And in conclusion?

For two years we have been told that the decision to suspend (the then police chief) Graham Power was taken after a report was received on 11 November 2008. We now know that preparations were being made months before that, in a series of secret meetings and exchanges; some of which did not even involve the minister. It also appears from the Napier report that the key letter from Mr Warcup used to justify the suspension was altered before it was used, and that. Mr Warcup. denies that he was the person who made the changes I know that Mr Napier says that he did not find evidence of a conspiracy, but firm evidence such things is hard to find.

However what he did find was evidence which contained many features of a conspiracy, including secret meetings; the suspicious alteration of a key document and the disposal of another key document. Whether we call that a conspiracy or not, what nobody can call it is good-government .or conduct. It also shows the lack of judgment of the heavily conflicted acting police chief whose surprise resignation shortly before the submission of the Napier report can now, be seen in a different light. It is now up, to the Chief minister to make a statement confirming that he will not only address the immediate issues arising from Napier; but will put an end to the secretive and seemingly sinister way of conducting government business that this report describes. It is important that Islanders can trust their government: The revelations in the Napier report destroy much of,, that trust, Firm action and leadership are needed if that trust is to be restored.

(Deputy Bob Hill, Letter to the JEP 13 October 2010, print edition of paper only)

The episode of "Yes Minister", entitled "The Greasy Pole", is particularly instructive with regard to the Napier report.

A chemical factory is being set up, and it is producing "meta-dioxin", an inert compound of dioxin. After the hazards caused by dioxin in Italy, Jim Hacker is under political pressure to turn down the application for the factory, but Sir Humphrey sees this as the wrong decision. The final decision is based on Professor Henderson, who is producing a report, which appears to be in favour of the chemical. Henderson is "a brilliant Cambridge biochemist, chosen with some care."

Jim Hacker decides to take matters into his own hands, and "coincidentally" arranges to bump into Professor Henderson, and tells him that the report "leaves some important questions, unanswered"; "some of the evidences are inconclusive", "the figures are open to other interpretations" and "and that some of the main conclusions have been questioned.". He then tells Henderson that if anything were to go wrong, that the press would be merciless, and it would be a millstone around the Professors neck, a black mark on his career.

Henderson: I don't know what to do! I can't alter the evidence, the report says it's a safe drug.
Hacker: Quite. I see you have no choice.

Another University don, Lord Crichton, supplies Henderson with his solution:

Lord Crichton: Stop talking shop. Our Professor of Economics is dying to talk to you.
Henderson: You're not worried about this report?
Lord Crichton: I've done lots of these things. It's the phrasing of the conclusion, that's all the press ever read.

Lord Crichton: Now... how does it end? "On existing evidence, the committee can see no reason not to proceed." Well, it's just a question of a tidy bit of re-drafting. "While the committee feel there's no reason not to proceed on existing evidence, it must be emphasised that metadioxin is a recent compound, and it would be irresponsible to deny, after further research, its manufacture might be proved to be associated with health risks."
Henderson: Yes, that seems perfectly fair.

Now we know that there was an earlier draft of the Napier report, which we might call Napier 1, which was produced earlier - there seems to have been one present by the middle of July - and this was subsequently sent off to "persons whose conduct was or might be seen as the subject of criticism" and amended accordingly after that:

In accordance with normal practice in investigations of this nature, a draft version of this report was made available to persons whose conduct was or might be seen as the subject of criticism. Comments and observations were made, and the final version of the report takes these replies into account. .

What we don't know is how the draft (Napier 1) was altered into the final version (Napier 2). However, as is well known in historical source criticism, evidence of changes often leave their mark because of odd inconsistencies, and the phenomenon known as "editorial fatigue" where an alteration is not consistently carried forward.

An example of this comes with the "not wholly accurate" statement, which could well be an amendment made to tone down the criticism of Mr Lewis in the draft version Napier 1. We know from the next section that Deputy Chief Officer David Warcup had been briefing Mr Lewis on the conduct of the Haut de La Garenne investigation "who had shared with him his concerns about the management of the investigation under Mr Power".

Mr Lewis' statement made to Wiltshire Police as part of their inquiry, to the effect that he had no reason to believe before reading the letter sent by Mr David Warcup (the Deputy Chief Officer of Police) to Mr Ogley (the Chief Executive) that the police were not managing the investigation well was not wholly accurate.

Compare and contrast with....

These briefings [by David Warcup to Andrew Lewis] had contained not only criticisms of how the inquiry had been managed when DCO Harper had been in operational charge of it, but also criticisms of Mr Power's failure to engage with the attempts that were being made (by Mr Warcup) to put right mistakes that had been made.

But the most significant finding of Napier was that there was clear evidence of meetings being held and the ground being prepared, weeks before the suspension, for precisely that eventuality and no other - and when Mr Power was summoned to the meeting with Andrew Lewis and Bill Ogley, he had no forewarning of what had been going on behind his back and was completely unprepared.

If we look at what is being said about conspiracy, we find a very narrow line being taken:

Mr Power believes that Mr Walker then coerced Mr Lewis into taking the decision to suspend him. But I have to say that there is no independent evidence of such a conspiracy

But we know that Mr Lewis was being briefed against Mr Power by Mr Warcup, so why was coercion by Mr Walker needed? At the time, Mr Power clearly would not have been aware of the extremely critical nature of the briefings, so he was clearly trying to find an explanation for Mr Lewis' behaviour, and he was also aware of Mr Walker's criticisms of the investigation.

And so we come to the conclusion:

There was no conspiracy to act against Mr Power because he was seen as a threat to the political status quo and to the vested interests of people of influence within Jersey.

I have found no evidence of a "conspiracy" to oust Mr Power for some improper reason.

But there is clear evidence that (1) proceedings for suspension were proceeding apace, in secret; (2) there was clearly a private collusion between Mr Ogley and Mr Warcup; (3) while the "highest level of the administration", and that could possibly include Chief Minister Frank Walker took no direct part in this, they were most probably aware of this, and had no objections to it - which might be construed as deniability.

Mr Power confirmed in interview that he saw Jersey society as characterised by a lack of integrity and a dislike for openness in government. He described Jersey culture as being one where things are kept secret unless someone can force you to tell it, and where there was little support for what he termed "proactive enthusiasm" on the part of the police. That view of the status quo fits with the reports which the consultant took away after his meeting with him, and which were then relayed to Mr Ogley via Mr Warcup.

and consider the lack of "openness" with the preparations behind his back, the political pressure, and these statements:

Efforts were accordingly concentrated on preparing for that scenario, to the exclusion of other possible mechanisms for resolving perceived failures in performance

I am inclined to think that the answer is that there was, at the highest level of the administration, a belief that the suspension and the taking of disciplinary action against the Chief Officer was not only what was likely to occur (by reason of the decision of the Minister, after the changeover from Senator Kinnard to Mr Lewis), but also what should happen.

Mr Lewis mentioned that immediately prior to the suspension he was coming under a lot of pressure from fellow politicians about how the historic abuse enquiry had been handled.

Having set up a "straw man" of a political conspiracy pretty much by Senator Frank Walker, in his conclusion, Brian Napier proceeds to knock it down. But what we have is clear evidence of some kind of private collusion between interested parties behind Mr Power's back, preparing for his suspension (or resignation) as the planned outcome, and briefing interested parties (such as Mr Lewis) against Mr Power, without making Mr Power aware of the full weight or details of those criticisms, and certainly with the approval of "the highest level of the administration".

The well known "Duck test" says that "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.". Applied to Brian Napier's conclusions regarding conspiracies, and given the evidence he did unearth, this would run something like "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably isn't a tortoise".

It ignores what Deputy Bob Hill calls "evidence which contained many features of a conspiracy, including secret meetings; the suspicious alteration of a key document and the disposal of another key document".

Now I'm not saying there was any pressure put on Napier like that of Jim Hacker to Professor Henderson, but there was certainly feedback (not just factual) from interested parties on the draft report, and this may well have led to a softening of its presentation, the apparent contradictions between first and final draft, and the definitive nature of its conclusion - "no conspiracy" being able to be blazed across the media headlines. And the lesson from "Yes Minister" is certainly true:

Lord Crichton: I've done lots of these things. It's the phrasing of the conclusion, that's all the press ever read.

Senator Le Sueur evidently wants to "put the matter to bed", as he puts it, and certainly as far as the press are concerned, the conclusion - "no conspiracy" is an end to the matter. Wiltshire - or the selective redaction of Wiltshire - is seen as the final word on the competence of Graham Power and Lenny Harper, despite it being clearly only half of a disciplinary process that ran out of time. Whether "put the matter to bed" is the best phrase, or "sweep the dust under the carpet" might be a better one, I leave to the reader.

The Gladdest Game

(Written in memoriam to Annie Parmeter, who died 13 October 2009)

Kate,  in her tribute to Annie, told me the following:

"We shared a love of simplicity, of plants and of people which in Annie seemed to flow out of her overall gratitude for life. I remember very clearly her speaking to me (a few years ago) in tones of outrage, of her inability to understand how people could lack gratitude for the simple fact of being alive."

That sense of gratitude, even in her condition, reminded me of the story of  "Pollyanna". "Pollyanna" is often used in a pejorative way, for someone who is unrelentingly optimistic, but the story has far more depth than that, and also some resonances with Annie's condition.

Pollyanna explained how she came to play what she called "The Glad Game":

"Why, we began it on some crutches that came in a missionary barrel.  You see I'd wanted a doll, and father had written them so; but when the barrel came the lady wrote that there hadn't any dolls come in, but the little crutches had. So she sent 'em along as they might come in handy for some child, sometime. And that's when we began it."

Making the game up on the spot, Pollyanna's father taught her to look at the good side of things-in this case, to be glad about the crutches because "we don't need 'em!". And Pollyanna sets to work to tell other people in the town where she lives with her aunt how to look upon the flip side of misfortunes, how there can be something to be glad about in every situation, although it may be sometimes very hard for the person to see that. As Annie wrote in her notes:

"It is logically possible and certainly desirable to end the ancient habit of paying attention to distress, and replace it by a new attitude or posture of paying attention to interesting and rewarding concerns including the present situation. So I now decide to do this and will repeatedly so decide until the ancient habit is broken"

When Pollyanna is struck by a car, and loses the use of her legs, she is initially despairing, because there is no room for complacency, for any kind of the superficial optimism about her condition. Then the town people come and tell her of how she has changed their lives, by taking them out of their complacency, and giving them a different and better perspective on their lives, rather than just complaining about matters all the time.

And this resonates with me regarding Annie's heart condition. Despite all the problems it caused, she always managed to overcome that and reach out to people, and challenge them in all kinds of ways, and I am privileged to see myself amongst that number

I was also struck recently by the comments of Emma Restall-Orr, an English Druid, who was on Radio 4's "Beyond Belief" discussing religion and disability. She persistently refused to accept the designation "disabled" in referring to herself, and instead continually used the term "differently abled".

I think that is very much how Annie saw herself; she often asked me the same question - if someone had a magic wand, and could take away your health problems, would you let them? Her answer was that she had come to be whom she was with her heart condition, and she was concerned that she might lose all the things she had learnt, and her attitude to life, because of that.

"A continuing challenge in this area for me comes in the form of a fine long-standing co-counselling relationship with someone who also has a chronic illness. One particularly useful tool that my fellow co-counsellor brought to our relationship was a package of three questions.

.        Why did I choose this disease?
.        What can I learn from it?
.        Would I be without it?

At first sight these questions or their imagined answers might seem quite strange, but the consideration of them has provided a really valuable and powerful 'way in' to addressing some of the issues experienced by a person with chronic illness and it continues to be a useful and effective tool for both of us."

Here is Emma Restall Orr speaking on being "differently abled" (she is confined to a wheel chair, and has heart trouble as well), and much of what she says speaks to me of so much of how Annie also lived her life:

"One of the things that I need to work out every day is my commitment to living the day, so I can understand the story that you just told. And every day I do make that decision - to live through the day - and that commitment is a commitment to myself, to those who love me, to those I love, and to everything that inspires me, to everything that I give my life to. But also I think one of the important parts of that decision is that I don't do things, which are beyond my ability, my capacity - because my state of being 'differently abled' I suppose, means that if I push myself, I crash very quickly"

"Happy.no. I think 'happy' is a massive challenge and a word we can use too flippantly. I would say 'happy' is a broad and powerful word that I aspire to. But no, I wouldn't say my life is happy. I work very hard in order to live a fulfilled life and to have moments of serenity and of happiness. Life is too hard for me to say it's happy."

Moments of serenity and happiness, I shared with Annie. And also the times when I would try to help her, massaging her feet, or tapping my hands on her back with a regular beat as this would help with her pulmonary cough.

There were times when it was too much to bear, and she did weep, and cry about how hard life was, and how little other people appreciated what they had. Here's what Annie wrote about a bad day:

"It's like this... on a bad day the effects of this illness can be most debilitating rendering one not only physically weak but utterly lacking in emotional stamina, stimuli of any kind can be 'too much', noises, the phone ringing, someone walking past the door and the idea of having to interact with even one other person can be very daunting."

But even when she was down, her attitude was one of gratitude in life, because she was still alive, clinging on sometimes, it seemed, by her fingertips on the edge of a precipice, but still alive, and open to the joys of life. That came over very clearly in her counselling course, where she wrote the following notes on one of her classes:

"One of the first exercises in class this evening was for each person to ask 'Who am I? What happens when we continue to present to others and ourselves a somewhat jaded view of what should be at the very heart of our delight in life.our self and all its different facets and possibilities, a limitless reason for gratitude? Repeat something often enough and we'll all end up believing it, time to change the record I think lest we reach death with a nasty feeling of having been seriously underwhelmed by our lives. "

"Taking delight in the self is usually seen in our culture (although to a degree gender variant) as being boastful or narcissistic but it can be an enormously valuable tool for self-empowerment, unlearning all our patterns of self deprecation can be a lengthy, difficult and upsetting business and is not the consumption of substances such as cocaine and ecstasy the cheat's way to attempt it albeit with temporary results?"

"I once attended an Co-Counselling workshop themed on the idea of 'feeling good about ourselves' and 'giving up feeling bad about ourselves'. It's quite amazing at how much 'stuff' there is to shift in this area for just about everybody; most of it comes away in laughter as people start to shift embarrassment and fear often followed by tears of grief as memories surface of how others put us down, or punished and discouraged us from expressing our delight in ourselves."

In conclusion, I think this quotation from Emma Restall Orr, sums up a lot of how Annie engaged with the world, and what she taught us, and still inspires us with our own lives.

"We are all 'differently-abled' and if we work within those capacities then we're doing fine. If we can stretch and push, and aspire beyond them, that's wonderful - but really it's about each of us individually finding  our own inspiration that allows us to live well."

And when I look back on Annie's life, I find memories of a life that was certainly full of inspiration, and a friend and partner who certainly lived well - she lived very well indeed.

The Skeptical Blogger

I always keep a sharp eye out for Graham Cluley's blog. He is one of the gurus of Sophos (and ancient computer bods, like me, remember that before that he was the clever clogs at Dr Solomon's Antivirus Toolkit. On his blog at http://www.sophos.com/blogs/gc/ , he warns about all kinds of scams and viruses that have a high profile, so it is always worth keeping an eye out for his blog - I keep a link on the right hand side of my blog with the latest snapshot. The latest thing is a Facebook scam:

Earlier this year I blogged about how scammers were abusing Facebook users' curiosity about who might be viewing their profile. Surprise surprise, they're at it again. Right now we're seeing messages spreading across Facebook claiming to have found a way to allow you to sneakily tell who has been looking at your profile. And it's no shock to see that many people are intrigued as to who might be checking them out online (maybe it's a secret admirer? or an ex-girlfriend or boyfriend? or a prospective employer?), and clicking on the link.

A typical message reads: See who viewed your profilee original version 2.0:
now you can see who viewed your Facebook profile
<LINK>

However, this is not new legitimate functionality that Facebook has built into its social network. Instead, if you click on the link you are taken to a third-party website which (to the untrained eye) may at first glance appear to still be on the real Facebook site, but is in fact designed to trick you into sharing their link further. As we've seen in the past in connection with other scams, the page encourages you to "Like" it and "share" it numerous times before it will hand over the ability to has viewed your Facebook profile. .. Scams like this don't need to exploit security vulnerabilities in Facebook's code - all they need to do is socially engineer users into making poor decisions. In this case, the desire to see who might be investigating you on Facebook might be enough to convince you to share and endorse a link to your other online friends.

Snopes is so well known now that scammers often use it in their emails. This virus cannot be detected by anything etc. Pass this on. This information has been verified from Snopes. It hasn't of course, but chain mail email hoaxes use that as another kind of social engineering to get you worried, and to pass on the email. It assumes Snopes has authority, and that the reader is simply to lazy to check out the hoax for themselves. But another good site for hoaxes is http://www.hoax-slayer.com/ - it gives all the latest kind of email scams:

Hoax-Slayer is dedicated to debunking email hoaxes, thwarting Internet scammers, combating spam, and educating web users about email and Internet security issues. Hoax-Slayer allows Internet users to check the veracity of common email hoaxes and aims to counteract criminal activity by publishing information about common types of Internet scams. Hoax-Slayer also includes anti-spam tips, computer and email security information, articles about true email forwards, and much more. New articles are added to the Hoax-Slayer website every week.

They also have a monthly issue, which you can get by email subscription, or view on line. Here's part of the October edition:
(http://www.hoax-slayer.com/107-4.shtml )

UK Pensioners v Asylum Seekers Protest Message
Harry Potter Author J.K. Rowling Avowed Satanist Hoax
Bogus Microsoft Critical Upgrade Notification Email
Moon Split Miracle Chain Letter
Death From Poisoned Rhino Horn Rumour
Collapse Of 13 Story Building in China
Rebirth Of The Eagle Hoax
Facebook Virus Using Your Pictures Warning
Spider Under Florida Toilet Seat Hoax
Facebook Hacked 'BBC News Team' Warning Message

Read enough of these, and you get a "nose" for obvious hoaxes. For more general hoaxes, not all by email, and some going back hundreds of years, however, I'd recommend The Museum of Hoaxes at http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/ . You can even get a nicely printed book version (properly done, not a web site dump) with pictures from Amazon. The Hoax archive is at http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/archive . My favourite is from 1959-1962 - The Society for Indecency to Naked Animals which took in thousands of Americans (some even wanted to donate!). I'd love a poster saying "A Nude Horse is a Rude Horse"!

Clifford Prout was a man with a mission, and that mission was to put clothes on all the millions of naked animals throughout the world. To realize his dream, Prout founded an organization, the Society for Indecency to Naked Animals (abbreviated as SINA). . Prout first appeared before the American public to promote his organization on May 27, 1959 when he appeared on NBC's Today Show. His appearance generated a huge viewer response and soon thousands of letters were pouring in to SINA's headquarters. (Prout had provided a New York mailing address while on the air.)

More interviews followed after the success of this first appearance. Wherever he went Prout promoted his anti-animal-nudity philosophy and repeated his society's catchy slogans: "Decency today means morality tomorrow" and "A nude horse is a rude horse."... Prout's campaign continued for a number of years until it reached a high point on August 21, 1962, when SINA was featured on the CBS News with Walter Cronkite. As the segment was airing, a few CBS employees recognized that Prout was actually Buck Henry, a comedian and CBS employee. SINA was subsequently revealed to be an elaborate hoax. Although Henry played the role of SINA's president, the hoax had been dreamed up and orchestrated by Alan Abel, who played the part of SINA's vice president.

My favourite historical site, however, is Michael Sheiser's PaleoBabble found at http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/ , described as "Your antidote to cyber-twaddle and misguided research about the ancient world". If you want real archaeology, and all the atomic supercivilisations, ancient astronauts etc etc debunked, while learning something about ancient history, this is the site to visit; it also has lots of links to even more stuff. There is even some stuff debunking Dan Brown.

And speaking of Dan Brown, the all time favourite piece debunking his prose that I've seen is by linguist Geoffrey K. Pullum on his blog which caused me to laugh out loud (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog ):

A voice spoke, chillingly close. "Do not move."

On his hands and knees, the curator froze, turning his head slowly.

Only fifteen feet away, outside the sealed gate, the mountainous silhouette of his attacker stared through the iron bars. He was broad and tall, with ghost-pale skin and thinning white hair. His irises were pink with dark red pupils.

Just count the infelicities here. A voice doesn't speak -a person speaks; a voice is what a person speaks with. "Chillingly close" would be right in your ear, whereas this voice is fifteen feet away behind the thundering gate. The curator (do we really need to be told his profession a third time?) cannot slowly turn his head if he has frozen; freezing (as a voluntary human action) means temporarily ceasing all muscular movements. And crucially, a silhouette does not stare! A silhouette is a shadow. If Saunière can see the man's pale skin, thinning hair, iris color, and red pupils (all at fifteen feet), the man cannot possibly be in silhouette.

Brown's writing is not just bad; it is staggeringly, clumsily, thoughtlessly, almost ingeniously bad. In some passages scarcely a word or phrase seems to have been carefully selected or compared with alternatives. I slogged through 454 pages of this syntactic swill, and it never gets much better.

There is a lot of nonsense on the internet, some of which takes the form of hoaxes, conspiracy theories, fake history and the like. By taking lessons from people like Graham Cluley, the Hoax Slayer, PaleoBabble and Geoffrey Pullum, and others like these, we can learn to sift the sense from the nonsense, and not waste our time and other peoples (to say nothing of bandwidth) by propagating the nonsense like a web version of bindweed.

Handwritten Notes in Napier

The Chief Minister was forced to admit that States chief executive Bill Ogley - the most senior civil servant - had destroyed hand-written minutes of the meeting to suspend the police chief before Mr Power had agreed that they were accurate. Senator Le Sueur told the States yesterday that a typed transcript had been made from the notes before they were thrown in the bin. The transcript was subsequently signed off by the then Home Affairs Minister, Andrew Lewis, but without the original notes being shown to the police chief.

(http://www.thisisjersey.com/2009/02/04/top-civil-servants-under-fire/#ixzz11zqUUnqm)

Of this meeting with Bill Ogley and Andrew Lewis and Graham Power, Brian Napier's report says:

"Subsequent to the meeting, the handwritten notes of the meeting taken by Mr Ogley were destroyed. That, I was told by Mr Crich, was in accordance with normal practice. I have to say that, in all the circumstances, it is my view that it would have been wiser to have retained all that was available by way of record of that crucial meeting. But I accept Mr Ogley's account - that he transcribed the notes immediately after the meeting and that they were subsequently typed up for the parties to sign."

Now Bill Ogley is Jersey's equivalent to the Cabinet Secretary in the UK Government (and is probably paid almost as much). But when we look at what happens with the Cabinet Secretary in the UK, we find quite different record keeping in place The National Archive notes that:

"The Cabinet Secretaries' Notebooks are the hand written notes which the Cabinet Secretary makes when he attends Cabinet Meetings as the Senior Secretary. (1)

Of course, as I'm the first to admit, that doesn't apply to all meetings, only to important Cabinet ones, but nonetheless there are lessons there for the situation with the meeting at which Graham Power was suspended. This is because whether or not it is standard practice to destroy notes in Jersey, it is certainly questionable whether the written minutes were an exact transcript of the meeting. For example, returning again to the Cabinet Secretaries notebooks (the equivalent of Bill Ogley's hand written notes), the official British Archives site notes how these differ in important respects from the final minutes:

"Q. How do the notebooks differ from the official cabinet minutes?
A. The main difference is that the official minutes do not attribute views to individual ministers as the Notebooks do. Nor do the items necessarily correspond: the Cabinet Secretary did not note every item, but sometimes included incidental discussion not reflected in the official minutes."(1)

Minutes then may well represent a form of redaction, which the transcript (the raw data) does not. A situation depicted with humour in "Yes Prime Minister":


"It is characteristic of all committee discussions and decisions that every member has a vivid recollection of them, and that every member's recollection of them differs violently from every other member's recollection; consequently we accept the convention that the official decisions are those and only those which have been officially recorded in the minutes by the officials; from which it emerges with elegant inevitability, that any decision which has been officially reached would have been officially recorded in the minutes by the officials, and any decisions which is not recorded in the minutes by the officials has not been officially reached, even if one or more members believe they can recollect it; so in this particular case, if the decision would have been officially reached, it would have been recorded in the minutes by the officials and it isn't so it wasn't." (Yes Prime Minister)

A Tribunal on this subject further commented on the Cabinet Secretary's handwritten notes of a Cabinet meeting:

". the manner in which an individual takes contemporaneous notes is likely to be idiosyncratic and could well give a false impression as to the weight and importance that should be attributed to a particular part of the debate or the tone in which the points of discussion were expressed."

But the Tribunal also considered that there could be exceptional circumstances in which it was important to check the handwritten handwritten notes with the formal minutes:

"Were the handwritten notes to reveal something of significance which was not recorded in the formal minute, the Commissioner might take a different view. Each case, however, must be considered on its own particular merits" (6)

It is clear that this practice of handwritten notes was also not continued with the suspension review meetings under Ian Le Marquand where there are not minutes of the meeting but a complete transcript of the audio recording - Mr Crich's normal practice did not apply then, nor of course with scrutiny hearings, for which there is also a written transcript of the
audio recording.

One would have expected - given Senator Le Marquand's subsequent use of full audio transcription - for Brian Napier to have commented on how matters had been improved, or why matters had changed between Mr Crich's comments to him and the later meetings with Mr Power, and perhaps noted that this had been done precisely to avoid the accusation that the minutes distorted or omitted matters of significance.

This also comes under the sphere of data retention policies, where requirements, especially for handwritten notes of substance (which can always be easily scanned as PDF images), can be important:

Document retention, especially the retention of electronic data has become a hot topic in the legal industry. In the 21st century business world, companies are creating and storing the electronic document and information at light speed. Electronic documents are not only found on desktops and laptops but also stored on the phones like Blackberry's etc. But for modern business organizations storing all this business information can be expensive not only because of the cost of physical storage of tapes but also because of the potential liability of keeping sometimes seemingly useless information for too long.

A document retention policy provides for the systematic review, retention and destruction of documents received or created in the course of business. A document retention policy will identify documents that need to be maintained and contain guidelines for how long certain documents should be kept and how they should be destroyed. (2)

Those notes are from India which is striving to comply with the data protection laws of the EU, and to which Jersey is also subject with its own Data Protection Law. On the subject of which documents must be protected, they note:

Temporary Records: Temporary records include all business documents that have not been completed. Such include, but are not limited to written memoranda and dictation to be typed in the future, reminders, to-do lists, report, case study, and calculation drafts, interoffice correspondence regarding a client or business transaction, and running logs.

They note that temporary records need not be kept as long as final records, so that - provided a minute is signed off by all parties as accurate, the documents from which it is transcribed can be destroyed. Regarding how long any documents - including written memoranda - should be kept, the matter is open - and this is the same position as in Jersey's own Data Protection Law. But note the caveat at the end, which would, in my opinion, certainly apply to the handwritten notes that were shredded:

How long should documents be kept? Only for so long as the law requires or for as long as you actually have use for them, and not a moment longer. There is no bright line number. In typical lawyerly fashion, my real answer is that "it depends." Any records management program must ensure that legally required documents are kept for at least the minimum prescribed time periods. But, are there circumstances under which they should be kept for a longer period of time? In my view there are two answers to that question. First, there may be records you think are critical to preserving historical continuity, for example, minutes of strategic planning meetings or of policy development sessions..... The second reason may be litigation or governmental investigations and enforcement actions... These latter circumstances will almost always out trump your retention and disposition schedule.

We can see that handwritten documents also feature in requests to the UK's own Information Comissioners Office. Two examples of this kind of request follow:

Case Ref: FS50113234: Date: 28/01/2008: Public Authority: Northern Ireland Court Service: Summary: On 29 November 2005 the complainant made a request to the Northern Ireland Court Service ("NICS"), for documentation, notes (handwritten, electronic or otherwise), telephone records received into and emanating fromNICS in relation to emails and letters sent by the complainant.

On 14 June 2006, the PA wrote to the complainant with the outcome of the internal review. It states that the reviewer was unable to find a request, prior to 27 May 2006, for the [handwritten] notes taken during the meeting between the inspector and the complainant but encloses them. It goes on to say that the single reference within the inspection evidence to the "difficulties" faced by the governing body does not provide an explanation of what those difficulties were.

Now I do note that it is common practice in offices for handwritten notes to be made and then destroyed after the minutes have been agreed; I also note that on occasions where I have been present, there may have been mistakes in the minutes that I've spotted (or others have noted), and these are corrected by feedback before the minutes are finalised. So - for a start - honest mistakes can be made. But these are meetings where all concerned are not engaged in any form of disputation, and it would seem - particularly in view of the audio transcripts instituted later (a new policy?) by Senator Ian Le Marquand - that such a practice was not appropriate for such an important meeting.

I would not say the minutes differed materially from the transcript although I would be interested in Mr Power's comments on how they differed from what had taken place. But without harking to any great conspiracy here, there may have been different emphases, or items of significance left out. One has only to look at the Minutes of States Meetings (still produced) and compare them with Hansard, or Hansard and JEP reports, or to try and produce a summation of the meetings with Dr Brain, Graham Power and Ian le Marquand to see that some selection and reduction must have taken place, even for a short meeting of 30 minutes.

And this begs the question, which Napier does not ask: why was previous practice deemed sufficient in view of the seriousness of the meeting? Shouldn't a Chief Advisor be aware that more stringent practice was needed, as indeed Senator Le Marquand obviously did later - after, of course, Mr Power had decided to contest his suspension?

Mr Power had part of the letter headed "Disciplinary Code" read to him and was shown the letter. He was then offered, but declined, an opportunity of one hour to"consider his position".

Trying to make sense of this historically, one obvious surmise, given the question about Graham Power "considering his position", was that the expected outcome of the meeting was resignation, rather than suspension, in which case the recording of the meeting would not have been as important as it subsequently became. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that suspension, which clearly had been prepared for, was not the only option, but was a fall back position in readiness in case Mr Power declined to resign.

In this hypothesis - and I am only putting it as an historical hypothesis, but one which would make sense of the facts, and the brevity of the meeting - that would be probably the real significance of the handwritten notes, rather than an audio transcription being made - normal practice of handwritten notes, put into minutes, was in place because it was not expected that there would be any subsequent meetings after Mr Power's resignation. There the matter would have ended.

Links
(1) http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/news/qanda195-19-may.htm
(2) http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l428-Data-Retention-Policies.html
(3) http://www.ico.gov.uk/tools_and_resources/decision_notices/2008_01.aspx
(4) http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50124420.pdf
(5) http://www.ico.gov.uk/global/search.aspx?keywords=handwritten%20minute&collection=ico&start=0
(6) http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50088735.pdf

Gladness

It's coming up to one year since Annie's death, and I wrote this in memory of her...


Gladness
(in memory of Annie)
 
Such joy, such wonder, sweetest sound,
That every day, for me,
I wake again, alive, self found,
With gratitude, I see;
My failing heart taught me - not fear,
And seldom have I grieved;
How precious did my life appear,
And how much I perceived!
 
Through poor esteem, a pattern snares,
I nearly did succumb,
Yet gratitude comes when hope seems far,
And beats a different drum
 
My love is good, each day for me,
Although there are no cures,
I seek no more than just to be,
As long as life endures.
 
Yet when my beating heart shall fail,
And  light of life shall cease,
I know that to my best, I did prevail,
And gently rest in peace
 
What is there now that death can show?
But that joy came to shine,
Despite a breathlessness made low,
Before I drank dark wine
 
When I've been gone ten thousand years,
And memories are there none,
My ashes still the winds will raise,
Beneath the shining sun.

Turning Over Napier's Bones

20 October - Wendy Kinnard resigns as Home Affairs Minister; Andrew Lewis takes over, with effect from 22 October.

11 November - David Warcup provides Bill Ogley with letter containing his report written at the request of Bill Ogley and referring to Interim Report received from the Metropolitan Police

Mr Lewis' statement made to Wiltshire Police as part of their inquiry, to the effect that he had no reason to believe before reading the letter sent by Mr David Warcup (the Deputy Chief Officer of Police) to Mr Ogley (the Chief Executive) that the police were not managing the investigation well was not wholly accurate.

Along with "economical with the truth", the phrase "not wholly accurate" should go down as one of the most weasel phrases of our times. Andrew Lewis made a statement, and either it was true, or it was false. Only in the weird logic of Edward De Bono, or Brian Napier, does a statement of fact have the odd attribute of being neither true nor false, rather like Schrödinger's cat. Actually, as it turns out, it is clear that David Warcup was briefing Andrew Lewis well before that letter came out. As Brian Napier's own report states:

The resignation of Senator Kinnard from her position of Minister for Home Affairs took place on 20 October 2008, and her replacement was Deputy Andrew Lewis. That was a significant development, as Senator Kinnard had been resolute in her defence not only of the police generally, but in particular in her endorsement of the actions of DCO Harper in conducting the investigation. Mr Lewis, who took over, was a man of different views. He was not inclined, in the absence of hard evidence to the contrary, to accept that there was a conspiracy against justice in high places within Jersey. Mr Lewis had moreover been in receipt of constant briefing from Mr Warcup during the latter's time on the island. As previously mentioned, these briefings had contained not only criticisms of how the inquiry had been managed when DCO Harper had been in operational charge of it, but also criticisms of Mr Power's failure to engage with the attempts that were being made (by Mr Warcup) to put right mistakes that had been made.

"In receipt of constant briefing" suggest not only that Andrew Lewis, was briefed that "the police were not managing the investigation well", but also - as it stems from the advent of Mr Warcup - these briefings clearly took place when he was still an assistant minister. It doesn't seem to me that Andrew Lewis's statement is "not wholly accurate"; from reading Napier's own report, it appears very much as if it was wholly inaccurate!

It certainly seems that Brian Napier is trying to give Andrew Lewis the benefit of the doubt, but the evidence of his own report does not stack up against that.

Turning now to the idea of a conspiracy, the notion that there was no evidence of any conspiracy is stated in his conclusion:

I have seen no evidence to support the claims (which, if substantiated, would certainly point to a need for further investigation) that these were part of some plot or conspiracy within the public service to frustrate police investigation in Jersey.

I have found no evidence of a "conspiracy" to oust Mr Power for some improper reason.

But look at the words carefully - "to frustrate police investigation in Jersey" and "some improper reason". What does Brian Napier understand by "conspiracy", in these phrases? He clearly means some kind of cover up of dark secrets, a kind of murky world not unlike that described in a recent play on Radio 4, "The Conspiracy of the Illuminati". There was some kind of devilish plot to get at Mr Power, and destroy the child abuse enquiry. I know some suggestions have been made of that.

But there are conspiracies of many sorts, and there is clear evidence that certain individuals were conferring together, behind Mr Power's back (and hence in secret) , and while this may have been from the highest motives, they were definitely intending to remove him from office, and were preparing the ground for this. This emerges again in the Napier report:

As early as 28 October there was in existence a document created by Mr Crich setting out a possible scenario for "Possible disciplinary proceedings against the Chief of Police". By this time Mr Lewis had taken over as Minister from Senator Kinnard. Yet no steps were taken Mr Lewis to try to resolve the differences that were seen as emerging, not only by him but by his senior advisers. My view is that an opportunity to attempt to resolve the issues relating to competence and capability that eventually lead to Mr Power's suspension on 12 November 2008 was missed when Deputy Lewis took over from Senator Kinnard.

The confrontation with Mr Power was seen coming by officials weeks in advance of 12 November, and I do not know why the opportunity to head it off (or at least attempt to do so) was not taken. I am inclined to think that the answer is that there was, at the highest level of the administration, a belief that the suspension and the taking of disciplinary action against the Chief Officer was not only what was likely to occur (by reason of the decision of the Minister, after the changeover from Senator Kinnard to Mr Lewis), but also what should happen. Efforts were accordingly concentrated on preparing for that scenario, to the exclusion of other possible mechanisms for resolving perceived failures in performance.

It would be interesting to know exactly what "the highest level of the administration" refers to in the report. It seems to be a fudge which avoids naming names. Bill Ogley? Frank Walker? One individual? Several? Note that the preparation for the scenario of suspension, because they thought that was what "should happen". Is that "planning" or "conspiracy"? There may have been no clear directives, but just because directives are not given directly doesn't mean to say that intentions were not clear, or else why else concentrate efforts on one objective.

Could this be described as engineering Mr Power's suspension? Obviously no one came together in a cabal, in secret, and put on a blackboard the words "get rid of him". Outside of fiction, no one really behaves much like that. But pre-planning one particular outcome - that of suspension - because it was believed that it "should happen", would certainly come close. One of the characteristic features of a short story is that if a shotgun is casually mentioned, hanging on a wall, the reader knows that the writer indents to make use of it later on in the tale - why else mention it? The pre-planning can be seen as akin to loading a shotgun, and why one earth would all that effort be given to something that was not intended?

Brian Napier exonerates Andrew Lewis from this pre-planning, assuming, of course, that Andrew Lewis' statement in this respect is more accurate than the one he gave the Wiltshire inquiry:

I do not say that Mr Lewis shared that view. He has confirmed to me that he was not at any stage planning with others to bring down the Chief Officer and I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of that statement.

But what was the motivation? I certainly think there were "legitimate and reasonable concerns about Mr Power's performance", and I accept Napier's point that was part of the motivation. But another part was clearly motivated by personal reasons. There was already a clash of personalities, as is clear from the description of the meeting on May 2008:

Mr Power also refers to a meeting he attended around May 2008, together with Senator Kinnard, the Chief Minister (Mr Frank Walker) and the Chief Executive (Mr Bill Ogley). He narrates how, at that meeting, there was a strong difference of views between the Chief Minister and Senator Kinnard with regard to the conduct of the ongoing Historic Abuse Enquiry. Mr Power's recollection of that meeting was that the then Chief Minister berated the enquiry and complained of the damage it was causing because of the bad publicity it was generating. Senator Kinnard defended the enquiry but was, according to Mr Power, subjected to verbal bullying by the Chief Minister who stated that he was "under pressure to suspend both the Chief and the Deputy Chief." In recounting this event in the course of being interviewed, Mr Power made no secret of his dislike of Mr Walker, nor what he saw as his bullying tendencies.

The recollections which both the Chief Minister and the Chief Executive have of these meetings are quite different, both with regard to the content of the meetings and how they were carried out. Neither accepts that there was any improper conduct on their part. I am not in a position, having heard the competing accounts, to decide which version of events is accurate, or even which versions are more accurate than others. I mention these matters simply to draw attention to the existence of differences between Mr Power and two senior colleagues within the political and administrative spheres public sector of the States of Jersey (Chief Minister Walker and Chief Executive Ogley).

I'm not sure why the "content of the meetings" is debatable; I'd assume that minutes were taken, and if they had been signed off by all those present, this would surely provide some objective record. Of course, minutes are a précis, and in any compaction of data, there is bound to be a selection process on what is of importance, and how to present a disagreement.

But if there was any addition reason to take just suspension as one of several options, it is likely that personal reasons, even if unconscious to the participants, would have played a part. If they were aware of their dislike, they should have been self-critical of any actions, especially ones they wanted to take, but according to Brian Napier, these fed into the events which followed:

Key decision makers and advisers were, long before the events of 12 November, inclined to be critical of Mr Power. Perhaps because of that, officials were too ready to accept relatively weak evidence as sufficient to warrant the Minister taking the drastic step of imposing suspension on 12 November 2008.

It is not at all surprising that there were serious concerns on the part of Mr Ogley (and others) about Mr Power's role in the management and oversight of the historic abuse enquiry in the light of information that was becoming available in the autumn of 2008. In my view, however, these legitimate and reasonable concerns about Mr Power's performance led to the making of decisions which were, from a procedural point of view, unfair to Mr Power.

What is also interesting is the curious omission from Napier. You might expect he would have interviewed Wendy Kinnard, or stated if he was unable to do so.

In the course of my investigation, I held recorded meetings with Mr Andrew Lewis, Mr Bill Ogley, Mr Ian Crich, Mr David Warcup, Mr Graham Power and Mr Frank Walker.

As one of the people present at the meeting mentioned above who would have certainly been able to state whether she felt herself subject to "verbal bullying", it is strange that Wendy Kinnard was not interviewed. The rapidity with which Mr Power became exposed after her resignation makes me wonder if she was "out of the loop", or getting the same behind the scenes briefings from David Warcup that Andrew Lewis was. Now there could be quite legitimate and personal reasons why she declined to be interviewed, but it seems strange that she doesn't even seem to have been asked. The balance between legitimate concerns and a personal dislike of Mr Power is surely germane to any inquiry, and she could have thrown valuable light on that.

And finally, just as a codicil, Brian Napier seems unaware of the landmark decision concerning suspensions. He writes:

While suspension is of itself a "neutral" act, in terms of not imputing guilt of any putative offence, it was appreciated by all concerned that, in the context of Mr Power and the office he held, it was a step of considerable significance.

In fact, Mezey v South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust, in 2007 (before Graham Power's suspension) dismissed the Trust's argument that suspension was "a neutral act preserving the employment relationship". Their decision was as follows:

"The Court of Appeal rejected that argument, at least in relation to the employment of a qualified professional in a function which is as much a vocation as a job. Suspension changes the status quo from work to no work, and it inevitably casts a shadow over the employee's competence. Of course this does not mean it cannot be done, but it is not a neutral act."

Pretty well all the sites on employment law and suspensions mention this; is it too much to ask that Jersey's personnel officers read up on it as part of their Continuing Professional Education?

On Lines in the Sands

Over a year ago now, I remember going down to St Ouen's Bay. I parked at the far end of the day, in the car park with the toilets, and made my way down the slipway on to the beach with my eldest son. It was a cloudy day but the cloud was fairly high and the temperature was pleasant. We walked down across the sand until we reached the markers, posts and ribbons stretching into the distance towards the other end of the bay. I could see in the distance that at Braye slip, a small line was slowly forming. It looked as though there would be a moderate turnout and people were walking beside me, but at that point it seemed I would have to walk some distance to catch up with the small line in the sand.

But by the time I got to El Tico, the line ahead had grown considerably so I decided to stop and wait for it to join my position. I looked back across the beach and now there was quite a multitude, some deciding like me to stop where they were, and others coming forward to fill in the gaps. Within about half an hour or perhaps slightly more, there was a definite line of people stretching across the length of the bay from Braye slip to as far as I could see the slipway at L'Etacq.

It was like one of those join the dots puzzles when a picture appears fuzzy and then sharpens into focus and a whole becomes clear. There was now a solid line of people, a great crowd who had all come encouraged Mike Stentiford, to present a protest against the creeping development which threatened to erode the natural landscape of the coast. It took time and a little stamina but I think above all else it was the fact that it was Mike Stentiford who had made this clarion call that brought so many people to take their places and draw the line in the sand. Perhaps only the late Gerald Durrell could have also commanded such widespread respect and such affection that people would give up their time and come here.

I remember having a nesting box in the garden which was empty for many years until suddenly some blue tits took residence in it. We knew they were breeding and had heard the young and seen the parents going to and fro bringing food to the nest within the box. But we didn't know how many young there were likely to be this was the day before the Internet made all kinds of information readily available. We rang up Mike Stentiford to ask for a little brief advice and he gave us not a few minutes but a good 20 minutes to tell us what to look out for. Such generosity to complete strangers.

And now over a year has gone by, and I wondered precisely what lessons have been learnt. Ignorant of the indigenous and migrating wildlife, such as the Brent geese, and ignorant too of the natural beauty of the small harbour and its village, the developer has now turned a greedy eye towards St Aubin, and once more it is Mike Stentiford who is leading the protest. One can do absolute wonders with computer software and the mockup which has appeared in the press makes the development as attractive as it could possibly be, even if one might well quibble over the singularly small buildings which it shows. It is easy to forget that these artistic renderings are as real as the virtual world of James Cameron's Avatar. It is a neat, clean world, a Disneyland fantasy, into which we must avoid being sucked, because all fantasies like this are presented in the most seductive fashion possible.

Developers of course are out to sell something, in this case an idea, a utopia. We can do this, they say, and it will not cost you a penny. Such altruism! And the reclamation of the land, we are told by Guy de Faye, will be landfill, so we can guarantee that it won't happen overnight - because I do not believe there is enough rubbish of suitable quality to dump there right now. In the meantime, we can expect many years in which St Aubin would be an unsightly mess with the new sea wall (probably not in granite but the same sort of blocks that attract decaying seaweed at the other end of the bay) and a large hole gradually being filled in, lots of heavy duty vehicles and machinery, noise and dust. We will then be told that you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs -- an apposite description for the smell of rotting seaweed. The smell of rotten eggs.

But why do it in the first place? Why is there this insatiable itch to take a picturesque little village and turn it into some kind of Ocean Park? I can understand the money motive but what is alarming is that there are developers out there who seem to think that this kind of thing is progress. It reminds me of the passage in C.S. Lewis's work "That Hideous Strength", where the developers want to introduce their bright progressive future, and - of course - wipe out any inconveniences along the way.

"It's about the village of Cure Hardy," said Cosser when they were seated. "You see, all that land at Bragdon Wood is going to be little better than a swamp once they get to work. Why the hell we wanted to go there I don't know. Anyway, the latest plan is to divert the Wynd: block up the old channel through Edgestow altogether. Look. Here's Shillingbridge, ten miles north of the town. It's to be diverted there and brought down an artificial channel - here, to the east, where the blue line is - and rejoin the old bed down here." "The university will hardly agree to that," said Mark. "What would Edgestow be without the river?"

"We've got the university by the short hairs," said Cosser. "You needn't worry about that. Anyway it's not our job. The point is that the new Wynd must come right through Cure Hardy. Now look at your contours. Cure Hardy is in this. narrow little valley. Eh? Oh, you've been there, have you? That makes it all the easier. I don't know these parts myself. Well, the idea is to dam the valley at the southern end and make a big reservoir. You'll need a new water supply for Edgestow now that it's to be the second city in the country."

"But what happens to Cure Hardy?"

"That's another advantage. We build a new model village (it's to be called Jules Hardy or Wither Hardy) four miles away. Over here, on the railway."

"I say, you know, there'll be the devil of a stink about this. Cure Hardy is famous. It's a beauty spot. There are the sixteenth-century almshouses, and a Norman church, and all that."

"Exactly. That's where you and I come in. We've got to make a report on Cure Hardy. We'll run out and have a look round tomorrow, but we can write most of the report today. It ought to be pretty easy. If it's a beauty spot, you can bet it's insanitary. - That's the first point to stress. Then we've got to get out some facts about the population."

Climbing Mount Improbable

Voice For Children (despite the carping of one blog in particular), has pulled off a remarkable coup, not only in following the continual delay of the Napier report, but also in bringing out the reply from Terry Le Sueur, which confirms to Deputy Hill that "the Napier Report will be published in a full and unredacted form", unlike the Wiltshire report.

Dear colleague,
As you may be aware, I have now received the Report into the suspension on 12th November 2008 of the (former) Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police ("the Napier Report").
Having read this Report carefully, I am of the view that there could possibly be grounds for disciplinary action arising out of the report. I am taking advice on this and considering it as a matter of urgency and anticipate making a decision on this shortly.
I have also sought appropriate advice about the publication of the Napier Report prior to any disciplinary proceedings which may, after consideration, take place and I am advised that publication might prejudice any disciplinary process which may be required.
Although I have shared the Napier Report in confidence with the Deputy of St. Martin, he has acknowledged that it is important for any disciplinary process that may be required to be conducted properly so that there can be no question of any impropriety. The Deputy of St. Martin has therefore agreed to continue to hold the Report in confidence.
I am grateful to the Deputy for his understanding in this matter and I hope that all States members will similarly respect the need to conclude any disciplinary issues prior to publication.
I confirm that on the conclusion of any disciplinary issues, the Napier Report will be published in a full and unredacted form.
Yours sincerely,
Terry Le Sueur
Chief Minister

What is obviously the key matter for speculation is who would be subject to any disciplinary proceedings. Clearly, as Graham Power is no longer an employee of the States of Jersey, he is certainly out of the frame, and Deputy Andrew Lewis is no longer in the States, so no action by PPC can be taken against him. This means, of necessity, that if there are "grounds for disciplinary action" - and let's note that this is not absolutely clear-cut, it must be a civil servant. I'm not going to speculate on this, suffice it to say that those present at the first disciplinary meeting, or those giving poor advice, are obvious candidates.

Of course, the good Senator has yet to make up his mind about what to do - whether to proceed with disciplinary action; he's only had the report since 13th September, which is only just over three weeks, so at the snails pace at which he seems to dither along, it would be quite remarkable if he acted with any speed. Given the speed of disciplinary processes in Jersey, the phrase "it will all be over by Christmas", which was used in 1914 by hopeless optimists at the start of the Great War, seems horribly appropriate.

Meanwhile, despite Senator Le Marquand stating on the eviscerated Wiltshire that "The versions now on the States website are in pdf and if downloaded as a document will be searchable", whoever updates the website has not done so, nor have they appeared in less redacted form, as was also promised back in July. Tardiness appears to be a disease of Government, spreading out to afflict its many departments.

The bulk of the missing pages are now being redacted. This is a big task and the departments involved have many other things to do. I think that the rest of what I can properly put out should be available by early September 2010. There are sections of the Blast report which will not be redacted because that would reveal the identities of the officers involved.

I can fully understand that time and pressure of the States Business Plan and the Comprehensive Spending Review, along with general departmental business can consume available, and cause delays. That is entirely understandable. But surely it is not beyond the bounds of simple courtesy and politeness to the voting public to say as much, and apologise for the delay, and just not be like one of those annoying people whom you ring up - if they owe you money - they say "they'll get back to you", and they never do, hoping that you'll forget all about it. It seems that the less redacted Wiltshire Report, like the cheque in the post, is still to arrive. It's a pity there's not a Government Report chasing agency.

Links
(1) http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2010/10/napier-imminent-3put-upor-i-will.html

The Industrial Struggle

Here is another extract from Norman Le Brocq's history of the working class in Jersey. It is the post-war era, and the workers were not prepared to lose sight of the "land fit for heroes" that had been the promise of politicians during the war time struggle. Working islanders who had fought in the trenches were no longer prepared to be so readily cowed by their employers.

The Franchise Act had increased the vote, but 20% still had no vote. As a rough guide, with the figures below, the weekly wage of 36 shillings translates to £61.30 (on the basis of RPI), and that of 50 shillings to £85.20.

It is interesting to note that the police were banned from joining a union. This was very much in like with the times. In the UK, there had been police strikes in 1918 and 1919 which resulted in the British government under Lloyd George putting before Parliament its proposals for a Police Act, which established the "Police Federation of England and Wales" as the representative body for the police, rather than any Union formed from the police themselves. The Act also barred police from belonging to a trade union or affiliating with any other trade union body. Part of the fear was that if the police belonged to a union, their loyalties might be divided in any strikes between supporting the authorities or the workers.

It is clear that the same fears were present in Jersey, and a compromise was reached, with the police who had been summarily dismissed being reinstated, but only on the grounds that, as in the UK, the police stayed out of the Union.

---

The Industrial Struggle

Leaving the Union's political activities for the moment, we turn to the industrial struggle.
 
At the second quarterly meeting of the Union, held on March 28, 1919, a report was heard giving details of that quarter's work. The report recorded victory after victory, commencing: "Our first encounter and victory of this quarter was with Bashfords Ltd. The Union has secured from there an average rise of 8/- per- head per - week. The Storemen, Coopers and Carters employed by the Potato Merchants Association have had their  wages increased, in some cases by 7/-, in others 5/- per week.
 
"The cranemen, a rise of 7/6 per week, and their overtime paid at the rate of 1/3 per hour. All Sunday and holiday time in future is to be paid at the rate of 1/6 per hour.
 
"Several coal merchants have agreed to pay the same wages as the P.M.A. The Veneer Basket Co. has also agreed to pay the same wages as other stores.
 
"Jobbing ship carpenters in the employ of Watton, South Pier, have had a substantial increase of pay through the efforts of our Union, their rates now ranging from 36/- to 50/- per week.
 
"Then we come to those members of our Union who are employed by the Local Government. We have approached the States Committee of Piers and Harbours as regards to carpenters, storemen, pier-head watchmen, the crew of the tug " Duke," and also the pier sweepers, and have succeeded in each case in obtaining a satisfactory rise in wages.
 
"We have also approached the Mayor of St. Helier on behalf of the destructor firemen and the quarrymen employed by the Parish. These men have also benefited by our Union, and we have by our efforts raised the wages of the firemen by 6/- and the quarrymen by 5/- per week.
 
" I might also mention here that our Union has been successful with regard to the plumbers in getting their wages raised by 1d per hour.
 
"In concluding the above list, we must not forget that in addition to a substantial rise in wages, your Union has obtained in every case a weekly half-holiday, which we regard as very important to all workers.
 
" We are proud to state that our total membership to date is 2,203, which is an increase on last quarter of 997."
 
Not a bad record for three months' work! Apart from all this, too, it must be remembered that organisational work had been heavy, dealing with the large influx of new members. Branches had been set up for: Dockers and General Workers,. Masons and Plasterers, Carpenters, Painters, Plumbers; Coopers, Carters, Cranemen, Gasworkers, Coachbuilders, Shop Assistants, Women Workers, and Agricultural Workers. The activities of the branches were co-ordinated in a District Committee comprising the Chairman of each branch and the District Chairman and Secretary.
 
At this time there were still no paid officials; though soon after the need was felt for a full-time paid secretary.
 
The next time that the Union hit the headlines was in May. On Monday, May 19, it having come to the ears of the Constable of St. Helier that a number of policemen had joined the D.W.R. & G.W.U., a parade was called and P.C. Osmond, who was a known Unionist, was dismissed and two others, Walters and Poingdestre, were suspended pending inquiries.
 
On the Tuesday morning a lightning strike of dockers and pier carters was called. This was effective by 9 o'clock, pickets being placed on the quays and the men discussing the situation. It was felt by most that the Police should have formed a branch of the English Police Union, but in any case the dismissals would be fought by the Union. At noon a meeting was held between Union officials and the Police and Pier authorities. This meeting came to an end at 1.30 p.m., Moignard going direct to the pier and addressing the strikers. He told them to resume work for one day pending an inquiry. This was done.
 
At the inquiry on the following day it was decided to reinstate the policemen on the understanding that the Police Force remained outside the Union. This was accepted by all concerned.
 
The popularity of the Union at this time can be judged by the number present at the West Park Pavilion on May 23. Over 2,000 people were present at this mass meeting held under Union auspices. It was noted that there were then 3,000-odd Union members.
 
Thus did Jersey fall in line with the feeling of revolt that swept the workers of Europe. And more was to follow.

Field 148

I wish to lodge a complaint against Ms Labey in regard to these " corruption " allegations which have apparently taken place over the rezoning of Field 148 in Grouville and any other land rezoning or otherwise in the Island. (Email, Senator Terry Le Main)

What is the background of Field 148? All I am doing is this posting is collating some of the background information; I am not commenting on any allegations made by Deputy Labey, but just putting in the public domain the background details about Field 148. There may well be enough circumstantial evidence to raise legitimate questions about various individuals involvement, and certainly if there is, then an enquiry is entirely proper, not as an allegation of corruption, but simply to demonstrate that everything was above board; I'd agree with Senator Cohen on that.

It should also be noted that Senator Le Main's complaint was on the basis of JEP reporting of Carolyn Labey's statement in Court, and that was only a précis, and may well have lacked qualifications and nuances. Going on past form, I would be very careful about taking JEP reports at face value. Senator Le Main's email has appeared on a local blog, and in the comments following it, are various comments about Deputy Labey's personal lifestyle that are insulting, if not slanderous. If he wants to be associated with that kind of blog, that is his affair, but I would question the wisdom of his placing his email in a context where he is associated with those kind of individuals.

Part of this comes a States Hansard report when Dan Murphy commented on it some time ago when replying to various questions asked by Senator Stuart Syvret:

"Would you please explain to me in writing exactly what business or other beneficial relationships exist between yourself, Senator Terry Le Main and Mr. Geoff Noel?" I will explain this in a moment. Let me just finish these questions first, okay? Senator Le Main and I have had a business relationship. It was in about 1988 when we had a guesthouse and we were hiring cars from him for our guests. That was it.

"Would you explain to me what discussions have taken place between the Attorney or Solicitor Generals, Bailiff or Deputy Bailiff, in connection with the subject matter of questions 1 to 6?" Now, this refers to a story that is being pushed around by the Senator [Stuart Syvret] about the purchase of the land field 148 at Gorey which is a deal that is being done between a benefactor, Mr. Kirsch, and Mr. Noel who owns that field. I have no part of it, I have absolutely nothing to do with it at all except that I pushed for the Parish to get a share of the houses that are to be built there for our older people and that is it. Senator Le Main is a big boy. He can speak for himself but there has been absolutely nothing at all between the rest of us.

The Grouville Gazette (Autumn 2008) gives some more of this background, again from Constable Murphy:

Now that the rezoning of Field 148 has been passed by the States I would like to offer parishioners an insight as to how this application came to pass. In the three elections since 2003 I have made the provision of more homes for the elderly one of my priorities as we only have 12 units, which are in great demand with a waiting list of 18. The opportunity arose when I was talking to David Kirch about the excellent developments his Trust had carried out in Gorey and he told me that he was actively looking for a further site to provide extra facilities. This coincided with the Housing and Planning Ministers asking the Connétables to assist by identifying sites for just this type of development and bringing them forward for consideration. We had looked at many sites in the Parish, which were unsuitable and also some glasshouse sites which were either unsuitable or not for sale At this time a developer had approached Mr Kirch with a proposal for Field 148 and he called me in to discuss it with him. Having spoken to the Procureurs it was decided that we would support him in exchange for nomination rights on 12 of the 20 proposed units for parishioners. We consider this to be an extremely generous gesture, one that would save the Parish from borrowing millions of pounds if we had to provide the units ourselves.

The amendment to the Island Plan was, in fact, lodged by the Minister for Planning:

PROVISION OF LAND FOR LIFELONG DWELLINGS (FOR PEOPLE OVER 55) AND FIRST-TIME BUYERS: AMENDMENT TO ISLAND PLAN (2002): Lodged au Greffe on 22nd May 2008 by the Minister for Planning and Environment

and in this we read:

(17) Field 148, Rue des Maltières, Grouville: The site is an infill development of land between Clos des Maltières and residential properties fronting Rue des Maltières and Rue Horman. It comprises approximately 4 vergées. The south east part of the site is adjacent to Grouville marsh and should be retained in its natural state. It benefits from a field access to Rue Horman, which could enable a direct pedestrian route to Gorey village. The site could accommodate approximately 20 lifelong dwellings for the Parish of Grouville, the development of which would be undertaken by the Gouray Lodge Charitable Trust.

The site is an infill development of land between Clos des Maltières and residential properties fronting Rue des Maltières and Rue Horman. It is designated as Countryside Zone in the 2002 Island Plan, and comprises approximately 4 vergées. The south-east part of the site is adjacent to Grouville Marsh and should be retained in its natural state. It benefits from a field access to Rue Horman, which could enable a direct pedestrian route to Gorey Village. The site could accommodate approximately 20 lifelong dwellings for the Parish of Grouville, the development of which would be undertaken by the Gouray Lodge Charitable Trust and appropriate protection measures for the marsh will be required during construction and once the dwellings are occupied.

The Rural Economy Strategy Group has advised that the top ¾ of the field produces a crop of early potatoes and should be retained in agriculture. Health Protection reported no issues with the development of this site. Transport and Technical Services support the site and advise that improvements for pedestrians should be investigated. The site can be connected to mains services.

Some of the following site-specific comments were received from the public consultation:

- Many other land owners were willing to make land available why weren't they consulted? (Other sites were mentioned by the Connétable, however this site best met the Connétable's requirement.)
- Island Plan Policy C6 makes a presumption against development therefore this site should not be considered. (The comment is noted, hence the Minister's decision to take a report and proposition to the States to rezone the land.)
- The Jersey Pottery site should be used instead or build homes on the green area next to Jersey Pottery. (The comment is noted; however permission has already been given for open market housing on the JP site. The adjacent green area is an essential part of the village flood relief scheme and cannot be built on.)
- Eco-impact to the marsh. (The comment is noted and the Environment Department will be consulted on any necessary measures.)
- Need for Parish rental houses not proven. (The comment is not accepted. The Connétable has confirmed the Parish need for elderly housing.)
- Benefactor's generosity is over-riding planning policy. (Notwithstanding the benefactor's generosity, the site meets the requirements for elderly housing.)
- The site floods. (The comment is noted. It is understood that the lower section of the field is wet and this area could not be built on and would be retained as a buffer zone.)
- The site is too steep for elderly people. (The comment is not accepted; the existing Parish homes at Hilgrove work well and are on a much steeper site.)
- Reduce speed limit in Rue Horman to 20 m.p.h. (The comment is noted and will be referred to the Parish.)
- Site is 600 m. from village which is too remote for elderly people. (The comment is not accepted. The site is in reasonable walking distance to the village centre and the shops.)
- The field is a wildlife corridor. (The comment is noted and the Environment Department will be consulted on any necessary measures.)
- Development will result in light pollution. (The comment is noted and the issue of light pollution will be addressed at the application stage.)
- Design and materials should blend in with the surrounding landscape. (The comment is accepted.)
- Build a 1.8 m. wall around the site to safeguard neighbour privacy. (The comment is not accepted; however boundary treatment will need to be carefully designed to ensure it does not have an unreasonable impact on the area.)
- Soft landscaping needs to be carefully designed to avoid impact to neighbours (The comment is accepted.)
- Footpath link necessary for easy access to the village. (The comment is accepted.)

The Planning Application appeared as follows:

Site Collection: Application Number: P/2010/0126
Site Address: Field 148, Le Chemin des Maltières, Grouville.
Applicant: B & N Developments Ltd.
Description: Construct 20 No. life-long homes. (Model Available). AMENDED PLANS RECEIVED.
Date Validated: 08/02/2010
Site to be Zoned Cat A Housing

T&TS Drainage in their letter dated 16.2.10 states "There is no public foul sewer readily available, the nearest being in La Rue Horman to the north-east. Connection to the existing foul sewer that drains Parcq des Maltières to the public foul sewer in La Rue a Don will not be permitted without extensive modifications to the existing pumping station adjacent to Links Estate. Full drainage details will need to be agreed. There is no public surface water sewer available and the use of soakaways and permeable paving is noted and recommended."

Environment (Agriculture) in their letter dated 24.1.10 confirm that the land has a history of agriculture use and are opposed to the application due to the loss of agricultural land.

Environment (Natural Environment) in their letter dated 4.3.10 confirm that they would be happy to offer advice on planting as well as options for grassland management to the south-east of the site.

Further details are required in respect of the effects on the surrounding ecology and how mitigation measures will be provided. Further details are also required to demonstrate how the provision of the mains services will be provided and any potential effect on the land to the south and east

The application was been advertised in the JEP and on site. A total of 6 letters of objection were been received. The grounds of objection were as follows:

. There are issues of boundary planting arrangements and correct boundary arrangements for access rights for repair and maintenance;
. The levels of the field may be changed and create problems of natural drainage and flooding;
. There will be an increase in traffic using La Rue Horman;
. This is an isolated site and not appropriate for housing;
. Why cannot the development be located on a more appropriate site elsewhere;
. The development will result in a lack of privacy for both existing and proposed occupants;
. There is no footpath link indicated between the site and the village;
. What arrangements have been made for drainage;
. The development does not blend in with the landscape;
. The plans do not address the issue of light pollution, and
. The submitted plans indicate inaccurate boundary/land ownership details.

Interestingly, no responses were received from applicants' agents.

Size, Scale & Siting
The proposed dwellings comprise modest 2 bed single storey dwellings in height.
The layout comprises two blocks of 3no. dwellings to the road frontage, with the remaining 16no. units grouped around a central landscaped/parking area.
The lower section of the field has a high water table and is prone to flooding. This area has been left as open space and provides a buffer between the development and Grouville Marsh.

Foul Sewage Disposal: The site has been the subject of a number of suggested drainage arrangements. The recently submitted drainage scheme is currently being assessed by officers from T&TS Drainage for its suitability and an update will be available at the meeting.

Officer Recommendation: APPROVAL subject to Conditions and the satisfactory completion of a Planning Obligation Agreement to ensure an appropriate mix of dwelling tenures on this site and the site at St. John.

It seems to me very odd, although not untypical of Planning Applications, that the sewage problem simply is assumed to be negligible, something that will just evaporate once the planning application is granted. In a like manner, the Hopkins Masterplan for the Waterfront was passed, even though the plan noted the risk of flooding near Gloucester Street and simply recommended that T&TS would do something about it, no doubt getting some good advice from King Canute.

The matter was debated in the States on 16 July 2008, and the proposition was passed.

P75/2008/ Provision of land for lifelong dwellings (for people over 55) and first-time buyers - amendment to Island Plan (2002) paragraph (d) Site 17 - Field 148, Rue des Maltières Grouville

There were a number of comments, but very few relating to either the paucity of the statistics behind that, or precisely what the condition of the agricultural land was. Members seemed mostly keen to take the percentage at face value, although John le Fondré demonstrated the deeply flawed nature of the response which formed a major plank in the argument - namely, that a small sample of 86 can hardly be taken as representative of the whole. He did not state another deficit, in that the sample was self-selecting, rather than randomised, which is another deep flaw in the bedrock of the data.

John Le Fondré: Members may well recall a rather well known advert for cat food, which used to claim that 7 out of 10 cats preferred that particular brand, this later changed to 7 out of 10 owners that expressed a preference and even more recently the rather pertinent statistic of 7 out of 10 cats said their owners preferred it. The reason I mention it, Sir, is in the summary of responses the department set out, it is to really demonstrate my slight concern at how statistics are presented. The reason I state that is on page 4 of that response it says: "Support for rezoning land: 82 per cent thought that land should be rezoned to help meet the needs of first-time buyer housing; 64 per cent thought that land should be rezoned for over-55s social rented; and 69 per cent thought that land should be rezoned for over-55s enabling existing homeowners to downsize." That is almost certainly true and would sound extremely impressive except for the fact it is based, as I understand it from reading the report, on written responses of 86.

Deputy Judy Martin asked a question about the Gorey Lodge Charitable Trust, and Constable Dan Murphy gave some details, without mentioning that he fully supported the rezoning of all the neighbouring Netherlee plot to Built-up Area (according to Mr Steven Harris), and also demonstrated his knowledge of agriculture. I'm not quite sure where he acquired it from, I may be mistaken, but I am pretty sure his background is in the finance industry, going back to the time when he worked at a local merchant bank in the 1960s ,and then he moved into the hotel industry. I'm not aware of any great agricultural knowledge on his part.

Deputy J.A. Martin: I have a direct question on Field 148 in Grouville. "The site could accommodate approximately 20 lifelong dwellings for the Parish of Grouville. The development would be undertaken by the Gorey Lodge Charitable Trust." I do not need to know who they are, I would like an explanation of what is this trust? Does it rule under the codes, because there is no law? Please remember there is no law for housing trusts that has ever come through this House, there is a code and I would like to know if they are new, if they are established, if they are - I presume - a not-for-profit organisation? But I would really like a recommendation because other than that I am not supporting that.

Constable Dan Murphy: If I can address mainly, Sir, obviously, Field 148, which is the field in Grouville which is up for rezoning. The site is basically an infill site and it is marginal agricultural land, which is very wet at the bottom. The trust who have undertaken to build have undertaken to hand over management of the bottom 7 metres to the National Trust who have land bordering on there and bordering on the Grouville Marsh. In fact the land is rent-free at the moment in exchange for branchage, et cetera. I have researched the whole area and we have not found any other suitable site. Everybody has got a field they want to build on, of course they have. We tried 2 sites around the Gorey village area which is the site we were aiming for. There is one site with glasshouses on and they would not sell and the other site was already part of the Potteries development, or the proposed Potteries redevelopment and that is part of the drainage system for the whole of Gorey village so it cannot be built on anyway - the village would flood without it. The application that is going in is on behalf of the Gorey Lodge Trust - and this is especially for Deputy Martin. It is very highly regarded within the Island community, obviously not in St. Helier. The main man behind the trust is David Kirsch who lives in Grouville I am delighted to say and the trust is the trust that provides £100 a year for senior citizens over the age of 70, which I believe comes to about £800,000 a year which they give away to the community.

However, Deputy Carolyn Labey, along with the comments noted by Environment (Agriculture) above, gave quite a different perspective on the matter, and note that there is a direct contradiction between what Constable Murphy has related about the field being lent out rent free in exchange for branchage - they can't both be right:

Carolyn Labey: I notice too this proposition suggests that the whole area around field 148 abutting the marsh and S.S.I. (Site of Special Interest) is to be considered as built-up zone if passed, and I am afraid I do not share my Constable's agricultural analysis of this field. I do not believe the land is poor, marginal and just let for rough grazing as long as the tenant does the branchage. The field was bought by a property developer a few years ago, who only would let the land to the farmer on a year-by-year basis, and then eventually gave him notice to quit last December. They have not used it for rough grazing this year but have, as a gesture of goodwill, mowed the weeds and done the minimum of branchage after their last crop last year. The land is productive early, reasonably light, and can successfully produce any crop that you would expect to grow in Jersey. The predominant crop that has been grown is potatoes, but the field has grown courgettes and lettuce as well as the grazing of cattle on rye grass grown after the potato crop. The majority of the field, as the Rural Strategy Advisory Group have said, is good quality land that will be a loss to the agricultural industry

On the vote, it was interesting to note that the House divided with the Council of Ministers acting without dissent, and Constables swinging in with a clear "block vote" (the exception being St Helier) but Senator Perchard and Deputy John le Fondré being resolutely against (in the latter case, probably because he was not persuaded by the abysmally small sample size of the statistics.)

POUR
Senator Frank Harrison Walker
Senator Terence Augustine Le Sueur
Senator Paul Francis Routier
Senator Michael Edward Vibert
Senator Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf
Senator Terence John Le Main
Senator Frederick Ellyer Cohen
Connétable Leonard Norman
Connétable Kenneth Priaulx Vibert
Connétable Kenneth Alan Le Brun
Connétable Derek Frederick Gray
Connétable John Le Sueur Gallichan
Connétable Daniel Joseph Murphy
Connétable Michael Keith Jackson
Connétable Silvanus Arthur Yates
Connétable Graeme Frank Butcher
Connétable Peter Frederick Maurice Hanning
Connétable Juliette Gallichan
Deputy Gerard Clifford Lemmens Baudains
Deputy Celia Joyce Scott Warren
Deputy Roy George Le Hérissier
Deputy John Benjamin Fox
Deputy James Gordon Reed
Deputy Jacqueline Ann Hilton
Deputy Paul Vincent Francis Le Claire
Deputy Anne Enid Pryke
Deputy Sean Power
Senator Alan John Henry Maclean
Deputy Kevin Charles Lewis
Deputy Andrew David Lewis
Deputy Ian Joseph Gorst

CONTRE
Senator Stuart Syvret
Senator Wendy Kinnard
Senator Ben Edward Shenton
Senator James Leslie Perchard
Connétable Alan Simon Crowcroft
Deputy Robert Charles Duhamel
Senator Alan Breckon
Deputy Jacqueline Jeannette Huet
Deputy Frederick John Hill, B.E.M.
Deputy Judith Ann Martin
Deputy Geoffrey Peter Southern
Senator Sarah Craig Ferguson
Deputy Patrick John Dennis Ryan
Deputy Carolyn Fiona Labey
Deputy Guy William John de Faye
Deputy John Alexander Nicholas Le Fondré
Connétable Deidre Wendy Mezbourian
Deputy Shona Pitman

EXCUSED ATTENDANCE
Connétable Thomas John du Feu

EN DEFAUT
Connétable Geoffrey William Fisher

DECLARED AN INTEREST
Deputy Peter Nicholas Troy

NOT PRESENT
Deputy Collin Hedley Egré

Links
(1) http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/documents/hansard/19126-11063.htm#_Toc229998164
(2) http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/documents/hansard/14630-8145-2972008.htm
(3) http://myfj.je/downloads/Grouville_Gazette/Grouville_Gazette_Issue3.pdf
(4) http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/documents/propositions/28711-34653-2252008.htm
(5) http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Planning%20and%20building/A%20PAP%20Part%202%2015.07.2010.pdf
(6) statesofjersey-consult.limehouse.co.uk/file/1329815

Revelations Ancient and Modern

As the so-called Mayan Prediction of the end of the world approaches in 2012, according to the current calculations (which I am sure will be suitable revised when it doesn't happen), here from the 1986 Mensa Magazine, "Thinks!", is an article I wrote on the subject. I was sceptical then, and am sceptical now. That doesn't mean that global warming or some other natural or man-made catastrophe cannot occur - I just don't believe the various people who predict calamity on the basis of their working of the Mayan Calendar, the prophecies of Nostradamus, the book of Revelation, or any other similar method.

Incidentally, Lance Lambert (whom I mentioned in the article) has vanished from public view - in 1986, he made a splash on the British newspapers - but he has a website and is still cheerfully delivering messages about the end of the world, although these always tell us what is going to happen "very soon", and no precise timetable is given. The one given in April 2010 this year says "I will cause their economies to fail, and their financial system to break down, and even the climate to fail them!", which suggests he is employing the same tactic as modern weather forecasters, getting people's confidence by telling them (with 100% accuracy) about the weather for the day that has just passed.

Revelations Ancient and Modern

In one of the famous "Beyond the Fringe" sketches, a motley collection of characters are gathered upon a mountain to wait for the end of the world. When the time comes, nothing happens. They are disappointed, then one of them says: "Oh well, same time tomorrow again, lads. We must get a winner one day!"

That short comedy routine comes very close to the truth about all the actual predictions of the world. A reading of history will reveal a great many occasions on which it was said "The end of the world is coming." On all of these, the deadline was passed, but the world sedately continued to spin around the solar system. To give some examples, I will make a brief selection of those who have predicted the end of the world, and got it wrong.

In the fourth century, Lactantius (tutor of the son of Emperor Constantine) said: "The current situation indicates that the collapse and ruin of everything will soon take place." The proof of this he found in prophecy and scripture, and he firmly believed that in under two hundred years this would be fulfilled. He did not live to see the falsity of his prophecy.

In the twelfth century, there is the Abbot Joachim of Fiore, who was encouraged to write down his theories by Pope Lucius III. "Now is the time," he writes, "for the elect to weep over the imminent destruction of that youngest Babylon lest perchance we share in her sins and be forced to partake of her punishments." The good abbot thought that Saladin's triumph in taking Jerusalem from Christians in 1187 was a sign that "the tribulation" had begun. He was signally wrong.

In the nineteenth century, William Miller worked out a detailed chronology from the Bible to show that Christ would return to Judge the world in 1843. When this was wrong, he discovered a flaw in his calculation and the date was shifted to autumn 1844. The promised date passed without incident, but after a vision, Hiram Edson, a follower of Miller, said that Miller had been right about the time, but wrong about the place. Christ had materialised "in the heavenly sanctuary" and so could not be seen on earth. Blind faith can always see what isn't there!

This survey has, of necessity been brief, and I will not bore you with Bishop Victorinus of Pettau, Angelo of Clareno " Peter John Olivi, Adso of Montier-en-der. Like Lanctantius and Joachim, these were noted men of their time, who all represented a stream of thought that preached the imminent end of the world, and were mistaken.

I am therefore somewhat sceptical about a recent prophecy given by Lance Lambert at Jerusalem: "It will not be long before there will come upon the world a time of unparalleled upheaval.." Of course we will be told that his prediction is different, but that has always been the case, For some reason, those who predict calamity are strangely blind to the failure of their predecessors. It often seems as if it is felt sufficient to re-iterate the message of doom all the more strongly.

Of course there is always a modern form of Pascal's wager - to believe in the chance that sooner or later they will turn out correct. But surely such a gamble would be based on desparation rather than rational assessment? I refuse to believe anything out of a cringing fear that it might turn out to be true, when all the evidence of history is weighted against the likelihood.

One Year This Day

written for October 1st, Annie's birthday...
 
One Year This Day
 
Another rainy day
And your life seems so far away
Now sadness comes, with tears to stay
And I am lost along the way
 
Suddenly,
Rain is falling, and I can barely see
There's a shadow, darkening me
And pain is growing by degree
 
Why you
Had to go, so swiftly, no parting words to say
I said
No words, I long for you now and yesterday
 
Birthday
Love seemed so easy, like a sunny day
Now clouds dim the sun, take away
And I can only weep and pray
 

Cider Days

Where would Autumn be without the cider making at Hamptonne...

Cider Days

Sing we a song of the harvest home
Of maidens fair, and lads who roam
Sing of dalliance, should they meet.
Quaff of our cider, the finest, sweet.
 
This is the time of our cider making
Cabbage loaf, Wonders, all for baking
Sing in the farmyard, take the apple
While lad and maiden in lusty grapple.
 
The farm horse turns the cider crusher
Apples crunched, no fair smell sweeter
Sing now of the old farm days of clover
While lad and maiden, now rollover.
 
More apples to fetch from orchard now
Heave carts and barrows past the cow
Pick the apples, some to eat and savour
This year, the maiden is now in labour.
 
With some for bake, and some for crumble
This is our Jersey apple, so very humble
But best of all, drink upon cider days
While nearby mother with baby plays.