David Warcup's Resignation - A Comment

Reading David Warcup's resignation statement, I think it is a shame that the personal abuse which has been directed at him, will propbably overshadow the very serious criticism of his part in the suspension of Mr Power..
 
In the Suspension review meetings, Dr Brain certainly criticised Mr Warcup's actions, and it was clear than many States members were not happy to rush the appointment of someone who had been in part responsible for the suspension of Mr Power; they simply thought it was not proper for an appointment to be made while one of the parties involved in any disciplinary action was a candidate for the post when he had been involved in the removal of the previous incumbent. That seem to me to be a perfectly proper reason for delay. Dr Brain's accusations (I prefer the term arguments) for the role played by Mr Warcup in the suspension of Graham Power were neither malicious nor completely unfounded, based as they were upon a letter written by Mr Warcup:

I dealt with Dr Brain's comments on Mr Warcup's letter here, which make plain that he certainly was one of players (whether justifiably or not) in the events leading to the suspension of Graham Power:

http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2010/03/warcup-letter.html

I don't think it was unreasonable to wait until disciplinary proceedings, which were at the time still possible, had taken place before appointing him to the post of Police Chief.

Just consider by analogy what might have happened if (hypothetically) the Bailiff had been suspended because, in part, of a letter produced by the Deputy Bailiff. Even if the Bailiff said he would be retiring in six months, would it be proper to approve the appointment of Deputy to Bailiff until all the matters raised from the letter, and any inquiry and disciplinary proceedings had been completed? I don't think anyone would think that was somehow "politically motivated"; I think it would just be seen as common sense.

So when he says:

He believes there's been a politically-motivated interference in his appointment, despite a report by Wiltshire Police vindicating his stance on the conduct of the Historic Abuse Inquiry.
 
I think it is perfectly proper to disagree - while disciplinary proceedings were still an option, and Mr Power's side had not been heard, it might have been Mr Power who had been vindicated. Remember Senator Le Marquand's own position was that Wiltshire would only be part of the review process:

"Even once I get the Wiltshire Report I will not be in a position to make decisions, other than perhaps to form any preliminary view, because to do justice to Mr. Power I must hear, in full, his account of matters."

So the resulting delays, as difficult as they have been for Mr Power, must in the interests of justice, also be difficult for Mr Warcup. He may well have acted with the best of intentions, but he cannot be considered to have been totally vindicated any more than Mr Power has been judged guilty.

The failure and the continual delays in the disciplinary process were to blame for that, and it is high time that a time limit of no more than a year is introduced for any disciplinary proceedings. The lack of any deadline has led to a lax approach, and dismissal by stealth.

What has not been so good, however, are the habitual sneers of Mr Syvret and others in infantile name calling - "Weirdcop" being their preferred term of abuse. That's just petty, but it is like a dripping tap, and that, coupled with and on top of quite legitimate reasons, probably was the last straw for Mr Warcup. This certainly counts as  what he terms "provocation and persistent attempts to undermine my authority as the Acting Chief Officer of Police". That has muddied the debate, and it is probably too much to hope that it will cease, but it it should not be allowed to divert attention from the very real and legitimate reasons for States members seeking a delay.

Talkback on Wiltshire

Christie Tucker presented BBC Radio Jersey's Talkback in her usual inimitable style this Sunday, in a programme devoted largely to the Wiltshire Report. There is something about a Canadian accent that sits well with political presentation on the BBC, perhaps going back to the days of Robert McKenzie whom I fondly remember with his "swingometer"!

In the course of the programme, Deputy Higgins asked an extremely relevant question about Operation Blast on Talkback, namely why the Attorney-General had seen fit to intervene over the nature of Bill Ogley's involvement. Mr Ogley, it will be remembered, was so concerned about his name being associated with Operation Blast that he took out an injunction to prevent the JEP mentioning his name.

What amazed me about Senator Le Marquand's reply was that he proceeded to read - and by his own admission - release a further paragraph omitted from the redacted report on air, and then went on to say he would be releasing further parts later!

So not only was something like 70% of the report missing, we are now told some of the missing pieces will be released, which begs the question of why they were missing in the first case, if they can now come out (albeit in dribbles as the Minister thinks fit)?

This makes a nonsense of such a severe redaction of the whole report in the first place, and I would like to know (1) who was responsible for such a severe redaction and (2) is it now - as it sounded on Talkback - Senator Le Marquand's own decision to decide to release further segments, on his own bat, as was certainly the case this morning. Is this ad hoc method of release supposed to represent professionalism? I have a great deal of respect for Senator Le Marquand, but I think he does his own reputation no favours by behaving in this fashion.

What is more, the paragraph he did read out only told us of the Attorney-General's decision, but did not explain exactly why the Attorney-General made that judgement (the legal argument, in detail); in other words, it was itself a summary, not a verbatim transcript (which seem to be far and few between).

I have an email which Senator Le Marquand permitted me to put in the public domain, in which he states categorically:

My preference is to release the full report with redaction being limited to the removal of names of witnesses etc. However, I need first to take advice from the A-G. There are issues such as possible libel which have to be looked at. At the end of the day I will take a political view of the matter which will take into account the legal advice.

Quite honestly, I am extremely disappointed by what he said here (in April) and what has been released, and given that the severe redaction may have taken "advice from the AG", how he is now able to cheerfully release extra paragraphs, with no consultation, on BBC Radio live.

He also talks about the same questions being asked of him, and the matter being like "Groundhog day", and yet he himself comes out with the same replies, as if that is the final word. For example, he repeatedly affirms that Dr Brain was not independent, but an advocate for Graham Power, and yet he pretends that the Wiltshire inquiry was independent, when it is perfectly plain that it was to be used as the "prosecution" case in a disciplinary hearing. That this is the case, and is not just my interpretation, is apparent from Senator Le Marquand's own words from the meetings with Dr Brain and Graham Power - the verbatim transcript (not a summary) reads:

"Even once I get the Wiltshire Report I will not be in a position to make decisions, other than perhaps to form any preliminary view, because to do justice to Mr. Power I must hear, in full, his account of matters."

Let me be clear how I stand. I am not "on Mr Power's side", or for that matter against any "establishment". There are supporters of Mr Power. Clearly, there are those like the Haut de La Garenne farce blog who are not. The Jersey Evening Post is providing a good précis of Wiltshire (as noted by Simon Crowcroft), but leaving out anything questionable (like the 70% missing). BBC Radio Jersey seems to me to be more balanced. I am not taking sides, or buying into media conspiracy theories.

All I am seeking is a little clarity which seems to be sadly lacking.

And apart from Wiltshire, where he seems muddled, and the presentation is, quite frankly, a shambles, Senator Le Marquand is, in my opinion, doing quite a good job in difficult circumstances and has worked hard at getting a Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law on the Statute Books.

It should also be remembered he voted in favour of exemptions on food for GST, unlike some of his contemporaries who defaulted on manifesto commitments. Some of his other manifesto commitments (and I see no signs that he has changed his mind) are extremely good - climate change, recycling initiatives, housing and population.

London Pride

It is five years since the London bombings took place just shortly after the next Olympics had been secured for London, and this is written both in remembrance of those tragic days, but also of the spirit of Londoners which was so apparent in the Blitz. The title, of course, is an allusion to the song by Noel Coward of the same name, and also on the unique spirit of its citizens.

London Pride

They say that pride comes before a fall
And for a day, we Londoners stood tall
Olympic triumph, victory in our hand
Yet time ran out like tiny grains of sand
Terror stalked the City, evil people laid
Bombs, ran off, hoping to make all afraid
Explosions rent the air, both underground
And on City streets, followed by a sound
Of pain, of crying, of weeping, of sorrow
And who knows what will be tomorrow?
But Londoners have been here long ago
When nightly bombings fell down below
We faced our worst fears in those fires
Yet rose from ashes, despite all conspires
To destroy hope, our resolve made stronger
We were not cowed by that warmonger
And will not be now, we mourn the dead
Weep and pray, but when all has been said
We will walk the streets, we will not hide
For we are Londoners, with London pride.

 

Some problems over redacted material with the Wiltshire reports

Historians are increasingly conscious of the fact that we can't write history. What we can write about is the way in which people see history and think history happens (Ronald Hutton)

In my earlier post, I noted how 60-70% of the Wiltshire report was missing or "redacted".

http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2010/07/missing-70-of-wiltshire.html

What difference does this make? It makes a great deal of difference, because it means that the context in which remarks are made are often not available, and the documentary material backing the report's conclusions is missing. It is like a mathematics problem, in which the problem is set out, the working out is missing, and suddenly there is a conclusion. There may be workings out, but we can't see them, and there may be leaps of logic which really are not justified, but without that 70%, we can't tell.

That is not to say that the evidence may not be there, but it may be subject to different interpretations. Let me take just two examples:

2.135 The only evidence we have been able to find of any action by CO POWER to address concerns about media reports is an e-mail to the Home Affairs Minister but which was dismissive and complacent in tone.

"Dismissive" and even more so "complacent in tone" are very subjective judgement. Why did Wiltshire think it was so? Did anyone else offer an opinion? In the absence of any email, that is telling us as much as how they perceive matters as what other people may think - in other words, the evidence - the email which is redacted - is lost, and we have to take it on faith that their judgment - of the tone of an email, which can be a notoriously difficult matter to assess - is accurate.

2.139 CO POWER told him [the Attorney-General] that DCO HARPER was due to retire in a matter of months and that there was a limit to the amount of practical control which he, CO POWER, could exercise. We find this unacceptable. This Inquiry believes that CO POWER should have done all within his authority to modify DCO HARPER's media approach and to provide strategic direction as to how Operation Rectangle should progress, especially in media terms.

Part of the problem with the redaction of the material is that we are left with conclusions.

For example, in this case, Wiltshire is presenting an interpretation - "limit to the amount of practical control" - but we just don't know what they based that on. This is the report of a meeting. Is that hearsay evidence from the Attorney-General, from Mr Power, or both? Given the elapsed time, if this is oral evidence, how accurate is it likely to be? Was the meeting minuted, and does appear in the minutes? If so, does that represent an accurate account of what was said or a point of view that gets what the AG understood as the gist? Was this confirmed anywhere else in emails (criterion of multiple attestation)?

I'm not saying that I might not agree with Wiltshire - I might if I had the full picture. But all I can conclude, and I give two of a considerable number of examples, is that because of the degree of redaction, it is very difficult to assess the reliability of the conclusions they draw in a number of instances, especially where there is no factual evidence available.

This will probably be not seen by the general public (along with the fact that only around 30% of the report is present - a fact not mentioned by the Jersey Evening Post) because people are generally not trained in the methods of historical research, and take the Wiltshire conclusions as face value rather than interpretations of data.

Treated as a historical document, which is all I am trying to do - I'm not trying to rubbish it, just to examine it impartially to see how much reliance can be placed on it - I'd have to say that there is a good deal of important primary documentation that in Wiltshire (as it has come to us) that is missing, and the range of reliability of the conclusions could be placed on a spectrum between very accurate (if one was something of a fundamentalist) or - if one adopted a hermeneutic of suspicion (i.e. did not take on trust anything that could not be independently corroborated) - not that that reliable at all.

Anyone who wants to see how this works should read Ronald Hutton's "The Druids", which is a first class look at how historical approaches to the druids vary depending on how much reliance one places on parts of documentary material.

Popular belief is often out of step with scholarly opinion; the idea that the Druids built Stonehenge was dismissed by scholars from the mid-19th century, but books were still promulgating this myth in the 1950s. They were also repeating one of the strangest beliefs, "that Druids had been bearers of the true patriarchal religion of the ancient Hebrews". In contrast, Victorian poetry and 20th-century popular fiction portrayed Druids performing bloody sacrifices.

Hutton's works teach us that much of history is interpretation: who is telling the story, when, and why, obviously affects the content: what we call "history". I've tried to show here that when we treat the Wiltshire report in a historical context, the missing data means that we are left with a lot of interpretation, and very little context.

As a brief conclusion to date: There is a mixture of opinion ("tone of email"), and third party reportage (CPO Power told...) which in the absence of background evidence which is redacted [i.e. missing], raises a number of extra questions over sources.

Links:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/the-druids-a-history-by-ronald-hutton-454050.html

http://wildhunt.org/blog/2007/05/hutton-and-druids.html

The Missing 70% of Wiltshire

Jim Hacker: You can get them from the Public Records Office under the 30-year rule.

Alex Andrews from the Mail: Yes, I thought you'd say that, but I want a guarantee that I will get ALL of them. You made a manifesto commitment saying you'd tell voters the facts. This is a test case. I want your guarantee that no papers will be removed from the file before it's opened.

Jim Hacker: I don't see why not. No skin off my nose.

Alex Andrews: Is that a promise? A REAL promise, not the sort you put in your manifesto!
(Yes Minister, The Skeleton in the Cupboard)

While there is bound to be a lot of comment on Graham Power's handling of Operation Rectangle, I have only just begun perusing the documents and am certainly not in a position to comment on the contents, apart from noting the following.
 
On the positive side, indications are given where names or sentences are removed.

On the negative side, a lot of text is removed! The only document which appears to be intact is the reports by BDO Alto on finances and use of resources seems to have escaped the textual equivalent of a Beeching axe, and that is printed sideways, so is impossible to read except by printing it out - how environmentally friendly!

In one of the reports, which is 109 pages long, page 9 to 89 are completely missing and the notice says "Text Redacted".  How one can judge a document where 75% is missing is beyond me. It may be argued that it is not significant, but how do we know? Who judged that it was not significant, and are they right or not? With one of the other reports, we have 118 pages of a 383 document, which is around 30% of the total - 70% of the pages are missing.

And that's not even taking into account where pages are there, but whole sentences are missed out, as for example:

On 29 May 2008, Deputy Andrew LEWIS took over Senator Wendy KINNARD's responsibility for Operation Rectangle. [TEXT REDACTED]. Deputy Andrew LEWIS then subsequently assumed the role of Home Affairs Minister in October 2008 after Senator KINNARD left her ministerial role.

Perhaps these should be submitted to "Have I Got News for You", so that the team can use them in their "missing words" round? Clearly there is something in that gap, but it is extremely difficult to guess what it is, or whether it might be significant. This kind of hacking whole sentences or parts of sentences to bits occurs throughout.

In a previous posting, I likened Wiltshire to the Diatessaron, but given this degree of excision, it is more akin to Marcion, who produced the first version of the Bible text that he liked. Anything he did not want was chucked out - all of the Old Testament, along with much of the New Testament, ending with 22 Chapters of Luke (out of 24), and 10 letters of Paul. It was butchery on a massive scale, and leaving 25% available in one document is very like that!

Of course all kinds of reasons are adduced, the principal one in this case being:

Witnesses interviewed as part of this investigation were not informed that their identities or information provided by them to the investigation Team would be published. As a consequence, only parts of the original Report are being published.
 
When it was decided not to use the report as a disciplinary measure of the kind that is part of a system that is just but simply to release it as a one-sided case, with little or no chance of Mr Power's side being heard, surely someone could have simply ensured that as many witnesses as possible gave their permission?

And when was it decided to release the report? It was certainly decided before the decision was made to drop the disciplinary charge - Senator Ian Le Marquand spoke of his intention to release the full report back around the 1st of April, this being " the full report with redaction being limited to the removal of names of witnesses etc.". So there was plenty of time - over three months - to ensure that 75% of one report would not vanish into the ether.

Finally, what became of the balanced and fair approach to justice enshrined in this statement by Senator Le Marquand? Clearly, he has made a decision, to release the report. Does that mean, that in not hearing in full Mr Power's side, he is not doing justice to Mr Power? Judged by his very own words, this would appear to be the case.

"Even once I get the Wiltshire Report I will not be in a position to make decisions, other than perhaps to form any preliminary view, because to do justice to Mr. Power I must hear, in full, his account of matters."

I hope that the both Graham Power and Dr Brain will provide a reply to Wiltshire, not necessarily that I would prejudge their case as watertight, but that I think the one-sided release of Wiltshire, to such fanfare and acclaim,  according to Senator Le Marquand's own standards - or the ones he certainly held in March 2009 - simply doesn't do justice to Mr Power.

Of missing material, the Yes Minister episode, The Skeleton in the Cupboard contains this excuse from Sir Humphrey Appleby for missing documents:

How will I explain the missing documents to the Mail?

Well, this is what we normally do in.....circumstances like these.

"This file contains the complete set of papers, except for a number of secret documents, a few others which are part of still-active files, some correspondence lost in the floods of 1967...records lost in the move to London, or when the War Office joined the Ministry of Defence, and the withdrawal of papers that could give grounds for an action for libel or breach of confidence or cause embarrassment to friendly governments."

To which we might add the following:

"The text of this Report has been redacted to ensure that, in publishing this Report, due regard is had to the relevant legal principles contained in the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000, the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005 and other legal duties."

Wiltshire Mud?

An anecdote tells of Sir Walter Raleigh, writing his "The History of the World (1614) while imprisoned in the Tower of London, before his execution, and seeing two workmen fighting. One killed the other, and despite his best efforts, asking guards, seeking information from fellow prisoners and those in the vicinity, all his diligent enquiries came to nothing. He was unable to find the cause of the quarrel, even though he had seen it happen.

I feel much as Raleigh did when I consider the soon to be released "Wiltshire Report". I've seen and heard quite of a few of the events, reported in the media, in press conferences, in debates in  the States, on blogs. But what the truth of the matter is, I fear, will be swept away in muddy waters.

The reasons for this are plain - the Wiltshire report has been redacted, that is edited:

" The minister in deciding which parts of this report to publish has sought to balance the requirement to be open and transparent with the need to be fair to individuals"

But how open and transparent will this be? In the case of MP's expenses, the simple way in which this was done was to "blackline" the areas that were not open to public scrutiny, and hence the reader could gain some idea of what was missing - not names, as such, but the areas hidden from view, and the extent of the areas from view.

If instead, what we are presented with are selections without any indication of what has been missed out, and the extent to which it has been missed out, and how that may change the emphasis of the whole, and how many people were involved in making these decisions. Let's look at what that might mean by a completely different historical example.

The Diatessaron (c 160 - 175) was a prominent Gospel harmony created by Tatian, an early Christian apologist and ascetic; the name means "made of four ingredients".  Tatian combined the four gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John - into a single narrative, following them closely in terms of text, but putting them in a quite different sequence. The genealogies in Matthew and Luke are omitted.  Jesus' encounter with the adulteress is omitted. Emphases were altered in a significant fashion. And yet no new material was added, just material selected and omitted. In all, 56 verses of the four gospels were removed.

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus noted this editing by Tatian as extremely significant, saying that "they did not perceive the mischief of the composition, but used the book in all simplicity on account of its brevity". Whether it was "mischievous", or simply "misleading" as 20th century scholars have argued is a matter of opinion; what is clear is that it was intended to replace the four gospels (with all their inherent contradictions) with a unified harmony.

If it had succeeded, it would be very difficult to work out what was missing, and the significance of any material edited out. It was certainly very popular, which is why Theodoret decided to address its weaknesses - it left out some matters of significance, and lacked completeness - it was presented as a substitute to take the place of fuller material.

I do wonder if the same may happen with the redacted Wiltshire, and this will be taken as the definitive history of the investigation, although it is manifestly incomplete. Senator Ian Le Marquand acknowledged this himself, when in the Suspension Review hearing of March 5, 2009, he wrote:

Even once I get the Wiltshire Report I will not be in a position to make decisions, other than perhaps to form any preliminary view, because to do justice to Mr. Power I must hear, in full, his account of matters.

I can see no indication in any recent press statements or reports from Hansard that Senator Le Marquand will be seeking Mr Power's account, and I can only hope that this is an oversight on his behalf. Mr Power, himself, in a recently released statement, noted that:

"It is known that the reports contain some criticism of the management of the enquiry. In effect they represent aspects of the "Prosecution Case" in the disciplinary enquiry initiated by the former Minister for Home Affairs in 2008. As well as the Prosecution Case there is also a Defence Case. Draft details of both cases are known to have been in the possession of the current Minister for Home Affairs since November 2009 at the latest, and possibly sooner. At every stage it has been the position of myself and my defence team that there was nothing in the Wiltshire Reports which could not be successfully defended at a fair and impartial hearing. Had such a hearing taken place we expected the defence case to succeed."

In the interests of natural justice, will Senator Le Marquand be publishing the "defence case" as well, or will this remain in the shadows, making the Wiltshire report even more one sided? A Wiltshire report, released on its own, will be misleading, if not mischievous, just like the Diatessaron. (One wonders if the Dean will show the same awareness of this as Bishop Theodoret.)

Other matters that do not inspire any great confidence are that the release of the redacted Wiltshire to the accredited media in advance of any States members, and denying States members any view of this report before the media. This is certainly not "a tale of professionalism", as one blog suggests, but shows complete contempt for one's fellow States members. Excuses about printing have been made, which in the age of PDF files is simply not acceptable or, quite honestly, believable. The report is embargoed for the media, but does Senator Le Marquand have so little confidence in his fellow politicians that he could not release it under the same embargo to them?

The "Citizen Media" bloggers have clearly obtained sight of a copy of Wiltshire - so much for Senator Le Marquand's attempt to keep the matter under wraps, and while under no press embargo, they have chosen to keep the contents to themselves, while preparing their own analysis to contrast with (for example) the JEP review of Wiltshire. They have behaved with impeccable professionalism and restraint in not releasing the report in full.

The Golden Door

The Golden Door

Shining, golden, gleaming gold,
Dared any who might be so bold,
To open the door, and go inside,
Into a world where none can hide,
And the streets paved with truth,
With the fresh vitality of youth,
But also houses of wisdom there,
Where elderly wise gather near;
Light shines with golden glory,
But then darkness, I cannot see;
The door is closed once more,
And as I walk beside the shore,
The restless tide upon the sands;
I still dream of those other lands,
Beachcombing upon the beach,
Looking for visions out of reach,
Hoping to find a golden key,
To fit the lock, that I may see.

Unhealthy Options

More evidence of the way local authorities are responding to the challenges of Austerity Britain - fat cat salaries and pensions for those at the top, while more lowly staff face pay freezes and job cuts. (Private Eye)

Matters aren't much different in Jersey, where the economies at the hospital mean taking on more management consultants to oversee the cuts - Yes Minister territory here in a big way - and cutting back on a few of the sewing staff. There may also be more "user pays charges".

Of course this is not entirely unexpected. In a former life, when in charge of health care development at South Essex , Julie Garbut, the proponent of this strategy, was associated with a closure that called forth the comment that "the options concern a reduction in services rather than in bureaucracy".

The whole exchange is given in Hansard, and it makes fascinating, if somewhat depressing reading. Remember the episode of Yes Minister where there is an entire hospital staffed with bureaucrats, but missing patients, and read her comments on where she placed the importance of hospital beds:

Running through the closure of Ongar and the minor injuries unit, and the problems at High Wood, is the impression that minds are already made up; that, despite fairly expensive consultation and full-page advertisements in a local newspaper, people are just going through the motions. Meetings on closures are held in rooms that are deliberately small, so that people who are concerned cannot get in. We have a meeting tomorrow in Brentwood to consider the minor injuries unit and High Wood hospital. The meeting was arranged for the last weekend before Christmas, with the feeling that the public would not turn up. I think that we shall be surprised tomorrow night.

Brentwood, which is bearing the bulk of the proposed closures--two of the units are within my constituency--feels strongly that if better use were made of the minor injuries unit, it would relieve an enormous amount of pressure on the national health service and reduce waiting time. The suggested savings of £132,000 seem small in comparison to the overall budget. Indeed, all the closures do not amount to very much. I have to agree with Councillor David Gottesmann--a Liberal Democrat--the leader of Brentwood council, that

"the options concern a reduction in services rather than in bureaucracy."

At High Wood hospital, the proposals include the closure of Magnolia ward, Laurels ward and Brambles day centre, with 50 in-patient beds. It is not surprising that Mrs. Queenie Bishop, the chairman of Brentwood Age Concern, says:

"residents are shocked and unhappy at the news."

The consultation document says that the aim is to "achieve the closure of the High Wood site."

Since the outcry, South Essex health authority has backpedalled on that. Julie Garbutt, the director of health care development for South Essex health authority, told a recent meeting of the community health council that the original document listing the options for saving money was "not accurate" when it stated that the aim was to achieve the closure of the High Wood site. She went on to say:

"We are not talking about the whole closure, we are talking about beds".

That is an interesting idea on how to create a more efficient hospital: do not close the hospital, just get rid of the beds. It saves on linen and also waiting times. I cannot help but feel that views on a hospital without beds are the same. The Ongar War Memorial hospital campaign group has a saying: "No beds equals no hospital."

Links:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo971218/debtext/71218-22.htm

TV Review: Identity, The Rev

ITV saw a new crime series "Identity", starring Keeley Hawes as DSI Martha Lawson in what appears to be a cross between "Spooks" and "Waking the Dead". This week saw an identity thief who decided to destroy anyone's life he came across where they were betraying a wife or husband. He did this by stealing their identity, committing crimes and planting evidence to frame them. It was quite a sharp and clever episode, but one wonders quite how many twists and turns there can be in plots revolving around identity theft.

Keeley Hawes was the nominal head of the particular outfit, but the episode did not really develop her character much. Instead it was DI John Bloom, played by Aidan Gillen, who took much more of a starring role. He had a strange maverick and charismatic character. Holly Aird turned up as a police force IT expert, adding to the feeling that this was akin to "Waking the
Dead", in which she played a police force pathologist expert. It is early days, but it looks promising.

BBC 2 had on Mondays at 10 pm, The Rev, which stars Tom Hollander as a vicar in a rundown east London parish. He is the Rev Adam Smallbone, the new vicar of St Saviour in the Marshes. Alongside him is Olivia Colman as Alex Smallbone, his wife who is a solicitor, with a penchant for sexual fantasies to spice up their humdrum marriage (the Rev's fantasy is just being with his
wife in bed, and as she points out, they do that, it's not a fantasy). Simon McBurney also stars as the slightly scary Archdeacon Robert - getting a good impression of what Jools Holland might be like if he wore a dog collar, and with a degree of headmasterish authority that the Dean had in All Gas and Gaiters.

This episode centred around a conflict between the Rev and an evangelistic vicar from the nearby church who came to the Revs with his congregation while theirs was being refurbished. The other vicar had a large congregation of hundreds where is the Rev barely managed twenty, and just to emphasize the contrast was around 6 ft 6 in to the Rev's 5 ft 6. The musical style was
different - very large sound system, a rapper leading the congregation along with the charismatic vicar, who as the Rev's wife astutely pointed out, was giving a performance, not a service. It was a show, not worship.

Yet despite the disparity, it was the Rev who shone, because when it came to the crunch, he would not exclude anyone from his congregation, where the other vicar was quite intolerant, and would not stand for the gays, down and outs, women priest. Matters came to a head when the other vicar said he would not have one of the Rev's congregation (after he'd pinched one of the ladies in the congregation's bottom), and the Rev said that was where they differed, he would not turn anyone away.

This was the occasion of probably the one quotation of scripture. "How many times should you forgive", said the Rev, quoting Matthew's gospel, "Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times." It was both apposite and telling. The archdeacon, despite the loss of earnings for the use of the church by the other minister, backed up the Rev - this was, he said, the way the Church of England was - compassionate, inclusive. They showed love to the unlovable.

Although it is being pitched as a comedy, and even as a sitcom, that I think just illustrates the incapacity of the TV reviewers to pigeon hole this programme. It takes a wry, sometimes amusing, sometimes sad, look at the life of this Vicar, and it portrays him and his congregation very truthfully. It's more akin to a series of short stories, half and hour long, in which we see snapshots from the life of this man and those around him. Unlike Roald Dahl, there are no sudden twists at the end, but like Somerset Maugham, there is always something at the end, some summing up, some dénouement which forms a fitting climax to the episode. Radio knows the short story well, but apart from Alan Bennett's Talking Heads - which traversed the same ground, but as monologues - Television does not really know this genre well.

The Fiscal Stimulus Fudge

Half a million pounds of public money will be pumped into Jersey Tourism to boost flagging visitor numbers. This is the second time in a year that tourism has been given financial help by the States. The latest cash injection will fund a new marketing campaign to target last-minute business for the peak summer months. It will feature radio, national press and, for the first time this year, television advertising on channels including ITV. The money will come from the States fiscal stimulus package set up to safeguard the economy during recession (1)

Cash from the £44m fiscal stimulus fund has only reached 7% of Jersey firms, a Chamber of Commerce survey found. The research, in a quarterly business confidence survey, found 65% of Jersey businesses saying they had not felt any effects of a stimulus package. Chamber president Ray Shead said most of the aid had gone to States projects. The Treasury Minister has previously defended this, stating funding states projects would see the cash trickle down into the wider economy. (2)

I've been looking at a selection of items which have received money from the fiscal stimulus fund, and it seems that there are a lot of those relating to States spending, and very few indeed on private sector projects. Of the ten listed below, only the first two seem to be in the private sector. Elsewhere, I wonder if the fiscal stimulus fund would be better called the "fiscal stimulus fudge" as it seems to be a wonderful way of getting more money into States budgets while keeping it off the accounts.

Rather than "living within their means", or having - as in the days of Reg Jeune - a round of "supplementary" funds - the fiscal stimulus fund can be raided for States projects so that the departments don't have to worry about managing the costs within their present budgets. True, they have to "make a case" to the Treasury department, but is that so different to the cases made in the days of supplements to budgets?

Some of this is a matter of timing - much as it was when Reg Jeune, back in the late 1980s, offset the recession then by "bringing forward capital projects", but the unique nature of the fiscal stimulus fund means that it does not appear as a supplement to a budget asked for by Ministers as used to be the case, but as a supposed boost to the economy.

But of items 3 to 10, only (3) Highlands and (7) Jersey Finance have any real bearing on the economy, with (3) allowing retraining and more training locally of young people, and (7) helping the finance industry with overseas markets. The Tourism funds (as mentioned above) can also be added to that category for helping tourism (even if they also help boost the Tourism departments budget).

The others certainly help the building industry, but it is not at all clear how they help other local retailers and traders. The "trickle down effect" mentioned by the Treasury Minister seems to be a typical piece of rhetoric, unsupported by any actual facts - if they get any trickle down, it appears to be more like scraps from the rich man's table.

1) Jersey Hospice Care is to receive a £2.6 million boost from the States fiscal stimulus fund, to help redevelop Clarkson House.

2) Money from the fiscal stimulus fund is to be used to help Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust develop a new visitor centre, including new retail and café facilities at the Trust's Trinity site. The Treasury Minister has given the green light to allocate £1.5 million to fund 50% of Durrell's £3million 2010 capital investment programme, on the condition that fiscal stimulus funding is matched pound for pound by Durrell's own fund-raising.

3) Continued fiscal stimulus funding will provide for more than 100 additional student places at Highlands College in the next academic year. Treasury and Resources Minister Senator Philip Ozouf has approved the allocation of £620,500 from the £44 million discretionary fiscal stimulus fund to enable Highlands to offer an increased number of full-time places, for the second year running.

4) More than £8 million of fiscal stimulus funds have been allocated to the Housing Department to build 49 new rental homes at Le Squez in St Clement.

5) Fiscal stimulus funds are being used to improve facilities in a hospital ward for people with dementia.

6) Money from the fiscal stimulus fund is being used to improve health and safety standards in Jersey's markets and a number of public buildings.

7) Jersey Finance Limited will also receive £100,000 to support its work in emerging markets as money continues to be distributed from the fiscal stimulus fund to protect and develop the Island's financial services sector.

8) The Transport and Technical Services Department has been awarded a total of £528,155 from the fiscal stimulus fund to complete work which will repair and upgrade a major foul sewer in St Brelade.

9) Money from the fiscal stimulus fund is being used to refurbish a former school and to replace windows and doors at two housing estates. The Housing Department has been allocated £80,341 to place new doors at Les Cinq Chenes estate and £129,888 to replace windows at Brighton Close. Although both projects had been planned for the next few years, they have now been brought forward thanks to the extra funding.

10) Further essential road rebuilding and resurfacing on Victoria Avenue and St Aubin's Road has received the go-ahead for funding from the States' fiscal stimulus fund. £2.3m has been allocated from Treasury and Resources to complete the final phase of the repair and replacement of road, drains and lights on Victoria Avenue, from First Tower to West Park. £0.24m has also been allocated for deep reconstruction and resurfacing works on St Aubin's Road from the West Park roundabout to the junction with Cheapside.

Links:
1) http://www.thisisjersey.com/2010/06/29/500000-to-fund-advertising-campaign/
2) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/jersey/8548195.stm

Agenda for Amos Group meeting on July 7th

Agenda for AMOS GROUP of  CHRISTIANS TOGETHER IN  JERSEY on Wed. July 7th at 5.15 at  St. Thomas Welcome Centre

Opening prayer  

Welcome to Trish Tumelty, who works with Early years  groups. She will update us on the work with pre-school children.  I have just received information about the 'Early Years and Childcare partnership'.   It seems that  things are really moving forward in this area at last

Briefly
Income Support Scrutiny panel   Update 
Response to Island Plan consultation,   A response  made by EGLeQ and public hearings to be held at end of September
Future date  Wed. Sept. 8th   

The Grace

Memories of Summer Past

The first of July would have been mine and Annie's fifth anniversary of meeting; we always celebrated it every year. This year, I have written this reflective poem which I hope evokes the countryside she so loved.

Memories of Summer Past
 
I miss you so, so dearly want
So hard when you did die
And now unseen. Your spirit free
And ashes gently lie
 
My memories yet restore again
And walking down the lake
Within the paths we did progress
And where my heart does ache
 
And when I walk through shady vale
Walk up the country hill
Along such paths that we have trod
Such memory have I still
 
Those were the days, of you and me
My sweetest love, my rose
Time came once still as vantage point
Then gently onward flows
 
Good outweighs the pain and strife
Ashes rest beneath your tree
And I shall love you evermore
As joys past come to me

Directing the Post

A letter to the JEP in 28th June 2010 complains about delays in the postal service:

What an absolute disgrace this new postal service is. What possible justification is there for sitting on mail that has already been collected from the post box and then delivering it three days later on an Island nine miles by five. On 19 June I received two letters postmarked 16th June from Jersey and one from the UK postmarked 18th June. How many people are aware that when they use the self-stick stamps they bought before prices went up that this is what they can expect? (1)

But the really important part of their letter is as follows:

It is particularly disgraceful that the above system includes hospital appointments. When unwell and told that an appointment will be made, it is worrying to have to wait several days to hear. (1)

With the Postal consultation suggesting a restricted service to 3 days a week, and daily only to those who will pay for it, what is the position regarding official and important letters, such as those for hospital appointments, or for that matter, for anything like a final reminder?

It might be said that people should pay on receipt of an invoice, but in recessionary times, when budgets are tight, more people will probably be paying later, and a delayed service may mean that even if they pay on time, the delay in letters travelling to and fro may take them beyond the seven days notice usually given. And it is not just in Jersey that this problem has been seen. Across the water in Guernsey, where similar suggestions have
been made, the same argument against is given:

Recently, one of your comment columns referred to the OUR (Office of Utility Regulation) report about the future of the postal service and suggested that householders would probably be satisfied with deliveries two or three times a week rather than every day. I would suggest that this could cause serious problems as many people do not use computers and rely on regular, prompt delivery of their mail that may include important items such as medical appointments and invoices etc. that may be subject to responses within a short delay. (2)

But what is really interesting is a letter published in the JEP the same day by "anonymous", which somehow did not make it into the online version of the paper. I don't know who decides these matters, but while it is in the public domain - the JEP's readership, the library archives - it must be helpful to know that a letter which is clearly an embarrassment to Jersey Post, when they are talking about cutbacks, is not more widely seen.

In response to Ian Carr, CEO Jersey Post (JEP, 18 Jun), headlined Change is vital to build sustainable future.

I'm pleased Mr Carr has agreed with some of the points I raised. However, the gist of my succinct letter concerned the directors' excessive salaries and bonuses received at this time of recession, and there justification when the rank and file received nothing.

The only mention I could see, was a, short paragraph, which read as follows: 'Regarding directors' remuneration, benchmarking, and realignment of packages to market rates started with directors' posts two years ago'.

Great terminology, but it still does not justify these amounts when: the workforce are getting nothing. Even though I still think the salaries are excessive, I do understand that the directors are in a highly responsible position. It is the bonuses that cause me and others concern.

The UK Prime Minister earns a similar salary to Mr Carr and is responsible for 60 million people; not 400 as is Mr Carr.

Top executive salaries and bonus comparisons for 2008/2009 are: chief executive, £153,000 and £179,000: (£26,000 increase); Finance director, £154,000 and £162,000 (£8,000 increase); . and HR director, £140,000 and £165,000 (£25,000 increase).

If Mr Carr and his fellow directors want to introduce 'change is vital to build a sustainable future' (his words), and are genuine in their concern. for Jersey Posts' future, then I suggest they do the decent thing and inject their bonuses back into the business to secure the financial viability and future for all of us.

This would show 'true commitment to the work force regain their trust and respect, and boost the morale.

Before I wrote my original letter I did my research for its contents by carefully listening and talking to all members of staff and gauging their opinions, moods, and their hopes for the future as to what is happening presently. at Jersey Post.;

I believe I am more in touch with the workforce, being 'at the coalface' than, sadly, our directors are. Mr Carr states he has a 'passion and clear vision' for the business and intends to see it survive into the future, however difficult that future may be.

It will not survive if they continue to pay themselves over half a million pounds in salaries and bonuses between three of them. Unfortunately, the truth is painful - Mr Carr and his fellow directors have been sat in their ivory tower at Rue des Pres for too long and have lost touch with the real workforce living in the real world.

Management salaries have also come to light in Guernsey:

The remaining Guernsey Post turnover of just £22m. (and declining) has labour costs of a staggering £13m., the majority of which is made up of management salaries. This is one of the things that the OUR are demanding must change, and rightly so. Guernsey Post is quite simply being extremely badly managed and the extent of this mismanagement has been brought to the attention of the public by the OUR and Guernsey Post don't like it. (2)

And the Guernsey readers have also noted the contents of a previous letter to the JEP on the subject (also apparently not online), and writes in the Guernsey Star:

I think that it is wise to gather as much information on a subject before one comments.. The simple fact - in Jersey at least - is that the Post Office is inefficient. I quote: "Jersey Post accounts for directors Salaries 2009: managing director, £133,000 plus £46,000 bonus equals £179,000 (2008, £153,000); finance director, 128,000 plus £34,000 bonus equals £162,000 (2008, £154,000); HR director £123,000 plus £42,000 bonus equals £165,000 (2008, £140,000). Total salaries for three members of staff, £506,000."(3)

When these large salaries and bonuses are shown, we are inevitably told that these companies have to pay "market value", but precisely how this rather nebulous figure is arrived at is never given in detail.

Payscale, an organisation which collects data to make comparisons of market value tells the inquirer:

Our algorithms analyze up to 100 comparable data points (position, location, experience, education, etc.) of individuals with similar attributes to create each report. The matches are precise and exceed traditional sample sizes for highly detailed comparisons of this nature. A PayScale Salary Report must be based on a minimum of 5 profile matches (your position, level, location, industry, etc.). If we can't find at least 5 profile matches for a position, then we consider the number of data points insufficient to provide a meaningful representation of the market and we will not produce a report.(4)

But all this means is that "market value" is what similar jobs in the market might get, and the set of data for small Islands and their economies is probably very small. It also means that jobs get advertised at these salaries, and people look for employment on those terms, regardless of what the job actually involves - because it is purely a statistical comparison, it divorces the job (and kind of work done) from the value it commands. It is, in a way, self-perpetuating.

As these kinds of figures are used to set salaries, perhaps it is time to call their bluff, and see if the market will in fact turn up eager candidates, just as competent as those who search after bloated salaries, as C. Northcote Parkinson once suggested. I think the results could well be surprising.

Links:
(1) http://www.thisisjersey.com/2010/06/28/postal-service-is-a-disgrace/
(2) http://www.thisisguernsey.co.uk/discus/messages/11779/11913.html?1272034151
(3) http://www.thisisguernsey.co.uk/discus/messages/11779/11913.html?1272034151
(4) http://www.payscale.com/resources_methodology

On the Spot Fines for Motorists Again

When I was reading  "The Norman Isles" by Basil C de Guerin (1948), I noted the following:

Of these latter the most important is the parish "Constable", or mayor, whose duty it is to issue licences to motorists resident within his domain. Under the local law these Constables and their junior officers known as "Centeniers", all of whom serve on an entirely voluntary basis, have power to stop any motorist or cyclist and to fine them on the spot up to a sum of 5/- for minor offences committed in the officer's parish.

and asked the question:

I wonder when that practice stopped, and why?

Thank to the extremely diligent Senator Ian Le Marquand (who has given his permission to share this), I can now note that it has not been rescinded in principle, but the level of the fine has increased proportionately.

The Centeniers retain substantial powers to fine at a parish hall level provided that the offender agrees that he is guilty and agrees to the level of fine. Those powers were recently increased to up to 200 pounds per offence.

Ian goes on to tell me how the procedure has changed, which means that it is less used for spot fines, although it could be used at a Parish level to reduce the demands on the Police Court:

However, what has changed is that a Centenier no longer deals with his own cases. In other words if a Centenier using a laser gun detects a speeder it will have to be another Centenier who deals with the matter at the Parish Hall. This principle therefore makes it more difficult to have on the spot fines given by Centeniers.

There are countries which allow police officers to ward and collect on the spot fines and they seem to ignore this principle.

He also mentions that there is also a long term review over whether States police officers should have the right to give fines, but this has difficulties with respect to human rights legislation.

I worked for some years on a group called the 1864 Group which was chaired by the Deputy Bailiff when he was the Attorney General. This group looked at the possibility of the development of on the spot fines by States police officers. We did not exclude it but it is not without difficulties particularly in relation to Human Rights issues.

It seems that moving back to the Centeniers dealing with it at a Parish Hall level may be the way to go. The really big question is whether the paperwork of Parish Hall Enquiries can be streamlined in some way.

A former Centenier told me that this seems increased workload seems to have come in after 1974 with the passing of the Police Law giving the States Police island wide jurisdiction, and the task of administration has gradually increased. He noted that up to recently (and probably still in place), the situation regarding paperwork and administration involved quite a lengthy chain of referrals:

In my time, before a formal Parish Hall Enquiry could be held, there had to be prima facie evidence of an offence and this had to be supported by a Police Report (completed either by an Honorary or States officer) using States Police forms. The report was sent to the Administrative Support Unit at States Police HQ and considered by them. They would then send back an Enquiry Results form containing a recommendation as to how the matter should be disposed of; it was in the discretion of a Centenier not to follow this recommendation but he would be expected to give cogent reasons as to why not.

Small Rivets in the Titanic Court Case

According to the Belfast Telegraph, construction of the Titanic Signature project "is a month ahead of schedule, with the landmark building on course to open in the first quarter of 2012."(1)

But Titanic Quarter, the property development, is finding the going harder.

"Mr Smith [chief executive of Titanic Quarter Ltd] said he is not concerned Titanic Quarter - a 1,000,000 square foot development - may find it hard to attract tenants in the current depressed property market, though the company is having to work hard to secure investments on the scale of Citi Bank's recently opened operation"(1)

The Titanic Quarter has a number of apartments whose price was agreed at the height of the property market, before the credit crunch took hold, and property values fell, and financing loans became more difficult as banks became less willing to lend money. Here the picture is not so rosy:

"People signed a contract and we believe that those contracts are watertight," he said. "We are working with people to get them to complete their contracts. We haven't sought to litigate against everyone who has delayed. (1)

This can be seen most clearly in what is a landmark test case reported by the BBC News on the 11 June 2010, in which the person has no money at all:

An order for a cash-strapped buyer to complete on an apartment in the Titanic Quarter in Belfast would be impossible to enforce, the High Court has heard. Lawyers for a jobless man being sued for failing to honour a purchase contract argued that their client was completely without cash. The defence is being put forward as a test case and may determine the wider action brought by Titanic Quarter Ltd. The company issued writs against 12 customers who failed to secure finance. (2)

The financial situation in Ireland shows little sign of getting much better in the foreseeable future:

Lacking stimulus money, the Irish economy shrank 7.1 percent last year and remains in recession...Joblessness in this country of 4.5 million is above 13 percent, and the ranks of the long-term unemployed - those out of work for a year or more - have more than doubled, to 5.3 percent (3)

It appears that Neil Rowe, at the centre of this court case, is one of those jobless:

Titanic Quarter Ltd, owned by Dublin-based Harcourt Properties, is seeking orders of "specific performance" which would compel the defendants to honour their side of the deal. Several defendants are fighting the action by claiming they simply have no money. The court heard one of them, Neil Rowe, is currently unemployed and has no other assets to enable him to complete on his agreed purchase. His barrister, Richard Coghlin, said: "The element of futility and impossibility is brought about by the circumstances of the defendant and also by the impossibility, we say, of enforceability of any order for specific performance." (2)

I can understand that Harcourt, having invested in property, and having contracts agreed on the apartments, does not want to be out of pocket. That seems fair enough, but their pursuit of their claim seems to verge not only upon what might be seen by some as vindictiveness, but in the case of Neil Rowe, of a kind of willful blindness to the circumstances of the unfortunate man. Surely as with a bank foreclosing on a property, and then selling it on, Harcourt can argue a good case to reclaim ownership of the apartment and sell in to another buyer? But perhaps, given the parlous state of the economy, there may be no buyers;  perhaps the property market is not buoyant enough for them to pursue this strategy:

Drained of cash after an American-style housing boom went bust, Ireland has had to borrow billions; its once ultralow debt could rise to 77 percent of G.D.P. this year.(5)

The signs of austerity are all around:

Signs of the decline encrust Dublin's streets. Boisterous crowds still mash onto the cobbles of Temple Bar. Yet farther out, "To Let" posters obscure the hollowed shells of once-vibrant cafes and clothing shops. Fifteen minutes north of the city center, hulks of empty buildings form stark symbols of why Ireland must now hunker down. At Elm Park, a soaring industrial and residential complex, 700 employees of the German insurer Allianz are the lone occupants of a space designed for thousands. In the impoverished Ballymun neighborhood, developers began razing slums to make way for new low-income housing. Halfway through the project, the financing dried up, leaving some residents to languish in graffiti-covered concrete skeletons. "Welcome to Hell," read one of the tamest messages. (5)

The sunken road (maintenance £500,000 per annum cost to the States) and the prestigious Hopkins Masterplan that Harcourt dreamed of building belong to an age of plenty, of booming business, and Jersey's prosperity, but the downturn of the economy makes me wonder if we could end up with something like that terrible picture of half-finished decay over here. Perhaps it is time to scale back ambitions, and look for something more modest. Otherwise, the States may have to pick up the pieces, at a time when they are trying to save money, rather than spend it.

Ireland is a mirror of what Jersey might look like if we don't pull back on grandiose schemes, and a warning that hubris inevitably leads to nemesis. The court cases in the Titanic Quarter are small rivets, coming unstuck, but if enough rivets fail, the ship may sink.

Links
(1) http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/business-news/weather-puts-titanic-project-on-course-for-2012-opening-14858706.html
(2) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/10298214.stm
(3) http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2010/06/ireland-austerity-in-action.html? utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CalculatedRisk+%28Calculated+Risk%29
(4) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8620288.stm
(5) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/business/global/29austerity.html

What's in a Name?

I'm going to change my name
Why, what's wrong with your old one?
It's Bill Smells
Yes, I can see why you are going to change it. What is your new name going to be.
Charlie Smells

(Chestnut Corner, Band Waggon, BBC Radio 4, 1940s)

In Jersey, the Superintendent Registrar holds the registers of births, deaths and non-Anglican marriages registered by the Registrars of the twelve Parishes from 1842 to the current year, and records of Anglican marriages registered by the Rectors and Vicars from various dates up to the current year. The surname of the child had been that of the mother where the parents were not married, and there was no allowance for the father's surname to be taken instead.

Jersey finally caught up with the same rights enjoyed in the United Kingdom with the Marriage and Civil Status [Amendment No 2] [Jersey] Law 2008 which came into force in March 2009 and "enables parents , both married and unmarried, to choose any surname for their children when registering the birth of a child."(1). The law is retrospective, so where this was not permitted before, it can now be permitted.

However, the Registrar is still the final arbiter over Christian names, and it would be interesting to know if the same degree of latitude that the United Kingdom enjoys can apply over here.

The Radio 4 Programme, "The Name Game" explored the world of changing names, both first names and surnames. Last year over 50,000 people changed their names by deed polls. There are a variety of reasons.

Historically immigrants want to change their names, to sound more British, and to adopt a protective colouring when integrating with British culture. I know a Maurice Green, for example, whose family was originally Greenburg. This trend has probably diminished in a more multicultural society, but still goes on.

But there is also a drive towards rebranding, a kind of identity reinvention, to do with changing goals and self-image. Sometimes this can be to do with escaping the nonsense that your parents saddled you with, although this can be done otherwise - "Tiger Lily Heavenly Hirani" for example, manages by calling herself plain "Lily", "Zowie Bowie", the son of pop star David Bowie, was fortunate to have a first name of Duncan, and his father's real surname of Jones, so he now goes under the name of Duncan Jones.

But names can be changed temporarily to make political points. In October 2002 Labour MP Austin Mitchell "temporarily changed his name to Austin Haddock as haddock is a staple catch for his constituents that was suffering a decline and it was his wish to promote it."(2)

A more permanent name change was done by was Seán Dublin Bay Rockall Loftus:

In 1972 the Dublin Port and Docks Board proposed the building of an oil refinery in Dublin Bay. The plan was vigorously opposed by environmentalists, including Loftus, on the grounds that it posed a serious risk of pollution. At the 1973 general election, Loftus stood for election to the Dáil in the Dublin North Central constituency as a Christian Democrat on the issue of Dublin Bay. Under election rules, he would be listed as 'Independent', he changed his name by deed poll to "Seán D. Christian Democrat Dublin Bay Loftus" in order that his political affiliation and campaign issue would appear on the ballot paper.(3)

In the following years Loftus changed his name by deed poll several times more, to "Seán Dublin Bay Loftus", "Seán Dublin Bay Rockall Loftus" (as part of a campaign to press the Irish Government to make a territorial claim to the Rockall islet 424 kilometres off the coast of County Donegal) and "Seán Alderman Dublin Bay Rockall Loftus"....He continued to contest Dáil and European elections until 1997. He remained on Dublin City Council, and served as Lord Mayor of Dublin from 1995 to 1996.

As Lord Mayor, he would sign his documents "Seán Dublin Bay Rockall Loftus", so the name change has been included in official record.

Other surnames are changed because they are the cause of insults. If your surname is "Crap", for example, you may wish to change it. One family, interviewed for the programme, explained how they had changed their surname from "Gay" after it had blighted their son at school, where he was the target for bullies, and did not want to see his name on any awards or school certificates as a result. The family were happy with the idea of a name change; the wife said that " I think it was initially felt that my husband was more upset as he had experienced bullying at school and didn't want his son growing up with the same issues". Once the name was change, his confidence was restored massively overnight. And name changing can be quick - the husband changed his family surname online in little more than half an hour, plus fee, for the deed poll. Although as his wife said, while he boasted about how easy this was, it was she who had to write to the banks, the utility companies etc and sort out the real paperwork - "he doesn't accept that I spent six months time to really do it by writing to every company I came across!"

Sometimes the name change is practical. Someone divorced may revert to their maiden name. But among the more radical names changes (4) are:

A man named General Ninja Ant
Company director Janice Glover became Saxon Knight
Brown now answers to Aron Mufasa Columbo Fonserelli Ball In A Cup Boogie Woogie Brown
(representing his range of interests)

Happy Adjustable Spanners, 27, from Hornchurch, Essex, changed his name under the influence of alcohol, after a bet. Formerly Daniel Westfallen, he is now trying to get to grips with his new situation. For some, the motivation was a general yearning for a happier life.

Mike Barrett, chief executive of the UK Deed Poll Service, said that the rise was due in part to the increasing use of the agency's online service. The charge is only £33. The legal position is as follows:

- Changing one's name does not require legal proof. However, evidence of the change may be required, for instance when applying for a passport
- A public announcement such as a notice in a newspaper can be used as evidence that one's name has changed
- A letter from a responsible person, such as a GP, solicitor, minister, priest or MP will often be regarded as sufficient evidence, though not when applying for a passport
- Names can be changed by deed poll - a formal statement to prove the change. A number of private companies will supply a deed poll for a fee (4)

I liked the interview with Mrs British Battleaxe, who told the interviewer that "I am British, and I am a Battleaxe". The interviewer asked her what her friends called her - the reply was "bossy"!

Prof. Anthony Elliott of Flinders University in Adelaide was interviewed by BBC Radio 4 concerning his research on global identity transformations and his theory of 'new individualism', and he says it is a kind of rebranding of the self, and is one of the makeovers of personal reality like other crazes such as the rise of speed dating and therapy culture, and even plastic surgery. He said "I think something similar is going on with name changes today" that is what he calls "the reinvention craze"; here there is a "message that you can change yourself instantly", and "redesign yourself". But he wonders if it will really make the participants very happy for long. He suggested that it also goes hand-in-hand with the massive growth that we have seen in the last 20 or so years in people being interested in their own ancestry and doing their own family history; and he suggest that they "what they wanted to show uniqueness more homogeneity" in so doing.

The programme also mentioned something I was oblivious too and which is surprising. Surnames in Turkey were only adopted around 75 years ago, with the "Surname Law of the Republic of Turkey" (adopted on June 21, 1934.) This is astonishing, when in Britain, surnames emerged "in the 13th century when state bureaucracy got busy taxing and counting us increasing the need for surnames "

Few names are rejected by the authorities. Any name with Sir or Lord as a component is normally refused because it suggests a legal entitlement that does not exist. But the range of other names, as Mrs British Battleaxe demonstrates, suggests that changing names is one of the liberties of British people

Whether Jersey would permit such a libertarian attitude remains to be seen. I suspect that it may not.

There is one interesting local addendum on name changing, however. Before Jersey and Guernsey had a proper adoption law on their Statute books, adoption was an ad hoc process done by changing the surname (and often the Christian name) by Deed Poll, and by making the quasi-adoptive parents legal guardians of the child. A nasty consequence of this was that if the parents died intestate, there would be no legal right of inheritance. I imagine this could still effect some older people in either Island, although because an adoption law was introduced (The Adoption (Jersey) Law, 1961), the number of people so effected will someday soon be zero.

Links
BBC Radio 4, The Name Game
(1) http://www.cab.org.je/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=365
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_Mitchell
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Se%C3%A1n_Dublin_Bay_Rockall_Loftus
(4) http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article5400724.ece

Sea Change

Sea Change
 
It is the ending of days, last of sun and sand
The wind changes direction, a colder hand
Denoting a sea change coming, unsettled time
Weather not easily forecast, changing clime
Turbulent waves of the spring tide breaking
In their thunder, the language of the making
If we can but interpret it, but subtle are ways
By which we come to learn the book of days
In the rocks, above the tide mark, I can see
A spider's web, spun with design, of an end
In intricate mystery, a pattern to apprehend
Perhaps at best, a woven web of guesses
This way, and this alone, truth expresses
Above, the gulls soar in the wind, a dance
In the air, display of harmony and chance
And their cries rend the air, seeming call
To whatever destiny our path may befall
This is the sea of faith, the shingled beach
Always at hand, and always out of reach.

What is a Well-Regarded Journalist?

A Whitehall Commonwealth Development Corporation holding a wine and canapés evening sparked a spectacular public relations disaster. Prodded by Private Eye with a mission to attend the event, e-mails were fobbed, and the Eye was told "you were not invited and you won't therefore be admitted"; the reason for this was given that "only well-regarded journalists" from "proper publications" would be admitted

It's interesting to see that Private Eye finds itself in the same deep gray "no man's land" which the bloggers in Jersey - who can be roughly grouped under the name citizen media - have also found themselves, when trying to attend critical meetings such as those held by scrutiny committees

The bloggers therefore find themselves in good company. From this, it seems very plain that part of the antipathy held by official groups is less to do with "accreditation" or being "well regarded" and more to do with the fact that, like Private eye, they cannot be counted upon to be submissive and servile.

In the event, Private Eye responded by holding its own review outside the event handing out a summary of the CDC's worst excesses to arriving guests. After the Eye team were sworn at by the Communications Officer, the guest speaker Bob Geldof agreed that the press censorship was "fokking outrageous" and after a complete climb-down Private Eye reporters were admitted.

Private Eye has never been part of the press lobby and demonstrates, as it bears repeating -- note to Rob Shipley -- that there is a place for an evidence-based but more vocal media outlet of local news. It is a lesson that should give heart to citizen media everywhere.

Links:
Private Eye, p5, No 1265

Neanderthals- Our Cousins

"In 1856, quarry workers in Germany found bones in a cave which seemed to belong to a bear or other large mammal. They were later identified as being from a previously unknown species of hominid similar to a human. The specimen was named Homo Neanderthalis after the valley in which the bones were found."(1)

"In Our Time", with Melvin Bragg, aided and assisted as ever by a team of experts - Simon Conway Morris (Professor of Evolutionary Palaeobiology at the University of Cambridge), Chris Stringer (Research Leader in Human Origins at the Natural History Museum and Visiting Professor at Royal Holloway, University of London) and Danielle Schreve (Reader in Physical Geography at Royal Holloway, University of London) - looked recently at Neanderthals, and the latest research on this species which was our close cousin.

Neanderthals lived from around 4,00,000 BC to around 40,000 BC, and dwelt mainly (but not entirely) in the North and East, where our ancestors, Homo Sapiens were still coming out of Africa. We think we have bad times ahead with global warming, but over this period there were relatively rapid and violent oscillations in climate between extremely tropical conditions over much of Europe, and Ice Ages. These are, of course, geologically rapid - about every 100,000 years, but that is fast in the scale of geological time, and the speakers suggested that it was this violent change which was one of the key evolutionary drivers of human evolution.

It seems that they migrated from Africa during an glacial period, when there were sufficient land bridges across the continents, while our own species was stopped as tidal levels rose during the interglacial periods, and our own migration was very much delayed, and some time shortly before 400,000 BC, we split from a common ancestor, possibly homo erectus.

Hence, they were not in any sense a so-called missing link; rather they were very evolved humans and shared most of the characteristics of a large brain but with a larger brow ridge, a larger nose (possibly evolved for breathing in colder climates), and were much shorter and stockier than modern humans, which is why early specimens were thought to have been deformed, whereas in fact they were very muscular. They were hunter / gatherers rather than farmers, and usually cave dwellers. They also had fair skin and red hair which helped in a cold climate because fair skin can metabolise vitamin D.(2)

As there is a considerable overlap in time and geography, from around at least 100,000 BC, I wonder if some of the traditions of dwarves, trolls, or goblins might not, in part, be derived from the tens of thousands of years when we shared some of the same hunting grounds, which has somehow become a distant race memory, surfacing in folklore and legends. Think of short stocky people, with high brow ridges, large noses, and large beards, and the image is there.

The spread of Neanderthals has been discovered to be far wider than was previously thought, from a small sample of Neanderthals from Europe in particular, they have turned up in the Middle East and even as far away as Uzbekistan. DNA testing has been useful here in validating bone samples, as mitochondrial DNA can be found even in some of these ancient bones, and doesn't degrade too much as long as it is away from conditions of high humidity.

Neanderthals had the same gene that is a pre-condition of language, and by the evidence that they worked in teams, often at close quarters, jabbing at their prey with spears, it is likely they used language to communicate and coordinate their hunts. This also is reflected in their care of the injured, who would have been cared for, rather than just being left to die. Being at such close quarters with their prey, there is considerable evidence of injuries in the story told by the bones; a lifespan of around 30-40 would have been "old age", and there is also some evidence that they matured faster than modern humans.

This would tie in with the suggestion of Steven Mithen that the characteristic that distinguishes modern humans from Neanderthals is an extended period of infancy and childhood, allowing for greater growth in intellectual abilities. It is known (c.f. Stephen Jay Gould), that this retention of infantile characteristics, known as neoteny, marks a major difference between humans and apes, and is reflected in an exceptionally greater life span than would be expected statistically, and might explain the difference in brain power when it came to the development of more sophisticated technologies.

Neanderthals knew their landscape intimately, where to find their prey, and how to kill it - it is clear that in Jersey, they stampeded woolly mammoths over the cliff top near La Cotte, and then salvaged the meat from the carcasses. Dr Ron Wilcox describes this as follows:

At La Cotte on the Channel island of Jersey, two piles of bone were discovered beneath a rock overhang. The animals represented include mammoth and rhino. They have been interpreted as the result of hunting drives across the granite headland so that small herds were forced over a cliff. (3)

He also describes the tools found at the site relating to this period:

Amongst the flint tools, hand axes are rare but very common are tools made from flakes struck from cores using the Levalloisian technique. This involves carefully shaping a nodule of flint so that one side is domed. At one end a striking platform is made by knocking off one end of the nodule to leave a flat surface. A blow on this striking platform knocks off a domed flake. The procedure can then be repeated as long as the nodule is big enough. What is left is shaped rather like a tortoise and so is known as a tortoise core. (3)

But their diet also included shellfish; traces of seaweed and shells at sites some distance from the sea suggest they used damp seaweed as a means of preserving shellfish.

Their technology was not that sophisticated, but they were tool makers - they could make flint and stone tools, use fire (they ate cooked food, and had a diet extremely rich in meat), and wore animal skins, but there are none of the evidence of stone needles that human settlements had around the same time, which were used to thread clothes from animal skins. The species were close enough genetically for interbreeding to take place, and there also seems to be some evidence of borrowing of ideas, as some human technology seems to be borrowed in the form of bone beading (from a necklace) which begin to be found among grave goods.

When humans and Neanderthals overlapped, the Neanderthals were already in decline, and probably already down to thousands, but it is unclear how they died out, if it was in part, in competition over the same species to hunt, or otherwise.

There is some evidence that Neanderthals practiced cannibalism, which may seem gruesome, but if so, it probably was like the tribes of New Guinea, where the Fore people had a ritualistic practice of eating the brains of the recently deceased. How widespread this was is still unclear, but I wonder if - as with the Fore people - it gave rise to Kuru; Kuru was a slowly progressive fatal disease of the brain due to an infectious agent transmitted among the Fore by ritual cannibalism, and rather like CJD, transmitted by prions; it began with trembling, and over a year or less progressed the death; as the younger members of the tribe ate the brains of their dead relatives, the disease became widespread. If something like this was the case, then the Neanderthals own ritual practices could have hastened their own demise.(4)

This was a fascinating programme, and as Neanderthals are amongst the oldest inhabitants of Jersey, it is something we should know about as part of our own heritage.

Further Reading on La Cotte de St Brelade:

Robert R. Marett (1866 - 1943) worked on the Paleolithic site of from 1910 - 1914, recovering some hominid teeth and other remains of habitation by Neanderthal man. He published "The Site, Fauna, and Industry of La Cotte de St. Brelade, Jersey" (Archaeologia LXVII, 1916).

The Cambridge University excavations of the 1960s and 1970s found important examples of remains of Pleistocene mammals carried into La Cotte, including a pile of bones and teeth of woolly mammoth and woolly rhinoceros. Princes Charles took part (as a student) in these excavations, directed by Professor C.M.B. McBurney, which were published as "La Cotte de St. Brelade 1961 - 1978: Excavations by C.B.M. McBurney." (Geo Books, Norwich).

Katharine Scott, in 1980, published an article on the hunting methods used by Neanderthals at La Cotte entitled "Two hunting episodes of Middle Paleolithic Age at La Cotte Saint-Brelade, Jersey (Channel Islands)" (World Archeology 12:137-152. ),

Links
(1) http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00sq1nv
"In Our Time" has an extensive archive, and the programme is permanently available to listen to.
(2) In Our Time Newsletter, Melvin Bragg
(3) http://www.btinternet.com/~ron.wilcox/ - good on hunting at La Cotte
(4) http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4122 - on Kuru

The Penultimate Senatorial Election?

This Senatorial election may well be almost the last one. Next year, I think we may well see the final election for Senators.

The Senators for 2005 were:

Stuart Syvret (Independent) 15,131
Ben Shenton (Independent) 14,025
Freddie Cohen (Independent) 13,704
Terry Le Main (Independent) 12,159
Terry Le Sueur (Independent) 9,976
James Perchard (Independent) 8,998

Of these, it is highly likely that Le Main and Le Sueur will step down. Syvret was not re-elected, and that will leave three candidates to try again.

Why the landscape of elections has changed is to do with the proposition brought and accepted by John Le Fondré for a single day election. Previously, sitting Deputies have "thrown their hat in the ring" by trying for Senator, and the Senatorial elections have been a mix of old Deputies and completely new members, and sitting Senators. Where Deputies have failed, they have had the chance of standing again as Deputies, as of course have Senators (like Paul Le Clare) who have been ousted as Senators.

But a single day election removes that, and exposes a candidate to Island wide scrutiny, with no safety-net. Often Deputies have looked after their districts and their parish matters well, and this counts as much in Deputies elections as how they have voted on Island wide matters like GST or the Waterfront. A Deputy who looks after his district and his parishioners well stands a good chance of being re-elected, whereas a Senator is more dislocated from these matters, and their voting on States issues counts for more.

Consequently, what I predict will happen is that more Deputies will play safe, and not gamble a safe seat against a longer term. The result will be that independent outsiders will get more of a look in, and rather than moving from Deputy to Senator, I can see the change being reversed, as a less popular Senator seeks the safe harbour of a Deputies seat, where there are less voters to woo.

The other group at an advantage is a party, such as the JDA, because they can afford to field candidates on the Party mandate who have not yet been elected on the grounds that the general public know more or less what they are voting for. It may well be that an "establishment" party or loose coalition may form to counter that, or - and this is the more likely outcome - the Council of Ministers will try to remove the position of Senator, as it is mainly a place for newcomers and new party members, rather than sitting Deputies seeking promotion.

However, the last election, and the bi-election recently, shows that the JDA have yet to transfer their obvious popularity in the Urban parishes to the country ones.

But if we have less established candidates seeking the Senatorial position, we may well move towards a Deputy as Chief Minister, and the degree to which Parish and Island issues predominate in their district may well determine how long they can remain in the States, but to have a Chief Minister chosen from such a small subset of the population may well lead to unrest at the impotence of the average voter to make any changes. In Guernsey, the larger electoral districts, while clustering around Parish boundaries, do mean that their Chief Minister has more widespread support.

In Jersey, a relative safe country seat could lead to a Chief Minister who could be in office for years, and will surely lead to more voters wanting to know if their candidates will vote for the existing incumbent or an alternative. This could be mitigated, in part, by adopting the same provision as many countries, and allowing the Chief Minister only so many terms of office, which would be a worthwhile check and balance.

The other problem over Chief Ministers is that, as with Jim Callaghan, John Major and Gordon Brown, the incumbent - both the present and previous - have not had any election hanging over them; they have been in the middle of their terms as Senator. This means that the electorate has no indirect say over who is elected, because the candidate can avoid all interaction with election issues, and indeed could be extremely unpopular with the voters.

It is surely not a good state of affairs that both Senator Frank Walker and Senator Terry Le Sueur came in mid-term, and Senator Walker has left the States, and Senator Le Sueur will do so precisely when an Island wide Senatorial election would have given a vote of confidence or no confidence in their governance. One prospective candidate, Senator Ozouf, would also be mid-term, but as he is relatively young, he might wish to stay on and face the electorate in four years; alternatively, by seeking a safer Deputies seat, he might avoid any Island wide vote on his term of office.

This returns me to the start of this post, and the dangers inherent in the Le Fondré proposal, which may well extinguish the position of Senator by stealth, and sooner than we think. If too few Deputies come forward, it may well be argued that we should do away with that mandate.

Against this, a suggestion has been made those standing for election must come up with a deposit, as happens in the U.K., the idea being that it would stop frivolous candidates from running. But it would also disenfranchise those who are serious, perhaps taking early retirement around 60, who would want to contribute to Island politics, but are unable to do so because of the cost. We would be moving back to the bad old days when those who could stand needed a private income to enable them to do so.

What a large number of candidates does do is to provide pressure on the existing format of the Parish hustings, which is clearly inadequate to deal with those circumstances; the answer is surely to revise the format of the hustings, rather than try and reduce the number of candidates. Parish hustings belong to the old days when membership of the States was unpaid, and the population of most Parishes was not much larger than St Mary's. Perhaps a "West Show" style solution could work, where the candidates would be divided by two or three, and the Parishes in the West, East etc have a joint hustings for those candidates, giving a greater chance to ask questions in depth.

The other option mentioned recently is of Senators having to come from the ranks of those who have proven themselves as Deputies. This would screen out very able candidates like Ian Le Marquand and Francis Le Gresley, and is again an action against the outsider entering Jersey politics at the Senatorial level.

If Senators have to come from the pool of Deputies, from those confident enough not to mind if they are voted out (or arrogant enough to assume they won't be), will the public have sufficient choice? It might well be the case that much smaller numbers standing lead to greater apathy, because the public know and don't want to vote for most of those standing - yet by default, because of the smaller numbers, most of those sitting Senators will get in again and again. The essence of democracy is the ability to remove the ruler from power peacefully; if this cannot be done easily, the twins of apathy and revolutionary activism will rear their heads.