Guernsey Internet Watch

Perils of the Internet
 
Peter Roffey has an interesting piece on the Deputy Bebb remark that went viral, looking at "the perils of politicians using internet forums but behaving as if they're only talking to a small group of acquaintances."
 
In this case Deputy Bebb called locally born Guernsey people "inbreds". Peter Roffey remarks that he should have realised that "innocent joshing of a colleague, with whom he's probably on friendly terms, was bound to go public if made as part of an exchange open to all States members." Deputy Paint, however, who complained about it, has himself not exactly been devoid of prejudice: "After all, he's been pretty robust in his language towards non-locals in the past. Not long ago, on a Sunday phone-in, he told a long-term resident campaigner for better disability provision that if he didn't like Guernsey the way it was 'there's a boat from the end of the White Rock every day'."
 
He comments that "I only wish that Deputy Bebb had had the sense to realise that sending his response to 47 States members was very different to pulling the leg of three or four local friends."  It is a sentiment that one or two of our local politicians, and aspiring politicians, might do well to remember. To paraphrase the old war time saying, "careless talk costs votes".
 
Skyping Off or Skiving Off?
 
Guernsey States members have decided to allow themselves to "attend" committee meetings remotely by video link or Skype. Peter Roffey asks: "Is it a sensible use of modern technology, allowing busy members to be in two places at the same time? Or just a dereliction of their duty to turn up at these important meetings in person?"
 
He asks whether it really matters if they're not physically in the room, and are meeting in a virtual environment. He takes the view that it does:
 
"I think it does. While video conferencing in its various forms is better than no meeting at all, it's no substitute for real debate around a committee table. Particularly when discussing complex and emotive issues such as school closures, welfare reforms or how best to run our health service. "It's not just a question of missing body language or non-verbal communication. It's more that real debate, where policies can be decided and refined, relies on interaction, cut and thrust, and occasional polite interruption."
 
I tend to agree. If it is one to one, Skype is excellent, and you can see the person you are talking too with ease. But more than one person, and it all becomes rather disembodied little picture on monitors, even big monitors. Something is lost, the nuances, the physical space involved.
 
I suppose it depends what the meeting is all about. Meetings can so often ramble on, incessantly, taking an age to discuss anything, and trickle down the agenda with the speed of a glacier. For those meetings, a virtual self might be preferable, and who knows, if the technology advances, you can even have a video of yourself nodding sagely, rubbing your chin, scratching your head, while you can go off to the gold course, or down the pub.
 
But he does make a very good point about privacy. Who is listening in? Where is the security that someone, out of sight, may be within earshot?
 
"If a States committee was considering my application for a housing licence, or funding for my cancer treatment, or an appeal against my child's 11-plus results, I would want that done in total privacy. I would not be impressed if one or more committee members were in a hotel foyer - or even in their hotel room, with their spouse half-listening in the background."
 
Blogging
 
Two local teachers who set up class blogs to interact with pupils and parents were been short listed in a national education competition. They didn't win, but did come in the top ten shortlist, quite an accomplishment. Peter Curtis and Jerry Thomas (both of Vauvert school) entered each other's work for The Education Blog Awards 2012 after seeing it advertised.
 
School related blogs seem to be quite a big thing in Guernsey, for example:
http://blogs.grammar.sch.gg/blogs/
http://misslepagesclass.primaryblogger.co.uk/
http://mrcurtisclass.primaryblogger.co.uk/
http://misswhiteheadblog.primaryblogger.co.uk/
 
Then there are general interest blogs
http://guernseygirlie.blogspot.com/
A personal blog, with very much a recent history theme, some press cuttings, and interesting personal and charming stories that are not the kind of bad news you get in the newspapers. Worth a dip.
 
http://blog.redcarnationhotels.com/location-guernsey/
Tourist related, good stuff on Guernsey locations, well written.
 
http://guernseyliteraryfestival.wordpress.com/
A well written literary themed blog.
 
On the whole, there seems to be a huge amount of effort to get pupils at schools engage with writing blogs very much as personal diaries of what they are doing, and their interests.
 
There are really only a few political blogs.
 
Ebenezer Le Page is snappy, and does snipe at the Barclay brothers - "the brother's Grimm", "two vindictive old men" etc., with very short and well targeted little pieces, nothing long, just "Reader's Digest" size pieces. He also is critical of the editor of Guernsey Press, which seems to be getting fed stories by Kevin Delaney (according to him), and also of its coverage of stories in general. It is closest to some of the Jersey political blogs, but very different in tone. It is mostly focused on Sark.
 
http://ebenezerlepage.blogspot.com/
 
25 Square Miles is longer, but very occasional, the last post being 2011! It's well laid out and argued, but no name calling, or mocking of politicians except in general non-personal terms - "incompetent sitting deputies who in all likelihood stand to lose their seats should the change cause a rush of able candidates to put their names forward next time."  I think we have some of those here too!

http://25squaremiles.blogspot.com/
 
Ellis Bebb has recently started a blog
http://www.elisbebb.com/blog/
 
In which he says "Given that I'm not known for being a timid wall flower (well I don't think so anyway) and given that I get rather frustrated with people's view of the political discussions I thought it time to start presenting my view in the round rather than the narrow view that's so frequently presented in the conventional media". He is disparaging about the BBC, Guernsey Press and CTV for playing safe in politics. His own blog is by degrees critical, intelligent, informative, and well-argued. He writes well, and doesn't engage in name calling, and so far covers quite a wide range of local issues. And you won't find the word "inbreds" anywhere in sight! Definitely one to watch.
 
Deputy Ogier has a website but with blog like posts, on recent political news:
http://deputyogier.com/
Post are not frequent, but there is one from September 2013. Well written, critical of aspects of government but in a constructive way - issues such as climate change, population policy. A very chatty style, reads well.
 
http://www.sustainableguernsey.info/blog/
This blog is very much the Guernsey equivalent of Mark Forskitt's excellent blog, with a strong focus on sustainability, alongside comments on climate change which would warm the heart of Nick Palmer. Some of it is very much a cut and paste job, but it serves a useful purpose in collating recent news stories together (again like our very own Green Man, Mark Forskitt, with his "daily news"). A nice design, and tabs make it easy to navigate.
 
http://guernseypolitics.com/
Is just a placeholder blog, one entry "Hello World"! Disappointing.
 
It is interesting that Jersey has a group of very political bloggers, but the same landscape seems altogether absent from Guernsey. I think that has to do with Haut de La Garenne and its aftermath, which galvanised bloggers onto going online - for the record, I started blogging in 2006, before that. But Stuart Syvret's blog, and the various "Voice Blogs" (although under "common ownership"), Rico Sorda's Blog, The Jersey Way, and Tom de Gruchy (alias Mike Dun) all seem to have taken their impetus and focus on Haut de la Garenne.
 
The absence of that from Guernsey has meant that their blogging culture is entirely different. Political blogs are few and far between, and tend to cover a wider more diverse range of issues than Jersey ones. 

History of St Martin’s Church (Part 2)

Here is part two of the forgotten piece by G.R. Balleine on the history of St Martin's Church, transcribed below. Balleine had a wonderful grasp of how to make historical narrative interesting, and peppers his history with interesting anecdotes
 
History of St Martin's Church (Part 2)
By G.R. Balleine
 
XVII & XVIII Centuries
 
During Cromwellian days the Church was thoroughly restored. In 1658 it was re-seated and whitewashed, the north side of the roof was slated, the broken windows repaired, and a new churchyard wall built.
 
Churchwardens in this century seem to have been strangely remiss about opening the Poor Box. At Christmas, 1639, we read: ."The Poor Box was opened by the Parish Officers, and there was found in it 8 crowns, 4 sols, 1 double. It was three years since it had been opened", and again in 1671: "On a dark night the box outside the Church was broken open and its contents stolen. It had not been opened for more than two years."
 
Throughout. the 18th century, as the population increased, the Church Assembly found great difficulty in providing pews for everyone. An act of 1708 runs: "Seeing that the family of Thomas Lempriere has by the Lord's blessing become so numerous that his pew in the South Chapel has become too small to hold them, it has been found reasonable to allot to Sieur Lempriere a second pew, which formerly belonged to Mons. Le Hardy". Soon, however, the erection of two large galleries became necessary, one at the west end and one along the north wall of the nave.
 
In 1732 the sundial was given by Georges Bandinel, the Vicomte. In 1745 the north wall began to bulge again and fresh buttresses were added, which are easily distinguished from the older ones, because they are built of blue granite.
 
In 1749 we find an amusing instance of Jersey thrift. In those days the collection was taken by almoners at the Church doors. The Church-wardens petitioned the Ecclesiastical Court for permission to substitute windows for two of their doors, stating that they had four doors and only two almoners, and that, at whichever doors they stationed these officials, many of the congregation would leave by one of the others. Permission was granted.
 
Public Penance was still frequent. A typical case is that of Elizabeth Le Brun, for adultery. "For this" says an Act of the Ecclesiastical Court, "she has humbly asked pardon of God, and as a salutary penance has promised to kneel for two Sundays outside the principal door of St Martin's Church, and ask the faithful, as they enter, to pray that God may pardon her sin. She shall remain there till the Nicene Creed, when the Rector will send the Churchwardens to bring her into the church. She will then kneel in front of the pulpit, while one of the Penitential Psalms is sung, and remain kneeling during the sermon. She shall then read her confession aloud in the form that shall be given her. After which the Rector may receive her back into the Peace of the Church". The last Public Penance of this kind took place in 1830.
 
In 1837 the spire was again destroyed by lightning, but this time, when it was rebuilt, a lightning conductor was added. The Admiralty now listed the spire as a sea-mark, and insisted that it should be kept whitewashed.
 
The old chancel was still boarded off as the schoolroom of the Parish School. In 1842 Dean Jeune suggested that "out of respect for the Temple and the place where their ancestors were buried" the parishioners should move the School elsewhere; but the Parish Assembly would not hear of this. Three years later, however, it sanctioned a general restoration of the Church, "provided that it cost nothing to the Parish".
 
The School was removed, the partition pulled down, and the chancel restored to its former use with a Communion Table under the east window. A new pulpit and several stained glass windows were given, and the present Vestry made in the remnant of the Mabon Chapel.
 
The financial value of pews can be seen by a sale at this time. Dr Bandinel, who was then Librarian of the Bodleian Library, Oxford, sold his family pew in St Martins' by auction, and it was knocked down for £67 sterling.
 
The next restoration took place in 1877, when Thomas Le Neveu was Rector. A strong party opposed it, and it was eventually carried in the Assembly only by two votes. But the work was done thoroughly, and the cost covered by printing banknotes, a form of finance much in favour in the island at this time.
 
William Lempriere, a retired clergyman, who was now Seigneur of Rozel, generously undertook the entire refurnishing of the Chancel, Choir-stalls, altar-rails, and east window were his gift, and in addition he presented a new font and lectern.
 
The chief glory of St Martin's is its stained glass. No church in the island has finer. Most of these windows were added from this time on-ward.
 
Recent Years
 
Concerning recent improvements, the most notable is that of the restoration of the South Aisle and Side Chapel. Although mooted long before, the work started seriously in April, 1963, inspired by a generous gift of £400, for the purpose of erecting a stone altar in Jersey granite. This gift encouraged the Rector to appeal to all parishioners and friends to play their part generously. Within fifteen weeks, the appeal had reached its target of £I000, and to encourage this restoration the municipality voted a further £1000.
 
Many additions and furnishings have been given in recent years, notably the Lempriere Screen, the Priests' Stalls, and the Altar ornaments. The Bishop's Chair at the East end was a thank offering by parishioners and friends for the Liberation in 1945. It is interesting to note that carved on the altar riddel posts and imprinted on the silver ornaments, is the Wedgewood Pottery Coat of Arms.

The Tears of War

Since they have Died
 
Since they have died to give us gentleness,
And hearts kind with contentment and quiet mirth,
Let us who live also give happiness
And love, that's born of pity, to the earth.
 
For, I have thought, some day they may lie sleeping
Forgetting all the weariness and pain,
And smile to think their world is in our keeping,
And laughter comes back to the earth again.
 
It all began (for me) with a Radio Play, "The Tears of War", the dramatization of a story told in a book of the same name by Charlotte Fyfe. In 2002, Charlotte Fyfe used the letters and poems to write the radio drama; the BBC website notes: "Utilising the First World War I writings of young poet May Cannan, this is the true story of her love affair with war hero Bevil Quiller-Couch"
 
It was a haunting story, which can be read on yesterday's blog
 
http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2013/11/may-wedderburn-cannan-18931973.html
 
and, being the butterfly researcher that I am, I decided to find out more about May Cannan and came across the book in which the play was based.
 
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Tears-War-Story-Young/dp/1899470190
 
And I final found a second hand copy of May's posthumous memoir, "Grey Ghosts and Voices", and extract (of the end of the Great War in Paris) can be read here:
 
http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2010/11/grey-ghosts-and-voices.html
 
It's a story which has haunted me ever since, and it introduced me to a voice that is so little heard in the Great War, and the poets of that time, a woman's voice. War is in general such an impersonal thing, that we need to find a way to connect, to reach out and hear the voices of real people, and listen to what they have to say.
 
Women in war are so often marginalised, especially as for many early conflicts such as the two World Wars, they were kept away from the battle-field, away from the front-line. It is time, I think, to reclaim that voice, and hear their experiences as well. For me, I found this by delving into the history and the memoir and poems by May Cannan, and hearing her voice, her feelings, and her sorrows.
 
Here's another of her poems, and the setting, as placed by the Oxford Dictionary of Biography:
 
"In August 1918 Cannan went to work for the bureau of central intelligence, a branch of MI5 in Paris, and she was there when the armistice was declared in November. Her poem 'The Armistice: in an Office in Paris', which ends with the assertion 'peace could not give back her Dead', is a moving encapsulation of the conflicting emotions of women for whom the celebrations had come too late."
 
The Armistice
In an Office, in Paris
 
The news came through over the telephone :
All the terms had been signed : the War was won :
And all the fighting and the agony,
And all the labour of the years were done.
One girl clicked sudden at her typewriter
And whispered, 'Jerry's safe', and sat and stared:
One said, ' It 's over, over, it 's the end :
The War is over : ended ' : and a third,
' I can't remember life without the war '.
And one came in and said, ' Look here, they say
We can all go at five to celebrate,
As long as two stay on, just for to-day '.
 
It was quite quiet in the big empty room
Among the typewriters and little piles
Of index cards : one said, ' We'd better just
Finish the day's reports and do the files '.
And said,  It 's awf 'lly like Recessional,
Now when the tumult has all died away '.
The other said, ' Thank God we saw it through ;
I wonder what they'll do at home to-day '.
And said, ' You know it will be quiet to-night
Up at the Front : first time in all these years,
And no one will be killed there any more ',
And stopped, to hide her tears.
She said,  I've told you ; he was killed in June \
The other said, ' My dear, I know ; I know . . .
It 's over for me too . . . My Man was killed,
Wounded . . . and died ... at Ypres . . . three years ago . . .
And he 's my Man, and I want him,' she said,
And knew that peace could not give back her dead.

May Wedderburn Cannan (1893–1973)

Love, 1916

One said to me. 'Seek Love, for he is Joy
Called by another name'.
A second said, 'Seek Love, for he is Power
Which is called Fame'.
Last said a Third, 'Seek Love, his name is Peace'.
I called him thrice,
And answer came, 'Love now is christened Sacrifice'.

May Wedderburn Cannan is very much a forgotten war poet of the First World War. She was the second of three daughters of Charles Cannan, Dean of Trinity College, Oxford (he was in charge at the Oxford University Press from 1895 until his death in 1919).

And she is very much my favourite of the war poets, hence her prominence on my blog today, Remembrance Sunday, for which I make no apology; but that's a story for another day.

Unlike the men, she was not at the front line, but she was certainly as close as a woman could get. She was engaged to Bevil Quiller-Couch, son of the famous "Q". Tragically, he died on a Victory March just after the war in 1918, of the influenza outbreak which decimated the population.

The story of their love, with extracts from his diaries and her writings and poetry, can be found in "The Tears of War" (he Story of a Young Poet and a War Hero) by Charlotte Fyfe, whose great-aunt she was.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Tears-War-Story-Young/dp/1899470190

The story in the Daily Telegraph tells how she came to write the book, after picking up a volume of her great-aunt's war poetry in a second hand bookshop, and what she found of their tragic love affair:

""Q", Professor Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch, was a family friend. Charles Cannan published his Oxford Book of English Verse and the Cannan girls grew up with the Quiller-Couches' children, Bevil and his brother, Foy. Bevil was a charmer, known for his practical jokes, who rowed for Oxford; it was as an undergraduate before the war that he began to look on May with new eyes. Long after, he told her that he had been secretly amused when, in l913, she had described him earnestly to someone as "a kind of brother". He had, he told her, no intention of remaining one."

"By l914 Bevil had joined the Special Reserve, and May volunteered for the Red Cross."They called it the Golden Summer afterwards, the last summer before our world came to an end," May wrote. "I think we all knew we were saying goodbye, not only to each other, but to our youth. She was 20 when war was declared on August 4. "I remember sitting on the porch steps that Sunday and being quite unable to speak," May wrote. "It must, I think, be true that one grows up in a sudden moment of time and experience, for I grew up on that day." By the end of the month, Bevil was in battle at Mons."

"News of the trenches horrified those in England, but Bevil never complained. His letters were full of gossip about horses invading farmers' dining-rooms and requests for flypaper. The nearest he got to admitting fear was to speak of being "in a lively spot". (1)

During the war, May went to Rouen in the spring of 1915, helping to run the canteen at the railhead there for four weeks; her frustration with women and the war effort is expressed well in her book of memoirs "Grey Ghosts and Voices":

"The Medical Services in Whitehall were convinced that they could deal with the situation when actually there was a complete breakdown…. There were no motor ambulances in the advanced zone of the British Army and only one attached to the Military Hospital in Versailles…. The British Red Cross offered two hundred motor ambulances and they were refused; they offered 1,000 trained nurses and they were refused."

But their love was not to be. As Jane Potter notes in the "Oxford Dictionary of National Biography"

"In December 1918 Cannan was officially engaged to her childhood friend Major Bevil Quiller-Couch MC, RFA (1890–1919), son of Arthur Quiller-Couch (Q), professor of English literature at Cambridge and editor of the Oxford Book of English Verse. Bevil Quiller-Couch survived the fighting at Mons, Ypres, the Ancre, and elsewhere, but he died in the influenza pandemic on 6 February 1919. (2)

The poem I have selected here comes from the early part of the war. As Jane Potter notes in the "Oxford Dictionary of National Biography":

"In the run-up to the First World War Cannan, like many women of her class and generation, took first aid and home nursing classes. She was a member of an Oxford Voluntary Aid Detachment (VAD) that had been approached by the War Office to set up a hospital in the event of mobilization. She was able to procure Magdalen College School for the hospital, but it was eventually decided that military not VAD hospitals would be used and that military nurses not amateur volunteers would run them. Cannan and her fellow volunteers were summarily dismissed. With her sisters she undertook voluntary war work at the Clarendon Press, which produced pamphlets and books for the government's propaganda bureau. Cannan herself was responsible for putting together Oxford University Press's general catalogue." (2)

So she returned to help her father at the Oxford University Press for a while, and then finally returned to France in the espionage department at the War Office Department in Paris (1918), where she was finally reunited with her fiancé Bevil Quiller-Couch.

May published three volumes of poetry during and after the war. These were In War Time (1917), The Splendid Days (1919) which was dedicated to Bevil Quiller-Couch, and The House of Hope (1923), dedicated to her father. In 1934, she wrote one novel The Lonely Generation, which was semi-autobiographical.

"In 1915 Cannan spent four weeks in France running a railway canteen for soldiers, the experience providing inspiration for one of her finest poems, 'Rouen', which describes a day in the life of the busy port town. She records the incidentals of her experience from 'the coming of provisions' and 'the little piles of Woodbines' to 'the Drafts just out from England' and 'the truck train full of wounded', and thus grounds the poem in the immediacy of the war. The repetitive question 'Can you recall' combined with the insistent repletion of 'And', blend these concrete details within a lyrical memory of 'our Adventure'. Her first volume of poetry, In War Time, was published in 1917 by Basil Blackwell." (2)

Philip Larkin chose her poem "Rouen" to be included in the Oxford Book of Twentieth Century English Verse (1973), commenting that it "had all the warmth and idealism of the VADS in the First World War. I find it enchanting".

Here it is:

Rouen
Early morning over Rouen, hopeful, high, courageous morning,
And the laughter of adventure and the steepness of the stair,
And the dawn across the river, and the wind across the bridges,
And the empty littered station, and the tired people there.

Can you recall those mornings and the hurry of awakening,
And the long-forgotten wonder if we should miss the way,
And the unfamiliar faces, and the coming of provisions,
And the freshness and the glory of the labour of the day.

Hot noontide over Rouen, and the sun upon the city,
Sun and dust unceasing, and the glare of cloudless skies,
And the voices of the Indians and the endless stream of soldiers,
And the clicking of the tatties, and the buzzing of the flies.

Can you recall those noontides and the reek of steam and coffee,
Heavy-laden noontides with the evening's peace to win,
And the little piles of Woodbines, and the sticky soda bottles,
And the crushes in the "Parlour", and the letters coming in?

Quiet night-time over Rouen, and the station full of soldiers,
All the youth and pride of England from the ends of all the earth;
And the rifles piled together, and the creaking of the sword-belts,
And the faces bent above them, and the gay, heart-breaking mirth.

Can I forget the passage from the cool white-bedded Aid Post
Past the long sun-blistered coaches of the khaki Red Cross train
To the truck train full of wounded, and the weariness and laughter
And "Good-bye, and thank you, Sister", and the empty yards again?

Can you recall the parcels that we made them for the railroad,
Crammed and bulging parcels held together by their string,
And the voices of the sargeants who called the Drafts together,
And the agony and splendour when they stood to save the King?

Can you forget their passing, the cheering and the waving,
The little group of people at the doorway of the shed,
The sudden awful silence when the last train swung to darkness,
And the lonely desolation, and the mocking stars o'erhead?

Can you recall the midnights, and the footsteps of night watchers,
Men who came from darkness and went back to dark again,
And the shadows on the rail-lines and the all inglorious labour,
And the promise of the daylight firing blue the window- pane?

Can you recall the passing through the kitchen door to morning,
Morning very still and solemn braeking slowly on the town,
And the early coastways engines that had met the ships at daybreak,
And the Drafts just out from England, and the day shift coming down?

Can you forget returning slowly, stumbling on the cobbles,
And the white-decked Red Cross barges dropping seawards for the tide,
And the search for English papers, and the blessed cool, of water,
And the peace of half-closed shutters that shut out the world outside?

Can I forget the evenings and the sunsets on the island,
And the tall black ships at anchor far below our balcony,
And the distant call of bugles, and the white wine in the glasses,
And the long line of the street lamps, stretching Eastwards to the sea?

.When the world slips slow to darkness, when the office fire burns lower,
My heart goes out to Rouen, Rouen all the world away;
When other men remember I remember our Adventure
And the trains that go from Rouen at the ending of the day.

References
(1)   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?xml=/health/2000/11/11/tlwar11.xml
(2)   http://www.oxforddnb.com/templates/article.jsp?articleid=98106&back=

War Child

As we approach Remembrance Day, a poem about the seeds of tyranny, and the war child within....

War Child
 
The world is still at war, and past mistakes
Are forgotten, as each casualty falls down,
Followed by funerals, ceremonial, wakes,
All for power, fighting for a hollow crown;
Here the seeds of conflict sown when a child,
Taught to stand up, be a man, and not weep,
Becomes the playground bully, not mild,
But trampling on others.  This is a sleep,
A sleep of reason, buried deep like roots,
As flowers later in life, pernicious weeds;
Walking over others in their heavy boots;
Is this is how they now fulfil their needs?
The child within, spoilt, getting their way,
Becomes the adult, petulant, shouting loud;
They cannot see how they have gone astray,
While they strut about, so sure and proud;
Ambition leads one man to power, a nation
To the abyss, plunging into war and death,
In pursuit of power, ambition, and predation;
And fighting onwards, until the dying breath
Takes away the tyrant, and curbs the might,
Trumps the king, and topples the throne;
Death comes, riding a pale horse, to smite
The powerful; flesh decays and left is bone,
Bleached white, the tyrant has a fixed smile:
The rictus grin of the skull, the final peace
And last judgment, that most final trial;
When death comes, all conflicts cease,
But only after thousands perish in the war,
All because of a lost child within the man;
At the turning point, the opening of the door,
There is a moment of destiny, rather than
Take the path of destruction, another way:
Choosing not the paths of death but life,
A future of hope, not one of endless fray;
A way of love, and not of unending strife,
Swords into ploughshares, a different need,
To feed the hungry world, reach out a hand;
Look forward with hope, and plant a seed
And have a dream, make that your stand.
 

Law, Libel and the Pitmans: Some Reconsiderations

The International Forum for Responsible Media, (Inform for short) was set up to debate issues of media responsibility. It is a part of the Guardian Legal Network. It mentions

"An action for libel based on a cartoon depicting two politicians was dismissed on 10 May 2012 by the Royal Court of Jersey (Pitman v Jersey Evening Post [2012] JRC 92)."

This is the case summarised by CTV:

"Deputies Trevor and Shona Pitman lost their court battle to sue the Jersey Evening Post and Broadlands estate agents for defamation. It related to a cartoon published in December 2008.  At a hearing in the Royal Court, the Pitmans claimed the cartoon falsely portrayed them as only going into politics for the money. They claim it damaged their reputation. UK Judge, Commissioner Sir Charles Gray and Jurats Le Breton and Milner disagreed and ruled in favour of the newspaper and estate agents."

The more detailed discussion of the case is interesting. It can be found entitled "Case Law, Jersey: Pitman v Jersey Evening Post, cartoon not defamatory" at the website:

http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/case-law-jersey-pitman-v-jersey-evening-post-cartoon-not-defamatory/

The summary says

"An unusual action for libel based on a cartoon depicting two politicians was dismissed on 10 May 2012 by the Royal Court of Jersey.  Sir Charles Gray, sitting as a Commissioner, with two Jurats (of which, more later), entered judgment for the plaintiffs on the basis that the cartoon was not defamatory (Pitman v Jersey Evening Post"

The comment is very interesting, as it is sharply critical of the outcome. It is worth stating in full:

"As the issue of the meaning of the Cartoon was decided by the "Jurats" there is no reasoned judgment on the meaning issue.  This means that there is no indication of the view taken as to the actual meaning of the Cartoon (save that it was not defamatory).    In accordance with well established law, the Jurats were not bound by the plaintiffs' meanings but should have considered any possible defamatory meaning of the Cartoon"

"The decision on meaning does appear to give rise to difficulties.  Although the context of the advertising section and the attempt at humour have to be taken into account, it is somewhat to see what the Cartoon could have conveyed to an ordinary reasonable reader if not some adverse imputation on the financial motivation or dealings of the plaintiffs."

"The linking of the reference to "4x the salary" with the plaintiffs and what was presumably intended to be  political rosette garnished with money can hardly be intended to convey information about the salary multipliers available to the second defendant's customers.  An ordinary reasonable reader would, surely, have inferred that the plaintiffs had abnormal and amusing degree of attachment to their political salaries."

"The imputation that someone who claims to be an idealist is really in politics for the money would obviously be defamatory.  Given that there was no defence of "honest comment", the plaintiffs would then have succeeded.  Questions as to the amount of actual damage caused by the Property supplement and whether the plaintiffs should have had thicker skins would, of course, have been relevant to damages."

And it is also critical of whether the Jurats over the UK practice of using 12 randomly selected lay people; the crux of the argument is that

"The role of the "Jurats" is interesting more generally. There are 12 Jurats in Jersey, appointed by an Electoral College and serve until they are 72.  The role is unpaid and involves several months' work a year.  As might be expected the Jurats are generally retired people. It might be thought that the advantages of having 12 randomly selected lay people decide on the meaning of words (which has, traditionally, been central to the English law of defamation) is lost if the decision is made by two longstanding members of the Royal Court."

It reminded me very much of G.K. Chesterton's comments about the merits of the jury system, where decision are made by ordinary people, over that of people who have become used to sitting in judgement. His argument is that judges get used to their job, and fail to do it properly precisely because they are too accustomed to it, they tend to lack fresh thoughts as time goes on and become set in their ways:

"Strictly they do not see the prisoner in the dock; all they see is the usual man in the usual place. They do not see the awful court of judgment; they only see their own workshop. Therefore, the instinct of Christian civilization has most wisely declared that into their judgments there shall upon every occasion be infused fresh blood and fresh thoughts from the streets."

"And the horrible thing about all legal officials, even the best, about all judges, magistrates, barristers, detectives, and policemen, is not that they are wicked (some of them are good), not that they are stupid (several of them are quite intelligent), it is simply that they have got used to it."

Now the Jurats are not specially trained legal experts, but as the comment states, they are not drawn from the same random group as a jury; they may well have become used to deliberating, and deciding, and of course there were only two of them in this instance as well. It does seem strange that the UK requires 12 people to decide, whereas Jersey makes do with only two, not even the Superior Number of the Royal Court. It is notable that Guernsey has jurats rather than jury, but has 12 of them present at a Royal Court sitting.

And the Inform comment makes an extra point about how the Pitman's had effectively to argue with one hand tied behind their backs:

"A final point which arises from this case concerns the interim decision on the admissibility of evidence on innuendo meaning.  At a hearing on 26 March 2012 Sir Charles Gray ruled that it was not permissible for the plaintiffs to adduce evidence to support the innuendo meanings which witnesses understood the words to bear ([2012] JRC 69)."

"It is interesting to note that in reaching this conclusion he differed from the current edition of Gatley on Libel and Slander which states  'Where the claimant has pleaded an innuendo he may, in addition to calling evidence of the extrinsic facts on which he relies, call witnesses to state the meaning in which they understood the words.  The origins of this rule are the same as that which applies to evidence concerning the identification of the claimant.'"

And they conclude:

"In reaching this conclusion Sir Charles Gray relied on the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Baturina-v-Times Newspapers [2011] 1 WLR 1526 where Sedley LJ expressed the view (without citation of authority) that even in an innuendo case the a claimant is not "entitled without more to put into the witness box a series of witnesses to say on oath what they made of the publication". [56]   This can, however, be contrasted with evidence of what was said by one of the publishees following publication of the words complained of  which Tugendhat J in Lewis v Commissioner of Police ([2011] EWHC 781 (QB)) held was evidence which goes to damages and could also be be relied on as relevant to meaning [68]."

When I first read about the Pitman case, I thought it was unlikely to succeed, and when it failed, the judgment laid down seemed to show that Sir Charles Gray had legal precedent on his side. Having recently read the Inform blog and comments, it appears that other important legal precedents were mentioned but dismissed. The Inform article questions whether that should have been the case, in particular Gatley on libel. That's not to say that the same conclusion may not have been reached, but the article does question whether it was correct not to permit evidence of innuendo by calling witnesses. This, after all, was permitted in Tolley v J S Fry where a caricature of a golfer in an advertisement for Fry's Chocolates led to a defamation case, and witnesses were cited:

"The oral evidence adduced by the plaintiff, apart from his own testimony, was that of a Mr. Storey, an eminent amateur golfer, and Mr. Hobson, a secretary of two well known golf clubs."

That doesn't mean the witnesses testimony will be acceptable, only that it should be heard. This was the case with Felix Onama v Uganda Argus Ltd where the Judge questioned whether a witness (known to the plaintiff) was indeed representative of "the general public as exemplified by the reasonable man" and ruled it out of consideration in summing up.

And it needs to be questioned whether two jurats are sufficient for cases of libel, where both the UK and Guernsey have 12 individuals sitting in libel actions. Even a Superior Number of the Royal Court would be an improvement. That is again not to say they may not have come to the same conclusion, but it would have provided a case less open to accusations of bias.

References
http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/case-law-jersey-pitman-v-jersey-evening-post-cartoon-not-defamatory/
http://www.chesterton.org/discover-chesterton/selected-works/the-essayist/twelve-men/
http://onlawyering.com/2010/12/judges-and-the-wisdom-of-juries/
http://guernseyroyalcourt.gg/article/3089/Jurats
http://mavrkydefamationcaselaw.blogspot.com/2007/01/tolley-v-j-s-fry.html
http://swarb.co.uk/lisc/Defam19301959.php
http://www.saflii.org/ea/cases/EACA/1968/10.html

History of St Martin’s Church (Part 1)

As promised last week, here is part one of the forgotten piece by G.R. Balleine on the history of St Martin's Church, transcribed below. Balleine had a wonderful grasp of how to make historical narrative interesting, and peppers his history with interesting anecdotes
 
History of St Martin's Church (Part 1)
By G.R. Balleine
 
Origin
 
Jersey had been Christian for generations before the Normans came but at first, there were no parishes. Each estate had its own wooden Chapel for the family and its serfs.
 
When Pagan Northmen overran the island, most of these Chapels went up in flames:' but the people did not change their Religion; and in 911 the Normans accepted Christianity. Then knights who had seized the north-east of Jersey, each built a stone Chapel for his own estate. In the Middle Ages there were many of these in St Martin's parish, and some may have been as old or older than the Parish Church. There was St Catherine's near Archirondel, which gave its name to St Catherine's Bay, and St Agathe's on the sea-shore (the ruins of both were demolished in 1852, when the road to the pier was made). St Etienne's, St Julian's St Barbe's, St Medard's the Chapel of the Cross, and others. St Mary's in the Rozel grounds remains an example of a private Chapel for an estate.
 
For some reason, which we cannot trace, of all these Chapels one, dedicated to St Martin grew to be the Parish Church. The chancel of the present Church is the original Chapel. The bogus list of Church Consecrations, to which we have often referred, gives 4th January, 1116, as the date of its opening; but it is much older.
 
In 1042 William the Conqueror, Duke of Normandy, but not yet King of England, granted to the Abbey of Gerissy "the Church of St Martin the Old in the isle of Jersey with its lands and a third part of its tithe of grain." This shows, not only that the Church was standing as early as 1042, but that it was already regarded as old in comparison with St Martin's, Grouville. And the mention of tithes indicates that it was already a Parish Church. The Abbot of Cerisy appointed its Rectors down to the Reformation.
 
Bit by bit the Church grew from a tiny Chapel to the present stately building; but it has been pulled about so drastically in successive restorations, that it is impossible to date dogmatically when the additions were made. First a nave was added to the chancel. Then probably two transepts were thrown out, giving the Church the form of a cross. Next a south chancel was built, and then, perhaps a century later, a south aisle.
 
Look at the south wall of the Church from the churchyard, and you will see that the eastern half is built of rough boulders from the beach, while the western half is of quarried stone, and the roof of the two halves is not quite the same height.
 
Rector, Dean & Bailiff
 
St Martin's used to be considered the leading Church in the island, possibly because the Governor lived in the parish at Mont Orgueil. Its endowment was larger than any of the others, and its Rector was often Dean.
 
Of these Dean-Rectors one of the most vigorous was Dean Mabon (1514-43). For a time he was not only Dean but Bailiff. He made what was in those days the extremely dangerous pilgrimage to. Jerusalem, and on his return built an additional Chapel on the Hougue Bie in honour of the Holy Sepulchre. Toward the end of his life he began to add a new Chapel to his Parish Church at the north-east corner. He planned it on noble lines, as the walled-in arch on the north of the chancel still testifies, but he died before it was finished.
 
In 1611 Laurens Baudains, founder of the famous Don Baudains, left 100 crowns in his will to complete the chapel. But in 1740 the Churchwardens applied to the Ecclesiastical Court for permission to pull it down, stating that it had never been roofed or used for divine Service, that its gable had recently fallen, and that its ruins disfigured the Church.
 
The eastern part was then demolished, but the western end was preserved to house the militia cannons. In recent years this has been transformed into an organ-chamber and vestry.
 
Reformation
 
To return to the main building. The Reformation did its work thoroughly. No Church in the island shows fewer traces of the old worship. Three niches in the walls mark the position of three piscinae, at which the Priest used to wash the altar vessels, and there three Fraternity side-altars probably stood. Four Fraternities once flourished in the parish; the Fraternity of St Catherine had its altar in St Catherine's Chapel, but the Fraternities of St Nicolas, the Crucifix, and the Sacrament would have had theirs in the Church. Beyond these niches no reminder remains of pre-Reformation worship, save two bare brackets, on each of which once stood the statue of a Saint.
 
The oldest document dealing with the Church is the Account Book of Constable Payne, which begins in 1582             with the entry: "Paid to Edouard Baudains for sundry missions which he undertook for the building of the spire, 4 nobles 19 groats". Apparently the wood had to be bought in Normandy, for a subsequent entry runs: "Paid 19 reals to the Normans for an oak stair to the Tower." Does this give the date of the building of the spire, or was it only a rebuilding after destruction by lightning? (Jersey spires were shattered again and again before the invention of conductors),
 
These accounts show that as a rule 10 pots of wine (i.e. 5 gallons) were consumed at each quarterly Lord's Supper.
 
Interesting Registers
 
No church has such interesting Registers as St Martin's. Instead of being, as they usually are, a bare list of dates and names, St Martin's Clerks acquired the habit of jotting down gossipy notes on the people they mention. These range from, "She was an impudent woman of scandalous life," to "He was respected and loved by everyone in the parish". Of one we are told, "He had acquired great wealth in Portugal," of another, "He once whitewashed the spire of the church," of another, "He fled from Normandy, because he was conscripted for the war with Spain". Of one Bride we are told, "She had previously been jilted (delaissee) by Jean Journeaux", of another, "She had been betrothed to Gilles Du Tot, but the contract had been broken off by mutual consent in the presence of the Minister."
 
Susan Dolbel was "found dead beside her cow. There was a pint of milk in the can, it is thought that the cow kicked her." Georges Machon "left home to fish at La Vaulle, and was drowned on the Banc du Violet on the first day of summer vraicing. He had left the Banc, but returned to help some who were cut off by the tide. He helped to rescue several, and then went back to save others, but was cut off with Jean Vic and his wife and a man named Baudains from St Saviour's. The four bodies were recovered the same evening.
 
In 1639 a panic was caused by an epidemic of dysentery. Elisabeth Michel "was brought to the cemetery in a cart led by her mother, because no one could be found to carry her for fear of infection."
 
More surprising information than this is found in these Registers. In 1590 the Clerk inserted a List of Lucky and Unlucky Days, from the which I learn that in March the lucky days are 1st and 8th, while the fours perilleux, on which it is wise to mind your step, are the 4th, 6th, 10th, 16th and 17th.
 
In 1622 his successor suddenly burst into verse with a long pathetic lamentation, partly in French and partly in Latin. One verse runs:
 
By the sweat of my brow I toil, and yet I perish with hunger.
For three days I have not tasted a morsel of bread in my home.
I have planted, sowed, gathered, dunged, to provide food for my little ones
But alas! all is eaten.
 
Our glance through the church Registers has carried us to the eighteenth century. We must now look back a little. The Pre-Reformation Perquage, the path by which criminals who had taken sanctuary in the Church could pass un-arrested to the sea, crossed the north wall of the churchyard by a stile, skirted the old Rectory, plunged down the valley to the brook, followed its course till it met the stream that rises in the Manor grounds, and then followed this till it reached the shore near Archirondel Tower. It was last used in 1546, when Thomas Le Seelleur escaped the gallows by walking down it to a boat, which took him to Normandy.
 
Few churches can have more buttresses than St Martin's. Soon after the Reformation the weight of its stone roof caused its walls to bulge outwards ominously. The first set of buttresses were built then, and Priests' tombstones, as can still be seen, were ruthlessly used for this purpose. Another stone has an elaborately carved coat of arms, which no one has yet identified.
 
In spite of the Reformation the Churchyard Cross, or at least its stump, remained for many years, for in 1606 the Register records that Jeanne Vautier was "buried near the Cross", and in 1610 Tomasse Feret was "buried near the stone of the Cross".
 
In 1616 on a Sunday morning, as the people were going into church; the spire was struck by lightning, and broken off in the middle. The same thunderstorm destroyed also St Peter's spire. This caused widespread panic, for it was taken as a warning that the wrath of God was about to smite the island. Did not the Bible say. "Judgement must begin at the House of God?"
 
St Martin's, however, rebuilt its spire in 1618, Three years later an odd entry appears in the records of the Royal Court: "Pierre Sohier, who has long been a prisoner in the Castle for having confessed his sin, the said imprisonment may count as part of his punishment, and in addition he must pay 10 francs, half to the poor and half to the King. Moreover he is ordered to ask pardon of God, the King, and the Royal Court for his idolatry, and is sent back to the Church to make such satisfaction as shall be found suitable'
 
One wonders what he had done. Was he guilty of some form of witchcraft, or had he relapsed into Catholic ways, and offered a candle before a niche in which once stood the statue of a Saint ?

A Red Letter Day

"Two Jersey politicians have lost a court battle to prevent the media running a story about them. Deputies Trevor and Shona Pitman claimed an article the Jersey Evening Post wanted to publish would hamper a legal battle they're fighting with the paper. But late this afternoon a judge decided that wasn't the case and lifted a temporary ban on running the story. Recently the Pitmans unsuccessfully tried to sue the paper for libel. They're now trying to appeal." (CTV)

It is difficult to know what to make of this. It could easily be an attempt to embarrass the Pitmans by means of an attack on parties involved in the libel case, in which case it would have been the work of some of the less rational enemies of the Deputy Trevor Pitman. There are online some less than rational critics who seem to delight in only making abusive comments about the Deputy.

He seems to have rather a knack of making enemies with his somewhat pugilistic manner. Almost anyone who disagrees with him rouses his ire, and it is clearly his preferred way of deflecting any criticism of his own position to hit back hard.

But the letter could come from his own supporters. It could be a case like that of King Henry and Thomas Becket. A chance remark by the King is used by four Knights as an excuse and incentive to hunt down and murder Becket in Canterbury Cathedral. It is not what the King intended, and he is mortified by the result. But the four Knights think they are acting on his behalf, and in T.S. Eliot's version, "Murder in the Cathedral", they are also slightly tipsy, their judgment impaired.

So could it be emanating from some of Deputy Pitman's supporters? Deputy Pitman is adamant that is not the case.

"I wasn't a suspect in being behind this. Shona was not a suspect in being behind this. Indeed, contrary to the JEP claims the Police confirmed there was also absolutely no evidence or credible suggestion that the 'letter' (more on that in a minute, honest!) must have 'clearly' emanated from what Sibcy called 'our supporters' at all!"

But his own message, loud and clear from his blog, is that Jersey has a corrupt judiciary, and he comments on "what can only be described as abuses (both corruption and lack of the necessary diligence) within the Criminal Justice and Legal Systems" and describes Jersey as a "Flying banana republic", asking "Just how much longer can the UK afford not to step in and take action on the abuses of process rife within Jersey 'justice'?"

I think it is unlikely that would be sufficient to suggest to fringe supporters that arson threats would be a good thing, but hyperbole of this nature does not engender respect for due process of law. He may not have said anything about arson attacks, but his remarks about failing to finding justice within the system could well be taken as incendiary.

On balance, I agree with Deputy Pitman that it is in all likelihood a malicious prank. It is ill-thought out, conceived by one or two people who don't like him, probably after a heavy drinking bout. It has the feel of something devised on the back of a beer mat, without much thought of consequences. The note which we have now seen published is hastily scrawled in block letters.

Because it is out in the open, it will of course mean that should they lose their appeal, the Pitmans can always claim that it has biased the proceedings. It is perhaps, one of the reasons why the recent change in the law to allow Guernsey Jurats to sit on the Jersey bench is a good thing, and it would certainly be a good move to see that cases of this sort, where the matters in hand are common Island gossip, look to use Guernsey Jurats instead of local ones, and avoid any perception of bias which comes in a close-knit community where people know one another (which is clearly the case with one Jurat and a JEP director). Indeed, it was partly for reasons of potential bias in general that the change in the law was made.

In an 1846 report in "The Times", it was stated of a case in the Royal Court that "It is a farce to suppose that the jurors will enter the seat of justice with their minds unprejudiced against the unhappy defendant. Instead of making the jurors strain their eyes over dozens of pages of lawyers folios, it would be much more rational to hand them a copy or two of the Jersey Times - the whole evidence against the ill-dated defendant has already been published in that journal."

The problem of bias is no less acute today, and ensuring that appeal judges are from outside Jersey - and who have no knowledge of the case in the local press  -would certainly show that any potential for bias was being treated seriously. I think in fairness to the Deputy, if possible, that should be considered. I'm not as convinced as the Deputy that their case is nearly as watertight as he does, but they should surely be given the best possible chance to make it.

Remember, remember, the fifth of November

"Remember, remember, the fifth of November,
The Gunpowder Treason and plot."

In 1908, Edith Carey writing a letter to Folklore magazine, described the late arrival of Guy Fawkes celebrations in Guernsey. She wrote:

"To the best of my belief there were neither November bonfires nor Guy Fawkes celebrations in Guernsey until the beginning of the nineteenth century. What customs may have prevailed over here in the days before the introduction of the Reformation and the Puritanical spirit, I do not know. But after that date, in 1565, 1567, 1581, 1582, and 1611, "Ordonnance" after "Ordonnance" was passed by the Royal Court forbidding songs, dances, and all "jeux inlicyte," under penalty of the culprits having to do penance in church on the following Sunday, with bare heads, legs, and feet, wrapped in a winding sheet and holding a lighted torch. These restrictions, which were framed to put an end to aught that savoured of "la superstition" as well as of "le viel levain de la Papaulte," effectually put a stop to all our primitive festival customs." (1)

In fact, the only remaining custom was one which had its celebration on New Year's Eve, where  in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, "boys still dressed up a grotesque figure, which they called the "vieux bout de l'an," and buried or burnt with mock ceremonies in some retired spot. But that practice also fell into abeyance "

It was apparently not until the second quarter of the 19th century that an English family of small farmers introduced Guy Fawkes celebrations to the Island.

 "To the country people the name "Guy Fawkes" meant nothing, while they had a confused recollection of the earlier "bout de l'an" celebrations; so to them the "Guy" was invariably known as "bout de l'an" or "budloe" (as they spelt it), though without any real idea of what the name conveyed. Therefore, I think that it was the veritable "bout de l'an" of New Year's Eve which is referred to in the term "bout de l'an," and that any November fires-if any there were-had been abolished far too long to be remembered." (1)

But Guy Fawkes even in English history remains the most obscure of villains. He is more of a symbolic figure to be burnt, a part of a fire ritual, than a real person. As Dewey D. Wallace notes:

During the twentieth century, the anti-Catholicism of the event receded, and the "guy" was simply a means for the extortion of candy and coins by children unaware of Guy's original significance." (2)

The conspiracy is well known, and is succinctly stated in Nigel Balchin's essay on the subject:

"The King and Parliament were to be blown up. The Princess Elizabeth and the little Prince Charles were to be seized. Various Catholic gentry were to be rallied. Princess Elizabeth was to be proclaimed Queen. So much was reasonably clear. But just what was ever intended to happen after that was far less so. Indeed, amongst all the conspirators there does not appear to have been a man whose brains rose much above the level of undergraduate rugby toughs organising a November 5th rag" (3)

It was presented by the Attorney General Coke as a fiendish plan of devilish cunning, thwarted only by one letter sent to Lord Monteagle, warning him against attending Parliament, and the perspicacity of James I in divining that this was a plot to assassinate him. But it was instead, probably well known to Sir Robert Cecil, James I's chief "spymaster", who simply gave the conspirators enough rope to hang themselves, and played a waiting game to see who exactly was involved before they were ready to be caught in his net.

As Balchin notes:

"There are a number of other aspects of  the whole matter which certainly are very odd indeed, and which seem to suggest not only naiveté but positive co-cooperativeness on the part of the authorities. The conspirators are able to rent a house belonging to the Crown next door to the House of Lords. When their plan for a mine fails, they are able to rent the cellars of the House itself. Percy, who arranged these things, was well known to be an ardent Catholic; and in each instance another tenant had to be ejected to make room for the conspirators. The authorities could hardly have been more helpful!"

"Again, when Monteagle receives the mysterious letter, he has it read aloud, and one Ward, who was present, at once warns Thomas Winter of the letter's existence and of the fact that it is in the hands of Cecil. If Ward, who was not a conspirator, knew that Winter would be interested, how many other people knew ? Indeed, it appears that via Ward, via Monteagle, the conspirators were, throughout, kept in touch with what the authorities were thinking-or appeared to be thinking-about the whole business."

"Further, when, after several weeks' absence Fawkes returned to his post in the cellar on November 3rd, his return corresponded almost exactly with the time fixed by Cecil for an examination of the cellar. Yet no step was taken to apprehend him or even to question him very closely. The Lord Chamberlain took surprisingly little interest in him and his heap of fuel, and he was able to warn the other conspirators that everything' was getting uncomfortably hot."

"Finally, though Fawkes was a desperate man who would not have hesitated, on his own statement, to blow up the place and himself with it to avoid arrest, he was in fact surprised and taken by the party which, ostensibly, only came to make a rather more thorough search of the cellar than the Lord Chamberlain." (3)

And a fortnight before the arrest, Cecil penned this cryptic note:

"I spend my time in sowing so much seed as my poor wretched fingers can scatter, in such a season as may bring forth a plentiful harvest. I dare boldly say no shower or storm shall mar our harvest except it should come from beyond the middle region."

What can one conclude? I concur with Balchin's thesis, that the conspirators were outfoxed, outmanoeuvred, and finally entrapped by Cecil. Their half-baked schemed was doomed from the start, and they were pawns on the chessboard, or amateurs taking an expert on at poker:

"It seems to me fairly obvious that from some indefinable but quite early stage in the whole drama, Cecil knew that a plot was going forward, and was playing his characteristic waiting game with the conspirators, giving them enough rope to hang themselves. Whether the Monteagle letter was genuine, or a part of the whole process, we shall never know. But throughout one gets the impression that the conspirators were being almost ostentatiously warned of their danger, in order to make them reveal themselves by flight or precipitate action. The most likely explanation appears to be that while Cecil knew of the plot, he needed time to learn the details and the identity of all those concerned. The irresistible impression is of a game of poker between a silent expert and a set of reckless novices. " (3)

The event was enshrined in memory, and as Dewey D. Wallace notes, the Church of England played its part in keeping that memory alive:

"Following the plot's discovery and the seizure of the conspirators, Fawkes and others were brutally executed and the penal laws against Catholics harshly enforced, in spite of the moderation of King James I. But in the aftermath of the plot the focus was on keeping it alive in memory, and the next three chapters describe that remembering: on the anniversary of the plot's discovery, parishes of the Church of England were to have annual services of thanksgiving for England's deliverance, the service for the occasion not being removed from the Book of Common Prayer until 1859. "(2)

But by 1901, the anti-Catholic propaganda element was fading, and the figure of the "old guy" was taking on a more symbolic aspect, more detached from history, more a feature of a fire festival. The rhymes themselves while remaining, were also becoming corrupted. A writer to Folklore noted that the formula shouted by parties of boys carrying "Guys" down the street in Kensington was becoming debased:

"Please to remember
The fifth of November
Should never be forgot.
Guy, Guy, Guy!
Hit 'im in the eye !
Stick 'im up the chimney-pots, and there let 'im lie !"

And as Balchin sums up Guy Fawkes:

"It is as a symbol only that he really exists. As a man, we have no individual picture of him. He might, on the facts we know, have been any one of thousands of brave, simple, ardently religious men who have very pardonably found the larger moral issues beyond their grasp, and have expressed the hot confusion within them by desperate action. The cloaked figure lurking in the shadows of the cellar with its gunpowder and its slow match is at once menacing, farcical and pathetic. But it is not the man Guy Fawkes. It is the Old Guy - and the Old Guy is not a person but an idea, which the writer of Morality Plays would perhaps have recognised and understood more clearly than we do. When the Devil is unsuccessful (as always in fiction, but not always in life), he becomes not only laughable but mildly pitiable. The cards were so clearly stacked against him. It is only when he succeeds that he need be taken seriously. Evil, to most of us, is still partly an event, and not merely an intention." (3)

References
(1)   Folklore, Vol. 19, No. 1, 1908, pp. 104-105
(2)   Church History, Vol. 76, No. 4 (Dec., 2007), pp. 854-855
(3)   The Anatomy of Villainy, Nigel Balchin, 1950

Solomon's dilemma: The Debate on Clergy in 1997

In August 1997, a debate began in "The Pilot" magazine about whether or not there were too many clergy in Jersey and whether the numbers should be reduced. It is interesting, not least because the debate was largely settled in favour of the status quo, with minor adjustments among the district churches.
 
It began with a short piece by "A.H. ", on the factual situation. David Jones also put an interesting case. These can be read here:
 
http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-winds-of-change-and-challenge-to.html
 
But after that, two more senior clergy also commented - Tony Keogh, who was then Rector of Trinity, and the Dean of Jersey, John Seaford. Tony Keogh was right, Canon Law can be change, and the new Jersey Canons of the Church of England which now say in particular: "None, either Dean or Minister, shall hold two Rectorial Benefices together", which is not what it used to say.
 
Tony Keogh Sept 1997
 
While I recognise the discipline of Canon law, I also recognise the discipline of quoting them correctly. There are several observations which I would like to make concerning the item in last month's PILOT, signed by AH. The writer quoted Canon 14 as reading, "None, either Dean or Minister, shall hold two Benefices together, unless in time of vacancy." The Canon actually reads, "None, either Dean or Rector" shall hold two RECTORIES together..." The correct reading assumes that there may be a need in certain circumstances for a Rector to care for two benefices. All the evidence suggests that Canon 14 was promulgated in May 1949 to prevent rectors from living in one rectory and claiming any revenue from the other building.
 
More importantly, what AH fails to mention is that the present Canon 14 is indeed a revision, proving the point that, if necessary, Canon law can be changed.
 
The view of the Pastoral Committee is that the proposals which are to come before the Deanery Synod contravene no Canon Law. No doubt, those who oppose the proposal will try to prove otherwise. The path of legalism is a sterile road which will do great harm to the Church of England in Jersey. Like the Irish, we will believe what we want to believe. If the only argument which the other side has in the Pastoral Reorganisation debate is a legal argument, then they have lost the debate.
 
I particularly welcomed the contribution in last month's PILOT from Fr David Jones, Priest-in-Charge at St Luke's Church, not because it confirms what I have been saying but because his is a voice which is going to he increasingly heard in the Deanery as new appointments bring clergy from the real world of the mainland church, where clergy are having to minister to as many as five churches at the same time.
 
Above all, we would ask you to pray for all who are given the grave responsibility to make decisions at the November Deanery Synod, that we may all conduct ourselves as children of the Light that is Christ; that we may seek to serve God and His world better by our decisions and when all is done and the decisions made, we may all dwell in peace and brotherhood which is the household of faith.
 
Deans Letter Dec 1997
 
For many years the Anglican Church in Jersey has been talking about the need for Pastoral Reorganisation - meanwhile both the Roman Catholic Church and the Methodist Church have started and completed their schemes to provide ministry for the whole Island with less ordained ministers, and using less buildings.
 
Because of the interwoven constitutional position of the Church of England within the fabric of this Island, and the long history of independence of the ancient parishes, it is just slightly more complicated for us to devise a plan which recognises these excellent traditions and yet is realistic in its use of an ever diminishing resource, that of the ordained clergy.
 
At the meeting of the Deanery Synod last month the Pastoral Committee presented yet another report, this time with specific recommendations to achieve the required saving of two stipendiary posts. Predictably this was unpopular, especially in the parishes most closely involved.
 
No parish has ever wanted to be, in the picturesque language of the Instrument of Institution, "bereft of an incumbent" permanently. But the starting point for the debate is that there has been a dearth of vocations to the full-time stipendiary ministry. With the development of Non-Stipendiary Ministry, and the increasing role of Readers, many people with a vocation to ministry, whether ordained or lay, have chosen to remain in their secular employment, and serve the Church in their out-of-work hours. This has been of enormous benefit to the Church, particularly on Sundays for the leadership of worship, but these people are not available for the all-week pastoral care.
 
The other point is demographic. The population of this Island is unevenly distributed, and presently some 80 per cent of the population is cared for by 40 per cent of the stipendiary clergy.
 
The report is being considered now, and undoubtedly various parishes will produce alternative recommendations, based on the NIMBY principle, that the changes should happen in one or more of the other parishes. The problem seems all too reminiscent of Solomon's dilemma (1 Kings 3) with only one "baby" claimed by two "mothers," so before we go any further perhaps we should all repeat the prayer recorded in verse 9.
 
However much everyone would like to, and there is no one that does not want to, we cannot maintain the situation as it is now. There has to be some give somewhere.
 
JOHN SEAFORD

All Souls Day: Grief, Pain, Hurt and Healing

"The darkness that touches me takes many forms. This past weekend away from home, when I dream more vividly than other times, I had persistent of dreams of the past with people and places which illuminated my brokenness and wounds. It was unsettling and uncomfortable and left me both baffled and ill at ease. I realized as I tried to listen to the dreams that in part, at least, I had expected that by this time in my life, all the darkness in me would be enlightened or resolved.  Instead some of the same hurts and slights that have been part of me since my youth remain in my unconscious, calling me to pay attention to places where I still need the Light of Christ to shine its healing Light." (Elizabeth Nordquist)
 
"It is hard to have patience with people who say, 'There is no death' or 'Death doesn't matter.' There is death. And whatever is matters. And whatever happens has consequences, and it and they are irrevocable and irreversible. You might as well say that birth doesn't matter." (C.S. Lewis)
 
In the earlier, and to my mind, superior version of the story of C.S. Lewis, Shadowlands, with Joss Ackland and Clare Bloom, we are given two reactions to grief by Joy Davidman's two sons.
 
Douglas bottles up his grief, and then it suddenly comes out with talking to Lewis, in the attic, and they both break down weeping. But for David, the outpouring of feeling comes as anger, and he strikes heavy blows with an axe to cut a wooden tree trunk in half. He displaces his grief into anger.
 
This is the second stage of grief described by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross: Shock and Denial that something like this could even happen. And secondly, anger that it has happened. That comes over strongly in this narrative:
 
"My counsellor tells me that the experience of grieving changes one, that I'm not the same person I was when Russell was alive, and it's likely I'll never experience things the same way again.  I was proud of myself for scheduling "people time" into that weekend; I'm sobered by the realization that even now, when my "physical energy" has rebounded I must still be careful of my "emotional energy" quotient and plan accordingly.  And I'm angry.  Angry, I tell you!  Because not only has Russell been taken away from me but so too has my expectation of what I can count on to help me feel better in this life here without him."
 
In his notebook of reflections after the death of his wife, C.S. Lewis on one occasion rails against God as a cosmic vivisectionist - "Is God a loving Father or is God the great vivisectionist?" The hurt is raw, and he needs to hit out at someone, anyone, to make sense of it all. And in his case, the anger is displaced to God.
 
"I wrote that last night. It was a yell rather than a thought. Let me try it over again. Is it rational to believe in a bad God? Anyway, in a God so bad as all that? The Cosmic Sadist, the spiteful imbecile?"
 
How we cope with grief at the loss of a loved one is complex, and often displacement activities come into play. There is nothing wrong with that. We need to express feelings in a variety of ways. But David gets passed his anger and gets on with his life; he has to, otherwise it will remain as a festering scab, always ready to be picked.
 
That doesn't lessen the hurt, or make the journey any easier.
 
"No one ever told me that grief felt so like fear.  I am not afraid, but the sensation is like being afraid.  The same fluttering in the stomach, the same restlessness, the yawning.  I keep on swallowing."
 
"At other times it feels like being mildly drunk, or concussed.  There is a sort of invisible blanket between the world and me.  I find it hard to take in what anyone says."
 
The service at All Souls day at St Brelade's Church doesn't take away that hurt, but it does provide a way to remember. Names are called out, and people go forward to light a candle for their loved ones while the chant goes on:
 
"Kindle a flame to lighten the dark, and take all fear away"
 
I add the names of those special to me to the list, but also some that I know who have also died, and who leave grieving families. They need to be remembered too. That's part of the ritual of healing.
 
And this is a service of healing. The wounds may leave scars, but they must be healed; we must not keep them raw, like an open wound.
 
That's the burden of grief, and it can weigh us down. As Seth Carrier notes:
 
"Rocks of pain and hurt are not easy to remove. But as we begin to heal, the rocks will come out. We may never empty our backpacks completely, but every time we choose the path of forgiveness and healing, and take one more of those grievance story rocks out of our backpack, there is greater peace in our hearts."
 
What happens when we do not, is that the past consumes the present, and we cannot let go.
 
"There are times," Sister Joan Chittister observes, "to let a thing go.  There is a time to put a thing down, however unresolved, however baffling, however wrong, however unjust it may be.  There are some things in life that cannot be changed, however intent we are to change them.  There is a time to let surrender take over so that the past does not consume the present, so that new life can come, so that joy has a chance to surprise us again."
 
The choice is ours.
 
References
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/13/1116565/-The-Grieving-Room-Musings-on-C-S-Lewis-A-Grief-Observed#
http://www.allsoulschurch.org/Websites/AllSouls/images/Sermons/2011%20Sermons/11_27_11_practicing_radical_forgiveness.pdf
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/uucollective/2013/03/suprised-by-joy-the-gift-of-forgiveness/

Endings

Something for All Souls, Samhain..... a mood poem...

Endings
 
Brown leaves, decaying on the ground
Storm drenched; Branches left bare
As the wheel turns slowly around
A time for dying, for Chantry prayer
 
Rain is falling heavy, flooding soil
Rivers burst their banks, overflow
Too well the farmer knows his toil
And sees the signs, the winter crow
 
The wheel turns, gives life and death
Now is winter time, and dying back
Cold frost seeps down, an icy breath
The tramp shivers on the ancient track
 
All souls this night, all saints the next
And we chant along to sacred text

The Machinery of Government Debate: The Executive

"This Assembly reflects our ordinary community and we are human with strengths and weaknesses and we will have candidates with all their foibles and the lot.  But we want to be more policy-driven and less dependent on personalities, so policy statements, proper mandates and so on." (John Young)

This debate in the States was on how the States would work internally. It was a debate to gauge the response to the proposals of the PPC sub-committee, rather than a vote. Here I'm focusing on the part concerning the executive.

The current situation is that the Chief Minister proposes his recommended Ministers, and then other States members can propose their candidates. Clearly this is unsatisfactory, as a Chief Minister may find themselves saddled with Ministers whom they would have not chosen, making working as a team in harmony very difficult.

The UK style solution is a much more a very centralist tight control, where the Prime Minister appoints Ministers; it's what Tony Benn terms "Prime Ministerial Patronage". The Prime Minister has the power to hire and fire, and coupled with a salary system which sees Ministers with considerably more remuneration than back benchers, it is clear he has considerable power over his fellow Ministers.  As he asked, "Power has got more centralised and the real question is, what is the role of House of Commons?"

But PPC were proposing a "via media", a middle way, so that the States Assembly would remain sovereign over the choice of Ministers, while at the same time, giving the Chief Minister more control over whom he or she chose. (I choose those words deliberately - wouldn't it be great to have a woman Chief Minister?). It is, as John Young, says, "a hybrid solution", a case of balances and checks to power. This is how it would work:

"We have concluded and what we propose is a kind of a compromise.  There are opposing views on this but the current compromise is that the Chief Minister will propose to the Assembly a group of Members, candidates for the Ministerial team and that then should be put to the Assembly, not en bloc.  We believe that there should be a separate vote on each Member.  We would not have the situation where we have now, where we can have chopping and changing en route.  It would be a simple yes, no, on each of the choices.  Going back to the recommendations of Clothier, the proposal is that the Chief Minister would have 3 attempts at that."

The way this would work is that there would be a vote on the Ministers separately but only to publish the results of that vote at the end of the total voting process.  So States members would not voting on Minister one, and if that fails that is it.  They vote through the whole process and they only know the results at the end. The reason one has done it that way is to give the Chief Minister the indication of where the problem is if the slate fails.

"Of course, if the previous attempts had failed, the Chief Minister would know which of the appointments had not been agreed and would be able to review.  We think that procedure is a compromise position and on the third attempt, if the Chief Minister's slate of Ministers is not approved - and you only need one of the candidates for it not to be approved - for the thing to work then the election would fall away and we would have to go through it again.  That may seem laborious but it was a way that we concluded, as a Sub-Committee, of trying to find a way where there are sharply divided opinions between those 2 extremes, at finding a solution that we believe allows the Chief Minister better control over their choice of Ministers, which they do need, and not to have Ministers on their team that the Chief Minister thinks would be completely contrary to the mandate that they put forward when they were elected but at the same time allows the States a veto over those appointments."

One key question focused on by the current Chief Minister was whether the proposed Council of Ministers should be elected one by one, as PPC propose, or as a single slate, where if it was rejected in total, the Chief Minister would have to revise and return to the House. Ian Gorst favoured a single slate, because as he argued, if for example the second proposed Minister was rejected, the Minister might want to change some of the portfolios around. Under the current system, this in fact happened, of course, when Ian Le Marquand, proposed for Treasury, was moved to Home Affairs after the States preferred Philip Ozouf in the former post.

Ian Gorst also raised the matter that collective responsibility could not just be a simplistic approval of the decisions of the Council of Ministers, in that there should be "parameters set around matters of conscience, matters of long-held policy and opinions for individuals coming into a Council of Ministers  He said:

"I support collective responsibility but some of the technicalities of how it would work, how Ministers would be expected to act collectively when they had long-held policy opinions or they had matters of conscience would need to be thought about and factored into such responsibility."

Collective responsibility, as developed in the UK was originally a means of giving the Commons the ability to wrestle control from the Monarch who could make his own nominees, but as that fell into disuses, it became a mechanism for giving the Cabinet a united front. It meant:

1)      A minister must not vote against government policy: this is perhaps the most fundamental
point of the doctrine.

2)      A minister must not speak against government policy: this is similar to the previous category,
although a speech or other form of expression may not always be as clear cut as a vote.

3)      All decisions are decisions of the whole government: this does not mean that the identity of
the relevant departmental minister is not disclosed.

4)      A former minister must not reveal Cabinet secrets: this extended example of confidentiality. clearly has less force than revelations when a minister is still in office

Tony Benn was bound by the much more stringent "collective responsibility" in the UK when in office, but he found a rather ingenuous way of side-stepping the second principle:

"I realised that collective responsibility applied to the present Parliament, so I would say "looking ahead ten years this is what we will have to think about..." so I could open up a whole area. They couldn't get me on that. I would also say: "I'm getting an awful lot of letters at the moment saying this, that or the other..." It didn't please colleagues but I think that on the whole, a government where it is known there is a debate going on is more credible than the pretence of unanimity. The idea that a Cabinet is unanimous on every issue isn't true and everybody knows it isn't true."

It is worth a digression to compare the UK system, because party politics in the UK is very bound up with a much stronger Prime Ministerial patronage which gives them power to choose and fire their Ministers, the bindings of a very strict collective responsibility, and far less ability of the Parliament to veto matters.

If we went down the route of party politics, and the machinery of whips to control dissenting party members, we would end up with a very different States, where there would certainly be much less diversity, and fewer "free votes", and sooner or later the Troy rule would probably go as well.

Ian Gorst certainly thinks that however "collective responsibility" functions, it should ensure that those bound by it are a voting minority, and the other members such as Assistant Ministers should not be bound except where it related to their own department. This would ensure the sovereignty of the States:

"The question is who are the Executive and what bit of the Executive should remain in the minority?  Surely it should be a voting minority. But if we say that the Executive is the Council of Ministers and the one or 2 Deputy Ministers, Assistant Ministers within that department, and that would be the only group that we would expect to vote en bloc then we could consider whether there could be more people carrying out that sort of function as well but they would never, other than when they were voting on a proposition from their own department, be expected or be considered to be part of the Executive.  We need to make sure that there is a voting minority at all times."

Deputy Geoff Southern took the view that any changes would just increase the power of the executive, which he thought was strong enough as it was; he harked back to the Committee system. I have to say that his memory and mine are at odds. I remember that, perhaps informally, almost all the members of an individual committee voted the same way as proposals by a committee; they exercised their own kind of collective responsibility, and the Policy and Resources committee tended to bind the other Presidents into a tighter control, hence the ejection of Stuart Syvret by Pierre Horsfall. There may have been more different foci for power, but a concentration of power was still there, and States members who were not Presidents but committee members would find themselves more bound than they may be at present.

Of course, he cites voting patterns, but voting patterns of the Assistant Ministers, for example, would remain more or less the same under these proposals. It has been rare for an Assistant Minister to vote against their Minister on a departmental proposal, and we have to remember that Assistant Ministers are more likely to vote the same ways as the Council of Ministers simply because they are appointed by Ministers.

What he fails to address is the problem where a Chief Minister has very little say against lobby groups who can propose alternative Ministers. Under the current system, Philip Ozouf came in as Treasury Minister; under the proposed system, that would have been harder. Under the current system, we ended up with Guy de Faye as Transport Minister, and despite the absence of trains, that was a train wreck of an appointment by the Assembly. Guernsey failed to understand that for ages, and I have had Guernsey friends telling me how much more control the Chief Minister has than theirs. But at present, it is very much a hollow crown.

Deputy Rob Duhamel can be counted on to come in with very original views, but I have to say he came up with some very worthwhile issues, an in particular localism. His point is that we must go back to the fundamental issues first before we can draw up a more ideal machinery of government if they are to engage with the electorate. He notes that the public find that they:

 "basically vote for ordinary Members who come forward with particular manifestos promising this, that and the other, only to find that for whatever reasons, when they get to the States Chamber they are not particularly popular with their colleagues or well-understood, and the opportunity to reflect their voters' preferences disappears."

He would like some more solid way of achieving consensus and perhaps a review of manifestoes as a way to look at how there could be more engagement with the electorates voting wishes. And he is also concerned that losing some powers of a Minister to collective responsibility could lead to an "in group" defining policy and imposing it on other Ministers.

"there have been some attempts at the moment within Council of Ministers to direct other departments and that is potentially extremely dangerous as well in the absence of a clearly defined and centrally agreed overall direction."

That surely is to some extent autobiographical. But I take his point. There needs to be a balance between a powerful enough grouping within the Council of Ministers effectively imposing their own agenda on their Ministerial Colleagues, and on the other hand, Ministers treating their department as their own sovereign fiefdom because they are essentially beyond control except by a vote of no confidence. The only Minister for which that occurred was Senator Stuart Syvret, although the current Transport Minister is facing a vote of no confidence now.

And as Deputy Mike Higgins suggested "the Council of Ministers we have at the present time consists of about 3 or 4 different tiers.  You have the inner-grouping, which is Senators Bailhache, Senator Ozouf and Senator Gorst in that order.  They are the principal decision-makers."

Yet a Minister can charge off on his own agenda, and it is extremely difficult for a vote of no confidence to succeed; it is seen very much as a nuclear option. Freddie Cohen had (in my opinion) singularly bad aesthetic taste, which he seemed able as Minister to impose upon the Island as a sovereign Minister with some extraordinary inept planning decisions, including an "improved Portelet Plan" (what on earth was the original like?), a sunken road (costing ½ million maintenance), and a "wonderful design" for the new incinerator (it's a giant ugly box, for goodness sake).

It was only the public who had a say at the elections over his reign at Planning that curtailed goodness knows how many more iconic world class Masterplans! I say that as a criticism of how he seemed to have no controls as Minister over what he could do, although in person, he was as an extremely affable and likeable individual, which is why I voted for him when he first stood for election. His failure to be re-elected was, I am sure, a vote on policy not personality.

Constable Philip Rondel highlighted one of the most important deficiencies, in how Assistant Ministers worked with Ministers, and again this comes to the personal fiefdom. Deputy Judy Martin also brought this up as she described how she as an Assistant Minister does engage in "round the table" discussions with her Minister, although this does not happen a lot elsewhere:

"Politically across the divide, myself, the Minister and the other Assistant Minister, the Constable of St. Peter, are probably quite different, and I think that makes for healthy debate.  Unfortunately, it does not happen in a lot of other Ministries"

It does seem that Assistant Ministers seem to function very much as lackeys to do the bidding of their Lord, and given information on a "need to know" basis rather than functioning as a team. As Deputy Rod Bryans agreed: "The assertion that Assistant Ministers do not receive enough information:  I think that is absolutely true."

This is Constable Philip Rondel's comments, in a very vivid (and amusing) picture of his own experience:

"As for Assistant Ministers, and call them what you will, but I have been to the Council of Ministers as a chairman of a Scrutiny panel, to be met outside where they have their luxury piece of salmon, ready to go in for their lunch and all their other fancy food for the Council of Ministers.  I have been there, waiting outside, and I have seen an Assistant Minister - who was the Assistant Minister of a department that we were discussing yesterday - and I said: "What are you doing outside?"  She said: "I am waiting to go in to the Council of Ministers because my Minister is away."  I said: "Why are you not in there already?  You should be up to speed."  "No, I have never been told what I am supposed to be doing."

And he was - in my view rightly - strongly critical of the Ministers who chose to absent themselves from the debate, perhaps to enjoy their luxury piece of salmon:

"There are as many people outside the government sitting in this Chamber as in, but where are our Ministers today?  Those who are in power, missing.  Why are they not here in the middle of this debate?  Running the Island, you say, Chief Minister.  I would challenge you because this affects their future or the future of this Island, and to see Deputy Green and Senator Le Marquand, the Chief Minister - Mr. Le Gresley has just gone out - but to see those 4 Members only in the Chamber and I do not see any others around ... sorry, the Minister for Planning and Environment, my apologies.  They have been here all morning apart from their comfort-breaks but, in general, Sir, I would expect the Ministers to be here to have some input in this debate and they are not.  I am really disappointed.  I am not surprised but disappointed."

It is early days for the Machinery of Government review. This debate was very much dipping a toe in the water for PPC; very wisely, they decided to gauge the mood of the Assembly rather than just bringing a proposition. Whether they are best to focus any propositions on one or two issues as paramount to get them dealt with before the next election will be interesting to see.

References
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp2004/rp04-082.pdf
http://www.totalpolitics.com/print/1288/in-conversation-tony-benn.thtml