Look A Like

Constable Frank Butcher of Grouville, an Eastern Parish

Actor Dan Murphy, from Eastenders.

Is it my imagination or does Constable Dan Murphy of Grouville look like the late Frank Butcher from Eastenders?

The Road to Albert Pier

I see on Facebook that Mike Dun is still pursuing his single minded approach to those who oppose the new Health legislation:
 
"I petitioned the Privy Council against many aspects of the "names and addresses" (Work and Population control Laws) on Human Rights grounds. Did anybody else? And how about our States Members who are appearing on here supporting the greedy landlords rather then the Health Dept efforts to get rid of sub-standard accommodation etc -did any of them vote against this extraordinary and discriminatory legislation because of the erosion of "civil liberties"? I think the answer is already known to that question!!!"
 
It has been made clear to Mike from a number of commentators, myself included, that while we have no objection, and indeed welcome any measures designed to address slum rental accommodation, it is the extra aspects of this, relating to owner occupiers, that is the matter to which States members and others are objecting. It is in fact here that there is an erosion of civil liberties, and which he seems unable to grasp.
 
Senator Sarah Ferguson, for example, commented: "Mike - it may have escaped your notice but the objections have been against the 'elf and safety' application to owner occupier and to the wholesale rationing by the authorities of energy and water. Now it may be that the inspectors can enforce better insulation etc on landlords - that is not under objection here. If tenants have rats cantering through their bathrooms then by all means deal with it - but for tenants. If I am an owner occupier and am having trouble with rats then I will ask for help. but that is a whole different ballgame to an inspector turning up and demanding entry, even with 24 hours notice. Whilst the demand management may be covert at the moment, I can assure you that Defra and the EU are getting geared up."
 
What I'd really like to know is who these greedy landlords are.
 
George Orwell in "The Road to Wigan Pier" noted a number of very bad slum dwellings, of a kind that are not even found in Jersey, but his comments are still pertinent. He notes that "the majority of these houses are old, fifty or sixty years old at least, and great numbers of them are by any ordinary standard not fit for human habitation." That I think could certainly be true of houses in Jersey.
 
We do not have slum houses with outside toilets in vast quantities, but it was clear from the JEP pictures that damp, overcrowding, inadequate ventilation, vermin infestations etc are still very much in evidence. And nothing much has been done about it, as I remember very similar pictures from back in the early years of this century, when  Canon Nicholas France of St Thomas and the Reverend Paul Brooks of St Pauls went round together highlighting the kind of accommodation available, and families sometimes living in a single room.
 
What Orwell said then is probably just as true know of people who have to live in such substandard accommodation: "Some people hardly seem to realize that such things as decent houses exist and look on bugs and leaking roofs as acts of God; others rail bitterly against their landlords; but all cling desperately to their houses lest worse should befall."
 
Orwell also went on to describe the kind of landlord who was responsible for slum dwellings:
 
"In some cases I have noted 'Landlord good' or 'Landlord bad', because there is great variation in what the slum-dwellers say about their landlords. I found - one might expect it, perhaps - that the small landlords are usually the worst. It goes against the grain to say this, but one can see why it should be so. Ideally, the worst type of slum landlord is a fat wicked man, preferably a bishop, who is drawing an immense income from extortionate rents. Actually, it is a poor old woman who has invested her life's savings in three slum houses, inhabits one of them, and tries to live on the rent of the other two - never, in consequence, having any money for repairs."
 
I'd say he is probably right. A few years ago, I came across one of one dwelling by First Tower, where those renting had to face a constant battle against mildew, and where wood in door frames and windows was replaced only after rotting almost to pieces. There were four of five such  houses, variously partitioned into smaller units, and with one elderly landlord, almost certainly retired, who had a habit of inspecting the comings and goings of his tenants, keeping a watchful eye on his properties. What he doesn't keep a watchful eye upon is the conditions within, and he almost perfectly fits Orwell's portrait of someone who has invested in these buildings, not far from his own house, to live off the rent as a supplement to his pension, and who probably keeps repairs to a minimum. The rent is fairly cheap, and any increase in repairs would probably mean a hike in rents to pay for it.
 
We do desperately need an inspection of these kinds of properties, but what we don't need is this kind of law. We need a law which targets the "slum landlord", and we also have to face the possibility that he or she cannot comply with that law. That's a realist position, and there needs to be a fall-back scenario of what to do in those circumstances.
 
The kind of landlord depicted by Orwell would not be able to afford to do much in the way of repairs, so an unexpected consequence of addressing these conditions would be for the landlord to shut up shop, and give the tenants notice to quit, and sell up the property. So one impact could be to increase the housing shortage, by taking dwellings out of the rental market, increasing pressure on rental demand, and as a consequence, leading to higher rents on fewer properties. The alternative would be an increase in rent commensurate with the improvements made to the property, which would be harder on the tenants, but which would at least retain the property within the rental market. 
 
Unless we have some kind of demographic study of the worst kind of dwellings, and the financial ability of landlords to comply with repairs, legislation could make matters worse. I'm not saying we should not act, but it is the unintended repercussions that so often can derail an idealist scenario. Real life is more messy. In this, too, Orwell's words sound a prophetic warning:
 
"So long as the housing shortage continues the local authorities cannot do much to make existing houses more livable. They can 'condemn' a house, but they cannot order it to be pulled down till the tenant has another house to go to; and so the condemned houses remain standing and are all the worse for being condemned, because naturally the landlord will not spend more than he can help on a house which is going to be demolished sooner or later."

Annie Get Your Gun

Having had John  Young and the JEP headline "A Snooper's Charter", we now have the embattled Anne Pryke fighting back all guns blazing. The JEP headline reads in huge bold letters "Here's Why We Want New Powers".  There are pictures of damp walls and rat infested buildings. As the JEP puts it "From vermin infestations and foul toilets to collapsing ceilings and leaking roofs, the pictures depict the sorry state of the accommodation some people choose - or are forced - to live in."
 
The JEP report also notes: "The department's plans to give inspectors the power to enter people's homes and impose sanctions on Islanders who breach health regulations have been defended as 'reasonable, consistent and proportional' by the Health Minister."
 
"There is no intention for any property to be inspected unless referred to us or the subject of a complaint", she says in a letter to be published. Who could not want this? It is made clear that as far as owner-occupied properties are concerned, they would only ever be inspected in exceptional circumstances.
 
But where is the provision only to act if the property is referred to them or the subject of a complaint? I can't see that provision in the Draft Law. If it is an intention, why not include it in the law? Why make this purely something of an extra comment on how she sees the law being operated?
 
Likewise, if there are exceptional circumstances for owner occupiers over health, and she outlines that "it would be our intention merely to make them aware of such risks to enable them to make an informed choice about their lifestyle", why aren't those exceptional circumstances listed in the law? Why isn't the intention listed in the law?
 
It is surely a very bad law that depends so much on "intentions" of those policing the law, and not on restrictions within the law itself. Because the obvious question is: what if the intentions change? It is all very well for her to say "it is not our intention", but that's the situation now. Can that be guaranteed for the future? Only if it is placed within the body of the law, and it is not!
 
But as Sarah Ferguson notes, there are stringent procedures applied to force compliance with this law: "The Minister will define hazards and the inspectors will then be able to give 24 hours notice that they will be in to review for hazards" No sign of intention there in the law, and it seems to exist only in Anne Pryke's mind, or in some document of intent which for some reason has not made it into the final draft of the law.
 
Mike Dun, writing on Facebook, suggests that "The threat that some of the greedy landlords who have been letting grotty accommodation for years at huge rents might be called to account is being resisted."  Mike fails to see that the criticisms have nothing to do with legislation being drawn up to tackle that problem; it is the fact that this legislation sets out to do far more than its principal intent. It has been drawn up in the broadest possible way. Ironically, Mike castigates the critics as those "who still not grasped the most basic of International Conventions to protect Human Rights". It is unclear how giving the State such powers of entry to every dwelling on Ministerial order is an improvement of human rights.
 
Mike also puts the justification for this in terms of particular examples:
 
"Health authorities especially need powers to enter premises when people have not be seen for some time - or a neighbour smells gas, or a person is known to be ill or unable to fend for his/herself. Something as simple as a broken ankle can immobilise a person of any age and it is usually better to investigate that all is well before the smell of a rotting corpse signals an alarm. Different standards may apply of course to elected and non-elected States Members - their long absences from public view are often beneficial to the public good."
 
But he is chasing red herrings. As Sarah Ferguson notes "These powers already exist - this law is not for that purpose.. In fact I have, as a centenier and on a number of occasions, entered a property when concerns have been raised about the occupant so why do we need a new law?"
 
In fact, in general, it should be noted that there are already laws that can be used to tackle 'slum landlords'. If in essence what is being said is that they are insufficient, then let's first determine what those insufficiencies are and amend existing laws as (or if) necessary.
 
As Trevor Brown comments in a letter to the JEP "Apparently, the Health department have evidence of poor housing conditions experienced by some tenants. If that is so, and I do not disbelieve it, then landlords should be properly dealt with under existing Housing Law, and if that Housing Law is inadequate for the purpose, then clearly it should be amended as a matter of urgency."
 
There are already - as Sarah Ferguson notes - sufficient laws regarding powers of entry and all are geared to specific circumstances precisely to avoid any abuse. 'Reasonable grounds for cause ....'.
 
So, if a tenant, neighbour, health worker, GP or whoever reports poor or substandard conditions, that should be reasonable grounds. That should also come with penalty to the complainant if there were any malicious intent involved, spurious call it what you will. The extension to private property is in my opinion an extreme abuse of authority and liberty if that is not otherwise supported by evidence that it poses a health hazard to others. The Environmental Health Officers are already empowered to with a right to enter property on  evidence that a public health hazard exists.
 
But there is none of this kind of thinking enshrined in the law, instead it is left to "our intentions" as declared by Anne Pryke. Perhaps an amendment would be to add her letter as a letter of intent to the end of the law, with an extra clause to say that all the articles in this law would be restricted by the operation of this letter of intent. As it stands, it is as open ended as a blank cheque, made out to bearer.
 
What Mike Dun has also failed to notice is the extras tagged onto the draft law, although they come as part of the main proposition; there is no indication that they are extras.
 
The Minister may make Orders for the purposes of -
(a) securing the health and safety of persons in or about dwellings;
(b) furthering the conservation of fuel and power; and
(c) furthering the conservation of water by, for example, preventing waste, undue consumption and misuse of water.
 
Anne Pryke has been concentrating her defence wholly on (a) and there is nothing here on (b) or (c), although the letter published in full on Monday might just throw up some rationale.
 
Why is the law framed to deal not just with heath issues but also energy use and water consumption? Energy is supplied privately. Water is supplied privately. And given the cost of fuel and power, and the increasing programme of water metering, is it likely that people are not conserving as much as they might?
 
I think it is because they have been taking ideas from the "National Customer Charter for Building Standards"
 
This provides information about the minimum standards of service that all local authorities should meet, and has a three pronged approach to that:
 
(a) To secure the health, safety, welfare and convenience of persons in and about buildings and others who may be affected by buildings or matters connected with buildings;
(b) Furthering the conservation of fuel and power, and;
(c) Furthering the achievement of sustainable development.
 
And if you look at the Guildford Building Control system, for example, you have something even closer:
 
"The Building Regulations apply to building work in England and Wales and set standards for the design and construction of buildings to ensure the health, safety, welfare and convenience of persons in or about buildings.  They also include requirements furthering the conservation of fuel and power, preventing waste or undue consumption of water and facilitating sustainable development."
 
That is why you have the details about fuel and power and water. It is all about building regulations. And the wording is so close to the Jersey law that it simply cannot be coincidence.  It includes points (a) (b) and (c) in almost the same words.
 
What seems to have happened here is that UK building regulations have been taken and transformed under the draft law into health regulations. That's why you get inspections - "Each team carries out the whole range of building control functions within its area including plan checking, site inspections, dealing with demolitions and dangerous structures, administration of competent persons schemes and certificated work."
 
Essentially, the UK building regulations are being smuggled in under the guise of Jersey health regulations, in the hope that no one spots where it is coming from.
 
What kind of impact could curbing excessive water consumption  in the draft law have on property owners, including owner / occupiers? Now that we have the source for the idea, it is simple. One example would be to "initiate carbon emission savings for the environment through the introduction of a mandatory building standard requiring basic water efficiency measures in dwellings"
 
And we can see the same thing in the Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004 which presumably we might have to comply with in all houses under the new Jersey health law: "Introducing mandatory water efficiency measures through the building regulations, to the most commonly used sanitary facilities in homes, will reduce the amount of household treated water used and associated waste water generated. Additionally the household will save on water heating / energy costs and contribute to the reduction in carbon emissions to the environment."
 
Is it right for the Health Minister to introduce what are in fact building regulations, and would be seen as such in the UK? That is another question for the States to consider,. Shouldn't that come under the Planning Law? Or is it thought that she stands a better chance of bringing it in, or Rob Duhamel might rightly have doubts about its rather draconian measures?

A Piece from the Pilot

For today, I've found a short piece published in "The Pilot", the magazine which used to be produced for and by the Anglican Churches in Jersey. This comes from the Parish Notes from Trinity, by Tony Keogh, and was written in the 1981. I rather like it, and I think while it has something to say in a religious context, it also speaks to everyday life as well.

A Piece from the Pilot written by Tony Keogh (1981)
 
I remember when I was at college there was a student who would, at every lecture, manage, by some miracle, to take down every word that the lecturer uttered. We were all amazed that his ball-point pen did not melt. College legend had it that if the lecturer coughed, he would somehow manage to include it in his notes.
 
His biggest problem was at the end of term, prior to the examinations. It was a common sight to see him in his room, fretting and wading through mountains of indecipherable notes. By the time he had sorted them out, there was little time for revising. He had yet to learn the art of discrimination and renunciation.
 
George Bernard Shaw describes an experience of his that took "a mob of appetites and organised them into an army of purposes and principles". This process of organisation, essential to personal wholeness, always involves those two elements - discrimination and renunciation.
 
Amid the miscellany of life, the person who is to achieve integration must fix his eye upon, and commit himself to, those values and aims which he chooses as supremely worthwhile. He cannot put all values first; wholeness, ironically, begins with selection; "the seeker of his truest, strongest, deepest self", as William James said, "must review the list carefully and pick out the one on which to stake his salvation."
 
And along with this first act of discrimination goes the need for the act of renunciation. Wholeness not only involves inclusion but exclusion, and he who says "Yes" to any commitment must say "No" to its contradictions.
 
This dual process of discrimination and renunciation, however, is never self produced. It takes a positive faith to get it started. Some idea, cause, or person captures our confidence and devotion; we believe in some value and give ourselves to it; and in the act of faith we practice discrimination in its most profoundly satisfying form, and renunciation of our faith's opposites follows with the minimum of strain.
 
A constructive faith is thus the supreme organizer of life, and, lacking it, like Humpty Dumpty, we fall and break in pieces, and the wonder is whether all the King's again. horses and all the King's men can ever put us together

Occupation Remembered

I was not alive during the German Occupation of Jersey, but my mother was, and I have spoken to those who were here, read the stories of those here. This poem is for all of them...

Occupation Remembered


I recall the Weighbridge, bombs falling from above
The troops marching in, the need for faith and love
The hope that hung in there, the hope that stood the test,
Those that rose to the challenge, those that showed the best
Those who hid Jewish people, those that paid the price
And ended in Concentration camps, made final sacrifice.

I recall the Normandy invasion, sky lit up over sea
And the lure of freedom, so near she calls to me.
Those setting off in little boats, to her shores now they head
But remember those drowned at sea, the captured, the dead
And flashes in night sky, the anti-aircraft guns
While mothers wept, tears of grief for their sons

And then came Liberation, now so very long ago
But dear to us who were there, such memories we know
The raising of the flag again, singing God save our King
May we never forget those long years, years of suffering
Or the day of our Liberation, may the memory not cease
How we came out from darkness to freedom and peace

Bailiff Herault - part 1

Something historical today. Here is an extract from "Jersey in the 17th century" (1931),  by A.C. Saunders. There is a lot of social history in Saunders, which throws up some quirky details that are often overlooked in the history of Jersey.

When one reads that Bailiff Herault was passionate for justice, but had an achilles heel - he was "a man of little tact and offered many opportunities to his enemies by the outspoken way in which he claimed his rights and denounced those who were against him" , it brings to my mind a number of politicians in the modern era in Jersey, and in particular, of course, former Senator Stuart Syvret. Of course, nowadays, one would not associate Bailiff's with reforms, but back in the 17th century, matters were very different.

Interestingly, Herault was in favour of a Dean returning to Jersey. The last Dean had been Richard Mabon, before the Reformation, and the next would be David Bandinell, part of James I's attempt to impose Anglicanism on the Calvinist Reformed Church in Jersey. Bandinell received Letters Patent dated 8 March 1619. Bandinell, however, did not survive the capture of Jersey by Parliamentary forces in the Civil War - he died in 1645, and the seat remained vacant under the Commonweath from 1645 to 1661. Indeed, a permanent continuity of Deans of Jersey only dates from the Restoration of Charles II.

Bailiff Herault - part 1
by A.C. Saunders

John Herault was born in or about the year 1570 at a place called " La Paloterie," in the parish of St. Sauveur. His parents were poor, and any education he had was obtained from local schools and his own unaided efforts. He determined to be a lawyer and in due course became Greffier of the Court, and was the medium by which correspondence was interchanged between the Governor and the Privy Council. The way in which he submitted cases before the Privy Council gave the English Government a very high opinion of his ability, and, when Gardiner and Hussey came to Jersey to enquire into the grievances of the inhabitants, they were instructed to consult the Greffier. His was the pen which wrote out the grievances of the Islanders.
 
For over half a century Jersey had had a military Government and the Bailiff had been a nominee of the Governor. In the patent of Governorship granted to Peyton he had managed to get inserted his right to nominate the Bailiff after Pawlet gave up office. It was well for Jersey that a man like Herault was Greffier at the time. He knew the hardships imposed on the people, and, being one of them, he used his great abilities in trying to limit the powers of the Governors to matters military. When Pawlet gave up office then the Crown nominated Herault to succeed him. He had shown the Privy Council that he was willing to fight for the cause of the Islanders, and that he was well aware of their grievances. The only way to bring about peace in the Island was by the appointment of a man to the Chief Magistracy who was determined to see justice in the land, and who was well acquainted with the laws of the Island.
 
Herault had a very difficult position to fill. Sir John Peyton and his followers were against him and trying to get him out of office and therefore he was all the more particular in fighting against the slightest infringement of any of the privileges attached to his appointment. In many cases his conduct appeared to be unnecessarily overbearing, and sometimes almost insulting to his opponents, and he often failed in those courtesies the lack of which he was always ready to resent when his own office was concerned.
 
When Aaron Messervy was Lieut.-Governor he was always quarrelling with the Bailiff, and eventually Messervy submitted a memorial to the Privy Council in which the complaint was made that the Bailiff treated the Lieut.-Governor as a subordinate. This Messervy was not a native and had not much consideration in the Island.
 
In February 1615, the Court was called by the Lieutenant who wished to preside, but he was informed that the chair had to be taken by the Bailiff according to the decision in the year 1606, and so the Lieutenant yielded with the proviso " that this should not prejudice him."
 
So Jean Herault was made Bailiff of Jersey, and on the 16th September, 1615, he took the oath of office before the Judge-delegate, nine Jurats and Aaron Messervy, Captain's Lieutenant, and swore to exercise the office to the Glory of God and the maintenance of the Reformed Church ; to be faithful to the King as Duke of Normandy, defend the country, punish traitors and malefactors, do justice according to the custom of the Isle and maintain its rights and privileges.
 
After taking the oath he assumed the judicial chair, and on 18th of November the Court decided to pay him one hundred marks a year from the 5th April, 1614, and other emolument which former Bailiffs had been entitled to.
 
Herault now comes in contact with Peter Maret, the Receiver and Procureur, who belonged to the party of the Governor who was often out of the Island, probably doing his best to belittle the Bailiff at headquarters.
 
The Bailiff writes on the 18th of March, 1616, to Secretary Winwood and suggests that a special Commission should be sent to Jersey to inquire into the state of affairs. He complains that the present Procureur, Peter Maret, is totally unfitted for the position, and that as he is Receiver of Revenue for the Governor, there is no one to submit any injustice done by the Receiver to the Courts as he is the Procureur. Herault pointed out that Maret had been brought up in Spanish seminaries, " got pernicious maxims, and refuses to give the ministers an account of his faith or to receive Sacrament." Maret was evidently another tool of the Governor, and the Bailiff complains on the 20th July, 1616, to the Secretary of State that Sir John is so vexed at his appointment that he and his friends do all in their power to " disgrace me and hinder me in my duties, caluminating me before the people when I am administering justice so that I have sometimes to dissolve the assembly."
 
In April, 1616, Herault calls attention to the state of the defences of the Island, and states that if Sir John Peyton and his agents can amass money enough they care not how the rest goes. He points out that there are only four poor men in each Castle, without officers, and suggests that there should be at least forty soldiers for Mont Orgueil and twenty-four for Castle Elizabeth, with the necessary officers, and that the stores and ordnance should be inquired into and that an independent Receiver should be appointed who would see that the money was properly expended.
 
He also suggests that a dean should be appointed over the ministers. He points out that the Lieutenant-Governor is guided by Peter Maret, who is very much disliked by the people.
 
Later on Herault complains that Sir John is sending his butler to be Master Porter of Elizabeth Castle, who has no acquaintance with war and only understands serving pots of wine and beer at table.
 
Herault was determined to uphold the dignity of his office, which he asserted was greater than that of Captain, and claimed that the Bailiff had to see that the Captain kept the Castles in repair as well as guarded. He also asserted that " None but the Bailiff had ever authority to use the plural we."
 
Evidently the Privy Council supported him with regard to Peter Maret, for he thanks Secretary Winwood for the justice done.
 
But he could not introduce all his proposed alterations without making many enemies, especially when he had the Governor and his friends against him. They were not going to allow him to usurp what they had come to consider as their rights, and accordingly they drew up a petition in which his indiscretions were magnified to such an extent that according to them he was unfit to uphold the dignity of his office.
 
Herault, who is described as Seigneur de St. Sauveur, therefore was very much surprised to receive from the Secretary a letter dated 3rd August, 1616. It was very short but to the point : " Upon information given against you, His Majesty is pleased that you shall be heard in your defence. I therefore require you to appear before the Privy Council at Court on 1st November next," and he was directed to substitute Philip de Carteret, " Seigneur de Hault Vinchelles," in his place as Bailiff in his absence.
 
The information had been laid by Sir John Peyton, who complained that Herault had declared that he was in charge of Jersey and that the Governor was only Captain of the Castle and muster master of the companies, and that he had asked the ministers to put the Bailiff before the Governor in their prayers. That the Bailiff professed to deliver the people from the tyranny of the Governors ; that he assembles the States without the direction of the Governor ; that he has displaced H.M. Procureur, whom the Governor had appointed according to his patent, etc.
 
The information was supported by Aaron Messervy, Lieutenant-Governor, and John le Hardy, H.M. Advocate.
 
Then on the 27th October, Philip Maret joins in the fray and asks for justice and liberty, as he has served seven years as Procureur, and in seeking to maintain His Majesty's prerogative and soliciting the people to receive the English form of prayer, he has been deprived of his office and kept close prisoner for two months.

He declared that the reason why he had incurred the animosity of the Bailiff, Sir Philip de Carteret, and others, was that the Bailiff took offence because he had insisted in using, according to custom, Justices' opinion whether Philip Bisson was finable or not for opposing a certain order which the Bailiff endeavoured to make of one shilling impost on every bottle of wine sold in the Isle ; opposing his claim to tavernage ; opposing his claim to le poids du Roy ; opposing his title of Seigneur de St. Sauveur, etc., etc. He also protested against Sir Philip de Carteret, who had wanted and obtained the Procureurship for his brother, Elias Carteret. And so ended the first period of the Bailiffship of John Herault. He had tried to alter things against the wishes of those in power, and is now called upon to justify his actions.
 
There was never any question of the honesty of the Bailiff. He was poor, and had great difficulty in supporting the position he held. He was fighting against a very -powerful -military usurpation by means of which the Pawlets had sought to gratify their own selfish aims to the detriment of the people they governed. Herault saw the misery of his countrymen, and as a man of great integrity and capacity, and learned in the law, he sought to obtain justice for his fellow-countrymen.
 
He had been appointed to his position by the King against the wishes of the Governor, who would have liked to have placed his own puppet as Chief Magistrate, but, unfortunately, Herault was a man of little tact and offered many opportunities to his enemies by the outspoken way in which he claimed his rights and denounced those who were against him.
 
Some of the rights so claimed seem very petty as we look at them from the present day standpoint. He was often made to appear as if he were trying for the advancement of his own personal importance instead of the defence of the slightest suggestion that the privileges of his office were in danger. The King had appointed Herault as his Bailiff notwithstanding that Sir John claimed the right to the appointment under his patent, but the latter's claim had been over-ruled under the Act of Parliament of 2nd July, 1536, by which the appointment of officers was reserved for the King alone, and the Bailiff and Jurats had to try all causes.
 
It was a fight between Sir John as Governor and John Herault as Bailiff as to who should be the Chief Power in the land. It was a bitter fight.

Cherry Brandy: A Thought for Liberation Day

What has Cherry Brandy got to do with Liberation Day? On Liberation day, 1945, my mother's uncle went back to his house to get a bottle of cherry brandy for the family to celebrate their freedom with. It had been tucked away, unopened, for the entire Occupation.
 
The bottle of Cherry Brandy, in a very real sense, symbolised the abiding hope of the Jersey people. And there were other signs of that freedom as well. Wireless sets were brought out of hiding, Union Jacks were taken out ready to be raised.
 
Until the D-Day landings, the possibility of freedom must have seemed very remote. Jersey was Occupied by the German Forces, made into a fortress of concrete and steel, and there was no sign of any invasion of nearby France; when it happened, it happened very quickly. Before then, it must have seemed a very dark and threatening future.
 
But the people of Jersey never lost faith that a day would come when they would be free, and the Cherry Brandy, along with countless other things, were kept back, in reserve, a pledge that the people had not lost hope. For them, it was buried treasure.
 
That is the nature of hope. It is not certainty, and at times, it may fly in the face of more rational judgements, because it looks to a particular future, and reason may suggest the chances of that happening are very remote. It does not mean having no doubts, but it means keeping true despite those doubts.
 
The opposite of hope is despair. And some of the people certainly did despair and lose hope. It is easy to see why. Their world had been turned upside down, and they were living in an occupied land. And the increased privations which that brought must have eaten into that hope. They can hardly be blamed for giving up. Would we have done better? Who can say?
 
But it is remarkable how most people did keep going. I wonder how often my great-uncle thought about that Cherry Brandy. It was something material to cling onto, but it also provided a means of keeping up hope in the face of despair.
 
We are creatures of flesh and blood, and we need the physical. The central rite of Christianity is material and spiritual, eating bread and wine, a sign of the feast of freedom, of the table of the coming Kingdom, looking forward in hope.
 
And there is a profoundly religious aspect to liberation. Ours is a culture in which the words of the Bible proclaim time and again "liberty to the captives". That's a phrase which must have resonated to the Jersey people until the day when the promise came true.
 
What is the response to freedom? What thoughts went through their minds as they drank the Cherry Brandy. "Here's to us; we made it". That certainly, and also surely gratitude, thanksgiving to the troops who had come and set them free, to the Red Cross Ship Vega, without whom they would have not survived, and to God, for answered prayers.
 
But not all prayers were answered. Some Islanders had died in concentration camps, and would not be returning. So perhaps too there was a toast for the memory of those who had not come through the fires, but who had also kept faith until their end.
 
I don't know if it was good quality Cherry Brandy, or how well it had survived the war. But I imagine those drinking it, celebrating their freedom once more, found it to be the best Cherry Brandy in the world, and never ever drank anything that tasted quite as good as that taste of freedom.

Mind Your Language

"By my trowth, thou dost make the millstone seem as a feather what widst thy lard-bloated footfall!"

"Swearing makes up 3 percent of all adult conversation at work and 13 percent of all adult leisure conversation." (How Swearing Works, Tracy Wilson)

If you are free tomorrow lunchtime, why not pop into Church House for an interesting presentation. There will be two short talks - one from a more traditional perspective and another from a different theological approach -  both by Simon Nash on the subject of swear words. And there will be soup, bread rolls, butter, and fruit.

More details can be found on their website

http://businessconnect.je/chow/item/mind-your-language.html  

It notes:

"We are going to look at the subject of swearing from a biblical, cultural, psychological, sociological and theological perspective. There will be two talks on the subject, one from a more traditional perspective and one which might be new to some hearers. We feel we should issue a 'watershed' warning: Please do not come to this CHOW if you do not like to hear "foul language" in your presence, we would rather you did not come, on this occasion, than attend and feel uncomfortable. The CHOW for the week after will resume more conventional standards of taste and decency, and you would be welcome to come back then."

I personally do not like swear words being used much,  but not on religious grounds, as I explain below.

I know that religious objections can be made against the use of profanity, but I've often felt that some of that is more like a rationale for not swearing, a reason being given which often does not address how swearing functions, or the taboo nature of swear words; instead, it often grounds the objection in terms of blasphemy, which can by its nature only apply to a certain subset of swear words; many are non-religious but pertain to the human body, and sexuality, not religion. Alternatively, objections can be grounded in making cultic oaths, which again falls short of how swear words work. I think it is more likely that religious people find certain religious swear words offensive because it is a taboo for them, rather than because of any rational basis.
 
I think swear words function as a mix of (1) habitual - the person using them may not really be aware of how often they use them (2) shock value - they are verbal signals designed to provoke a reaction (3) a means of coping with pain. Part of their value lies in the fact that they are "taboo speech", words that are found offensive, but for which there may be no rational reason which can easily be stated. (4) humorous effect, where it is a sudden and unexpected and in context can be very funny.

We forget how much the taboo governs how we live our lives. A taboo is a powerful control on behaviour that operates in a non-rational way. Some taboos are very group specific, such as ones about purity (not to be confused with being clean, although there is some overlap), and food. Some are less specific to groups, and swearing and incest both come there. Now there may be good biological reasons for the incest taboo, but like a taboo on profanity, it is something which has not been rationally thought out; it is part of how societies govern themselves.

And one thing we should note here. While swearing is one example of breaking taboos, just because a taboo is often outside the direct scope of rationality, that does not mean that the taboo should be discarded. Incest is a taboo for which very good reasons can be made for retaining, scientific, social and ethical. On the other hand, many people do not have a taboo on eating pork, yet English people do tend to have a taboo on eating horse. Often a taboo results with strong feelings of revulsion and disgust if it is broken.
 
On (1) - habitual swearing - I think it can shows that the individual is not enough in control of their own speech; it controls them, and there may well be other patterns of behaviour running as well. I find it obscures what they are trying to say, because it is sending out the wrong signals alongside what they really want to say. It's like a Christian punctuating a conversation about the love of God with a phrase like "spawn of Satan" to describe people who are not Christians. The noise drowns out the message. I imagine people who are habitual swearers screen out the invective and can speak to each other easily and wonder what all the fuss is about! I don't like it, because of the way it punctuates conversation with noise. but I am aware that it is not intentional.
 
On (2) swearing as shock value - this is deliberately trying to provoke and offend, and even cause distress. I think it is offensive because the speaker is trying to upset people for no good reason other than the enjoyment of doing so. It's the "I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out of Here" language, where sadistic impulses come out. It's not perhaps too great a step from here to demonising people by calling them names (cf Nazis, Rwanda in recent times), and that dehumanises speech. This kind of swearing is the sort that I am most uncomfortable with, as it crosses ethical boundaries ("do no harm"), and is set out to obstruct human relationships, and hurt, not heal them.

As Tracy Wilson points out in her study "How Swearing Works", court cases "have examined the use of swearing in the contexts of inciting people to violence, defamation and threats. They have generally ruled that the government does not have the right to prevent blasphemy against a specific religion or to prosecute someone solely for the use of an expletive. On the other hand, they have upheld convictions of people who used profanity to incite riots, harass people or disturb the peace."
 
On (3) I have a great deal of sympathy, having sworn a lot (mostly "bloody") when I broke my wrist in a fall on some rocks. It certainly seems to be the case that letting off steam, using strong language (if you don't use it habitually) can actually help with coping with pain. There's a study which looked at that:
 
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1913773,00.html

But this kind of swearing can also come out under extreme stress, as well as physical pain. A good example of that is the opening sequence of "Four Weddings and a Funeral", where a frantic drive to a wedding when late is punctuated with swear words. It's not a habitual part of their speech; it's a result of stress.

On (4) swearing as humour, which I am indebted to my son for pointing out, a swear word functions as something left of field. Humour can be of the kind where the joke is something signaled - a lot of the sketches in the Fast Show or Harry Enfield function like this - a character comes on, and the joke lies in knowing what is going to happen, albeit with variations. An example would be the "Odes" given by the son of the Roman family in the TV show "Up Pompei" where there was always a lack of rhyme, but the verse led the viewer to expect a rude word.

But it can also be the unexpected, a banana skin which is unseen by the viewer through misdirection, where a sudden juxtaposition of the expected broken by the unexpected is funny. There's a sequence in the latest Red Dwarf, when the crew have time travelled and find themself in an ancient market square. One of them utters the expletive "Jesus!", only for the bearded individual at the next table to say "Yes?".

Interestingly, while some swear words seem to remain constant, the impact of them varies over time, and some come and go. A swear word can be seen as a kind of offset signal against the language in which it is encountered, and it would be interesting to see if they have gone because of

(1) general lack of use, perhaps as others come to be more used, until they are forgotten. A phrase like "Gordon Bennett" is probably headed that way. "Swive" certainly is no longer common parlance.

(2) change of meanings, so the context of the original is lost. The t-word, which comes from an Old Norse word for cut or slit. Pronounced to rhyme with 'hat', or, in some regions, 'pot', it is now widely used in the UK as a slightly more expressive form of 'twit' or 'idiot'. Likewise,  'pratt' is an old word for 'arse' that has come to lose its meaning over the years. The word 'pratt' is still, however, used to this day to mean a fool.

(3) loss of shock value, so that the word becomes much softer in its meaning, and less offensive. It may pass into more habitual use. An example is given by Ruth Wajnryb in "Language Most Foul"(2004) on the word f*ck: "It started out as a taboo word because of its referential function. Then, over time, as the word became more widely used in other roles, it lost its referential meaning. Now the taboo still lurks, though nowhere nearly as strongly as even twenty years ago. There is barely a sexual glimmer of meaning in the word, as it often means something more like 'go figure'. "

(4) changing cultural mores (such as "political correctness"), ruling out use of particular words. The word "bitch", for example, when used as a swear word, can be seen to be demeaning to women.
 
Links
http://www.h2g2.com/approved_entry/A753527
http://septicscompanion.com/showcat.php?cat=insults
http://www.renfaire.com/Language/insults.html
http://www.polysyllabic.com/?q=node/36

Racing Ahead with Changes

1947 was a year when changes began to be decided for the States of Jersey; the old order of Rectors, Jurats would be gone, replaced by 12 extra Deputies and 12 Senators.  In early April we read in the Almanac that "Town Deputies address crowded meeting at Town Hall on Reform." And by 29 April, the -Island voted on Reform proposals taken in the parish halls; 64% register for reform, 36% against... On the 13th May, the States adopted Reform proposals in their entirety. Speed was of the essence, for the changes would need to be in place by the autumn of 1948.
 
But what other events happened around April and May, also recorded in the Almanac?
 
On the 26th April, we read of the visit of Bishop of the Windward Islands. Why the Bishop was visiting Jersey is not stated, but it has a curiously exotic ring to it! I didn't even know the Windward Islands had a Bishop.
 
The Windward Islands are called such because they were more windward to sailing ships arriving in the New World than the Leeward Islands, given that the prevailing trade winds in the West Indies blow east to west. They are Guadeloupe, Dominica, Martinique, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Grenada.
 
The Anglican Diocese of the Windward Islands is one of eight dioceses within the Province of the West Indies. The current bishop is the The Right Reverend Calvert Leopold Friday, which no doubt will cause some readers to think of Robinson Crusoe.
 
On 27th April, there was a Parade of Scouts and Cubs at Aquila Road Methodist Church in honour of St. George's Day. The Scouts still parade today, but Aquila Road Methodist Church has been closed, although it remains a listed building.
 
The same day saw big jewel robberies at St. Brelade where thieves net £2,000 worth of jewels. It's difficult to tell what this would be nowadays, but an inflation calculator puts it at between £60,760.00 and £279,900.00. Even taking the smaller figure, that's quite a sum, and would make large headline in today's Jersey Evening Post.
 
April 28.-His Excellency inspects St. John Ambulance Brigade.-
Annual general meeting of Chamber of Commerce.
 
On 28 April "She Wanted a Cream Front Door " at The Playhouse. This was the small theatre of the Island Players, which I remember; it had a sliding door to open up the bar in the interval. Sadly it has been demolished. "She Wanted a Cream Front Door" was comedy, written in 1946, by Arthur Reginald Whatmore (1889-1960), a British actor, playwright and producer of plays, so it was a very modern play for Jersey in 1948.
 
30 April.-Eighty head of cattle leave the Island, destined for Canada.
 
Games and cattle shows featured heavily in the start of May. It is interesting to note the legacy of Occupation; the golf club having its first annual dinner since 1939, having ceased to do so during the war years.
 
May 1.-Muratti : Jersey XI beats Guernsey XI 3--1 in Guernsey.
St. Helier and St. Clement's May shows of cattle held.---
Inter-insular snooker final won by D. P. Dorleans (Jersey).-
Cricket season opens at F.B. Fields on grass wicket.
May 2.- F. T. Drouin beats H. Bertram (750-501) in Island Billiards Championship.-
First annual dinner of Royal Jersey Golf Club since 1939.
May 3-Easy win for Elizabeth College in inter-collegiate athletic meeting.
 
May 3 Motor ship "Dames des Iles" commissioned by Lady Coutanche. The ship would have its maiden trip round the island in May 10th
 
May 4.--Concert by Jersey Gleemen given at The Forum.  The Forum has long been demolished, and the Jersey Gleemen don't seem to exist any more either. Although it was a Cinema, the Forum also had an organ (which rose up) and an area which could be used as a stage.
 
May 7.-Dedication by the Lord Bishop of Winchester at  St. Helier's Parish Church of two silver candlesticks given by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth.
 
G.R. Balleine notes in his booklet on Jersey Parish Churches that "The candlesticks on the altar were given to the Island by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth (now the Queen Mother) as a thank offering for the Liberation and for the faithful witness of laity and clergy during the German Occupation. In 1963 she attended service then being the first Royal personage to do so since Charles II in 1649."
 
The central event for Liberation Day in 1947 was an International Road race.
 
On May 4, we read that Ringwood and Corundum arrive with English racing cars for International Road Race.  The following day, "Some 380 special constables sworn in for Road Race duties." On May 6, continental racing cars arrive from St. Malo, and practice runs begin over the course, watched by a crowd estimated at 10,000
 
May 7th  saw more practice runs in preparation for Road Race. There was also a pre-race Vin d'honneur for racing drivers held at West Park Pavilion!
 
The circuit for the drivers was from West Park to Bel Royal along Victoria Avenue, only a single-carriage road in those days, returning via St Aubin's Road, a total of 3.2 miles.
 
Liberation Day, May 8th, saw "The International Road Race an outstanding success : many world famous drivers compete, including Prince Bira,  R. Mays, Peter Whitehead.The event wa s won by R. Parnell (Maseratti), with L. Chiron (Maseratti) second. and R. Mays  third : Ball held at West Park Pavilion and fireworks display given show in the evening "
 
Here's a few biographical snippets from Wikipedia on the drivers mentioned above. It shows that the event attracted big names in motor sports at the time, and indeed, it would continue in Jersey until 1952.
 
"Reginald Parnell (2 July 1911 - 7 January 1964)[1] was a racing driver and team manager from Derby, England. He participated in seven Formula One World Championship Grands Prix, achieving one podium, and scoring a total of nine championship points."
 
"Louis Alexandre Chiron (born 3 August 1899 in Monte Carlo, Monaco - died there on 22 June 1979) was a Grand Prix driver."
 
"Prince Birabongse Bhanudej Bhanubandh (born 15 July 1914 in Bangkok, Thailand; died 23 December 1985 in Barons Court Station, London), better known as Prince Bira of Siam (now Thailand) or by his nom de course B. Bira, was the only Thai racecar driver to race in Formula One."
 
"Peter Whitehead (12 November 1914, Menston - 21 September 1958, Lasalle, France) was a British racing driver from England. Whitehead was able to fund his racing largely through the family wealth, gained from the wool industry. fter World War II he participated in 12 World Championship Grands Prix, debuting on 2 July 1950."
 
"Raymond Mays CBE (1 August 1899 - 6 January 1980) was an auto racing driver and entrepreneur from Bourne, Lincolnshire, England. Mays was one of the principal people behind the development of the motor racing stables of English Racing Automobiles (ERA) and British Racing Motors (BRM). The workshops of each firm were established, in turn, behind his house in Bourne, in a building known as The Maltings. His lifelong ambition was to see his country succeed at the top level of international motor sport"
 
More details of the races and photos can be seen on the Island Wiki site at:
http://www.theislandwiki.org/?title=Jersey_International_Road_Race   
and I would refer the interested reader there.
 
As cars became progressively faster, it was no longer viable to hold races in Jersey. The speed of modern-day racing cars is considerable in excess of that of 1947.

Monty’s Baguette

A Jersey Deputy is branding the island a 'tax haven', which is "depriving the French Treasury of millions of Euros". Montfort Tadier made his comments to French newspaper Le Parisien. He said Jersey is full of "Sham Trusts", which "solely exist to allow people who don't live in Jersey to escape paying taxes in their own country". "The majority of other countries consider us a tax haven", he said. (CTV News)
 
I think Monty is mistaken when he says, in a CTV interview, that one article is not going to have damaging consequences, and (as an example is given), put a bank off from coming to make offices in Jersey.
 
I don't think it will have quite the effect that Gerald Ratner's sandwich joke will have, but that is a joke which illustrates very clearly how a few badly chosen phrases can cause a tsunami that sweeps everything in its path.
 
As is well know, in 1991, he was making a speech to 6,000 directors, when he made two jokes during the course of a 30 minute speech.
 
"We do cut-glass sherry decanters complete with six glasses on a silver-plated tray your butler can serve you drinks on, all for £4.95. People say how can you sell this for such a low price? I say because it is total crap."
 
"We even sell a pair of gold earrings for under £1, which is cheaper than a prawn sandwich from Marks & Spencer. But I have to say that the sandwich will probably last longer than the earrings."
 
Ratner's world fell apart, and share prices tumbled. He had in fact been making the same joke for years before. But the media got hold of this, and were persuing their own agenda against "fat cat" directors. The Daily Mirror made it a front headline cover, and not to be outdone, the Sun followed suit.
 
Within a matter of days, those few sentences had wiped an estimated £500m off the company's value and turned the profits into a £122m loss, and cost Ratner his job.
 
While not as spectacular, other businessmen have made off the cuff remarks which have damaged their own companies. Example can be found with Woolworths' Gerald Corbett, EMI's Alain Levy, and Barclays chief executive Matt Barrett.
 
So to say that one article is not going to cause considerable damage is very naïve. I certainly hope that it will not, but there is no doubt that it could do so. That kind of outcome has occurred in the past.
 
Montfort himself notes that the French article paraphrases what he says. He says he spoke of "tax avoidance", but in the article, the phrases is "tax evasion", which is illegal.

Let's be clear. The impression the interview in the French paper gives by using the phrase "tax evasion" is that Jersey is complicit in illegal actions which break French tax laws. That's not to say that aggressive tax avoidance doesn't happen, but that is a problem with exploiting loopholes in French tax laws, it is not Jersey saying put money here and you can evade your tax laws. It should be noted that the political scandal (with Jerome Cahuzac).in France is over tax evasion, not tax avoidance; one carries an automatic criminal penalty because it is tax fraud, one does not.
 
The paper obviously is trying to spice up the article, but that makes it very misleading, and potentially damaging. Montfort surely knows the difference, and it is an important difference. Perhaps he could put the record straight, with a letter to the newspaper in question. As it stands, it implies that Jersey is open to business as a locale for individuals wishing to commit tax fraud, which is certainly not the case, and should be corrected as soon as possible.
 
We do not want, after all, for a Tadier Baguette to follow in the same path as Ratner's sandwich.
 
One of the problems with statements like "depriving the French Treasury of millions of Euros", of course, is that they are inherently unprovable. Deputy Tadier could have said hundreds of millions of Euros, and the result would be the same. What we do not get is a calculation which works out exactly the figure involved; instead, we seem to have a figure plucked out of thin air.
 
Now it might be argued that it is impossible to get at the real figure because of the lack of transparency. That's a perfectly viable argument. But if you make that argument, you cannot then come up with a figure, because there can be no basis for accurately calculating that figure. On the other hand, if there are details, a calculation which gives us these millions of euros, let us see it.
 
It might be thought, and my detractors will certainly think, that I am being rather picky here. But part of the problem I find with politicians, and it is certainly not just from those on the left, is the fuzzy lack of detail, which often gets swept away with the rhetoric.
 
Deputy Tadier does has one ace up his sleeve. He cites in the interview with himself and Philip Ozouf on CTV a few cases of aggressive tax avoidance. So that can happen over here, as I think we have all realised, although it is really a case for the UK tax authorities to put their own house in order, as it exploits loopholes in UK tax law, not Jersey law.
 
But can we extrapolate from a few cases to a whole, and end up with millions of euros? I think not, because that involves too many assumptions to be made upon the way.
 
Let me give an analogy. The initial calculations on the witch craze and people put to death in the 16th and 17th century came from a relatively small number of cases. Multiplying this across towns and populations, a figure of around 9 million was reached. But that assumed an even spread of cases, and more detailed and painstaking historical research has revealed that not to be the case. As more places are studied in depth, they are removed from the initial multiplication, and the number in Europe has dropped to around 50,000 people put to death because of witchcraft. That is still a shocking figure, about half the present population of Jersey, but nowhere near as high.
 
That indicates the kind of problem faced with any calculations based on a few cases which have come out into the open.
 
So how can we get a handle on the quantity of data needed to make some kind of judgement? In late 2013,. HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) were handed a list of 4,388 people based in Britain who hold or have held HSBC Jersey bank accounts. This leaked out, and a few cases of aggressive tax avoidance were published in the UK National press. But there has been silence since. Perhaps the UK was biding its time for the recent agreement whereby they will automatically get that information, rather than making individual requests under TIEAs.
 
For the moment, however, there has been a deafening silence on that story. Is it just the handful of people outed by the National Papers in 2012, or is it more?  And if more, why haven't the UK papers, who have already had leaks relating to this material made any more about it. What one cannot legitimately do is to say that most of those people were avoiding tax; if anything, five months silence suggests that most of them were not.
 
I admire Monty's zeal in speaking out, but I wish he had thought a bit more before doing so. As a result, he has given misleading impression to the readers of the newspaper, partly because the paper paraphrased him - according to his own admission on CTV (and in so doing altered a crucial meaning), and he has given figures for which I have yet to see any detailed means of verifying. Both combined could well be very damaging to Jersey, and convey a very different impression.
 
What can be said on a constructive note? I'd say these things
 
1)      Jersey does not permit tax evasion – the flouting of tax laws that if discovered would put the perpetrator in prison.

2)      The introduction and signing of Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (Fatca) agreements by Jersey with the UK and the USA are an improvement of TIEAs and will help combat tax evasion.

3)      It is impossible to quantify the degree to which aggressive tax avoidance schemes remove money from foreign treasuries. One of the contributing factors (as highlighted by Private Eye) must surely be how large accountancy firms advice on their own jurisdictions tax regulations, and then use that knowledge to exploit loopholes. Removing that conflict of interests within the UK, for example, would reduce the likelihood of that occurring.

4)      The Jersey government does not approve of aggressive tax avoidance schemes (e.g. Jimmy Carr), but as they are not illegal, they may from time to time appear in the Island. Nevertheless the local finance industry is strongly encouraged by Jersey's Chief Minister not to particulate in such schemes, as they may cause reputational damage out of all proportion to their scale.

5)      The emergence of cases of aggressive tax avoidance (which are none the less legal) suggest that countries such as the UK and France need to tighten their tax laws, or schemes will appear not just in Jersey, but in other jurisdictions such as Singapore, the Cayman Islands etc., exploiting loopholes in UK and French tax laws The UK, for example is bringing in some kind of General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR) to target artificial and abusive tax avoidance schemes. Jersey welcomes such provisions.

 

Future Shock

Do you remember Alvin Toffler's book "Future Shock"? I was browsing old copies of the Pilot from the 1970s at the Library, and came across this article by the Bishop of Winchester, John V Taylor, on the subject. What he says still seems very fresh and relevant today as it did back then. The pace of change has, if anything, accelerated. Of course, the dark side of change is now also with us - the cheap labour in foreign countries supporting our own economies, and the trough of a deep recession, but gadgets still seem to be coming out with more features. And there is also the treat of climate change, of a violent disruptive weather that is a changer from the more settled weather of the past.

What I particular like is his analysis of how the pace of change has caused a fundamental alteration in how people understand their lives, and the old way of understanding cause and effect has been ruptured by this change. It is like a swiftly flowing stream of Heraclitus - "Everything changes and nothing remains still ... and ... you cannot step twice into the same stream" - and while we still have the past with us, the future changes also change our own mindset. The recent Referendum showed this in microcosm. No one wanted the more settled option, and some wanted very radical change. It is interesting that in Tim Nash's interview in the JEP about China, they value antiquity far more than we do. But as China changes into a major industrial power, will they lose that as they face the pressures of change?

Of course, the past is not always good; sometimes, as John Taylor points out, it can be a straightjacket, when we get caught up in patterns of behaviour that can be destructive. It is almost as if the patterns take control, rather like when you take a particular turning without thinking because it is the usual way you go, and has become almost automatic. So change is not always bad, sometimes it is necessary. Wisdom lies in knowing what change to accept, and what should be treated with caution.

Future Shock
By The Bishop of Winchester (Dr. John Taylor)
From "The Pilot", 1972
THEY CALL IT `FUTURE SHOCK'. In a book with that title many features of our present state of mind are analysed -- the instability of society, the violence, the failure of communication between the generations, the irresponsibility of our economic behaviour, the search for short-lived heroes and leaders, the experimenting with anew cults and forms of mysticism. These are symptoms, it appears, of man's inability to keep up with the pace of change.

We cannot simply call a halt to change. Technology is self-propagating. The more we can do through the application of science, the more rapidly we discover other things we can do. The more we know, the more quickly we can push back the boundaries of our knowledge.

They say that as many new `discoveries' have been made in the last fifteen years as were made in the previous 250 years. Most of us have not heard of them, and if we had we could not understand them, yet they are already affecting our lives.

Side by side with the invention explosion is the better known population explosion. In the 1960's we began to face that as a fact of statistics; today we are actually feeling it as a physical reality changing our landscape. Basingstoke explodes from 18,000 to 80,000. New motorways are already becoming so congested that we have to plan more and bigger ones. `More and bigger' is the cry affecting our farming policies, our transport and distribution industries, our programmes of higher education, our housing needs, our hospitals, our prisons. And all the time our compassion is stirred by the cry from poorer parts of the world where the explosion of numbers is much more drastic.

With luck the invention explosion may match the new needs created by the population explosion. But in any case more and bigger changes are inevitable in every direction we can think of. No wonder we are losing our nerve both as individuals and as a society. The speed of change "forces man to question everything : as never before he feels the agent, even builder, of his own destiny, yet at the same time he feels himself to be almost an atom lost in the unmeasured galaxies."

That is a quotation from a book of meditations by Carlo Carretto called The God Who Comes, which I strongly recommend. I shall be quoting from it again this Rosewindow. One reason why we are thrown off balance when change becomes so rapid is that we are accustomed to having our lives affected much more by the past than by the future.

That seems to be a more natural experience if we live in a world that obeys the laws of cause and effect. We have all grown up believing that what happens to me now is happening because something else happened before. I am short of eggs this morning because I forgot it was early closing yesterday afternoon. But the daffodils are cheering me up just outside the window because I planted new bulbs last autumn. My young friend cannot get the job he wants because he did not work hard enough at school to get his `A' levels. But the reason why be wasted his time at school is that his parents' marriage was breaking up just then. And that was almost inevitable because of what happened to them both in the war-and, speaking of wars, Northern Ireland is locked in conflict today because of what English and Scots and Irish did in the nineteenth century, or the seventeenth, or the fourteenth.

Cause and effect means that the present is given to us by the past. `Now' is the product of `then'.

Sometimes that is a very reassuring thought. We feel that steady, dependable flow of time through history to the present day. We are the heirs of a great heritage. In the echoing spaces of Winchester Cathedral we who find prayer difficult, almost impossible perhaps, are buoyed up by the faith and worship of many earlier generations. And among the ancient oaks of a New Forest glade we feel we are more in touch with our own roots as human beings than we can be in the suburbs of Southampton. The backward look can, in fact, be so comforting that we use it as a form of escape from responsibility.

And yet the backward look can also be an imprisonment. The chain of cause and effect can bind us in a determinism that robs us of all freedom. If I am what I am because of my place in society, my background, my childhood, my heredity, my race, what hope have I of becoming anything else? What hopes have my children? If the past causes me, then I am not to be blamed, and I have not a chance of doing anything about it. That argument lets me off the hook completely. It is another form of escape from responsibility.

Cause and effect, combined with irresponsibility, produced Good Friday. That frightful event was just as inevitably the fruit of the previous histories of Jerusalem and Rome as Northern Ireland today is the fruit of attitudes and decisions in past centuries. Judas and Caiaphas and Pilate behaved as they did because their own personal past had made them what they were. When the crunch came they one and all refused to be responsible. Caiaphas manoeuvred Pilate into making the decision, Pilate tried to pass the buck to Herod, Herod deftly passed it back. Pilate put the blame on the Jewish people, the crowd thrust it back on him. Their total moral failure that day flowed inexorably out of the past of the whole human race and none of them knew what he was doing.

Jesus alone was a free man and took responsibility upon himself. So one might say that his death was the final effect of all past causes. All history converged upon the Cross and with the words "It is finished" Christ cut the entail of the past. His death was truly the end of all things.

But Easter Day was a new beginning for all things, a new creation.

And creation is the only kind of happening which has no cause. It is not the effect of anything but God's Will. The resurrection of Jesus from the dead was an event which did not come out of the past. It came out of the future, given fresh and uncaused from the hand of God. The resurrection, therefore, put the flow of time in reverse for anyone who chooses to commit his whole trust to the Risen Christ and live by his power. To those who live in the power of that resurrection. `now' is a gift from the future, not a product from the past and time flows towards us from out in front, not from behind. Even that, is too impersonal a way of saying it. It is truer to Christian experience to say that God is coming towards us and life is the gift he brings, new every morning. The life we now live is the life of the world to come-the life of the world that is coming into being because God is creating it. This is what Carlo Carretto expresses most movingly in his book :

"God is always coming, and we, like Adam, hear His footsteps.
God is always coming because He is life, and life has the unbridled force of creation.
God comes because He is light, and light may not remain hidden.
God comes because He is love, and love needs to give itself. God has always been coming. God is always coming...

This evening I saw backwards a million years, ten thousand centuries. The pale light of the nebula which reached my eye this evening, left there a million years ago at the speed of 187,000 miles per second. From that time, and doubtless from before then, God has been coming to meet me...

It is a long time since God set out to come to me, a time I was not yet born. Neither had the sun nor the moon nor the earth nor my history nor my problems been born."
That, surely, is an antidote to `future shock'. For what are the changes that shake us in our tiny span of time compared with the birth of new suns and the explosion of planetary systems? Yet those gigantic `events' are held in the grasp of the God who comes to us, as Person seeking and meeting person. That is the truth expressed in the poetry of the Book of Revelation : `He had in his right hand seven stars ... and he laid his right hand upon me, saying, Fear not; I am the first and the last and the Living One. I was dead and behold I am alive for evermore.'

During Holy Week the congregations related to the Team Ministry in Basingstoke were led this year in a series of meetings, at various times and in many different centres, all focussed on the theme "Living today for the day after tomorrow". That is much more responsible and realistic than living a day at a time. For it recognises the speed of change. It takes account of the fact that "the day after tomorrow" will be different from today without being unnerved by it. Those who live today for the sake of the day after tomorrow are the ones who refuse to be helpless victims of uncontrollable developments, but insist on planning creatively, taking risks, making decisions without the paralysing fear of making mistakes. Such people are going to make sure that the future will not be catastrophic but creative-creative because it is the gift of a loving Creator who has never allowed things to get `out of hand'. They may even lay down their own lives for the sake of that future and that God.

For living today for the day after tomorrow is what Jesus did supremely, and quite literally, on Good Friday. "For the joy that was set before him he endured the cross . . ."-and that joy was realised on the day after tomorrow, Easter Day. We, too, will have to endure much -perhaps a cross of some kind-for the sake of that joy and that future, but in doing so we shall be living, and enabling others to live, here and now, the life of the world that is coming.

1932 Guide Book to the Channel Islands: Mont Orgueil Castle

A few more extracts from the 1932 Guide Book to the Channel Islands are given below. This was a kind of "Bradshaw" for the Channel Islands, telling visitors where to go, and what to see.

A note on currency - the admission fee of 6d for Gorey Castle, 6 pence in pre-decimal money would be worth about £1.43 today, which shows that the price of admission to the castle has gone up more steeply than inflation! For those who are unaware, on 15 February 1971, the UK and Ireland the Channel Islands decimalised their currencies. Before that date, there were pounds, shillings and pence, with the abbreviation of "d" and not "p" for pence. Sixpence would be 6d, or half a shilling, and there was a small circular coin. A shilling was 12 pence (12d), and 20 shillings made a pound. There were also half-pennies and farthings (1/4 of a penny). Under the decimal system, by contrast, there were 100 pence (100p) to a pound.

It's a different world in 1932, where there are guides to take you around, and you should give them a small tip. It's not stated what that that tip
should be! Notice that the only way to Gouray was by motor transport, the Eastern railway had closed in 1929, unlike the Jersey Western Railway which would survive until a catastrophic fire at St Aubin in 1936.

1932 Guide Book to the Channel Islands: Mont Orgueil Castle

Access from St. Helier by motor to Gorey Pier.

Admission, sixpence, Open every weekday from 8 a.m. to sunset (in winter from 10 am) and after 2 on Sundays, but the guide is not in attendance after 5 o'clock, except in the height of the season. The fees are devoted to the maintenance of the fabric. Visitors are conducted round by guides, who expect a small tip. On the first Thursday of October, November, December, January, February, March and April, the Castle is open free, but there are no guides. Certain reserved portions can be seen on application to the warder.

The Castle is the most cherished of Jersey's ancient monuments, and in 1905 the States gladly accepted an offer from the Crown by which it was vested in them.

The old fortress stands on a projecting headland of rock at the northern extremity of Grouville Bay, and attains in its loftiest part a height of 310
feet above sea-level. Its position commands all the east coast of the island.

The building was begun in the tenth century by the Dukes of Normandy and their work was continued by the Kings of England. It was originally called Castellum de Gurrit, and later Gouray Castle, until, if tradition may be relied upon, the reign of Henry V, when it received from the Duke of Clarence the title of Mont Orgueil, a common name for a strong fort at that period.

The student of military architecture will find in Mont Orgueil an interesting specimen of the development of an early Norman Castle into a Tudor fortress. In the thirteenth century, when the Castle was complete, it consisted of the keep (smaller than it is to-day), a middle ward and an outer ward. These wards were surrounded by the usual round towers and curtain walls. Most of these remain and form the key for the picture of the Castle as it was in its origin.

When cannon came into vogue, the defenders of the fortress had to adapt their defences to the exigencies of a changed warfare. They raised the curtains, built through the beautiful round towers, and established the huge batteries as we see them to-day.

The present area of the Castle covers a little over two acres. On the south-east, or seawards, it is inaccessible.

The first entrance was protected by a drawbridge, replaced a few years ago. Commanding this entrance is Harliston's Tower, erected between 1473 and 1483, by Sir Richard Harliston, Governor of Jersey, who had recovered the Castle from the French in 1466, as described later.

A few paces down the pathway in the outer ward, the skew-back of the vaulted roof of its original guard-house may be seen and the grooves of the portcullis.

The second gateway is of the twelfth century, and also possessed a drawbridge and portcullis. Through the arch we pass into the lower ward, and here, before arriving at the third gateway, we notice some interesting machicolated fortifications. The third gateway (Tudor period and possibly later) is called the Queen's Gate. An inscription above commemorates Queen Victoria's visit to the Castle in 1846.

Ascending some steps, we arrive at the fourth gateway (temp. Queen Elizabeth). Over this entrance are the Royal arms, with the Paulet and Norreys arms on either side. Amias Paulet, the keeper, of Mary, Queen of Scots, was Governor of Jersey.

On the royal escutcheon it will be noticed one of the supporters is a dragon instead of the unicorn with which we are now familiar. The former was introduced by Henry VII, the first of the Tudors, who claimed descent from Cadwallader, the last king of the Britons, whose ensign bore a dragon. The unicorn was introduced by James I.

The tower in which this gateway was inserted at the Tudor period is of much older date. Some parts are twelfth century; other portions later.

From this gate we arrive at the Middle Ward, right under the Keep, where a path across grass on the right leads to the Crypt of St. George's Chapel (twelfth-century). The crypt has been rebuilt by the States.

By continuing to ascend the steps one soon has on the left the doorway of the chamber in which is the Well. At the top of the steps is the granite arch of the entrance to the Keep, embellished with mouldings of animals. It is an insertion, and is contemporary with the building of the great walls encircling the ancient Keep, having been erected, as a tablet over the gateway testifies, in 1337. In the Keep is the Crypt of St. Mary's Chapel (twelfth-century). Connected with it is a cell for ecclesiastical prisoners. The Chapel was for the private use of the Governors. It has been much injured, having been converted into a kitchen. Only one original lancet window remains.

Adjoining the chapel are the residential rooms of the Governor. The various storeys of the Keep are connected by a spiral stone staircase. The uppermost battery of the Keep is known as the Mount, or Somerset Towers, having been built during the governorship of the Duke of Somerset.

The Castle was besieged in 1373 by the famous Bertrand du Guesclin, Constable of France, but he only succeeded in capturing the outer defences. The Keep was impregnable. But the fortress was destined to fall into foreign hands nearly a hundred years later. In 1460 Queen Margaret appears to have made overtures to the French to cede Jersey in consideration of a force being sent to the succour of her party in the English wars. The French King granted the Island to Pierre de Breze, Comte de Maulevrier, and through the connivance of the Governor of the Castle, the fortress was seized by the French, who held it for six years.

It was re-taken by Admiral Harliston in conjunction with Philip de Carteret, the Seigneur of St. Ouen, who collected a force to invest it by land while the admiral invested it by sea. When the siege had lasted five and a half months, the starving garrison surrendered. They were allowed to march out with the honours of war, and were then transported to France.

During the Civil War of the seventeenth century, Sir Philip de Carteret, who was both Lieutenant-Governor and Bailiff, took the side of the King. He appointed his wife chatelaine of Mont Orgueil, while he himself conducted the defence of Elizabeth Castle. He died while thus engaged in 1643. His wife died in the following year. In 1651 Blake and General Haynes, as recorded in connection with Elizabeth Castle, obtained Mont Orgueil with little trouble.

In olden times, and until a prison was built in St. Helier, Mont Orgueil was used as the island prison. During the great rebellion it served as a State prison. William Prynne, the Puritan, was imprisoned here from 1637 to 1640; the cell he occupied is shown.

While here he wrote " Mount Orgueil, or Divine and Profitable Meditations raised from the contemplation of these three leaves of Nature's Volume-1, Rockes ; 2, Seas ; 3, Gardens."

It will be recalled that William Prynne became recorder of Bath in the reign of Charles I, and represented the city in three parliaments. For lampooning players and playgoers, and casting a reflection on the virtue of the queen, he was sentenced by the Star Chamber to lose his ears, to stand in the pillory, to pay a fine of £5,000 and to be imprisoned for life. For a second pamphlet written in prison he was again sentenced to the pillory, to lose what remained of his ears, and to pay a further £5,000. While at Mont Orgueil he gained the friendship of Sir Philip Carteret and his family, by whom he was treated more as a guest than as a prisoner.

From the top of the Castle on a clear day the coast of France can be distinctly seen. The guide will point out Carteret, the spire of Coutances
Cathedral a short distance inland, and, under very favourable atmospheric conditions, Mont St. Michel.

A finely preserved dolmen lies to the north of Mont Orgueil, and is noted below.

To return to St. Helier by the shortest route (41 miles), the road leading inland from Gorey village should be taken to the main St. Martin's Road. Turn to left, and proceed past Prince's Tower and Five Oaks village.

The Jersey Way

In England during the Second World War, there was a phrase "careless talk costs lives". What brought it to mind was some of the closing remarks of the discussion led by Jonathan Scott at CHOW this Wednesday. I'll return to that later.

CHOW is "Church House on Wednesday", and it is Business Connect's regular, informal theological discussion forum. As the website says "Our intent is to create a mid-week open conversation with an atmosphere of welcome, friendship, honesty and the sharing of ideas."

I'd not been to one of those before as it is quite a route march from our offices to the Church House, but the title "The Jersey Way" was an obviously intriguing one. In fact, as I looked round the tables, I saw some familiar faces - Deputy Montfort Tadier, Bob Hill, Mike Dun, Nick Le Cornu - who had also seen this as an intriguing title.

The talk itself, and some of the discussion questions can be found at:

businessconnect.je/chow/item/engaging-with-the-jersey-way.html

Jonathan Scott, verger at the Town Church, who is soon to be an ordinand in training in the Anglican Church, led the discussions, posing questions, and asking the various tables. The format, I gather, is for informal discussion brought together like this, and a small donation can be made, and there is soup, buttered bread, and some fruit to eat.

It centred, not unnaturally, on the church. He pointed out two dangers, opposing each other.

One was the church in Jersey becoming so much a part of the culture, so that it became invisible, unable to be any kind of countercultural force, and a reflection of the status quo. As an example, he cited paper, which was once rare in China, but which we don't give a second thought to now; it is just a medium for print that we take for granted, an invisible part of our culture

The other was the church becoming so counter-cultural that it failed to engage or speak in any meaningful way with the culture; it would be withdrawn to a ghetto. He gave as an analogy the mini-disk, which in its day was very popular, but then fell out of fashion when MP3 players came along, and became a collector's piece.

And as a model, he gave Jesus, who both engaged with his culture and criticised it.

It was interesting that some of the responses varied. One person thought that the church should not engage in social justice or political matters, it was to change individual's lives, and this in turn would change society. And on the other hand, Montfort Tadier pointed out how Jesus way of approaching people was in healing and acts of compassion; he mentioned the lame and the lepers.

There was also a question about whether the church should be too much swayed in Jersey by the fact that clergy sat on Parish Committees, the Parish paid for upkeep of Parish Churches, and the Dean sat in the States. Was it perhaps too cosy? Was the church too established?

I can see how the notion of an "established church" can look very much like something upholding and supporting the status quo. But establishment can also mean, as I heard Mark Bond, Rector of St Brelade say on last Sunday, that the Rector is there for the whole Parish, every person in it, whether Anglican, atheist or whatever. It can be seen as an opportunity to be open and inclusive, there for everyone. Sanctuary House can also be seen as example of that kind of initiative.

That's like the Jersey Parish Churches, which are in the day open so that anyone can go in quietly, look around, sit, pray, meditate, light a candle - it is making a space for anyone and that is outside of church services, and again an opportunity for people; it is a marked contrast to churches in, for instance, Southampton, where most of the churches are locked up and closed except for Sunday services.

As someone who likes to view the margins of the church, I think that is important, and I'll explore that in more depth in a later posting; for now, it suffices to say that while "establishment" can be a dirty word, and carry baggage with it, it need not be.

Literature shows this clearly. While the clergy of Anthony Trollope's Barchester novels are for the most part very worldly in their behaviour, the Reverend Septimus Harding is not. He is the counterpoint, the man who does the right thing and will not be dissuaded by his friends, however well meaning they are. He is as much part of the establishment as they are, but is a sign that it has not all been corrupted by the surrounding culture.

In Les Miserables, Jean Valjean is sentenced to the galleys. There is a priest there, and he is an establishment lackey, telling Jean Valjean to obey the authorities and accept his lot, however unjust it is. By contrast the Bishop, whom Jean Valjean encounters, gives shelter, makes no demands, and protects him when the police drag Valjean back with the stolen silver plates.

So establishment is a contested word, and while it can and often does mean too great an assimilation to society, it can also mean opportunities for changing that society, and for speaking truth to power within that society. It can be reclaimed and paradoxically, those who are part of the established culture are more likely to be heard if they take a stand against it for justice. They know how to speak the language in a way that will be heard.

But there is in a small society, a fear of being ostracised, of being shut out in the cold, kept on the margins. That is something that came up at the end of the talk, when Jonathan Scott mentioned how he felt a certain amount of fear about how something on "The Jersey Way", which might be seen as critical of Jersey, would be taken.

And Ed Le Quesne mentioned one church to me which has a big bold banner saying they were not supporting Christian Aid in Christian Aid Week. The reason? Christian Aid had spoken out for tax transparency and was critical of places where there seemed to be insufficient transparency, in which places, they numbered (among others), Jersey.

Be critical, and you can't expect any more charity from us was their message, loud and clear. And alongside that goes a certain attitude that one sees in letters to the paper, in comments on Facebook, and so on. Don't speak out about injustice. Don't rock the boat. Don't wash the Island's dirty linen in public. Don't be a wrecker.

Of course, it doesn't help that some of the people who do speak out come across as rather intemperate, belligerent, with a rhetoric that sometimes obscures more than it reveals. Overblown phrases - "crypto fascist oligarchy" springs to mind - are problematic because they don't engage with the public either. It becomes two groups of people essentially throwing bricks at each other, and that isn't helpful either. Or to take a church metaphor, two people each trading insults from their respective pulpits. I can see quite a lot of that around.

Yet part of the "Jersey Way" can be seen as a concern with reputation, which is understandable, but which should not come with a price tag of silence. Careless talk costs reputations? Perhaps there is sometimes too much concern for reputation, and too little for truth. Truth should not stumble in the public square.

The Mirror of Justice

It is May day today, or Beltane today.

Beltane or Beltain is the Gaelic May Day festival. Most commonly it is held on 30 April-1 May, or halfway between the spring equinox and the summer solstice. It was observed in Ireland, Scotland and the Isle of Man. In Irish it is Bealtaine , in Scottish Gaelic Bealltainn and in Manx Gaelic Boaltinn or Boaldyn. It is one of the four Gaelic seasonal festivals; along with Samhain, Imbolc and Lughnasadh.

The theme of this poem is Beltane fire, and is linked with the idea of justice as a consuming fire (which eagle eyed readers may spot draws upon Isaiah as well).

The Mirror of Justice

The Beltane fires burning bright
Here is scorching heat and light
As above, the sun grows strong
Days of Spring becoming long
The mirror of justice now behold
As Sun at Beltane does enfold.

We celebrate the heat of the sun,
Its consuming fire now just begun
The sun burns hot and very bright
As heat of the sun grows in might
So let justice burn within us now
A flame for righteousness we vow.

Just as straw is set on fire by spark
So a powerful people lost to dark
By their own evil deeds will be lost
Destroyed, for that is justice cost
Burns like a forest fire with smoke
Like a hollow, rotten, burning oak.

The wickedness of the people burns
Like a fire, that blows and turns
Destroys thorn bushes, thistles
Justice ends in false dismissals
Fire will burn, for justice, soon
And no evil will remain immune.

The axe is ready to cut the trees
At the roots, the moment seize
Every tree without good fruit
Will be cut down, of ill repute
Thrown onto consuming fire
This is the end of false desire.

Now is the time for vigilance
For justice comes, not in silence
But a raging fire in front of him
And a furious storm around him
This will be the judgement day
When injustice will have no say.