alternative vote would make mainstream parties pander to extremists such as the BNP.

Huhne said: "If Baroness Warsi thinks that AV will benefit fascism she has to explain why the BNP wants to stick with what we have and Operation Black Vote supports AV. The BNP know the present system is their only chance of election.

"This is another example of the increasingly Goebbels-like campaign from the anti-AV people, for whom no lie is too idiotic given the truth is so unpalatable to them. AV makes lazy MPs work harder and reach out beyond their tribe. It is what Britain needs to clean up politics."

Interviewed later, he didn't change his stance, but simply used to opportunity to explain why he had made the comparison:

DERMOT MURNAGHAN:

But you could easily work and you feel she could with someone you have accused of acting like someone who was in the Hitler regime, acting like Goebbels?

CHRIS HUHNE:

I didn't say that, I said that the tactics of the No campaign were Goebbels like because they have relied on using falsehoods, duplicity .

DERMOT MURNAGHAN:

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think Goebbels was in the Hitler regime.

CHRIS HUHNE:

Well the key point about him of course is that he advocated using propaganda which was based on a big lie, on repeated use of untruths and falsehoods and that is what we have seen from the No campaign but I think the key point now in the run up to Thursday is to stress the positive points of this particular change which actually will get rid of that old politic, it will get rid of the name calling and the very underhand tactics which have unfortunately become a part of this campaign, precisely because MPs will have to reach out beyond their party base in order to get half of the voters in their constituency and they are not going to go about alienating .

DERMOT MURNAGHAN:

You mentioned name calling, so you won't have to use language like this because by any stretch of the imagination, likening someone's tactics to those used by Goebbels is pretty hard stuff and therefore saying Baroness Warsi was lying.

CHRIS HUHNE:

I have never, ever in all the years I have been involved in British politics since the early 1980s come across a campaign where one side has actually made up facts in the way that the No campaign has done and it really shows the desperation that some of the people in the No campaign, particularly on the Conservative right, have in order to make sure the British people don't vote for a change which is going to give them more power and the Conservative party has throughout history always opposed changes in the electoral system which give more power to people, whether it was votes for every man, whether it was votes for women.  Over and over again we've seen this but the British people are  sensible enough to know they have got a unique opportunity to take more power over the political system on Thursday and I believe they are going to do it.

Politics often does involve name calling, even with the most admired politicians. Churchill made a notable jibe at Ramsay Macdonald in the 1930s:

The young Churchill was one day taken to P. T. Barnum's celebrated circus, which contained an exhibition of freaks and monstrosities. "But the exhibit on the programme which I most desired to see," Churchill recalled, "was the one described as 'The Boneless Wonder'. My parents judged that that spectacle would be too revolting and demoralizing for my youthful eyes, and I have waited 50 years to see the boneless wonder sitting on the Treasury Bench."

What I think would be out of order would be comments against a politicians family. They are not standing, and they should not be subject to any kind of viperous comments. But for the politician themselves, as Simon Crowcroft pointed out, this is part of the rough and tumble of politics, especially at elections.

People who put themselves in the public arena are expected to have thick skins, as Danny Alexander said:

Was he offended when Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, called him a "ginger rodent"? "I thought it was hilarious," he says. Really? "She phoned me to apologise, and I've got a pretty thick skin. I said: 'Don't worry about me, this is politics. But there are hundreds of thousands of other ginger-haired people out there who you've probably mortally offended that you should be worrying about.'"

References
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/mar/30/huhne-goebbels-propaganda-av-referendum
http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2011/09/alexander-lib-interview-party

Philip Bailhache and the Roger Holland Affair

Former Constable Bob Le Brocq raised a question about the suitablility of a former senior Crown officer standing for election who had permitted a known pedophile to remain in the honorary police. The replies of the candidates, who were unanimous in condemning the actions of the Crown officer, are given in the link below.

http://tomgruchy.blogspot.com/2011/10/bob-le-brocqs-question-district-3-st.html

What is interesting is how neither Bob le Brocq, nor the candidates for election in St Helier No 3, mentioned any of the individuals by name, even though, of course, the whole affair is a matter of public record. Instead, they berated the former Crown Officer for poor judgement, and almost universally said they did  not think anyone with a record like that should be standing. Then Ted Vibert spoke, and of course, let the cat out of the bag - it was Sir Philip Bailhache who let Roger Holland stay as an honorary police, despite a known conviction, because it had resulted in a probation order and was therefore "clearly not very serious".

Despite numerous attempts by the Chief of Police to bring the seriousness of Roger Holland's position, it seemed he would not be budged. He also stated that it would have been "impractical to have undertaken" checks by the Crown officers department. Once the oath of office had been taken he took the view that " the swearing-in of an honorary police officer before the Royal Court process is a solemn affair, and to ask the Court to review shortly after the swearing in an honorary police officer's suitability for continuing in office would have been a very serious matter", so the matter was not referred to the Royal Court, as it should have been.

Sir Philip has stated that "in hindsight", he made a mistake. Perhaps if he had a greater ability to listen to others - because there were enough voices sounding warning notes - and less reliance on his own judgment being correct, there wouldn't have been a need for hindsight. As far as he was concerned, he had made his statement, and that was an end of the matter.

Has he learned his lesson? He made no apology for a liberation day speech which not only didn't focus on the liberation, but also placed Jersey's reputation above that of the "alleged victims". Now technically that term is correct in legal terms, but that he should be unaware of the ambiguity of language - and the upset that would cause those who had been abused (as subsequent Court cases demonstrated) - is indicative of a very narrow range of sensibilities, and a considerable lack of empathy.

It is also worth noting that the current Bailiff Michael Birt, as Attorney-General after Sir Philip, didn't substantially improve matters because while checking was introduced, it was only for new officers, not retrospectively.

For those who berate the States for commissioning reports, when matters go wrong, these inquiries are extremely useful at bringing the facts into the public domain, and ensuring that the same mistakes do not happen again. I suggest readers look at the whole report. Here are some highlights.

---

http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/documents/reports/7537-3643.htm

On 8th September 2000, Mr. Roger Holland was found guilty by the Royal Court on two counts of indecent assault committed prior to 1992 and was sentenced to a three year probation order, which included a requirement to attend for a minimum of 12 months at Wolvercote Centre, United Kingdom, where he would receive compulsory treatment. The Court indicated that, if he did not co-operate fully with the programme, he would be brought back before the Court and would be likely to receive a custodial sentence.
 
In the event, on 2nd March 2001, Mr. Holland was brought back to the Royal Court which concluded that Mr. Holland had breached the three year probation order, by failing to abide by requirements of the Wolvercote Centre and to co-operate with treatment. The Court discharged the probation order and instead sentenced him to two years' imprisonment on each count concurrent.
 
The conviction of Mr. Holland made the public aware that he had a prior conviction for indecent assault in 1986. His apparent ability in 1992 to enter and then remain in the St. Helier Honorary Police whilst having such a conviction raised serious questions as to the procedures that had been followed in the recruitment and monitoring of this officer. It was considered in some quarters to be essential that the procedures followed, or not followed as the case may be, should be investigated in depth so that secure safeguards could be put in place to prevent similar occurrences in the future.

In 1989, a child protection team was formed in Jersey and staffed by members of social services. It deals with all types of child abuse, including sexual abuse. In 1991, a total of 80 cases were reported to the team; of these there were 11 prosecutions for sexual abuse and four for physical abuse. The States of Jersey Police has a Family Protection Team which was established in 1990. There is also a Child Protection Committee which consists of representatives of the key agencies and includes a representative of the honorary police. In 1993, a report recommended the use of video recordings in court hearings dealing with child abuse. Work on sexual offenders' legislation is currently underway.

The. Attorney General also had the authority to suspend any member of the Honorary Police from office, if, following consultation with the Connétable, he was satisfied that the conduct of the member fell short of the highest standard required of the Honorary Police. He also had the power to suspend a member of the Honorary Police during the course of an investigation into a complaint against that member.
 
In 1986, Mr. Roger Holland, who was 21 years old, and was an active member of a division of the St. John Ambulance Brigade, was arrested and charged with indecent assault on a minor who was mentally retarded. The minor had accepted a lift from Mr. Holland whom she knew from that Brigade.
 
4.1.2        The investigating officer, Detective Constable B. Duffy, recorded in his report that Mr. Holland, during the course of questioning, admitted to another indecent assault on a minor. This admission was followed up by the States of Jersey Police. However, the parents of the victim did not wish to pursue the matter as they wished to protect her from any distress that might be caused by the investigation process. Consequently, to date, Mr. Holland has not been prosecuted for this admitted assault.
 
4.1.3        The investigating officer advised Mr. Holland that he should seek medical help and noted in his report that Mr. Holland had sought psychiatric help of his own volition and had an appointment with Mr. J. Hollywood, Consultant Clinical Psychologist, prior to his appearance in Court.

4.1.8        On 15th March 1992, Mr. Holland submitted an application as a prospective candidate for Constable's Officer for the Parish of St. Helier. On his application form he declared that he had one previous conviction.

4.1.10      On 18th March 1992, the Town Greffier wrote to the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force requesting a criminal record search. There does not appear to have been a reply to this letter. However, as noted above, previous requests by the same Town Greffier following the application of Mr. Holland to become a member of the Parish Civil Emergency Team had been replied to in full.
 
4.1.11      On 19th March 1992, the Town Greffier wrote to Mr. Holland telling him that the Connétable considered that he would be unable to accept him as a probationary officer in view of the unfortunate incident which took place in 1986.

4.1.12      However, the letter also stated that if Mr. Holland wished to put forward an application to become a member of the Honorary Police he could always get a proposer and seconder and put forward his nomination at a Parish Assembly. This letter was copied to Centenier Patton, and Vingtenier Couriard.
 
4.1.13      On 9th June 1992 the monthly meeting of the St. Helier Honorary Police discussed, among other matters, recruitment. The minute of that discussion reads: Vingtenier Mahé reported that there was one recruit that was almost ready to join. He added that two candidates that had been turned down might stand for election. Vingtenier Holmes felt that if these candidates wanted to stand they should be allowed to and let the Royal Court decide if they were desirable. It was felt that it could harm recruitment if official candidates were beaten an (sic) election. No officers present were opposed to the election of the two men and if they were prepared to face the possible rejection of the court they should be allowed to stand. From the evidence submitted, this Committee is satisfied that one of the two candidates referred to was Mr. Holland.

4.1.16      On 7th July 1992, Mr. Holland, having been duly proposed and seconded, was elected unopposed at an Assembly of Electors to be a Constable's Officer for the Canton de Bas de la Vingtaine de la Ville. No record has been traced of who proposed and seconded him, and no witness has been able to tell this Committee who those people were. In accordance with normal practice, Mr. Holland, together with four other successful candidates in different Cantons and Vingtaines, was warned to appear before the Royal Court on 10th July 1992 at 10.00 a.m. in order to take the oath of office as a Constable's Officer.
 
4.1.17      On 8th July 1992, the Town Greffier formally wrote to Mr. Holland on behalf of the Connétable congratulating him on his successful election and reminding him to appear before the Royal Court on Friday 10th July 1992 at 10.00 a.m. to take the oath of office as Constable's Officer. Also on 8th July 1992 the Connétable wrote to the Attorney General, Philip Bailhache, informing him of the names of persons elected as Constable's Officers at the Parish Assembly on 7th July 1992, and notifying him that they had been warned to appear before the Royal Court. This letter was in standard form and was not accompanied by police records for any of the elected officers. A similar letter was sent to the Judicial Greffier so that he might sign the new officers' warrant cards.

4.1.18      The oath of office for a member of the Honorary Police is administered by the Royal Court after it has heard any observations of the Attorney General as to whether or not the oath should be administered. It is for the purpose of these observations (known technically as "moving conclusions") that the Attorney General requires to know whether the officer concerned has any previous convictions.
 
4.1.19      There was a conflict of evidence regarding the requirement to inform the Attorney General of the criminal records, if any, of prospective honorary police officers. The then Attorney General [Philip Bailhache] insisted that this was a matter for the Connétable, and correspondence from his successor supports that understanding.

However, in written evidence to this Committee, the then Clerk to the Attorney General paints a different picture. She stated that: As a matter of routine, all prospective honorary police officers were automatically checked out with the Criminal Records Office, both by the Greffier on behalf of the Town Hall and by myself on behalf of our department. My requests to the Criminal Records Office were made by telephone and that office would fax the records through to us with no other paperwork being created. Criminal records are not usually kept on file as a safeguard against a Data Protection breach. She also stated: Should I or one of my colleagues have omitted to do this, it would have been picked by the Attorney General or Solicitor General before going to the Samedi Court for the swearing in process.

However, in written evidence, the Attorney General  [Philip Bailhache] has challenged that recollection. He stated that it would have been impractical to have undertaken such checks as a matter of course because of the short time between receipt of notification of the elections and the appearance of the officer before the Royal Court.

4.1.20      Whatever the procedure in place at the time, the then Attorney General  [Philip Bailhache], in oral evidence, stated that he was not aware of Mr. Holland's previous conviction before he was sworn in.
 
4.1.21      On 10th July 1992 at 10.00 a.m., Mr. Holland was sworn in before the Royal Court as a Constable's Officer, the Attorney General having moved that the oath be administered.
 
4.1.22      That same day, an anonymous letter, dated 8th July 1992, was received at the Law Officers' Department. The letter read: Reading today's JEP. I notice with horror that a Mr. Roger Arthur Holland has been elected as Constable's Officer for the Parish of St. Helier.

My reason for being concerned is that Mr. Holland was recently convicted of an Indecent assault on a retarded child whilst he held a position of trust as a St. Johns Ambulance Instructor; surely people of this calibre can not be allowed to hold office in the Jersey Parish Police".
 
4.1.23      Under procedures in place at the time in the Law Officers' Department for receiving and distributing incoming mail, it is almost certain that this letter was not seen by anyone in authority until after the Attorney General had returned from the Royal Court that morning. In due course, the letter was passed to the Attorney General  [Philip Bailhache], who initialled it and his Clerk sent a copy of the letter under cover of a compliments slip to the Town Greffier asking for comment.
 
4.1.24      The then Attorney General stated in oral evidence to this Committee that this was the first time he had become aware of Mr. Holland's conviction.

4.1.26      The then Attorney General told this Committee that he could not remember whether he had any conversations with the Connétable regarding Mr. Holland but he had accepted the advice recorded in the telephone message that in all the circumstances Mr. Holland's membership of the St. Helier Honorary Police should not be opposed.
 
4.1.27      The then Attorney General  [Philip Bailhache] told this Committee that, in his view, the Magistrate must have decided that the original offence was clearly not very serious because it had resulted merely in a probation order. It was also in Mr. Holland's favour that the probation order had been discharged early on the grounds of good progress. Furthermore, the conviction had been six years earlier and, so far as anyone was aware at the time, Mr. Holland had not re-offended. The then Attorney General told this Committee that, in the light of these facts, even if he had been aware of them before Mr. Holland had been sworn in, he would very likely have agreed that the matter was in the past and would have moved that the oath be administered. This statement was made, however, apparently without the knowledge that Mr. Holland had confessed to another indecent assault at the time of his first conviction.

4.1.28      The then Attorney General  [Philip Bailhache] made the point to this Committee that the swearing-in of an honorary police officer before the Royal Court process is a solemn affair, and to ask the Court to review shortly after the swearing in an honorary police officer's suitability for continuing in office would have been a very serious matter. Furthermore, the threshold for making that petition would have been higher than if the question were asked before he had been sworn in.
 
4.1.29      In the event, the Attorney General  [Philip Bailhache] decided not to refer the matter of Mr. Holland's previous conviction to the Royal Court.
 
4.1.30      The then Attorney General  [Philip Bailhache] agreed with the suggestion made by a member of this Committee that, once an officer with a previous conviction had been sworn in, and therefore accepted by the Royal Court, the previous conviction from his record would be of no further account in determining the officer's suitability to remain in office. Thus at this point Mr. Holland had been accepted formally as a member of the honorary police, in spite of his previous conviction, and for all future purposes, his conviction was effectively regarded as spent.

4.2.7        It is clear from the evidence that this Committee has received that, if an Attorney General were notified that a candidate for honorary police office had previous convictions, it would be his responsibility to decide whether details of the conviction should be brought to the attention of the Royal Court. Among the factors that he would take into account in making that decision are whether or not the existence of the conviction might affect adversely the reputation of the Honorary Police generally, or compromise the officer's ability to discharge his police duties.

5.1.6        On 11th September 1994 there was an incident outside the Pomme d'Or Hotel in St. Helier witnessed by a Centenier and by an ex-United Kingdom police officer during which Mr. Holland was alleged to have assaulted a visitor to the Island.
 
5.1.7        On 16th September 1994 the Town Greffier wrote a letter to the victim of the alleged assault to establish the facts of the incident. The Town Greffier also wrote to the United Kingdom resident who had witnessed the incident. At the time of the alleged assault, Mr. Holland was working as a taxi driver and was not on duty.
 
5.1.8        On 29th September 1994 Mr. Holland was caught turning right against a traffic light. He was later fined £20 for this offence.
 
5.1.9        On 17th October 1994, after the Town Greffier had received information from the victim of the alleged assault outside the Pomme d'Or Hotel and the witness, the Chef de Police wrote to Mr. Holland. He told him that he had been directed by the Connétable of St. Helier to inform him that a serious allegation had been lodged with the Connétable relative to Mr. Holland's conduct.
 
5.1.10      On 18th October 1994, Mr. Holland voluntarily surrendered his warrant card.
 
5.1.11      On 21st October 1994 the Chef de Police wrote to the [new] Attorney General, Michael Birt, on behalf of the Connétable, to advise him of the alleged assault by Mr. Holland and requested that the Attorney General issue such directives as were appropriate.
 
5.1.12      The Attorney General, in a letter dated 26th October 1994 replying to the Chef de Police, pointed out that, in the reported case 'In re Pearce' (1987-88 JLR p.109), the Royal Court had emphasised the importance of keeping separate the investigation of the criminal and disciplinary aspects of a particular incident. In this instance the Attorney General decided not to request the States of Jersey Police to carry out a criminal investigation but decided that the facts should be investigated by the Connétable as a disciplinary matter. For that purpose, he recommended that the Connétable obtained the assistance of the States of Jersey Police.


5.1.19      Under the Honorary Police (Jersey) Regulations 1977, the Attorney General had the power to suspend Mr. Holland from office or require him to resign. The then Attorney General stated in his written submission that he was undecided at the time whether to require Mr. Holland to resign or to suspend him a period. His file note of a meeting held on 4th August 1995 with the Connétable and the Town Greffier stated: The Constable requested that I consider suspension. He said that C.O. Holland is a very enthusiastic member of the Force and has been already punished quite substantially by the long period of suspension. He believes that Holland has learnt his lesson and is much chastened by the whole experience. The then Attorney General decided to suspend him for three months.

5.1.23      While this matter was being investigated, the States in January 1995 appointed an independent Review Body, chaired by Sir Cecil Clothier K.C.B. Q.C., to carry out a "full and thorough" review of the policing system in the Island. Among those making written submissions to the Review Body was the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police. He gave a copy of his submission, in which he expressed concern about the election of Honorary Police Officers with criminal convictions, to the Attorney General.
 
5.1.24      As a result of reading this submission, the Attorney General wrote on 29th June 1995, to the Chairman, Comité des Connétables, giving new directions for reporting previous convictions and stated: With immediate effect I require to see the criminal record (if any) of all new applicants. In order to avoid misunderstandings, he also required the Connétables to provide specific written confirmation if there were no criminal record. The letter also set out a procedure for dealing with late nominations which might leave insufficient time for a record check to be completed. The Attorney General told this Committee that the reason this direction only applied to new applicants and not to re-elected officers was because of the difficulties I envisaged in applying the new rule retrospectively to persons who joined the Honorary Police under the old system and who had perhaps served conscientiously and diligently for many years.

5.1.26      In July 1996 the Review Body published its report entitled "Report of the Independent Review Body on Police Services in Jersey". The report contained various recommendations and also expressed serious concern about the election and re-election of officers with previous criminal convictions.
 
5.1.27      On 5th December 1995 Mr. Holland was re-elected as a Constable's Officer for the Canton de Bas de la Vingtaine de la Ville in St. Helier having been proposed by Vingtenier Haynes and seconded by Mr. K. MacCarthy, the caretaker at the Town Hall. In evidence to this Committee, Vingtenier Haynes stated that he had proposed Mr. Holland because he thought he had done a good job, even though he knew of Mr. Holland's previous conviction. He had also become aware of an allegation that Mr. Holland had committed a further indecent assault prior to joining the Honorary Police (other than the one that Mr. Holland had admitted to in 1986) but for which he had not been prosecuted. Mr. MacCarthy explained in a written submission that he is often one of the few people present at meetings of the Parish Assembly when nominations of candidates for the honorary police are being made and therefore is asked to second candidate's applications for office, which he does to assist the process.

5.1.33      On 23rd September 1997 the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police wrote to the Attorney General to express concern over, inter alia, Mr. Holland's election to the post of Vingtenier. In his letter he stated: I acknowledge that his conviction was 11 years ago and whilst the details of the incident are not at the serious end of a scale, the victim was a 14 year old girl who attended a school of Special Education as she had a mental age of 10 years. Furthermore, he admitted to another incident for which he was not charged and admitted to having a "problem for younger girls". With his letter, the Chief Officer sent copies of the States of Jersey Police report, a related witness statement and Mr. Holland's statement after caution recorded by the Police.

The then Attorney General told this Committee that this was the first occasion upon which [he] had seen the papers setting out the evidence which underlay Holland's conviction in 1986. Partly as a result of this, he changed the directive concerning the reporting of previous convictions of elected honorary police officers and wrote on 3rd November 1997 to all Connétables directing that all convictions of such officers should be reported to him whether they had been elected for the first time or re-elected. In that letter he stated I appreciate that, in the case of an officer with previous convictions who has behaved impeccably as an Honorary Police officer for many years, my judgment may be exercised in a different manner to that which it would have been had the officer been elected for the first time. Nevertheless I think it is important in the public interest that, even in the case of re-elected officers, his previous record, if any, be known so that a decision can be made as to whether it precludes him from office.

5.2.1        Mr. Le Brocq became Connétable just under a month after Mr. Holland's swearing-in. There was no formal system in place in St. Helier for briefing an incoming Connétable on his responsibilities. No doubt on policing matters Mr. Le Brocq was expected to know the ropes because he had a total of twelve years' service in the St. Helier Honorary Police. He also had a long discussion with the retiring Connétable. Mr. Le Brocq told this Committee that, in that conversation, Mr. Clarke said: Nobody can actually tell you what responsibility a Constable has, you actually have to sit in the chair to find out what it's about. He also advised that, in policing matters, if there should be any enquiries or any complaints reference the Honorary Police, you give it to the Chef to deal with. In particular, this Committee was told by Mr. Le Brocq that no mention was made of Mr. Holland in the hand-over discussions.

5.2.12      The Attorney General [Michael Birt] responded to the letter of 23rd September 1997, from the Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police, by changing the procedures for advising him on convictions of officers to be re-elected. In his reply to the Chief Officer he stated: In the light of the way in which this has arisen, I do not propose to take any action at this stage in relation to the Honorary Police Officers to whom you refer. In his evidence to this Committee the then Attorney General stated that he could not at that stage take retrospective action in respect of those officers who had already been duly sworn in. This was effectively the same decision that his predecessor [Philip Bailhache] had taken in 1992 following his receipt of the anonymous letter.

However, the Attorney General in 1997 did not make the connection that one of the officers referred to in the Chief Officer's letter was Mr. Holland whom he had suspended from office two years previously and therefore could not be described as having "behaved impeccably as an Honorary Police Officer for many years".

6.1.19      Centenier Hilton, having discovered from her dealings with Mr. Burnett that Mr. Holland had a previous conviction, wrote to the Attorney General on 29th July 1999 expressing her concern that a person with such a conviction could be a member of the Honorary Police. This was after discussing the matter with the Chef de Police, who had decided that he could not disclose anything to her because of the investigation which was taking place at that time.

6.1.20      On 20th August 1999 the Solicitor General wrote to Connétable Mrs. I.M. Le Feuvre, in her capacity as Chairman of the Comité des Connétables, asking her to nominate representatives to a committee of Connétables and Centeniers to be appointed by the Attorney General to investigate the allegations made against Mr. Holland. This was the standard form of investigation provided by the Honorary Police (Jersey) Regulations 1977.
 
6.1.21      On 17th November 1999 Mr. Holland resigned from the Honorary Police admitting to conduct unbecoming of the office of Vingtenier prior to his election in 1992.

8.3           In 2001, the States adopted a Law which has now been enacted as the Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002. This Law includes a range of provisions regarding the conduct of elections, including specific provisions in Article 22 regarding the election of Centeniers (but not Vingteniers or Constable's Officers). These are directed primarily to ensure that, if a candidate for election as Centenier has been convicted of an offence of a kind listed in Regulations made by the States, that information will be reported to the nomination meeting. It will be the duty of the Connétable to seek out this information and see that it is reported to the nomination meeting, as well as to the Attorney General.

In practice, he could have only two days to obtain that information. This part of the Law appears to this Committee to be impractical given the time required to obtain criminal records, particularly from other jurisdictions. Article 22 of the Law is not yet in force and consequently Regulations have not been made. It should be noted that offences of a kind not listed in the Regulations would not be reported to the nomination meeting.

How much does the States member cost the taxpayer?

I've had one individual standing ask me for statistics on "roughly how much each States sitting costs per hour per States member".

I'm discounting overhead costs - backup staff, transcriptions, the Bailiff etc. For one thing, these are variable - sometimes the Greffier sits rather than the Bailiff, and for another, It's like costing an individual account preparer's work in an accountancy firm by adding all the overheads to it, the partner's time spent checking their work, plus cost of back office administrators who don't earn fees. Cost accountancy doesn't work like that.

If you want to look at that, you need to consider it in its own right - for instance the cost of the Bailiff for States sittings - but you'd have to know how many he attended, and the time spent on his other duties, as for example, a judge in the Royal Court.

For 2010 the Assembly sat for 293 hours and 46 minutes in 2010. The special meeting on Liberation Day lasted only 14 minutes, and the time spent during the other 49 meeting days for 'ordinary' business was therefore 293 hours and 32 minutes.

The Assembly convened on a total of 50 days during the year, with 49 of these meeting days being for 'ordinary' business and with one meeting being the traditional special meeting on Liberation Day, 9th May.

So discounting Liberation day, you have (if on £45,000 per annum)45,000 / 294 = £153 per hour cost to public per States member

That's the sort of figure we get in the JEP, and probably Ben Shenton will come out with! And to which the public response is "wow!", "money for old rope", "fine work if you can get it" etc

But the danger with this kind of statistic is what it leaves out - a lot!!!

Let's assume that other work - either as a Minister, Assistant Minister, or backbencher dealing with constituency items and research and meetings takes just another 30 weeks. That's a year of 37 working weeks all told. (49 days = 7 weeks).

Still pretty good going - 15 weeks off a year, but so do some professions like teachers or lecturers at Highlands.

Say 6 hours for each day - same as a States sitting - of those 30 weeks, makes 30 x 6 x 5 = 900 hours
Total hours = 900 + 294 = 1194 hours
Cost per hour = 45000 / 1194 = £38 per hour approx, which is much less.

Backtracking, our 294 hours cost £38 x 294 = £11, 172 per member.

Even a lazy States member on 25 extra weeks above States sittings, with only 4 hours per day for those, comes out far below our "shocker" of £153 per hour, at instead £57 per hour.

And there's no pension element built into this either, or the fact that a conscientious Member may turn out in evenings to meetings, or to help members of the public at weekends or in the evening (and possibly even in the middle of the night). Sean Power, for example, has carried out hundreds of home visits on Saturdays or Sundays and held over 75 constituency clinics, mostly at Communicare.

Now it could well be the case (as I know with some members), that the work done in research, meetings, constituency matters, is much more than our first scenario. A good back bencher hasn't got a department to do all the work in research for them, whereas a Minister needs just send a memo!

Ministers, on the other hand, may have their own larger workflow with meetings, departmental agendas, policy matters, signing off documents, reviewing material etc. And they have to be present on a regular basis in the office during working hours.

So it is very dangerous to just take States meetings as the basis for cost per States member!

For figures and all kinds of useful info see States Assembly - Annual Report 2010

http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/documents/reports/34884-24728-1242011.pdf

This used to be available on Privileges and Procedures with a proper name to the PDF. Now it is sort of buried away under a number!

P.S. Juliette Gallichan has posted a comment within an hour

to say it is now available easily headed up on

Privileges and Procedures website.

Fast work! I'm impressed. Thank you Juliette.

Paganism: A Very Short Introduction - Part 1

I've been reading "Paganism: A Very Short Introduction" by Owen Davies, and he packs a huge amount in to 144 pages.

There's a lot of very interesting stuff on how Paganism was effectively wiped out in its old forms (Temples, trees, streams, animal sacrifice), and pressure from the political authorities. This was not in fact done by Constantine, who is often credited with that, but only imposed toleration for Christianity as a State supported religion, and made no political moves at all directed against Paganism.

Instead it was later Emperors like Theodosius (379-395) and Justinian I (527-585) who imposed laws against sacrifice of animals in the Temples, and other practices, making it increasingly difficult for Paganism to survive.  Tellingly, this led to a shift not among the lower classes but the upper echelons of Roman society. As Davies notes:

"It has been estimated that at the death of Theodosius, more than half the of the Roman population was still pagan. Still, for ambitious politicians and state functionaries, it was becoming amply clear that being pagan was increasingly unprofitable in career terms".

Pragmatism rather than belief was clearly a significant factor, with the richer members of society choosing Christianity as the best option for getting on, which shows us that the ancient world was not perhaps so different in terms of how some people behaved - when you look at people trying to get kids in Church schools.

Later, Pope Gregory's  policy was not to destroy Pagan temples, but to destroy idols within them, and put saint's relic's there for veneration instead, so one can see how the practices of Paganism became replaced with a Christian substitute that largely satisfied the emotional needs of the general peoples, and led to assimilation, with the Temples largely not being destroyed, but simply falling into decay because they were no longer the centre of people's lives.

But old practices continued, with (for example) thousands of 5th and 6th century lamps found in caves in Attica, dedicated to Apollo. Of course, like practices today such as not walking under ladders, this may have not been a conflict, but ordinary people keeping options open.

It was really in the time of Charlemagne, however, that we see a brutal regime, especially against Saxon pagans (c772 onwards) where he instituted the harsh "Capitulatio de Partibus Laws". Sacrifice to idols, failure to keep the Lenten fast, cremation of the dead, or rejection of baptism - these all now had the death penalty! Punishment was also ordered for witches, soothsayers, magicians. "Summary executions of resistant pagans apparently took place, a policy that disturbed some churchmen", as Davies notes.

It is clear that Charlemagne used Christianity for political ends, for forcing subservience, in probably a more forceful and brutal fashion than even some of the later Roman Emperors. Christianity and Frankish aggression went hand in hand, one being used a justification for the other, an unholy alliance that would be repeated in the Crusades, and even recently in George W Bush's use of Biblical language to describe the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Fifty Years

My Annie would have been 50 today...

Fifty Years
 
This was your fiftieth birthday, but it was not to be
And I remember you last, memories by the sea
The restaurant, the meal with all your friends
A last supper, a portent of the coming ends
But there was no pain, just a sudden moment
The morning death came, and you swiftly went
 
I watched Bill Bailey today, you so loved him
A surrealist improviser, humour built from whim
And I felt you would be there, watching, too
I could see your laughter, tears fall like dew
Time of joy, of memories mellow that I had
Yet tinged with loss, the parting still so sad.
 
Heat waves, and how you would have been
I can imagine you, on the lounger, a scene
Of rest and refreshment, you loved the sun
And colder winter weather did best shun
But you also enjoyed sunset, across the bay
And there your ashes went, scattered away.

 

Election Notes 2 - The Hitchhiker's Apology

But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months."
"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything."
"But the plans were on display ..."
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"That's the display department."
"With a flashlight."
"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"
"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."

(Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams)

I was told that an apology for La Cloche had appeared in the JEP for their mistake over Roy Le Hérissier's mini-manifesto. So I looked!

It was tucked away on in a tiny notice on Page 30 of Wednesday night's JEP. That's really not the place to put an apology - half the readers never look at the Parish notices. How many people saw it? It's about as visible as the "plans on display" in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy! [And there is also no sheet of paper mentioning the mistake and giving Roy's mini manifesto inserted into any copies of the magazine available at the Parish hall, where I picked mine up - surely a simple and obvious matter to do.]

Technically, they have apologised, but that's a poor way to make an apology. A letter to the editor of the JEP, so it appeared in the letters page would have been better. I get the impression they are trying to hide their mistake.

PARISH NOTICE

Paroisse de St Sauveur
La Cloche Magazine
Edition 12

The editorial team of the Parish Magazine La Cloche would like In point out that an error occurred in the feature on the candidates in the forthcoming election for Deputies. Information supplied by Deputy Rob Duhamel was inadvertently repeated in the resume of Deputy Roy to Hérissier whose submission was unfortunately omitted. The error is regretted.

Also it is an "editorial team", no doubt so that the editor, Elaine Hanning, wife of the Constable Peter Hanning, does not get the blame. The editor's job (as I myself was told being guest editor of La Baguette) is to "sign off the magazine". In other words, the buck stops there! But there is more:

La Cloche is published quarterly at no cost to parishioners. The editorial team rely on the support of our advertisers to cover the costs of production and delivery is in the hands of our amazing team of volunteers.

The apology appeared as a Parish of St Saviour "Parish Notice". Does this mean that ratepayers money is being used to publish this feeble excuse for an apology? I think the ratepayers of St Saviour's should be told.

And there is a lot of political bias in La Cloche, for all it's avowed status to be "even handed" politically.

There are two pictures of the Constable, to one of Sadie, in the news stories. Three stories mention the Constable by name, there is one mention of Sadie. Jeremy Macon has his picture in twice; none of the other candidates do. And Peter Hanning's wife is described, in an article penned by herself, as "wife of the Constable", just so the reader makes the connection with the editorial team, Peter Hanning also mentions, in La Cloche, of helping set up the magazine as one of his achievements, so that the whole magazine appears as an endorsement of him as Constable.

Finally, they also have "special election rates" for candidates who want to place an advert in the magazine! That's been taken up by Hedi Green, Isabella Lewis and Peter Hanning, and the editor has rather carefully or carelessly placed the advert for Peter Hanning as Constable opposite the general "give the candidates an even space" area for Constable, so that on a double page, he appears twice, Sadie, the other contender, appears once.

And the magazine declares "no bias"!!

French dictionary definitions: cloche means: bell, also stupid, foolish.

From what I've read of the three candidates standing who advertise, if I had a vote there I would NOT use it for any of them.

Peter Hanning - will happily vote for GST

"GST I don't like GST and will happily vote against it when there is a viable alternative."

Translation: I will not ever vote for exemptions, as shown by my voting record.

Hedi Green - no mention of how she will vote on GST exemptions, so probably won't vote for them. Instead goes for vague platitudes:

"States expenditure is not under control yet we are all feeling the higher burden of taxes and the reduction in exemptions. The burden of taxation on middle earners is too high and in return we are not seeing good value."

Isabella Green - clearly will not vote for exemptions, "resist any further increases in GST" is the "Farm Fresh" way of saying it: She's not a genuine "Free Range" individual:

"Resist any further increases in GST. I am a wife, mother and grandmother. I know what a shopping basket costs; I will fight any further financial burdens on your household income"

Translation: the package says "Farm Fresh". Don't be confused with "Free Range". Says nothing about exemptions to GST, and don't expect a shopping basket with GST exempt items.

None of them will say "I won't vote for exemptions to GST", but they are slippery and don't say anything that will lose them votes! Would you vote for anyone so obviously devious?

But to be fair, I'll happily stand corrected if any of them want to make a bold statement that they will now vote for exemptions to GST on this blog. Don't hold your breath though!