A New Hope

The Jersey Evening Post reports, with not a little glee, that the party's over for the JDA. It highlights the recent resignation of three deputies. The leader article entitled a blow for party politics goes further and notes caustically:

Political parties stand or fall on popular support and there has been precious little evidence that the JDA has ever commanded a great deal in the way of grass-roots sympathy. Deputy Southern's poor performance in the recent Senatorial by-election, in which he placed fifth, supports this view.

I would beg to differ. There is clear evidence from the last deputies election that there is considerable support from the average voter in St Helier for the style of politics espoused by the JDA, even if this does not mean the electorate would sign up to all the JDA manifesto commitments. It is perhaps not surprising that it is in town where we find bedsit land and the poorer population who are more on the margins of society that the JDA did well. Outside of town, in the more prosperous country parishes where traditional granite farmhouses, sea views, and luxury flats on the market at around half a million pounds are found, it was most likely that the JDA would fare worst. Their constituency is naturally with the underdog and it has to be remembered that this now includes a Jersey born Portuguese population which is often treated as second rate cheap labour.

The success of candidates such as Paul Le Clair, Mike Higgins, and Judy Martin, who represent and support very much the same constituency shows that there is still a place for the likes of Trevor Pitman, Shona Pitman, and Debbie de Sousa. That does not stop the JEP leader writer, Chris Bright, from indulging in caustic overblown rhetoric:

It has to be said that neither the remnant of the JDA or its three defectors can be regarded as suitable bases for a new and perhaps much to be desired centrist movement. Leopards find it nigh impossible to change their spots and the electorate will wonder how people who have pressed a left-wing agenda so vehemently and aggressively can hope to convince anyone that they suddenly represent the sweet reason and moderation of the middle ground.

And yet if you read the same Jersey Evening Post, you will see that at the heart of working for the parish on the Battle of Flowers float was none other than Debbie de Sousa, whose strong support and pride in her own parish comes across extremely clearly in the article. That same article illustrates, with her thanks to other participants in the battle, the other contestants who came to the help of the town float. There is no left-wing agenda present here except that of showing how different people can work together for the common good -- which seems a better acted parable for those members who have left the JDA and who seek to work with any other States members for social justice and a better society for all the inhabitants of our island, not just for a few.

It is rather the doctrinaire high-handed manner of Mr Southern which may work against the remnants still within the JDA. I remember when GST was just on the drawing board arguing in e-mails with Mr Southern over his rigid stance against GST which I felt sure would fail and be an electoral liability for him. Another politician who asked me for advice at that time was also uneasy over GST. I thought there would be such overwhelming support within the house for GST that a pragmatic position of voting goes for GST and making a specific declaration that they would vote for exemptions would be a much better position to adopt. That indeed formed part of their platform -- while Mr Southern failed in a full frontal attack against GST and was left in a position of retreat, now having to adopt a fight for exemptions -- which seemed a humiliating climb-down. Yet it was precisely that which I had warned him that he would have to do in our exchange of e-mails before the election. But he would not budge. He indeed, does not seem to have changed his spots.

Incidentally, the Jersey Evening Post as usual got their facts wrong about the Jersey Democratic movement. It did not fade and die but tried once more with four candidates much later in the 1970s long after the Progressive party had disbanded - Norman Le Brocq, Stella Perkins, Chris Wakeham and someone whose name escapes me all stood under a single JDM banner - the posters had four squares with each of the candidates photos. Admittedly it failed in the election, apart from Norman Le Brocq, but it showed that it was far from moribund, continuing as a campaign group after that:

After the Second World War the right-wing Progressive Party was disbanded as soon as it had won a landslide victory over the left-wing Jersey Democratic Movement, which duly faded and died.

Moreover it was still active in late 1980s and early 1990s at the second-hand bookshop in St James Street where either Norman Le Brocq (who was in the States) or Stella Perkins would give advice and take up any cases which people brought to them. I know this because as an avid bookworm, I was frequently in the bookshop when I wasn't at Thesaurus (which I remember when it was originally at Sand Street).

Links
Read more: http://www.thisisjersey.com/2010/08/16/a-blow-for-party-politics/#ixzz0wn7HURT0

Blog Ownership

A recent comment by Stuart Syvret on his blog notes that:

I have given up ownership and ultimate control of the site to third parties - and have done so for the very obvious reason that the Jersey oligarchy are doing all they con to suppress and silence this blog - and are doing so by overt unlawful political oppression and harassment of me. Well - no matter what the outcome of the oligarchy's efforts against me - my relationship with this sight is merely one of access. I have the ability to do postings and moderate comments, just as do, say, moderators on any number of sights and other forums. They are given a certain privileged, trusted access to the sight - but do not own it - and are ultimately subordinate to the overall owner, editor, controller etc. So - even if the Jersey gangsters stood over me at a computer, held a gun to my head - and ordered me to remove postings etc - even if I complied - the postings would be restored by the overall owners/controllers within 24 hours. Indeed - if any such coercion, or court-order was obtained against me, the great probability is that the controllers/owners would reduce my privileges to the effect that I could only post and moderate - but not delete anything. And - in any event - even if by some chance this blog was removed entirely - it's all been copied - and would be reproduced in its entirety on others sites and new sites under new domains.

Stuart

It has been greeted with a degree of skepticism on another blog, but in fact, it is entirely possible to do everything that Stuart says. For those who are interested in how it is done, here is the step by step stages, which is supplied by the Tips and Tricks for New Bloggers Blog. The procedures were noted in 2007, and are easily located - it only took me 5 minutes to find them.

Incidentally, the BlogToPrint service (http://blog2print.com ) can also produce a complete downloadable copy of any blog, Stuart's included, as a PDF for $8.00. You don't even have to have any permissions as long as (a) you have the address (b) it is in the public domain. So copying the blog is cheap as well.

Transfer Blog Ownership
We were posed a question - whether a blog can be transferred to another Google account. Our initial thought was that it can't be done since each blog is registered to a specific Google account. It was only recently when we were contemplating changing the Blog Administrator status in our Tips for New Bloggers blog that we realized that the new Blogger allowed us to change the Blog owner and transfer the Blog to another person.

The scenario we shall illustrate is for the current blog owner ("Blog Owner") to transfer a Blog to another Google account holder ("New Owner"). This New Owner can also be the blog owner himself/herself who wishes to transfer the Blog to his/her other account.

Invite Contributors

The first step is to add the New Owner as a contributor to the Blog. To do this, login to your Blogger account, go to Settings -> Permissions and click "Add Authors". Type in the New Owner's email address and click "Invite".

Blogger will send an email invitation to the New Owner. The email will guide the New Owner through the steps to accept the invitation as contributor to the Blog. It will also lead the New Owner to set up a Blogger account if there isn't one. Once the Blogger account is set up, the New Owner can begin posting on the Blog as a contributor.

As a guest contributor, the New Owner has limited powers. The available functions on the Blogger Dashboard that guest contributors have are:-

1. Create Post
2. Edit Post (cannot moderate comments in posts)
3. Set own Mail-to-Blogger address to enable email publishing
4. Option to be removed as author of the Blog

Change Guest status to Administrator

To change the Blog ownership and transfer the Blog to the New Owner, the Guest Contributor status will have to be changed. The Blog Owner should login to the Blogger account and go to Settings -> Permissions. Under "Blog Authors", the New Owner's name will be shown. Click the link next to it that says "guest". By clicking it, the status will be changed to "administrator".

There will now be 2 Administrators, both entitled to the same rights. The old Blog Owner can be removed as the Blog Author after that and the only remaining Blog owner and author will be the New Owner.

http://tricks-for-new-bloggers.blogspot.com/2007/09/transfer-blog-ownership.html

But Found No Keepers There

The Radio 4 programme "But Found No Keepers There" explored the story of Flannan Isle mystery commemorated in the poem by Wilfrid Gibson. The Flannan Isles are a small island group in the Outer Hebrides of Scotland, approximately 32 kilometres (20 miles) west of the Isle of Lewis; it is the remote edge of the British Isles, and a place often beset with violent storms, and high waves that dash against the lighthouse, which has been automated since 1971.

Gibson's poem is the best known account of the mystery of 1900, when three keepers vanished from the lighthouse. It begins by setting the scene:

Hough three men dwell on Flannan Isle
To keep the lamp alight,
As we steer'd under the lee, we caught
No glimmer through the night!

When the crew arrive, the narrator recounts how they saw the deserted scene in front of them:

Yet, as we crowded through the door,
We only saw a table, spread
For dinner, meat and cheese and bread;
But all untouch'd; and no one there:
As though, when they sat down to eat,
Ere they could even taste,
Alarm had come; and they in haste
Had risen and left the bread and meat:
For on the table-head a chair
Lay tumbled on the floor.
We listen'd; but we only heard
The feeble cheeping of a bird
That starved upon its perch:
And, listening still, without a word,
We set about our hopeless search.

We hunted high, we hunted low,
And soon ransack'd the empty house;
Then o'er the Island, to and fro,
We ranged, to listen and to look
In every cranny, cleft or nook
That might have hid a bird or mouse:
But, though we searched from shore to shore,
We found no sign in any place:
And soon again stood face to face
Before the gaping door:
And stole into the room once more
As frighten'd children steal.

Aye: though we hunted high and low,
And hunted everywhere,
Of the three men's fate we found no trace
Of any kind in any place,
But a door ajar, and an untouch'd meal,
And an overtoppled chair.
And, as we listen'd in the gloom
Of that forsaken living-room--
O chill clutch on our breath--
We thought how ill-chance came to all
Who kept the Flannan Light:
And how the rock had been the death
Of many a likely lad:
How six had come to a sudden end
And three had gone stark mad:
And one whom we'd all known as friend
Had leapt from the lantern one still night,
And fallen dead by the lighthouse wall:
And long we thought
On the three we sought,
And of what might yet befall.

Like curs a glance has brought to heel,
We listen'd, flinching there:
And look'd, and look'd, on the untouch'd meal
And the overtoppled chair.

We seem'd to stand for an endless while,
Though still no word was said,
Three men alive on Flannan Isle,
Who thought on three men dead.

It is a brilliantly atmospheric poem, and gives a haunting picture of this remote lighthouse, where some disaster befell the crew, so quickly that they left their last meal in haste. Unfortunately, as the Radio 4 programme showed, it was almost completely wrong in several important ways.

The toppled chair, which keeps repeating as a refrain, and the untouched meal, were almost certainly not in place. On the contrary, the very detailed and speedy investigation found dishes washed, no signs of meals, no toppled chair, and backtracked on the daily tasks to determine when disaster had struck. The relief keeper had observed that "The kitchen utensils were all very clean, which is a sign that it must be after dinner some time they left."

Robert Muirhead, an Northern Lighthouse Board superintendent, who was sent in to investigate, noted this, and examined the clothing left behind in the lighthouse, and the damage to the west landing. He concluded that:

From evidence which I was able to procure I was satisfied that the men had been on duty up till dinner time on Saturday the 15 December, that they had gone down to secure a box in which the mooring ropes, landing ropes etc. were kept, and which was secured in a crevice in the rock about 110 ft (34 m) above sea level, and that an extra large sea had rushed up the face of the rock, had gone above them, and coming down with immense force, had swept them completely away.

Moreover, the 75 ft lighthouse was constructed for the Northern Lighthouse Board (NLB) between 1895 and 1899. When the keepers vanished in 1900, it had only just been put into service. Gibson's description of the fatalities, and the madness of other keepers, was almost certainly borrowed from other lighthouses where crews had been in service far longer; there is no record of any six dying, three going mad, or one jumping to his death.

What was the case was that the rules for having three keepers were introduced after it was found that the stress and deprivation could trigger resentment, and then irrational violence - "madness" - if there were only two keepers. In the programme, one keeper recounted how when he was in service on a lighthouse, one of his fellows had gone down with influenza, and his fellow keeper became increasingly resentful and hostile towards the sick man, as two had to do three men's work, with longer shifts, and increasing weariness.

But it is interesting to note how a myth can arise when the narrative poetic version comes to replace more prosaic facts in the popular mind.

It came to mind when chasing for the events reported in "The Lowestoft Journal", which mentioned:

Three people struck by lightning at Lowestoft air show. A teenager has been taken to hospital after being struck by lightning at the second day of the Lowestoft Seafront Air Festival. The 13-year-old boy was struck by lightning while watching the show at about 1pm and two other people standing close to him were also affected.

Another local news agency, reporting the incident at 2.55 pm the same day noted that:

A 13-YEAR-OLD boy has been struck by lightning at the Lowestoft Seafront Air Festival. It happened around 1.10pm this afternoon and the youngster suffered a minor burn.

But by the time the story was hitting the BBC news, and the national press were reporting on it, the time of the incident had changed to 1.13, and the other two spectators who were also hit had been airbrushed out of the story:

A 13 year old boy was struck by lightning at the Lowestoft Seafront Air Festival this afternoon. The incident happened at 1.13pm and the boy was cared for by the St John Ambulance Suffolk team and was quickly taken to the James Paget Hospital suffering a minor burn.

In fact, despite a headline suggesting the lightening struck the boy at 1.13pm

- Unlucky for some: Lightning strikes 13-year-old boy at 13:13 on Friday the 13th -

the Daily Mail exposed the source of the story - the time he was being treated, not the time he was hit.

The boy was struck at Lowestoft Seafront Air Festival today, Friday 13th, and it was only while the ambulance team was treating him that they noticed the time - 1.13pm.

Now, if he was struck around 1.10, anytime after that when he was being treated would have encompassed 1.13 - the only matter that is singular is the ambulance team noticing the time (and were they that concerned with looking at a watch at that point when they were actually attending to three people?). Even that part of the story sounds suspiciously made up - "the team" noticed, and no individual is named.

I suspect, that like the story of Flannan Isle, what will get into the public imagination, is that headline, and not the facts.

Acts of Prayer

Acts of Prayer
 
In solitude, the hermit prays
Floods wash over the dead
The stolen lives, lost days
He sees the broken thread
 
In darkness, the hermit prays
Bombs rend flesh to pieces
Reason flees at this malaise
He sees humanity's caprices
 
In daylight, the hermit prays
Famine grips an empty land
Swollen bellies give no praise
He sees the empty hand
 
In a crowd, the hermit prays
For justice at the end of days.

The Adventure of the Conk-Singleton Papers

In which book of Conan Doyle Sherlock Holmes stories does the phrase "Elementary, my dear Watson" occur? Many people will state that the answer to that question is that it never occured. But they will be wrong! Although not everything is as it seems.

This Friday, I'm posting a short playlet by John Dickson Carr (1906-1977). He was an American author of detective stories, who spent a good many years in England, writing both detective stories, and scripts for "Appointment With Fear", in which Valentine Dyall played the "Man in Black" with his booming, sepulcral voice.

Carr was a master of the locked room mystery, in which a detective solves apparently impossible crimes, but he was also a devotee of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories. He co-authored with Adrian Conan Doyle (Arthur Conan Doyle's son) a series of short stories entitled "The Exploits of Sherlock Holmes". It is in these stories by Carr and Conan Doyle that Holmes utters the line "Elementary, my dear Watson". Of course, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle never had Holmes say the immortal words, but read my opening question carefully! I never specified which Conan Doyle wrote the story.

For light reading this Friday, then, and in the absense of the wonderful "Sherlock" from BBC1, here is the playlet by Carr. It is a wonderful Holmes parody:

---

The Adventure of the Conk-Singleton Papers
By John Dickson-Carr

NARRATOR: Crime marches on! ... A long, thin silhouette emerges against the gaslight. Here is an unpublished record: "In turning over my notes of some twenty years I cannot find any startling event on New Year's Eve except that which is forever associated with the Conk-Singleton Papers. On New Year's Eve of 1887, it is perhaps unnecessary to state, Mr. Sherlock Holmes did not wear a paper hat and blow squeakers at the Hotel Metropole. Far into the night, while the wind howled round our sitting room in 221B Baker Street, Holmes sat bending over a microscope... ."

(SHERLOCK HOLMES at microscope, WATSON immersed in a copy of H. Rider Haggard's King Solomon's Mines)

HOLMES (after a moment looks up and stares glassily out at audience): It is spinach, Watson. Unquestionably, it is spinach!

WATSON: Holmes, you amaze me! What new wizardry is this?

HOLMES (rising): It means a man's life, Watson. The gardener was lying when he said he found Riccoletti's body in the gooseberry bushes. (He rubs his hands.) I think, perhaps, a note to our friend Lestrade ...

WATSON (jumps up): Holmes! Merciful Heaven. I had forgotten!

HOLMES: Forgotten what?

WATSON: A note for you was delivered by hand this morning. You must forgive me. I was attending the funeral of my last patient.

HOLMES (impatiently): The letter, Watson! The letter!

(WATSON takes note from his pocket, hands it to HOLMES, who examines postmark, holds letter up to light, then opens with care and reads.)

HOLMES: "There will call upon you tonight, at three o'clock in the morning precisely, a gentleman who desires to consult you about a matter of the deepest moment. Be in your chamber at that hour, and do not take it amiss if the visitor wears a mask."

WATSON: This is indeed a mystery. What can it mean?

HOLMES: These are deep waters, Watson. If Porlock had not warned me about the Scarborough emeralds ... (Thoughtfully) Three o'clock ...

(Clock strikes three. Bong! Bong! Bong! Immediately followed by three loud raps on door in same tempo)

WATSON: And that, if I mistake not, is our client now.

(Enter visitor dressed in evening clothes but covered with medals - decorations, stars, ribbons, etc.)

VISITOR: Mr. Sherlock Holmes?

HOLMES:- I am Mr. Sherlock Holmes. This is my friend and colleague, Dr. Watson.

VISITOR: You will forgive me, Mr. Holmes, if I do not reveal my identity. I also wear plain evening dress so as not to be conspicuous.

HOLMES (coldly): You would be better served, My Lord, if Your Lordship removed the mask.

VISITOR (staggering back): You know me, then?

HOLMES: Who could fail to know Lord Cosmo Conk-Singleton, third son of the Duke of Folkstone and private secretary to the Prime Minister?

WATSON: You mean ... Mr. Gladstone!

VISITOR (finger at side of nose): Sssh!

HOLMES (same): Ssssh!

WATSON (same to audience): Sssssh!

VISITOR: The matter upon which I have come to consult you, Mr. Holmes, is no ordinary one.

HOLMES: It seldom is. Pray be seated.

VISITOR (sits): It will be not unknown to you, Mr. Holmes, that for some time there has been-shall we say-disagreement between Mr. Gladstone and Her Gracious Majesty, Queen Victoria. I have here a diplomatic communication in Her Majesty's own hand, sent to Mr. Gladstone on December 15, 1886. You are empowered to read it.

(Hands important-looking document to HOLMES)

WATSON: These are deep waters, Holmes.

HOLMES: Her Majesty, I perceive, was not amused.

VISITOR: She was indeed (hesitates) somewhat vexed. (Then suddenly amazed) But how could you possibly know-

HOLMES: Her Majesty has twice underlined the word "bastard." And she has placed three exclamation points following her instructions as to what Mr. Gladstone should do with the naval treaty involving a certain foreign power. Surely our inference is obvious.

WATSON: Excellent!

HOLMES: But very superficial. (Reading again) "Even that German sausage, my late husband, could have done better." Hmm! Yes! But how do these diplomatic matters concern me?

VISITOR: Mr. Holmes, the Prime Minister has been poisoned!

WATSON: What?

VISITOR: On December 24th Mr. Gladstone received-apparently as a Christmas present from Queen Victoria-a case of Scotch whisky.

HOLMES: I see. And did the case indeed contain whisky?

VISITOR: Whisky, yes. But each bottle was most unhappily charged with two ounces of prussic acid!

WATSON: Merciful heaven! The man is dead!

VISITOR: No, Dr. Watson, no! Dei gratia, he still lives! The strength of the whisky neutralized the poison.

HOLMES (blandly): Come, come, this is most disappoi - most interesting. Have you any proof, My Lord, that the Prime Minister drank this particular whisky?

VISITOR (producing document): Here is a letter of thanks, in Mr. Gladstone's own hand, written on Christmas Eve. Pray read it aloud.

HOLMES: Will you oblige, Watson?

WATSON (very dignified, clears throat gravely, and reads): December 24th, 1886. Illustrious Madam: How extremely kind of you to send me this case of whisky for Christmas! I have never tasted such superb whisky in my life. The whisky you have sent me for Christmas is superb. I keep tasting it and how kind of you to sen me thish wondrous whichkey which I keep tasting for Xmas. It really is mosh kind of you to keep sending me this whisky in cases which I kep tashing for whichmas. Hic! Dock, dickory dock, and kissmus.

VISITOR: Can there be any doubt, Mr. Holmes?

HOLMEs: None whatever. Then it is your belief, My Lord, that Queen Victoria herself is the poisoner?

VISITOR: No, Mr. Holmes! (Horrified) A thousand times, no! But think of the scandal! It bids fair to rend asunder the fabric of the Empire! You must come down to Sussex and investigate. Will you come?

HOLMES: No, My Lord. I will not.

WATSON (amazed).. Holmes, this is unworthy of you! Why won't you go?

HOLMES: Because this man is not Lord Cosmo Conk-Singleton! (Sensation. HOLMES produces revolver.) Let me present you, Watson, to none other than Professor Moriarty.

WATSON: Professor Moriarty!

HOLMES: Your double disguise as a younger man, my dear Professor, deceived me for perhaps ten seconds. The note from Mr. Gladstone seems quite genuine. But the letter from Her Majesty is a manifest forgery.

WATSON: Forgery, Holmes?

HOLMES: Her language, Watson! Her language!

WATSON. You mean-

HOLMES: Queen Victoria, Watson, would never have written in so slighting a fashion of her late husband, Prince Albert. They intended the letter to lure me to Sussex while the Scarborough emeralds were stolen from Yorkshire, not knowing (HOLMES produces emeralds from his pocket) that Lord Scarborough had already given them to me for safekeeping!

VISITOR (in a grating voice): One day, Mr. Holmes, you will try my patience too far!

(Curtain)

The Unicorn Mystery Book Club News, 1949

A Crisis in the JDA?

I've just been reading the following:

As hinted at recently, the main author of this blog left the JDA today, and I am taking the blog with me. So, I have contrived something else to fit the initials JDACMB and renamed it. Without the JDA link, we can accept copy from anybody, if it is suitable

http://jdacmb.blogspot.com/

Jersey Discussion, Argument, Comment and Message Blog

David Rotherham

I was not totally surprised that David Rotherham has left the JDA, as he has been extremely critical of Deputy Geoff Southern's decision to stand as Senator in the recent by-election, with some pretty solid arguments on why it was unwise. A new blog has been created for the JDA at:

http://jdacouncilblog.blogspot.com/

As the old blog contains about 60% of material from David Rotherham and about 30% from Trevor Pitman, I would be extremely interested to note if Trevor will now appear on the new blog or the old, and if the new JDA blog will remain largely moribund. The section on the JDA's own website (http://jdajersey.co.uk/ ) under the link on "news" does not inspire confidence. The latest news appears to come from the appointment of patrons in May 2009, along with the heading " a new council" which has the same date. One wonders who bothers to keep the blog up to date and how long David Rotherham will remain on the biographies. For the time being, if you want a picture to his face, you can see it here, along with this comment about his age:

Bad things can happen to people who let their date of birth appear on the internet," David continues with a smile, "so to date me: let's just say the oldest local news I can remember is the Caesarea being the brand new mail boat!"

The Caesarea, as those of us with as those of us with long memories can recall was the male boat which replaced the Isle of Sark with her maiden voyage on 18 November 1960 - sorry, David, couldn't resist showing off! Those were the days when there really was a mail boat departing in the morning, often with newly weds!

On perusing the JDA website further - the "hot topics" section on the JDA website mentions the recent by-election, which suggests that the Webmaster is updating on a very ad hoc fashion.

What I have been trying to discover from the JDA website and elsewhere is the democratic process by which Geoff Southern gained the approval of the JDA membership before standing as Senator. Was this checked with all party members? Was it the result of a vote by activists alone? Or was the decision taken by a majority of the JDA council members? Or did Mr Southern decide unilaterally, or perhaps after conferring with Ted Vibert?

From the comments on David's blog, it seems to have been "more or less unilateral", with Geoff persuading all of the Council, except the North Coast dwellers, to endorse him. It doesn't look as if the membership got much of a look in. So much for democracy!

The support of the union Unite for Geoff does not inspire confidence in this respect. I have no problems whatsoever with the union deciding to sponsor an individual or a party. After all, we now know that a local businessman effectively sponsored Senator Le Main's publicity - and as long as it is stated, as that was, in the register of members interests, I have no problems with that. Sponsorship is transparent and we are a long way from the days in the 1980s when Cyril Le Marquand could spend thousands on election materials with no questions asked; in hindsight, that was not a good practice and would not happen today.

But my particular gripe is that the union Unite did not ballot its membership before deciding to use their union membership fees to sponsor Mr Southern. I have 100% verifiable evidence of that. And that leads me to question how many JDA members took part in the decision of Mr Southern to stand as Senator, and whether there was an open discussion on that decision.

It is perhaps unsurprising that Mr Rotherham has left the JDA as he was certainly and justifiably critical of that decision, and of the judgement by the JDA and Mr Southern that the catastrophic failure at the polls had done no damage to the JDA. It seems that degree of criticism was not tolerated.

Any political party, even large ones in the UK such as Labour and the Conservatives are to some degree internally a coalition of differing perspectives. That is why even Mrs Thatcher had so-called "wets" in what was arguably a very right-wing cabinet. Tony Blair with a centrist Labour position made sure that John Prescott was included.

It is when a party cannot accommodate and tolerate a degree of diversity that it fragments and loses membership. From an outside point of view, it is too early to judge whether this is happening with the JDA but the signs are not promising. If this party, which is still relatively young, is to survive, it must learn from other jurisdictions and consider its own internal workings to decide precisely how it should function as a group. The Liberals are learning this fast, as they have to accommodate their own critics from within, and work to govern for coalition policies.

In the meantime, readers can still enjoy David Rotherham's excellent and intelligence discussion, arguments, and comments on Jersey society and politics, which he may be able to express more freely as he has been doing rather than curtailing what he thinks to suit a party line. It is a shame he had to leave the JDA and perhaps they may learn lessons from this on how to involve and listen to all the membership.

Corrie Stein and the Women's refuge

A MAN has been jailed for 12 months after terrorising his long-term girlfriend with months of domestic abuse which could have killed her. On one occasion the 24-year-old man - a Polish national who the JEP has declined to name to protect the identity of his victim - smashed the woman's head into a kitchen cupboard while she was pregnant. And on the most recent occasion, which was the culmination of 13 months of abuse, he asked her which room she wanted to be beaten in before subjecting her to a vicious and prolonged attack.(1)

More than anything else, news stories , like that reported in the Jersey Evening Post last week, showed just how necessary it is that there is a refuge where women who suffer from domestic abuse can seek shelter and safety. The Woman's Refuge was established in 1988 in Jersey, and it was largely the vision and determination of one States member to push for such a sanctuary that eventually triumphed. The attitude of quite a few States members was that domestic violence was not a big issue in Jersey, something for families to sort out internally, and they said "Its not needed in Jersey". The struggle against that position was carried out by Corrie Stein, when she was a Deputy for the Parish of Grouville.

In the States Minutes of 17th November, 1987, the measure first surfaced, with the following reported:

THE STATES acceded to the request of Deputy Corrie Stein of Grouville that the Proposition regarding a refuge for battered
wives (lodged on 25th August, 1987 and referred to the Elizabeth House Committee) be considered on 8th December, 1987.

On 19th November 1987, the report was presented to the States.

The Elizabeth House Committee by Act dated 19th November, 1987, presented to the States a report relating to the setting
up of a Refuge for battered wives. THE STATES ordered that the said Report be printed and distributed.

On the 8th of December, 1987, the States began considering the proposition, although there was a move to the next item on the agenda which failed:

Refuge for battered wives. P.145/87.

THE STATES commenced consideration of a Proposition of Deputy Corrie Stein of Grouville regarding a refuge for battered wives and, after discussion, rejected the proposition of Deputy Sir Martin Le Quesne of St. Saviour that the States move to the consideration of the next item on the Order Paper. The States, having accepted an amendment that after the word ``property'' the words ``administered by the Housing Committee'' be deleted, adopted the Proposition and agreed that a property should be made available for use as a refuge for battered wives, on a trial basis for a period of two years initially, and that the Housing Committee should give effect to this decision as soon as possible.

But it was not until 1988, on 19th April, that the refuge became a physical reality:

Refuge for battered wives: 6
Plaisance Terrace. P.40/88.

THE STATES, adopting a Proposition of Deputy C. Stein of Grouville, supported the use of 6, Plaisance Terrace as a refuge
for battered wives.


Members present voted as follows -

``Pour'' (25)

Senators
Shenton, Ellis, Rothwell, Le Main,
Brooke, Carter.

Connétables
Grouville (Charles Le Maistre), St. Clement , St.
Lawrence (Iris le Feuvre).

Deputies
De La Haye(H), Morel(S), Trinity,
Rumboll(H), Grouville, Wavell(H),
Billot(S), St. Peter, Baudains(C),
Horne(H), Le Sueur(H), St. Ouen,
Huelin(B), Jordan(B), St. Mary,
Bailhache(H).

``Contre'' (21)

Senators
Jeune, Binnington, Horsfall, Le
Maistre.

Connétables
St. Peter, St. Helier, St. Mary, St.
Saviour, St. Brelade (Enid Quenault), Trinity, St.
Martin.

Deputies
Mourant(H), Le Gallais(S), Le
Quesne(S), Vandervliet(L), Beadle(B),
Blampied(H), St. John, St. Martin,
Buesnel(H), Coutanche(L).

The vote against the proposition has several notable politicians, including Reg Jeune, Bernard Binnington, Pierre Horsfall and Jean Le Maistre. It is rather appalling that these luminaries had this attitude, especially as two of whom became - as President of Policy and Resources - the nearest the old system had to a Chief Minister. I would hope that they've learned more about the problem of wife beating now, and would vote differently today.

It may seem surprising that there were also some women voting against Corrie Stein, including the Constable of St Brelade, Mrs. Enid Quenault and Deputy Margaret Beadle. Why on earth did they think it was not needed? Iris le Feuvre, however, the Constable of St Lawrence, voted in favour, as did Senator Betty Brooke.

However, Jean le Maistre pointed out that there may have been tactical voting involved, that it should be the responsibility of the States and that the following words

The States, having accepted an amendment that after the word ``property'' the words ``administered by the Housing Committee'' be deleted, would have the effect of causing a refuge not to be established as was intended or needed. In other words it was a tactical amendment which would have the effect of saying yes but not giving the necessary resources . By throwing it 'into the air' would probably mean that a refuge would never be established.

For all the criticism that has been levied at Senator Le Main in recent months, he voted in favour of the refuge. And it was a close vote 25 to 21, so every vote was needed.

In 2002, Corrie Stein, now a Senator, stood for re-election. In her manifesto, she outlined her part in this, and her desire to see greater fairness and less discrimination against women:

I know I can make a difference and intend to continue to make one. Through the many debates I have led on women's issues, presiding over the Sex Discrimination Committee, I created an awareness of the need for greater equality between men and women in a male dominated States. It was not easy and although not all issues have been addressed, great improvements have been made. My strength lies in bringing social issues to the fore. I was instrumental in a number of matters, including the women's refuge, minimum pay and security of tenure. I feel sad about the public dissatisfaction with the States... I want to encourage our young people to stay and return to the Island. I also want to support health care for the elderly, want to introduce PAYE and support mortgage interest tax relief only on main residences. I support our finance, agriculture and tourism industries and want to make affordable childcare more available. We must govern with long-term aims in mind, have vision, determination, enthusiasm and compassion. I have experience and I will make a difference!

But unfortunately, it was not to be, and 21 years in the States came to an end at the age of 61. The JEP noted (in a rather ageist comment) that:

The 61-year-old grandmother, who rose to prominence as a champion of women's rights was deserted by the electorate, finishing ninth.
She immediately ruled out standing in next month's Deputies elections.

The results did see the entrance of Wendy Kinnard as Senator, but it was startling how Corrie Stein had been dropped by the electorate.

Philip Ozouf: 14442
Wendy Kinnard: 12230
Paul Routier: 11687
Mike Vibert: 10624
Len Norman: 10192
Frank Walker: 9377

Guy de Faye: 7576
Terry McDonald: 7488
Corrie Stein: 7303


Looking at the hustings reports, I am struck how few of the issues that she championed were foremost in people's minds. The economy, crime, population all featured strongly, but her main points hardly got a mention:

Health Funding, introduce a new Jersey health insurance.
Long term Residential and Nursing Care for the elderly.
Housing, to provide affordable homes for our young people.
Continue to bring pressure on improving work place practices.
Continue to bring pressure on introducing maternity rights legislation.
Continue to bring pressure on a speedy introduction of long awaited minimum pay.
The introduction of PAYE.
The abolishment of Mortgage Tax Relief to be continued only for the main principal residence.
Reducing the waiting time for housing qualifications

Of these, ITIS - while not PAYE - does at least address some of that demand, and mortgage tax relief only applies to principal residences, housing qualification times have been reduced, and there is minimum pay in place. But with an ageing population, there is still much to be done to help the elderly, and affordable homes are even further out of reach for many.

In her election leaflet, she said she would support policies that:

Put people before profit.
Ensure fairness and good quality of life for all.

That, certainly, is what I think we need in any aspiring politicians, especially as GST on basic foodstuffs, and the "black hole" where one business pays tax and its neigbour does not, suggest that people and fairness are issues that the States has yet to address adequately. And there is still a need for improving equality in employment for women.

Links:
(1) http://www.thisisjersey.com/2010/08/07/man-jailed-for-domestic-abuse-reign-of-terror/#ixzz0w98IMSDL
.

Power, Responsibility and History

SOME of the States' highest earners are to be targeted in a major States redundancy scheme being launched today. Every public sector worker was this morning offered voluntary redundancy as part of a programme of cutbacks to find £50m worth of savings. Treasury Minister Philip Ozouf said: 'The voluntary redundancy scheme will be particularly useful for slimming down management.'(1)

The island is facing unprecedented financial problems. There are moves afoot to increase taxes, and attempts are also being made to curb expenditure. Part of the rationale for this is to fill the "black hole" caused by the introduction of the 0/10 tax reform.

Unlike governments in the United Kingdom, in Jersey the Council of Ministers has really only themselves to blame. They cannot blame the problems of the present on the previous political regime. This is because the Chief Minister was part of that regime himself, and until recently, the same was true of Housing (Senator Le Main) and of education (former Senator Mike Vibert), where Ministers had previously been Presidents in pre-Ministerial government, and yet, despite their long tenure of office, had failed to solve problems or (as with maintenance of buildings) simply procrastinated.

For example, if there are now problems at the Treasury, and Senator Ozouf has to bring in outside help (as reported in the JEP), then the problems must have arisen when Senator Terry Le Sueur was Minister for the Treasury, and he must be responsible for the current mess that Senator Ozouf says needs to be sorted - namely, the inability of the Managers at Treasury to do their job, and the necessity of an outside appointee as Acting Chief Officer.

Likewise, on a Talkback programme, earlier this year, it was amusing to hear Deputy Sean Power tell the listeners that many of the problems at housing were long-standing over a period of 10 years and not of the Department's making. The listeners may have been forgiven for remembering the considerable period for which the then Minister, Terry le Main, had been in charge, which was almost ten years. If he had been there so long, why had he not done anything about these problems which were being highlighted by Sean Power, and which Deputy Power himself described as long-standing?

So if the blame cannot be placed on the previous political regime (where a portion of the blame must surely lie), who can the Council of ministers blame? In part, the issue of blame is avoided by them, and the problems of the present are put down to changing external circumstances.

Sometimes these can be specific as with the European criticism of the tax regime which led to 0/10 and the "black hole". This neatly avoids considering who was responsible for the choice of 0/10 as a taxation strategy for silencing external criticism from Europe, and noting that the idea was promoted and came from the time when Terry Le Sueur was the Minister at the Treasury.
As it 0/10 failed to silence the external critics of harmful tax practices in the European Union, and angered many local businesses who see themselves taxed on their profits - while businesses that are literally next door (but owned in the UK) pay nothing, it is not surprising that the political architect of the scheme would wish to retain a modest silence rather than seeking plaudits.

Other problems are blamed on more general circumstances such as the economic recession. While it is true that the economic downturn has meant a need for austerity, it can also be seen as bringing to light all the deficiencies within the public sector which had been cheerfully left alone when times were good - by the previous Treasury Minister, Senator Le Sueur - and which now have come home to roost.

While the politicians in today's states need to seek solutions to current problems, and while merely blaming the Chief Minister for past mistakes solves nothing, it is important not to forget how the mistakes of the past led to the mess of the present.

We need to ask the right questions: why was such mistakes made? How could they have been avoided? How can future mistakes be avoided? Those who enjoy power must also take responsibility for their own past, and they can learn from the past if they are not afraid to confront whatever imperfections in their actions or inaction may come to light.

And on the subject of history, the current freeze on taking on new employees in the public is nothing new - while perhaps not as extreme, the same policy was adopted in the 1980s. New staff were taken on, however, but as temporary staff, and therefore not included in the figures for permanent public sector, while in practice, their "temporary" status was effectively permanent as it was always renewed. It was a good example of how targets (such as freezing recruitment) can be reached by the expedient of sidestepping the real aim of the target. It will be interesting to see if the same fudge is adopted by some departments today - and the figures may be lost from wages into the classification of "subcontracted" work. Certainly the next set of States accounts will need very careful scrutiny.

Links
(1) www.thisisjersey.com/2010/08/02/high-earners-targeted-for-redundancy/#ixzz0vtcWPmxq

Sleeping in Light

Sleeping in Light

In one hundred years from now
People will look back, see how
This generation lived, for good
Or evil, to be judged, as would
Always be the way, for the past
To be judged, in its time, at last.
 
In one thousand years from now
People will look back, and allow
The past to have made mistakes
May future learn for all our sakes
From scattered fragments of today
All that remains in time to stay.
 
In one million years from now
People will look back and vow
To learn from our rise and fall
To raise their eyes, standing tall
Look out to the stars so bright
And endless vistas in their sight.
 
In one billion years from now
People will look back, and now
Think of the great journey of life
Of all the glory, yet all the strife
A time for sleeping in the light
Reflect that all passes into night
 

The Senatorial Election of 1948 – Part 2

There are complaints nowadays about the large number of candidates standing for election as Senator, but in 1948, at the first Senatorial election, there were 18 candidates nominated. The Jersey Evening Post chose 12 candidates from the 18 to recommend to their readers. This is what they had to say about them.

Jurat E.P. Le Masurier, OBE. Senior of the Seven Jurats who have decided to seek office as Senators, the Jurat is a -Bailiff of Jersey and a man of considerable legislative experience. President of several of the most important Committees of the States, including the Coordinating Committee, the Defence of the Island, the Essential Commodities, and the Civil Service Board, he is acknowledged to be an efficient, indefatigable and conscientious worker, and a man with no axe to grind. He has for many years devoted himself to his work for the community, spending long hours each day in his office in the States building.

Jurat N.G. Hind, CSI, MC. President of the Divorce Committee and a member of many of the most important committees, including Public Health and Public works. A hard-working member of the States, who also finds time for a good deal of excellent social work, particularly in the cause of the ex-serviceman.

Jurat P.C. Cabot. Housing, Rehabilitation, and the Harbours and Airport are the three principal committees on which the Jurat serves and, on each, he is an active and most useful member. Like Jurat Hind, he is also a great worker in the Jersey branch of the British Legion.

Jurat H. Le Riche Edwards. The unexpected choice who has made an unqualified success of the very thankless position of president of the Agricultural Committee. He believes in laying all the facts before the House, and is not above accepting advice.

Jurat W.J.J. Collas, DSO. Most useful member of the States, of the highest integrity, courteous and considerate. He makes an excellent president of the Housing Committee, serves on Defence, Town and Country planning, Public Instruction, Essential Commodities, Liberation, and Unemployment. A whole time member who, if defeated, would be sadly missed and the ex-servicemen would lose a doughty champion.

Jurat J.J. Le Marquand. Best known as president of the Public Works Committee, he is also a member of the Coordinating Committee, Town and Country Planning, Rehabilitation, and Reform. Has had a long experience of public affairs, graduating from parochial work to his present high office. We have not always agreed with John Le Marquand's administration, but we recognise his sincerity and capacity for hard, unselfish work.

Deputy Ed Le Quesne. It seems hardly necessary to recapitulate the workflow which this well-known deputy has been responsible. Here's another with whom we have had on occasions disagreed -- the nurses home, example -- but the island would definitely be poorer without the services of so tremendous worker, who has proved himself such a good friend of the underdog.

Deputy Ph. Le Quesne. As President of the Public Instruction Committee, he has earned much praise, and his work on the Textile Committee has been equally good. He is much valuable time to public life, and the excellent work he puts in on St Helier's Poor Law commission should not be forgotten.

Deputy C.P. Rumfitt. Although a comparative newcomer to States work, he has undoubtedly made his mark. In fact, he has been one of the outstanding successes of the past three years. Tourism and Housing are his specialties, but he contributes reasoned arguments and logical advice whenever he talks on any subject before the house. A valuable member of the assembly.

Mr Carlyle Le Gallais. The first of the 12 who is not already a member of the States. One of the best-known islanders, with a reputation for usually getting what he wants and a capacity for working all out to get it. He has dual interest, for he is both a keen agriculturalist -- he is president of the Royal Jersey Agricultural and Horticultural Society -- and a successful businessman. He would be a decided acquisition to the house.

Mr Frank P. Le Quesne. Our final candidate, like Mr Le Gallais, has not hitherto sought public office. He has however, made a most efficient president of the Jersey Chamber of Commerce, served as chairman of the Milk Pricing Board, and is head of one of the largest and oldest building firms in the islands, and would be able to bring practical knowledge to bear on the island's housing problems.

Reading these, I am struck by the different committees. It is easy to see where a committee has changed its name -- Public Works is now incorporated in Transport and Technical Services, the Defence Committee -- which always struck me as a bizarre name -- has now largely become Home Affairs, Public Instruction is obviously Education. It is interesting to see the forerunner of Planning and Environment in the Town and Country Planning Committee -- the split in the name almost prescient of the understanding that green field country sites need to be dealt with in a different manner from more urban sites.

But what did the Divorce Committee do? Was the Unemployment Committee a precursor to Social Security? The Essential Commodities committee seems like a hold over from the recent occupation, and clearly the Reform Committee had been instrumental in making the changes to the structure of the States.

It is also notable that even back in 1948, there were at least two candidates who were prepared to stand as Senator without having prior experience of being in the States. There is often a call to those standing as Senators to have stood as Deputies, but the election of 1948 shows that there is a long precedent for non-States members to stand.

I am also struck how a number of the candidates are recommended on the basis of their support for ex-servicemen. Whether today's candidates do support the ex-servicemen by, for example, helping with the British Legion, this rarely features so prominently in their election presentation, and is a clear indication of the markedly different priorities faced with wounded soldiers returning to the island in 1948. The exception to this, of course, is Deputy Mike Higgins who is well known for his support and organising ability for the September Air Display, which is a charitable fundraising event.

On these matters, a "Bring and Buy" sale in aid of British Legion funds, reported in the November paper, raised over £216 while the Evening Post's list for the "Poppy Day Fund" which named donors came to £142 at the start of November. Using the retail price index, that comes to around £5,840 and £3,840 respectively in today's money.

The phrase used nowadays when candidates for an election go on a parish road show, touring each parish in turn, is "hustings". But in 1948, although the term had been around, it was notably absent from the election coverage- the term used in the JEP was simply "meeting". What is interesting is that not all of the 18 candidates turned up to each parish meeting, which would be almost unthinkable nowadays. At St John's Parish, for example, only 10 candidates addressed the public, in St Clements, only 11, and St Saviour, only 10 again. I will return to the "hustings" in the next part of this trip to 1948.

Napier's Bones

There has been quite a bit of comment about the Napier report on the JDA blog, and some of the other blogs. This seems to be the idea in some circles that the Napier report will completely exonerate Mr Graham Power - the recently retired Jersey Chief Officer of police. I think this is mistaken -- the Napier report is to see whether the correct procedures were followed with a suspension of Graham Power when it was initially carried out under Andrew Lewis as Minister for home affairs. Even if its conclusions were that correct procedures were not followed, it still does not follow the decision to suspend was not the correct one, and it may even make a comment to that effect.

While we are still seeing the evidence on the suspension - with the Wiltshire report gradually over time becoming more available and Mr Powers defence by briefing notes also coming into the public domain (and revealing data not picked up in the final Wiltshire report) - we cannot state whether Senator Le Marquand's decision to continue the suspension, it is too early to say whether the continued suspension was correct or not. As far as I can see, the jury is still out, and without a proper disciplinary hearing, which we will never now get, there may be no final clear resolution on the matter. The heavily redacted Wiltshire report was a shambles, which does not help.

In the meantime, the long-awaited Napier report on the original suspension is being treated in the same manner as the Hutton report into the Iraq war was treated by the opposition in the UK. The Hutton report was to be "The Report" which would vindicate the critics of Iraq war, and condemn Tony Blair's government. If you look at any of the statements which were made by critics of the war, before the publication of the report, they are triumphalistic and declared that the report will show that the critics were right.

Of course the outcome was almost entirely the opposite. The opposition was sent into complete disarray, the BBC was totally emasculated, with top-level resignations. This should surely be a lesson to everyone who talks up the outcome of the Napier report -- the results may well be not what was expected, and may be used as a stick to beat the critics of Mr Power's suspension. After all, it is the result of one man's deliberations, rather than the team proposed by Deputy Bob Hill.

Whatever happens, it is unlikely that Stuart Syvret will be commenting on the matter. What appears to be (and are alleged to be) extracts from personal e-mails sent by Mr Syvret have found their way into the public domain on another blog. This blog has even published Mr Syvret's present address, which is not in the public domain - and this may well constitute a breach of the Data Protection Law, which would be ironic for a blog which is so critical of Mr Syvret's blog.

The blog in question asks if any of the bloggers which it considers supporters of Mr Syvret will now come to his defence. I have never been an unqualified supporter of Mr Syvret, as any reader of this blog will be aware, largely because of his language and propensity to fling names in the void. Nevertheless, primary documents of importance in the search both for justice in the case of Mr Power and for a broader historical perspective have been released on Mr Syvret's blog - for this, despite his often vitriolic polemic, he should receive thanks. These documents included the ACPO reports and the Sharp report. Future historians will certainly be grateful as it is not clear if these would have ever seen the light of day within the Wiltshire report.

It is not clear whether the publication of what may be selections from Mr Syvret's private life will aid our understanding of the suspension of Graham Power, although the blog writers believe that by discrediting the person (which they do with malicious relish), they can discredit any documents he has released - an almost perfect example of an "ad hominem" argument.

There's No Place Like Home

As I'm taking a break from "News from Nowhere" for the summer, here is a humorous piece for Friday by James Thurber. Thurber is probably best known for his short story "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty", which was made into a film starring Danny Kaye. His writing is always light and fun, but this vignette is exceptionally good. Are you thinking of going on holiday this summer? Look at the series of disasters that befall Thurber's unfortunate couple and you may change your mind. And don't forget to pack that essential foreign phrase book...

---

There's No Place Like Home by James Thurber

Idling through a London bookstore in the summer of 1937, I came upon a little book called `Collins' Pocket Interpreters: France.' Written especially to instruct the English how to speak French in the train, the hotel, the quandary, the dilemma, etc., it is, of course, equally useful - I might also say equally depressing - to Americans. I have come across a number of these helps-for-travellers, but none that has the heavy impact, the dark, cumulative power of Collins'. A writer in a London magazine mentions a phrase book got out in the era of Imperial Russia which contained this one magnificent line: `Oh, dear, our postillion has been struck by lightning!' but that fantastic piece of disaster, while charming and provocative - though, I daresay, quite rare even in the days of the Czars - is to Mr Collins' modern, workaday disasters as Fragonard is to George Bellows, or Sarah Orne Jewett to William Faulkner. Let us turn the pages of this appalling little volume.

Each page has a list of English expressions one under the other, which gives them the form of verse. The French translations are run alongside. Thus, on the first page, under `The Port of Arrival,' we begin (quietly enough) with `Porter, here is my baggage!' - `Porteur, voici mes bagages!' From then on disaster follows fast and follows faster until in the end, as you shall see, all hell breaks loose. The volume contains three times as many expressions to use when one is in trouble as when everything is going all right. This, my own experience has shown, is about the right ratio, but God spare me from some of the difficulties for which the traveller is prepared in Mr Collins' melancholy narrative poem. I am going to leave out the French translations because, for one thing, people who get involved in the messes and tangles we are coming to invariably forget their French and scream in English anyway. Furthermore, the French would interrupt the fine, free flow of the English and spoil what amounts to a dramatic tragedy of an overwhelming and original kind. The phrases, as I have said, run one under the other, but herein I shall have to run them one after the other (you can copy them down the other way, if you want to).

Trouble really starts in the canto called `In the Customs Shed.' Here we have: `I cannot open my case.' `I have lost my keys.' `Help me to close this case." I did not know that I had to pay." I don't want to pay so much." I cannot find my porter.' `Have you seen porter 153 ?' That last query is a little master stroke of writing, I think, for in those few words we have a graphic picture of a tourist lost in a jumble of thousands of bags and scores of customs men, looking frantically for one of at least a hundred and fifty-three porters. We feel that the tourist will not find porter 153, and the note of frustration has been struck.

Our tourist (accompanied by his wife, I like to think) finally gets on the train for Paris - having lost his keys and not having found his porter - and it comes time presently to go to the dining car, although he probably has no appetite, for the customs men, of course, have had to break open that one suitcase. Now, I think, it is the wife who begins to crumble: `Someone has taken my seat.' `Excuse me, sir, that seat is mine.' `I cannot find my ticket!' `I have left my ticket in the compartment.' `I will go and look for it.' `I have left my gloves (my purse) in the dining car.' Here the note of frenzied disintegration, so familiar to all travellers abroad, is sounded.

Next comes `The Sleeper,' which begins, ominously, with `What is the matter ?' and ends with `May I open the window?' `Can you open this window, please?' We realize, of course, that nobody is going to be able to open the window and that the tourist and his wife will suffocate. In this condition they arrive in Paris, and the scene there, on the crowded station platform, is done with superb economy of line: `I have left something in the train.' `A parcel, an overcoat.' `A macintosh, a stick.' `An umbrella, a camera." A fur, a suitcase.' The travellers have now begun to go completely to pieces, in the grand manner.

Next comes an effective little interlude about an airplane trip, which is one of my favourite passages in this swift and sorrowful tragedy: `I want to reserve a place in the plane leaving tomorrow morning.' `When do we start?' `Can we get anything to eat on board?' `When do we arrive," `I feel sick.' `Have you any paper bags for air-sickness?' `The noise is terrible.' `Have you any cotton wool?' `When are we going to land ?' This brief masterpiece caused me to cancel an air trip from London to Paris and go the easy way, across the Channel.

We now come to a section called `At the Hotel,' in which things go from worse to awful : `Did you not get my letter ?' `I wrote to you three weeks ago.' `I asked for a first-floor room." If you can't give me something better, I shall go away.' `The chambermaid never comes when I ring.' `I cannot sleep at night, there is so much noise." I have just had a wire. I must leave at once.' Panic has begun to set in, and it is not appeased any by the advent of `The Chambermaid': `Are you the chambermaid ?"There are no towels here." The sheets on this bed are damp." This room is not clean." I have seen a mouse in the room.' `You will have to set a mouse trap here.' The bells of hell at this point begin to ring in earnest: `These shoes are not mine.' `I put my shoes here, where are they now?" The light is not good.' `The bulb is broken.' `The radiator is too warm.' `The radiator doesn't work." It is cold in this room." This is not clean, bring me another." I don't like this." I can't eat this. Take it away!'

I somehow now see the tourist's wife stalking angrily out of the hotel, to get away from it all (without any shoes on), and, properly enough, the booklet seems to follow her course - first under `Guides and Interpreters' : `You are asking too much." I will not give you any more." I shall call a policeman." He can settle this affair.' Then under `Inquiring the Way' : `I am lost." I was looking for-"Someone robbed me." That man robbed me." That man is following me everywhere.' She rushes to `The Hairdresser,' where, for a change, everything goes quite smoothly until: `The water is too hot, you are scalding me!' Then she goes shopping, but there is no surcease: `You have not given me the right change.' `I bought this two days ago.' `It doesn't work.' `It is broken.' `It is torn.' `It doesn't fit me.' Then to a restaurant for a snack and a reviving cup of tea: `This is not fresh.' `This piece is too fat.' `This doesn't smell very nice.' `There is a mistake in the bill." While I was dining someone has taken my purse." I have left my glasses (my watch) (a ring) in the lavatory.'

Madness has now come upon her and she rushes wildly out into the street. Her husband, I think, has at the same time plunged blindly out of the hotel to find her. We come then, quite naturally, to `Accident', which is calculated to keep the faint of heart - nay, the heart of oak - safely at home by his own fireside: `There has been an accident!' `Go and fetch a policeman quickly.' `Is there a doctor near here?' Send for the ambulance." He is seriously injured." She has been run over." He has been knocked down." Someone has fallen in the water.' `The ankle, the arm.' `The back, a bone." The face, the finger.' `The foot, the head." The knee, the leg." The neck, the nose." The wrist, the shoulder." He has broken his arm."He has broken his leg.' `He has a sprained ankle.' `He has a sprained wrist.' `He is losing blood.' `He has fainted.' `He has lost consciousness."He has burnt his face."It is swollen."It is bleeding." Bring some cold water.' `Help me to carry him.' (Apparently, you just let her lie there, while you attend to him - but, of course, she was merely run over, whereas he has taken a terrific tossing around.)

We next see the husband and wife back in their room at the dreary hotel, both in bed, and both obviously hysterical. This scene is entitled 'Illness': `I am feeling very ill, send for the doctor.' `I have pains in-' `I have pains all over.' `The back, the chest.' `The ear, the head.' `The eyes, the heart.' `The joints, the kidneys.' `The lungs, the stomach.' `The throat, the tongue.' `Put out your tongue." The heart is affected." I feel a pain here." He is not sleeping well.' `He cannot eat.' `My stomach is out of order.' `She is feverish.' `I have caught a cold." I have caught a chill." He has a temperature." I have a cough.' `Will you give me a prescription ?"What must I do?' `Must I stay in bed ?' `I feel better.' `When will you come and see me again?' `Biliousness, rheumatism.' `Insomnia, sunstroke.' `Fainting, a fit.' `Hoarseness, sore throat.' `The medicine, the remedy.' `A poultice, a draught.' `A tablespoonful, a teaspoon-ful.' `A sticking plaster, senna.' `Iodine.' That last suicidal bleat for iodine is, to me, a masterful touch.

Our couple finally get on their feet again, for travellers are tough - they've got to be - but we see under the next heading, `Common Words and Phrases,' that they are left forever punch-drunk and shattered: `Can I help you? 'Excuse me.' `Carry on!! 'Look here!' `Look down there!' `Look up there!' `Why, how?' `When, where?' `Because.' `That's it!' `It is too much, it is too dear." It is very cheap." Who, what, which ?"Look out !!' Those are Valkyries, one feels, riding around, and above, and under our unhappy husband and wife.

The book sweeps on to a mad operatic ending of the tragedy, with all the / rings and brasses and wood winds going full blast: `Where are we going?' `Where are you going?' `Come quickly and see!!! 'I shall call a policeman.) 'Bring a policeman!' `I shall stay here.' `Will you help me?' `Help! Fire!' `Who are you?' I don't know you." I don't want to speak to you." Leave me alone. "That will do." You are mistaken." It was not I. "I didn't do it. "I will give you nothing.' `Go away now!' `It has nothing to do with me.' `Where should one apply?' `What must I do?' `What have I done?' `I have done nothing.' `I have already paid you.' `I have paid you enough.' `Let me pass!' `Where is the British consulate?' The oboes take that last, despairing wail, and the curtain comes down.

Ministerial Reform - A Comment

Senator Ian le Marquand: Now, again, the Council of Ministers has had to look at this and try to make tough decisions. When we started the process we thought we were looking at £110 million, so it has improved and now I think we are looking at £90 to £100 million, so that is good. But the tough issue is this: how much of that £90 million to £100 million is going to be tax increases and how much of that is going to be reductions in service levels and savings et cetera? Now, I believe that the Council of Ministers needs to throw that back onto the Assembly. Why should we always be taking the flack for things? Let our colleagues share the pain.

Deputy T.A. Vallois: But you have had the information of the department to be able to do that, whereas backbenchers do not have all the information of the department to do so.

This exchange from the recent scrutiny committee hearing highlights one of the major problems of the particular States Assembly. The Council of Ministers in many ways wants it both ways. They want to present the House with a business plan that is a "take it or leave it" fait accompli. For in constructing this plan, there appears to be little or no consultation with other members of the States who are not Ministers or Assistant Ministers. Yet when the plan is criticised from those who have not been consulted in any shape or form, the Council of Ministers is aggrieved that they're not acting responsibly and taking their part in the decision-making process. Yet the Council of Ministers is surely not acting responsibly by acting alone and not trying to carry the assembly with it on the construction of the business plan and the reductions in spending or increases in taxation.

The way that the system works is that the plans are constructed and presented to the State Assembly to be voted on and equally to Scrutiny Panels to be scrutinised. All this is delay and also engenders an oppositional style of government. Ben Quérée (writing in the JEP) pointed out that the roots of this lay in the formation of the present Council of Ministers when Senator Terry Le Sueur - having first stated that he wanted a broad coalition of different members and viewpoints in the government - proceeded to act in completely the opposite manner and in Ben Quérée's words just "packed the Council of Ministers with his cronies."

"Let our colleagues share the pain". A fine ideal - providing that you also let them into the decision-making processes. There is surely no pain without that responsibility. Members of the Council of Ministers must be prepared to include other States Members in these discussions at the outset, prior to the release of a business plan, otherwise why should they feel the pain? They have been excluded. And that is something that should be thrown back at the Council of Ministers when they feel aggrieved.

Of course part of the problem with the current system of Ministerial government is that most of the departments have a Minister and perhaps one or two assistant ministers. This means that not only are other States members excluded from the process of government in a manner which did not happen with the old committee system, but also very few of them have an opportunity to train in the processes of government. In the old days of the committee system, members would serve an apprenticeship on the committee learning the ropes, before aspiring to the position of President. Ministerial government, on the contrary, has seen Ministers appointed who have never been Assistant Ministers, and in one or two instances have only been recently elected to the States itself. If mistakes are made by Ministers, it is hardly surprising when they have no prior learning or experience of the job and some of them have only just been elected, so need to learn two sets of ropes!

I'm not saying the reversion to the old-style committees is the way to go. It was undoubtedly unwieldy and inefficient. But the concentration of power in ministers who may themselves be mere novices is a major weakness of the current system. Along with this is the lack of apprenticeship which the committee system gave. This could perhaps be improved by ensuring that Ministers always confer with Assistant Ministers before making decisions. It has been evident from some of the bad decisions (some needing retraction) that this is not always the case.

Increasing the number of Assistant Ministers would also ensure that the workload would be spread and an increased one one in each department (there by to two or three) would help ease matters while at the same time not reverting to the cumbersome apparatus of the committee system. This would also provide the much missed apprenticeship and it should also be a rule (although by custom rather than prescription) that no one usually serves as Minister without having some experience of being an Assistant Minister.

The other major problem is unilateral decisions by Ministers and this could perhaps be eased by permitting the two or three assistant ministers to exercise a simple veto if they thought the decision was a bad one, or as an alternative, get the decision to be ratified by the full Council of Ministers.

So to sum up, some of the main problems of Ministerial Government, to which I have made some suggestions above, are:

a) Ministers appointed who are novices (sometimes even to the States)
b) No proper "apprenticeship" of Assistant Ministers
c) No proper consultations before presenting plans to the assembly
d) Too much power concentrated in a single Minister.

Others will make their own suggestions to solve these problems, but I think it is important that there are highlighted, and addressed in some way or another.

The Senatorial Election of 1948 – Part 1

The death of Lord Portsea on 1 November 1948 can be seen as a portent of the changes that were about to take place in Jersey Society that month.

This was the month in which the first Senatorial elections would take place. Up to this point the Jurats had stood in the States as well as taking part in Judicial proceedings in the Courts. But from this point on, the new Senatorial positions opened up the mandate to the whole island. Unlike subsequent Senatorial elections, there would be 12 senators all elected on the same night. The candidates occupying the first four places would serve a term of nine years. The next four would serve six years and the final four would face the electors in three years time.

Lord Portsea, whose death was reported in the JEP, was formerly Sir Bertram Godfrey Falle. He was the son of the late Jurat Joshe George Falle. His father as a Jurat would have automatically had place in the States of Jersey. This had now been swept away in the reorganisation of the States which was about to come to fruition in this election.

In 1948 the JEP took a decidedly political stance in suggesting candidates the general public should vote for. The leader article said "we propose to place before our readers the names of the 12 men who in our opinion are best fitted to the Senatorial office". This was from the 18 candidates who were standing. But who were the 12 which the Jersey Evening Post were recommending? It is interesting to note that six of those 12 were already Jurats and therefore making the move to retain their positions in the States. Four of the others were deputies. And only two were not members of the States.

The JEP was very clear on its position on this. It is instructive to note the degree to which it demonstrated its own particular bias quite explicitly in a manner which simply would not be considered tolerable nowadays. Neither would be distinctly patronising tone with which the editor regales his readers in this extract!

"A newspaper, if it is to fulfil its true functions, should not exist merely as a sheet conveying news but seeks through its editorial columns, to expose abuses, advocate worthy causes, offer fair criticism of public affairs, and seek to help its readers to form an intelligent opinion and make a balanced and accurate judgements. A newspaper is very often in a better position to judge how valuable is the work done behind the scenes, in the committee rooms, than other members of the general public, many of whom are too often quite unaware of how effective or ineffective, is this or that particular representative. Therefore, armed with the knowledge gained from close contact with public men and public affairs, and equipped with many years of experience we made our choice and offer it as a guide to the electors."

I will return in my next posting to the candidates suggested by the JEP. In the meantime, it is also interesting to note other events which were occurring in the island at the same time.

There had been a spate of car thefts and the police Court Magistrate, Judge Dorey, decided to make an object lesson by sentencing a young car borrower to 15 days imprisonment "with hard labour".

"The accused has made a stupid attempt to be a plausible young liar and considering that he was in the witness box on oath it is disgraceful to expect the sympathy of the court," said the Judge pronouncing sentence.

The JEP notes that "most of the persons responsible are selfish young hoodlums, who care not one jot to the worry inconvenienced because the owner to often cause considerable damage to the car before leaving it in some out of the way spot. A prison sentence is the only punishment likely to deter such potential young thieves as they are."

It is not clear whether the Court policy of 1948 had much effect. Certainly car theft is still an occurrence in the Island, although as more people lock cars, and do not leave keys in them, it does not occur as often as it once did. I remember in the 1970s and 1980s there were still quite a few cases of cars being "borrowed". It is perhaps lack of easy opportunities today with better security measures rather than severity of sentences that helps keep the statistics down. Back in 1948, many people were inclined to leave cars unlocked, often with keys in the ignition.

But in 1948, car thefts were certainly prevalent. The same edition of the paper on November 2, 1948 noted that "a Humber saloon car belonging to A Pitcher, the well-known transport firm of Kensington place was missed from the garage this morning and up to a late hour this afternoon had not been found."

We still have car thefts today, but what is not so usual is robberies of petrol. In 1948, two robberies of petrol took place during the night of November 1 in the same Parish – St Lawrence. The theft of 80 gallons was stolen from Grande Route Garage and police suspected that the same person or persons had also stolen another 100 gallons of petrol that same night within the Parish. What is unusual about the other theft is that it was stolen from a shed near the residence of Mr W.P. Sarre, near his house in Clifton, St Lawrence – the said shed being was kept secure by means of a simple padlock which had been easily broken. Does anyone - even farmers - today keep so much petrol available in sheds under such poor security?

But Jersey was not the only place for crime. It also struck abroad when the Attorney-General Mr C.S. Harrison and Mrs Harrison had a diamond and ruby broach, a diamond and emerald ring and a small quantity of cigarettes stolen from the Grand Hotel Torquay where thieves broke into their room and ransacked their suitcases. Crime knows no borders.

Other news was a note in the JEP that thick fog caused a severe delay to all the air services. Some things never change, even with better technology.

Behind the Headlines - Jersey Police Pay

It is clear that police officers should be suitably rewarded - but there must be sensible limits to the extent of the rewards available. As far as Jersey is concerned, this has been realised and articulated by Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand, the politician with responsibility for policing policy. Speaking at a Scrutiny panel hearing, Senator Le Marquand stated unequivocally that the Island's force is overpaid and that the system of automatic increments based purely on time served is 'terrible'. By comparison with UK city centres, Jersey is a crime and public disorder backwater, but in spite of this we have managed to arrive at a point where we pay a police constable a starting salary of over £31,000. The corresponding rate in the UK is £22,680. But the starting salary is merely the initial problem. Without any promotion as such or additional responsibilities, a Jersey constable's pay will increase over a 12-year period by some 60 per cent, or £20,000, exclusive of new pay awards or overtime payments. (1)

The UK position in 2009 was as follows:

The starting salary of a PC in forces outside London last year was £22,105, rising to a maximum of £34,706 after 11 years' service. Those in the Metropolitan Police are given a 'London weighting' of about £8,000 and can earn a maximum of around £42,000. (2)

In fact, far from stating "unequivocally that the Island's force is overpaid", Senator Le Marquand's position was much more carefully set out, and the JEP seems to have oversimplified matters. I will return to that later as point (4), but there are also 3 other points considered by Senator Le Marquand which are worth expanding and commenting on.

There are some interesting and notable points made by Senator Ian Le Marquand and others in the Scrutiny meeting, not all of which were mentioned or expanded in detail in the JEP report.

1. Use Civilian Staff where possible

There has always been a complement of civilians within the States Police, as for instance, with managing the part of the department to do with Criminal Records, and this works out considerably cheaper than using trained police for what are, essentially, administrative functions like filing, sorting, cataloguing, preparing and abstracting relevant papers for prosecutions etc. This is nothing new, it has been in position for over twenty years, but the pressure on costs means that it is worth re-assessing to see if any other back office tasks could be moved from police to civilian staff. Civilian staff take the official secrets oath, and are therefore quite capable of processing confidential files. As Senator Le Marquand notes:

We were working on this already as a number of posts within the police force where one could replace officers who on average with packages cost £55,000 a year, with civilians who on average with pension packages and so on cost £35,000 a year.

Of course, in order to do this effectively, there needs to be some kind of detailed organisational chart (of the kind now available for the hospital) so that the positions and functions of police can be assessed in order to see which posts and tasks can be transferred. The alternative is an "ad hoc" method relying on officers within the organisation to decide which tasks can be delegated, and this not only imposes extra work on them (for assessing what they do), but also quite probably is giving a task to them for which they are not trained, as for instance, someone who is experiences in fields such as time and motion, where task breakdowns are required.

But it can be done - a report by a Canadian on policing in Canada noted that comparing Edmonton (Canada, pop 1 million) with Greater Manchester Police (pop 2.5 million) which have comparable problems of crime etc:

GMP employs 8,232 police officers in a total staff of 13,082, or one person for every 181 members of the public. My force employs about 1,400 officers and 500 civilians - one person for every 526 members of the public.(6).

It may be better to look further afield for slimline models of what can be done that just taking on UK models, which clearly may not be as efficient as elsewhere in their officer / civilian ratio. It would be interesting to know the ratio for every member of the public in Jersey.

2. Overtime and Numbers

A problem highlighted by Senator Le Marquand is what we might term the "market efficiency" of the force. The requirements for the active numeric strength of the police force varies over time, and this can be dealt with by taking on more police, or by paying overtime. As is well known, overtime decisions are more easily reversable than employment hiring decisions, and can be "used as a short-term employment reaction to cyclical change in the face of uncertainty over the length and potential extent of the perturbation." (4)

So if there is a fluctuation in the demand for more police, overtime can be used to fill the gap, on the basis that it will diminish in the future; if more police recruits had been taken on, there could be a slack period in which some police might be relatively idle. The ideal is to balance the numbers with the overtime so that overtime acts as a buffer - where numbers are consistently too small, the overtime bill becomes permanently too large. The problem that Senator Le Marquand is facing is that the "exceptional" is now becoming the norm.

I am constantly saying to my colleagues: "If the police force is squeezed down below a certain level and there are major cases" ... and there appear to be major cases every year now. I mean, when we had the Haut de la Garenne investigation we may have thought that was exceptional; it was quite exceptional in terms of for a number reasons including ones that will shortly be revealed, but in terms of resourcing et cetera. But in fact in 2009 we had the Warren case and in 2010 we had a number of major fraud cases. So, year after year we have these large cases. What I am saying in short is there is a safety valve built in within the policing system, whereby if our numbers get too low and the cases turn up we have to get resources and it costs time and a half.

Clearly part of what needs to be assessed is how much overtime would there have still been over three years after removing the exceptional items from the equation, and seeing if this, in total would work out cheaper if paid as overtime, or by the recruitment of extra officers.

3. Inefficient working practices

Senator Le Marquand highlights that

There have been inefficient practices within the police force and what happens, in any organisation, is that things gradually change but people do not entirely change their method of operation. You had police officers still making pocketbook notes of things and then going and making a statement, which these days, rather than writing out a statement, they will actually type in a statement on a computer while you had some police officers still doing both which is a waste of time. A pocket notebook is purely for something, you know: "What did the accused person say at the time? What do I need to write down immediately which I might forget the details of?" So there are issues like this that you can make the organisation more efficient simply by changing the way you deal with your procedures.

An additional method of improving matters can be technology on the spot. Many police cars across the world are now equipped with laptop computers.

Police officers can use laptops to type incident reports immediately at the scene, rather than take notes and type the reports later. This time saving feature allows them more time to patrol. Furthermore, police can also use laptops with wireless connections to central police headquarters to check such things as criminal records, vehicle registrations and outstanding warrants, which saves time and can assist in making arrests.(5)

Some UK forces are starting to bring this in. Other jurisdictions, such as Canada, have had them for some time:

This technology gives us a great advantage over the British bobby - I can check vehicles and people, access intelligence reports, update incidents, write reports and charge people without having to return to the station. I can see which calls are still waiting for police attention and how many minutes they've been waiting. (British officers note: minutes, not hours, and certainly not days.) (6)

4. Pay increases, differentials, and automatic increments

The matter of pay increases was only one part of the scrutiny committee meeting. The position on pay is that the pay increments are automatic - as Senator Le Marquand notes: "Well, if one goes back to the middle ages when I was a Chief Officer effective from 1990 to 1997, pay increments were given every year, they were automatic."

When there is no recession, there is not the same problem as at present because new officers are being recruited, and senior officers are retiring:

Historically they had quite often been happy to go at 50, get a nice part time job that pays their social security, pick up their pension and they are working less hours and they are better off.

But with a recession, there are fewer part time jobs, so the police are delaying retirement:

when you hit a major recession you are getting a situation where senior officers in the police force are delaying retirement. They can go between 50 and 55, take their pension rights. But when there were no part time jobs to go to, were no other options, they do not.

This would not matter if it was for the significant differential between a constable's pay and the same constable - in the same position - 12 years later, as the automatic increments kick in:

Because we have 8 increments over a period of 12 years, and most of those increments are in the first 4 years. The differential between the starting on appointment salary and the after 12 years salary is about £19,300 per officer plus. It is more than a 60 per cent increase. So, you can see that where we get a situation where our senior officers are not retiring but have remorselessly moved up the ranks, we get clobbered. You have got age increments over 12 years.

This is not the same as other "front line" occupations where there can also be significant risk in the kind of work:

The Fire Service has 8 increments over 10 years but the differentiation between the bottom and the top is £29,000 to £39,000 plus pension so that is only a differential of, I have worked out, 30 something per cent.

And in the civil service in general, it is far less:

We have been hit much worse than the other organisations because, in most organisations, people come in at a grade, say, 9/0 and they will reach 9/3 on average in 2.5 years' time. You stay on a grade 9/3 on the top. You could get jobs which had started on 9 and finished on 10 but we have a much worse situation.

Senator Le Marquand also highlights that the automatic nature of this pay rise means that just by staying in the job, and without any extra skills or training which is capable of examination, the officers get more pay:

I think this is perfectly ridiculous if you want to know my opinion of this. I think it is absolutely daft to have a differential of pay level of up to 60 per cent simply upon the basis that the person is more senior without any real serious attempt to assess whether they are a better officer or not a better officer. But this is the public sector. I came in in 1990 from the private sector running my own law firm and it is an extraordinary culture shock to arrive in an organisation where people's pays went up just because they were there longer irrespective of how well they were performing.

The Connétable of Grouville at this point also interjected to make the point that this acted as a discincentive:

I think that also it does not really encourage them to take examinations and move further up the ladder, does it, because if you are going to get a rise anyway, there is no point in taking an examination to get a promotion.

Senator Le Marquand agreed with this:

You have got to have proper incentive, it seems to me, for people to aspire to higher ranks and to be willing to put in extra work in examinations and take the extra responsibility.

So Senator Le Marquand is not just saying that the police are overpaid, as reported by the JEP, but he is saying that the pay structure is bad because of the automatic increments, and he nowhere says that "the police are overpaid", only that any pay rises should be merited - by extra work, examinations, responsibility - in order for a better police service. While not completely untrue, the JEP report gives a false impression that he attacking both pay and automatic increments, whereas in fact, a study of scrutiny shows that he is very definitely linking the two.


Links:
(1) http://www.thisisjersey.com/2010/06/30/police-pay-time-for-a-rethink/
(2) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1207055/Hundreds-police-constables-earning-bosses-rack-overtime.html
(3) Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel, Comprehensive Spending Review With The Minister for Home Affairs, Friday 25 June 2010 - all quotes by Senator Le Marquand are from this document
(4) The Economics of Overtime Working, Robert A. Hart
(5) http://www.laptopworldwide.com/
(6) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7908488/Free-the-police-and-save-billions.html

Lammas

Wikipedia notes that: "August 1 is Lammas Day (loaf-mass day), the festival of the wheat harvest, and is the first harvest festival of the year. On this day it was customary to bring to church a loaf made from the new crop. In many parts of England, tenants were bound to present freshly harvested wheat to their landlords on or before the first day of August. In the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, where it is referred to regularly, it is called 'the feast of first fruits'.

This is a short meditative piece of writing for Lammas:

Listen

Listen, and you can hear my voice, in the blade of grass rising, in the earthworm churning the good soil beneath your feet, in the land beneath your feet that is now my gift for you to use with wisdom.
 
Listen to my voice, I am the spirit of stone and soil. I was here before men and women worked this land,  when all was wild and free, and the great forests grew with deep roots nourished by my spirit.
 
I am the oldest, the first born. I remember the first raindrop and the first acorn. I knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless.
 
Listen to my voice, I was here when the first tribes came, and sowed the corn, and farmed the land, and my soil nourished them.
 
And remember those tribes, for this is the time of year when they rejoiced in the ripening of the first fruits, and of the cutting of the first sheaves of corn. And I say to you, rejoice also!
 
Rejoice, I say, but remember the darker places, leaner times.
 
Remember times of hunger and famine, of drought, when the earth was barren and dry, and there was only dust to eat, and the tribe was sore afflicted.
 
Remember those in other lands, whose bellies are hungry and whose crops have failed, and answer their cry. For your ancestors upon this land also knew these times of hardship and hunger, and others heard their cry.
 
Take what I give, for I am generous. Take and taste the sweetness of the first fruits, cut the first blade of corn.
 
But also give to others with generosity of your bounty. Give to the widow, the orphan, the stranger, and those far away across the seas, in distant lands, and great will be your joy.
 
Rejoice in the abundant rain on the ploughed fields,  soaking them with water, softening the soil with showers and causing the young plants to grow.
 
But where there is no rain, and my soil grows dry, and the crops are parched and thirsty, ask the gods of air and water to send the good rain, to feed me, that the dry springs may run again, and hope spring eternal once more.