Odd and Ends

Historical Explanations and Fact

Those who have attained the chief places are led to seek the character of “safe men,”—which is gained by avoiding entering into questions or giving reasons, that they may “not commit themselves;” by evading difficulties neatly; and by speciously turning away from troublesome duties, and letting evil principles work themselves out at the expense of the public, unless forced into notice by clamour,—applying the rule—“Never to act until you are obliged, and then do as little as you can,” …

—Chadwick 1854: 


I noted Kevin Keen’s recent tweet: “Disagree with him often but Ian_Gorst is a good man. I for one want to see less playing the man & more playing the ball in Jersey politics.”

Imputing motivation is fraught with dangers, but whenever history is written, there is a need to consider motivation, either in the absence of a response, or even when a politicians statement might not be taken at face value. Anyone who has watched "Yes Minister" understand this only too well!

But in fact no one has taken the view expressed by Sir Humphrey in the photo. Even Reform have been judicious in accusing Ian Gorst of deliberately lying to the house.

Politicians do, however, engage in avoidance strategies, and just as it would be unprofessional of a historian to ignore that as a possibility for motivation, so too, it would for a commentator on current events.

An example of how to explore options came in my own comment on Ian Gorst’s reply to Mike Higgins that indicators such as average wage or the general economy improving have only a tangential relationship to relative poverty – which is defined by the median wage, and was spotted by Matthew Price recently on BBC Radio Jersey.

In the first part of my comment, I note the factual inaccuracy, and secondly, I explore what is hypothetical – the reasons for the reply. There may, of course be other reasons, but I think it is legitimate both to explore possibilities, but also give possibilities rather than just one explanation for the reply.

“Well done to Matthew Price of BBC Radio Jersey for pointing out that Ian Gorst's measure - average wage - is skewed and therefore misleading. If the gap increases between rich and poor, this would not show with average wage - indeed that indicator could point the opposite way as higher earners getting even more drag it upwards. By contrast, Median Wage is the accepted best statistic for looking at anything to do with wages which is why the UK and Guernsey use Median Wages in any discussions on the economy.”

“Either Ian Gorst shows a lamentable lack of knowledge of statistics, or has been badly informed, or is deliberately choosing a statistic which gives no indication of relative poverty at all.”

Data Protection

Having just attended a 3 hour presentation on the forthcoming new Data Protection Law coming in by May 2018, I was bemused to hear from a friend that a clergyman refused to give the location of a grave on the grounds of Data Protection.

Note to clergy: Information about where a dead person is buried is NOT covered by Data Protection and cannot be refused on those grounds. The Data Protection Law (current and future) only covers rights to protection of data on living individuals..

Green Light for Stargazing

Saw some of Australian Stargazing on BBC – I was interested to see that one presenter had a green astronomy laser like me. It is really good for pointing out stars and planets and constellations and galaxies to others.

Just the smallest amount of water vapour in the night sky is enough to pick up the laser and make it look as if it is a long beam, which can be used to show exactly where a star is. Two things are needed: a bright enough laser, and enough water vapour. Light can only be seen when it strikes objects, which is why the laser in the James Bond film “Goldfinger” is such an obvious fake,

Bailiff’s Veto: A Comment

In response to my recent blog, former Deputy Paul Le Claire made this comment:

“Standing orders should be reviewed and the States of Jersey Law including how they answer the ones that get through the net or in many cases do not answer them. Another thing to look at is the power to give way to respond to the many instances over the years where Ministers have spoken to the detriment of other members without them having an opportunity to be heard in defence of what they said. “

“There were many occasions when propositions and questions were denied me whilst I was in and some were approved by latter Bailiffs. Therefore opinion of the person comes into play in approving them. This should not be allowed and the only option it would seem is to lodge propositions asking the States for the Bailiff to review his decision. All in all a futile time consuming process when at the end of the day the majority could not care less about the people who are trying to represent the electorate.”

“Too many States members have in the past and continue now to act as Directors in putting the States ahead of their constituents. At election time they should make it clear that when elected they will represent the interests of the COM as this is in effect the position now!”

No ECT In Jersey

Remember that "Call the Midwife" with electroconvulsive therapy used on Sister Cynthia. In a recent blog I highlighted the potentially life changing damage it could (and is known to have caused) to memories.

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) was used in Jersey during the 1980s under Dr Fogarty at St Saviour's Hospital, and one of my friends was frequently subjected to it. As a short term fix for depression or schizophrenia, it may work, because it causes at the very least retrograde amnesia for a few weeks, but there is always a danger which is now well documented of long term effects on memory.

Moreover because it effectively wiped the time shortly before the depression kicked in severely, it was effective, but because it did not treat the underlying causes of depression, it needed to be repeated frequently.

I'm glad to find out that the Health and Social Services Department does not provide Electroconvulsive Therapy in Jersey. If a patient required treatment with ECT they would need to travel to an alternative Hospital in the UK.

The FOE response: “There were no patients treated with ECT in 2016. H&SS have not been providing ECT for a number of years.”

And lastly...

I thought of those famous lines by W.H. Auden when I was taking in the impact and the shock of that attack at Westminster recently:

Stop all the clocks, cut off the telephone,

Prevent the dog from barking with a juicy bone,

Silence the pianos and with muffled drum

Bring out the coffin, let the mourners come.

Promises, Promises!

Promises, Promises!

Moving Rural Goal Posts

Ian Gorst said in 2014 as newly elected Chief Minister:

“Agriculture and Fisheries, of course, continue to be important to our Island community: our farmers are valued custodians of our countryside who help to sustain our environment and keep Jersey beautiful. Our fishermen maintain our essential connection with the sea, providing us with highly-prized and freshly-caught produce and are a growing export product. New strategies for the rural economy and sea fisheries will be important milestones in the evolution of these industries. “

I spotted a part of this, to do with Food Security, was being produced by Delta Innovation - Project: A draft Food Security Strategy for the States of Jersey.

This would deal with the following:

- To secure the availability of food
- To secure the affordability of food
- To secure the ability to produce food
- To secure against supply shocks.

The Department of the Environment claimed exemption to my Freedom of Information request and said:

"Justification for exemption: A draft food security strategy is being prepared and will be integrated within the new Rural Economy Strategy (RES) due to be published in autumn 2016."

I asked in December: “As we are now at the end of December 2016, I wonder if you could point me in the direction of the published document which I am having difficulty locating. “

And was told on the 18th January: “I can confirm that the public authority holds this information. However, due to the delay in publishing the new Rural Economy Strategy this information remains exempt under Article 35 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 and cannot be released.”

Now we are told, the arrival of that Rural Economy Strategy is imminent! Mark Forskitt, an islander who grows organic produce, said delays in publishing a clear plan for Jersey's countryside shows a lack of interest in farming. But Minister Senator Lyndon Farnham expressed surprise at the criticism, saying a new plan will be published tomorrow.

Lyndon Farnham is evidently living in a temporal bubble, where time moves at about a quarter the speed that if does for everyone else so that a delay of over two years is negligible! Will we see the new plan this morning, or will it be another political promise?

The One That Got Away

Going back to November 2014, when Deputy Luce said:

“Another subject that is not covered in the Chief Minister’s statement is that of cross-Channel Islands Co-operation and I just wondered when it comes to working together with our sister islands, whether the Chief Minister has any new Channel Islands initiatives that can be used for mutual benefit?”

Ian Gorst replied:

“If I am honest with the Deputy, one area where I would like to see us working together where we have not is in the area of fishing. It affects members of an important part of our economy and we have not seemed to be able to master that joint working. That is an area where I believe that certainly the Chief Ministers of both Islands are committed to delivering and I want to see that happen.”

Later, the newly elected Chief Minister Ian Gorst proposed Steve Luce as the Minister for Planning and the Environment.

When he spoke, this is what Steve Luce had to say on the topic of Jersey fishermen:

“My boating experience also allows me to know more than a little about fishing and my life boating over more than 20 years means that I know only too well what a difficult and uncompromised job our local fishermen have to do and what a tough environment they have to work in. I want to do everything that I can to support farming and fishing and I am grateful to the Chief Minister for specifically highlighting those 2 professions in his speech to us on Monday.”

And he went on to say:

“We must move forward on alternative energy and I will encourage the use of micro-renewables. In a similar vein, I will also promote both wind and tidal power. There are diversification opportunities here for the Jersey economy that we must not miss. I will continue to do my very best for farmers and fishermen. I will work with them but I will not seek to impose on them. Through the new Rural Economy Strategy, I also commit to using their budget to help them in the best way possible. “

In response, Carolyn Labey, Deputy of Grouville: said:

“Where will these industries feature on his agenda? Because, as he knows very well, they have come near the end of most people’s agendas in the past Assembly.”

And of course, fishing and solving problems with Guernsey is clearly “the one that got away”, because there has emerged no joint strategy. The commitment to delivery by Ian Gorst has not materialised, and Steve Luce has done very little to support Jersey fishermen in the latest dispute with Guernsey. As for the External Relations Minister, Sir Philip Bailhache, there is no indication that it has ever featured on his agenda.

In 2015, Deputy Labey called on External Relations Minister Sir Philip Bailhache and Environment Minister Steve Luce to meet London officials to stress the importance of drawing up a joint Channel Islands Fisheries Management Agreement. But when the JEP approached him, Environment Minister Steve Luce was unavailable for comment.

More recently Jersey fishermen had to face a £500 licence fee their Guernsey counterparts don't have to pay to fish in Bailiwick waters. While authorities in Guernsey recently introduced a £500 fee for licences , they subsidise local boats so that effectively it is free for Guernsey fishermen. Guernsey fishing officials say the charge is routine and non-political.

Jersey fishermen are unhappy at the move, but Deputy Steve Luce says that while the island could respond by reconsidering its own licensing fees, it is difficult to tell other jurisdictions what they can do.

So much for doing everything he can! At the very least, a similar move by Jersey against Guernsey fishermen might allow negotiations to take place, and could also be used to subsidise Jersey Fishermen in Guernsey waters.

As matters stand, the Deputy whom Ian Gorst praised for his expert knowledge and ability with respect to the fishing industry seems content to remain a passive observer.

Deep Sea Brexit

We haven’t even started on the impact that Brexit is likely to have on whatever remains of our fishing industry?

Selling fish to France could become 'uneconomical' after Brexit, according to a report by Guernsey's government. Channel Island fishermen will no longer have duty free access to the French market, after the UK voted to leave the European Union last week.

A report, published by the States of Guernsey said fish will be subject to higher tariffs and more onerous checks and controls - which could make exporting fish to France too expensive.

Meanwhile, Jersey's External Relations Minister, Sir Philip Bailhache has said that a Brexit will mean 'no substantial change' in the island, although he will probably revisit those hasty and ill-judged remarks.

Who do you believe? Guernsey or Jersey?

The Evasive Politician

The Evasive Politician

One of the Newsnight’s most famous interviews in 1997 saw the presenter Jeremy Paxman ask then-Home Secretary Michael Howard the same question twelve times. He was asking what had led to the head of the prison service, Derek Lewis. “Did you threaten to overrule him?” asked Paxman. And again. In the space of eight minutes (giving plenty of time for evasive waffle), Paxman asked the same question twelve times. He never got a yes or no answer.

Jeremy Paxman: Mr. Lewis says, "I, that is Mr. Lewis, told him what we had decided about Marriott, and why. He, that is you, exploded. Simply moving the governor was unpalatable; it sounded indecisive, it would be seen as a fudge. If I did not change my mind and suspend Marriott, he would have to consider overruling me". You can't both be right.

Michael Howard: Mr. Marriott was not suspended. I was entitled to express my views, I was entitled to be consulted.

Jeremy Paxman: Did you threaten to overrule him?

Michael Howard: I was not entitled to instruct Derek Lewis, and I did not instruct him...

[Did you threaten to overrule him?]

Michael Howard: ... and the truth. Look, the truth of the matter is Mr. Marriott was not suspended. I did not...

[Did you threaten to overrule him?]

Michael Howard: I did not overrule Derek Lewis.

Jeremy Paxman: Did you *threaten* to overrule him?

Michael Howard: I took advice on what I could and could not do, and I...

Jeremy Paxman: Did you threaten to overrule him, Mr. Howard?

Michael Howard: ...acted strictly within that advice. I did not overrule Derek Lewis.

Jeremy Paxman: Did you threaten to overrule him?

Michael Howard: Mr. Marriott was not suspended.

Jeremy Paxman: Did you threaten to overrule him?

Michael Howard: I have accounted for my decision to dismiss Derek Lewis...

Jeremy Paxman: Did you threaten to overrule him?

Michael Howard: ...in great detail before the House of Commons.

Jeremy Paxman: I note you're not answering the question, whether you threatened to overrule him.

Michael Howard: Well the, the important aspect of this, which it's very clear to bare in mind...

Jeremy Paxman: I'm sorry, I'm going to be frightfully rude. It's a quite straight yes or no question with a straight yes or no answer.

Michael Howard: Yes, you can put the question and I will give you an answer.

Jeremy Paxman: Did you threaten to overrule him?

Michael Howard: [pause] I discussed this matter with Derek Lewis. I gave him the benefit of my opinion. I gave him the benefit of my opinion in strong language, but I did not instruct him, because I was not entitled to instruct him. I was entitled to express my opinion, and that is what I did.

Jeremy Paxman: With respect, that is not answering the question of whether you threatened to overrule him.

Michael Howard: It's dealing with the relevant point, which is what I was entitled to do, and what I was not entitled to do. And I have dealt with this in detail before the House of Commons and before the Select Committee.

Jeremy Paxman: With respect, you haven't answered the question of whether you threatened to overrule him.

Michael Howard: Well, you see, the question is what was I entitled to do and what was I not entitled to do. I was not entitled to instruct him, and I did not do that.

Jeremy Paxman: Right. Uh, we'll leave... we'll leave that aspect there, and move onto this question of your bid for leadership of the party.

According to Emily Maitlis, the woman who eventually succeeded Paxman on Newsnight, the era of badgering your interviewees - exemplified by that bruising encounter - is well and truly over. She made that statement to the Daily Mail in May 2016.

It is perhaps ironic that Theresa May (the month’s namesake) showed the same evasiveness when asked a question by Andrew Marr:

AM: When you made that first speech in July in the House of Commons about our Trident nuclear defence, did you know that misfire had happened?

TM: Well, I have absolute faith in our Trident missiles. When I made that speech in the House of Commons, what we were talking about was whether or not we should renew our Trident missiles…

AM: Did you know that it had happened?

TM: I think we should defend our country. I think we should play our role within NATO and have an independent nuclear deterrent. Jeremy Corbyn thinks differently. Jeremy Corbyn thinks we shouldn’t defend our country.

AM: But this is a very serious incident. Did you know about it when you were talking in the House of Commons?

TM: And the issue that we were talking about in the House of Commons was a very serious issue… it was about whether or not we should renew Trident. Whether we should look to the future, that’s what the House of Commons voted on. I believe in defending our country, Jeremy Corbyn voted against it, he doesn’t want to defend our country with an independent nuclear deterrent…

AM: Prime Minister, did you know?

TM: …there are tests that take place all the time regularly for our nuclear deterrence. What we were talking about in that debate that took place…

And we had a similar example in Jersey, when Chief Minister Ian Gorst also dithered and prevaricated over the resignation of Senator Philip Ozouf.

It doesn't do politician's reputations any good when they are evasive. They may chalk up a minor success for evading the direct answer, but in the eyes of the general public, it makes them look shifty. 

They are what Peter Bull, in his paper "Techniques of political interview analysis" calls "intermediate responses", which fall somewhere between giving a reply and not giving a reply, and can be placed midway on a scale of evasiveness between direct answers and outright evasion."

Senator Gorst supplies us with a text-book case study of that.

As Bailiwick Express reported: “Under considerable pressure to clarify that Senator Ozouf was offering his resignation, and that he would accept it, Senator Gorst was strangely reticent to use the term "resign", preferring "step aside," and to say for definite he would acquiesce, once any letter from Senator Ozouf was received. Once again the Bailiff had to step in and force the Chief Minister to say finally, "yes," he WOULD accept Senator Ozouf's resignation, once received.”

Philip Ozouf’s actual statement avoided the word “resign”, and instead took refuge in euphemisms which were taken up by the Chief Minister. Senator Ozouf said: “I have no wish to be a distraction or media sideshow during this review period and so I shall be writing to the Chief Minister offering to step aside from my responsibilities as Assistant Chief Minister.”

Following pressure from St Helier Deputy Geoff Southern, Senator Ian Gorst said: “He has offered to step aside from his role as Assistant Chief Minister. That means he will no longer be Assistant Chief Minister.”

But Deputy Southern was not satisfied with Senator Gorst’s answer. It led to the Bailiff getting involved. He said: “Chief Minister, I think the Assembly is entitled to be quite clear about the position, as indeed are the public.

“As I understand your answer, Senator Ozouf has volunteered to step aside, he hasn’t yet done so, and so as at the moment, he remains in place as an Assistant Chief Minister.

“If he makes that offer to you, you will accept it. Is that the position?”

Senator Gorst replied: “Sir, he’s been quite clear that he will be doing that, and when he does, ‘yes’ is the answer.”

Why on earth couldn’t he bring himself to use the word “resigned” rather than “step aside”? Notably, referring to what he would do if any inquiry found hum culpable, Senator Gorst used the term "step down" and not "step aside"

When Devolution Cabinet Secretary Anne Waiguru was under investigation in Kenya, politicians from held two meetings in Nairobi to discuss whether or not they should ask him to ask her to step aside, which was then seen as a political euphemism for suspension, while the allegations were being investigated.

So is this a more of a suspension than a resignation? Senator Ozouf no longer sits on the Council of Ministers, but that’s not the same as using the word “resigned”.

Instead we have “step aside” – not “step down” (which is always used for resignation) – which suggests the image of Senator Ozouf waiting in the wings for an opportune moment to come back on stage.

An Eye on Local Politics

Retconning the Past

Reconsider, v. To seek a justification for a decision already made. (Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary)

In his defence of the shambles of the Innovation Fund, Senator Ozouf says he is "disgusted and dismayed" that he was "given the responsibility" but not "all the information that was required".

But when the Logfiller managed to grab a loan which disappeared, he was much more bullish about his knowledge. In a JEP report of June 16, 2016, he said: “What I can say is that I am totally satisfied, and have been throughout the procedures. The ongoing review process of what’s happening with the company has continued and that continues to this day. Let’s be clear, there are going to be some businesses that are not going to succeed.”

Now he has said in his resignation speech and to BBC Radio Jersey, he was fully accountable for the period he was responsible for the Fund, which was from January 2016 - the Fund was actually set up several years before that. But here in June 2016, he said he was "totally satisfied" with it!

Now if the States Auditor General could look into matters to get relevant information, why didn’t he? Or to put it another way, if he said he was given responsibility, but not all the information, why didn’t he make plain his lack of knowledge rather than just saying he was “totally satisfied”?

Enough attention had been focused on Logfiller to make it apparent that something had gone wrong, so why not come out at that point and say it needed detailed investigation? It was well known that Mike King had a hand in the fiasco that was Canbedone Films, so shouldn’t that have raised warning flags?

He was saying that it wasn’t until 2016 that he got the control he needed, but this story broke after that date!

How it Works: The Board of the Jersey Innovation Fund

Quorum, n. A sufficient number of members of a deliberative body to have their own way and their own way of having it. (Ambrose Wilson, The Devil’s Dictionary)

It is instructive to see how the board said it was operating, from a JEP report made on February 2015 said:

“The board who would oversee the fund had to be seen to be robust, with a balance of non-executive private- and public-sector board members, with the ultimate decisions made by a States minister.”

The Chairman went on to explain how the team on the board looked at proposals:

“I review every application in quite some detail and categorise them, and then the board also sees every application. If an application looks promising, one of the non-executive directors will kick the tyres in terms of cash flow, costs, budgets and so forth, and that director will then act as a champion for that applicant.”

“Quite often there will then be a formal presentation to the board, and if the green light is still flashing, an economic impact assessment is carried out by the Economics Unit”

“‘I do think that having the States working with the private sector is a good notion, using the expertise – especially from the finance sector – to ensure an informed decision. We hope the States are encouraged that a number of pairs of eyes are looking at this”

The board apart from the Chairman whose job was to sift but not produce a detailed financial review (which task he delegated to one of the non-executive directors), included “experienced businessmen and private-sector members Tim Ringsdore, Aaron Chatterley, Peter Shirreffs and Dave Allen - the non-executive directors - and from the public sector States economist Dougie Peedle, Economic Development chief officer Mike King and an officer from the Treasury.”

Certainly as remarked above, “a number of pairs of eyes”. So who had their eyes shut? When they "kicked the tyres", did they spot some were flat? And why was it not “robust”? And what was Dougie Peedle doing?

Clearly not all the blame can be laid at either Philip Ozouf or Mike King’s door, as there was “expertise – especially from the finance sector – to ensure an informed decision” made  in terms of cash flow, costs, budgets".

Or in this case, some rather ill-informed decisions!

Domestic Waste Charge: Broken Promises?

Politics, n. A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles (Ambrose Wilson, “The Devil’s Dictionary”)

The Jersey Evening Post reported that:

“Last year the introduction by 2018 of new levies for commercial waste disposal was approved by the States as part of the Medium Term Financial Plan Addition, with £11 million of revenue targeted. Infrastructure Minister Eddie Noel, who is due to bring proposals to the States to finalise the details of the charges this year, said that unless such charges were introduced, the Island would fall further behind.”

And it goes on to say that:

“He would also not rule out the future introduction of a domestic waste charge.”

This goes completely against the rationale in the Medium Term Financial Plan and Eddie Noel’s arguments there:

“Introducing ‘user-pays’ funding in Jersey would not only encourage increased recycling rates and more efficient use of services but would also by charging commercial organisations it addresses the unfairness of the current funding regime. Currently businesses do not pay for these services and households bear the burden of paying for services through taxation”

This is making it clear that a waste charge levied on ordinary taxpayers would mean them paying twice, as they already pay taxes for the support of services provided by the States, including waste disposal. But most trading businesses now pay 0% corporation tax, so this is tipping the balance just a little the other way with a charge on commercial waste.

The plan went on to say:

“Charging for commercial solid waste transfers the direct cost from the taxpayer to business, many of whom do not pay income tax, and will also enable alternative business opportunities for recycling which are currently suppressed due to DfI’s free disposal option.”

While not explicit as a promise, it is very clear that the whole premise behind not having a domestic waste charge was that domestic users already pay tax.

The wording makes it clear that – contrary to Eddie Noel’s recent pronouncements – he was ruling out a domestic waste charge.

If not, the whole argument in the Medium Term Plan looks just like something opportunist to use at the time, and not genuine at all. Raising domestic waste – and hence taxpayers paying twice - goes against the heart of the case for business paying for waste disposal. Are we to understand that the whole argument was just an exercise in short term hypocrisy?

Rome was Not Built in a Day

“So much of government is collective decisions. All of us together, best minds in the country, hammering it out. Government is a complex business. So many people have to have their say. These things take time. Rome wasn't built in a day” (Jim Hacker, Yes Minister)

Hearing Senator Routier on limiting population growth was like hearing Jim Hacker returned from the grave. Here’s an extract from “Yes Minister”

Dr Cartright: I'm proposing that all council officials responsible for a new project list their criteria for failure before getting the go-ahead.

Jim Hacker: - What do you mean?

Dr Cartright: - It's a basic scientific approach. You must establish a method of measuring the success or failure of an experiment. When it's completed, you know if it's succeeded or failed.

On BBC Radio Jersey, he was busy extolling the virtues of the new system to contain population, but refused to be drawn on any numbers. As a result, there is, as Dr Cartright in “Yes Minister” makes clear, no method for measuring the success – or failure – of the policy.

Instead, we were told that it would take a lot of time for the effects of the policy to really kick in, and a cynic might think that was until after the next election in 2018. Or "Rome was not built in a day".

Paul Routier is responsible for the slap-dash way in which the previous policy was allowed to lapse with nothing other than laissez-faire to put in its place until now, which looks like too little, too late.

At least he has stopped bleating the mantra that we need to grow the population to pay for services for the ageing demographic, as a growing population will itself grow old, need even more growth. 

It hasn’t stopped the Chamber of Commerce, who still seem wedded to this Ponzi scheme idea, even though it makes no sense at all in the long term. It is about time we realised we cannot sacrifice long term targets for short term gains, and that the Island has only limited physical resources and infrastructure.

But as it stands, the new policy, like the old, is like the emperor's new clothes, with Senator Routier cast as the Emperor.

The States Innovation Fund: A Disaster Waiting to Happen

The States Innovation Fund: A Disaster Waiting to Happen

Now that the Auditor-General’s report is out, a lot of blame will undoubtedly accrue to Mike King, who has just resigned as Chief Officer for EDD. That may well divert attention from other failings by others, or statements made which should not have been made by others in defence of the fund.

The Case of Philip Ozouf

The report states:

06 Nov 2014 New appointment as Minister for Economic Development with responsibility for the Fund. Assistant Chief Minister (Senator Ozouf) assigned responsibility for Innovation

12 Jan 2015 B Board advised that Assistant Chief Minister with responsibility for innovation would have delegated responsibility from Minister for Economic Development to approve loans from the Fund

01 Jun 2015 Approval of loan applications delegated to Assistant Chief Minister with responsibility for innovation.

So Senator Ozouf appears to have been effectively signing off loan applications as approved, which no doubt explains why he has recently tweeted “Expect proper analysis on performance of officials”, suggesting blame will be shifted firmly off his shoulders, and probably onto those of the hapless Mike King, who has resigned, and no doubt signed a gagging order as part of his resignation deal.

ITV ran this news story in June 2016:

Jersey's Assistant Chief Minister says the buck stops with him when deciding to pay out loans to innovative new businesses. Yet Senator Philip Ozouf admitted that the Innovation Fund Board does not have the mandate to monitor the progress of such companies once the loans have been given. He said that checks and balances could be improved.

He received a grilling from backbenchers in the States today following ITV's investigation into the Innovation Fund, which pointed to one company disappearing from the island after getting a £400,000 loan. Public Accounts Committee chairman Deputy Andrew Lewis asked the Minister:"What follow up checks are made on successful applications of the Innovation Fund to ensure they are meeting their business objectives?"

After States' Question Time, Deputy Lewis told ITV he is not satisfied with the Minister's response.

He has not given me enough assurance that sufficient checks are made, he implied that they are in the process of improving this, which further suggests that follow up checks in the past have been inadequate.

It is clear that nothing was done to improve matters, also that Philip Ozouf knew about defects in the mandate of the board but had done nothing between responsibilities being delegated to him in June 2015.

As the JEP also reported:

THE board which granted a £400,000 States loan to a company which may have disappeared ‘acted properly’, the assistant Chief Minister has said.

Senator Ozouf said: ‘What I can say is that I am totally satisfied, and have been throughout the procedures. The ongoing review process of what’s happening with the company has continued and that continues to this day. Let’s be clear, there are going to be some businesses that are not going to succeed.’

No doubt the good Senator will find ways of explaining why defects were not remedied since he was aware of them, and also thought the board was acting properly. He might also care to explain why he approved loan applications despite the defects highlighted in the report.

As the Senator said in 2016:

“As members will recall, the Fund passed formally to the Chief Minister’s office on January 1st of this year. Prior to this, I had delegated responsibility for the Fund as an Assistant Minister in Economic Development.”

“The Chief Minister has delegated responsibility for innovation to me and I am therefore responsible and accountable to this Assembly for the Fund, including all Ministerial decisions, past, future and present, that are associated with it.”

Will he take responsibility for the failings shown in this report? Will the buck stop there?

The Case of Alan Maclean

I remember that having blogged on this

http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2013/10/coming-up-later-in-states.html

I wrote:

Having voted to establish an Innovation fund, and having appointed Tim Herbert as Chairman, the Minister for Economic Development has now seen fit to give some idea of costs involved.

The States are asked "to refer to their Act dated 1st May 2013 in which they approved the establishment of the Jersey Innovation Fund and agreed the Revised Operational Terms of Reference April 2013, and agree to vary the Revised Operational Terms of Reference so that Board members may be remunerated for their work."

Having approved the Board, the States are hardly likely to rescind the original vote, but it does seem a very slip-shod way of going about matters. Why could this have not been anticipated before?

It now turns out that the proposition in the States was to retrospectively fix a problem highlighted by the Auditor General:

“The Operational Terms of Reference attached to the Proposition adopted by the States clearly state that ‘Board members will not be remunerated’. Despite this provision, the post of Chairman was advertised on a remunerated basis prior to the adoption of a Proposition to pay the private sector members of the Board. It has been suggested to me that the term ‘Board members’ in the Operational Terms of Reference should be interpreted to exclude the Chairman.”

“I do not accept this interpretation: elsewhere the Operational Terms of Reference include the Chairman within ‘members’. Moreover, when the Proposition to remunerate private sector members of the Board was subsequently laid, it covered remuneration to the Chairman and there was no suggestion that this was in any way authorised by the adoption of the previous Proposition;”

So Senator Maclean was not wholly honest with the house in explaining why the terms of reference needed to be changed to include remuneration. Perhaps he can explain why he decided that the States members should not know the real reasons?

It will not do to say his Chief Officer had made a mistake, because that means he was covering up for his Chief Officer’s inadequacies by deceiving the States as to the real reason for the change in the terms of reference.

The Case of Tim Herbert

The appointment of the Chairman notes this:

The Economic Development Minister, Senator Alan Maclean, has appointed Mr Tim Herbert as chairman of the board that will oversee the Jersey Innovation Fund.

Mr Herbert is a qualified Jersey advocate and has spent most of his career in the Island and linked to Mourant Ozannes, of which he was a partner for 25 years. For the majority of his career he focused on mutual funds, corporate law and merger and acquisitions. He is now a consultant to the firm.

Mr Herbert is a non-executive director of a number of funds, the Jersey Legal Information Board and the Channel Islands Stock LBG. He also has experience of audit committees and risk committees.

So here you have a professional in charge of the committee, in a position to make recommendations for improving the risk averse culture – after all he has “experience of audit committees and risk committees.”

In 2014 it was mentioned that:

Tim Herbert, the board’s chairman, said “The whole purpose of JIF is to encourage innovation and improve Jersey’s international competitiveness, and our financial support will give Total Billing Solutions a solid platform from which to achieve both. This is the second company that JIF has supported, and is the most significant financial support that we have given so far.”

What on earth did he do, or rather fail to do? I would very much like to interview him and get the background details on how he found the board operated.

The Rest of the Board

The States website notes that:

Aaron Chatterley, Dave Allen, Peter Shirreffs and Tim Ringsdore have been appointed NEDs to the board of the Jersey Innovation Fund, joining Tim Herbert who was appointed as non-executive chairman in September.

In 2014, Alan Maclean noted that: “the board, which has considerable experience, is meeting on a regular basis to maintain progress”

In 2016, Philip Ozouf stated:

“The Board is made up of some of Jersey’s most successful and experienced entrepreneurs, supplemented by banking and legal professionals, and they have been diligent in discharging their duties.”

So how does the report focus on this diligence? And “meeting on a regular basis”

“Members of the Board on more than one occasion asserted that they did not have the time or expertise to undertake the key task of monitoring loans advanced from the Fund despite the duty in the Operational Terms of Reference for the Board to report to the Minister on the progress of loans made”

“On a number of occasions, the minutes show that private sector members recognised and declared direct financial interests in borrowers that were the subject of discussion by the Board but nevertheless participated in deliberations. Such an interest should, in accordance with normal standards adopted in the public sector (which are based on the Nolan principles), have meant that they did not take part in such deliberations. In my view officers should have provided a clear written framework for the management of such interests when the Board commenced its work.”

"Attendance by some key officer members at the Board in the first year of operation of the Board was poor, despite the high risk associated with the Board’s activities."

Did not have the time or expertise? According to Philip Ozouf, and their glowing CVs, these were the cream – some of the “most successful and experienced entrepreneurs”!

The board also failed to improve matters regarding its own operation:

“To the extent that weaknesses in the Operational Terms of Reference were recognised, the Accounting Officer should have developed proposals to vary the Operational Terms of Reference to make them fit for purpose and the Board should have continued to press for such proposals to be developed.”

In Conclusion

The blame which BBC Radio Jersey appeared to attributing to Mike King for some of the problems with the fund was probably well founded, but he was not alone, nor should be alone, in taking responsibility for the incompetence and failure of the Board.

The King’s Abdication

Canbedone Productions Keith Cavele  and Mike King

The sudden resignation of Mike King was not perhaps a surprise: his position had clearly become untenable, prone to media revelations about profligate spending.

He will certainly become a scapegoat for a few decisions - namely the Innovation Fund, where the decision on Logfiller was, as I understand it, pushed by States member in the Council of Ministers with undue haste, and undue diligence.

While he was extravagant with regard to South Africa, it seems that he was to some extent set up, the information being deliberately leaked to the press. His rugby trips, funded by the tax payer, were another example of flouting the States drive to austerity and cut-backs.

What did indeed emerge from the South African trip that has brought some benefit to the island?

Had he been more frugal, he would have no hostages to ill-fortune, and he certainly seems to have had big finger in the movie that never was (under Alan Maclean's watch). So to some extent he has been the architect of his own downfall.

His position probably became untenable; he may have been persuaded to leave under the possible impact of a disciplinary inquiry, and curtailing of his powers, perhaps his salary, or in the worst instance, dismissal. This way he walks away with some 2017 pay and a pension most of us would envy.

Meanwhile, expect a lot of mucky brown stuff to be thrown in his direction, some deservedly, some less so, as politicians see it as a good opportunity to dump their own mistakes on his reputation.

During his tenure there has been a catalogue of disasters - most of which in one way or another appear to track directly back to him. But his announcement also begs the question as to whether he was caught up in the tangle of 'ministerial decisions’ that resulted in close to £1m being frittered away and poor decisions or is indeed the architect of them. It is probably a bit of both.

Now that he is left, effectively with his silence bought, there are no chance for questions from scrutiny to him had he remained in the post.

And maybe the time is coming to wind down EDD in the same way as Housing - after all, with Event Jersey, Visit Jersey, what's left for it to do?

Both the States Innovation Fund and Digital Jersey are at present administered at arm’s length by Philip Ozouf through the Chief Ministers Office, and the External Relations Ministry deals with foreign business and trade missions to far flung corners of the planet, which used to be EDD’s remit.

Visit Jersey is now a standalone entity, Harbours/Airports and pretty much all else ‘corporatized’ leaving precious little that needs a Minister, 2 Asst. Ministers, a CEO and an army of CS’s.

The two bolt-on’s inherited from Education (sport and culture) hardly need the guidance of a ministerial department either.

That leaves Condor which they have made a pigs ear of anyway - oh and let’s not forget the lottery!

What once was EDD in terms of ‘economic development’ and its relevance has been all but fully absorbed into other departments.

Jeremy Macon is asking if we need a Chief Officer for EDD now, and I tend to agree with him

Sport is set to become a Quango in 2017.

http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2016/09/jersey-sport-figures.html

“It is proposed that a fully independent, non-remunerated Board be created to develop the strategy and oversee the implementation of Jersey Sport’s activities”

The recommendations of the Shadow Sports body also mention “CEO recruitment”:

“It is recommended that a competitive recruitment exercise be undertaken simultaneously both on and off island, in order to find a shortlist of high quality candidates likely to be interested in taking on such a challenge.”

Ag and Fish (as was) now falls into more than one Ministry. A lot of its function and certainly legislation falls to other departments, primarily Planning and Environment and DfI - leaving EDD almost in no man’s land - other than what falls under their remit in terms of:

• working closely with partners across all sectors of Jersey’s economy to support their development and diversification

• overseeing Jersey Business to support new and established businesses.

The real question is, do we need all this overblown bureaucracy and duplicity for the island to function? We are just 45 square miles with a population about the same size of Luton! We have lost all idea of perspective.

Waterfront Update

This update (see below my comments) came my way as a comment on my blog in the closing hours of last year and is reprinted below.

My own fear with the Waterfront comes with the picture from the Masterplan shown above. No one has ever rescinded this piece of nonsense which I blogged about it in March 2010:

https://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2010/04/tunnelling-into-debt.html

Back in 2008, the proposition for the development noted that:

"The estimated long-term annual cost of maintaining and servicing the tunnel is £500,000 per annum. This cost consists of 2 main elements: (i) the cost of electricity to power lighting and ventilation; and (ii) the cost of maintaining the fabric of the tunnel (including maintenance and replacement of ventilation plant, lighting, signage, cleaning and maintaining the roadway). "

These were the figures in 2008 for maintenance, and goodness knows how much they have risen since! What is certain is that costs are not fixed, and the maintenance costs will rise, year after year, and in a time when every department is being asked to make savings, to burden the future of the Island with this kind of rising cost seems incredibly shortsighted.

What is more this was first on the agenda for the scheme and noted that:

"Sinking the main road is a significant project taking 2-3 years. Traffic management measures during construction will include a temporary dual carriageway through the existing Esplanade Square car park."

That's the car park now being developed with buildings on it!!

It also notes that "When the work is finished, a replacement public car park will be provided underground." Any site of that in plans for Planning?

My best new year resolution from the States or Mr Lee Henry (or both) would be the news that this dangerous and costly part of the scheme has been definitely and conclusively dropped. We cannot afford a sunken road. It was a lunatic scheme when the economy was buoyant; now it would be millstone around generations to come.

Waterfront Update
By John Baker - Vice Chair - St Helier Waterfront Action Group

The cost of Planning the JIFC - Our estimate for the WHOLE planning process for each building including all Architects and Structural Engineers fees is a realistic figure of some 8% of the building costs.

In the case of the JIFC the build cost per sq ft for a AA Office space is £300 so for example a 67,000 sq ft building basic cost would be £20,100,000 then add some for the basement parking and contribution for exterior works that would come up to approx £25million total. (Note:- I use figures to show the example in the case of building 4) so 8% of that is in fact just £2.million –

The wool is being pulled over everyone's eyes by Lee Henry identifying the £100,000 as a "planning" figure It is not, it is simply the fee for submitting the plans to the Planning and Building Services of the Department of the Environment. In fact the above figures do not allow for other professional fees - Lawyers, Surveys, Consultations, Appeals etc. etc. which would have to be paid prior to work starting on any building.

On a project of this scale this would add another 2% minimum to the above so in fact pre-build costs for each building could easily reach £2.5million. So for the 6 buildings that comprise the JIFC this would easily total some £15Million.

We trust that puts the record straight on this.

UPDATE - On 30th December 2016 Lee Henry put plans in for Building 6 JIFC, which is the plot to the immediate West of Building 5. This despite the fact that Steve Luce, bowing to pressure from us and many States members has finally agreed to REVIEW the Esplanade Quarter Masterplan.

Also despite the fact that Lee Henry still has 40% of building 4 and 50% of building 5 still without prelets. Would any normal person think of building yet another huge office block when they have struggled to fill the first 2 and have had to bribe Sanne with (allegedly) £4million worth of incentives to get them to sign the 50% prelet to building 5 to get it started? (see WAGs FB page for details on this)

Note:-It is normal in the private sector to only proceed with such developments when there is at least a 60% to 70% of pre-lets in place as Dandara did with Gaspe House the RBC building next to the Grand Hotel. Building 4 was started with only 25% let to UBS bank.

So Lee Henry has started the process of committing ANOTHER £2.5million of effectively Public funds to a building which possibly either because of a rethink by the States of the Master plan or because of a lack of demand may in fact never be built.

The incompetence shown by the current Board is staggering and we were not surprised to hear that non executive director Roger Lewis had managed to quietly resign.

Why Jersey Needs Estonia and Digital IDs

I’m in two minds about this flight to the UK for the Estonian Ambassador, Lauri Bambus, and his colleagues. On the one hand, it looks like a cavalier decision without forward consultation with his Ministerial colleagues by Senator Ozouf, but on the other, there is some justification for such a decision in this case.

That is because what is said about Estonia is correct. They are streets ahead of the UK, France – and Jersey – and a world leader in digital services. The benefits could be enormous if we want to develop our own digital economy, and use digital services to streamline government. 

Previously, over the last ten years, the Digital Jersey project (and to be fair, this was before Tony Moretta came on board) has been an abject failure. Let us not forget it has seen the resignation of one CEO in 2013 and a number of criticisms at its failure to move forward. Three years ago, there were lots of sound-bites but little substance.

CEO of Digital Jersey, Tony Moretta pointed out that Estonia has been instrumental in helping develop Jersey's digital infrastructure - including the new Digital ID system.

“Given the huge amount of guidance and assistance we are being given by Estonia, this is the least we could do as a good host. It is behaviour like this that forges strong relationship, and it is in Jersey’s interests that we have that with Estonia.”

But what we need is more transparency about the benefits. Senator Ozouf did not, in any of the reported sound-bites, mention the new Digital ID system. It is said as an aside by Tony Moretta. This I think is a mistake – if this was one of the core reasons for coming to Jersey, can we have some more detailed information on how Estonia is helping us, some flesh on the bones, so to speak.

At the moment, all we have is vague mention of lots of meetings with important people and sectors of the economy such as Digital Jersey, IT companies, Telecoms companies etc. This is not helping Senator Ozouf’s case. We need better communications, preferably by someone who can report in layman’s terms, and not in smooth vacuous sound-bites. I’m sure the detail is there: we just need someone who can write good English to do it.

So what is a digital ID solution? And what is happening with it? One document gives some details:

A digital ID solution is one of the foundational building blocks for government online services. Until now within Jersey, each online service that has required an authentication facility has built its own, leading to a proliferation of similar but incompatible systems of user names and passwords. A corporate digital ID system will provide a standard platform that the majority of Jersey’s government online services will use.

A recommended approach1 was reviewed by key stakeholders who concluded: The proposal: ‘to establish an Alpha project which, using the GOV.UK Verify hub as the model architecture, will build a prototype identity assurance hub for Jersey and establish high level requirements for the data integration approach.’ was accepted with the following requirements:

• Success criteria and critical questions should be agreed by stakeholders ahead of initiating the Alpha project.
• The project is anticipated to last four months at a total estimated cost of £50k

• In addition, a parallel, short life, work stream should be established to identify whether a product exists that, in contrast to the GOV.UK Verify model tested in the Alpha project: 
• Relies exclusively on SOJ data for the provision of a digital ID 
• Represents an alternative commercial model, specifically based on product purchase as opposed to third party service provision.

It is this second part where we are looking to Estonia, as the UK has only just introduced its own model, and we do not want to go that way and have "buyers remorse" at taking the wrong option. As Estonia has the best alternative model, that is clearly why we have been in contact with them. Why reinvent the wheel?

The States of Jersey has a number of online services that are being introduced in 2017 and 2018 which are dependent on a digital identity solution. The cost savings that those initiatives will bring are key to Jersey achieving a balanced budget so they cannot be delayed. The strategic digital identity solution therefore must be available for integration, testing and public beta by March 2017 and must be fully live by September 2017.

And from the Minutes of the Committee des Connétables, we can see how this filters through to all parts of our government services:

The Comité received the Programme Director - eGov, Chief Minister’s Department, and considered a paper seeking in principle approval for the interfacing of LICAR (the Jersey driving licence system) to the United Kingdom Cabinet Office to facilitate the provision of a digital ID for an individual.

A common digital ID system was a core component of the eGov strategy and would remove the need for multiple, service specific logons, reducing the number of passwords a user must remember and providing a faster, more efficient way to engage with the parishes or States.

An important privacy principle was that the hub did not store any data about a person’s identity but data provided by a person to the Identity Provider would be checked against that held by authoritative data sources and a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer would be returned on whether the data provided by the applicant was valid. Important privacy principles had been designed into the system in order to ensure compliance with the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) which would become law across Europe and the U.K. in May 2018; equivalent legislation was expected to be enacted in Jersey

And what has Estonia got to offer:

Estonia is a pioneer in public sector digitisation. Every citizen has a digital ID card, which means inter alia that they can use their computers or smart phones to vote in election

Every Estonian has two PIN codes, one for authentication – enabling the owner to prove his/her identity – and the other to give agreement or approval, e.g. to sign a document or make a payment. An authentication service uses a central database to check that the card and code correspond. The system has already been up and running for ten years and to date no security breach has been reported.

The administration offers citizens a total of no less than 600 e-services and 2,400 services are available online to businesses. In addition, by enabling Estonians to cast a vote remotely in just a few minutes, the digital identity approach is helping to strengthen the democratic process and reduce voter abstentions. Authentication software allows people to cast their ballot online. Votes are then encrypted to maintain anonymity and forwarded to the relevant polling office. Estonians can also use a special SIM card, which identifies the user, to vote from their mobile devices.

In conclusion...

So in conclusion.... compared with the South African flights, and the travel and accomodation costs incurred which have already been controversial, I think this may well be a good use of taxpayers money. 

My suggstion: could we please have this "emergency reserve" incorporated in the budget, so it can be allowed for in advance in future.That way, there are no nasty surprises. If not used, it can be carried forward to next year.

And please can we have some details, even if not technically specific, about what the meetings that took place here were all about, in language that is not composed of smooth sounding sound-bites. Senator Ozouf needs to work on improving his skills there, and still manages to sound more like an estate agent sound-bite generating machine.

What Breed is that Doggie in the Window?

Deputy Tracy Valois is quizzing the Home Affairs minister in the States on Tuesday to find out if Customs officers have the skills and resources to identify and detain certain breeds of dogs." This comes after the dog – named Mr Bronx -was impounded at the animal shelter after the family returned from a holiday France with the pet (who had already been in Jersey since last year). Customs said it was a “pit bull”, a dangerous breed. And yet they had allowed its importation in the first place!

Mr Bronx

One site has some interesting facts.

DNA tests of pit bull-looking dogs often come up with some surprising results. One dog, which looked to all intents and purposes like a pit bull, turned out to be 40 percent poodle! That's a funny thought, but for the dogs it's a real problem. Many cities and counties – even whole countries – have laws that ban pit bulls. Law enforcement officers can go into people's homes and take away any dog who has "the appearance of a pit bull." Even if they're 40 percent poodle. They can be taken to the pound and then killed. (1)

How can this be? Another site gives me details, and shows how hard it is, given experimental conditions for identifications of the type to be made on physical aspects of the dig themselves:

“Pit bull” is not a breed but a type that describes several breeds. The American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, and American pit bull terrier are all pit bulls

An experiment showed how poor even experts are at identification:

At each shelter, the researchers picked out 30 dogs of all different sizes, shapes, and colours, and noted how each dog had been identified. They brought shelter workers from cage to cage and asked them to name each dog’s breed based on its appearance. If the assessor felt strongly that the dog had a secondary breed, they could note that. “Mixed breed” was also an option when they had no idea.

A vet on the research team examined all of the dogs, noting their height, weight, age, colour, and other characteristics. The vet also drew a small amount of blood from the dogs and sent it to a lab that could test their DNA.

The researchers’ hypothesis was correct. “We found that different shelter staffers who evaluated the same dogs at the same time had only a moderate level of agreement among themselves,” Levy said in the press release. And they fared even worse against the DNA analysis.

Shelter workers were able to spot real pit bulls and pit bull mixes 33 to 75 percent of the time, depending on the worker. But they labelled non-pit-bull dogs as pit bulls up to 48 percent of the time. That’s almost a 1 in 2 chance that a dog with no pit bull DNA could be lumped in with the unfortunate pit bulls. (2)

This is very worrying, In the case of Mr Bronx, as there is no indicator that DNA testing has been used at all and it is clear that visual and physical assessments are highly suspect when it comes to false negatives – that is, incorrectly assessing that a dog is a pit bull when it is not.

In February Customs contacted the family again and told them Mr Bronx was being impounded and would have to stay at the Animals’ Shelter until he could be assessed. Although an independent expert, paid for by the family determined the dog was not a pit bull, a Customs’ expert disagreed, a decision that was recently upheld in court.

Meanwhile, in Canada, the dangers of misidentification mean that there is a tendency to label a dog as a pit bull purely on superficial characteristics and behaviour. A report notes:

A dog that bit a woman in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and was labelled a pit bull is not actually a pit bull, a DNA test by the SPCA shows.

As more municipalities mull bans on pit bulls and other dogs considered dangerous, the animal welfare group wants to show that identifying breeds is trickier than it looks. "It is virtually impossible — every expert, every report you will read, every peer review study explains that you cannot visually identify a dog's breed simply by looking at them," says Alanna Devine, director of animal advocacy for the Montreal SPCA.

In June, a man in NDG was charged with assault for ordering his dog to attack his wife. At the time the dog was identified by police as a pit bull, but the DNA test showed it was a mix of Rottweiler, mastiff and golden retriever. The SPCA says less than one percent of a dog's genes determines its appearance, and that there's no link between specific breeds and aggressiveness. (3)

But in America, DNA testing was used in a similar case to that of Mr Bronx

“Mindy is a canine victim of profiling. She was labelled a pitbull and that made it hard to find someone to adopt her, so shelter volunteers turned to science.”

After being abandoned, Mindy spent 6 months at the Trumbull, Connecticut Shelter. Because she looked like a pitbull, no one wanted to adopt her, so shelter workers looking for a way to help the sweet-natured dog find a home decided to solicit donations to test Mindy’s DNA to find out what she really was.

“Mindy is about 70-percent boxer and also bull terrier. She has some bulldog further down the line and a little bit of English cocker. So much for pit bull. What Mindy also has is a great personality and a bouncing, prancing way of getting around.”

Chalk up another victory for DNA in Kansas City where a man recently won an eight month legal battle with the city to keep his dog after a DNA test showed the dog wasn’t a pit bull.

Niko spent eight months at KCK Animal Control Kennels during his owners fight with the city. Animal Control Staff said the dog was a pitbull (a breed banned in the city), despite his owner’s assertion that Niko is a boxer mix. (4)

The American pit bull terrier is a term which can apply to any of the American Staffordshire terrier, the Staffordshire bull terrier, and a newer breed called the American bully. But there are no exact defining characteristics, because they share a lot of common characteristics with at least 25 other breeds of dogs, such as smooth coats or blocky heads.

In fact, a 2010 research article entitled “A Simple Genetic Architecture Underlies Morphological Variation in Dogs” demonstrated that “the dog, in contrast to some other species studied to date, appears to have a simple genetic basis dominated by genes of major effect”

Where there are genes of modest or small effect, most of the phenotypes – or traits - including body size, body mass index (BMI), etc appear to be under the control of hundreds of genes, each contributing a very modest amount to the overall heritability of the trait.

“The alternative model is that mutations of large phenotypic effect underlie most of these traits in dogs and that the same variants have been transferred to a wide diversity of dog breeds leading to phenotypic diversity from a narrow genetic base” (5)

This means that domestic dogs exhibit tremendous phenotypic diversity, including a greater variation in body size than any other terrestrial mammal, and moreover, much of the range comes from human intervention in the breeding process.

But this also means that...

“visual dog breed identification is accurate less than 25% of the time—even by professionals. According to Dr. Angela Hughes, a Canine Geneticist for Mars Veterinary, there’s a good explanation for that. “There are about 20,000 genes that go into making up a dog,” she explains. “For example, yellow colour is one gene; short legs is one gene. Of those 20,000 genes, only a couple hundred of them have anything to do with what your dog looks like.”

Dr. Hughes stresses that this is why a dog’s behaviour cannot be predicted by how he looks. “The genes that create a dog’s appearance are not the same genes that are influencing his behaviour,” she says. “That’s why it is important that we don’t pigeon-hole a dog based on how he looks.”

This can be particularly important in cases of breed-specific legislation (BSL), such as when any dogs that appear to be “pit bull type dogs” are banned from cities or automatically euthanized at shelters. Says Dr. Hughes, “It is incredibly difficult to say with any certainty that ‘this is a pit bull’ based on the fact that a dog has a blocky head shape, wide jaw and muscular build. Those same physical characteristics can be achieved from a variety of breeds, such as Boxers, Mastiffs, Bulldogs and many others. What’s more, those physical traits do not influence how that individual dog will behave, as his behaviour may be coming from genes of breeds that he looks nothing like.”(6)

Let us hope that more robust means of identification like DNA are used. Estimating breed on characteristics seems to be more akin to determining human personalities by phrenology, the study of the shape of the skull; it is not scientific, and a Magistrate's Court should not be allowed to determine a breed on that when science is available to provide far more certainty.

References
(1) http://www.pickthepit.com/
(2) http://mentalfloss.com/article/75759/dna-tests-show-many-shelter-dogs-are-mislabeled-pit-bulls
(3) http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/pitbull-attack-ndg-1.3710598
(4) https://smartdogs.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/dogs-saved-by-dna-testing/
(5) http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000451
(6) http://www.omagdigital.com/article/doggie+DNA/2010262/0/article.html

Yes Chief Minister

Best Political Home Made Fudge

Deputy Kevin Lewis asked: "Do you, Chief Minister, believe you have a realistic population policy in place? Following a recent statistics unit report, the population of Jersey will grow to 160,000 by 2065 if current migration levels from the last three years carry on."

The Chief Minister said: "We are looking at how we can be even more robust in the delivery of that population policy because we recognise that for a number of members of our community, population is an important factor and we are always trying to balance the value of immigrants, be they economic or social, coming to the Island.”

"We will look again at the balance of delivering economic growth and protecting and preserving our scarce resources, in particular what we need and what we enjoy about Jersey. They are difficult equations, but we have to bring these two together with as much up to date information as we can."

In other words, business as usual. Empty words! I can’t think of a more vacuous answer to a question that this. Ticks all the right boxes – “robust”, “important factor”, “balance”. This could be a script from Yes Minister with the hapless Jim Hacker blathering on.

Here is Jim Hacker in full flow, and it sounds remarkably similar to Ian Gorst in the same way it rambles on with generalities:

“The plain fact of the matter is, that, at the end of the day, it is the right - nay, the duty, of the elected government, in the House of Commons, to ensure that government policy, the policies on which we were elected and for which we have a mandate, the policies, after all, for which the people voted, are the policies which, finally, when the national cake has been divided up - and, may I remind you, we as a nation don't have unlimited wealth, you know, we can't pay ourselves more than we've earned - are the policies ... I'm sorry, what was the question again?”

As the “Yes Minister Diaries” say:

“Years of political training and experience had taught Hacker to use twenty words where one would do, to dictate millions of words where mere thousands would suffice, and to use language to blur and fudge issues and events so that they became incomprehensible to others.”

Senator Gorst is fast catching up!

Money Given to Logfiller Flushed Away

"No one likes to admit that they made a mistake. We have an ingrained reticence to do so, a near-primal response that little kids learn probably before they can speak. Admit your mistake, get punished. Don't, and maybe you can wiggle your way out of it." (Philip Bump)

Government funding for new business ideas is set to continue despite the loss of over £600,000 of Jersey tax payers money by a failed software company. The States auditor is reviewing how the Jersey Innovation Fund was run following the collapse of a company called Logfiller which received a loan worth half a million pounds in 2014. The fund is currently being managed by a local firm of accountants while the review is carried out

Meanwhile OctoInsight is doing remarkably well in the USA, as I reported in my blog, with an identical product and what appears like the same principals:

http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2016/10/fiscal-fantasyland.html

PR Newswire even made this connection:

"A happier day is dawning for PC users and IT managers as the universal divide between the two is being spanned by a versatile new technology, Layer8, from OctoInsight Inc. (formerly Logfiller)."

But we have been told by Philip Ozouf that some businesses must fail, and that’s the risk with giving money away. When other companies are so similar to defunct local ones that a news agency confuses the two, one has to wonder where the paper trail from the money led, and if the software, as an intellectual property of Logfiller cannot be claimed as an asset of the now defunct company. Certainly the product has not failed, and is selling well!

I hear that Advocate Tim Herbert has apparently resigned as Chairman of what appears to also be a now defunct States Innovation Board.

Ben Shenton, in the JEP, meanwhile, is blaming Mike King, but perhaps he should look more towards politicians who were perhaps over eager to make a name for themselves and encouraged lax due diligence to get a product off the ground, and a Board which also failed to ensure proper guarantees were in place.

And meanwhile, no one is actually admitting they made a mistake and messed it all up.

Maybe they should take a lesson from Ronald Reagan. As David Keene noted:

"What is becoming increasingly clear is that neither the president nor his Republican counterparts have learned the lesson that served Ronald Reagan so well during his career. Like every candidate and elected official, Reagan made mistakes. He sometimes got his facts wrong or headed down a road that could lead to political disaster."

"However, Reagan seemed always able to backtrack, admit his mistake and even apologize. The American people found this admirable trait human and endearing. Most politicians seem incapable of admitting mistakes and fail not because of some bone-headed decision, but because they continue to defend their actions when everyone else has concluded they were wrong."