Wednesday, 18 June 2008

Now you have 2 choices...

Now you have 2 choices.

1. Delete this email, or
2. Forward it to people you care about including me.
I hope that you will choose No. 2


This is a new kind of spam, usually with some Chicken Food for the Soul tales tagged onto it. It uses people's own innate kindness "(including me") to trick the recipient into forwarding it onwards.

Here is a heartwarming story at:

http://gssq.blogspot.com/2001_11_01_archive.html

I saw a Malay girl reading "Chicken Soup for the Single's Soul". The whole thing has gone from stupid to ridiculous. There are editions for the Pet Lover's Soul, the Golfer's Soul ("Oh no! I didn't score a hole in one. My hole in one insurance was wasted", or, I drove it into a lake. Grr.), and who knows what else. I hope David Fisher will come out with "Chicken Shit for the Soul 3" soon (I much prefer the original title of the first - Chicken Poop for the Soul. Nicer ring).

If you have been touched by this, please don't fill endless friends email with junk that heads around and around the internet. Just delete anything like that!

For a cure, also read

Art Deal and Lee Blowman, business professors at Blunderbuss University and the authors of a best-selling business book that's become the bible of this burgeoning movement, Lead 'Em With Soul and They'll Follow You Anywhere. Hundreds of executives are already using the principles in this book, and they swear by it.

http://cosmicconnie.blogspot.com/2006/12/lead-em-with-soul.html

also

Any book that pokes a big, fat hole in the self-important, self-help BS that is the CHICKEN SOUP FOR THE SOUL franchise automatically lands on my good side. Brian M. Thomsen's parody PASTA FAZOOL FOR THE WISEGUY'S SOUL: HEARTWARMING STORIES OF "FAMILY" LIFE may be a few years too late, but at least it shows up its source material as the feel-good false sentiment that it is. The humor anthology imagines the life lessons within were imparted to Thomsen by wiseguy Don Minestrone, such as waiting for the love of a good woman (one other than your wife, of course) and why Pacino beats De Niro, noquestionaboutit. Those who enjoy mafia stereotypes will find it amusing, but I think it works better simply as kind of a memoir for a mob man in his twilight years. So what if he doesn't really exist.


Books of the post:

Chicken Shit for the Soul by David Fisher

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chicken-Shit-Soul-David-Fisher/dp/0752218883/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213786012&sr=1-1


Chicken Shit for the Soul 2: More Droppings - Hilarious Tales Guaranteed to Bring Joy to the Cynic in All of Us - A Parody by David Fisher

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0740772309/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Pasta Fazool for the Wiseguy's Soul: Heartwarming Stories of Family Life (Paperback)
by Brian M. Thomsen (Author)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chicken-Shit-Soul-Droppings-Guaranteed/dp/0752218913

Turning a Deaf Ear

Odd that Senator Walker should have said "There is no legal dispute in Las Vegas", later on in the debate, Mike Jackson contradicts this with precise information, and later Senator Walker denies any court case. Didn't he listen to Mike Jackson? How was Mike Jackson more informed than Senator Walker?
Perhaps that's one of those questions Senator Walker could ask?
Can I emphasise… first of all let me say: "Here we go again", any excuse to get a reference back and to delay taking a decision. But the Deputy did mislead the House in his earlier speeches. There is no legal dispute in Las Vegas. Has there been an issue between Harcourt and one of their proposed partners in Las Vegas? Yes. Has there been a legal suit on the back of it? No.
..........

The Connétable of St. Brelade:

On a point of clarification, Sir, the court case was filed on 30th April this year.

...........

Senator F.H. Walker:

I am sorry, but I do have to re-emphasise the factual nature of the position in Las Vegas. No legal motion has been filed in Las Vegas involving Harcourt in this development and I think the Deputy is again at severe risk of misleading the House

One Angry Man

I heard an angry man on the radio today. Senator Walker was back, speaking in a very low voice (has he been taking lessons in media presentation) saying that he was extremely angry, he had not knowingly mislead the house, he had not been briefed about Las Vegas at the time, and his opponents were making political capital out of it in election year.

This is the second time I've heard the last kind of comment. Harcourt's Pat Doherty said that some members of the States were "politicising" matters, which presumably means much the same. It is a slur which may be true, after all it is election year, but which equally could be false.

If every time someone criticises someone on the basis of argument or fact, they are accused of making political capital, then debates would be stifled.

The kind of argument involved is called "ad hominem" and it involves attacking - not the merits of your opponent's position - but their motivation. It is known logical fallacy, but one beloved of politicians because it is a cheap and easy way of getting out of trouble. I would expect a chief minister to be above such matters, but evidently he is not.

Let us give Mr Walker the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was not in possession of the facts about Harcourt (and trusted them at face value on reassurances about Las Vegas).

What about the other matters he brushed aside: the debts carried by the company, and its financial robustness?

Now the motion of censure which is being brought by Geoff Southern notes that
http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/documents/propositions/49270-12820-1662008.htm

The essential material that was missing from the debate consists of 2 reports, as follows –

The PricewaterhouseCoopers Report (PwC) "Harcourt Developments Limited Financial Capacity Assessment: Draft report for discussion", presented to WEB September 2007. This document was released to members after the debate had concluded.

Report of the Economic Adviser to the Council of Ministers on the Economic impact of the proposals for the development of the Waterfront, February 2006

The PwC Report

Members learned on 10th June that the Chief Minister was unaware of the contents of the PwC report before the debate –

"This (the PwC report) was a confidential report and I do not believe that the Chief Minister would have been made aware of the content …… I do not believe he was aware of the content of the report until after the conclusion of the debate last week"

Following the release of this report after the debate had concluded, members were able to read the crucial assessment in Section 2.2 of the ratio of company turnover (A) to peak annual construction cost (B) as a means to test whether a particular development is likely to overstretch a partner. A ratio (A/B) of 5:1 is suggested as suitable. The table below this statement shows a figure of only 1.41:1, and the final test comment is Fail.

In Appendix D, the Evaluation Proforma, which was included in the report accompanying P.60/2008, gearing is not described as "low". In the section entitled 'Review of the Financial Position', whilst it is accepted that gearing levels are in line with the range generally observed for property development companies, the gearing levels are described as "substantial" and "significant".

Also, in the Review of Solvency, PwC point out the predominantly short-term nature of the Group's debt, with only €59 million (14.6%) out of €405 million being repayable in more than one year. Furthermore, in the Review of financial performance, PwC note also the increasing debt position of the company and the way in which gross profits are swallowed up by debt repayments

And yet as we can see from Frank Walker's own words (see below)

"I would refer the House to something I referred to in my speech yesterday, the PricewaterhouseCoopers financial capacity audit which confirmed that Harcourt are low geared, very well placed particularly since the subprime crisis, very well placed because of the capital available to them and their low gearing to undertake this development"

Now - either he did know the results of the PWC report, in which case he evidently was not presenting it fairly and honestly - or he did not know the results of the reports, in which case he should not have given a personal confirmation, but said instead "I have been advised that the PWC reports..." and made it clear that he had not read it.

Either way, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that he did knowingly mislead the house either by presenting a false précis of the report, or by presenting himself as privy to the information in that report when in fact that was not the case, and he should have clarified his ignorance (which was nowhere in evidence in his statement to the House).

I don't see that he has a right to be angry about that, and if I were asking many questions which he said must now be asked, mine would be to ask about

the Chief Minister for not providing full and accurate information to the Assembly in relation to the financial and economic considerations during the debate on the Esplanade Quarter Masterplan and, in the absence of such information, for misleading the Assembly about the financial analysis of the proposed developer

which happens to be the proposition for the motion of censure, and given the evidence from the Hansard transcripts, I do not see that this is making "political capital" but asking a reasonable question.

So no more "making political capital" jibes please, Senator Walker!

Ad hominem attacks are often used in a debate or discussion where the speaker wishes to avoid the substance of the discussion and instead resorts to smearing the character of their opponent.
It is considered a logical fallacy and is one of the modes of spreading propaganda.




Deputy Gerard Baudains

Another issue the Chief Minister raised yesterday, Sir, was the fact that apparently we had had various checks done on the preferred developer for financial robustness and gearing and that sort of thing and I have to ask, I hope in his summing up the Minister will address whether this was done before or after the subprime crisis, Sir? I would like to ask him why, for instance, we have not been told that the company apparently 18 months ago owed its bankers 345 million euros? ..Why were Members not told that last month the firm that we are about to deal with was actioned in Las Vegas in a billion dollar lawsuit, which may be highly relevant to our proposition, Sir, because the lawsuit alleges breach of contract, a failure to… [Interruption] I thought I was speaking.

Senator F.H. Walker:
The Deputy is misleading the States. There has been and there is no lawsuit in Las Vegas.

Senator F.H. Walker:
Can I emphasise… first of all let me say: "Here we go again", any excuse to get a reference back and to delay taking a decision. But the Deputy did mislead the House in his earlier speeches. There is no legal dispute in Las Vegas. Has there been an issue between Harcourt and one of their proposed partners in Las Vegas? Yes. Has there been a legal suit on the back of it? No. Has the partner or the former partner invested any money in the scheme? No. It is purely a Harcourt financial deal and to suggest that there is a legal suit is quite, quite misleading. In terms of due diligence, the ruler has been run over Harcourt so thoroughly on so many occasions and they have come up A1 in every instance. I would refer the House to something I referred to in my speech yesterday, the PricewaterhouseCoopers financial capacity audit which confirmed that Harcourt are low geared, very well placed particularly since the subprime crisis, very well placed because of the capital available to them and their low gearing to undertake this development

Tuesday, 17 June 2008

The Day of the Lukewarm Apology

I know what you have done; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. How I wish you were either one or the other! But because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I am going to spit you out of my mouth! (Rev 3:15-16)

The BBC has a report on the Wendy Kinnard affair, as does the JEP:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/jersey/7459001.stm

"Senator withdraws detention order.

Jersey's home affairs minister has withdrawn an order on detaining suspects that have not been charged. It was reported the order would give the police powers to indefinitely detain suspects without charge. Senator Wendy Kinnard said that was not the case, but has withdrawn it anyway after objections by States members. She insisted that the order made on 5 June was a "minor change" to the law on detention and police would not have powers to detain indefinitely. "

The JEP notes that she says:

"I apologise to Members and the public for the concern that has been caused by the misinterpretation of the effect of the order and the way in which it entered the public domain."

In other words, I don't really apologise at all. It is all the fault of the nasty lawyers and policemen who misinterpreted it (and who clearly stated that to the JEP), and whatever nameless individual failed to check it before it was released.

Why can't we ever have an honest apology? I made a mistake, and I realise now that the poor wording made misinterpretation highly probably, and I am sorry I didn't see that. The buck stops here.

But "I made a mistake" or even "I apologise to Members and the public for my mistake..." is not something that local politicians seem able to do easily.

Here is Senator Jim Perchard

I would like to apologise to Deputy Baudains and to the House for making statements which were unintentionally misleading during the debate on the Esplanade Quarter last week. I made those statements in good faith, as I thought the information I had was correct at the time I addressed the Assembly. Since it transpired that this information was out of date and therefore incorrect, I would like to apologise unreservedly.

Now look at what he had said:

"The claims are completely false. They are a reputable company and I urge the states to ignore the slight placed on them by Deputy Baudains. We have at WEB taken these rumours seriously and we have doubled-checked and got PwC to do checks"

It would be nice if he not only apologised for making statements about Harcourt, but also the manner in which he made them, and the slight (to use his own terms) by which he denigrated Deputy Baudains personally.

As G.K. Chesterton once said:

A stiff apology is a second insult. The injured party does not want to be compensated because he has been wronged; he wants to be healed because he has been hurt.

But all the apologising we get nowadays is half-hearted and lukewarm.

It reminds me of a sullen child, caught out by his parents or teachers, mouthing the words while he doesn't really mean them. It is really an excuse dressed up as an apology.

The website
http://www.mannersmith.com/resources/issue.cfm?id=8
has a good deal to say about apologies.

Consider it the next time a politician stands up and says - "I apologise..."



http://www.mannersmith.com/resources/issue.cfm?id=8

Fake Apologies

The Boomerang Apology ~ This apology is characterized by twisting words so that the apologizer ends up blaming the apologizee. These apologies sound something like "I am sorry you feel that way." I am not sure where this type of apology originated, but blaming the apologizee only serves to defeat the purpose of why you are apologizing in the first place.

The Apology Excuse ~ This apology is characterized by the apologizer stating a reason to justify the situation. These apologies sound something like "I am sorry, but..." In this scenario, the apologizer uses excuses to justify and rationalize a behavior they knew was wrong when they did it.

The Confusion Excuse ~ This apology is characterized by the apologizer attempting to make the apologizee second guess themselves and the situation. These apologies sound something like "I am sorry, you must have misheard me." With so many of us overloaded with information, we do start to second-guess ourselves, even when we are fairly sure we heard right the first time.

The "Not-It" Excuse ~ This apology is characterized by the apologizer blaming something (or someone) else for the situation. These apologies do not even attempt to use the words "I'm sorry," and sound something like "Well, you know, it is not my fault..." This type of apology is commonly heard when dealing with someone who was supposed to provide goods or services.

True Apologies

In order for an apology to be a true apology it must be sincere and the apologizer must feel at least a small amount of guilt for either the situation or the apologizee's feelings.

For further reading:

Accounts, Excuses, and Apologies: A Theory of Image Restoration Strategies (Suny Sieres in Speech Communication) (Paperback) by William L. Benoit (Author)

Time of Night

Midnight, the shadows creep in;

An ancient darkness, an evil sin,

Stalking across, in shades of grey,

As dusk settles, the end of the day:

The light cannot exist without dark;

Birdsong ceasing, sleep for the lark,

As the denizens of the night prepare,

For their dominion, a land of fear;

Moonlight falling on gravestones,

Beneath the earth, the restless bones,

Far from blessed hallowed ground,

Silent these years, made no sound;

Deep in the cellars, buried deep,

Bones with a secret still to keep;

They do not sleep easily this night,

Buried so deep, so far from the light,

Children's teeth, bones sawn, burnt;

The unseen hand, lessons unlearnt,

Of a time of night, an evil cradling,

Now revealed, perhaps unfolding;

The poor child, whispers a voice,

That never lived to make its choice;

May this be heard, so soft a sound,

Once buried deeply, underground.

Notes:

A poem on Haut de La Garenne, and the tragedy unfolding there.

Midnight

The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill, and suspicion can destroy, and the thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all of its own; for the children, and the children yet unborn. And the pity of it is that these things cannot be confined to The Twilight Zone.

- Rod Serling, The Monsters are Due on Maple Street



The recent Doctor Who was a masterclass in drama, of how to write eight characters simply talking.

Eight people trapped in a windowless passenger cabin of a tourist craft.

One possessed by something.

And no visible monsters, no special ray-guns, but just a focus on how people behave when trapped, and when faced with the fear of the unknown.

While the Christmas "Voyage of the Damned" followed disaster movie protocol in showing the very best that human beings can be, this showed the very worst that they can be, as they react out of fear, lashing out verbally, and then threatening to throw out first Lesley Sharp's Sky, and then David Tennant's Doctor.

Like Arthur Miller's "The Crucible" or Rod Serling's "The Monsters are Due on Maple Street", the real monsters are those within. As the Planet Gallifery review noted: "definitely dark, claustrophobic and intense, exploring the true side of human behavior under extreme fear and pressure."

A Behind the Sofa review has an interesting framing of the story within the context of the 42 day detentions, the war against terror, and what Adam Curtis has called "The Power of Nightmares"

As the Government heaves a sigh of relief over its narrow victory in the vote over the 42 day detention ruling for terrorist suspects, I keep wondering where this is leading us all? The manipulation of public fear, by such disaster capitalists, to erode civil liberties is one that taps into our very primal reactions to 'otherness'. The strangers who deplore our foreign policies and the strangers who migrate to our borders are, deep down, tokens of our own fractured human psyche. There is a single moment in Midnight that tells you all you need to know. When Val Crane spits out venomously 'Immigrant' at the Doctor then we know that as a human being, and like most of us, she's reacting to the strangeness of the 'other'. Here she's attacking the Doctor who can't tell them his real name and is far too clever for his own good, and dealing with her xenophobia with one of two choices. Either you try and understand and accommodate this experience of strangeness or otherness or you repudiate it by projecting it exclusively onto outsiders, in this case the possessed Sky Sylvestry and the seemingly arrogant and alien Doctor. By having Val utter that one word, Russell T Davies encapsulates the arid mind-set of millions of Daily Mail readers.

All too often we choose to use our paranoia about outsiders to make sense of our confused emotions, resorting to schizoid states where we will follow a pack mentality and seek to follow an individual, around whom a leadership consensus might form, and also identify scapegoats whom we can blame when disaster strikes. The cleverness of Midnight is that it flips this troubled state back and forth between the ensemble of characters like a barometer traveling between right and left wing views. Eventually, even those who might be considered liberal humanist in their outlook descend into monstrousness. The consensus forming pack leader is, to begin with, the well meaning Doctor but this status terrifyingly unravels as we see the 'other' that possesses Sky, and the effects of this, reverse our perceptions of the rational and liberal inquisitiveness of the Doctor. In the eyes of his fellow passengers, he's seen as the arrogant, clever alien and he is rapidly demoted from leader to scapegoat in 45 minutes of screen time. I like the way that Davies shows us a mirror image of the Doctor where those that don't know him at all would probably react with suspicion and fear especially when there is no companion to mediate on his behalf.

Monday, 16 June 2008

Curious Omissions on BBC Radio Jersey

Am I the only one, I wonder to have noted the discrepancy between the BBC radio Jersey news coverage of the Waterfront saga, and their web page news at

www.bbc.co.uk/jersey/news

The broadcast coverage has been extensive, but on the web news there has been little or nothing.

A few days ago, we had Jim Perchard's resignation from Web (Waterfront enterprise Board), citing a possible conflict of interest in the position of Gerald Voisin, the chairman of Web.

Now we have the censure motion by Geoff Southern, which is mind-boggling for the way in which it mentions the controversy:

"Senator Walker has already apologised to the House for giving it information regarding the project that he believed to be true, but which he subsequently discovered was not. "

It is almost as if they are leaning over backwards not to mention Harcourt Developers by name, or the fact that the information was to do with the denial of a lawsuit against Harcourt, and which was found to be true. Really, it tells the average reader less than nothing about the matter, and one has to wonder why. Read it (see below) and ask if the average reader in the UK could tell what all the fuss was about, or indeed anything of import.

Could it have something to do with the fact that the broadcast programmes are local in scope, but the web pages are part of the national BBC news coverage, and someone, for whatever reason, doesn't want details of the matter made too widely known?

I don't see necessarily some deep conspiracy, but more an editorial policy of fence-sitting, especially where Ministers in the States are concerned.





.




http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/jersey/7457320.stm


Chief minister faces censure vote

Jersey Chief Minister Frank Walker is facing censure for not providing the States with accurate information about plans for a new financial quarter.

The application for censure is being brought by Deputy Geoff Southern.

He believes States members were "seriously misled" during the debate on the development of the new Esplanade quarter in St Helier.

If Deputy Southern's application goes ahead, Senator Walker will face a censure vote in the House.

Esplanade quarter

In 2004, before becoming chief minister, Senator Walker narrowly defeated another vote of censure.

He had been accused of pressuring planning authorities to approve an infill site on a friend's land in Trinity.

Deputy Southern brought the latest application for censure because, he said, members were not given full and accurate information about the Esplanade quarter masterplan and in particular its economic impact.

He claims two "vital" documents were withheld from States members.

The esplanade development includes plans to submerge a dual-carriageway and build several thousand feet of office space and living accommodation.

It will link St Helier's waterside area with the rest of the town.

Senator Walker has already apologised to the House for giving it information regarding the project that he believed to be true, but which he subsequently discovered was not.

Implications of A Badly Worded Mistake

This time it is Wendy Kinnard's turn to "do a Guy" (which I think should be the standard shorthand for a Ministerial order that has clearly been made without consultation)

Headlined in Saturday's JEP as allowing unlimited detention, the relevant order:

" The detention of any person for a period in excess of 24 hours must be authorised by an officer of the rank of Chief Inspector or above, and the custody record will be endorsed to that effect. The officer conducting that review will endorse the custody record and may authorise further detention up to a further 12 hours from the time of the review"

was changed by Ministerial fiat to:

" The detention of any person for a period in excess of 24 hours must be authorised by an officer of the rank of Chief Inspector or above, and the custody record will be endorsed to that effect by that officer. An officer of the rank of Chief Inspector or above may authorise a further period of detention of up to 12 hours from the time of the review and may conduct further reviews and authorise further periods of such detention."

The change causing all the upset is of course not the change in the officer authorising the detention, but the fact that - as stated - it allows potentially unlimited periods of detention, thereby managing to do what Gordon Brown, in his wildest dreams, failed to do with only getting 42 days detention.

Now if preparing a book for publication, it is usually standard procedure to have these proof-read, to make sure there are no obvious slip-ups where the text ends up saying something other than what is meant.

This case apparently was a slip-up, evidently the text was not checked thoroughly enough, and certainly not counterchecked. It beggars belief that such a slip up got through, when highly trained and well paid law draftsmen either didn't get a look in, or didn't have their work checked enough (perhaps it was a rushed job) - and yet - all the other lawyers in the Island community spotted the problems - the apparent rejection of Habeas Corpus - almost as soon as it was in print!

So now, as the JEP reports: "AN order which would have allowed the police to detain suspects indefinitely without charge has been withdrawn. Acting Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur said that the amendment, approved by Home Affairs Minister Wendy Kinnard, was badly worded and it was never intended that it should allow indefinite detention."

Indeed it was badly worded, but didn't anyone stop and raise a red flag at the bad wording as it went on its way? Who was responsible for wording it so badly? Are they in change of framing other laws (heaven help us if they are!)? How can we be sure the same mistakes will not happen again? Will checks and balances be put in place to stop this kind of thing happening again?

In particular, recent events have shown that the power of ministers such as Guy De Faye (over drains) and Wendy Kinnard (over detention) to effectively create damaging legislation without the consensus of the States of Jersey should not be allowed to continue. At least under the old committee system, such decisions would have at least the consensus of more than one individual. Now it appears than one individual can make orders without recourse to such consensus, and the fact that they have to be rescinded simply makes the system look amateur and foolish.

Friday, 13 June 2008

Desperately seeking Shay(a) - who did not die

The Story of Shay.

I recently had this story forwarded to me, in the form below. It shows, I think, how oral traditions work in the internet age, how texts are changed in the course of transmission, and how easily a story starts to detach itself from what really happened in order to deliberately evoke emotions in the reader (regardless of truth). Read on, and then read the notes on the original form, and how it has changed.

At a fundraising dinner for a school that serves learning-disabled children, the father of one of the students delivered a speech that would never be forgotten by all who attended. After extolling the school and its dedicated staff, he offered a question: 'When not interfered with by outside influences, everything nature does is done with perfection. Yet my son, Shay, cannot learn things as other children do. He cannot understand things as other children do. Where is the natural order of things in my son?'

The audience was stilled by the query.

The father continued. 'I believe that when a child like Shay, physically and mentally handicapped comes into the world, an opportunity to realize true human nature presents itself, and it comes in the way other people treat that child.'
Then he told the following story:

Shay and his father had walked past a park where some boys Shay knew were playing baseball. Shay asked, 'Do you think they'll let me play?' Shay's father knew that most of the boys would not want someone like Shay on their team, but the father also understood that if his son were allowed to play, it would give him a much-needed sense of belonging and some confidence to be accepted by others in spite of his handicaps.

Shay's father approached one of the boys on the field and asked (not expecting much) if Shay could play. The boy looked around for guidance and said, 'We're losing by six runs and the game is in the eighth inning. I guess he can be on our team and we'll try to put him in to bat in the ninth inning.'

Shay struggled over to the team's bench and, with a broad smile, put on a team shirt . His Father watched with a small tear in his eye and warmth in his heart. The boys saw the father's joy at his son being accepted. In the bottom of the eighth inning, Shay's team scored a few runs but was still behind by three. In the top of the ninth inning, Shay put on a glove and played in the right field. Even though no hits came his way, he was obviously ecstatic just to be in the game and on the field, grinning from ear to ear as his father waved to him from the stands. In the bottom of the ninth inning, Shay's team scored again. Now, with two outs and the bases loaded, the potential winning run was on base and Shay was scheduled to be next at bat.


At this juncture, do they let Shay bat and give away their chance to win the game? Surprisingly, Shay was given the bat. Everyone knew that a hit was all but impossible because Shay didn't even know how to hold the bat properly, much less connect with the ball.

However, as Shay stepped up to the plate, the pitcher, recognizing t hat the other team was putting winning aside for this moment in Shay's life, moved in a few steps to lob the ball in softly so Shay could at least make contact. The first pitch came and Shay swung clumsily and missed. The pitcher again took a few steps forward to toss the ball softly towards Shay. As the pitch came in, Shay swung at the ball and hit a slow ground ball right back to the pitcher.


The game would now be over. The pitcher picked up the soft grounder and could have easily thrown the ball to the first baseman. Shay would have been out and that would have been the end of the game.

Instead, the pitcher threw the ball right over the first baseman's head, out of reach of all team mates. Everyone from the stands and both teams started yelling, 'Shay, run to fi rst! Run to first!' Never in his life had Shay ever run that far, but he made it to first base. He scampered down the baseline, wide- eyed and startled.

Everyone yelled, 'Run to second, run to second!' Catching his breath, Shay awkwardly ran towards second, gleaming and struggling to make it to the base. By the time Shay rounded towards second base, the right fielder had the ball . the smallest guy on their team who now had his first chance to be the hero for his team. He could have thrown the ball to the second-baseman for the tag, but he understood the pitcher's intentions so he, too, intentionally threw the ball high and far over the third-baseman's head. Shay ran toward third base deliriously as the runners ahead of him circled the bases toward home.

All were screaming, 'Shay, Shay, Shay, all the Way Shay'

Shay reached third base because the opposing shortstop ran to help him by turning him in the direction of third base, and shouted, 'Run to third ! Shay, run to third!'

As Shay rounded third, the boys from both teams, and the spectators, were on their feet screaming, 'Shay, run home! Run home!' Shay ran to home, stepped on the plate, and was cheered as the hero who hit the grand slam and won the game for his team.

'That day', said the father softly with tears now rolling down his face, 'the boys from both teams helped bring a piece of true love and humanity into this world'.

Shay didn't make it to another summer. He died that winter, having never forgotten being the hero and making his father so happy, and coming home and seeing his Mother tearfully embrace her little hero of the day!


I've been backtracking on this "story of Shay". It is a good heart-warming story, but is it true?

> Shay didn't make it to another summer. He died that winter, having never
> forgotten being the hero and making his father so happy, and coming home and
> seeing his Mother tearfully embrace her little hero of the day!

Answer - probably in part, but importantly Shay didn't die...someone apparently felt the need to overdramatize it and tug at peoples emotions.

I'm not sure of the ethics of that kind of writing, changing a true story to make a more tear-jerking one, and finding that out actually made me rather angry about some unknown editor. The story is strong enough without it.

Actually his name wasn't Shay but Shaya - a Jewish name, not an all-American one!

Anyhow, here are my research notes. The sections with ">" are the current version in circulation, those in italics are originals.

Snopes has probably the earliest version of the story, dated from around 2000 on the internet.

> At a fund-raising dinner for a school that serves learning-disabled
> children, the father of one of the students delivered a speech that would
> never be forgotten by all who attended. After extolling the school and its
> dedicated staff, he offered a question: 'When not interfered with by outside
> influences, everything nature does is done with perfection. Yet my son,
> Shay, cannot learn things as other children do. He cannot understand things
> as other children do. Where is the natural order of things in my son?'

The original version differs markedly from the one now circulated:

In Brooklyn, New York, Chush is a school that caters to children with learning disabilities. Some children remain in Chush for their entire school career while others can transfer into conventional schools. At a Chush fund-raising dinner the father of a Chush child delivered a speech that always be remembered by all who attended.

After extolling the school and its dedicated staff he cried out, "Where is the perfection in my son Shaya? Everything God does is done with perfection. But my child cannot understand things as other children do. My child cannot remember facts and figures as other children do. Where is God's perfection?"

> The father continued. 'I believe that when a child like Shay, physically
> and mentally handicapped comes into the world, an opportunity to realize
> true human nature presents itself, and it comes in the way other people
> treat that child.'

The audience was shocked by the question, pained by the father's anguish and stilled by the piercing query. "I believe," the father answered, "that when God brings a child like this into the world the perfection that he seeks is in the way people react to this child."

Note how clearly "god" has been edited out of later redactions of the tale (Richard Dawkins would be pleased!), and Shaya has been changed to the more American "Shay".

The ending is also different:

> 'That day', said the father softly with tears now rolling down his face,
> 'the boys from both teams helped bring a piece of true love and humanity
> into this world'.

"That day," said the father softly with tears now rolling down his face, "those 18 boys reached their level of God's perfection."


Notice the return of "god" in the original version and the absence of the sentences speaking about Shay (or Shaya's) death.

But the real source of the story is in fact from "Echoes Of The Maggid: Heartwarming stories and parables of wisdom and inspiration." by Rabbi Paysach Krohn ( Brooklyn: Artscroll Mesorah, 1999. ISBN 1-57819-260-9.)

This is how the Rabbi's version starts and ends - the middle section is more or less identical - and it is interesting that not only does this have the Jewish Shaya, and not the American Shay, but also Jewish terminology (Hashem) which has been changed to the more universal culture-neutral "God".

In Brooklyn, New York, Chush is a school that caters to learning-disabled children. Some children remain in Chush for their entire school careers, while others can be mainstreamed into conventional yeshivos and Bais Yaakovs. There are a few children who attend Chush for most of the week and go to a regular school on Sundays.

At a Chush fund-raising dinner, the father of a Chush child delivered a speech that would never be forgotten by all who attended. After extolling the school and its dedicated staff, he cried out, "Where is the perfection in my son Shaya? Everything that Hashem does is done with perfection. But my child cannot understand things as other children do. My child cannot remember facts and figures as other children do. Where is Hashem's perfection?" The audience was shocked by the question, pained by the father's anguish and stilled by his piercing query.

"I believe," the father answered, "that when Hashem brings a child like this into the world, the perfection that He seeks is in the way people react to this child."

and it ends as follows:

Shaya ran home, stepped on home plate and all 18 boys lifted him on their shoulders and made him the hero, as he had just hit the "grand slam" and won the game for his team.

"That day," said the father who now had tears rolling down his face, "those 18 boys reached their level of perfection. They showed that it is not only those who are talented that should be recognized, but also those who have less talent. They too are human beings, they too have feelings and emotions, they too are people, they too want to feel important."

The story quoted above is "Perfection at the Plate," a work of Rabbi Paysach Krohn which appeared in his 1999 book, Echoes of the Maggid.

See this link for the entire story:
http://www.artscroll.com/Chapters/eomh-005.html


Echoes is a "Chicken Soup for the Soul" type work, described by its publishers as "heartwarming stories and parables of wisdom and inspiration." It is the fifth such tome in the Maggid series. Rabbi Krohn says that the story is true and that he was told it by Shaya's father, who is a friend of his.

The "Chush" school mentioned in the piece is the Jewish Center for Special Education on Kent Street in Brooklyn, a school that caters to Yiddish-speaking children of Orthodox Hasidic Jews.

References

http://www.snopes.com/glurge/chush.asp

http://www.artscroll.com/Chapters/eomh-005.html
Original version

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/poetry/po_shay.shtml
Song version by Ed Nolan

Religious pluralism and religious relativism

Hoff's Principle of Relativism: you can think what you want but to act on it is a criminal offence.

Pope Benedict has spoken out against "the dictatorship of relativism". But what does he mean, and how does relativism differ from pluralism.

Religious pluralism is defined in "NOSTRA AETATE", one of the documents of Vatican II, which deals with the relation of the Church to non-Christian religions:

On the the parts of the text on other faiths says:

"The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men."

That is clearly different from, for example, your friendly (or unfriendly) neighbourhood fundamentalist, who sees other religions as diabolic deceptions.

Theologically, the position most in contrast with it would be that of Karl Barth, who made a clear distinction between Christianity as God's revelation of himself to us, and "religion", which he defined as "our attempt to reach God", and which leads to the Barthian rejection of "natural theology" and apologetics.

So we can see what is meant here by "religious pluralism".

What Benedict seems to mean by "Religious relativism" is the notion that any religions is as good as any other, and is analagous to "moral relativism" (I have my code of ethics, you have yours, and there are no universal ethical principles). Basically, it is the idea that "all truths are equal, that one is of the same value as another."

This can be seen clearly in Benedict's speech of 2005:

"Today, having a clear faith based on the Creed of the Church is often labeled as fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be "tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine", seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires. "

That relativism can become dictorial is perhaps best illustrated in the science fiction novel by Philip K Dick - "The World Jones Made". In that book, relativism ("Hoff's Relativism") is the governing political orthodoxy, defined as a moral and ethical philosophy that states everyone is free to believe what they wish, as long as they don't make anyone else try to follow that principle, which has become established law after the destructiveness of the war unleashed by ideologies. However, dissidents from that orthodoxy do end up in forced labour camps - because it really is a "dictatorship of relativism".

Dick is prophetic, as we are moving towards a society in which relativism becomes an imposed orthodoxy, and as a result, freedom of speech can be silenced under the banner of laws against religious hatred. Those laws have noble intentions, but the inability to clearly differentiate between a stated disagreement of belief, and deliberate provocation means that it can so easily be abused to produce entirely the opposite effect.

Links:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/articolo.asp?id=33987
http://www.philipkdickfans.com/pkdweb/world_jones_made_by_dave_hyde.htm


Thursday, 12 June 2008

Drains and Dictators

Ben Shenton recently brought a proposition to the States against Guy De Faye's unilateral ministerial decision to allow a developer to dig up people's gardens and lay sewer networks without their consent. The voting pattern revealed some interesting results - perhaps a psychologist might argue a case that it reveals States Members who may have a "Great Dictator" complex?

In the proposition he asked

to request the the Minister for Transport and Technical Services to rescind his Ministerial Decision made on 27th November 2007 in which he agreed to vary the policy on the service of notices under the Drainage (Jersey) Law 2005 and agreed that he would, from the date of the Ministerial Decision, consider serving a Notice on third party landowners for the benefit of private developers to enable those developers to lay sewers across the third party land if there was a demonstrable public gain, namely where a developer was able and willing to fund the connection of other surrounding properties to the public sewer network.

He noted that:

A fundamental issue is whether it can properly be said to be for the public benefit for the Minister to exercise these powers under the Drainage Law in circumstances where the neighbouring landowners are perfectly happy with their current drainage arrangements and those drainage arrangements are perfectly adequate for their current properties. Furthermore, the questions of future maintenance and the States liability to pay compensation following legal claims under the Drainage Law have not been answered.

How would you feel if a Minister passed a Ministerial Decision that allowed a private property developer to lay pipes through your land without your permission?

How would you feel if the Ministerial Decision was structured in such a way that you would receive no payment for going through your land and no compensation for inconvenience caused?

How would you feel if you and your neighbours were not consulted in any way about this and only found out through a third party?

How would you feel if you found out that you had no right of appeal as you only found out about it after the appeal date had passed?

How would you feel if the property developer stood to make a significant sum by obliterating your view and reducing the value of not only your own property, but also that of your neighbours?

Pretty fed up - I would think.

What is interesting is the States Members who agreed with Guy De Faye and opposed the motion. These were as follows:

Senator Terence Augustine Le Sueur
Senator Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf
Senator Terence John Le Main
Deputy Robert Charles Duhamel

and of course, the man himself, Deputy Guy William John de Faye.

Given the track record in ignoring the public over GST (Le Sueur) or done his own thing (Ozouf on the Battle of Flowers), or treated the public with disrespect (Le Main over Data Protection), it perhaps is not too surprising. I was rather disappointed to see Deputy Duhamel here though.

there were also a few vacillating members who didn't want to vote definitely one way or the other and who abstained:

Senator Frederick Ellyer Cohen
Deputy Jacqueline Jeannette Huet

So it seems likely that these are the kind of individuals who might like the opportunity for trampling over ordinary people's property rights and would like this sort of precedent, but don't want that to be part of their public record. As the recent Waterfront proposals include a forced compulsory purchase should a seller not be able to agree a satisfactory price (based on what?), it is hardly surprising to see these two suspects here.

Wednesday, 11 June 2008

The Changes

"They're awful, they frighten me, they're evil and wicked and dangerous ..."
The Changes (BBC, 1975)

Just been watching "The Changes" on UK Gold. This was broadcast in early 1975

The children's TV series depicted the breakdown of society after people are compelled to reject and destroy technology such as cars, bicycles and alarm clocks. This violent reaction and people's subsequent desertion of the country is triggered by a sound seemingly emitted by electricity pylons. Schoolgirl Nicky Gore played by Victoria Williams is caught amidst the chaos and gets separated from her parents who are heading to France in the hope of finding safety. Throughout the course of the 10-part series we follow Nicky's journey to be reunited with her parents and seek an answer to the cause of The Changes.

The series was an adaptation of The Devil's Children - the first of three novels in The Changes trilogy by author Peter Dickinson which also included Heartsease and The Weathermonger. The character of Nicky remained constant throughout the series, and the plotlines of Heartsease and The Weathermonger were adapted to make the series her own personal odyssey, rather than two separate stories set against the background of the same events. The ending was reworked from that in the Weathermonger to one more suitable to the medium of television.

The series was shot in the West Country, namely Bristol, the Forest of Dean and Sharpness during the Summer of 1975. The camera work is fluid, and the locations give the series a realistic feel that was unusual in series of that time.

One of the reviews of the series notes the way in which by turning its back on technology, it highlighted the noise, the pollution, the radiation emissions of today:

http://www.bilderberg.org/changes.htm

After The Changes even the words for all these creations of the modern age; 'car', 'tractor', 'electricity', 'toaster', 'pylon', etc. have become taboo. Just to mention them brings on the noise and the uncontrollable anger against machines again. These items of modern technology are described by people, including the central character Nicky, as cursed.

The series was intriguingly prophetic given the 1990's phenomenon of civil disobedience against road-making machinery, power pylons and similar forms of environmental direct action. And it drew an distinction between sustainable and non-sustainable practices before the word was invented.

At one point the main character in the series, Nicky Gore, is asked whether it will induce the noise to start a blacksmith's forge. After thinking about it for a second or two she asks, "where will you get the iron from?" On hearing there is plenty of scrap lying around the farm (obviously a sensible bit of recycling) she announces that the forge will probably not invoke the noise. So the forge goes ahead.

It concludes by noting:

This series marked another high-point of the 'golden age of television'. A highly intelligent, exciting programme with a dedicated writing and production team questioning so many of the values we take for granted today. It is a more engaging series than many adult dramas today, giving a valuable insight into the Sikh world for youngsters into the bargain.

In fact, the Changes and the respectful and sympathetic portrayal of Sikh culture and beliefs was very much in contrast to the time in which it was made, a time which saw Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech, and patronising attempts at multiculturalism such as the comedy "Love Thy Neighbour". It left me personally with a lifelong respect for the Sikhs which I have to this day.

It also teaches us the lesson that we cannot easily go back, without a great upheaval to the world, however much we might hanker after a golden age of simplicity. As Nicky Gore says to the sentient lodestone that is the cause of the Changes:

"Whoever, whatever you are, listen. Please listen and understand. A man disturbed you by mistake, at a time which was wrong. One man touched and woke you. He was not a wicked man, but he felt your power and tried to use it. You fought against him, and your power shook our world. But you're destroying it. We're going back to a time we no longer belong in. Our world was not a perfect place, but what's happening now is worse. People have gone mad, and are dying for no reason. Time cannot go backwards. Only you can stop it. Please. Please."


Links:

http://www.elidor.freeserve.co.uk/changes.htm
http://www.bilderberg.org/changes.htm




http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mysciencefictionlife/A17755572

The Changes synopsis from the BBC

A rabid hatred of technology brings about a new dark age in England.

The Changes was a children's series, loosely adapted by Anna Home from The Devil's Children by Peter Dickinson, one of his Changes trilogy. The series opens with scenes of mad destruction - the people of England, driven into a frenzy by "the noise" emitted by electricity pylons, are smashing every bit of technology they can lay their hands on.

This orgy of destruction heralded the coming of "the changes" - the breakdown of society and its return to a simpler, pre-Industrial way of living. The very words used to describe technology become taboo.

The main character is Nicky, a young girl separated from her parents. Over 10 episodes, her search for them is helped or hindered by friendly Sikhs, child-abducting robbers and a suspicious witch-finder. Eventually she and a companion discovered the cause of "the noise" in an underground cavern. The series ends with "The Changes" undone, and technology reappearing across the land once more.

Boasting extensive location footage from around Bristol and the Forest of Dean, The Changes has rarely been seen since its first airing. The power of the chaotic opening scenes means The Changes remains a strong memory for those who saw it in 1975, despite the slower pace of later episodes.







She was so stiff when she edged the window open that she had to clamber through like an old woman. Half way up the garden Gopal floated beside her from behind the runner beans; he touched her cheek with his hand in gentle welcome then led the way back across the school playground to where the faint whiteness of their rag in the hedge marked the cut wires.

They took the journey home as carefully as they'd come, but nothing stopped or even scared them until their own sentry hissed at them out of his hiding and made their tired hearts bounce. Though it was well past midnight, every adult Sikh was awake and waiting in the dark farmyard. Nicky told her story in English, breaking it into short lengths so that Uncle Jagindar could turn it into Punjabi for the old lady. The pauses while he spoke enabled her to think so that she left nothing out. When she had finished, five of the men crept out to relieve the sentries; for them she told the whole story all over again. Now every Sikh knew and Nicky could sleep.

Extract from "The Devil's Children"

Lawsuit not just against Harcourt Subsidiary

It is just the subsidiary company involved in the Las Vegas Lawsuit, according to Harcourt.

Then why does it mention Harcourt Developments, Patrick Doherty, oh yes, and Patrick Power, the person who said it only involved the subsidiary?

Does Mr Power think people can't read?

Or is he unaware that the USA Court records are open to the public domain?

Clearly, he "misspoke"!




http://courtgate.coca.co.clark.nv.us/DistrictCourt/asp/Parties.asp

Online details below!



Case 08-A-562136-B Status ACTIVE
Plaintiff Sullivan Square Harcourt LLC Attorney Louis, Lena M.
Defendant Harcourt Nevada LLC Attorney Morris, Steve L.
Judge Denton, Mark R. Dept. 13


Total of 7 entries, presently displaying 1 through 7.


Party NameParty TypeStatus
Attorney Bar#Attorney NameTotal Attorneys
Answer DateAnswer TypeSummons FiledSummons Served
AddressPhone
Sullivan Square Harcourt LLCPRIMARY PLAINTIFFACTIVE as of 04/30/2008
006398Louis, Lena M.1

Harcourt Nevada LLCPRIMARY DEFENDANTACTIVE as of 04/30/2008
001543Morris, Steve L.1
NV
GSG DSM Holdings LLCPLAINTIFFACTIVE as of 05/20/2008
006398Louis, Lena M.1
NV
Harcourt DevelopmentsDEFENDANTACTIVE as of 05/20/2008
??????## Unknown ##0
NV
Doherty, Patrick JDEFENDANTACTIVE as of 05/20/2008
??????## Unknown ##0
NV
Power, Patrick JDEFENDANTACTIVE as of 05/20/2008
??????## Unknown ##0
NV
Doherty, NicholasDEFENDANTACTIVE as of 05/20/2008
??????## Unknown ##0
NV

Follow Harcourt Online


http://courtgate.coca.co.clark.nv.us/DistrictCourt/asp/CaseActivity.asp


Case 08-A-562136-B Status ACTIVE

Plaintiff Sullivan Square Harcourt LLC Attorney Louis, Lena M.
Defendant Harcourt Nevada LLC Attorney Morris, Steve L.

Judge Denton, Mark R. Dept. 13


Total of 9 entries, presently displaying 1 through 9.
Entries are displayed most recent first.


Filed DateDescriptionPerformed
06/10/2008DEFT'S MTN TO CONFIRM RESIGNATION /206/24/2008
For All Parties
06/06/2008DEFT'S MTN TO DISMISS /107/14/2008
For All Parties
06/06/2008NOTICE OF DEPARTMENT REASSIGNMENT ??????006398001543006398FC06/06/2008
06/06/2008REASSIGNMENT OF JUDGE Halverson TO JUDGE Denton
06/06/2008TRANSFERRED TO BUSINESS COURT
06/06/2008APPEARANCE
For Harcourt Nevada LLC
05/21/2008ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT05/21/2008
For Harcourt Nevada LLC
Filed By Harcourt Nevada LLC2 pages
04/30/2008INITIAL APPEARANCE FEE DISCLOSURE
For Sullivan Square Harcourt LLC
Filed By Sullivan Square Harcourt LLC2 pages
04/30/2008COMPLAINT FILED Fee $178.00
For Sullivan Square Harcourt LLC59 pages

The Other Lawsuits

This article gives more information about the murky waters that run deep in Las Vegas.

I would draw the readers eye to the statement made by Harcourt in tonight's CTV

http://www5.channelonline.tv/news/templates/jerseynews2.aspx?articleid=15110&zoneid=1

"the Nevada civil action is against a Harcourt subsidiary, and does not involve anything like the figure which has been quoted in the media as variously $800m and $800bn. $800m was the value of the proposed development, not the legal action, which will involve a massively smaller amount, if anything at all."

I would have thought that the sum which is already mentioned in the additional lawsuits, of more than two million (see below) was still a substantial sum.




http://www.inbusinesslasvegas.com/2008/05/09/realdev.html

The lawsuit alleges that Glen, Smith & Glen has been financially exploited and defrauded by Harcourt, which had committed to finance the project's $800 million construction costs. Harcourt had been paying Glen, Smith & Glen to oversee the project, but quit doing so at the end of last year and owes millions of dollars, the local company's officials say.

"(Harcourt officials) were engaged in a classic force-out," Glen, Smith & Glen attorney John Manly says. "They are trying to steal this project. Essentially, they stopped paying, not because of market conditions ... all of the indications are they plan to build the project. They are forcing (Glen, Smith & Glen) out and taking the profits."

Nancy Rapoport, a law professor at UNLV, says the dynamics of the case will take shape in the upcoming weeks when Harcourt files its answer to the complaint. It will be curious to see if they blame the worldwide credit crunch for the problems, she says.

"The ripple effect, if the project doesn't get completed, will be a bevy of lawsuits from the folks who put down deposits for condos, and those lawsuits may try to argue that the condo depositors shouldn't only get their deposits back plus perhaps interest but also some portion of market appreciation had the project been completed," Rapoport says. "On the other hand, in today's market, that's a dangerous argument to make, because real estate prices are going down, not up, and the condo depositors don't want to put themselves in the position of admitting that they entered into losing contracts."

The problems started last fall when Harcourt made only partial payments to consultants or didn't pay them at all, Smith says. Excavation and utility work started last summer, and Harcourt started pushing the construction timetable back last fall, Smith says.

Eight liens and two lawsuits totaling more than $2 million have been filed by firms against Sullivan Square, and back payments owed to consultants and vendors total another $2 million, Smith says.

The problems started last fall when Harcourt made only partial payments to consultants or didn't pay them at all, Smith says. Excavation and utility work started last summer, and Harcourt started pushing the construction timetable back last fall, Smith says.

He says he met with Doherty two months ago and received assurances the project would be funded and back on track, but nothing happened. That inaction forced him to pursue legal action.

Manly said he will seek lost profits and punitive damages, but didn't know what the amounts would be.

"Foreign developers are welcome to come here and make money, but they have to live within the law and not exploit the local community for monetary gain," Manly says. "I am hoping for a large award to send a message to others that we don't tolerate this type of conduct here."

More than One Lawsuit in Las Vegas

Another bit of information on the Harcourt saga. The whole story is below, but I've highlighted some pertinent facts.

Las Vegas developer Glen, Smith Glen (GSG) and two linked companies are suing Harcourt Developments, its Nevada subsidiary, Mr Doherty himself and a number of others for breach of contract in a Nevada court

So this puts rather a different complexion on Harcourt's claim that the Las Vegas lawsuit is only to do with their US subsidiary. Not only is the main company involved in the lawsuit, but so is the principal, Mr Doherty.

The court papers say that in February, Mr Doherty personally assured GSG that Harcourt would meet its obligations in 24 hours, but failed to do this.

This - if the Court case is true - is evidence of Harcourt making promises and failing to keep them.

Also during February, Harcourt approached GSG and asked it to change the agreement to give a third party a 20 per cent stake in Sullivan Square to secure funding. GSG was to hand over 9 per cent. The plaintiff says that Harcourt subsequently admitted that there was no new third party and that it wanted 9 per cent as a condition for providing funding.

Again if this is true, it indicates that Harcourt have been involved in some pretty slippery business practices. If proven, do the States of Jersey really want to do business with a company that engages in this kind of practice?

This has resulted in contractors and consultants working on the development not being paid. They have taken two other lawsuits against the company.

This is the really interesting one. What are those other lawsuits? Who is making them? Who exactly are they against? What are their claims about Harcourt? So far, we have just heard about one lawsuit, but now it seems there are two more.








http://www.finfacts.com/irishfinancenews/article_1013463.shtml


The Irish Times reports that a company backed by businessman Pat Doherty and former broadcaster Mike Murphy is facing a legal battle in the US over a €500 million Las Vegas property development.

Las Vegas developer Glen, Smith Glen (GSG) and two linked companies are suing Harcourt Developments, its Nevada subsidiary, Mr Doherty himself and a number of others for breach of contract in a Nevada court.

GSG is Harcourt's local partner on its Sullivan Square project, a €550 million mixed apartment and commercial development that the pair are building in Las Vegas. GSG and its co-plaintiff, Sullivan Square Harcourt and GSG DSM Holdings, began proceedings in the court yesterday. According to documents filed with Clark County district court, GSG and Sullivan Square say that Harcourt Developments and Harcourt Nevada have defaulted several times on their obligations to fund the project.

This has resulted in contractors and consultants working on the development not being paid. They have taken two other
lawsuits against the company. Also a number of them are claiming a share in Sullivan Square as compensation. GSG, run by businessmen Alan Glen and Kenneth Smith, owned Sullivan Square and began working on the project itself. An acquaintance introduced them to Mr Doherty and Harcourt. In August 2006, the Irish company agreed to fund the development in return for a 60 per cent share. GSG's complaint states that last October, Harcourt Nevada defaulted on its obligation by "failing to timely provide sufficient funding for development and construction of the project, and failing to fund the overhead for GSG dedicated to the project".

The court papers say that in February, Mr Doherty personally assured GSG that Harcourt would meet its obligations in 24 hours, but failed to do this. Also during February, Harcourt approached GSG and asked it to change the agreement to give a third party a 20 per cent stake in Sullivan Square to secure funding.

GSG was to hand over 9 per cent. The plaintiff says that Harcourt subsequently admitted that there was no new third party and that it wanted 9 per cent as a condition for providing funding. GSG states that it reluctantly agreed to give Harcourt 9 per cent, cutting its share of the project to 31 per cent. The documents state that Harcourt cannot plead inability to pay as the plaintiffs are aware that the defendants "maintained lavish and extravagant lifestyles" during the period. Harcourt Developments principals include Mr Doherty, Mr Murphy, and English businessman, Andrew Parker Bowles, former husband of Camilla Parker Bowles.

The Need to Know

Just heard on BBC Radio Jersey that the Waterfront developers Harcourt say they did know about the lawsuit in Las Vegas, but only after sending reassurances to the Chief Minister on 22 May 2008. Before that they knew it was pending, but that was all.

Questions to be considered.

As the lawsuit was filed on the 30 April, they must have an extremely slow method of communication - passenger pigeon or packet-express steam boat perhaps?

But even so, why they say they didn't tell the Chief Minister - and remember he asked them again just before the debate? They say now that it was not relevant to the financing of their Jersey operations, and after all they have 100 or so projects on the go.

As a recent news report (see below) mentions "unlike European countries, punitive damages can be assessed should the lawsuit be won".

And they didn't think it relevant to mention that?




http://www.lvrealty.net/news

Luck of the Irish: Sullivan Square developer files suit

Another high rise condo project has stalled, this time its the green project Sullivan Square. As with other projects, lack of funding is behind the project's collapse. However, unlike other projects, interest in owning a piece of it were high and the developer had enough funds contractually to complete the mixed use project.

Locally based Glen, Smith & Glen Development is now suing its equity partner in the deal, Harcourt Developments, a private company from Dublin, Ireland, which had agreed to finance up to $800 million for the Sullivan Square project. The lawsuit alleges breach of contract and breach of fiduciary responsibility by Harcourt Nevada for failure and refusal to fulfill its funding responsibilities according to the contract.

According to the contract filed with the lawsuit, Harcourt Nevada and its principal, Patrick Doherty, received a 60% interest in Sullivan Square in return for providing all funds for the development and construction. Oversight of the development and construction was the responsibility of Glen, Smith Glen, who also owned the land and had obtained the entitlements.
Glen, Smith Glen has charged in the suit that Harcourt never provided the necessary funds despite repeated attempts to collect them. It also alleges that Harcourt was trying to force out the Plaintiffs so that they could assume control of the project. Harcourt repeatedly stated that funding was imminent and their principal personally met with them in February of this year.

Unlike European countries, punitive damages can be assessed should the lawsuit be won. In Irish courts the worst that happens is you pay what you owe (seems like there is no consequences for bad behavior). It makes you wonder if Harcourt is just gambling a little to see if they could bankrupt Glen, Smith & Glen and take over the project, thinking that there is minimal risk. They might be in for a big shock after the trial.

So Sullivan Square is now officially in limbo. I'm pretty sure the project will go forward, but as to who will be officially developing it is anyone's guess at this time. One thing is for certain, because of the amount of money involved it is going to be at least a year or two before anything is settled. As to the impact this will have on the Las Vegas high rise condos market, it will probably be minimal.



http://www.industrialnewsupdate.com/archives/2008/01/index.php

Tuesday, 10 June 2008

The Blame Game

In the "Yes Minister" episode "One of Us", Sir Humphrey Appleby fails to check up on the security of the head of MI5. He protests that he was a busy man at the time and couldn't look into everything, and mentions that admits that government security inquiries are primarily designed to kill press speculation.

I was reminded of this when hearing the "blame game" about the recent news on the pending lawsuit against Harcourt.

No, says Jim Perchard, we did not knowingly deceive the States. We enquired about this from Harcourt, and were told there was no lawsuit, and it was a disgruntled ex-business partner stirring up trouble.

That little word "knowingly" is the key to why there will not be resignations.

The lawsuit was was formally filed on 30 April 2008.

According to the JEP, Frank Walker, Philip Ozouf, and Terry le Sueur all were emailed with details.

Frank Walker asked three times before the debate if there was any substance in the existence of a lawsuit, and apparently received three denials from Harcourt, that in addition to assurance from them on the 22nd of May 2008. He never thought to check that out elsewhere. Like Sir Humphrey, he didn't need to because he believed in their integrity.

Philip Ozouf could not read attachments on his Blackberry, and had only been "cc" in the email; he prioritised emails that are sent directly to him - voters take note. Presumable he also took advice from Frank Walker's direct check with Harcourt. He never thought to check that out either. Clearly - rather like Sir Humphrey - he was a busy man at the time and couldn't look into everything.

Terry Le Sueur presumably depended on Frank Walker checking matters out. I think he does use emails, even though he looks as if he belongs to the Victorian ledger era, when the telegraph system was the cutting edge of technology. He never thought to check that out either.

Jim Perchard again took his lead from information received by Frank Walker and Harcourt. As the Web representative, he said that Web were mislead by Harcourt. He never thought to check that out himself either.

Now consider this hypothetical case. I want to do a business deal with Enron, but I have heard that the SEC (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission), was now pursuing a formal investigation and got assurances from Kenneth Lay, the chairman at Enron, who reassured me by by affirming that there was "absolutely no accounting issue, no trading issue, no reserve issue, no previously unknown problem issues". Would I take Lay's word for that, or check with the SEC?

In the JEP tonight it says "the JEP has obtained court papers from the Clark County District Court in Nevada which show that the case was formally filed on 30 April - more than a month before the States debate." If the JEP could check up, couldn't someone do that on behalf of the States - if the ministers were too busy, what about delegating it to the invisible Bill Ogley or another civil servant?

I think that it would be a matter of gross incompetence not to check up elsewhere. If there was no collusion, there must be incompetence. The simplest way of deflecting attention from this, of course, is the "blame game".

But the blame game itself raises issues which will not go away, especially in an election year. Should we be doing business with someone who gave categorical assurances to our Chief Minister that were categorically wrong? If they can deceive the States over this, even if their financial integrity is sound (and that is now a big "if"), should we be doing business with people whose moral integrity seems to be rather suspect.