The Challenge

"There are many areas of the way that we operate as a legislature, some ways that we operate as a Government, which need modernising, which need to change so that they have the appropriate democratic overlay and we can be seen to be democratic, open and transparent, and “accountable” arises from that, absolutely, we cannot be accountable without those things being in place."

That was said by one of the Council of Ministers, and note the buzz words - "modernising", "democratic overlay", "open and transparent". I'll let the reader guess which one.

I was reading about the insidious way in which pretentious jargon infiltrates politics. Problems are no longer considered problems, they have morphed into challenges. Over just 5 States sittings, the word "challenge" seems to have become a firm favourite, and Ministers have morphed into James Hacker of Yes Minister. Here are a few choice morsels:

Senator Ian Gorst:

...the challenging decisions that we are asking Members to make in the M.T.F.P.,

But if we look at the sectors where those jobs have been created, that gives us the challenges that I spoke about in questions on notice earlier about the balance of supporting businesses to increase their productivity.

It is why we did the jurisdictional review looking at the threats and the challenges that faced us and looking at how we could protect our core markets and yet at the same time build into new markets and new products.

That leaves us with a challenge and that challenge, I believe, is for us to think of creative ways, which will mostly be about residential, of transforming that secondary office space.

As some of the Members have said, there has already been an increase in the number of health visitors, but the challenge is: are they in the right area?

We all know that the development that is going to take place in this area means that it needs more open space, the challenge is how are we going to deliver it and being informed before we make that final decision of exactly how and, for example, if it is that site which bits or whether it is all of it is going to be delivered.

The reform programme will help us keep spending under control.  It will help us to develop a flexible public sector that is ready for the challenges ahead.  The challenges facing the Island over the next few years will mean some difficult choices.

We are not taking things for granted.  But be absolutely clear, challenges remain.

Senator Paul Routier:

I think that is the issue that we are challenged with.

I agree it is a real challenge for us to make decisions with regard to the decisions that we are being asked to make by the business community to ensure that they have the right staff within the Island.

But it is a challenge, I do not deny the fact.

I do recognise that there would be challenges for the agriculture and tourism industry

Deputy Graham Truscott:

The Government is dealing with financial challenges, a black hole, a structural deficit of £145 million.

Deputy Rod Bryans:

One of the challenges that the staff face is providing sufficient car parking spaces.

Deputy Louise Doublet:

The panel has been challenging yet fair.

Deputy Steve Luce:

I have already explained and as difficult as it is, personal circumstances can play no part in what are often sometimes extremely challenging decisions.

In addition, those renewables also displace high carbon sources of energy like oil and gas and if they do that will help us to meet the carbon reduction challenge.

We have also agreed that an event should take place over a weekend in May at the Town Hall, this work of all of which will inform the new masterplan and will provide a platform for an objective assessment of all the issues, challenges and opportunities for urban regeneration.

Senator Andrew Green:

The challenging landscape of the public sector reform and the need to ensure that cross-organisational initiatives and delivery occur in a timely fashion, as well as in a consistent manner, has led to this proposed change.

Good governance demands challenge and transparency.

Current times are challenging but that does not mean that we can neglect to plan for our future.

Senator Alan Maclean:

Its reasoning for such a positive response to the significant challenges relating to scale that it faces in the market is the access to wider sales channels and the opportunity to properly leverage the significant international capability of the Airtel business and its owners to grow J.T. and deliver greater value for consumers and Islanders.

We have talked in questions earlier today about some of the challenges faced in this particular issue, and they are much broader than just this particular panel and this particular matter.

The importance of Jersey Airport and Jersey Harbours cannot be underestimated, but it is an unavoidable truth that these capital-intensive businesses face significant challenges both now and into the future.

Deputy Andrew Lewis:

Where the money comes from, hopefully it will present the Council Minister with a challenge, that may be planning gain.  Getting that sorted will be the challenge and will be the outcome, and that can only be a good one.

Deputy Susie Pinel:

At a time when all benefit expenditure is under review I do not think it would be sensible to pre-empt these challenging decisions by reviewing any one component of income support in isolation for the overall levels of support available to a household.

Members are now fully aware of the size of the financial challenge that we face and it is incumbent upon the Council of Ministers to explore all options to ensure that the final proposals put forward in the M.T.F.P. 2  will be achievable.

Deputy Tracy Valois (the mouse speaks):

I would strongly argue that this amendment is the sensible, pragmatic way of ensuring that we do produce an M.T.F.P. which ensures that the States agree detailed funding allocations in the short and medium term which are robust and stand up to scrutiny and meet the changing States structures which are required to meet the challenges the Island Government is currently encountering. 

Senator Philip Ozouf:

Yes there are some challenging decisions to be made on resources...

I hear ourselves talking about the inability of being able to solve the challenges that we are setting out.

Because this Assembly has in so many times in the past promised to do things without knowing the costs and, therefore, when the costs are known and the challenging offsets of how to deliver it are then not possible to discuss because there is no vehicle to do it, the project languishes.

We have faced challenges before.

I compliment and again express publicly my absolute support for in the way that he is dealing with the challenges that he has found himself with or the challenges, more accurately, that he will find himself with unless we take corrective action in order to rebalance our finances.

The Constable of St. Saviour may be tired with me speaking, but we have a lot more to do in terms of providing new services, and that is the challenge.

Senator Lyndham Farnham:

Innovation, enterprise and competition are not restricted to the digital industries and a new challenging enterprise strategy should and will recognise this. 

It is challenging for E.D.D.  One of our economic objectives is to encourage small business and it is very difficult to encourage small business when you cannot always find the right staff for them to employ.

The challenge is to ensure we deliver productivity, among other things, and there is a very big challenge in doing that. 

We are developing a new and challenging enterprise strategy and we are going to develop a new innovation strategy to build on the success of the Innovation Fund.

Constable Simon Crowcroft:

I look forward to taking up that challenge with the Council of Ministers and trying to, together with the Parish Deputies and others, explain to local businesses exactly how they can service their customers’ needs

And here is a piece from "Yes Minister":

Interviewer: How will you extinguish local government bureaucracy?

Hacker: It's a challenge I'm looking forward to.

Interviewer: Would you agree there's even more bureaucratic waste there than in Whitehall?

Hacker: - Yes, that's what makes it a challenge.

Interviewer: - How will you meet the challenge?

Hacker: The broad strategy is to cut ruthlessly at waste while leaving essential services intact.

Interviewer: That's what your predecessor said. Did he fail?

Hacker: Let me finish. Because we must be absolutely clear and I'm going to be quite frank with you. The fact is that, at the end of the day, it is the right, the duty, of the elected government in the House of  Commons to ensure government policy, the policies on which we were elected and for which we have a mandate, the policies for which the people voted, are the policies which, finally, when the national cake has been divided up...And may I remind you we, as a nation, don't have unlimited wealth? We can't pay ourselves more than we earn. ...are the policies...I'm sorry, what was the question again?

Interviewer: I was just asking you whether you would agree that your predecessor had failed.

Hacker: Certainly not. On the contrary. It's just that this job is an enormous...

Interviewer:  Challenge?

Hacker:  Exactly!

Quis custodiet ipsos custodies

  

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" is a Latin phrase found in the work of the Roman poet Juvenal from his Satires (Satire VI, lines 347–8). It is literally translated as "Who will guard the guards themselves?",

The Telegraph reports that “The police force under investigation for allegedly covering up sex abuse claims against Sir Edward Heath is to lead a national probe into the former Prime Minister.”

“The decision to put Wiltshire in charge comes just a week after it was announced that the force was being investigated itself by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) over allegations that it failed to probe allegations against Sir Edward in the 1990s.”

Clearly officers will have changed – we are at least 15 years after the 1990s, but if Wiltshire are under investigation, are there still serving officers there, or ones with connections to officers who served in the 1990s? It seems strange and not a little incestuous to put Wiltshire in charge of an investigation when they are being investigated about the matter themselves.

Twisting the Tale

The story in the Mirror was “Edward Heath's secret Jersey hideaway” and it tells us that “the late Tory leader spent six months in the early 70s living in this luxury top floor apartment” which is in Bouley Bay. It also says: “A local resident, who did not wish to be named, confirmed: “Ted Heath stayed at the Waters Edge Hotel penthouse for six months in the early 70s.”

Heath was Prime Minister in the early 1970s, and what the story doesn’t say is that he would have been guarded day and night by security forces, and – thanks to a change Heath himself made as Prime Minister – was guarded as an ex-Prime Minister after he was ousted from office.

So the picture the Mirror paints, of a lone politician in a secret hidey-hole, where he can lure innocent youngsters to visit, after trips on his yacht, is rather a hollow one. As Prime Minister, he probably needed somewhere to simply get away from the pressures of office, but the notion that was alone is risible.

The Corbymite Manoeuvre

Linda Corby told how she stood with another local politician, Ralph Vibert, who has since died and watched as 11 children got onto Heath’s yacht, the ‘Morning Cloud’. Later that day they left St Helier Yacht club and they travelled to Bouley Bay and watched the youngsters get off again. She said after another head count they realised only ten had returned.

She doesn’t mention the rest of the crew, who presumably were all looking the other way as a body was dumped over the side, weighed down with chains. Or that no one else upon the boat, or for that matter, the security guards waiting at the harbour who would have also had to make the journey to Bouley Bay (and don’t get a mention) might have noticed. And would you really take children on board in broad daylight with people watching if you are planning on throwing one of them overboard?

In fact, bodies have a nasty habit of turning up, even with chains. In 2000, a young woman whose naked body was found weighted down with chains was found on a beach near Lowestoft, Suffolk. In 2001, a factory worker admitted killing his transsexual brother-in-law and then dumping the body at sea, bound in chains. The body was washed up at Kessingland, Suffolk four days later and police launched a murder inquiry.

The recommended way of getting a body to stay down (for licenced burial at sea, please do not use the guidelines if committing murder) is to place the body in a metal casket of four times the deceased’s body weight; then secure it lengthwise and from the top and bottom. Stainless steel chains are recommended. Drill at least two six-inch holes in the casket’s bottom and lid to ensure the required rapid and permanent sinking to the sea floor.

Lenny Harper and Heath

Lenny Harper, who headed the 2008 Operation Rectangle into child abuse in Jersey care homes and organisations said he never had any complaints about Heath in Jersey. Now Lenny was a thorn in the side of the political establishment, and had worked hard to gain the confidence of survivors of abuse, many of whom have now given testimony as witnesses to the Jersey Care Inquiry.

He is concerned that the Edward Heath allegations could be used as a smokescreen to cover-up other allegations on Jersey. I think he might have a point. We’ve all become familiar with the politician who looks for a good day to break bad news.

Philip Bailhache in the News

Sir Philip Bailhache appears to have not followed best child protection practice, during his time as Attorney General.

Sir Philip seems to have suffered from singular lapses of judgement, as notably he let Roger Holland stay as an honorary police, despite a known conviction, because it had resulted in a probation order and was therefore "clearly not very serious". He stated that: " the swearing-in of an honorary police officer before the Royal Court process is a solemn affair, and to ask the Court to review shortly after the swearing in an honorary police officer's suitability for continuing in office would have been a very serious matter"

It should be mentioned that it was pressure within the Honorary Police which led to Roger Holland’s resignation. Centenier Jackie Hilton, having discovered a previous conviction wrote to the Attorney General on 29th July 1999 expressing her concern that a person with such a conviction could be a member of the Honorary Police. Sir Philip in a statement much later said that “in hindsight” he had made a mistake.

Another case was that when he was when seen reviewing documents on an airplane flight by two businessmen regarding the case of the lady HG, whose mistreatment had led to the Dean’s suspension; he had stated that this gave “a fictitious and malicious account of my reading habits on aeroplanes” and impugned their integrity.

Accusing people of malice and lying when they are speaking the truth is not what one expects from holders of high office.

Only after considerable pressure was brought to bear did he apologise – “Having had time to reflect, I am sorry that I used language that was stronger than was necessary or appropriate... I do not impute dishonesty or malice to Deputy Pitman’s constituent or, for the avoidance of any doubt, to the Deputy himself”

As Bob Hill noted: “I believe that most people when being accused of something ensure they know exactly what they are being accused of before shooting from the hip and casting aspersions on the accusers.”

In 2008, Sir Philip used his traditional Liberation Day Speech to speak not about Liberation but about the Historical Child Abuse Investigation, and said that “All child abuse, wherever it happens, is scandalous, but it is the unjustified and remorseless denigration of Jersey and her people that is the real scandal.”

The young lady, HG, commenting on this said that “it is not abuse that is denigrating Jersey’s reputation, it is your lack of understanding that abuse is wrong and harmful, and when someone is abused, they should be able to speak up, and they should be able to see their abuser punished and be safe from them.”

But this is precisely what appears not to have happened when Sir Philip was Attorney General in a case described by John Rodhouse this week.

Giving evidence to the Jersey Care Inquiry, John Rodhouse, former Director of Education, told how an abuser was sacked, but not reported to the police, and later convicted of abusing another boy:

“The then Attorney General Philip Bailhache called me to tell me that a named volunteer youth worker had acted improperly with a boy. The boy’s father [held a particular position] and did not want the involvement of the police. ‘Philip Bailhache wanted me to investigate and take action. I protested that it was a matter for police but Philip Bailhache said that the parents would not co-operate and that if I did not act nothing would happen. I interviewed the man who admitted the offence and, with the help of the Youth Office, the man was effectively removed from all youth work in Jersey.”

“As far as I was concerned I was caught between the legal authority of the Island in the person of the Attorney General and what I believed to be my professional and moral duty. I have since learned that the man was some time later convicted of a similar offence.”

“I believe that if Philip Bailhache had accepted my view that the police should have been involved then there would have not been the other case. One other child was assaulted and the man was convicted. [It] wouldn’t have happened, I believe, if the man had been dealt with properly in the first place.”

It is notable that had funding been cut from the Inquiry, it would have been wrapped up earlier and John Rodhouse may have never given his evidence in this way. One of those speaking against the continued funding of the Inquiry was Sir Philip Bailhache.

While – for the record - I do not think he had any idea that John Rodhouse would make this statement, he might have known about other possible skeletons in the cupboard, such as the case of the Maguires.

Here Anton Skinner (head of Children’s Services at the time) has told the Inquiry that the letter praising there good work was “balderdash” designed as a sweetener to get them to move from Blanche Pierres.

When asked if the failure on his behalf to notify the police or start disciplinary proceedings against the Maguires constituted a cover-up, he said:”‘ Well, if you are describing that, that would constitute a cover-up, then clearly in those terms it was a cover-up, but not something that I would have seen as a cover-up. It was something I would have seen as trying to deal with a situation as quickly as possible.”

Marnie Baudains, who attended a meeting with the Attorney General, Sir Michael Birt, police officers and other senior figures involved in the case, expressed surprise that charges would not proceed against the Maguires because of “insufficient evidence”.

She commented that “‘I was surprised that they said there was not enough evidence, because there were a number of witnesses rather than just one. To put it bluntly, I thought we were on the way.” But like John Rodhouse, she deferred to the much greater legal standing of the lawyers present.

In a brief statement to the JEP about the statement by John Rodhouse, Sir Philip said: ‘I am afraid that I have no recollection of this alleged incident and cannot therefore comment upon it.’

It appears that the passage of time and separation from official records have clouded his memory. In fairness, I know from my own experience that this does happen as we all get older, and Sir Philip’s inability to remember is perhaps no more than one would expect of a man of his age.

It is ironic that his 2008 Liberation speech – if he can recollect it - poured scorn on those who thought that the due process of law had been circumvented in the past – he said “a cover-up by government was suggested”.

Perhaps there was not the lurid and rather fanciful cover up featured in some of the more downmarket tabloids at the time, but there seem to have been a few cover ups nonetheless.

Look A Like

Bernard Cribbins MP, Contender for the Labour Leadership Election

Jeremy Corbyn, English character actor, voice-over artist and musical comedian

Is it my imagination, or does Jeremy Corbyn look like Bernard Cribbins?

Digital Downloads and Ozouf's Legacy

Listening to the radio this morning, I was thinking that Jersey has missed a trick. Digital downloads collect VAT in the location in which the purchaser lives. Why couldn't some of the larger retailers, such as Amazon, collect GST as well, so that the increased move to digital downloads would still provide extra revenue to the local tax payer. Even if Amazon took a cut for processing the GST, Jersey would still be better off.

I'd suggest Ministers read this article - "The Global Trend to Tax Digital Services" to see what is happening worldwide. Other jurisdictions are all waking up to this - it is about time we did!

http://www.taxrates.com/blog/2015/06/15/the-global-trend-to-tax-digital-services/

On the economy in general, the architect of the black hole must surely be Senator Ozouf, who reduced the marginal rate of tax, and was set to do it again when blocked by the States Treasurer (who resigned "because of personal reasons" soon afterwards. Extravagant vanity schemes like those at St Mary were budgeted for, the criminal confiscation fund was pillaged to pay for Plemont, and a money was wasted on planning for a two site hospital project. Past Ministers should not simply "move on" and forget their own legacy as if having a different post wiped the slate clean.

In this respect, there were two good letters in the JEP which I reproduce below.

Letter from Alan Hall

The Jersey Evening Post of 25 July contained a lengthy interview with Senator Ozouf which included the following comments: 'I do not recognise this phrase "black hole" because it gives the impression that somehow it is a problem of today; the situation is a challenge but it's doing what we have always done in Jersey - forecasting a problem and fixing it before it happens' Are we going to make some adjustments about the way we spend taxpayers' money? Yes. But what we are doing now is creating a place which is going to be a better, more efficient low-tax Jersey by 2020.'

I am baffled that Senator Ozouf believes that the 'black hole' is just a challenge it would appear that he has conveniently forgotten that this deficit arose over the past few years when he was Treasury Minister. It is also plain to see that this 'black hole' is spiralling out of control, as only last April we were told that the deficit had increased to £125m to then be informed a couple of months later that it was now forecast to be £145m.

I am also confused regarding Senator Ozouf's comments that we will be enjoying lower taxes by 2020. While. I appreciate that the Senator's current role enables him to travel the globe promoting Jersey at the expense of the taxpayer and as such he is presumably not that often in the Island, one would expect that he is kept fully briefed by the Chief Minister. Over the past few months a multitude of new taxes have been proposed; the majority targeted at lower- and middle-income Jersey and in particular the pensioners. However, it would appear that Senator Ozouf is oblivious to these.

Has the Senator not heard of the recent plethora of suggested new taxes, these including increasing the marginal rate of income tax, a sewage tax, a property tax, a health tax, the removal of the pensioners' Christmas bonus, scrapping free TV licences for over-75s ;and last week's most recent proposal to charge pensioners-should they decide to travel on the buses in peak hours?

Having recently clarified his 'mistake' over the, International Finance Centre and prelets, suggesting that this was in fact an 'inconsistency' on his part, is Senator Ozouf's vision of a low-tax Jersey, which appears to completely contradict the recent numerous tax proposals made by the Council of Ministers, just a case of more spin on his part, or will he come up with another buzzword to explain this apparent difference of opinion?

Letter from John Storey.

I have read your full-page interview in the JEP of 25 July on Senator Philip Ozouf. Why did you not ask about his trips abroad, and what benefit they were or are to Jersey? I quote from something he said way back in 2013: 'Jersey's efforts in continued engagements in these regions (India etc) are now paying dividends in terms of creation of new business and translating into new jobs in Jersey.'

Looking at what is happening in Jersey right now, this doesn't seem to be the case. Other questions that could have been asked are, why is he working in London? How much is that costing for board and lodgings and flights? What happens when he gets ousted at the next elections? In fact, would there have been a job in London if he had lost his seat?

It stinks and it doesn't bode well with the electorate. Do we send another States Member to work in London? You are in a very privileged position where-by you can ask these questions and keep asking until you get the answers for your readers.

Look a Like

TV Celebrity Lee Turner

Chief Inspector Harry Hill

Is it just me, or does Chief Inspector Lee Turner bear a remarkable resemblance to TV celebrity Harry Hill?

On a more serious note, the Chief Inspector is holding a breath testing devicer. There is as still a serious problem with drink driving in Jersey. The numbers caught may be small, but the statistical likelihood is of a greater figure. The danger is not just to the driver, but to passengers and all other road users. Enjoy the joke above, but take home the message below.

During the first 7 months of 2015, 90 people have been arrested in Jersey for Drink Driving; that compares to 74 people during the same period last year, an increase of nearly 18%

Starting on Monday 10th August, the States of Jersey Police will be increasing the number of road checks taking place around the Island and raising the profile of their educational message, encouraging all road users to look out for each other. In addition, enforcement activity will take place with officers working in both marked and unmarked vehicles to monitor the behaviour of road users and police will be acting upon information to locate and arrest drink drivers wherever possible.

Chief Inspector James Wileman said, “These figures are disappointing; we live in a small community and should be looking out for one another. Drinking and driving demonstrates a complete disregard for the drivers themselves, their friends and family, and those around them. It’s irresponsible and anti-social and it has no place in our community.”

As well as being against the law, drink driving has been shown to greatly increase the risk of injury to all parties on the road. Alcohol tends to make you feel over-confident and more likely to take risks when driving, increasing the danger to all road users, including the driver themselves. Alcohol is also a depressant, slowing down the brain and affecting the body’s responses and is one of the leading causes of accidents (www.drinkaware.co.uk).

Inspector Paul Smith has a message for those who choose to drink and drive;

“Don’t expect to get away with it, expect to get caught and to face the consequences!
We welcome any information that assists us in catching those drivers who feel they have a right to put each and every one of us at risk by continuing to drink and drive.

You may still be under the influence of alcohol the next day, even if you feel OK, you could still be unfit to drive and be over the legal limit. For this reason we will be conducting road checks in the morning as well as at other times of the day and night.”

Migration is not a crime

Photograph: Pascal Rossignol/Reuters

“We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.” (Martin Luther King)

When I needed a neighbour,
were you there, were you there?
When I needed a neighbour, were you there?

And the creed and the colour
and the name won’t matter,
were you there?
-- Sydney Carter

There was once a migrant walking the tunnel from Calais to Dover, when he fell by the wayside, exhausted, and beaten up by political rules against immigration.  And a government minister came on a fact finding mission, and he saw the migrant lying there, and he passed by on the other side, because he was a busy man, and couldn’t comment on individual cases. And a tabloid journalist came by, and they took some photos of the migrant, and penned the story about security breached as they walked by; and the migrant lay there, uncomprehending, watching them. And you or I wandered down that tunnel, and saw the migrant there, and what did we feel? And what did we do? And when he needed a neighbour, were we there?

The song by Sidney Carter challenges us; it takes up the tale of the Good Samaritan, and it asks what really matters: an act of kindness or compassion, or a creed?

Creeds, it has been said, are like signposts, pointing people in a direction, but how many people worship the signpost, and how many follow the signs?

In the blog on the kinoborderinitiative.org website, a reminder is given of just how much the story of migrants and migration comes in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures.

Joan Maruskin said that: "The Biblical story is a migration story. The Bible is the story of the uprooted People of God seeking safety, sanctuary and refuge and the living God giving directions for welcoming the stranger. From Adam and Eve, to Noah, Abraham, Moses to Jesus, Joseph and Mary, all found themselves on the move, migrating, looking for a better life."

And the blog notes: “As one of the most complex issues in the world, migration underscores not only conflict at geographical borders, but also between national security and human insecurity, sovereign rights and human rights, civil law and natural law, and citizenship and discipleship.”

But the other side is clear. The immigrant is our brother and our sister. And he points out that when it comes to how we treat an economically poor person, who arrives at our door/border, in need of help, we really have little option. The nearly 120 passages that refer to welcoming the stranger are clear. Matthew 25 is clear, “Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.”

Debra Hafner writes in an article in the Washington Post, “Loving the stranger was difficult in Biblical times; it’s difficult still. It means resisting the fear of difference and moving to a place of radical welcome and inclusion. And that means embracing people who are different than us without trying to change them. We can celebrate our diversity and our difference.”

German President Joachim Gauck, speaking on Saturday at a ceremony in Berlin to remember victims of displacement, said he hoped that the memory of German expellees who were forced to flee the country's former eastern territories during and after World War II would deepen understanding for migrants today.

"Why should a Germany that is economically successful and politically stable not be able to recognize future opportunities in today's challenges? Let us remember what a great part refugees and forced migrants played in successfully rebuilding Germany”

"We would lose our self-respect if we left people drifting on waters near our continent to cope for themselves," he said, adding that all European states had an obligation to provide people with a safe refuge.

Dimitria Groutsis and Diane van den Broe also comment on the way in which different countries tackle the crisis:

“While many countries, including Australia, continue to refuse entry to those seeking humanitarian assistance, struggling countries such as Greece that can least afford it willingly assist. The vast gap in the standard of living between Australia and debt-ridden Greece, begs the question: why is a country that has so little to give, the one most likely to share?”

And they also note that there has been a story which demonises the migrants in the press, and fuels the cry to take them back to where they came from:

“Despite the popular stereotypes of migrants crossing seas in leaky boats as desperate, low-skilled and poorly educated, the truth is that many have considerable skills and qualifications that support their desire to find work, build lives and make a future for themselves and their families. “

And they ask: “why it is often those that feel the brunt of austerity and poverty who are more likely to show compassion and generosity”.

The Reverend Giles Fraser has actually been over to Calais. He writes:

“The purpose of my Calais visit was instinctive. I wanted to say a prayer in the makeshift Ethiopian church – St Michael’s, I later discover – as a way of expressing Christian solidarity with my brothers and sisters in Christ, those who have been despised and rejected, now languishing in a refugee camp a few miles over the Channel.”

And he comments:

“I’m a Christian, so I have a special connection for fellow Christians. But the crisis here is not religious: it is humanitarian. And things are only going to get worse. It’s simple: we have so much and they have so little. I’m not getting into the politics of immigration here, but the big issues of global fairness have come to our door and building higher fences is no sort of answer.”

“In my head, I make the journey over the desert, over the sea, up through Europe. With them, I pray for all those who have died making the journey.”

How we are judged by history will surely be by compassion and fairness, and seeking to put ourselves in the shoes of others, and walk in our imagination, the dusty, rocky path that they have to tread, feel the thirst, and the gnawing hunger in the belly, and recall the lands of terror which we fled, displaced people, seeking only some kind of sanctuary.

When I needed a shelter,
were you there, were you there?
When I needed a shelter, were you there?

And the creed and the colour
and the name won’t matter
Were you there?

Mindfulness

Literary minded readers may spot influences from Dennis Potter, C.S. Lewis, Isaac Newton and T.F. Powys.

Mindfulness

At the point of death, we see life
Even when pain cuts like a knife
Yesterday is a place which fades
Of childhood, beaches, lemonades
And today is the humdrum routine
Almost on automatic, hardly seen
As we do our job, pay our mortgage
Accumulate possessions, baggage
As if we are immortals, and time
To be squandered; then a chime
And the clock sounds, bell tolls
And we re-assess our final goals
And see what is bound, locked
So many chains; we are shocked
Life is, and it is now. Present tense
And some days are restored to sense
Watching the plum tree, becoming free
Senses vivid, as blossom on the tree
Whitest, frothiest, blossom; I see now
Transformation, Buber’s I and Thou
More trivial than blossom and yet
There is a holy quality, not to forget
The nowness is wonderful, the joy
Which also unsettles, to almost annoy
A taste of desire, of bliss, in which
The commonplace becomes so rich
The glory of it, never in our power
A gift of grace, an unfolding flower
In the beginning was joy, it made
All things, the sunshine and the shade
The candle lit in the darkened room
The miracle of birth within the womb
And a child playing upon the beach
Picks up pebbles, some out of reach
The bread we share, the food of life
Joy coming, bringing end to strife
For this is what matters, here and now
The shining rainbow makes its vow
And the wine is light from day to day
But red wine means it is time to pray
Drinking deep of the wonders here
Listening to that voice: do not fear
Celebrating life at the point of death
Praising the wonder with dying breath

Edward Heath: The Stories So Far

Bernard Woolley: [Discussing possible reasons for the Prime Minister's early retirement] Minister, I've heard something quite different.
James Hacker: What?
Bernard Woolley: That there is £1 million worth of diamonds from South Africa in a Downing Street safe, but of course it's only a rumour.
James Hacker: Is that true?
Bernard Woolley: Oh, yes.
James Hacker: So, there ARE all those diamonds in Downing Street!
Bernard Woolley: Are there?
James Hacker: You just said there were.
Bernard Woolley: No, I didn't.
James Hacker: Yes, you did! You said you'd heard this rumour, I said is it true, you said yes!
Bernard Woolley: I said yes, it was true that it was a rumour.
James Hacker: You said you heard it was true!
Bernard Woolley: No, I said it was true that I heard it!
- - Yes Minister, Party Games

Whether or not Edward Heath is proven to be guilty of child abuse or not, it is difficult to tell the provenance of the stories circulating.

For example, the Daily Telegraph says that brothel keeper Myra Forde told him that Edward Heath was one of her clients, but the Telegraph don't contact her directly, and the next thing we know, she is denying the story. It came apparently from Judge Seed, who was reporting what police told him she had said at the time when she was tried, and the Judge doesn't mention who those police are, or whether it had any basis in fact. After all, making a threat to stall a trial and making good that threat are two different things.

There is a degree in which getting hard facts is like trying to pin down jelly, which is why I begin this blog with that exchange in "Yes Minister" which shows how difficult it can be to differentiate between fact and rumour.

I’m not alone in thinking this. Solicitor Alan Collins, who has represented dozens of clients who have suffered child abuse, including investigations linked to Jimmy Savile and linked to Haut de la Garenne, has complained about this: “All I have heard have been innuendos and finger-pointing, but never anything concrete.No one ever said “I know what has happened and this is it”.

Lenny Harper, who was heading up Operation Rectangle into child abuse in Jersey noted that he never received any allegations or statements about Sir Edward during his time with the force. Now Mr Harper was very far from being an establishment figure, and had at least one notable clash with the Attorney General over attempts to control his press releases. He also says he never had Heath’s name mentioned to him by Stuart Syvret.

And yet Stuart Syvret said: “Back in 2008 there were rumours about Heath and nothing more certain than that. 'I was certainly aware of them I’m not sure if the police were.”

But if he was aware of it, he evidently didn’t think the time was right to mention it, as a search of his blog does not reveal Ted Heath’s name anywhere back in 2008 – or in fact until this news story broke nationwide. Why was he silent? Why didn’t he tell Lenny Harper? Goodness knows, he wasn't afraid to name names, so that can't be the reason.

Linda Corby gives more details on her blog: “As I reported to the Police back in the 1970’s seeing 11 children go out from Jersey on the Morning Cloud with Ted Heath, Jimmy Savile and a Jersey States Senator at the time, I was with another Jersey States member Senator Ralph Vibert, he told me later that day that only ten boys came back and I went to the Police with him to report this and ask for the matter to be investigated. Nothing was done Senator Ralph Vibert told me that nothing was being done and we could not take things further on instructions from above,”

One question must be asked: why didn’t this come out earlier? Edward Heath, after all, died in 2005, Saville in 2011, and Vibert in 2008. Why only break silence now? And why provide no explanation of this reticence, when Lenny Harper could have been told?

Now this is extremely specific and checkable. While it is not provable, as Senator Vibert is dead, and cannot corroborate the story, we can at least check the following – was Edward Heath in Jersey at the same time as Jimmy Savile?

We know he was invited to the Island on 20th July 1976 by de Gruchy to promote his book, "Sailing – A Course of My Life". And we know Saville took part in a charity fun slip in April 1976, as the Jersey Care Inquiry has actually seen that document. But did their stay in Jersey overlap? It’s a long time between April and July.

Leah McGrath Goodman meanwhile says: ““Jimmy Savile often stayed in the same hotel as Ted Heath,” McGrath Goodman told the DPA news agency, adding that both men were alleged to have taken children from Haut de la Garenne. It would be useful if she mentioned the hotel in question!

The Voice blog notes that “Heath was a regular visitor to Jersey and guest of former President of Jersey Defence Committee (in charge of the police) Mike Wavell who ran, or owned, the Waters Edge Hotel at Bouley Bay where Heath's yacht would be moored up in the bay”. Was that the hotel Ms Goodman has in mind?

Ms Goodman also told LBC Radio: “Ted Heath was one of the more prominent allegations. He enjoyed using his yacht, and would come to the island frequently. He would take children from care homes for a ride on the yacht and it was reported that some never came back.”

Can we have dates please? Apart from the book signing, there is little documented of Heath’s visits to Jersey, and that is clearly something which is needed – establishing a basic timeline to check allegations against. Why doesn’t she give dates from her research? Could it be that she is reporting third party information rather than investigating it herself?

She is also reported as saying: “I know the police received reports. I have looked into the records from the home. The children were loaned out. Sometimes they would come back – sometimes they would not.”

Exactly what these records from the home showed, especially as the inquiry found that lots of them seem to have gone missing, is not explained. The suggestion must be that the records she says she saw showed the children being “signed out” or "loaned out". Was that the case? This, at any rate, is checkable.

News 24 is somewhat more circumspect and said simply that was aware of "widespread rumours that Heath, on his yacht Morning Cloud, "would come to the island frequently". Being aware of rumours is very different from fact.

According to the Daily Mail, Ms Goodman says she was kicked out of the UK when she was investigating Heath in Jersey. In which case it must also be asked: why has this fact just surfaced now? Why didn’t she mention Heath before? Her accounts of investigating child abuse in Jersey, until now, had not mentioned Edward Heath. Can it be that she is jumping on the media bandwagon?

She also said to Sky News: "Police officers investigating claims at the children's home) had heard the rumours and I know a few of the senior members of the police believed that (Heath) was at it.”. But Lenny Harper says he had heard of no allegations against Edward Heath:

Robin Whitlock points out some other problems which need to be addressed:

“Anyone who believes the story about the Morning Cloud has to explain where the crew (each of the five boats named Morning Cloud had a crew of between four and seven men, plus Heath himself) were at the time these acts were being committed. The fact that the boats required a crew implies that Heath couldn't, potentially, have sailed the boat into open waters off Jersey on his own.”

"That leaves only two real possibilities. Either one or more of the crew members were observers or otherwise of the said acts while the boat was at sea - which is a pretty serious allegation in itself and no such evidence of that has come to light yet - OR the stories surrounding Heath in the context of Jersey and Haute de la Garenne are complete nonsense. There is a third possibility perhaps, which is the acts were committed on the boat in harbour while the crew were away somewhere else - but given that there would almost certainly be many other boats around, there would have plenty of potential witnesses to something funny going on.”

Solicitor Alan Collins, who represented Haut de la Garenne victims, told The Independent: “There were always hints, suggestions, but I never met anybody who actually said to me 'I was abused by Ted Heath' or 'I know someone who was'.

I have no wish to defend Heath who may well be guilty of crimes in Jersey, and would make the following comments from the viewpoint of someone who is looking at the evidence and rumours as a historian might investigate sources.

A timeline needs to be established for Heath’s visits to Jersey, and where he stayed, where the boat was moored, and who his crew were at the time.

A timeline needs to be established for Saville’s visits to Jersey, and where he stayed. We know he visited Haut de La Garenne from photographic evidence, but did he take children out? What were the procedures? Are there, as Ms Goodman says, records of this?

Without the above, it is impossible to check whether there is an overlap. While an overlap does not prove the stories about Heath and Saville, lack of an overlap would be a falsification of that hypothesis. It’s a basic scientific approach.

The problem raised by Robin Whitlock needs to be addressed – the crew on board Morning Cloud. Who were they? Have they been interviewed.? Why didn’t Linda Corby mention the crew?

The problem that Lenny Harper received no stories about Edward Heath either from survivors or those who said they knew something needs to be addressed. Why didn't Stuart Syvret appraise him of these rumours, and for that matter, blog on the subject? Perhaps he can inform us on a future blog posting.

The problem that the Jersey Care Inquiry to date has not received allegations about Heath either needs also to be taken into consideration.

Why didn't Linda Corby contact Lenny Harper? She seems to have an eyewitness record of 11 children going on to Morning Cloud, and she should certainly notify the police, and the care inquiry and make a statement - and name the Senator who was on board. The name can be redacted but it would be in the record.

It should be noted that her statement about 10 children coming off depends on the accuracy of the report given to her by Ralph Vibert which cannot be so easily checked as he has died. Nevertheless, hers is however the one piece of local testimony which does look fairly solid.

And above all, we need to separate what is rumour, passed round and round on the internet, and what is actually verifiable and sourced fact. framing hypothesis so that they are capable of falsification, checking and cross checking.

St Simon's Church - The Changes in 1973 - Part 2

In 1973, St Simon's ceased to exist as a separate Parish, although some services were still held there. Here is the Dean's Letter in "The Pilot" in which he explains what is happening, and why. It is interesting that it was St James Church which became part of the Jersey Arts Centre, when it too closed down.

This is the Jersey Synod report which details the debate which took place. It's extremely well written, with a touch of humour permeating it. I have however had to redact it in one place, where a word was used by Advocate Lemprière which is simply not acceptable today, and I personally would not like to have on my blog.

I have left enough of the word for it to be guessed. The phrase in question originated in the American deep south in the mid-19th century and was used to describe fugitive slaves who hid in piles of firewood as they fled north to Canada. It was used in 20th century Britain as a metaphor to describe a hidden fact or problem. It was recently (in 2008) used by Lord Dixon-Smith in a debate in the House of Lords, who apologised, and said it has just slipped out, noting that ""It was common parlance when I was younger, put it that way".

A Sizzling Synod

The Jersey Deanery Synod met in Church House on February 12, and was confronted with an agenda which must have contained one of the most controversial items which certainly the present Synod has experienced, not to say the former Jersey Decanal Conference.

After opening the Synod with prayers, the Dean proceeded to drop the first bombshell of the evening by announcing that it was not always necessary for him to chair the Synod, and that that evening Jurat L. V. Bailhache had kindly consented to take his place.

Before the Synod had recovered its breath, in the twinkling of an eye, as it were, Jurat Bailhache was in the Dean's chair on the platform, while the Dean was sitting on the floor of the House alongside the inferior clergy.

After the minutes had been dealt with, the chairman called upon Senator R. Vibert, chairman of the Working Party, to address the Synod on the interim report of the Working Party appointed by the Synod to review the work of the Church in St Helier.

In an excellent preamble, Senator Vibert explained the terms of reference of the party, and pointed out what a difficult, exacting and painstaking job it had been. First of all, they had asked all the town churches to supply facts and figures (from their 1970 records), concerning church attendances and numerous other items.

In view of the fact that the number of worshippers at St Simon's was now minimal, and in view of the fact, he said, that the Bishop of Winchester was "reluctant to appoint a new incumbent to that church", the Party had come up with the following recommendations.

First, that the two present ecclesiastical districts of St Simon's and All Saints be merged; second, that All Saints be retained for the corporate worship of the new parish; and third, that a new Vicarage be built on the site available near All Saints.

These recommendations were not unanimously agreed upon by the Working Party – Mr J.S. Hitchcock (Churchwarden, Si Simon's) and the Rev E. A. Dentith (St Luke's) recording minority opposition views.

The chairman then called upon Mr J. S. Hitchcock to address the Synod, as the leader of the opposing views. Mr Hitchcock (suitably attired for the opposition in a polo-necked sweater with the hint of a pink shirt beneath) produced a wealth of information, supported by many documents, and Photostat copies of the minutes' of committee meetings. He had already circulated to all Synod members a closely-printed four-page submission as to why St Simon's should remain a separate entity, with either its own incumbent or to be cared for by a group from one of the religious orders. His speech was both a resume and an amplification his printed submission.

He ended his speech by administering to himself a gratuitous oath that he had spoken the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help him God.

Immediately, a member rose to his feet and asked whether Mr Hitchcock would be prepared to take the same oath with reference to the postscript of a letter of his (Mr Hitchcock's) which had appeared in that day's Evening Post. Amid some altercation, the chairman intervened to observe that the motion to be debated was difficult enough without bringing in the EP correspondence column, and he therefore ruled this discussion out of order.

After a somewhat lengthy speech by the first speaker (Mrs M. Perchard, St Simons), the chairman decided to limit speeches to approximately five minutes. Advocate Lemprière (Jersey Representative on the General Synod) objected on the grounds that this was the most vital motion ever to have been put forward for many years, and therefore the speeches should carry no time limit. He was over-ruled.

Mrs Perchard was not in favour of the closure of St Simon's nor was she in favour of the sale of the Vicarage, which she described as a house in a terrace of character, and eulogized on the marble mantelpieces within.

The Rev G. Dockrell (St Andrew's) did not agree at all, however, and described the Vicarage as a "rotten house". Nor did he think it fair to saddle a parson with the heavy financial burden of raising money for two churches. He would become an ordained clerk of works.

The Rev E. A. Dentith, representing the minority group of the Working Party, praised Mr Hitchcock for his defence of St Simon's. It gladdened his heart to see a layman fighting for his own church. He said that they must not try to bring the two churches together if they did not wish to worship together. Then, as perhaps befitted a hospital chaplain, he spake a parable and likened St Simon's unto a sick patient in hospital who wanted the operation to be postponed. (His parable was difficult to interpret, as are so many parables).

The Rev G. Baker (St Mark's), also a member of .the Working Party, gave six short sensible reasons why the merger should take place. It had been suggested that the appointment of a younger man to St Simon's might help build up the church. He thought this was not necessarily so, and thought that the money would be better spent on obtaining the services of a curate for one of the busier churches.

The Rev P. Manton (St John's) made an impassioned plea, as only he can, for the retention of St Simon's. If it were closed, the rot would set in, he maintained. He cited the instance of the Methodist Church which had begun by closing one chapel and had ended by closing a chain of them. “The ruination of the Church was the plurality of livings ". If it was a question of finance (and we all know that finance is Mr Manton's strong point), he spoke of the £20,000,000 Island economy and the growth of the merchant banks (though he did not make it clear how this would assist St Simon's). He alleged that the Working Party wanted to "pinch St Simon's Vicarage for All Saints."

Advocate Lemprière thought that the Bishop of Winchester (whom he described as the "n****r in the woodpile ") was responsible for all this by his refusal to appoint, or allow to be appointed, two incumbents, one to each church. He seemed to think that the Bishop was anxious to close one of the town churches, and we were to do as he commanded. He suggested that it was no fault of the Bishop's that St Paul's remained open today.

He, too, thought that the rot was spreading through the Church of England. In his opinion, the Archbishop of Canterbury's main priority was ecumenicism and the streamlining of the Church of England. Like Dr Beeching, he said, His Grace was anxious to close all branch lines. He referred to the attendance at Springfield when the Archbishop celebrated the open-air Communion service there some years ago. The attendance, he thought, was a disgrace. (The advocate did not make it clear whether he was rebuking the church people of the Island for their apathy or citing this as an example of the Archbishop's unpopularity.)

"The Church of England ", said the advocate, "is on the decline in this Island" He went further. He invited members of the Synod to look round the room at each other and note the greying heads and the age of the members. (Perhaps at this point there should have been an intermission so that members of the Synod might have had the opportunity to count each other's grey hairs, and exchange confidences about their respective ages!)

The Dean then rose to put the record straight, as it were, for the advocate and the Synod, concerning the Bishop of Winchester. He categorically denied that there was anything sinister about it. The Bishop had issued no instructions whatever that any particular church was to be closed. The Working Party had worked in a straightforward and honourable way, without any bias, and without any pressure from himself or the diocese.

Although at the present time there were sufficient clergy available, the Dean pointed out that most clergy were now in the 55-65 age group and that within the next five or ten years there would be a shortage of clergy. They had to look ahead with regard to the economizing of manpower. He spoke enthusiastically of the future of St Simon's. Suppose it were to be a chapel-of-ease. What, he asked rhetorically, was wrong with a chapel-of-ease ? It would not be the end of St Simon's but a new beginning. He thought it could be put to religious artistic use. Perhaps it could become a centre for religious ballet.

Mr Tim Voisin (St Mark's) stressed the point that although there was reference to "we" and " us ", they were in fact talking about only seven people.

Mr Rodney Shanks (Almoner, St Simon's) declared that Mr Hitchcock did not speak for the entire congregation. He said that at least 50% of the St Simon's people were happy to worship at All Saints, and that they were already doing so.

Suddenly, like a breath of spring, and as though to belie Advocate Lemprière remarks about a grey-headed, ageing Synod, Miss Jill Harris, young and attractive, rose to her feet. She was slightly puzzled to learn during the meeting that the Rev H. C. Guille-Marrett was not Vicar but only Priest-in-charge of All Saints. Anyway, he was a jolly good Priest-in-charge, and the congregation of All Saints was much indebted to him and his wife for all the splendid work they had done there.

As for St Simon's Vicarage, she herself was something of an expert on buildings of character, and in her opinion the house was a most unsuitable place for a Vicar and his wife in which to live, even allowing for the marble mantelpieces ! All Saints were lucky to have the Rev H. C. Guille-Marrett. (We think that Mr Guille-Marrett is jolly lucky to have Miss Harris as a parishioner.)

An amendment by Mrs Perchard to refer the whole matter back to the Working Party was heavily defeated.

Summing up for the Working Party, Senator R. Vibert said that, with reference to the Rev P. Manton's speech, he had "let his ardour run beyond his sense ". There was no question of "pinching St Simon's Vicarage for All Saints ". There was also no point in referring the matter back to the Working Party, since they had exhausted all possibilities, and that the matter had been going on too long already.

The chairman then put the Working Party's recommendations to the vote. Thirty members were in favour of the merging of the two ecclesiastical districts and four were against. Thirty-three members were in favour of a new Vicarage being built at All Saints while four were against, an interesting evening was had by all, as they say,

Since we are living in an age of compulsive TV viewing, with Top Tens, Miss World, or Miss Whatever, and miscellaneous accolades being handed out right and left, thus forming part of our life, perhaps we had better conclude with our own credit titles.

In our opinion, the hero of the Synod was Senator R. Vibert and the heroine Miss Jill Harris. Honourable mention must be of Jurat L. V. Bailhache for his impartial chairmanship.

Addendum:

I've actually managed to find a picture of Miss Jill Harris from 1973 at:
http://jerseyeveningpost.newsprints.co.uk/view/21135498/01553621_jpg

St Simon's Church - The Changes in 1973 - Part 1

In 1973, St Simon's ceased to exist as a separate Parish, although some services were still held there. Here is the Dean's Letter in "The Pilot" in which he explains what is happening, and why. It is interesting that it was St James Church which became part of the Jersey Arts Centre, when it too closed down.

Amazingly, despite the decline in clergy numbers, the Anglican Church in Jersey still remains ridiculously overmanned compared to counterparts in the UK. This seems to be because it is shielded in several ways - maintenance not just of Parish churches, but also Parish rectories, falls to the Parish ratepayer.

Clearly the Parish churches, probably all or most predating the Battle of Hastings are part of Jersey's heritage and should be maintained, just as the historical castles are, and funding would be needed either from the States or Parishes. But in the recent updated Jersey Canons (Anglican Church Law for the Island), the current Dean, Bob Key, ensured that no two Parishes can share the same rector.

The decline in clergy has led to Parishes in the UK being amalgamated, something which cannot happen unless the States vote a change in the Jersey Canon Law. But it does mean that Jersey, in a way, is taking more than its fair share of clergy, so that less are available elsewhere. The same is true in Guernsey.

Whether more district churches should go is a moot point, as they are often better attended than the Parish churches. And whether ratepayers should continue to pay for maintenance of Rectories is more questionable.

Letter from the Dean, Tom Goss

My dear Friends,

St Simon's Church is not facing destruction or even closure. I think it as well to start with this bald statement of fact because it became clear at the recent meeting of the Deanery Synod that many people were under a misapprehension. What has been proposed, and accepted by a considerable majority of the Synod, is that the parishes of St Simon and All Saints shall become one parish.

But let's begin at the beginning. In 1967 Dean Giles received a letter from the Bishop of Winchester asking that the Deanery Synod form a working party to review the work of the Church in St Helier with particular reference to the best use of the churches' resources in money, manpower and buildings. The reason for the Bishop's request was that the Christian Churches find themselves faced with new and difficult problems, because :-

a. We are soon going to be desperately short of clergy. At present we have enough and to spare, but the great majority of them are in the 55/65 age group and as their retirement becomes due there will be few younger men to replace them.

b. It is becoming increasingly difficult to find funds to cover the enormous expenses of the Church - e.g., maintenance of ancient churches, many of them under-used ; building of new churches and church halls in new townships ; payment of clergy, etc.

In view of the shortage of manpower and money a serious attempt is being made all over Great Britain to unite parishes where the populations are small, or churches too close together, to justify their continuance. This has sometimes meant the closure of churches, but never where they are of historic or aesthetic or practical value. More often it has meant that one parson has been made responsible for two or three parishes which for convenience have been united into one parish.

Occasionally church buildings have been shared with other denominations which have a similar problem.

In Jersey we are almost ridiculously over-churched. There are, I believe, 70 Christian churches in Jersey for a population of approximately 70,000, not all of whom are Christians -one per thousand people. The average over the whole of Great Britain is more like one per 10,000. So it is not surprising that we have been asked to look around and see if we in Jersey can help with the economies.

The Working Party has been studying the problem for nearly six years and it is indicative of the care they are taking that their work is still by no means finished. There may be other parishes in St Helier where economies could be made. But the first conclusion they have come to is that the most obvious place for economy is in the parishes of St Simon and All Saints, and they felt it advisable to issue an interim report with recommendations which they have now presented to the Deanery Synod.

The first recommendation is " That the two present Ecclesiastical Districts be merged ", and this was carried at the Synod by 30 votes to 19. The second, " That All Saints be retained for the corporate worship of the new parish ", was carried by the narrow majority of 24/21, which reflects, I think, the feeling (with which I agree) that St Simon's should remain open for worship. There was also a substantial majority (33/4) that a new vicarage be built on the site which is available near All Saints' Church. This to my mind is essential. The present St Simon's Vicarage is quite unsuitable and could never be made otherwise.

In view of the Synod's approval of these recommendations I have thought it right to ask the Legislation Committee of the States of Jersey to take the necessary legal steps to unite the parishes of All Saints and St Simon. The effect of this will be to make one parish (the Parish of All Saints with St Simon) with one Vicar and one Church Council. Both churches will remain in use as now but All Saints' Church, which is by far the better supported of the two, will be the parish church.

All of us understand that the people of St Simon's Church will feel some regret . The fact that their numbers are few does not mean that their love for their church is any less. But I would ask them to remember that their church and all it stands for is still there and there is no reason why it should not flourish more than in the past.

My hope is that St Simon's, as well as being a place primarily devoted to worship of a particular style, will become a sort of Religions Art Centre for all denominations. It is a church that would lend itself extraordinarily well to this, with its beautiful architecture, fine organ and excellent acoustics. I believe every effort should now be made to develop its undoubted potentialities in this direction. Its proposed "demotion" from parish church to chapel-of-ease seems to me of less importance than some have supposed. The fact that a church bears the title of "parish church" does not make it great; I have known mission huts make as great an impact as many a fine parish church, and I believe St Simon's can, with the strong backing of the people of All Saints, now occupy a place of real consequence in Jersey.

But this will not come to pass without the goodwill of the people of All Saints and St Simon. Without goodwill on all sides, and without a real determination from both congregations to make both churches prosper, we shall have nothing better to show than a few economies and a less cumbersome organization. The door is wide open for a wonderful future for both communities, for not only will All Saints have the support of the people of St Simon but St Simon's will have the added strength and backing of the people of All Saints. It is almost like a blood transfusion, bring-ing hope of new vitality. St Simon's is not dead nor even dying. It is offered a new lease of life.

Always your friend,

TOM GOSS

Imagine this

Imagine this. You are a pensioner. You are going to the hospital for an early appointment. You get on the bus. Your neighbours who also catch the bus are getting on behind you. “Can I see your appointment letter, please?” says the bus driver. And you show him the appointment letter, which shows that you have an appointment at the oncology department that morning.

You have cancer. The bus driver knows it. The neighbour knows something is wrong with your health, because you are showing a letter from health. They may even be able to glimpse part of the letter and read the words “oncology”. This is not an enclosed environment. The bus driver has not been told to make sure no one else can see that information, as he might were it a pin number for a debit card.

After all, most hospitals have this kind of policy. “Details of your outpatient clinic visits, stays in hospital, appointment letters will not be released without your explicit consent.” Jersey wants to add the codicil, unless you want free bus travel at peak times, in which case you should show your bus driver.

This information is about your health. In an office, it would be protected by the Data Protection Act and considered highly sensitive personal data. The human resources department would know about it, but access to that information would be kept tightly under control.

On the bus, however, you have shown that you are unwell and have a hospital appointment, and the bus driver has probably seen when he glanced at the letter what department you are going to – and therefore what kind of medical condition you have.

It’s not the bus driver’s fault. He’s just doing what he has been told to do by the Minister, Eddie Noel, who never stopped to consider that Data Protection and highly sensitive medical data might just be something you don’t want to share with people when he few the kite of pensioners paying at peak times on the buses.

Has the bus driver been given any training in Data Protection? Does he ensure that when he sees the letter, the person in the queue behind you can’t see any details? Have you been told to fold it other to keep it from prying eyes?

And even the act of asking has informed the nosy neighbour that you are unwell. “Sorry to see you are not well,” she says, fishing for gossip. You can tell her it is private, but you can’t stop her knowing you are going to the hospital. The very fact that you needed to show an appointment letter betrayed that.

It is like being in an office, where HR knows about your medical condition, but someone says you have to tell the receptionist before you go to the hospital and show them your letter!

And of course you might be going to an early morning appointment at your doctor’s surgery. You need tests done – perhaps for diabetes, which requires no food or drink in the morning and an early appointment. The GP has to now provide a letter of appointment – and will that be free?

But you are retired, and you are not going to the hospital or your doctor. So why are you travelling early? You are travelling over to your son and daughter in laws house to baby-sit your grandson (unpaid naturally) so that they can go to work. Now you have to pay, or your son or daughter in law does, in order that they can go to work. There’s less money all round, and in times of austerity, the poorer households will be penalised as usual.

And another case – you are retired and you work for a voluntary organisation or charities. You start work at a 'normal' time. Why should you have to pay fares to get to jobs they're not paid for? Should the charity shop open later in the morning?

I think that the majority of people over the age of 65 are entitled to a bus pass. They have spent the last 40+ years of their working lives paying tax and social security. What do they have in return? A bus pass, and a pension which will be reduced this year as Minister for Meannesss, Senator Scrooge is cancelling the Christmas bonus.

Meanwhile, States members enjoy free parking. I know some take the bus, but most do not. Perhaps they should pay something towards their own parking, which would be a token but important saving.

In London, of course, under Boris Johnson, matters have gone the other way. Pensioners have a “Freedom Pass”.

A Spokesperson for Mr Johnson said “We are delivering a Freedom Pass double whammy – Not only can pensioners now make their early morning doctors appointments without the worry of paying for travel, they also no longer have to face the indignity of standing at a bus stop waiting not for a bus, but for the clock to tick past 9:30. We are truly delivering a Freedom Pass that lives up to its name.”

For Jersey’s pensioners, Minister Eddie Noel is reversing in the opposite direction, and there will be less freedom, and when pensioners have to show the bus driver their appointment letter, just that tad less dignity as well.

Flight Plan

Jersey's assistant minister for sport, Steve Pallett, was due t to arrive in Bucharest in Romania for the handover ceremony of the Dance World Cup, which is to be hosted in the Channel Island next year. Instead he landed in Budapest, Hungary, some 530 miles away, after getting a ticket for the wrong flight. Pallet apologised for the mistake, which he described as a human error made by staff at the Education, Sport and Culture department. (International Business Times)

The booking was made by someone within the Education, Sport and Culture department and a spokesman said it was "human error". (BBC News)

So how did the mistake happen? How did the human error come about?

I put in a Freedom of Information request to find out, which currently for some reason is being reported as a "BBC Freedom of Information request" on their news website. It wasn't theirs; it was mine!

Following the mistaken booking of Constable Steve Pallett’s flight to Hungary rather than Romania, I would like to know:

Exactly how the mistake was made? i.e. what booking procedures were follows (website, checks by supervisor etc)

Response

Whilst a written invitation and other correspondence clearly stated the correct destination of Bucharest, Romania, a request was made to arrange flights to Budapest. The person who booked the flights did not see a copy of the invitation to the event or any prior correspondence.

My comment:

This is rather vague! It suggests that the request was given verbally or by email, but that the words Bucharest become muddled somehow with the words Budapest., rather like Chinese whispers. Book to Budapest, we are going to a dance...! The contents and nature of that request are not given in the reply, and can only be surmised. That's not a very good response.

The method of preventing that sort of problem in the future might appear to have been tackled. However, when thay say ‘the person who booked the flights’ they are not talking about a bonfide travel agent, but a civil servant somewhere - probably in Education.

A travel agent would rake an instruction and hold flights pending confirmation, i.e. print an itinerary and send to the client for approval. Had that been the case I would think the error would have been discovered. It’s standard practice in the travel industry to seek confirmation before finalising the booking. Steve’s mix up appear to be the resullt of someone trying to do a job they are not trained to do.

With flights so easily booked on the internet its tempting to make travel arrangements - and so easy to make mistakes if you don’t follow procedures that the industry itself has adopted to avoid misbooking a client, which is so easily done on verbal instructions and no checking process.

What detailed protocols are now in place to double checking booking flights? Is there a written procedure?

Response

From this point on, all travel will be booked following receipt of a written instruction that is accompanied by a copy of the invitation.

A ‘Travel Authorisation Form’ is completed for each travel arrangement. This form details reasons for travel, flight details and requires approval in line with the department’s scheme of delegation. All correspondence and documentation relating to the travel arrangements will be held with this form with immediate effect.

My comment:

Travel authorisation forms have been around for decades in the UK, in government, and in Universities. They create a paper trail to enable people to see who signed off on the expenditure involved.

It is about time that Jersey caught up, and it would be interesting to know if similar procedures are in place in Guernsey and the Isle of Man, and for how long they have been in place.

My reason for asking this question was that the press release had simply said "procedures had been tightened", which is suitably vague.

It is about time that instead of just coming out with the standard "Yes Minister" type of cliche, the details are also given out to show that the lessons have been learnt and mistakes are less likely to happen. Otherwise, how are we to know exactly how robust any new procedures are? Or indeed if they have been put in place?

Jerusalem Fallen AD 70

“The Voices of Masada” by David Kossoff is an extraordinary book. It is an imaginative reconstruction of the events of the fall of Masada, beginning with the end of the siege, and told by one of the women who survived, the one Josephus described as “superior to most women in prudence and learning”.

The story then is interspersed with tales telling the story of the revolt, the fall of Jerusalem and the events leading up to the end of the siege of Masada.

Kossoff was well known at the time of publication in 1975 for his dramatic retellings of Bible Stories from the Old Testament on ITV’s “Stars on Sunday”.

This is a vivid tale, and sadly only available in second hand copies. I hope that one day, it might get a Kindle release and be available to a wider audience. I’d recommend it to anyone. I first read it in the 1970s, and re-read it recently, and was struck by how the same powerful impression it made on me back in the 1970s is still present now.

Here is an extract, which gives something of the feel of the book, and the way in which it brings the ancient world to life in a way that no dry scholarly paper can ever do, although Kossoff was well read and in touch with archaeologists excavating. In this extract, the survivors of Masada make their way back to the city of Jerusalem, destroyed after a siege by the Romans in AD 70 at the end of the Jewish War.

Reading it today, the buildings in rubble, one cannot help be reminded of the rubble strewn remains of buildings to be found in nearby Gaza. Perhaps the past can become a way for those on both sides bound up in that conflict to feel the pain of the other, for empathy is at the heart of reconciliation.

The Jews who returned to Jerusalem were able to stay there until the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132–136, when the Emperor Hadrian tore down most of what remained of Jerusalem, and founded a Roman colony city, Aelia Capitolina. Jews - which meant in practice all all circumcised men were banned from entering the city on pain of death.

The Fallen Jerusalem

The last part of the trek to Jerusalem was hard. There is no way to avoid the hills, from the south. As we climbed we grew more silent, each with memories and fatigue enough to halt speech and bring tears near.

And when we saw Jerusalem we did weep. Here was beauty raped and ravished beyond description.

We came it through what was left of the Gate of the Essenes, in the, past my favourite way into the city, for there to left., and right had been the perfume factories and their flower gardens, the air full of beautiful scent. Now many of the small factories were in ruins and in the gardens grew vegetables, tended by sad-looking people and ragged children.

To every side, as we walked up through the Lower City, past the pool of Siloam, were smashed buildings or rubble, strewn open spaces where houses had stood. The great Stadium near the Temple South: Wall looked shabby and damaged. To our right, low in the South Wall were the Gates of Huldah, where Sarah had lost her family in the Passover Massacre: and the great walls themselves were rent and torn.

We stopped at the corner of the Temple Mount, where the South and Western Walls made their right angle. Below, the Crates of Huldah the ground fell away to the-plain of 'Ophel where Menahem was stoned to death. It looked desolate; a mourning place, in its soil the blood of a special man.

Leaving the others, Sarah and I made our way with the children up the broken steps to the gate in the Western Wall. Four helmeted Roman soldiers stood guard and looked at us searchingly, but saw no danger in two women and five children all in need of clothes and a good wash. We passed through them into the familiar wide open space, where we had fought so desperately three years before.

The twins said it first, in the same breath, the same words.

`The Temple's gone'

Who can describe the sight? Who can put down in words the stopping of the heart, the disbelief of the eyes the feeling that the world had changed. As surely as the mind knew that our Temple had been the work of men, so did the soul know that God had guided those men, that God had had a hand in it, that God had lived there. In the Holy of Holies, unseen but there. Who could doubt it? Our mothers-had- told us so, our fathers, our teachers.

Now the Temple was a wasteland of rubble, wherein old men sat and wept into their beards.' Where did God live now? Who could tell, in the vast field of ruin, even-where the Holy of Holies had been? Where the great Altar, where the towering pillars of the Sanctuary, where the beautiful Gates of Nicanor, where the lovely Courts and' Chambers had been? Did God himself now sit in the dusty stones, weeping?

Sarah stood close to me, her jaw like iron. Judith stood at my other side, with Simon's hand in hers. The twins were a little in front of us, silent. Little Sami, feeling that this was no time to be carried, wriggled and was put down, to stand, with serious grubby face, wordless.

I looked around.. The colonnades which had edged the Temple Area, which had looked :as if they would last for centuries, had great gaps, and in :their remains people were living, in holes, like animals,

We picked our way along, the twins darting ahead. Ahead of us, at the end of the Western Wall, was the wreckage of the Antonia fortress. Impregnable, uncrushable Antonia. Mighty, blockhouse. A ruin.

The twins, atop a heap of rubble in a gap of the wall, shouted and. pointed into, the city. We climbed, up after them and looked down and across Jerusalem. Little impeded our view. The palaces; were gone, even our last stronghold, the Palace. of Great Herod, which had stood to the left of the Three Towers he'd built-to his brother Phasael, to his friend Hippicus and to poor tragic Mariamne, the wife he'd truly loved-and killed.

The Towers remained. Untouched. Left by the Romans to show future: generations how noble a city had been humbled by them. The Towers stood; as though to point how little else stood. Whole streets were gone. The graceful Theatre, the monuments of Hyrcanus, of Jannaeus, of Huldah: gone. Many of the beautiful villas of the wealthy, in the Upper City, damaged in the war were now, like the Temple, entirely destroyed. They lay, hills of debris, in their own overgrown gardens.

Again from the twins in unison: `Where have all the people, gone?' Indeed where, for ;we of Jerusalem were used to crowds, a teeming population of many tongues. Jerusalem was where the, world came to worship and gasp. In the War people fled to Jerusalem-and the siege packed us even tighter..

The teeming, crowds were gone, No worshippers, no sightseers, no pilgrims. No procession of priests, no royal guards, no merchant caravans swaying through.

A Lammas Charm

The first of August is Loaf-Mass in the old Catholic pre-Reformation world, which was corrupted to Lammas. It is also the time of the first harvest (not to be confused with the Autumn harvest) and a time of fertility. With some nods to D.H. Lawrence, here is a poem for Lammas.

A Lammas Charm

Now comes the harvest of the wheat
Come take the loaf, the bread of life
Break the bread, oh, come and eat
Come feast together, ending strife

Come ancestors, bone of our bone
Past and present, grind the corn
Take the grain, and grind with stone
Ripe seeds in earth, make us reborn

Plough the land with furrows deep
And hold in hand the goodly soil
This the charm, inside this keep
May horns of plenty come from toil

Lammas day, the goddess comes
And magic trickles through in crumbs