Radioactive Hazards

I imagine the interview with Shona Pitman and Matthew Price will be the subject of discussion for some time to come.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7LGFfvuQhg

The crux of the matter, as stated by Matthew Price on BBC Radio Jersey was that no one, however passionately they feel about something, can go on public radio and make unsubstantiated claims against other individuals without them being able to defend themselves.

One commentator on Facebook said that

"Deputy Pitman's interview today was an agreed right of reply to the uninterrupted 10 minute slot given to Sean Power last week where he accused the Pitman's of trying to suppress press freedoms"

And asked the question:

"Why didn't Mathew Price cut Deputy Power's microphone when he made unsubstantiated allegations against the Pitman's? Why didn't Mathew Price stop Deputy Power from making these allegations when the Pitman's were not there to answer them?"

In fact, Deputy Power's interview is available online:
http://thejerseyway.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-letter-and-deputy-power.html

In this, he states that the letter was "handwritten and anonymous", and he was careful how handled it. He says "the police told me that I wasn't the only one", but "they didn't say who the other recipients were" and he and the others "had to be fingerprinted to have our fingerprints eliminated"

He does say of the recent attempt by Deputy Trevor and Shona Pitman to get an injunction against publishing a story the arson threat letter that "I was mildly surprised in that they trumped against injunctions and super-injunctions and transparency"

That's more of a comment on their actions than an accusation that they were trying to suppress press freedom. Accusations do not usually begin "I was mildly surprised." It is clear that the reason for this was the apparent inconsistency with the recent super-injunction, in which Trevor Pitman was arguing for greater transparency and not "secret court sessions".

Deputy Power also says "I've been threatened before on blogs and things, which you tend to dismiss" but nowhere does he mention Deputy Pitman here. In fact, he welcomes Deputy Pitman's comment quoted for him to hear that "Certainly no one we know would do that, and if they did we would condemn it."

At the end of the interview, there are no "unsubstantiated allegations" made - I've listened to it twice now. All he says at the end is "I've received an arson threat, and I really don't know everything else." Nowhere is there any accusation that the Pitmans or their supporters might be behind it.

I just can't hear where he made accusations against the Pitmans which is what some people are saying he did in that interview. We are fortunate that we have the verbatim words and not hearsay.

But let's look at a few other matters which came up.

Shona starts by speaking about a "smear campaign by the JEP". Matthew Price's rejoinder is that this is a reputable newspaper, staffed by professional journalists, and that she can't say those sort of things.

Nevertheless, she does give one case - the case of Geoff Southern and herself helping voters compete applications for postal votes which contravened a recent change in Jersey election law - which she says was described by the Jersey Evening Post as "electoral fraud". I've not got access to the original article from the JEP so I can't tell if the wording did use those terms.

But Matthew Price assumes that is the case, and agrees that it was not electoral fraud, but insists that it was breaking the law. What he avoids addressing is that if the JEP had used the term "electoral fraud" instead, as Shona alleged they did, they would have been misleading the public over what happened; that rather undercuts his comment about "professionalism" which he just stated.

In fact this issue came up in the States, where Senator Le Main was reprimanded and called to withdraw an allegation of "electoral fraud"

Senator T.J. Le Main: Is it not right that the Deputy has pleaded guilty to electoral fraud?

The Deputy Bailiff:  No, Senator, he has not. We are not going to discuss the case today. One moment, please. This is a matter which is before the courts, but it is a matter of public record that it is not electoral fraud. So, I did reprimand Senator Le Main for it but, Senator, I must ask you formally to withdraw the allegation of electoral fraud.

Senator T.J. Le Main: I withdraw it, Sir.

Whether that could be termed "a smear" campaign is, of course, a matter of opinion, but it is certainly a case in point which could be adduced to support that opinion, if the JEP did use that term, and Matthew Price seems unwilling to permit her to make that argument. Unfortunately, she gets sidetracked from the substantive point to be made.

The caveats I place above are simply because I do not have the original JEP press cuttings relating to the case; if anyone does, I would be pleased for receive a copy so I could verify whether or not "electoral fraud" was used.

But given that the JEP did use that phrase as Shona alleges, that would clearly be a case of misreporting, and grounds for an opinion that their reporting was "a smear campaign".

Shona's second point relates to Deputy Power whom she says is "known to be dishonest". In evidence for this, she cites his standing down as Minister for Housing after a breach of the Data Protection Law for scanning to email to himself and another, a private email between Deputy Carolyn Labey and Deputy Judy Martin.

What is extraordinary here is that Matthew Price feigns ignorance of this story - "I don't know what you're saying is true or not". That is an extraordinary admission of ignorance, as the BBC reported on this very story in 2011:

"Deputy Sean Power has resigned as Jersey's housing minister after breaching data protection laws. He said he passed on an email he found lying on a printer in the States building in August last year. .. Deputy Power forwarded it to the Data Protection Commissioner - and also a third party - and in doing that he breached the Data Protection Code." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-12345516 ). Quite how her argument would have developed from this point is uncertain, because she was not able to make it.

Of course, Deputy Shona Pitman would have probably been wiser to have a copy of that printed out from the BBC's website to show Matthew Price when he said "I cannot substantiate it at the moment".

And she does go beyond what the BBC says in their report. I can't find a news report in which Deputy Power tried to blame Deputy Southern, but perhaps one exists, but if you make that claim, you need evidence and not just an assertion. Likewise, the assertion that Deputy Power was the source of the leak to the blog site which printed a substantial amount of the email is certainly surmise as no forensic evidence has come to light to prove that.

It is an extraordinary interview, but I don't think Deputy Pitman does herself any favours by trying to talk on when Matthew Price has cut the microphone off.

But what it certainly shows is that when being interviewed by Matthew Price, ensure you have the appropriate press cuttings from the JEP, or print of a BBC web page, so that if he feigns ignorance, he can be gently reminded that he should not be quite as much of an amnesiac as all that.

I can't recall the exact wording of the JEP about the case of breaking the election law, and whether or not it actually used the term "electoral fraud", so I wouldn't have expected Matthew Price to. Primate source documents such as press cuttings are the only way to prove that was the term used, if indeed it was.

It is very strange however that he can't remember the Housing Ministers resignation, or the reason behind it, which certainly I can, and which was reported in detail by the BBC. That seems to be to be a tactic to force the interview onto other lines.

He wants to talk about the Pitman's personal situation and how they feel about it; she wants to raise matters about how they see themselves badly treated by others. In the end, I'm not sure either comes out of it terribly well.

Indulgences and the Last of Anthony Trollope’s Legacy

Indulgences

At the Opera that evening Sir Humphrey Appleby had a drink in the Crush Bar with Sir Ian Whitworth, Permanent Secretary of the Department of the Environment. We have found an account of the meeting in Appleby's private diary.

Had a chat with Ian W. over a couple of large G and Ts and those delicious little smoked salmon sandwiches in the Crush Bar.

(Yes Minister, The Middle Class Rip-Off)

A group of 12 people – including the Chief Minister, Ian Gorst, Treasury Minister Philip Ozouf, the Lieutenant-Governor, General Sir John McColl, the Bailiff, Sir Michael Birt, senior States officers and several UK MPs – dined at the Michelin-starred Atlantic Hotel on Sunday 23 June with a final bill, including drinks, of £1084.75. That's around £90 per person.

These figures emerged from a question by Shona Pitman in the States. If she had not asked it, we would be none the wiser, and doubtless the figure would have ended up in "sundry entertainment" somewhere in the States accounts. It might be an interesting supplementary to ask just where it will end up, so that we can identify its progress into the wonderful world of number time.

Deputy Sean Power thinks that this is a fuss about nothing.

"I simply do not understand the fuss over this. Four locals had lunch in a "new" St. Helier restaurant two weeks ago. Two courses and just two glasses of wine. £400.00. Like you Tony, I could not afford this nor would want to pay that kind of money. However, in Jersey, London, Dublin and elsewhere, there are restaurants that charge this as a matter of course. The Atlantic is by all accounts, very good. Besides the UK MP's were staying there. Are we suggesting they have fish and chips at Corbière, or the Goose or that Ian Gorst buys a takeaway and the sit in a TTS minibus on the Five Mile Road ??? Please!"

But of course this is putting two opposite ends together as the only alternatives. That of course is not the case at all. There is a wide range of other places less expensive that do just as good food.

Of course the MPs in question should not have been taken to a pub, let's be real. Although I do remember that John Major, former Prime Minister, had a fondest for pubs, and battered cod and chips and still does; he never forgot his roots. I always found that rather endearing.

But what kind of message does this kind of expense give? It is almost saying to the MPs that "money is no object"; it is a kind of culinary flattery, or to choose terms in "Yes Minister", a "sweetener". Only the best will do, this is how we dine MPs – these are the kinds of messages that this gives forth.

It is ridiculous to say that they should have a choice between a vastly expensive meal and fish and chips. It is like saying that we have two ways of treating warts – a top plastic surgeon, or old Meg, the wise woman with her leeches. This isn't really a good way to argue. There is of course a whole range of options in between.

For example, I'm sure that L'Horizon or St Brelade's Bay Hotel, would provide an excellent meal at a more modest cost.

Deputy Power's second argument focuses on the fact that the visiting dignitaries were staying at the Atlantic Hotel, and it would cost more to move them to another venue:

"So, had they all left the Atlantic in three taxis or hired cars or three of Curwoods cars, then gone to another restaurant like the Boathouse or the Summerville, would it have been any cheaper. They could have hired a 16 seater bus for a couple of hundred pounds, or six taxis. They might even have had a nominated non-drinking driver/s. Who knows? The UK MP's were staying at the Atlantic. It was easier to eat there, I presume. The debate is not needed"

But this surely begs the question of why choose that venue for them to stay? Surely the venue and meal had been arranged beforehand; this was not some off the cuff last minute Sunday soiree. So why not arrange for them to stay at a different venue where the meals would be more modest, such as L'Horizon Hotel or St Brelade's Bay Hotel. That way the transport problem would be resolved, and they would have a chance to see the bay – a good incidental promotion of Jersey as a tourist destination.

I agree James Rondel when he thinks that some wining and dining is called for with visiting dignitaries, but at times of austerity, in particular, this kind of Versailles style extravagance does the States no good:

"I feel that this is not the first, nor will it be the last expensive meal. Indeed this has only been brought to our attention because of some very blatant politicking. My problem is more with the civil service and I feel we need leadership from our Council of Ministers to really get a grip and indoctrinate the notion that it is the tax payers money and not their 'budgets' which allow for expensive meals."

And in the Politics Jersey Group, he makes the same point:

"The amount spent on the meal in the face of austerity is quite wrong. Further to this however is the level of blatant politicking by a certain number of States politicians. Let's remember they were the same number defending Lenny Harper's meals in St Brelade. The cynic in me suggests that this is not the first, nor will it be the last expensive meal. The mindset of the civil service is bizarre and needs a complete overhaul. They need reminding that it is our money, and not their 'budget' which they are entitled to spend. I don't think singling this meal out will solve anything, what we need is a Chief Minister who is going to revolutionise the civil service and get a better deal for the Jersey tax payer."

James is certainly right that this won't be the last expensive meal. But there is growing feeling worldwide that austerity measures meted out should begin at home. An excessively high entertainment account in Canada recently (2012) prompted the following response:

"Why should everyone but the governments tighten their belts.   There are many who cannot have wine with their dinner, in fact are even struggling to put food on the table because of the economy.   Maybe there should be a global meeting with heads of state to discuss how to cut back on the outrageous costs of  wining and dining dignitaries while discussing austerity measures for the middle class and the poor.  Perhaps they could have this meeting over the internet on a conference call.   They won't even have to leave home."

Formerly, indulgences were a means of showing that you were penitential, but the word has changed in meaning, and now it means indulging in luxury. It is perhaps a cliché to speak of politicians getting on the "gravy train", but in the case of expensive meals, that may be literally true.

The Last of Anthony Trollope's Legacy

Pity the poor little Pillar-Box
Standing in the rain all day.
Gazing out in each direction
Hoping for the next collection.
Everyone owes to the Pillar-Box
A debt they can't repay,
So pity the pretty little Pillar-Box ...
Pillar-Box, you're O.K!
Standing in the rain all day.

(Flanders and Swann, Pillar to Post)

Before there were pillar boxes for putting mail into, there were three ways of posting a letter. Giving it to a postman upon collection of mail, or waiting for the Bellman, who wore a uniform and rang a bell to attract attention, and would collect mail – or taking the letter in person to a receiving house (an early form of Post office)

It was Anthony Trollope, working as Surveyor's Clerk for the Post Office, who saw the road side letter boxes in use in France and Belgium. Trollope's report on postal services in the Channel Islands included a recommendation to try pillar boxes out in St Helier, Jersey and this pilot scheme was approved, with pillar boxes appearing in the Channel Islands in 1854. A year later, the introduction to the Channel Islands had been such as success that they were introduced to Britain.

Above all this gave young women privacy. They could send letters freely without a public trip to a post office. I can see why this took away privacy. In the 1970s, there was a post office in St Brelade's Bay, and it was a centre of gossip for the Bay, and of course back in the early 19th century, I can imagine that gossip about people bringing letters, and the names and addresses on those letters.

But now the time of the post box is gone. By the end of September 2013, 25% of them will have gone in Jersey. Apparently this is because of the fall off in use, but the statistics backing this up have not been published. We are told that "some boxes only got five pieces of mail a day", but not which ones.

It is certainly true that some of the more remote locations probably don't get a lot of post, but I find it surprising that Elizabeth Avenue, for example, is on the "hit list", as I've found it so full you cannot post mail. It is in a good location, an easy stop off the main road on the way into town in the morning. Now it is to be replaced by a new box location along the Avenue – will that be as accessible? And how do you post a letter if you live in St Aubin at St Brelade's Parish Hall(the only option)  if it is closed?

It is a shame there has been little or no public consultation by Jersey Post.

Here is the list of those going:

41 - Greve de Lecq; 123 - Val de la Mare; 104 - High Street; 125 - Ouaisne ; 113 - Corbière ; 121 - St Catherine ; 135 - Mont Au Pretre ; 126 - Bonne Nuit; 47 - Bel Royal 38 - Longueville Court ; 111 - Pied de la Rue ;12 - Mont Pinel ; 172 - Albert Quay ; 53 - Mont Cochon ; 77 - Le Rondin  ; 54 - Les Hureaux  ; 120 - Le Marais  ;58 - L'Etacq  ; 117 - Vinchelez ; 74 - Beaumont Village  ; 56 - St Aubin Sub Office  ; 97 - Mont Au Roux  ; 148 - Elizabeth Avenue  ; 49 - Ravencliffe  ; 92 - St Brelade's Bay  ; 165 - La Pulente  ; 146 - Mont Fondan  ; 130 - Airport (Arrivals Hall) ; 23 - Mont Gras D'Eau  ; 95 - St Cyr  ; 19 - Living Legend  ; 43 - Pierson Road  ; 48 - New St John's Road  ; 124 - Rouen ; 69 - Les Landes ; 20 - Greencliffe ; 143 - St Martin's Arsenal ; 110 - La Hougue Avenue ; 112 - Grouville Arsenal ; 83 - Faldouet ; 31 - Gorey Hill ; 150 - Anne Port ; 57 - Gorey Village ; 76 - La Rocque Chapel ; 27 - Le Bourg ; 70 - Pontac ; 138 - Constancia Lodge ; 139 - Havre des Pas ; 37 - Green Street ; 13 - Rouge Bouillon

We are soon going to back to the days when the Post Office was the only reliable place to post letters, as collections from remaining sites are also being reduced. It reminds me of a passage in Anthony Trollope's novel "He Knew He Was Right":

"Miss Stanbury carried her letter all the way to the chief post-office in the city, having no faith whatever in those little subsidiary receiving houses which are established in different parts of the city. As for the iron pillar boxes which had been erected of late years for the receipt of letters, one of which--a most hateful thing to her--stood almost close to her own hall door, she had not the faintest belief that any letter put into one of them would ever reach its destination.  She could not understand why people should not walk with their letters to a respectable post-office instead of chucking them into an iron stump as she called it out in the middle of the street with nobody to look after it. Positive orders had been given that no letter from her house should ever be put into the iron post." 

Not a Resigning Matter

Sir Thomas More: You threaten like a dockside bully.
Cromwell: How should I threaten?
Sir Thomas More: Like a minister of state. With justice.
Cromwell: Oh, justice is what you're threatened with.
Sir Thomas More: Then I am not threatened.
(A Man for All Seasons, Robert Bolt)

Bailiff beats no confidence vote

I'm not surprised about this - a proposition to the States "that they have no confidence in the Bailiff as President of the States, and to agree that Her Majesty be requested to dismiss him from office."

The grounds were flimsy in the least. With regard to the Roger Holland affair, the bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache, has already admitted he should not have allowed Roger Holland to join the honorary police in 1992

I am afraid that it is easy to be wise after the event. My decision in 1992 not to refer the election of Roger Holland as a Constable's Officer back to the Royal Court was made in good faith on the basis of the facts known to me at that time. With hindsight it is certainly possible to say that a different decision ought to have been made, particularly given the harm done to the victims of some of his assaults. We owe it to those victims to make sure that the Island is alert to the problems which arose, and to ensure that they do not arise again.

That is about as close as a lawyer can get to saying (1) I've made a mistake (2) I will see that it doesn't happen again. Let's be realistic about it! It is probably in part why the appointment of one Centenier in St Brelade was questioned because he had a thirty-year old offense of theft from a school canteen (and nothing since) - the message being we will not mess up again.

There was no evidence that he has in any way failed in his judicial role, as attested by a recent letter in the JEP by Advocate Charles Thacker (president of the Law Society of Jersey). Although it would be interesting to know what Advocate Sinel might have said about the Cantrade scandal, and the Bailiff's role in that. But Shona Pitman didn't bring that much more interesting matter up.

Regarding the Liberation Day speech, the topic was a gross miscalculation by both Sir Philip and Frank Walker, and as I've said before, people I know who were here during the Occupation (I'm not quite that old) were pretty disgusted with it, especially saying that the child abuse is not as bad as media reporting of Jersey . He should have apologised for that. A greater man would. He also blundered into the political arena when he said that "Senior politicians, should know better than to attempt to subvert public confidence in our judicial institutions in pursuit of a personal agenda." as it was clear he was pursuing his own agenda.

I don't know why everyone is going on about dismissals and so-and-so should resign, as if they expect them to do just that. We've had calls for Mike Pollard, the Bailliff, Frank Walker, the Council of Ministers and old Uncle Tom Cobbley and all to resign. People just don't resign like that despite the belief that somehow they should and if enough people vote on blogs they will see that and go.

This is apparent if you look at here and Guernsey. Over here - Gerald Voisin had to be voted out, he would not resign. In Guernsey, over Fallagate, Laurie Morgan refused to resign, and was only removed when his Council of Ministers resigned completely.

Reasons people resign:

a) Financial

Jeffry Archer resigned - an embarrassing bankruptcy forced him to give up a seat in the House of Commons. In recent times, two ministers accused of taking cash in return for asking questions resigned.

b) Sexual scandal

Mark Oaten resigned from the Lib Dem leadership election. His departure appeared to be because he had failed to attract enough support from within the parliamentary party (he was backed by two MPs). Two days later the News of the World revealed he had a relationship with a male prostitute a year earlier.

c) Political Rows

Michael Heseltine resigned from his cabinet job after a row with Thatcher over the Westland affair. Heseltine thought his views on the future of the helicopter company were being ignored and stormed out of No 10.

d) Knowingly Lying (and being caught out)

Profumo's sexual relationship with Keeler and his false statements to the House of Commons regarding its nature led to Profumo's resignation.

e) Criminal Matters

For example Peter Hain, Jonathan Aitken

I'm sure there are others, but my main point is that very few Jersey politicians or Chief civil servants can be shown to have come under any of those headings, and despite suspicions (for example about lying) there is no hard evidence to support their critics.

Why do we need strong evidence? I'll finish with one of my favourite quotations from Robert Bolt's A Man for All Seasons, which says it all:

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!