Lodging Houses in Jersey

http://www.thisisjersey.com/2008/07/16/community-rallies-to-help-victims/

The JEP commenting on the Broadlands fire, asked some very pertinent questions.

How many residents were living there, in what conditions and in what circumstances? Assuming that their situation was fully legal, do we still want to consider ourselves the kind of community in which families with children can find themselves living at such close quarters with so many others? It will be of relatively little immediate consolation to the families concerned, but the closeness of that brush will surely focus political attention on the Island's lodging house rules and the question of whether they remain satisfactory by modern standards.

Registered lodging houses are supposed to have minimum standards, which are detailed together with a written agreement at


http://www.cab.org.je/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=672&Itemid=66


Registered Lodging Houses-Minimum Standards and Standard Written Agreement.


It is fairly basic, and covers washing and toiletry, cooking and food hygiene, minimum space per person. Not a lot about whether there is mould on the walls, or if the fire standards are up to scratch, or if there are fire hazards in the vicinity.


There is an extremely good article available online at:

http://www.coutanche.com/housing.html


This is called "Housing and Poverty in Jersey", and here are a few selected quotations from it, which make disturbing reading.


The Residentially Unqualified

Where do these non-qualified people live? Apart from a fortunate few who live in "uncontrolled" properties, the vast majority live in lodgings. There are lodgings and lodgings. Financial institutions often have smart (and subsidised) apartments for their staff. Hotels and farms often house their workers - in varying degrees of comfort. The rest are housed in registered lodging houses, or unregistered, privately owned or rented houses.


Conditions are often cramped and sometimes unpleasant. Ironically improved standards e.g. room size per number of people - which have recently been implemented, have made matters worse in some cases. As a baby is counted as a "person", a couple in a double room may have to leave if they have a baby. Obviously one double room is not big enough for a family of three to live in comfortably, but it is far less expensive than having to rent a larger unit. Remember there is no rent rebate available, and rents average 50% higher than the market rate in the private sector for residentially qualified tenants. In any case, children are often unwelcome in lodging houses as sadly, they often are in the private sector also.

In general, many lodging houses are unsuitable for family life.


Even where accommodation complies with these regulations, families brought up in lodging houses suffer various deprivations. Babies sharing one-room units with parents create marital tension. Children of different ages lack the space and quiet necessary for proper bedtime routines. If there is inadequate space, how can children engage in creative play - or do homework properly, or have friends to play? There is no privacy for parents either. Anecdotal evidence suggests that children brought up in such cramped conditions fail to develop properly. At nursery and primary school they tend to cling to the sides of rooms because they are "afraid" of space.


Lack of space/quiet/privacy/scope for different activities for parents and children can lead to terrible tensions and family breakdown. In tolerating these conditions, Jersey is storing up emotional, social and criminal problems for the future. Indeed that "future" has already arrived as education and social workers will testify.


Deprivation in Jersey arises both directly in respect of inadequate accommodation (in relation to prevailing norms in this community) and also in the experience of marginalisation that this can engender. Whilst many of the policies that deal with the underlying housing stock will take considerable time to implement there are immediate opportunities to address some factors that tend to engender a sense of marginalisation. In particular, where opportunities for involvement, for example through the formation of householder groups, can be encouraged this can nurture a significant sense of partnership and shared responsibility.


Let us hope Terry Le Main, the Minister for Housing, tackles these matters before the next election.

Some questions I will ask him when he starts his campaign for re-election: What are you going to do to improve the lot of people in lodging houses? How often does the department check these (or have them checked) for fire safety and health standards when they are approved? Do they check the vicinity for fire hazards? Will they do so now?

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!

Untangling Chamber Statistics

Jersey's Chamber of Commerce has released the second set of results in their 2008 series of opinion polls. Designed to give business a say in election year, 154 members responded this time round, more than the previous poll. Treasury Minister Terry Le Sueur continues as the frontrunner for the Chief Minister's job, but the number of members who are still undecided has increased.

http://www5.channelonline.tv/news/templates/moneychannel.aspx?articleid=15636&zoneid=1

I heard this on BBC Radio Jersey, and it struck me as a much more balanced report.

This was mainly because they went into more details. They mentioned that Terry le Sueur was still in the lead of those named, but down from 25% in January to 21%, and that most members who responded did not want him as Chief Minister (up from 20% in January to 29% now). These were the "don't know answers" which the report said was a "significant rise". In this case, "don't know" meant none of the choices available - including Terry le Sueur.

Channel TV somehow forgot to mention that more didn't want him than did, just that "the number of members who are still undecided has increased." But those "don't knows" were in fact decided about one thing - they didn't want him. That was clear from the Chamber Report, and the BBC presentation.

A few caveats: This is only 154 responses from 550 members., a 28% reply rate of those who bothered enough to do the questionnaire, which means that all we know for certain is that about 6% of Chamber Members would like Terry to be Chief Minister. We can't assume the sample is representative, because it is self-selecting, not random. It could be anywhere between 6% and 78% in all. And we don't know how many businesses the Chamber represents as a percentage of the total either, and whether its representation is skewed in any way..

Incidentally, the one notable option was Guy de Faye, moving from 57% not wanting him to 78% and no "don't knows" there! I feel a bit sorry for him, even if he tends to be his own worst enemy.

P.S. For Nick Palmer (if he reads this), I don't see Channel TV's reporting as a conspiracy, simply that they were not good as the BBC as presenting the statistics unambiguously in this case.

Book of the Post:
Damned Lies and Statistics: Untangling Numbers from the Media, Politicians and Activists - Joel Best

Conspiracies and the JEP

Where people do set out to have conspiracies, they don't ever end up like they're supposed to. History is a series of unintended consequences resulting from confused actions, some of which are committed by people who may think they're taking part in a conspiracy, but it never works out the way they intended. - Adam Curtis

I'm not a believer in conspiracy theories.

In "Towards a Rational Theory of Tradition", the philosopher Karl Popper considers what he called "conspiracy theory of society". His argument is that while ancient pagans, for example, attributed the vagaries of social life to the gods, people today (often discarding theism of any kind) attempt to do the same thing, only instead of attributing things to various gods, they blame powerful men or groups.

Popper states that conspiracies are bound to fail because of unexpected outcomes: "... one of the striking things about social life that nothing ever comes off exactly as intended. Things always turn out a little bit differently. We hardly ever produce in social life precisely the effect that we wish to produce, and we usually get things that we do not want into the bargain. Of course, we act with certain aims in mind; but apart from the question of these aims (which we may or may not really achieve) there are always certain unwanted consequences of our actions; and usually these unwanted consequences cannot be eliminated."

On the JEP Nick Palmer recently commented about "people who complain about the JEP not publishing letters" and how length is one major issues - "it's not an establishment censorship plot". Quite right. I hope he doesn't attribute dark motives about conspiracy theories to me. I think in fact that the list of cock-ups by the States mitigates against conspiracy theories and in favour of what Adam Curtis called "unintended consequences resulting from confused actions"

Part of this must stem from the extremely an inconsistent editorial policy - sometimes they publish long letters ( - sometimes from Stuart Syvret, so much for conspiracies! - ) and usually put details about letter lengths not being longer than so many words alongside this, which is about as good an example of mixed messages as they can make.

If they put "Letters should not be more than 400 words, but we may print them nevertheless as evidenced by the letter below depending on the editor's decision" it would be more accurate; instead it just makes it look like sloppy sub-editing.

Here are some recent letters with word count, subject and author.

(Data Protection Note: These are all from the JEP website, and therefore in the public domain worldwide)

161 Against EU domination R McCredie
231 For the Bailiff, Charles Thacker
321 On The No Confidence Motion, Ben Shenton
341 On Population John Le Maistre
342 On the Incinerator,Nick Palmer
348, On the Council of Ministers, Ken Sheehan
368 On The Waterfront, Andrew Arthur
458 On The Waterfont, Chris Whitworth
414 On Shona Pitman, Collette Crill
530 On the Bailiff, John de Carteret
551 On GST and Prices, Jim Hopley, Co-Op
664 On Electoral Reform, Elena Moran
1181 Reply to Dr Moran, Stuart Syvret

I think it can be seen from this that there is no evidence of conspiracy, but that any guidelines are often thrown to the wind. As I say, there may be good editorial reasons for this - the editor thinks the letter sustains that length for the reader or public interest, but they should really re-think their text on long letters, or they simply appear inconsistent and stupid.

In fact, rather than believe in conspiracy, I would see poor journalism at work, of the kind mentioned by Chesterton, when he wrote:

the modern editor regards himself far too much as a kind of original artist, who can select and suppress facts with the arbitrary ease of a poet or a caricaturist. He "makes up" the paper as man "makes up" a fairy tale, he considers his newspaper solely as a work of art, meant to give pleasure, not to give news. He puts in this one letter because he thinks it clever. He puts in these three or four letters because he thinks them silly. He suppresses this article because he thinks it wrong. He suppresses this other and more dangerous article because he thinks it right. The old idea that he is simply a mode of the expression of the public, an "organ" of opinion, seems to have entirely vanished from his mind. To-day the editor is not only the organ, but the man who plays on the organ.

That does not mean that I don't think there is not editorial slant.

Obviously the editor has his opinions, and is entitled to express them. Personally, I agree with G.K. Chesterton that the leader column should have a name on it, so that "writing anonymously ought to be the exception; writing a signed article ought to be the rule. And anonymity ought to be not only an exception, but an accidental exception; a man ought always to be ready to say what anonymous article he had written."

Chesterton also noted that:

there is another rule for making journalism honest on which I should like to insist absolutely. I should like it to be a fixed thing that the name of the proprietor as well as the editor should be printed upon every paper. If the paper is owned by shareholders, let there be a list of shareholders. If it is owned by one man, let that one man's name be printed on the paper, if possible in large red letters. Then, if there are any obvious interests being served, we shall know that they are being served

I don't believe in conspiracies, but with Chesterton, I think that a little transparency would help.


Books of the Post
Conjectures and Refutations, Karl Popper
All Things Considered, G.K. Chesterton

Limits to Growth: Sewage in Jersey

When I was a youngster, Jersey had a Sewage Board Committee, which later changed its name (and some of its functions) and became the more euphemistic Public Works, and then Public Services, and now TTS.

All the recent talk about the incinerator has meant attention has been diverted from the Medical Officer of Health's recent report, which actually is giving us some facts and figures about sewage, which are rather worrying.

Liquid waste disposal

The sewage treatment plant at Bellozanne is ageing and has been in operation since 1959. Over the years, treatment processes have been updated as the population has grown and as more stringent effluent standards have been required. The plant was initially built to deal with a lower total volume of liquid waste than it does today. It currently receives on average 33,000 cubic metres per day - a 36% increase since 1977.

This increase has occurred despite the many surface water separation schemes undertaken during that time which should have reduced flows. The mains drainage systems work well in general, although in extended periods of inclement weather, the network becomes overburdened with surface water from combined drainage systems (where foul and surface waters are mixed together) and from ingress through leaking pipe work. The cavern under Fort Regent is designed to take up the excess from the town area and, when flows in the system return to normal, to pump back collected sewage into the works.

The report recommends:

the early formulation of an Islandwide liquid waste strategy to determine the appropriate level of improvement and extension to the mains drainage network, along with an appropriately sized and located replacement for the Bellozanne sewage treatment plant

What is missing from the report, and perhaps may become available from TTS, is the capacity of the sewage treatment plant in tons per day, and how close it is to reaching that capacity, and how much plant is needed per head of population to sustain that capacity.

This is what I call "real joined up thinking", and there seems to be precious little of it around. Population growth always looks at housing, roads, sometimes schools, but never at the distant end of the infrastructure needed to support it. Until, as with the incinerator, it has to be done hurriedly out of necessity, because when firefighting, it is the wrong time to stop and assess the merits of different engines.

In the University of London Study "Determining Sustainable Development Density using the Urban Carrying Capacity Assessment", the authors note that "The determination of the capacity of a system is fairly straightforward when managing suburban facilities as water supply, sewage treatment, and transportation."

There is also an energy cost to sewage treatment. The UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, has produced a paper on "Energy and Sewage" in which they note:

Over 10 billion litres of sewage are produced every day in England and Wales. It takes approximately 6.34 gigawatt hours of energy to treat this volume of sewage, almost 1% of the average daily electricity consumption of England and Wales. The actual energy used will depend on the quality of sewage and intensity of treatment required. Typically, there are three stages of treatment:
. Primary. Solids are physically settled out.
. Secondary. Bacteria convert organic matter to a carbon-rich sludge.
. Tertiary. Further treatment may be used to remove more organic matter and/or disinfect the water.

Effluent is discharged to fresh, ground or coastal water.

Sludge is applied to agricultural land (62%), incinerated (19%), used for land reclamation (11%) or used for other purposes, such as composting or landfill (8%)

It would be interesting to note the statistics regarding Jersey's use of sludge.

The report also notes that:

There are mature, widely-practised technologies for generating fuels from sewage treatment and research has
identified future methods for exploiting sewage as an energy resource . In 2005 - 2006, the amount of
renewable energy generated on water industry sites was 493 gigawatt hours - 6.4% of the total energy used to
treat water and wastewater.

Regarding sustainable energy, it is also worth noting that biogas can be generated from the system, and this can offset against the energy consumption. Whether this would be viable in Jersey is another matter, considering the small size of the Island, but it is worth considering.

Biogas production from sewage sludge treatment, via a process called anaerobic digestion, is already a well established means of generating energy in the UK. Bacteria use organic matter in sludge to produce a mixture of methane (60 - 65%), CO2 (35 - 40%) and trace gases. Impurities, such as hydrogen sulphide and water, are removed and the resulting biogas is then commonly used in boilers or combined heat and power (CHP) systems. For example, anaerobic digestion facilities are being developed at United Utilities' Davyhulme sewage treatment plant that will provide 90% of the site's power via CHP. Biogas may also be used for other applications, such as vehicle fuel, if CO2 is also removed. In Linköping in Sweden, trains, buses,
taxis and some private cars run on biogas.


Links:
Report on Energy and Sewage
http://www.alphagalileo.org/images/pdf.pdf

Determining Sustainable Development Density using the Urban Carrying Capacity Assessment
http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/208/1/paper78.pdf.

Medical Officer of Health report
http://www.gov.je/Health/public_health/OurIslandOurHealth2008.htm

Jersey in Ireland: Questions for Election Candidates

http://www.independent.ie/business/aibs-jersey-chief-sacked-from-his-role-in-waterfront-enterprise-board-1429470.html

I missed this a few days ago, dated July 08 2008.

The Irish Independent reported that:

THE chairman of Allied Irish Banks (AIB) in the Channel Islands (CI) has been sacked from his position as chairman of Jersey's Waterfront Enterprise Board (WEB) over his role in a property project involving Harcourt Developments. Gerald Voisin, a former Jersey politician, was removed from his role on WEB after 22 members of the Jersey parliament voted that he should go because he failed to declare that he was chairman of the CI branch of AIB -- a subsidiary of AIB which is backing Harcourt as a preferred bidder in the development of a £330m financial services centre in St Helier called the Esplanade Quarter.

Regarding their reporting of the case, Terry le Sueur really does not come out of it very well.

All sorts of accusations were asserted during the three-hour debate last week in Jersey with some 22 politicians speaking out against his role on WEB. Mr Voisin released a statement to the media last week stating that he had no involvement with AIB in Dublin and its transactions with Harcourt and refused to step down but he was later asked to resign his position. Last week Senator Jim Perchard also stepped down stating that he did not want to "swim in murky waters". He said he thought that Mr Voisin's chairmanship in both companies was too much of a "cosy relationship". Support for Mr Voisin came from Treasury Minister Terry Le Sueur, among others, who said the timing of the proposition was wrong and would not be good governance.

It also mentions that the Harcourt development is going to be on-hold at least until the Irish hearing in October 2008, which if it takes eight weeks (it may not) would take us to December 2008! That is not counting how long the Nevada case may go on for either.

That means that it will be a new States (post-elections) that will be looking at the results of the "due diligence checks", which should be interesting. Candidates therefore should expect to be asked questions about the Waterfront (and its 1/2 million sunken road running costs).

Harcourt is embroiled in a court action in Dublin with three businessmen claiming that they have an ownership on property deals with the company in Jersey and London. The details of lawsuits against Harcourt in Dublin and one in Nevada have caused a political row in Jersey. Further due diligence checks are being carried out on the firm headed by Pat Doherty, before any development agreement will be signed. Harcourt is strongly defending the allegations against it and an eight- week hearing has been set aside to hear the case in October in the Commercial High Court.

Fire Management: Some Notes

Several flights into Jersey airport were cancelled after explosions and a fire at a hotel caused a cloud of black smoke to drift over the island. The blaze destroyed the Broadlands Hotel, a staff accommodation block and outbuildings in Mont Fallu, St Peter. Gas canisters were stored on site, and they could be the cause of the blasts. Crews had to pull back due to fears of further blasts and a firefighter was treated for burns. It is thought flights will resume in the morning. About 60 people were evacuated from the area, a 200m cordon put in place and a nearby swimming pool drained to help tackle the blaze.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/jersey/7506421.stm

The recent blaze at the Broadlands Hotel had the fire fighting department "stretched to the limit", as the Chief Fire Officer put it on BBC Radio Jersey News this morning. There was one other smaller fire, as well, which meant some extra resources had to be found. All current staff, all staff on retainers were called in.

One of the worrying aspects is that phrase "stretched to the limit". As the population density increases, the chance of fires is likely to increase, and even the chance of simultaneous fires (as happened last night) increases. How many fires can the fire service cope with? How long before there is an emergency which is beyond their capacity?

A report from Wiltshire notes that there is a link between fire cover and population density in current thinking. "New risk based intervention standards [are] based on population density rather than property risks."

Obviously the presence of inflammable materials contributes to the fire, but this need not be the case. Chip pan fires and tumble drier fires are controllable in smaller buildings, but how controllable are they if they break out in high rise flats? Here are two examples contained in recent months:

Fire breaks out in hotel laundry: A fire in the laundry room at the Atlantic Hotel in Jersey led to staff evacuating the building. Three fire engines were called to the hotel at around 0500 BST. On arrival all staff and guests had been evacuated and accounted for. Fire crews discovered the fire in a tumble dryer in the laundry room and managed to extinguish it quickly. Station manager, Marc Le Cornu, said: "Hotel staff did a tremendous job evacuating the entire building".

Crews tackle tumble drier blaze: Emergency services were called to a house fire at a property in Jersey on Saturday after a smoke was seen coming from a tumble drier in the flat. Two fire appliances were sent to the flat in Lewis Street. When the emergency services arrived they saw flames coming from a first floor window. Four firefighters went into the flat and brought the fire under control. There was smoke damage to the lounge and some other nearby rooms. The Fire Service said the chance of further damage was reduced because the owners had closed doors.

Fortunately, help is at hand. The UK Pathfinder project led the way in producing a detailed computerised model, based in input statistics, and being continually refined. It started with simple probabilistic chains, for example:

If we begin by assuming that the probability that an appliance is available is 1 (i.e. it has no initial workload).As soon as the appliance attends an incident, then it is unavailable to attend another call in the area, and therefore the second call must be answered by the next nearest appliance. This obviously has a knock on effect on the availability of the next nearest appliance to answer call in its area. Similar workload consideration can affect all the appliances in the brigade area.

This probabilistic information was then factored into a mathematical software model, which became the basis of the FSEC toolkit, which also uses data about population density, statistics on call outs, water supply, ease of access, time to get to scene, etc to determine whether cover is adequate, and highlight any weaknesses.

A Quantitative planning tool which can be used to inform this process is the Fire Services Emergency Cover (FSEC) Toolkit. This is a computer-based model which has been loaned to fire & rescue authorities by the ODPM to assist them in the construction of local Integrated Risk Management Plans

Note that this is a quantitative planning tool, which while needing (and getting) continual refinement, does at least supply pretty a good mathematical assessment of how good the fire cover is, and whether it needs increasing. I have not seen any evidence so far that Jersey has used this model, and rather than rely on a more qualitative "rule of thumb", or the older methods of calculating fire cover (based mostly just on buildings).

It is about time Jersey looked seriously - as an example of joined-up thinking - on how to assess the adequacy of fire cover for the Island's population before it is stretched beyond the limit - and unlike the UK, we cannot call on neighbouring counties for help.


And finally, think of those holidaymakers who have been evacuated, and especially individuals, such as members of staff, who are now homeless, and have had their possessions destroyed as a result of the fire. If there is any fund set up to help them, I'd gladly contribute.


Links:
Good Fire Safety Advice:
http://www.gov.je/HomeAffairs/Fire/Fire+Safety+Advice+on+Renting+or+Sharing+Accommodation.htm

Fire Services Emergency Cover (FSEC) Toolkit.
http://www.allbusiness.com/public-administration/justice-public-order/174536-1.html

Pathfinder Model
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/fire/pdf/144380.pdf

News and Fiction in the World

There is a new blogger around at:

http://electionsjersey2008.blogspot.com

On the latest News of the World story, he comments:

Of course the venerable Stuart Syvret immediately jumps to the conclusion that a News of the World report is factually accurate and rants that we should all "read it and weep".

I do agree (although not with the tone) that news stories should not be taken as factual, and should be sifted. This blogger dismisses it, and that is just as bad. Any historian knows that no source should be treated as wholly reliable, but not dismissed out of hand unless there is compelling evidence to suggest fraud. I don't think the News of the World has made this up, but they may well have embellished the truth.

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/1307_jersey.shtml

For instance, in the News of the World story, it is said:

A SHOCK secret police report into the Jersey House of Hell children's home reveals youngsters there WERE murdered then BURNED in a furnace to COVER UP the atrocities.

I think we can discount the notion that any police report would be so definite. Certainly, based on the forensic reports, the data is going to be circumstantial, and while it might point to a strong possibility of murder, no report is going to be so definite.

Forensic teams also found STRANDS OF NYLON which they have concluded came from the head of a broom.
And, because those type of nylon brooms were only used in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the discovery helped officers to put a date on when the bones were swept into the soil floor.

This seems to be genuine information, but note that the Telegraph is more circumspect about it:

Police are also examining strands of nylon recovered from the cellars, which they believe came from the head of a broom only used in the 1960s and 70s. If confirmed, this would add weight to the theory that the burned human remains were concealed in the cellars at around the same time.

and returning to the News of the World:

The problem has been identifying the children that went missing over the years. No records were kept of who came and left that place. Kids were shipped to the home from all over the UK and were never heard of again.

This seems to be more of a sweeping generalisation, especially, when later on in the article, it shows the result from one mainland authority, which contradicts some of that:

Lack of records still hampers police. But we can reveal that one mainland authority, Birmingham City Council, has presented the Jersey force with a list of children who were sent to the home but went missing. Although four have now been tracked down, after a mammoth search one still remains unaccounted for.

Then we have this:

Earlier this year we also uncovered allegations that pictures of BABIES being raped were taken in the care home and circulated by an international child porn ring. Experts suspect the home was responsible for many of the seedy network's 9,000 sick pictures, discovered in an infamous haul in Holland in the Nineties. It was dubbed the Zandvoort stash, after the town where it was found-but the source studio was never uncovered.

I'd give this no credence at all. It is pure speculation, and as far as I can see this originates from the News of the World; it is not in any police report they mention - although they cleverly give the impression it forms part of the same story by use of the words "experts".

In a separate case recently investigators were frustrated by the island's legal authorities who refused to charge a couple accused of beating their foster children with cricket bats. Despite being told by lawyers and an honorary police officer who reviewed the case that there was sufficient evidence to go ahead, the charges were blocked at the 11th hour. A police source said: "The argument for not charging this couple was that their natural children have said they're of good character. "The detailed statements of all the people who claim they were physically assaulted seem to count for nothing."

It would be interesting to know if this "police source" really exists. The argument mentioned seems extremely slight for not going ahead with the charges, and again I think there may well be embellishment here to cover up an absence of the real reasons.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2299534/Jersey-care-home-abuse-police-believe-children's-bodies-were-burned.html

Mamma Mia!

I went to see Mamma Mia! at the weekend. A marvelous film, both entertaining and amusing, and the only film I have ever been at when the audience (and it was packed out!) clapped at the end!

The plot is simple. The story of a bride-to-be trying to find her real father told using hit songs by the popular '70s group ABBA. It includes such hits as "Super Trouper", "Dancing Queen", "Thank You for the Music", "Money, Money, Money", "The Winner Takes It All", "Voulez Vous", "I Have A Dream" and "SOS" (see bottom for full list).

20 year old Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) has a problem. It's almost her wedding day and she doesn't know who her father is. It could be any of 3 of her mother's (Meryl Streep) past suitors. The only way to find out is to invite all three to her wedding and see what happens. American architect Sam Carmichael (Pierce Brosnan), Swedish adventurer/writer Bill Anderson (Stellan Skarsgård) and English banker Harry Bright (Colin Firth) are all invited. Also present are her mother's friends Rosie (Julie Walters) and Tanya (Christine Baranski)

I knew I'd come across a similar plot, and of course it came to me - I remembered the 1968 comedy Buona Sera, Mrs. Campbell where the title character, Carla "Campbell", is an Italian woman who -- during the American occupation of Italy -- slept with three American GI's (a Corporal (Phil Silvers), a Sergeant (Peter Lawford), and a Lieutenant(Telly Savalas)) in the course of a few weeks.

It is a good plot, when all the men come to Italy for a reunion, and revamped slightly, with the Abba songs, filmed in part on the beautiful location of Skopelos, a sleepy little island in the Aegean Sea, it is clearly destined to be a big hit. (Some of the interior and courtyard sets were filmed at Pinewood.)

Meryl Streep is wonderful, expressive in a way that an actress can be and a singer might not be, she takes the songs and makes them her own, and can also be very funny. Benny Andersson of ABBA, co-composer of the songs, called her a Meryl Streep "a miracle". Christine Baranski brings glamour and comedy, while Julie Waters brings charm, and a wonderfully physical comedy to her part. On the male lead, Pierce Brosnan has the most singing to do and manages surprisingly well. In fact, Abba's Benny Andersson has claimed that Pierce Brosnan is "great" in the new Mamma Mia! movie. The songwriter said he was annoyed by criticism of the former James Bond actor, arguing that people are judging him with too high standards. "I think he has a great voice. He couldn't sing 'Nessun Dorma' but neither could I - and I was in Abba. It's like saying Bob Dylan can't sing."

A delightful film, in which all the cast are clearly enjoying themselves, and it translates well from stage to the more difficult medium of film. The finale at the closing credits, with the cast all dancing and dressed in 70s style Abba outfits is a marvelous end to a film that just sets out to provide entertainment, nothing serious, but does so extremely well.

Song list:

"I Have a Dream" - Sophie
"Honey, Honey" - Sophie
"Money, Money, Money" - Donna
"Mamma Mia" - Donna
"Chiquitita" - Tanya and Rosie
"Dancing Queen" - Donna, Tanya, and Rosie
"Our Last Summer" - Sophie, Sam, Harry, and Bill
"Lay All Your Love on Me" - Sky and Sophie
"Super Trouper" - Donna, Tanya, and Rosie
"Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! (A Man After Midnight)" - Cast
"The Name of the Game" - Sophie and Bill
"Voulez-Vous" - Cast
"SOS" - Sam and Donna
"Does Your Mother Know" - Tanya and Pepper
"Slipping Through My Fingers" - Donna and Sophie
"The Winner Takes It All" - Donna
"I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do" - Cast
"When All Is Said and Done" - Sam and Company
"Take a Chance on Me" - Rosie and Bill
"Mamma Mia" - Cast
"I Have a Dream" - Sophie
"Dancing Queen" - Cast
"Waterloo" - Cast
"Thank You For The Music" - Sophie (over the closing credits)

West Show

One of the largest community events in the Island. Featuring Two performances daily from THE ROCKIN' HORSE EQUESTRIAN STUNT TEAM equestrian skills, thrills and acrobatic feats and THE ROCKWOOD DOG DISPLAY TEAM obedience, agility, fly-ball and spectacular stunts. Place your bets on seven races each day in the popular DONKEY DERBY Enjoy LA COMPAGNIE DU GROS NEZ ROUGE circus performers from France. CATTLE SHOW. LIVE MUSICAL ENTERTAINMENT from top local bands . GENUINE JERSEY VILLAGE.
- from the West Show publicity

I think the sun is coming out now, and I hope the weather stays good for the West Show.

http://westshow.org.je/


It took a Guernseyman, Mac Pollard (former Constable of St Peter), to come up with this imaginative way of revitalising the old Cattle Society show (which for those of us with old memories used to be at Springfield) so that there are plenty of interesting things to draw the crowds in, for example:

Rockwood Dog Display Team
Rockin' Horse Equestrian Stunt Team
Jersey Military Vehicle Club Parade
Jersey Cub Scouts Tug of War Final
Jersey Pedigree Whippet Racing Club
Paws & GSD Agility Clubs Demonstration
Chicano Magic Show
Jersey Elvis
Black Butter Jazz Band
Caribbean Revellers

But the same time, the public get to see - and enjoy - the old country Jersey, which they would not deliberately set out to see otherwise:

Parade of Champion Cattle
Cattle Show
Horse Shoeing Demonstration

The fee is really very modest for a day's fun, or even half a day. Daily Entry Charge Adults: £7 Senior Citizens: £4 Children 6 to 15 years: £4 Children under 6 years free. And it has Free Parking. Toilet facilities. Plenty of Food and Drink.

Democracy: Some Acute Questions

We hear a lot about "democratic accountability" and "democratic representatives" and voting nowadays, especially in an election year. The main idea is that you can vote, and that can change things. But that is, I think, a very simplistic idea of a democratic state, especially one which uses representative democracy.

In "Democracy: Some Acute Questions" (the Fourth Plenary Session of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences 22-25 April 1998) there are some interesting comments and papers from a global perspective which look at this in more detail. Sometimes it is useful to step beyond the narrow confines of our own society, and get a bigger picture, especially before the rain of election pamphlets begins.

Professor Wilfredo Villacota from the Philippines notes that:

For too long in the Philippines we have regarded democracy as a method for elections and policy making. We sometimes forget that democracy has the ultimate objective of choosing the right kind of leader - the right kind of leader defined in terms of competence, morality, commitment to human rights, the human person, as well as social justice. It is more complex than just the choice between authoritarianism and democracy, and more complex than the democratic choices that people in a highly developed country such as the United States face. For example, in a developing country where the media determine to a great extent the popularity of candidates, you find the preponderance of show-business people, actors, sports heroes, as aspirants for public office. There, you find a situation where electoral mechanisms are controlled by the government, where money, political machinery, political influence and rampant cheating determine who the winners are.

This certainly raises some issues locally, for instance:

a) How fairly are the candidates reported, is there bias in the local media? How can we ensure that there is not?
b) Are there limits to electoral spending, and how are these enforced?

I do not think there is "rampant cheating", or at any rate I have seen no evidence of it in Jersey politics.

Another important paper by Professor Taketoshi Nojiri (Department of Economics, Kobe, Japan) looks at "values as a precondition of democracy". I've glossed the paragraphs regarding the local situation.

Granted that the democratic system contains a sort of self-control mechanism of social powers which dictatorship does not, this mechanism, however, does not always function justly and effectively. One should not forget that the Athenian democracy killed Socrates. Citing a more familiar instance, democratic society even in our own days often in reality becomes a monopolistic system dominated by a majority power, or a claim-society (Anspruchsgesellschaft) which eventually leads to fiscal bankruptcy.

One has only to look at the way in which Stuart Syvret was suspended back in the 1980s by the States over the Limited Liability Partnerships Law, had his mail checked, and latterly, silenced over his Christmas message to see this kind of failure. These are supposedly our representatives silencing a vocal critic. Whatever one thinks of Syvret, whether one agrees or not with what he says, it should be said that the States clearly did not function justly, despite being a representative democracy.

Apart from the exceptional case of a small group, democratic decision-making in a group is normally carried out by voting. And, at that time, it is usual for the procedure of one vote per person and of decision by the majority to be adopted. This is, however, merely an ideal, because in reality men are never homogeneous, i.e. because each individual has his individual qualities: a person's ability, culture, personal circumstances, etc., are all different from those of other people. This diversity places certain demands on a democracy.

The first and most important point is respect for the opinion of the minority. The reason lies for this lies in the fact that a decision agreed upon by the majority is only an expedient which has been devised in order to decide the will of a whole group. Since no one knows the absolute truth, it is thus entirely possible that the truth can in fact have been grasped by the minority.

A decision-making process by a majority that disregards this point could result in dominance by a powerful majority and thus in a kind of autocracy.

The second point, connected with this, is to care particularly for social strata that cannot effectively organize or assert themselves. Without such a concern, such strata will be thrown into underprivileged situations. Thus, even in present-day democracy, the so-called "new poverty" (neue Armut) has emerged and constitutes one of the most serious social problems which now exists. Therefore, special consideration for these strata is indispensable in the achievement of a just functioning of democracy.

Respect for the minority is always a case in point. In a society where there are people on the poverty line, or carers with handicapped children, I am not convinced Jersey has a good record. The condition of properties in bed-sit land, the inability of the States to do anything about it - as highlighted by Nicholas France, the Catholic Dean - shows that we face precisely that kind of problem over here. Terry Le Main of Housing says they can't do anything about it!

A further requirement for the just functioning of democracy lies in the participation of almost all the qualified members in the process of voting. Apart from very rare cases, however, it would be unrealistic to expect everyone to participate. The degree of awareness of participation varies among members. A by no means small number of people are indifferent to social or political matters (apathy), or pursue exclusively their own interests, and are not willing to participate in the voting process. The low polling rate that is often deplored at general elections in democratic nations demonstrates this fact. For this reason, it is always necessary in a democracy to stimulate and strengthen people's interest in public matters and thus in the common good of the whole of society. Furthermore, for the same reason, democracy requires a competent leader who guides people on a sensible course. There has never been a democracy which has operated effectively which has not had good leaders.

In larger social groups, direct democracy becomes not only technically difficult but also inappropriate. In present-day politics, democracy is almost always indirect in character and adopts the representative system with a division of decision-making and its implementation. It is natural here that a representative stands for the interests of his party or of his supporters. But, in this instance, there is always a danger that the particular interests of his party or supporters will be generalized by him as constituting the common interest of the whole of society.

This danger can be seen most clearly in the operations of the Council of Ministers, who I do not think seem to show sufficient self-criticism. To take a trivial case (except for those involved), it has aligned itself with one group against another with regard to the importation of bull semen, and is determined to pursue what it thinks is "the right agenda". The same can be seen with school milk, the lack of exemptions for GST, the Waterfront development plans - always there is the lack of connection with the rest of society. A good leader is not someone who loses the trust of the people, and acts as if his course is the "sensible course" without engaging with the common interest of the whole of society.

For the just functioning of democracy, a deliberation on the common good is required of the representative, and likewise of all the members of the society concerned. At the same time, the representatives and the leaders must be trusted by their supporters and followers. In the democracy itself, the most decisive point in the end is trust: in an indirect democracy, after discussing at various levels and exercising their voting power, people can do nothing more than trust their representatives or leaders. Whether a society is democratic or not ultimately depends on the presence of trustworthy relations. The Confucian statement "a state cannot continue to exist without trust" must apply to democracy as well.

How much trust is there left in Jersey politics? Voting is not enough, there must be that trust, or else the only people who will vote are those who have not sunk into apathy because voting, as I've been told by many of them, "will change nothing". I think the contrary, but I think getting people on the register is not enough. There is a serious need to rebuild trust.

In addition to the above, two matters should be mentioned. Firstly, certain elements such as concern for the common good, powerful leadership, and trust in political representatives are vital in a democracy. In this respect, there is not really so great a difference between democracy and autocracy. Indeed, these elements become rather more important in the former than in the latter, precisely because in essential terms democracy is a system which presupposes the autonomy of its members.

Powerful leadership means the ability to respect the minority, to listen, and to get the trust of the people, and to be able to carry the people forward on any measures for the common good, not ignore them and press on regardless. The Poll Tax in England was an example of this kind of willful blindness. Will GST be similar in Jersey?

Secondly, and for the same reason, whether a democracy operates successfully or not depends largely on the educational and cultural level of the people concerned. If it is not above a certain level, neither positive participation nor meaningful discussion will be attainable, and such processes as one vote per person will become a myth.

And that means considering the Portuguese and Polish minorities, where even a small thing like a referendum, is presented only in English. Was this by the same Jim Perchard who provided election materials in Portuguese? Doesn't he now care now he is elected? If we don't show people we care, how can we expect them to get involved and vote? Would you? Simon Crowcroft is one of the few who is actively looking into the matter of language. Aren't there any others who care?

Limits to Growth: The Water Supply

I've been looking though the old States Minutes from 1985, and some quite interesting figures emerge.

The yield per annum of the main water supply, factoring both Queen's Valley and the Desalination plant is:

Val de La Mare etc 929,000,000 gallons per annum
Desalination 300,000,000.00 gallons per annum
Queen's Valley 475,000,000.00

Total 1,704,000,000 gallons per annum

Now back in 1985, when they were making assumptions for the year 2000 - which is why they argued for flooding Queen's Valley - the considered the following:

a) A maximum demand per head of 40 gallons per day, which is also supported by current supply figures.
b) No expansion in tourism demand - the industry has in fact been able to maintain its demand for treated water at a more or less constant figure by restraining use and investing in borehole facilities in a number of places.
c) Industrial demand increasing by 10 per cent - this trend is confirmed.
d) 0 per cent saved by metering. The States subsequently decided against domestic metering.
e) Unaccounted for use limited to 16 per cent.

For a population of 90,000, this means a demand of 40 x 90,000 x 365 = 1,314,000,000 gallons per annum

Even allowing for the cancelling out of some of b) to e), this means we are below the total of 1,704,000,000.00

But - just accounting for the population - ignoring all the other uses, this means that when the population reaches 116,712, we will have run out of capacity. In fact, because of other demands this may well happen before this limit.

It also does not take into account how soon the reservoirs will take to run dry in a drought. But it does give us a maximum figure beyond which the population cannot easily expand.

Now if you take out the Desalination plant, it reduces to a maximum of 96,164 before the population consumption per annum exceeds that of the reservoirs. Not far off the present!

I'm sure there must be similar limiting factors with (1) sewage treatment (2) electricity capacity.

Even despite the French link, only so much power can be pulled over from France. And as far as sewage treatment goes, there must be a limit on the speed at which the existing system can cope with sewage, and the amount generated per head of the population. If anyone has any figures, I'd be pleased to work on them. This kind of calculation is rough and ready, but it certainly can provide a warning note which we would do well not to ignore.

Not a Load of Old Bull

With the bull semen debate coming up, it is interesting that a US Jersey Cow Breeding group "Jersey Expansion" are looking to breed pure strains of Jersey cows.

http://www.usjersey.com/

Jersey Expansion is an identification service for recording the offspring of Registered Jersey sires out of non-Jersey dams. Jersey Expansion is a proactive response to commercial producers' increasing use of Jersey semen to breed non-Jersey heifers and cows. What Jersey Expansion will do is provide the services required to properly record progeny of Registered Jersey sires from non-Jersey dams. The service is intended to take the guesswork out of knowing how much genetic material an animal has inherited from Jerseys recorded in the AJCA Herd Register

What is extremely interesting is the secondary reason behind their programme, which is to use selective breeding to produce cattle that are more genetically pure.

There is another reason for this program, and that is to increase the concentration of Jersey genetics in the U.S. dairy population. Many dairy producers have been buying Jerseys, but the supply of purebred live cattle is limited and it is more and more difficult to find live cattle to purchase. An alternative is breeding up using superior Registered Jersey sires. The idea is to breed systematically-generation after generation-to Registered Jersey sires to develop a herd that can produce higher solids milk

By the time an animal comes through this procedure and enters the Herd Register, the genetic make-up is at least 96.9% from Registered Jersey bulls. Geneticists consider animals developed along one breed line for five continuous generations to be essentially equivalent to a purebred. Continued use of Registered Jersey sires will further dilute the residual genes from the original J1 cow. At six generations, the percentage inherited from Registered Jersey sires is 98.4%; at seven generations, it is 99.2%

It also notes that both New Zealand and Denmark "have for many years had similar programs which have been successful in encouraging dairy producers to upgrade their herds along a Jersey-sired line."

Another report which I've been reading was published in "Heredity" in 2004, entitled "Population genetic structure of and inbreeding in an insular cattle breed, the Jersey, and its implications for genetic resource management."

This is a study of the DNA pattern of Jersey purebreds in the Island.

The authors note in their conclusion that:

Allan (1987) showed, based on pedigree analysis, that the level of inbreeding observed in Island Jersey was relatively low (around 0.06) and he concluded that it was not potentially damaging to the breed. Our conclusions (based on the ability to separate the effect of inbreeding and substructure) confirm that there is no genetic threat currently posed by keeping the island demographically isolated. Importation of semen from American and Australian Jersey cattle to increase the gene pool for selection on the island and allow genetic improvement in the breed has been suggested. However, in the absence of molecular evidence for a genetically depauperate island population there seems little scientific reason to ignore Allan's recommendations.

http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v92/n5/full/6800433a.html

In the face of this, I find the "push" by a large but not wholly representive vocal group of Jersey farmers, backed by the Council of Ministers, rather alarming. The trend outside Jersey by the USA group is to encourage genetic breeding towards purebred, and yet here we are doing the opposite. The gene study showed there is no scientific reason to worry about inbreeding. Against this is a lot of scaremongering rhetoric, about how the Jersey will only survive in a Museum unless we go ahead and allow semen importation. I do get the impression, not for the first time, that the Island is being bullied into taking an action that it may regret later.

Since there are almost equal numbers of those for and against, why is the Council of Ministers taking sides? This is another trend, in which almost like a three-line whip, it decides what is best, and all the Council push forcefully for it. They are not clearly listening to those who are saying "No", because otherwise the debate would be an open one, in which the States could decide at that time, rather than - at present - the Council having already made up its mind, and trying to impose its decision on the rest of the States.

In One Hundred Years of the Royal Jersey Agricultural and Horticultural Society 1833-1933. Compiled from the Society`s Records, by H.G. Shepard, Secretary, Mr Shepard notes how even in five years selective breeding was sufficient to improve the cow:

Five years of existence were marked in the Annual Report for 1838 by the following recapitulation of work accomplished. This Society set out with the design of creating a spirit of industry and emulation; it has fulfilled its object. It has improved, greatly improved, the breed of cattle. At the last Show, one hundred and sixty head of very fine cattle, in a most superior condition as compared with former exhibitions, were declared by the Judges, to evince in the most satisfactory and conclusive manner, the undeniable improvement that is manifested in form and condition.

Selective breeding requires careful work, but has been enhanced beyond measure with the ability to freeze bull semen from local bulls. I cannot help thinking that the importation of bull semen is one of those "quick fix" measures that recommends itself largely because it is so much easier, and so much cheaper.

Breaking the Barriers of Tribal Kinship

I was thinking about overseas aid when reading an article in The Tablet about Africa by the Nigerian Paulinus Odozor (Associate professor of moral theology). On the African situation, and the way in which tribalism causes a form of community selfishness, he comments:

In most traditional African societies people had deep respect for the "other". They went out of their way to show hospitality to this other and to accord him or her the best protection possible. Often, however, the other in this case is a "known other" - someone who is either from one's family, clan or ethnic group. In other words, human rights were granted on the basis of kinship. African traditional societies had therefore no culture of universal human rights in which equal humanity was granted to the other either on the basis of common sonship and daughtership in God or on a universal recognition of the person's humanity.

Mention overseas aid from Jersey, and there is invariably a flurry of letters to the Jersey Evening Post on the subject, to say nothing of the way in which the two leading politicians have dealt with the matter. In each case, it is precisely along the same kind of lines as tribal societies in Africa that arguments are couched - we need to help the "known other", not those far-off people. Or as the phrase has it "charity begins at home." After all, they are not facing our problems, and if we don't think about it, they need not concern us.

Here is the disgraceful attempt by Frank Walker to grab money from overseas aid in September 2007

CHIEF Minister Frank Walker wants to raid the overseas aid budget to cover the cost of free nursery education for the Island's three- and four-year-olds. In a late amendment to Tuesday's Business Plan debate - when the States will decide next year's departmental spending - Senator Walker proposes reducing the overseas aid budget by £3.5m over three years to fund changes to nursery provision.

and here is Terry Le Sueur, the man who now says that GST will raise more than its targets, back in May 2007:

ISLANDERS would have to pay an extra £16m in taxes if Jersey is to hit the UN target of 0.7% of GDP for overseas aid, says Treasury Minister Terry Le Sueur.

In the same issue of the Tablet, Jon Sobrino criticised this kind of community selfishness:

What I want to talk about is how we can be human in this world, at this point in history. From where we can get hope in what I call the 'world of abundance' - Europe, the United States, other places too. Because the human spirit breathes an air today that is a little bit polluted. In the same way as the body suffers when we breathe polluted air, the same thing happens to the spirit... We want to live well. Of course we know - and I include myself because I was born in Bilbao - there is Africa, Iraq and so on. We know and we don't know. We tend to ignore the reality of two-thirds of human kind. We don't do it because we are evil people. No, but history has moved us to think that it is normal that we live fairly well. Therefore, we get surprised if we can't have a vacation in the summer. We think something has gone wrong metaphysically. Whereas with Africa in general, we look at them with some interest right now, with pity maybe, but if Africa suffers, it doesn't for us violate any metaphysical law, because it is somehow their historical destiny. For me this is a negative, a negative in the air that we now breathe.


Book of the blog:

The Eye of the Needle by Jon Sobrino SJ is published by Darton, Longman and Todd
at £9.99

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0232527393/ref=ord_cart_shr

Lies, Damn Lies and Planning Statistics

I've been looking at the document that Planning have produced as part of their case for dismembering the Island Plan - "Review of the Island Plan to Rezone Land for Lifelong Dwellings for the over 55s and First Time Buyers - Summary of Responses" (May 2008). There are various statistics relating to questions asked such as:

Do you think land should be rezoned to help meet the needs of first time buyers (82% yes)
Do you think land should be rezoned to help to meet the needs of social rent housing for the over 55s? (64% yes)
Do you think land should be rezoned to help meet the needs of housing for the over 55s enabling home owners to downsize (69% yes)

Some very pretty pie charts are given. However...

The statistics given are from a very small number of responses - 86 written responses, and several public meetings. The comments derived from public meetings were from small numbers (100 people at any one meeting at most) and do not indicate how many of those attending agreed with the statements made.

Basically, what we have with this report is a self-selected study sample. This is very weak statistically, especially given the small numbers of responses. Self-selected samples are notorious for bias, with interest groups and activitists dominating. For example, G.R Langlois Ltd, a local builder, is one of those submitting a written response. There are not (as far as I am aware) one builder for every other 85 members of the population, so any such submission is disproportionate in its weighting. In this kind of submission, to report the views of such a narrow group of people as representative of the Island as a whole seems unbalanced in the extreme.

Statistically, a self-selective study sample can only be used to establish a hypothesis. A hypothesis established on the basis of the characteristics of a self-selected sample can be valid for the sample population, but it cannot be used to draw valid conclusions about the general population from which the self-selected or skewed sample was chosen. It needs proper testing by random sampling and larger numbers.

No valid projections can be made from the results of a statistical analysis of a non-randomly selected study sample. This is because the sample is not representative of the full population, so that projecting data beyond the sample is not justified., because the sampling error is unknown and cannot be measured.

This is what vitiates any opinion poll run by Channel Television or the Jersey Evening Post, and makes them merely "fun" . These polls do not work as a barometer of views precisely because they rely on respondents returning surveys themselves, which more often than not produces a self-selecting sample who are usually biased in one direction or another. This is why the main polling companies will seek out a representative sample ( a necessary condition for predicting the behaviour of a wider group). But Planning are seeking to base a decision on precisely the same kind of response as these opinion polls!

The advantage of probability sampling is that sampling error can be calculated. Sampling error is the degree to which a sample might differ from the population. When inferring to the population, results are reported plus or minus the sampling error. In nonprobability sampling, the degree to which the sample differs from the population remains unknown.


A "self-selecting" sample - getting people to actively respond to proposals - is simply not comparable to another sample whose members were selected at random. For this reason, the study itself, should come with a warning emphasizing that those who chose to participate may not be representative of the general population, and that the unfeasibility of obtaining a representative sample constitutes a major limitation of this study.

I would recommend that Planning contact the States Statistical Department, and ask how to set up proper stratified samples, so that they don't come out with results that, quite honestly, would be good examples in an A-Level mathematics course of how not to present statistics.

For a detailed guide to sampling bias, I would recommend for the layman

Darrell Huff's "How to Lie with Statistics", still in print, and still the easiest introduction for the non-mathematician. A snip at £5.99

http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Lie-Statistics-Penguin-Business/dp/0140136290/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215501549&sr=8-1


The Tiger That Isn't: Seeing Through a World of Numbers by Michael Blastland and Andrew Dilnot (
£9.09

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tiger-That-Isnt-Through-Numbers/dp/1861978391/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215501670&sr=1-1

Darrell Huff and Fifty Years of How to Lie with Statistics, online at:
http://www-stat.wharton.upenn.edu/~steele/Publications/PDF/SteeleSS2005.pdf

How to Lie with Statistics by Kjell Konis, online at
http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~konis/talks/HtLwS.pdf

And from Joel Best, Professor and Chair of Sociology and Criminal Justice at the University of Delaware, some papers online at
http://www.statlit.org/Best.htm


and also some books:

Damned Lies and Statistics: Untangling Numbers from the Media, Politicians and Activists - Joel Best
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Damned-Lies-Statistics-Untangling-Politicians/dp/0520219783/ref=pd_rhf_f_t_cs_1


More Damned Lies and Statistics: How Numbers Confuse Public Issues - Joel Best
http://www.amazon.co.uk/More-Damned-Lies-Statistics-Numbers/dp/0520238303/ref=pd_sim_b_2


And see also, on kinds of Sample
http://www.statpac.com/surveys/sampling.htm

A Cheating Conclusion: The Williamson Report

In the dim and distant past, when I was at school, we used to have mathematics problems to work on. Unlike some schools, our head of mathematics, Charles Green, had a marvelous policy for teaching mathematics.

The mathematics text books had answers at the back! That may seem strange, but the point of this policy was to get pupils to concentrate on the important part of mathematics - working things out. It was the workings that were important, and how they led to the conclusion step by step. More points were awarded for correct working than for getting the "right answer". Indeed, it was easy for a teacher to spot people who didn't understand the mathematics, because the workings would not be there, or be incomplete, and the answer would spring out of thin air.

I was reminded of that when I read the Williamson report, and came to the recommendations, and found among them:

Develop whistleblowing policy for all staff.

This seems to arrive, unannounced, with no supporting argument, no evidence, out of the blue.

It is, par excellence, an answer with no "working things out".

But when we look at the recommendations of a very similar (but much more detailed) report - The Waterhouse Report - into the wide scale abuse that took place in residential homes in Wales (released in February 2000), we find a large of argument relating to the authorities constructing a "wall of disbelief" at the outset, and pressure from management down the line to conceal shortcomings and failures of the system (sound familiar?). As a result of those systematic failures, the report came out strongly in its recommendations that there be:

Whistleblowing procedures
(8) Every local authority should establish and implement conscientiously clear whistleblowing procedures enabling members of staff to make complaints and raise matters of concern affecting the treatment or welfare of looked after children without threats or fear of reprisals in any form. Such procedures should embody the principles indicated in recommendation (7) and the action to be taken should follow, as far as may be appropriate, that set out in recommendation (4).20, 58(iii),62(v)

Duty to report abuse
(9) Consideration should be given to requiring failure by a member of staff to report actual or suspected physical or sexual abuse of a child by another member of staff or other person having contact with the child to be made an explicit disciplinary offence.


Indeed, it goes further it detailing Whistleblowing, by noting that "an independent Children's Commissioner for Wales should be appointed" and "the duties of the Commissioner should include"

ensuring that children's rights are respected through the monitoring and oversight of the operation of complaints and whistleblowing procedures and the arrangements for children's advocacy;

This makes sense, because we can see how the existing system had previously failed children, and the weaknesses that were present which required all such recommendations. But the Williamson report has this recommendation, but no arguments in the report as to why it is necessary, and indeed it is very thin on the ground (unlike Waterhouse) on how that should work - look at "duty to report abuse", not just availability of whistleblowing service - but duty.

And finally...

Williamson did make unannounced visits (which was good) and speak to young people away from staff. But in a small island like Jersey, how anonymous were those interviews likely to be, and how much would people in that situation feel unafraid to speak out. (It is notable that the critics were all young people no longer in the system.) That might mean that all is well, but it might mean that they suppress what they would like to say because at the end of the day, they have to live within the system.

I cannot help thinking of what Darwin noted about slavery:

I will not even allude to the many heart-sickening atrocities which I authentically heard of; nor would I have mentioned the above revolting details, had I not met with several people, so blinded by the constitutional gaiety of the negro as to speak of slavery as a tolerable evil. Such people have generally visited at the houses of the upper classes, where the domestic slaves are usually well treated; and they have not, like myself, lived amongst the lower classes. Such inquirers will ask slaves about their condition; they forget that the slave must indeed be dull, who does not calculate on the chance of his answer reaching his master's ears.







http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4003097

Recent votes on the Waterfront

Waterfront Rescindment

Gerard Baudin's recent motion on the Waterfront - Esplanade Quarter, St. Helier - Masterplan - rescindment, was soundly defeated.

POUR: 9 CONTRE: 31 NOT PRESENT: 10 DECLARED AN INTEREST: 2
EXCUSED ATTENDANCE: 1

Below were the people supporting it. As at least one is an Chartered Accountant (in bold), we can be sure the matter will not just slip by next time with all the selective reporting that was given during the debate from the PwC and from WEB being sufficient.

Senator Stuart Syvret
Connétable Derek Frederick Gray
Deputy Gerard Clifford Lemmens Baudains
Deputy Judith Ann Martin
Deputy Geoffrey Peter Southern
Deputy James Gordon Reed
Deputy John Alexander Nicholas Le Fondré
Deputy Shona Pitman
Deputy Ian Joseph Gorst

Amazing that more did not support this, especially as the whole matter is held up anyway until the Nevada court action is decided, and a lot more investigation is done. Assurances will not be taken at face value in future! That trundles on with the next hearing due on the 21 July 2008. Watch this space. Harcourt are trying for a dismissal.

WEB Removals Part 1

Waterfront Enterprise Board Ltd - removal of States Directors and Chairman from office (a) in accordance with the provisions of Article 30(b) of the Articles of Association of the company, and having noted the resignation of Senator James Leslie Perchard as a Director on 11th June 2008, to remove all the remaining States Directors from office;

POUR: 8 CONTRE: 29 ABSTAINED: 2 NOT PRESENT: 10 DECLARED AN
INTEREST: 3 EXCUSED ATTENDANCE: 1

This was to remove sitting States members on WEB, who had clearly done a brilliantly poor job in sifting and validating any information they had, rather than just taking it at face value. Credit to Paul Routier for abstaining from a vote which could lose him his seat, shame on Jacqui Huet who did not do the same. Why James Perchard had resigned as a matter of principle and did not want other members to do so remains a mystery to me.

Senator Paul Francis Routier ABSTAINED
Deputy Jacqueline Jeannette Huet CONTRE
Senator James Leslie Perchard CONTRE

These were the only few voting to in favour of removing the States directors of WEB:

POUR
Deputy Robert Charles Duhamel
Deputy Alan Breckon
Deputy Frederick John Hill, B.E.M.
Deputy Gerard Clifford Lemmens Baudains
Deputy Geoffrey Peter Southern
Deputy Deidre Wendy Mezbourian
Deputy Sean Power
Deputy Andrew David Lewis

WEB Removals Part 2

Waterfront Enterprise Board Ltd - removal of States Directors and Chairman from office (b) to remove Mr. Francis Gerald Voisin as a non-States Director and Chairman of the company;

This presumably related more to the potential conflict of interest than badly briefing and misleading the States, because Tibbo and Crespel (the invisible other directors) remained (with their £10,000 per annum payments to do what? - provide rubber stamps?) and Steven Stephen Izzat (on his around £180,000 per annum payments).

POUR: 22 CONTRE: 15 ABSTAINED: 2 NOT PRESENT: 10 DECLARED AN
INTEREST: 3 EXCUSED ATTENDANCE: 1

These were the people who wanted to keep Mr Voisin (on his £30,000 per annum Chairman's job)

Senator Frank Harrison Walker
Senator Wendy Kinnard
Senator Terence Augustine Le Sueur
Senator Paul Francis Routier
Senator Michael Edward Vibert
Senator Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf
Senator Terence John Le Main
Senator Frederick Ellyer Cohen
Connétable Alan Simon Crowcroft
Connétable Michael Keith Jackson
Deputy John Benjamin Fox
Deputy Sarah Craig Ferguson
Deputy Guy William John de Faye
Deputy Anne Enid Pryke
Deputy Alan John Henry Maclean



(Note - all figures are in the public domain, in the WEB accounts.)

Election Year

1. Remember how they voted when it is your turn to vote!
2. Check to make sure you are registered (even if you sent in a form, it is as well to check)

Chesterton on Democracy

"The Council of Ministers could have been forced to resign. Frank Walker could have had his knuckles sharply wrapped. But, hey, this is Jerseyland, folks, so a lot of talk, but nothing happened. No change." - BBC Radio Jersey Presenter, Thursday morning, 7.10 am.

With the recent vote in the States, Voice for Children said: "It has been a very sad day in our political history. I will re produce below an e-mail I sent to my 3 'representatives' where I asked them how many Parishioners they had been in touch with before making this HISTORIC vote for them and how I would like them to vote. Are we really, as the establishment and local media would have us believe, living in a true democracy?"

http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2008/07/representing-public.html

But what is a democracy, and how does a "representative democracy" work?

This letter was written by G.K. Chesterton nearly a hundred years ago, and he was debating with another correspondent on what representative democracy actually means and whether it existed in the government of his day. Reading it, I was struck by how much it could equally apply to Jersey!

1) I say a democracy means a State where the citizens first desire something and then get it. That is surely simple.

(2) I say that where this is deflected by the disadvantage of representation, it means that the citizens desire a thing and tell the representatives to get it. I trust I make myself clear.

(3) The representatives, in order to get it at all, must have some control over detail; but the design must come from popular desire. Have we got that down?

(4) You, I understand, hold that English M. P.s today do thus obey the public in design, varying only in detail. That is a quite clear contention.

(5) I say they don't. Tell me if I am getting too abstruse.

(6) I say our representatives accept designs and desires almost entirely from the Cabinet class above them; and practically not at all from the constituents below them. I say the people does not wield a Parliament which
wields a Cabinet. I say the Cabinet bullies a timid Parliament which bullies a bewildered people. Is that plain?

7) If you ask why the people endure and play this game, I say they play it as they would play the official games of any despotism or aristocracy. The average Englishman puts his cross on a ballot-paper as he takes off his hat to the King--and would take it off if there were no ballot-papers. There is no democracy in the business. Is that definite?

The Cabal Survives

The ruling cabal have survived. Why don't they ever show any internal dissention? They seem like a many-headed hydra, thinking with one mind, singing from one hymn sheet. All we get is an inability to admit to any mistakes, lessons learnt etc, as if they were infallible. I'd sooner vote for someone who admits to being fallible, to not always getting everything right, and says they have a good record despite this. I'd love to see this 16 page defense to see if there is any evidence of a new kind of government finding its way and learning from its mistakes - and acknowledging that despite mistakes, it is getting better. But it is probably just one of those tedious lists of achievements that politicians churn out at election times.

From the JEP:

THE Council of Ministers have survived a vote of no confidence by an overwhelming majority. The States today rejected the proposition by 41 votes to eight, with two abstentions. The proposal had been brought by Senator Stuart Syvret who suggested that the vast majority of Islanders had 'no confidence, faith or trust' in the Council. But at lunchtime today, after a day's debate, Members made clear their support for Chief Minister Frank Walker and his nine colleagues. On Monday, the council released a 16-page defence, summarising their record of achievement to answer Senator's Syvret's criticism.

Now remember, it is election time this Autumn! Here is the voting, with votes grouped by type.

Senator Stuart Syvret POUR
Deputy Alan Breckon POUR
Deputy Frederick John Hill, B.E.M. POUR
Deputy Gerard Clifford Lemmens Baudains POUR
Deputy Roy George Le Hérissier POUR
Deputy Judith Ann Martin POUR
Deputy Geoffrey Peter Southern POUR
Deputy Shona Pitman POUR

Deputy Robert Charles Duhamel ABSTAINED
Deputy Peter Nicholas Troy ABSTAINED

Deputy Carolyn Fiona Labey OUT OF ISLAND

Connétable Thomas John du Feu NOT PRESENT

Senator Leonard Norman CONTRE
Senator Frank Harrison Walker  CONTRE
Senator Wendy Kinnard CONTRE
Senator Terence Augustine Le Sueur CONTRE
Senator Paul Francis Routier CONTRE
Senator Michael Edward Vibert CONTRE
Senator Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf CONTRE
Senator Terence John Le Main CONTRE
Senator Ben Edward Shenton CONTRE
Senator Frederick Ellyer Cohen CONTRE
Senator James Leslie Perchard CONTRE
Connétable Kenneth Priaulx Vibert CONTRE
Connétable Kenneth Alan Le Brun CONTRE
Connétable Derek Frederick Gray CONTRE
Connétable Alan Simon Crowcroft CONTRE
Connétable John Le Sueur Gallichan CONTRE
Connétable Geoffrey William Fisher CONTRE
Connétable Daniel Joseph Murphy CONTRE
Connétable Michael Keith Jackson CONTRE
Connétable Silvanus Arthur Yates CONTRE
Connétable Graeme Frank Butcher CONTRE
Connétable Peter Frederick Maurice Hanning CONTRE
Deputy Jacqueline Jeannette Huet CONTRE
Deputy Celia Joyce Scott Warren CONTRE
Deputy John Benjamin Fox CONTRE
Deputy Sarah Craig Ferguson CONTRE
Deputy James Gordon Reed CONTRE
Deputy Patrick John Dennis Ryan CONTRE
Deputy Collin Hedley Egré CONTRE
Deputy Jacqueline Ann Hilton CONTRE
Deputy Guy William John de Faye CONTRE
Deputy Paul Vincent Francis Le Claire CONTRE
Deputy John Alexander Nicholas Le Fondré CONTRE
Deputy Deidre Wendy Mezbourian CONTRE
Deputy Anne Enid Pryke CONTRE
Deputy Sean Power CONTRE
Deputy Alan John Henry Maclean CONTRE
Deputy Kevin Charles Lewis CONTRE
Deputy Andrew David Lewis CONTRE
Deputy Ian Joseph Gorst CONTRE
Deputy Juliette Gallichan CONTRE

 

 

Having the last word

http://www.thisisjersey.com/2008/07/01/bailiff-hits-back-at-criticism-of-speech/

Speaking at the swearing-in of new Assistant Magistrate Bridget Shaw, Sir Philip Bailhache condemned politicians who have attacked the Island's judiciary, calling them 'ignorant and unwelcome'. After saying that he 'deplores' such actions, he added: 'Senior politicians should know better than to attempt to subvert public confidence in our judicial institutions in pursuit of a personal agenda.'

But wasn't this the same Sir Philip Bailhache who followed very much his own "personal agenda" on Liberation day, with complete disregard for the Islanders who were here in the Occupation, and whom I know (because they told me) thought his hi-jacking of the day was a complete subversion of the day?

Wasn't this the same Sir Philip Bailhache exposed in BBC Radio's "The Investigation" as the Attorney General who approved the appointment of Roger Holland, and would not rescind that appointment after information about Holland's background had come to light? What message of "confidence in our judicial institutions" does that give? Was that, as the JEP headline put it, in another article about the egregious Bailiff, "championing the welfare of children"?

And incidentally, is this the same Sir Philip who now appears (to me) to have used the appointment of Jersey's first female magistrate not as a cause of celebration, but an excuse to sound off on his own agenda?

He seems to always want to have the last word. Does he like to feel in control, in a position of dominance? Is he hitting out in anger at criticism?

I'd let the reader make their own mind up.

But these comments on the kind of people who need to "have the last word" may be of interest:

http://improving-relationships.suite101.com/article.cfm/break_6_bad_habits_to_succeed

Having the last word: The typical last-word-master takes anything one party says and exceeds it. Implied is the phrase, "I can top that." This is a specific form of conversation domination, generally conveying the message that no matter what the first party described, the dominator has had it better (or worse).

and on "Anger Management", for students - and adults who still behave like petulant children:

To ensure the effectiveness of anger management, some program developers have noted that training may need to be made relevant to the students being trained. For instance, aggressive students seem to have a strong need for retaliation. They often consider "having the last word" or "striking the last blow" to be a win. Trainers can work with students to help them understand that, if they respond when provoked, they have been manipulated into losing control of themselves (e.g., they lose). In order to win, they must learn to walk away.


Links:
http://improving-relationships.suite101.com/article.cfm/break_6_bad_habits_to_succeed
http://www.unl.edu/srs/pdfs/angermgmt.pdf

Independence Day - The Invisible Report

The JEP had a whole big spread on the recent paper produced on the possibility of Jersey going independent:

INDEPENDENCE is well within Jersey's grasp, a top-level government advisory group chaired by the Bailiff has concluded. In a document that goes further towards setting out a blueprint for independence than anything yet published, the Constitution Review Group found that there were no insurmountable reasons why the Island could not become totally self-governing. The group, which includes Sir Philip Bailhache, Attorney General William Bailhache, States chief executive Bill Ogley, States international finance director Martin de Forest-Brown and States international affairs adviser Colin Powell, has been considering the issue since 2005. Mr Ogley said that the 83-page report amounted to an insurance policy should it ever become necessary to break away from the UK to safeguard Island interests, particularly its finance industry. He stressed that its purpose was not to look at the advantages and disadvantages of independence, but rather simply to analyse what the impact might be on various areas of Island affairs.


http://www.thisisjersey.com/2008/06/28/jersey-could-go-it-alone/

This was also reported by the Guernsey press, no news as yet from the Isle of Man:

The release of the report, by Jersey's Constitution Review Group, appears to have caught Guernsey's authorities by surprise. Despite the significance of the group's conclusions, that there is nothing to be feared from breaking the 800-year link with the UK and its implications for Guernsey should Jersey do just that, no official Guernsey line had been prepared. Asked about the report yesterday, Chief Minister Lyndon Trott (pictured) said he had not yet looked at it in detail. However, he is today attending a meeting between the Crown Dependencies in the Isle of Man and said that the paper would be on the agenda at the meeting when its conclusions would be discussed.

http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2008/06/30/independence-from-uk-is-a-real-option/


This report (according to the JEP) was apparently commissioned by Frank Walker. As the report notes (along with the time frame being extended at December 2006, so that it has just surfaced now):

To submit to the Chief Minister, by March 2006, a draft Public Consultation Document ("Green Paper") which outlines the factual information and objectively evaluates the implications of independence.

All this has been going on behind the scenes, and for those who like either a culture of concealment, or the notion that Frank Walker is just plain stupid (and contradicts himself), just cast your minds back to Wednesday, 14 February 2007, when the BBC News reported something quite different. There is no mention of any report here. Has Frank changed his mind? The magazine Private Eye delights in showing how politicians contradict themselves, and assume that no one notices. But here is the Frank Walker take on independence back a year and a half ago. Quite different words! How amazing that in little over a year, we could have a complete U-Turn, and there is also no mention here of the report being produced in the background, behind the scenes:

Jersey's chief minister says it would be a bad move for the Channel Islands to seek more independence. Senator Frank Walker's comments follow calls for Guernsey to look again at its ties to the UK. Islanders led by Advocate Roger Perrot want a written constitution and a more hands off approach from London. But Mr Walker does not see the need to meddle with the current arrangement and the island is now thought of as more independent than ever. He also disputes the idea the UK sometimes bullies the island into making decisions. However, he does feel it is important Guernsey and Jersey regularly meet and share information, in order to keep on top of the situation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/guernsey/6361043.stm

Jersey Eye

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=B278D782EC6C5AF8

If you haven't been on it do. A must for seeing St Helier, and how messy the Waterfront is, and where the sunken road Masterplan will go.

Squirrel

Just about to leave for work, when I saw a squirrel hop down on the fence, run along it, than scramble up a nearby tree; it was only about 10 feet away at one point, very close.

 

We are lucky in Jersey to have red squirrels, rather than the grey ones in the U.K.  The grey ones were brought into the U.K. and have tended to drive out the red, so that there are virtually no red squirrels left, but they never got brought to Jersey, so our reds are safe from competition!

The red squirrel has a reddish brown coat,  and a large bushy tail, and is the type of squirrel most seen on pictures and cartoons (like in  Bambi, or the Old Mill). It holds its food in its two front paws when it eats it; just like in pictures. It does not just eat nuts though,  it is not averse to scrabbling in the odd litter bin for any food!

After the storm of 1987, a lot of trees came down over here, and there were a lot fewer squirrels as a result, because they didn't have the cover. Now the trees are replanted, and growing back well, there are lots more around, and if you are lucky, you can see them. Some of the busy main roads in the country have a cable across from near one tree top to another, and the squirrels can use this to cross safely; they just run across this narrow cable, balancing perfectly; it is amazing to see.

Anyway, seeing that squirrel so close to hand makes me feel that the day has started off lucky!