Sir Thomas More and the Christian Conscience

Sir Thomas More and the Christian Conscience

There are clearly inconsistencies in how we view Sir Thomas More. The image that most of us grew up with, although clearly incomplete was the Sir Thomas More of Robert Bolt’s play “A Man for All Seasons”, where More stubbornly refuses to give consent to an oath making Henry VIII the supreme head of the Church of England. It is, for him, a matter of personal conscience, and to do it would be to betray who he is, his inner core.

But we know that More was not like that. He also terrorised heretics, and thought that if their souls could be saved, they could be burnt. This More just hovers on the margins of Bolt’s play, and is almost unseen.

Alistair Fox tries to reconcile the two by having a kinder, more gentle More, at home with humanists like Erasmus, and the later Lord Chancellor who terrorised the heretics. But that does not fit with Bolt’s play, which has the later More as the urbane, civilised figure.

As we have seen in the adaptation of Wolf Hall, Hilary Mantel’s More is much more unfeeling and fanatical towards heretics.

This duality persists to the present day. As Christopher Daly notes:

“Not long before the current pope, John Paul II, appointed More the patron saint of politicians, a popular biographer (Jasper Ridley) portrayed a gleeful hunter and persecutor of religious dissidents, made gloating and giddy by his own fanaticism” (1)

There is a preface to “A Man for All Seasons”, and Robert Bolt makes it clear how he saw Sir Thomas More. As Terrence Merrigan notes:

“Thomas More became for [him] a man with an adamantine sense of his own self. He knew where he began and left off, what area of himself he could yield to the encroachments of his enemies, and what to the encroachments of those he loved. It was a substantial area in both cases [and] ... he was able to retire from those areas in wonderfully good order, but at length he was asked to retreat from that final area where he located his self. And there this supple, humorous, unassuming and sophisticated person set like metal, was overtaken by an absolutely primitive rigour, and could no more be budged than a cliff. “(2

That primacy of conscience and self is clear when Bolt has More saying the following about the apostolic succession and the primacy of the Pope: "But what matters to me is not whether it's true or not, but that I believe it to be true, or rather, not that I believe it, but that I believe it."

But where More’s stance is actually located is slightly different. It is not just a matter of private conscience. More says:

"If there were no one but my self upon my side and the whole Parliament upon the other, I would be sore afraid.. I am not bounden to change my conscience and conform it to the general council of our realm against the general counsel of Christendom."

As Jack Kenny notes, More was not appealing “to some private soul or self within, but to 'the whole corps of Christendom' without. And what he feared to incur, by taking the oath, was not a metaphysical spilling of self, but the everlasting loss of God." (3)

That is why he could also be fanatical in his pursuit of heretics, and during his two and a half years as Chancellor was ultimately responsible for the execution of five heretics. And that is why he could boast, in a letter of his, that he “was a source of trouble to thieves, murderers, and heretics"

Peter Ackroyd is probably the best historian to tackle this paradox. Ackroyd looks at the exact words that More uses about the general counsel of Christendom, and notes that "conscience was not for More simply or necessarily an individual matter". It was keeping faith with the church.

John Guy notes that much of what comes to us about More comes from later sources, not all of which are without bias. Thomas Stapleton's Life of Thomas More, for example, was written in 1588. More died in 1535. A gap of 53 years divided the two.

Guy also notes, contrary to those who would downplay More and heresy, that he was fanatical:

“There is no dispute over his crusade against heresy. His defence was that heresy was so dangerous, it demanded the `rigour' of the law in every case. His rationale was set out in the Preface to the Confutation of Tyndale's Answer and in his Apology and Debellation of Salem and Bizance. Heresy was a heinous crime. It was treason against God and the Church. It was a crime against the King. It was deserving of capital punishment for the protection of the faithful and the realm.” (4)

As More wrote to Erasmus: “I find that breed of men absolutely loathsome, so much so that, unless they regain their senses, I want to be as hateful to them as anyone can possibly be”. Contrary to More, Erasmus thought it right to suppress books, but that burning people for opinions was wrong. But he also saw that burning books was pointless, it would remove them from libraries, but not from people’s minds.

And More himself constructed some of his own legacy. He wrote letters in 1534 to his favourite daughter Margeret, despite the fact that she visited him as well. Guy suggests that he uses the letters to put his own version of history into the records; it is clear that the letters had more than one audience, and More was thinking of posterity.

“Surely the very existence of these letters is significant, when More was so careful to have his other Tower letters returned or destroyed and when, as in Margaret's case, the correspondents spoke face to face” (4)

The biographers who came after seemed to have sometimes created speeches which they put into More’s mouth. William Roper, his son in law, wrote his memoir about 20 years after More’s death. Roper has More say this to his accusers at his trial at Westminster hall on 1 July 1535, giving what he purports to be More’s exact words:

“Forasmuch as … this indictment is grounded upon an act of Parliament directly repugnant to the laws of God and His Holy Church, the supreme government of which, or of any part whereof, may no temporal prince presume by any law to take upon him, as rightfully belonging to the See of Rome, a spiritual pre-eminence by the mouth of our Saviour himself, personally present upon the earth, only to St Peter and his successors, bishops of the same see, by special prerogative granted, it is therefore in law amongst Christian men insufficient to charge any Christian man.”

The problems with this are manifold. More has been described as a “papal minimalist; he thought that the Pope was not above the General Council of the Church, which could depose an unworthy Pope. That is why he framed his arguments about Christendom, about the church as a whole. It is Bolt, who following Roper, makes More much closer to John Fisher, who really did think the Pope was above the General Council.

As Guy notes, another problem is with multiple attestation. Roper was not present at the trial, “”and yet no one among those who were actually present seemed to notice this section of More's speech”

It reminds me very much of the speech which T.H. Huxley put into his own mouth in the debate over William Wilberforce. The contemporary accounts of the participants were largely replaced by a somewhat embellished version. As Jonathan Smith notes:

“Huxley, the traditional account has it, vanquished Wilberforce by responding to an insulting question about his own ancestry with a masterful rejoinder that exposed the Bishop’s ignorance of science and ungentlemanly behavior. Historians have shown that this traditional account is biased and distorted, a construction many years after the fact “(5)

As Guy notes on Roper’s version of More’s speech:

“Roper's attributed `speech' is almost certainly a `fiction'. It is not what Thomas More said; it is what he ought to have said. Roper's account of More's trial is in the style of a Sun journalist writing for The Times, describing an event that happened 20 years before, which the writer has only heard about from his friends”

And contrary to Robert Bolt’s rendering, More’s attitude to conscience meant conscience should confirm to the the doctrines or traditions which the Catholic Church had established since the time of the Apostles. As Marc Guerra notes in examining More’s letters:

“Nothing underscores the profound differences between More’s and the modernist’s understanding of conscience more than this fact: Whereas modern thought views the individual’s conscience as being above all other authorities, More’s conscience testifies to the superiority of the church’s authority to his king’s. More’s refusal to take Henry’s oath was not an act of civil disobedience but, rather, of obedience to truth and thus, in his view, an act of “genuine liberty.”” (6)

Thomas More who far distant from the rendering by Robert Bolt, who has him say:

“When statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their own public duties they lead their country by a short route to chaos.”

More’s understanding of conscience is still one which underpins the Catholic teaching on the subject. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it states:

“While all of us have the right and duty to follow our consciences, it is likewise true that our consciences must be correctly formed, and that is truly a lifelong task.”

And it goes on to say:

“In the formation of conscience, the Word of God is the light for our path we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice (cf. Catechism, no. 1785). Further, in forming our consciences, we must be “guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church” ( cf. Dignitatis Humanae [DH] .”

And it lists ways in which conscience can go astray, among them:

- A rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching
- A mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience

Sir Thomas More would have gladly assented to these propositions, and it is possible to see how this same man who declared the importance of conscience, who would not budge on his beliefs, could at the same time be a hater of the heretics without contradiction.

Wolf Hall may not depict Thomas More in the best of lights, but perhaps that is a much needed corrective to the depiction of Robert Bolt of More as more of a Quaker, which he never was.

If you really want to see a different depiction of conscience, look to the Quakers in the Great War. Their conscious did not permit any endorsement of violence on political or religious grounds. Sir Thomas More’s conscience did.

Of course, centuries separated those periods, but its foundation goes back to the Quakers from the time of their founder, George Fox, where from the start had always rejected violence, while at the same time, seeking to follow their Christian conscience. In 1660, they wrote:

“For this we can say to all the world, we have wronged no man, we have used no force nor violence against any man: we have been found in no plots, nor guilty of sedition. When we have been wronged, we have not sought to revenge ourselves; we have not made resistance against authority; but wherein we could not obey for conscience' sake we have suffered the most of all people in the nation. We have been counted as sheep for the slaughter, persecuted and despised, beaten, stoned, wounded, stocked, whipped, imprisoned, haled out of synagogues, cast into dungeons and noisome vaults, where many have died in bonds , shut up from our friends, denied needful sustenance for many days together, with other the like cruelties.”

References
(1) The Life of Thomas More, Christopher Daly, Anglican and Episcopal History, 2009

(2) Conscience and Selfhood: Thomas More, John Henry Newman, and the Crisis of the Postmodern Subject, Terrence Merrigan, Theological Studies, 2012

(3) God's Servant First, Jack Kenny, The New American, 2010

(4) The Search for the Historical Thomas More, John Gut, History Review, 2000

(5) http://www.branchcollective.org/?ps_articles=jonathan-smith-the-huxley-wilberforce-debate-on-evolution-30-june-1860

(6) http://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-10-number-6/thomas-mores-correspondence-conscience

(7) http://moralcompassblog.com/2013/04/11/thomas-more-inquisitor-torturer-killer-saint/



(8) http://www.qhpress.org/quakerpages/qwhp/dec1660.htm

My Valentine

A poem especially for Katalin.

My Valentine

Oh, the sweet playing of the violin
And your music ever in my heart
Of such memories love has been
And pray remain, never to depart

And each day we speak, each night
And talk together, see face to face
Such contact is a gift, and a delight
Your smiling face, so full of grace

Valentine’s day, lovers gaze, adore
And kiss we may, across the miles
And look to walking upon the shore
Such happiness, such joyful smiles

And don’t forget, though we are apart
You are still with me in my heart

An Enterprising Look A Like

Constable Patrick Stewart

of St Ouen (a hamlet)

Star Trek Actor Michael Paddock (in Hamlet)

Is it just my imagination, or does Constable Mike Paddock look like Actor Patrick Stewart?

To boldly goes where no one has gone before - the wilds of St Ouen!

Street Names of St Helier – Part 4

The final section on street names from the Pilot of 1972. As I stated before, the author of this piece is not named, but I suspect on stylistic grounds, it was probably unpublished writings left by G.R. Balleine who had died some years before.

The three other parts are here:

http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2015/01/street-names-of-st-helier-part-1.html
http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2015/01/street-names-of-st-helier-part-2.html
http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2015/02/street-names-of-st-helier-part-3.html


Street Names of St Helier – Part 4: Modern Times (continued)

Some streets received the names of big-wigs, whom the town desired to honour.

First the Royalties: King Street and Queen Street from George III and Queen Charlotte, and Regent Road from the Prince of Wales, the future George IV, who acted as Regent during his father's madness.

In 1817 the Duke of Gloucester, nephew of George III, visited Jersey, the first Royalty to do so since Charles 11, and the Rue de l'Hopital (Hospital Street), was renamed Gloucester Street in his honour. Clarence Road got its name from the Duke of Clarence, who became William IV; and the old Rue de la Planque Billot became York Street as a compliment to his brother, the Duke of York.

When the young Queen Victoria came to the Island with Prince Albert in 1849, the memory of that visit was enshrined in Victoria College, the Victoria and Albert Piers, Victoria Street, Albert Street, and Queen's Road. The Victoria Avenue was given its name at the time of the old Queen's Jubilee.

Other streets bear the names of popular Governors or Lieutenant-Governors. Don Road, which is part of the new road from St Helier's to Gorey, was named by a special Act of the States in 1806, "seeing that this improvement is the first of its kind to be carried out in the Island, and that its utility is recognized by all, the States desire Posterity as well as our Contemporaries to know to whom it is due. It is therefore ordered that this road be called Don Road' . Don Street was part of another suggestion made by General Don to cut a direct road from the town to the Town Mill. It was begun in 1812, but never carried further than Vauxhall; and eventually New Street and Val Plaisant became the desired thoroughfare.


Halkett Place was a road made when the New Markets were built. At first it was called the Rue du Nouveau Marche. When General Gordon, the Lieut.-Governor, left in 18211, it was proposed to call it Gordon Street. But his successor, :Sir Colin Halkett, became so popular that his friends urged that it should be called by his name. It is mentioned in advertisements as "Gordon Street or Halkett Place" or the Rue du Marche, "which some individuals have recently named Halkett Place". An attempt was made to buy off the Halkett supporters by giving them Halkett Street, but this did not content them, and eventually they captured Halkett Place also.

Lord Beresford, the Governor (Halkett was only his Lieutenant), visited Jersey in 1821, and the newly-built Beresford Street was given his name. Conway Street bears the name of General Conway, the builder of our Martello towers; Norcott Road of Sir William Norcott, who became Lieut.-Governor in 1873.

The latest road to be named in this way is Mount Bingham. About 1917 Mr E. T. Nicolle propounded a scheme for regarding Grosvenor Street, La Motte Street, Queen Street, and King Street as a single thoroughfare, and calling it after Sir Walter Raleigh, who was Governor in Elizabeth's reign. The parish authorities would not consent to such a drastic alteration. 

But about the same time the property owners of Almorah Road petitioned the Roads Committee to free them from a name that had become associated with funerals. (As a matter of fact, the road had. that name before the cemetery was thoughts of. The builder chose it because his wife had been born in Almorah, a hill town in India.) So, when this petition was read, somebody said "here is one group wanting a road named after Raleigh and another wanting to get rid of the name Almorah. Let us call Almorah Road, Raleigh Avenue. Then everyone should be satisfied."

Other celebrities honoured in this way are Major Peirson (the street where he fell is Peirson Place, and Peirson Road faces Gallows Hill, where he mustered his troops), and Captain Mulcaster, who refused to surrender Elizabeth Castle, though ordered to do so by the Governor.

National leaders receive a tribute of respect in Pitt Street, Nelson Street, Peel Road, and Wellington Road,

But it is strange that this compliment has never been paid to a single Jerseyman- In any French town the street-names provide a list of its eminent citizens, Rue Antoine Quidam and Rue Alphonse Le Tel. But one looks in vain for this in Jersey. Philippe Baudains nearly had his name given to Victoria Avenue, but the Jubilee robbed him of his chance. And Mont Pinel has no connection. It is the name sometimes asserted with the late Judge Pinel. It is the ancient name of the hill, which has recently been revived.

Much more might have been said. Some names have been switched in an odd way from one street to another.

The original Wellington Road lay between the Parade and the sea. The original Oxford Road was what we now call Stopford Road and Victoria Street,

Some queer names have disappeared altogether. No more can you prowl round Tinkers' Court or down Sweeps' Lane. Limpet Lane and Winkle Alley have passed unmourned from the map. No longer do landlords preach to their tenants by making them live in Abstain Cottages or Fay-as-you-go Court

But one curious fact must be noted. St Helier must be almost the only town in Great Britain that does not possess a High Street!

Seven Deadly Sins of the States of Jersey

Seven Deadly Sins of the States of Jersey

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary, "James Madison.

“Value belongs to the individual and it is the individual who is the sole bearer of moral responsibility. No one is morally guilty except in relation to some conduct which he himself considered to be wrong … Collective responsibility is … barbarous. (HD Lewis 1948)

The Council of Ministers is proposing “The Seven Principles of Public Life” to follow, which include how Ministers should behave within collective responsibility.

Quite how keeping a united front, while disagreeing privately, helps political honestly and integrity is questionable. Certainly it would be better for Ministers to also be able to abstain from voting with the Council of Ministers, and to mention that they disagreed.

On the one hand, that would retain the idea of collective responsibility – Ministers would not be opposing the party line, but on the other it would ensure that Ministers did not become two faced, having a private and public view at odds with each other.

Once the principle is adopted that someone can have two faces, one for private viewing, one for the public arena, you may as well forget honesty and integrity.

The system is designed to change people for the worse by exercising what philosophers call ““coordinating control”.

Mark Reiff argues that in collective responsibility, while the range of our responsibility has been expanded, the ties between responsibility and morality have been weakened.

Keith Subero, speaking on “Two Faced Politics”, noted that:

“The ease with which politicians discard one "face", and make an attempt at a new persona continues to provide ongoing excitement to the studies of personologists, and political psychologists.

They continue to examine those factors, in organised power, which transform "nice" people, once in the office of near indisputable authority, into aloof, disconnected, but, eventually, caricatured characters.”

Consider this principle: “Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions”. How do you keep hidden your private disagreement under collective responsibility, and be as open as possible?

And here is another that is often abused: “In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.”

Sounds good, but it means contracts off-island, and Chief Officers who come from the UK. Merit can so often be an excuse for “business as usual” when it comes to appointments and contracts.

So by way of contrast, here is my list of seven – not “The Seven Principles of Public Life” but “The Seven Deadly Sins of States politicians.”

Lust

States members no longer seem to have affairs with one another, or if they do so, do it much more discretely. In the past of course, often overlooked by those looking at it with rosy tinted spectacles, there were a good many affairs, and one Deputy even stepped down from the Education Committee, perhaps thinking that his example might not be that good for sex education!

Nowadays, mostly we have just the lust for power, which isn’t quite as salacious. Naked lust for power is not so visible, but haggling over position after the elections if you have a good showing in the Senatorials may come close, as may taking over the Electoral Commission on the grounds that you can sort it out, although that may also involve pride.

E. Monroy notes that lust:

“can be best exemplified on the intense desires of politicians for money, fame or power. The will to do everything to obtain a borrowed comfort and glory at the expense of the people. This is what triggers abuse to satisfy their cravings eventuating to pseudo-concerns instead of genuine public service.”

Look for: politicians getting themselves into the newspapers and TV at every opportunity.

Gluttony

The leaving bash for retiring States members, and of course, all the other members, was a black tie example of gluttony. On the whole this is not so visible, and is probably lost, together with the figures for alcohol expenditure, somewhere in the entertainment column of departmental expenditure.

But perhaps we may also put a £200,000 movie grant in there, as an example of spending that a glutton would approve of.

Look for: Conspicuous consumption, perhaps of bottled water, or maybe of alcohol. And the little figures that are missing or unobtainable, unlike the larger States members with a beer belly.

Greed

The inability of the States to say no to pay rises, while simultaneously saying there must be pay freezes in the public sector, is a good example of greed. Of course, greed in the modern setting is dressed up in all kinds of excuses, such as having to obey the dictates of an independent body, however much they would like not to, and promises to give that increase to charity.

But there is also a kind of greed that invades everyone’s lives with stealth taxes (such as the proposed sewage tax), more “user pays” etc. That approach is the Treasury greedy for more revenue, the avaricious monster devouring our income.

Look for: more stealth taxes which will be described as “user pays” rather than “user pays twice, once by taxation”, which would be the honest description, and a lot of hand wringing when States members pay increases.

Sloth

This one is still very much alive and kicking, although that may not be the best way to describe inactivity. The wonderful Street Works Law, which was promised for the first quarter of 2015, after years and years of delays, will now finally see fruition in the first quarter of 2016. Or maybe not.

And don’t talk to me about Reform. States members love to talk about reforming the States, and the hot air alone should, if captured, be enough to heat the States Chamber for decades, But that’s all it ever is – talk. When it comes to actually doing anything, sloth is the order of the day.

Wasting time and energy when critical work needs doing, when others need help, or when excellence and achievement are possible. I think there’s marginally less than there used to be – former Senator Terry Le Sueur was a past master of sloth, but there is still room for improvement.

There is also intellectual sloth, which sets in when politicians fail to rethink their assumptions. There’s a lot of that about.

Look for: promises that are never fulfilled, and an excuse about complications, endless consultations with interested parties, and goal posts on wheels. At least they have stopped saying “Rome wasn’t built in a day”.

Anger

Nowadays the anger probably takes place behind closed doors. Threatened punch ups, microphones turned off, and shouting in the States Chamber seems to have gone the way of Michael Heseltine swinging the mace in the House of Commons. The current crop of politicians are more media savvy and would be unlikely to be seen on Newsnight using phrases like “shafting Jersey internationally”. Although whether they keep their cool behind closed doors in the corridors of power is another matter.

The last major outbreak of anger may well have been when Senator Ozouf discovered that his proposed property tax reform, and part of his election campaign, had been derailed by the Yes Campaign Group’s statement on the matter. But he quickly overcame that, and showed the therapeutic benefits of channelling anger into ripping pages out of the proposed document, in front of the general public.

But there are also leaks. Leaks can be a weapon of choice. Such leaks often come from disgruntled politicians, and that can come from suppressed anger, and disgruntled States members.

Look for: leaks of the kind that Jersey Water can’t plug, and Chief Officers who resign suddenly citing an inability to work with Ministers.

Envy

Disraeli spoke of the desire to “climb the greasy pole”, and there that can be seen both at the hustings, and at the desire for elected States members to become one of the elite, the Council of Ministers, or perhaps even an Assistant Minister, waiting in the wings for a chance to fly.

John J. Pitney notes that “jostling for position includes even the lowliest ranks”, and I’ve seen plenty of that over the decades in Jersey politics. Look at how the bargaining went on after the last election over who should be Chief Minister, and how the Treasury Minister got his job.

Look for: horse-trading between politicians, and people who grovel a lot, and think Uriah Heep is a good role model.

Pride

This is perhaps the deadliest sin of the politician.

John J. Pitney comments:

“Candidates exaggerate their own virtues, sometimes believing what they say. Once in office, they surround themselves with fawning staff. . "I'm good," thinks the politician, "and since good people don't do bad things, then whatever I do is OK." The agenda justifies the means. The "anointed," as Thomas Sowell calls them, believe that they know what's best for everybody else

The refusal to admit mistakes, an arrogance which treats the public with contempt – we’ve certainly seen examples of these in recent times. That’s why we have an incinerator which still doesn’t work properly, a £200,000 film grant to be written off, a black hole in the economy, lack of States reform, and bulldozers wrecking the car park on the esplanade.

And shrug off objects as “a minor irritation”, because you know you are right.

Look for: a refusal to admit mistakes, a patronising attitude towards any critics, and politics that think that Machiavelli was “a good chap”.

So there you have it. Seven deadly sins and I suspect examples of all of them can be found in the States today.

Traditionally, the opposite side of the seven deadly sins are not managerial precepts but what St Paul termed “the fruit of the Spirit” - love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Now that would be something for politicians to aspire to!

Bulldozing Ahead

Do you remember when a developer sent the bulldozers in and destroyed Janvrin Farm. Despite not having planning approval for the site, residents of nearby houses awoke to see the 14th century farmhouse being raised to the ground.

The developer used a loophole in the planning law, that you needed permission to build, but not permission to demolish. That loophole was supposed to have been plugged. But it appears not to be the case.

The Attorney General in a reply dated 12th April 2000 about Janvrin’s farm advised the Planning Committee that “It appears to be reasonably clear under the current Law that, if the demolition is unconnected with any application or intended application for development, then consent would not be required for that demolition.”

But that is clearly not the case here, where development has been applied for. And in any case, by 2001 the Planning Law had been changed as follows:

Meaning of "develop":

“(2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), "develop", in respect of land, includes -
(a) to demolish or remove the whole or any part of a building on the land;”

The sight of bulldozers and demolition equipment at the Waterfront demonstrates how totally unaccountable the States of Jersey Development Company has become.

For a start, there is an application still being considered so you would have thought that they should not be going ahead with any work on the land. But like Janvrin’s Farm, it appears they have scant respect for the planning process. Presumably they expect the Planning Minister to simply rubber stamp the development.

It will not do to argue that the States approved this in 2008. As everyone by now knows, the States approved a mixed use development, with an underground car park, and residential flats and retail outlets as well as office space. These new plans are so wholly different that they cannot be considered the same at all.

They also seem to have scant respect for Scrutiny, which as Mark Boleat, the Chair of the JDC has said, is “an irritation”. The attitude appears to be: we will go ahead anyway, and you can’t stop us.

And despite the requirement from the States to have pre-lets in place, Lee Henry has acknowledged that they do not have these at present, they just want to prepare the site so it is ready as soon as they do! I get the impression they are edging closer and closer to building without sufficient pre-lets in place, and each step of the way will no doubt the justified by the same fatuous excuse.

The trouble is the States of Jersey Development Company is uncontrollable and unaccountable. What is the Planning Minister to do? If they were fined for going ahead without permission, it will be the States fining a States Quango, and any funds paid would mean less return from the pitifully small dividends paid at present.

The principals at the heart of the JDC, Mark Boleat and Lee Henry, cannot really be brought to account either. They cannot be easily dismissed by the States, and the States itself is so conflicted on this matter that it would be unlikely that a vote of no confidence would carry anyway.

As someone commented on Facebook:

“It is all smoke and mirrors. Give the impression that works are going on unopposed and you will stop people complaining. They are simply trying to pave the way for getting away without being scrutinised.”

It is all very well to say we need the offices. Even granted that we do, is that reason enough to ignore planning applications, to disregard scrutiny, and to treat the States and the general public with such contempt?

When the developer tore down Janvrin’s farm, there was a general consensus that even if he was within the strict limits of the law, he was behaving badly. But he was a lone individual. One does not expect to see a States Quango behaving in such a disgraceful manner. But apparently the Council of Ministers thinks this is a good thing and acceptable behaviour.

Here's what Save our Shoreline had to say:

CARNAGE AT THE ESPLANADE CAR PARK - PLANNING PROCEDURE IGNORED

We publish photos taken this morning of the current (and we believe illegal) 'landscaping' taking place at the Esplanade car park which we are monitoring. Reports from the public are currently pouring in to SOSJ.

Unfortunately we missed photographing the dead rabbits before they were hurriedly cleared away. The mature healthy trees were until today feeding and resting places for many species of migratory and resident birds who need these last valuable green spaces on the waterfront.

The planning conditions that were approved with Building 4 have changed. If the temporary car park works (by the underpass) are done under the building 4 consent, then the JDC should be replacing the car park immediately, on the Esplanade, under the phasing plan they submitted with the building 4 application. The JDC are not replacing the car park, under the new phasing with building 5, now, and this will be at least 10 years before it is replaced instead of the one year promised.

To date 325 individual Planning objections have been received by Planning and a decision has not yet been made on this application which is combined with Building no 5.(Application reference P/2014/2192 - Building 5 Esplanade Quarter and temporary relocation of public car parking)

The JDC are displaying a breathtaking arrogance in ignoring the Planning procedure. Even if they do have enough pre-let agreements signed to enable them to start work on Building 4, (which we doubt) they should not be steaming ahead destroying the trees and bushes in the car park and spending thousands on a new temporary car park without the phasing plans even being approved.

Saudi Arabia and Condolences: Some Context

Saudi Arabia and Condolences: Some Context

What is the relationship between the House of Saud and the religious establishment? It is important to understand this in order to see why any kind of reform is slow in the country, but also why reforms are taking place, not because of Western pressure, but partly as a result of changes in foreign policy, partly as a result of the threat of the Islamic state.

Renée van Diemen notes that:

“The relationship between the Al Saud monarchy and the religious establishment (ulema, or body of religious scholars), however, is complex and prompts the question of whether the state controls religion, or religion controls the state.”

That is very important when considering the political responses to the death of King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz. On the one hand, there are world leaders, and even our own Chief Minister, Ian Gorst, offering their condolences, while on the other, critics point out the appalling human rights record, and servitude of women, in the Saudi state. What is not noticed, however, is how change, slow, incremental, but change none the less, is happening in the country.

The differing approaches of the rulers and the religious forces within the country can be seen in how the policy changed with respect to the outside world. Foreign policy had been shaped by the domestic religious environment so that, for instance, Soviet Russia was opposed because it was atheistic. But as Diemen explains:

“The 1991 Persian Gulf War forced the Saudi government to redevelop its foreign policy to further its “security goals unconnected to religious objectives” (Haynes, 2007: 53). Saddam Hussein’s occupation of Kuwait and his deployment of troops to the Saudi border caused the Saudi regime to doubt its ability to prevent an Iraqi invasion. As a result, the government agreed to join the anti-Iraq alliance led by the United States and granted permission for the deployment of US military personnel on the kingdom’s soil (CIA, 2012).”

“This alliance shocked religious conservatives who wanted to separate the kingdom from non-believers, according to the hadith (statement by the Prophet Muhammed): “Let there not be two religions in Arabia” (Lacey, 2009: 130). The ruling family, however, managed to obtain a fatwa that accepted the presence of the largely non-Muslim US military.”

“The war “demonstrated to the Saudis that it was implausible to try to base the country’s foreign policy alone in their vision of Islam. Instead, the king and his advisers became convinced that the kingdom’s security interests necessitated a balancing of both secular concerns and religions considerations” (Haynes, 2007: 351)”

But as Islam has become increasingly radicalised, the Saudi rulers have been increasingly concerned about internal domestic threats to foreign policy, which involves treating with the USA and other foreign countries where Islam is not dominant.

In December 2014, Reuters noted that:

“Saudi Arabia's ruling Al Saud royal family are trying to adjust their relationship with the country's strict Wahhabi school of Sunni Islam as they increasingly view the teachings of some of its ultra-conservative clergy as a domestic security threat.”

“Saudi rulers are also starting to reform areas once the exclusive domain of the clergy, such as education and law, and have promoted elements of national identity that have no religious component.”

The reason for this is not to reject the basic precepts of Whahhabism, but seems a move to increase the a more nationalist rather than strictly religious Islam, in reaction to the increasing power of the Islamic State, and its threat to the Saudi ruling family.

As Reuteurs notes:

“The government now vets clerics in Saudi Arabia's 70,000 mosques, sacking many who disseminate extremism. Since 2005, since King Abdullah took power, he brought new ideas for the future," said Mohammed al-Zulfa, a liberal former member of the appointed Shoura Council, which advises the government.”

Other internal changes in outlook have been important:

“More modern-thinking clerics are being promoted and the top clerical council has been opened up to include scholars from the other main branches of Sunni jurisprudence beyond the Hanbali school followed by Wahhabis.”

And the tend towards nationalism seems to be the way in which the House of Saud is rebranding its own identity and legitimacy:

“The government has promoted an alternative narrative of Saudi identity that keeps Wahhabism as a central focus, but still allows secular themes such as nationalism and cultural heritage that predates Islam to shine. It has increased national day celebrations that were previously attacked by clerics as undermining religious feeling, and is promoting heritage sites, like the Nabatean rock temples, once seen as embarrassing in the land of Islam.”

And although male-only municipal elections were held on 29 September 2011, King Abdullah had announced that women will be able to vote and be elected in the 2015 municipal elections, and also to be nominated to the Shura Council.

So, contrary to the knee-jerk reaction against sending condolences on the death of King Abdullah, he has been moving towards change, albeit hindered by the conservatives, and also needing a delicate balancing act to avoid destabilising the position of the Royal family.

To be clear - the changes which have been happening have not brought Saudi Arabia to become anything like a liberal democracy, where the place of women is legally equal to that of men, and homosexuality is accepted. But wholesale change does not happen overnight, and if anything thinks it does, they should only look towards the Arab Spring, where apparent freedoms showed themselves to be illusory as new regimes took over. That was like a fast growing seed sown on stony soil; it came up quickly, but also perished as it had no firm roots.

Change in Saudi Arabia is slower, perhaps slower than we would like, but it stands a better chance of permanence. Treating those very rulers who are introducing that change as pariahs will not help, and shows ignorance of the historical context.

But what happens next after the death of the last king is a matter of concern. When van Diemen was writing, in 2011, he noted that:

“Prince Nayef (currently the Crown Prince), for example, has frequently been at odds with King Abdullah’s (current King since 2005) conduction of foreign affairs. As such, his accession to the throne could potentially undermine the kingdom’s relationship with the US and strengthen the role of religion in foreign politics (Laipson, 2011).”

However, the Crown Prince died in 2012, which means that the new King is now King Salman. As the New York Times notes:

“Analysts said they did not expect Salman to pursue policies significantly different from those of his predecessor, King Abdullah. His only immediate initiative was clarifying who would succeed him. The issue was a pressing one because the new monarch is thought to be 79 years old, and he is said to be showing his age.”

References
Rolitics and Religion in Saudi Arabia, EUC664 Renée van Diemen,

The Lots of Mary

A book called "The Lots of Mary has recently been discovered inside another manuscript. It is dated to around 1,500 years ago, so about 500 AD, which is a considerable time after the canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) were written.

It is a 160-page codex, so small and would fit in someone's palm, and is written in Coptic, an ancient Egyptian language, and the opening verse says:

"The Gospel of the lots of Mary, the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ, she to whom Gabriel the Archangel brought the good news. He who will go forward with his whole heart will obtain what he seeks. Only do not be of two minds."


That is interesting, because a good deal of modern speculation, of the Dan Brown variety, centres on Mary Magdalene; this is Mary the Mother of Jesus.

There seem to have been a plethora of Marys around the time of the New Testament, and some of the stories in the main gospels themselves appear to have conflated and confused these. We have Mary the Mother of Jesus, Mary of Bethany (sister of Martha), Mary Magdalene, Mary of Clopas, Mary mother of James, Mary mother of John Mark.

In fact, the name Mary appears 61 times in the New Testament, in 53 different verses. It was the single most popular female name among Palestinian Jews of the time, borne by about one in five women. It reminds me of growing up in the 1960s when almost every other girl seemed to be called Julie.

This book is likely to have been used for divination and would have been consulted to help answer difficult questions. This book is called a "gospel", which appears to be slightly unusual.

Examples of the oracles:

"Stop being of two minds, o human, whether this thing will happen or not. Yes, it will happen! Be brave and do not be of two minds. Because it will remain with you a long time and you will receive joy and happiness."

"You know, o human, that you did your utmost again. You did not gain anything but loss, dispute, and war. But if you are patient a little, the matter will prosper through the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."

"The fact that this book is called that way is very significant," said Prof Anne Marie Luijendijk from Princeton University. "Nobody who wants to know the future wants to hear bad news in a sense."

Now the Daily Mail says:

"An expert said this could rewrite the definition and purpose of gospels"

That is sheer nonsense. While it draws upon Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Matthew, Luke, and James for its oracles, it was written around the 6th century, and contains nothing explicitly Christian.

It its way, it is like the charms used even up to the 19th century, mentioned in L'Amy's "Jersey Folklore", where bible verses would be written on a slip of paper, and sewn into a very small cushion, and placed around the house to bring good luck and ward of evil.

Dr Eva de Visscher gave a talk on "Magic, Science & Religion in Medieval Manuscripts" in 2014 where she mentioned a similar kind of divination. There was a book on lot casting, entitled "The Lots of the Apostles" which may also have dated from the same period. It is mentioned in Tertullian. A dice would be thrown, a question asked, and combination of numbers of the dice would lead you to an answer.

The Bible itself, of course, in Bibliomancy, could be used where verses from a book would be opened at random to glean messages.

According to Wikipedia:

"Drawing the Sortes Sanctorum (Lots of the saints) or Sortes Sacrae (Holy Lots) was a type of divination or cleromancy practiced in early Christianity, derived and adapted from the ancient Roman sortes, as seen in the pagan Sortes Homericae and Sortes Virgilianae."

"Since full copies of the Christian Bible were rare before printing was invented, the lots usually used the Psalms, the Prophets, or the four Gospels"

There is an amusing but probably apocryphal story of a man who wanted to find out what God had for his future, so he closed his eyes, opened the Bible randomly, and stuck his finger on the page. He opened his eyes and read Matthew 27:5, "Judas . . . went away and hanged himself." Not liking that answer, the man tried again. This time, his finger landed on Luke 10:37, "Go and do likewise." Again, not liking that answer, the man tried again. This time his finger landed on John 13:27, "What you are about to do, do quickly."

Like much folk magic, the use of scripture or texts drawn from scripture was a means by which these practices could be legitimised. What the Gospel of the Lots of Mary does show us is that some means could even use the term Gospel, and a supposed New Testament connection as a specific form of legitimisation. In that sense, it may be unusual, or it may simply be one of the few texts which have turned up in that particular form.

But there are other equally unusual texts such as "The Acts of Matthew and Andrew in the City of Cannibals", which was written down in Greek probably shortly before 400 A.D. by an Egyptian monk. The city of cannibals was Marmadonia, thought to be a town in Scythia, now in eastern Crimea.

The Greek original is lost, as is the Latin translation, but we do have an Old English translation possibly by an Anglo Saxon monk. Here is a sample:

"Here it says that after our Lord Saviour Christ ascended to heaven, the apostles were together, and they cast lots among themselves to learn where each of them should travel. It says that the blessed Matthew was given by lot the city of Marmadonia. It says then that the men who were in this city ate no bread and drank no water, but ate men's flesh and drank their blood. And whatever foreign man who came into the city, it says that they immediately seized him and put out his eyes, and they gave him a potion to drink that was blended with much witchcraft, and when he drank this drink, immediately his heart was undone and his mind overturned."

Notice the emphasis on casting lots to determine where the apostles should travel., although the mechanism by which they did so is not known.

And the practice of casting lots to make a decision is even found in the New Testament. The book of Acts records that the eleven apostles cast lots to determine who would replace Judas (Acts 1:26).

I can't finish this piece without mentioning that splendid episode of "Yes Prime Minister" when Jim Hacker is asked to approve the appointment of a Bishop. He is told about the Apostles casting lots to let the Holy Ghost decide, and asks "Can't we let the Holy Ghost decide now?"

The reply:

"Well, Prime Minister, we feel that the Holy Ghost might not fully appreciate what makes a good Church of England Bishop."

On Love

On Love

I begin this poem not knowing where
Love enters in, to hold so very dear
One in my heart, and yet that I do
Very truly, from the time I did woo
Every memory of that day, rain fall
Your smile, standing by the sea wall
Our nearness, as we came ever close
Under the umbrella, and who knows
Kisses could have been, were soon
After walking by the light of the moon
That late summer, from being so coy
And then embrace, kiss, passion came
Love was burning like a candle flame
I still light a candle, every Sunday eve
Now and forever, your heart on my sleeve.

Local Astronomy News

I'm giving a talk on meteorites, with a powerpoint presentation on Monday at 8 pm at Les Creux at the Jersey Astronomy Club. There will be sample meteorites on display to view, and tektites to hold. If you don't know what a tektite is, come along!

A map giving the location is on our website at:
http://jerseyastronomyclub.weebly.com/


The clubhouse is next to the dome.

Guernsey Astronomer Jean Dean has started a new Facebook group for the Channel Islands on Astrophotography.

Channel Islands Astrophotography Group

https://www.facebook.com/groups/channelislandsastrphotography

An informal group for Channel Islanders to show their astrophotography images and share their skills with members. Everyone is welcome to join from beginners to advanced, DSLR or CCD. Also a place to advertise your astronomy equipment as you upgrade, so hopefully it will be a good place for beginners to pick up good quality second hand equipment. 

Other Channel Island Facebook Groups

SAstroS (Sark Astronomy Society)

https://www.facebook.com/groups/SarkAstronomySociety

The Astronomical Society of the Channel Island of Guernsey

https://www.facebook.com/AstronomyGuernsey

And of course our very own

Jersey Astronomy Club

https://www.facebook.com/JerseyAstronomyClub

Remember that our own website here also has a gallery, and welcomes any views of the night sky from the Channel Islands.

Street Names of St Helier – Part 3

More on street names from the Pilot of 1972. As I stated before, the author of this piece is not named, but I suspect on stylistic grounds, it was probably unpublished writings left by G.R. Balleine who had died some years before.

The two other parts are here:

http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2015/01/street-names-of-st-helier-part-1.html
http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2015/01/street-names-of-st-helier-part-2.html

Street Names of St Helier – Part 3: Modern Times

For the first half of the nineteenth century the growth of the town was prodigious. When Falle wrote in 1734 the population was about 2,000. By 1800 it had quadrupled to 8,000. By 1831 this had doubled again, and become 16,000. By 1841 it was 24,000, by 1851 30,000. All these newcomers had to be housed. Jersey was a builder's paradise. New streets sprang up like mushrooms, and for each a new name had to be found.

Some took their names from a building in them. The Public Library, till it moved to its present premises in 1886, was in Library Place, Bath Street had public baths opened in 1827 with "baths hot or cold, fresh or salt, Bristol, Harrogate or Cheltenham".

Museum Street gained its name from a museum started in 1836 with "an Exhibition of Egyptian, Grecian, and Roman relics, collected by the late John Gosset, Esq., including a mummy, numerous papyri and amulets found in tombs at Thebes, specimens of the arts of the South Sea Islands, China, America, etc., liberally lent for the purpose of establishing a National Museum". Unfortunately on the first free day so much damage was done that the museum had to be closed, and nothing remained but the name which clung to the house and street.

St James's Church, built in 1829, gave its name not only to St James's Street, St James's Place, New St James's Place, and St James's Cottages but also to Chapel Lane, for in early days the church was known as St James's Chapel of Ease.

Before St Mark's Church was finished in 1844, St Mark's Road had borrowed its name. And Wesley Street takes its title from the Wesleyan Chapel.

Many a street is called after some private house in, it; Hilgrove Street, for example, after Hilgrove House, the home of the Hilgrove family, a large mansion which stood on the bank of the Grand Douet, near the point where the present Hilgrove Street meets Halkett Place. Its spacious fish-pond occupied the site of what is now the Market, and, till its later years, it looked out north and east over nothing but green fields. It was pulled down in 1845.

Plaisance Road got its name from plaisance, the home of Jurat Falle; and many other of our street names, such as Bagatelle Road and Belvedere Hill, can be explained in the same way.

Other streets preserve the name of a landowner, Mont Cochon, like the Rue es Porcqs, has nothing to do with pigs, but belonged to the Couchon family. In early deeds it was generally called Mont Couchon.

Burrard Street was a gift to the town from Sir Harry Burrard, the General who superseded Wellington in the Peninsular War. His mother was a Durell, and he was born at St Ouen's. The Gazette de Cesaree announced in 1812: "Lieut-Gen. Sir Harry Burrard is about to give a new proof of the lively interest he takes in his native land by opening a road from New Street to the New Markets. This road will be called Burrard Street after its generous donor."

In the Visite des Chemins of 1699 Hue Street is called "the road which passes the house of Mr Helier Hue"; and permission is given to Matthew Le Geyt ' to widen the street beside his house" (the present Le Geyt Street).

A contract of 1770 describes Dumaresq Street as "the street which Guillaume Dumaresq caused to be made". Lemprière Street in the Town Plan of 1800 is a long private tree-lined avenue, leading up to the large house of the St Helier's branch of the Lemprieres.

Jean Seaton was an auctioneer who sold his goods on an open space facing the sands, which he called the Seatonnerie. Here a little later Seaton Place was built.

Byron Road and Byron Lane have nothing to do with the poet. They were built on land that was called the Bironnerie long before the poet was born, a name obviously derived from the Jersey family of Biron.

Haguais Street (how many readers can say where that is? It is the `short cut from Broad Street to King Street opposite the Post Office) gets its name from another old island family, the Haguais.

The military authorities also have left their mark. The Parade was a wilderness of rough sand hills, till General Don levelled it to be the parade-ground of the Militia. At the corner of Cannon Street the building can be seen where the cannon of the Artillery were stored. And Dauvergne Lane gets its name from Fort Dauvergne (called after the Prince of Bouillon), which stood on the seafront at the end of the lane.

The Waterfront Finance Centre Gardens: Concept and Reality

I suspect that the fantasy below will never come to fruition – it is supposed to be part of the JDC's plans for the Finance Centre. With the focus on office blocks, this part of the planned development has been left very much in the shadows, and yet it is on the website, along with a colourful photo made to show what it would look like (which can also be seen above). Something else for scrutiny to consider – and the cost of maintenance of this idyll as well.

http://www.jifc.je/public-realm/

“At the heart of the JIFC is a new public park that will provide an attractive setting for the new buildings and a valuable amenity for the wider community. The park will be predominately soft landscaped showcasing the varying characters that the landscape of Jersey has to offer. The new park will include a number of semi-mature trees that will provide shade on sunny days and an array of foliage colour and blossom through the year.”

“The development will also include significant landscape improvements to The Esplanade, creating a Boulevard feel. Semi-mature trees will be planted along the Esplanade to reinforce a grand entrance to St. Helier.”

“Historically The Esplanade formed an edge to the original sea wall, most of which is still present but hidden below ground. This historic sea wall will be uncovered and restored as a unique feature of the development and a water feature will run the length of the sea wall creating a moat which will be visible from the pedestrian bridges linking to the receptions of the office buildings.”

I asked a horticultural expert, Adam Gardiner, for his views on the proposed development

The Waterfront Trees: Concept and Reality
By Adam Gardiner
The architects and concept artists always show a scene that is considerably overstated and in reality would take 20 years or more to achieve even assuming optimum growing conditions.

While there are several species of tree that may suit the site, the chances of them growing to the dimensions and shape as often shown is at best hopeful. The soil can be ameliorated to give trees a good start, but beyond the reality is no one gives them any of the attention they would need to be able to achieve anything near their potential - as all too often depicted in concept drawings.

The car park had several trees planted along the Esplanade side which became reasonably well established as they enjoyed just enough shelter, but tree planting elsewhere on the site was decidedly unsuccessful with those few that did survive becoming either stunted and misshapen or simply refused to grow. That is due to poor management (disinterest) and the exposed position. You may note that there is tree planting on the Jardins de la Mer. They are growing but they are all pines - about the only species that can handle the tough conditions - and then only just.

It has to be considered that the Waterfront and Esplanade in general takes the brunt of our prevailing wind - West to South West. That wind is salt laden coming as it does straight off the sea. Finding species that can deal with that when we read of blossoms and foliage colour is wishful thinking. Also to be taken into account are the buildings they are intended to surround.They will produce shade as well as unusual wind patterns, not forgetting the venturi principle where buildings stacked close together will compress the air flow and increase its speed. That is already apparent on the concourse in front of the Tourism Office - a wind tunnel. It is also a well known fact that transplanted semi-mature trees can be very difficult to establish, the failure rate can be high even in good locations. The trees currently tub-planted opposite the bus station were first planted about 8 years ago and far enough away from the shoreline to have some sort of prospect of surviving - but you would hardly say that are flourishing!

They talk of an avenue off trees. The avenue on La Route du Port Elizabeth (from roundabout above underpass to Maritime House) is partially successful - although what we have is hardly yet a shady avenue either - that after 15 years or more from planting. The trees used are a form of maple - to be more precise Acer griseum (a relative of sycamore). They had half a chance because they stand in the lee of Aquasplash and the reclaimed land beyond and not planted too close to buildings and thus less prone to the effects of eddying winds you get around solid structures.

That all said I am sure that tree planting along the Esplande and on the proposed Financial Quarter site is possible and maybe some may establish reasonably well, note some - but no-one should expect it to look anything like the scheme shown in an architects drawing.

So far as the Finance site public park is concerned they don’t say who is in fact going to look after it. Who is going to foot the bill for its maintenance? We have to assume TTS but where do they find the resources to add another area to their list of public parks if indeed a park created by JDC can be a public park - the land is owned by JDC not the public. Are the rents to include a levy for landscape maintenance ‘In perpetuum’ or will it fall to the already hard-pressed St. Helier ratepayer if not now at some later stage?

I perhaps agree with you - all considered pie in the sky; yet another attempt to soften public opinion with the promise of a park which to be honest is probably undeliverable. I would also say that the time any surviving tree able to provide shade from the sun is a long, long way off - as I say 20 years at least. A better prognosis might be never!

As our Chief Minister might say - ‘it’s a challenge’.

The Waterfront: Why Scrutiny is Needed

 Following on from yesterday’s blog, two more letters that are worth reproducing from the JEP.

The first, from Roger Bale, highlights one of the main problems I have with the scheme – the total lack of any detailed information, any figures or timetable. The few figures which do get bandied about are to do with the return to the States of £50 million, and yet back in 2008, Senator Philip Ozouf stated:

“Let’s not forget, it will also directly provide 400 much-needed homes for Island families as well as £75 million to regenerate town. The plan will provide wonderful public spaces, including a winter garden.”

And Alan Maclean himself was also gushing about those homes:

“The proposed office space equates to about four years’ demand. It includes 400 apartments and the money raised will be ploughed back into regenerating St Helier.”

The homes have gone, and so it seems has £25 million of the return, and the winter garden.

And in 2008, Ian Le Marquand mentioned another cost: “The sinking of the main road is estimated to cost £45 million, which is a lot of money.”.

The second letter, from Richard Whatmore, also illustrates how far the States have moved from the original scheme which was approved. If I have a development passed by Planning, and I wish to change it substantially, I cannot just go ahead and do this on the basis that the original plans had been passed. But this does seem exactly what has happened with the Waterfront. What is now proposed bears only the faintest resemblance to the Hopkin’s Masterplan, and yet on the basis of the original approval of that, the scheme is going ahead!

Letter from Roger Bale

In the real world, where investors can lose money, the factors taken into consideration with regard to the Esplanade Finance Centre would be as follows:

Cost: No detailed projections for cost of construction have been seen by the States let alone the public for this project. Still to be quantified is the cost of removing contaminated soil from the site; remember the cancellation of the project. to dig trenches to commemorate the start of the First World War abandoned because of the contamination?

Return: No rent projections have yet been seen.

Demand: The finance industry is currently shrinking and there is no evidence that new entrants are unable to set up shop in Jersey because of lack of office space. There is a lot of office space currently available for rental. In fact, rentals are currently declining.

An established, well-funded property company (C Le Masurier Limited) have detailed planning permission for 280,000.sq ft of grade A commercial office space and a two-acre site which could be developed without disrupting existing parking arrangements and, importantly, without the involvement of taxpayers' money

With all these factors in mind, investors in the 'real' world would shelve the project until the market conditions improve.

However, the Jersey Development Company (JDC) does not live in the 'real' world. It can call upon a bottomless pit of taxpayers' money Neither Lee Henry nor Mark Boleat, the chief executives of JDC, have any money they can personally lose by the project going forward. In fact, the opposite. If the project does not go forward, questions will likely be asked as to why a reported £4 million has been spent and why such a large amount of this was spent off the Island.

Answers to these questions may well cost these gentlemen their current well-remunerated positions - witness the exasperation expressed by Mark Boleat (JEP 10 January) at yet, as he sees it, another inquiry into the project by a committee to be headed by Deputy John Le Fondre. The purpose of funds raised by taxation is not to do what the taxpaying private sector is able and willing to do for itself. The States must let the private sector take risks (and losses). The States will take 20% of all profit without risk.

Letter from Richard Whatmore.

I would like to strongly support Mr Keeping's letter (JEP 16 January) criticising the Jersey Development Company chairman's effective refusal to cooperate with the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel (JEP 10 January). The JDC should now be required to show how it intends to adhere to the 2008 Masterplan, how it will create the necessary underground car park and for how many cars, and if it will employ local suppliers.

Mike Waddington has quite correctly asked (JEP 7 January) for a `collaborative rethink' about the important future development of St Helier. Such a rethink could make a real difference to the future shape of our capital, but it will not be achieved with a JDC chairman who talks of 'irritation' and `.just playing Jersey politics'.

The Waterfront and Democracy

“Nothing in the world can stop me now!”, Professor Zaroff, The Underwater Menace

As I hear the Treasury Minister, Alan Maclean, announcing that nothing is going to stop the Jersey Development Company, I thought I’d make public this letter from last week’s JEP from Save Our Shoreline. It is not just occasions like Christmas when the busy time can be used to bury bad news; as Dave Cabeldu notes, it can also be used to bury planning application consultation periods. Delays may cause problems for the politicians, but that is I am afraid the price we pay for living in a democracy.

Incidentally, note what Alan Maclean said in 2008 when he stood for Senator:

"I also like the idea of quality public spaces, especially the winter garden. The practical and economic case for sinking the road will join the Waterfront to the town and produce the funds to regenerate St Helier."

There are no longer any Winter Gardens or "quality public spaces", and as Dave Cabeldu points out, the sinking of the road is something which Senator Maclean has become adept at evading. The changing goal posts, and the vagueness about when we might expect any return to the States are precisely why we need a consultation, to get something firm pinned down.

From Dave Cabeldu, co-ordinator, Save Our Shoreline Jersey.
Save Our Shoreline Jersey sent a small team of volunteers over two early morning periods last week to conduct a 'snap survey' of the opinions of Esplanade car park users on the States of Jersey Development Company's hurriedly revised phasing plans.

Ninety-eight of car park users were opposed to the changed plans and confirmed that they had not been consulted by the developers.

By Friday lunchtime over 247 individual planning objections had been sent in to the Planning department, most being uploaded in batches onto their website. Many more are on their way or waiting to be processed. The full SOS Jersey objection has also been sent in and is now available to view on the planning website.

SOS Jersey also wrote to residents in Castle Quay/Rue de l'Etau area who will be hugely affected by the diverted traffic and to make them aware of the new and recently changed phasing plans.

A further deeply concerning aspect are the remarks from the States of Jersey Development Company's chairman, Mark Boleat (JEP 10 January), regarding the forthcoming Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel Review. Mr Boleat views the States legitimate Scrutiny Review as being an irritation' and insists that the development will go ahead regardless, thus ignoring both the Planning process and the crucial States Assembly vote in 2008. The rephasing does not deliver the promised underground car, park (reduced in size from 1,420 spaces to 800) in the first phase and the significant alterations have not been brought back to the States for approval by the Chief Minister as the Assembly voted should happen, by 40 votes to one in 2008 P111, as highlighted recently by Ben Shenton.

The States of Jersey Development Company display a presumption that their planning applications are a formality. The planning process is called a 'public consultation period'. It was advertised as 21 days and this commenced on 23 December 2014 with a small advert in the JEP Gazette, and ran over the Christmas holidays. It is, therefore, not surprising that nobody surveyed knew that the plans had once again changed.

The States of Jersey Development Company have a seemingly endless supply of public money available, but not enough to properly consult the car park users, residents and the public.

The States of Jersey Development Company cannot and will not confirm whether the public will see any return on their in-vestment before 2035, or whether the main road will be sunk, despite this being the key factor in affecting the Masterplan viability. Until the road is sunk (or not) none of the promised benefits to the public will be achievable, leaving commuters, visitors, residents and public to be inconvenienced for decades to come, while paying for the privilege.

SOS Jersey suggest that the Planning Minister should formally extend the consultation period until everyone (including Members of the current States Assembly) fully understand the significant negative effects of the new proposals.

The Jersey Way

The Jersey Way

You come from the Lord Adam and the Lady Eve", said Aslan. "And that is both honour enough to erect the head of the poorest beggar, and shame enough to bow the shoulders of the greatest emperor on earth; be content." C.S. Lewis, Prince Caspian

I have been reading and listening to the new Bailiff telling Islanders that we need to reclaim “the Jersey Way” from its critics, those who use it to denigrate the Island, and rather use it as a term for something positive.

“I refer briefly to those who have hijacked the expression 'The Jersey Way'. It's been used over the last few years to imply secrecy, something underhand and probably corrupt, something shabby and if not positively criminal and indeed I've heard it used by senior UK figures in that way. To me 'The Jersey Way' means doing something competently, with integrity, fairly and with compassion. On behalf of all islanders, to the extent I can do so, I reclaim that expression and I encourage you all to use it with its proper meaning and to be forthright in challenging those who do not.”

There is something in what he says, but I find the note which he sounds is too full of triumph. If we are to “reclaim the Jersey way”, we must also realise that the Jersey way is also as flawed as any other way.

In fact, even in the same paper which reported the William Bailhache’s words, there was a witness statement to the care inquiry about someone who went to the police with a complaint of abuse, and discovered later that one of his original complaints had been lost but recorded, and the other did not even seem to have been recorded. He had also been told that the Attorney General would explain to him that the reasons why the case would not be prosecuted, and then was told the Attorney General didn’t have time to see him.

There is not much in that account that displays competence, integrity, fairness or compassion. It does seem shabby. And it is not the only such case like that, of people treated badly.

But we should also look on the positive side. Look at how much Islanders raised in the initiative “Side by Side” which helps countries suffering natural disasters. The Island of Haiti, for example, was devastated by a horrific earthquake on 12 January 2010. Between 200,000 and 300,000 people died in the natural disaster and half a million were left homeless. In 2010 Jersey Side by Side partnered with ActionAid to raise funds to purchase 12 grinding mills to transform products like maize into a consumable food and source of income. In the summer of 2012 this fundraising project came to completion and ActionAid are set to deploy the grinding mills in the rural areas of Haiti.

Every year there are new calls for help, and every year the Jersey people rise to the occasion. This year saw the launch of the Jersey One World Group, raising awareness of both people trafficking in Asia and the need to educate farmers in Zimbabwe, to help those people all get onto their own feet. The old adage still holds good, attributed to Maimonides, “"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

There are Jerseyman like the late Ed Le Quesne, and former politician Jean Le Maistre who help us keep our eyes on the bigger picture, and remind us that charity may begin at home, but should not end there, that Islanders should not begrudge their own good fortune. This too, is the Jersey way.

And there are other Islanders like Colin Taylor, who remind us that charity also needs to begin at home, where there is homelessness, poverty, a need for a refuge, where people struggle to make ends meet. The Alms Houses at St Aubin and Sanctuary House show us that there is a widening gap between the rich and poor in Jersey society, and this must be addressed. Helping those in need within our own community, and creating food banks which as in England, are also desperately needed here, is something that Islanders also do. That too is the Jersey Way.

And looking at the Occupation, we have Clifford Orange, the Aliens Officer, ruthlessly collating particulars about Jews and sending them to the German authorities. We have the Attorney General sending the name of a man with a wireless set to the German authorities, knowing well what would happen, but doing this for the greater good. The Jersey Way? Alas, all too true.

But there is also a very interesting article called “The Kindness of Strangers”, which looks at the Occupation in Jersey, and those who helped Russian slave workers, or helped Jewish people who needed to hide, at great personal risk, and sometimes at great personal cost (when some were caught).. The Jersey Way. Yes indeed!

So we see that what we might call “The Jersey Way” is neither one thing nor another. There are the qualities noted by the new Bailiff, although it has to be said that most come from initiatives taken by the Islanders themselves, and not the authorities. And there is also the shadow side, where people get lost in the system, get trampled upon, forgotten.

It is very much as those opening words in Narnia.

..both honour enough to erect the head of the poorest beggar, and shame enough to bow the shoulders of the greatest emperor on earth.