The Attorney General and Solicitor General: Some History

Buried in the"Review of the Role of the Crown Officers", 2010 is quite an interesting snippet about the history of the role of Review of the Attorney General and Solicitor General, and how it has changed over the years.

The first Attorney Generals mention go back to the 14th century, although the actual term used was "Procureur-Généraux du Roi"

1309 c. Guill des Mareys
1323 Johan de Dicton
1379 Pierre Erembert

The Attorney General and Solicitor General
References to the Law Officers can be traced back to at least the mid­14th centuryfrom which time records relating to the ‘King’s Attorney’ (or ‘King’s Procureur’)and the ‘King’s Advocate’ can be found. In time, the offices came to be known as Attorney General and Solicitor General. They were appointed by the Crown although, as with the Bailiff, it appears that for a time they were appointed by the Island’s Governor until the principle of appointment by the Crown was confirmed in 1615

As the early titles might suggest, the Law Officers were effectively the ‘King’s Men’ appointed to ‘plead the king’s pleas’. They were responsible for bringing cases to the Royal Court and thereby became responsible for prosecutions in the Island and undertaking criminal proceedings. They became members of the Royal Court, although they had no judicial function and no decision­making powers.

In order to be able to defend the interests of the Crown they did have the right of addressing the Court in undertaking their functions and moving conclusions on the various matters within their responsibility. The Law Officers had the sole right to bring prosecutions to the Court.

It seems probable that as members of the Royal Court the Law Officers became members of the States, in the same way as the Bailiff and Jurats came to consult the Connétables and the Rectors.

As with the Royal Court, however, the Law Officers had the right to address the States but not to take part in the decision­making, and so did not have the right to vote. Their right to speak was confirmed by an Order in Council of 1824 and provision to that effect has been included in various Laws of the States of Jersey over the last 60 years

Although members of the States, the Law Officers remained representatives of the Crown and were the Crown’s legal advisers. They therefore advised the Crown on legislation passed by the States and protected the Crown’s interests in the Assembly. There is some evidence that they did also provide legal advice to the States and that they also at times represented the public interest within the Assembly, but these were not their primary function. The Attorney General was expected to advise the Crown, in essence against the interests of the States.

With the establishment of the Petty Debts Court and the Magistrate’s Court the Law Officers lost some of their exclusive right to bring prosecutions, as cases in the Magistrate’s Court were presented by the Connétable or a Centenier of the relevant Parish. It was later confirmed, however, that this did not derogate from the Attorney General’s right to institute proceedings in the Royal Court and the Attorney General was able to direct a Centenier whether a case should be instituted or discontinued.

The Attorney General therefore came to have the direction of those members of the Honorary Police with responsibilities in the Magistrate’s Court. It is not clear, however, whether this led to his being styled the titular head of the Honorary Police and the origin of that position remains somewhat obscure.

During the first part of the 20th century, the Law Officers’ advisory role increased from merely advising the Crown to advising the States as well. The situation had arisen whereby negative reports could be given to the Crown, through the Lieutenant Governor, on legislation approved by the States, which necessitated the legislation being brought back to the States for further work.

The necessity for this was removed by an enactment of the States in 1930. The Law Officers became advisers to the States in the fullest sense, and from then on they were involved in providing legal advice at all stages of legislation, from the formulation of underlying policy to the debate in the States Assembly. Prior to that time, the States were able to engage the Law Officers, but would have been required to pay them a fee for any such work undertaken

With the establishment of ministerial government in 2005 and the abolition of the committee system, the Law Officers retained their advisory capacity, but advised both the executive and non ­executive branches of the Assembly, the Council of Ministers and Scrutiny Panels. Furthermore, some legislation passed in recent years has assigned a wide variety of specific responsibilities to the Attorney General.

Ben Shenton in the JEP

I'm reprinting this excellent piece by Ben Shenton from the JEP, also posted by him on Facebook, because it highlights one of the main problems with the States of Jersey Development Company - they have a unique relationship with the States which enables them either to get property at a peppercorn price - the Waterfront - or at significantly below market value - as in the case of the Jersey College for Girls site.

I predict that sooner or later the Treasury Minister will have his beady eyes on the St Saviour's Hospital site - a vast area, worth a considerable sum of money, and where a sale would be ideal for plugging holes in States finances in the short term. With the dollar notes flashing before his eyes, don't imagine the site would ever be used partly for much needed social housing.

But what can we expect of such a large site? I expect the States of Jersey Development Company will get their grubby little fingers in that pie, and as with the Jersey College for Girls, pull out a prize plum, while the States get left with the crust.

Little Lee Henry
Sat in the corner,
Eating a Jersey Development pie;
He put in his thumb,
And pulled out a plum,
And said 'What a good boy am I

JEP Comment - 9th June 2015

by Ben Shenton

Why were public assets worth £5 million sold for £1.5 million?

I am an investment manager and one of the skills required in my profession is to find where the bodies are buried in Company Accounts. This is because no two businesses are identical and there is some flexibility in accounting standards to compensate for this. To illustrate this I recount the tale of a CEO of a very large US conglomerate. When asked what the next quarter’s profit would be by an influential research analyst his reply was “what do you want it to be?”

It is possible to make a subsidiary or department look worse than it is by loading it with costs. Similarly you can inflate profitability if you are so inclined to do so. It can cross the line to fraud if, for example, you have a bonus related culture and deliberately inflate profitability to your own advantage. And so ends this week’s lesson in accounting.

To change the subject slightly, recent events made me dig out some old papers in respect of the old Jersey College for Girls (JCG) site in Rouge Bullion. Back in 2007 a few politicians , including myself and led by Rob Duhamel, prevented the then Treasury Minister – Senator le Sueur – from selling the old JCG property for £1.8 million plus a profit share that was anticipated to increase the value to £3.1million – albeit not without risk.

Roll the clock forward to September 2014 and the States Treasury and Resources Department, via Jersey Property Holdings, received an offer of over £5 million from another local developer for the site. Cash in hand, no risk. As you and I as Islanders own the property this increase in value probably warranted us all going down to our local Co-op and cracking open a bottle of bubbly. Sadly this no risk cash offer was not pursued by the Government who, under Chief Minister’s personal direction, refused to even enter into negotiations.

It was therefore with some dismay that I noted in recent Royal Court property transactions that “The Public of the Island” (as the wording appears on the Court documents) have sold the site to the States of Jersey Development Company for £1,500,000 (6th March 2015). Even the most incompetent developer should be able to book a profit on an asset sold at such a deep discount. But if the SoJDC are really at arms length and on the same playing field as the private sector then why should I, a member of the Jersey public, sell them assets at a £3,500,000 plus discount? How do I ensure that bonuses are not paid to SoJDC staff on the basis of false profitability? And, finally, why are none of our 49 paid politicians asking these questions?

Note: Response from SoJDC:

1. Jersey Property Holdings valued the development site at £1.5 million independently even though it had been valued much higher in 2007 and it was Jersey Property Holdings that were in receipt of the £5 million bid for the site last year.

2. Profits at SoJDC are not linked 'in their entirety' to profitability. In other words the financial advantage of a low transfer value was confirmed.

3. Once completed the project "would return £4 million to the States." This is £1 million less than the amount offered by another developer for the site. That £5 million that would have gone straight towards narrowing the budget deficit.

Comment:

One word - Scandalous!

Can someone please try and get a current politician to look into this. The PAC and CAG should also be concerned.

Reg's Senior Moment

“No Socialist Government conducting the entire life and industry of the country could afford to allow free, sharp, or violently-worded expressions of public discontent,” said Winston Churchill on 4 June 1945 in the first radio broadcast of that year’s general election campaign. “They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance.”

This “Gestapo” reference came up in a recent BBC documentary about the Labour victory of 1945, and how it certainly cost him votes. Churchill’s biographer described his remarks as “hostile and injudicious”

As Richard Toye commented: “Some might say that the case it advanced was intellectually defensible, but, from the point of view of actually persuading undecided voters, it was a fiasco. It also did serious damage to his reputation.”

I was reminded of it when I saw Reg Langlois’s poster above. This purports to describe a peaceful, orderly demonstration, cheerfully conducted, with no baying for blood, just saying “No". It is an extraordinary intemperate and injudicious remark, and bears no resemblance to the protest.

A few comments on Facebook show the perplexity of people when Reg made this remark. I post these in the hope that Reg will think twice before posting anything which will damage his reputation as a kindly gentleman, and not a political version of Victor Meldrew!

Lee: A black Sunday? never seen anything like it? Did something other than a peaceful protest occur that I wasn't aware of?

Patricia: Oops Reg was that a Senior Moment?

Mike: What a load of bollox Reg. 2000 people sitting in the sun making their point. Nobody died. Black Sunday indeed. There was more venom, more aggro in the past with the social security laws

Mark: Blimey, sounds like a massacre took place?

Mike: And as for not the Jersey way Reg, what about the bread riots? What about the old style Jersey elections? For once the usual apathy was absent and people - albeit not a huge number, and largely of a certain age - made the effort to turn out just to register their point of view to a Government which holds us all in contempt.

David: Peaceful demonstration Reg Langlois..... Jersey people fought and died in WW2 to give us that right.

David: Democracy is being able to express an opinion. As in all things, I may not agree with a particular viewpoint, but everyone should have the right to express it. With that goes the right for someone to be held to account for libel or slander.

Paul: What would have been the jersey way then reg ? Please enlighten me and any others that find that post a little ridiculous to put it politely.

Jayne: From media coverage looked pretty civilised to me. Holding up a no sign is not exactly a hanging. Once again misinterpretations of the truth where have I heard that recently

Jacqui: What is the 'Jersey Way' then? I thought it was all very good-natured.

John: The people have an absolute right to question their governments' decisions and to take them to task when they believe those decisions are wrong That's the beautiful thing about democracy.

Paul: Reg, please could you let me know what the Jersey Way is? Cheers.

Reg Langlois Kindness and consideration to others, for a start.... oh! and patience of course.

John: Patience? Reg? so why the rush to start building without the pre-lets and other promises made in the states, broken and ignored? Why the rush to start before scrutiny finish their report? Why the tactics to delay that same report and feed false information to other states members? No kindness, No consideration, no patience for fair and democratic process. Thats the Jersey way! Lie for personal profit!

John: Reg Just because you keep posting that B&W Black Sunday Poster it doesn't make it any truer

Paul: Kindness and consideration to others is not The Jersey Way, that is how people should behave at all times. If it is the Jersey Way then it is not very considerate to those who had a kind and peaceful protest to then accuse them of witch hunting, a very exaggerated description if I ever heard one. The Jersey Way, as many people know it, is epitomised by your poster which as per usual Jersey Way tradition denigrates people who do not agree with the established party politics. Thats not kindness and consideration in my book.

John: Why would you think anyone was threatening to harm anyone at that peaceful protest, Reg? Its people upset with lies and broken promises. Are you suggesting its fine for an elected member of the States to promise something to the rest of Government, then ignore that promise? To lie to Government and hide the truth? No one was "after blood", we simply want a Government that does not blatantly lie.

Maria: Isn't the right to protest a part of true democracy? To quote Reg Kindness and consideration to others, for a start.... oh! and patients of course. I agree and that message should be sent to the Dictators who are presently running this Island into Bankruptcy! Although I am unsure about the 'patients' we cannot meet the needs of them in our Hospital system at present ( wink emoticon )

Ollie: Not sure why you have such an issue with people peacefully using their democratic and human rights to protest something they feel unhappy with Reg? Also, the language you use to describe that protest interestingly says more about you than the actual protest.

Sharon: Reg must have a very short memory because the crowds in the Royal Square when they removed Vernon Tomes from office , now they were angry and very vocal .

In conclusion….

I don't think anyone was after blood, just proper due process. There were no effigies burnt of Alan Maclean, no figures of Lee Henry to be hung in his absence - both of which have happened in Jersey's past in the 17th century to some people.

The overblown rhetoric of Reg doesn't do him any favours, any more than Churchill's cheap gibe did in 1945.

Let's hope it was a one off, as one commentator put it, a "senior moment".

The irony is that there were around 3,000 people who turned out to oppose the golf course at Les Creux in a peaceful demonstration to say "No" to the States’ plans – and Reg was one of them!

Rapture Ready

Suddenly about 10 people just vanish from your office. They were there at their desks a moment ago, and in the blink of an eye, they have vanished.

You look on the news. The BBC is reporting millions of missing people. They have just vanished. They have gone, and you have been left behind.

Science fiction? Not exactly, because there are people out there who actually believe this is going to happen. There are churches in Jersey – even at least one Anglican Church – where this kind of strange message is being promulgated.

It is a strange kind of Christian theology – called “dispensationalist theology” – which is more akin to the peculiar Gnostic sects of the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

In this story, those who have vanished have been “taken up”. It takes its thinking from the book of Revelation, one or two paragraphs in the gospel of Luke, and notably this paragraph from Paul’s 1st letter to the Thessalonians, both, it need hardly be said, treated as "proof texts" and taken out of context:

1st Thessalonians 4:17, “Then we which are alive and remain shall be CAUGHT UP together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.”

"I tell you, that on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. There will be two women grinding meal together; one will be taken and the other left." Luke 17:34-35, NRSV

This example of the teaching is from an American site, but it is pretty much the same wherever it is taught:

“Literally, the lord Jesus Christ will Rapture (catch away) every saint from upon the earth, into the air to meet with the Lord in the clouds. Our loved ones who have died in the lord and gone on before us will be there. It will be a great time of rejoicing and gladness, knowing that our suffering and hardships and journey upon the earth is done. Home at last!”

“However, all those who have rejected Christ will be left behind upon the earth. Immediately following the Rapture, the tribulation will begin upon the earth. The tribulation will last for seven years, during which period the man of San, the Antichrist, will rise to power. He will be a world dictator wielding incredible lying wonders and signs the Bible says.”

“If you have been left behind and are reading this, then you have now entered the Tribulation period. If you are wise you will receive Jesus, the Christ, immediately; believing that He died, was buried and rose again three days later for your sins and mine. Only by receiving Christ and being born anew by the Spirit of God, can you understand all that is going on. You may have missed the Rapture, but thank God you don't have to go to Hell. The choice is yours.”

A long series of books by Tim F. LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins have detailed the story after the rapture. Entitled the “Left Behind” series, they dramatise global calamity, the rise of an Antichrist figure, and the torments that those “left behind” have to face to win through – unless they go over to the dark side.

It has been hugely influential, with copies in the Jersey Library, and selling in the Christian Bookshop in the Central Market, although the last time I looked in. there were no longer any copies for sale.

The roots of dispensationalism appear in the writings of John Nelson Darby (1800–82) and the Plymouth Brethren movement in the 1830s of Ireland and England, and have been propagated through works such as Cyrus Scofield's Scofield Reference Bible, a version of the King James Bible, with footnotes promoting this peculiar understanding.

The Bible is divided into different “ages” or “dispensations”. Usually there are seven divisions. (1) innocence, from the creation of Adam to the Fall; (2) conscience, from the Fall to the flood; (3) human government, from Noah to Abraham (4) promise, from Abraham to Moses; (5) law, from Moses to the death of Christ; (6) grace, from the cross to the second coming; (7) the Kingdom, or Millennial Age, or Personal Reign of Christ, ending with "Satan loosed for a little season" but quickly defeated. After the millennium are the "new heavens and new earth of eternity”

The age we are living in is the sixth, and the rapture marks the beginning of the seventh.

The message in which suddenly empty cars crashing on motorways and kids will be coming home from school only to find that their parents have been taken to be with Jesus while they have been “left behind” can be a frightening one, especially for young children.

Even for adults, it is a theology of fear. If you are not good enough, you will be “left behind” to suffer. In this respect, there are certain similarities between the thinking and Dante, where in Purgatory people suffer various kinds of torments so that they may purge their souls of evil.

Although these people will be few in number:

“The reason "why?" you were left behind is simply because you are not a born-again Christian. It's that simple. We often refer to being born again as being "saved." So if you've been left behind, you need to get saved. Yes, you can still get saved, but it is highly unlikely. 2nd Thessalonians 2:11 clearly teaches that God Himself will send a "strong delusion" after the rapture to prevent people from seeing the truth.”

But part of the story also involves the Jews, who will begin celebrating sacrifices in the Temple in Jerusalem, and where the final conflict and conflagration will begin. This can have dangerous political effects. For instance:

“Apparently because of the influence of dispensationalist theology, "Dick Armey, the retired House majority leader, promoted the removal of all Palestinians from their ancestral land to an unpopulated desert.”

“Similarly, Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe supported the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank by citing Genesis and calling the debate on the issue "not a political battle at all.’It is a contest over whether or not the word of God is true.'” (1)

Why worry about conflict in the Middle East, when it is a precursor to the end times Why not hurry the conflict along?

There is also another effect. If the world is going to its doom, then as well as politics, ecology suffers. Why worry about climate change when it is a “sign of the end times”? As Tom Wright comments: “is not the Left Behind mentality in thrall to a dualistic view of reality that allows people to pollute God’s world on the grounds that it’s all going to be destroyed soon?”

The “Left Behind” books are fictional works which present their authors’ imaginative depiction of the end of days; they are a strange mixture of 19th century thinking entwined with modern technology, as for example in this summary:

“In Tribulation Force: The Continuing Drama of Those Left Behind (1996), the almost salvation worthy remnant forms an underground opposition movement that struggles to evade the mark of the beast on their bodies. At the same time, they disseminate their faith through the Internet and underground churches while coordinating acts of sabotage and assassination. In the twelfth and nominally final title Glorious Appearing, Jesus himself arrives to slay hundreds of millions of armed GC warriors, cast Satan into the lake of fire, and send the unbelieving "goats" of humanity to their eternal doom.” (2)

The existence of books promoting what is, in essence, a kind of Christian Gnosticism, is a concern in Jersey, especially when the series is available in the Jersey library and has been sold by the Christian Bookshop Mission.

It demonstrates a contingent of Christians in Jersey who promote what is a theology of fear, of a fear of being “left behind” and going to hell. And I suspect it is not just members of a congregation. There are Ministers who are preaching this variant on “hell fire and damnation”.

I first came across this kind of theology back in the 1970s with “The Late, Great Planet Earth”. This was a best-selling 1970 book by Hal Lindsey. The foundation of modern Israel in 1948 is seen as a key factor in the timetable. Lindsey sees an increase in the frequency of famines, wars and earthquakes, as key events leading up to the end of the world, and also the EU becoming a "United States of Europe", which in turn he says is destined to become a "Revived Roman Empire" ruled by the Antichrist.

He also foretold a Soviet invasion of Israel (War of Gog and Magog), which of course would be difficult now when the Soviet Union has ceased.

I didn’t give that book any credence then, but I noted two things. Firstly, those who did believe it were either those with cast-iron certainty in their faith – they were “born again” Christians – or more often those who believed it were fearful and could not be sure, however much they had undergone an experience of being “born again”.

I think the success of this thinking is that it taps into core anxieties. For Lindsey, it was the European Union, for “Left Behind”, it is anxieties about the stories of wars and earthquakes, and the tinder box of the Middle East.

This provides a coping mechanism for believers, which makes sense of the suffering we see in the world today: it is part of God’s plan for the end times. "The Rapture" becomes a substitute for other concerns, a way of getting back control in a society and world which often seems beyond our control.

References
1) “Learning from Left Behind? A Call for Coherent Accounts of Scripture. Brock Bingaman, Anglican Theological Review, 2009
2) Glorious Appearing: The End of Days (Left Behind Series No. 12)/rapture, Revelation, and the End Times: Exploring the Left Behind Series/Rapture Culture: Left Behind in Evangelical America. John Shelton Lawrence, -Journal of American Culture, 2005

Wind Charms

The notion that magic could imprison or release winds by the use of knotted ropes is an old one, as can be seen in this woodcarving from Olaus Magnus' Historia de gentibus septentrionalibus (1555) which shows Wind Wizards from Finland. But all across the ancient Roman world, across the lands of the Celts, there was magic to bind or release the winds. In Mycenaean Greece a Priestess of the Winds is named on a tablet found at Knossos. 

This poem was written when we were experiencing high winds, and it is a homage to the weather workers of the past ages. There is also an allusion, at the start, to Peter Dickinson's book "The Weathermonger".

Wind Charms

Take the chord, the wind to bind
The tide is high, the gale strong
Feel the wind within your mind
Feel the singing of its song

Tie the knot, and bind the gale
Ride the wind, calm the storm
Hear the wind in branches wail
Make the pattern, magic form

Tie second knot and bind it more
Weather working, weather way
Tie the knot, bind sea and shore
Sidhe, help us, help us, pray

Raise the staff, and say “be still!”
“O wind, be bound by magic skill”

Funny Old World

Some news stories... with a twist.

Movie News

“Nothing can stop me now!” screeches mad scientist Professor Zaroff in the Doctor Who story “The Underwater Menace” when he plans to raise Atlantis.

The missing story is now being remade as a low budget fantasy movie, with a £200,000 advance from Economic Development, and retitled “The Waterfront Menace”. Alan Maclean is mooted to take on the role of Professor Zaroff. Due to the low budget, one planned office block upon Jersey’s esplanade will stand in for the city of Atlantis.

Film critic Barry Norman said: “This is one of the fishiest stories I have ever seen. I think it will bomb at the box office, but you have to admire the sheer audacity of the film makers in assuming it will make a return to them of around £50 million. And why not?”

Meanwhile Deputy Steve Luce has called for an iconic high rise building to feature in the sequel, "The Towering Waterfront Inferno", in which he can play the part of Paul Newman, the architect who design a building too high for fire crews to get up it.

A meeting at the Town Hall had Senator Maclean trying to explain why the movie was so important. He said: “We would like to explain our vision to islanders who are interested in, or concerned about, any aspects. This is a big budget blockbuster.”

Advisor Mark Boléro, an ice skater from the City of London, said: “This movie is well budgeted like my salary. It is not skating on thin ice.”

But protestor and former movie producer Sean Power called upon the British Board of Scrutiny Censors to class the move as “18”. “This is a movie all about mad men on a remote island destroying the world, and quite honestly it gives me nightmares,” he said, “If it was on the BBC, it would have to be shown after the Watershed. I don’t think the public want to see it anyway”.

It appears that the movie will not achieve widespread showing, as only the UBS chain of cinemas is prepared to show it at present.

Taxes

Medium Term Financial Plan: Raise revenue by a stealth tax on sunshine. People who don’t pay will get strong, cold winds and the occasional thunderstorm. A pilot scheme is being tested in June by the Jersey Met Department. You may have noticed it.

Treasury Minister Alan Maclean says that he won’t rule out other stealth taxes. Possible options are to tax Winnie the Pooh with a sewage tax, and also levy a central property tax on the Five Hundred Acre Wood. The House at Pooh Corner will sold off by the States and demolished to make way for luxury apartments.

Jersey government spent £25m more than income in 2014. Senator Alan Maclean, Treasury Minister, said despite the deficit the accounts were in pretty good shape.

But Mr Micawber disagreed, saying that this was a deficit of Dickensian proportions "Annual income £649 million, annual expenditure £624 million, result happiness. Annual income £649 million, annual expenditure £674 million, result misery."

Compromise Agreement

Former States Treasurer Laura Rowley was paid compensation of £169,375 following her resignation last year. Treasury Minister Alan Maclean denied that Ms Rowley had been given a golden handshake “Gold is the half a million we paid to Bill Ogley”, he said, “This sum, while large, qualifies as only silver or bronze.”

This kind of arrangement is also called “compromise agreement” because it compromises the States payroll budget.

The former Treasury Minister remains incommunicado. Following his visit to South Africa, it is rumoured that Senator Philip Ozouf is planning a visit to China, where he will spend a month in a Trappist monastery in Tibet where he cannot be contacted. It’s called Skyping Off.

Charity’s Bid to Take Winston Churchill Park from Public

Charity’s Bid to Take Winston Churchill Park from Public

I see that there is a “Proposal to develop Winston Churchill Memorial Park into a Major Attraction” (JEP headline). This is by the Jersey Botanic Garden Trust which is planning to lease the park from the States for a minimum of 99 years, and say that within five years the garden will have an income of £720,000 per annum.

This must be a blessing for the States, who have already cut back on gardeners to the park, and can sit back and get money for the area without having to do anything. Expect a lot of support from a cost cutting Council of Ministers.

As the JEP notes: “The Trust will be raising the funds to convert the park, and it will then be self funding through entry costs and annual membership fees”

This means, of course, that the park would no longer be open to the general public: “It is proposed that an adult ticket would cost £9 but a small section of the park would remain free to visit”

“The Trust hope to create a spectacular garden and education centre that will attract paying visitors all year round, especially during the spring”.

Whether the steps running up the side are included or are part of the “small section” is at present uncertain. What is the case is that a park which the States bought is about to be flogged off and taken out of being a public asset to a private enterprise.

I was at the park speaking to BBC Radio Jersey, earlier in the year, about Winston Churchill, and how the park got its singular name, but in future I would have to pay £9 to visit.

While it is perhaps true that the park is not frequented by large numbers of the public, it is a public asset, like Les Creux, and the public should surely have some say over its disposal. It is a 99 year lease, but for most of us, that is a lifetime.

There are undoubtedly questions to be raised: would the park be better served as a private asset? If the enterprise should not prove viable, what will happen to the park? When visitor numbers are declining, how can the Trust hope to raise the suggested income? And where are they finding £2 million from to invest in the site? Is it by borrowing?

At present, it seems like an opportunistic kind of theft from the general public, for which the States receive money and can dispense with running costs. I hope that it is not rushed through without proper deliberation and consultation.

In fairness, having now checked the Facebook group, I see that the Facebook group, but not the JEP, does mention “public consultation in coming weeks” although that is vague. They have been dropping leaflets off to parishioners in the Bay. But they should also consider a leaflet drop through the Parish magazine to engage the whole Parish.

I think that a Parish Assembly should be also be held to consider the proposal, and take a vote on the matter, especially as the Constable is in favour (according to the JEP). In fact, I gather that all that has ever been said is that it is an interesting proposition would be investigated. That's not what I would term support by the Constable - the JEP is incorrect.

After all, this is land bought by the States for the public for a considerable sum. Might it set a precedent? What if Noirmont was also up to be leased out to another charity, perhaps the National Trust, and a toll gate and entrance fee put in place?

In the meantime, here is a potted history of the park, which I researched and wrote up in two articles for our Parish Magazine La Baguette.

Confused signs Where or what is Woodford?
Have you ever been confused by the sign at the end of the promenade in St Brelade's, just next to the Oyster Box? It informs the public that if these toilets are closed, the nearest available ones are to be found in "Woodford". But where is Woodford?

In 1961, after the death of Mr P. Ellis, a property called "Woodford" in St Brelade's Bay came on the market. Bob Smale, a St Brelade Deputy at the time, put forward a private members proposition for the States to acquire the property and the extensive gardens, and turn them into a park for the benefit of Islanders. This was taken up by the Defence, Tourism and Natural Beauties Committees, whose members all favoured the purchase of the property on behalf of the public of the Island, and the Public Works Committee, was assigned the task of negotiating for its purchase.

A letter was received from Mr Vernon Tomes (later to become Deputy Bailiff and Senator) who represented the heirs of the estate, and this confirmed that his clients were prepared to sell the property to the States for the sum of £60,000. The total cost, after legal fees, was £61,000.

The park itself was originally called "Woodford Park", and so remained until 1966, when it was renamed "The Winston Churchill Memorial Park", and it is in the car park adjacent to this park that 'the nearest alternative public toilets' can be found.

Accident of history More than a car park, but a memorial park.
In 1961, the States agreed to the purchase of "Woodford Park" on behalf of the public of the Island. But the park was not given its present name of "The Sir Winston Churchill Memorial Park" until 1966. The reason for this was one of those curious accidents of history.

The Jersey Evening Post had sponsored a memorial to the late Sir Winston Churchill, who had died in 1965 by way of a "penny fund" with members of the public contributing. The Public Works Committee was tasked with finding a suitable site, and suggested The Royal Square was the best place, but the States decided otherwise. Consequently, the Committee had to quickly find another suitable locale, and decided to put the memorial in Woodford Park, and rename the park accordingly.

On 5th December 1966, the Bailiff, Sir Robert Le Masurier unveiled the memorial. Also present on the chilly December morning were Lady Le Masurier, Mr Arthur Harrison of the JEP, the President of Public Works, Deputy Reg Jeune, and Mr M.B. Gulliver of Etacq Quarries, together with around 70 members of the general public

The bronze relief portrait of Sir Winston Churchill's head and shoulders was sculpted by Mr Anthony Gray. The memorial stone on which it sits is made from a naturally hewn granite from L'Etacq. To keep the natural hew, only the base of the stone was worked, and also the panel for the inscription; the remainder of the stone is as it was when it came out of the quarry. It is a fine monument to the great war time leader.

Parable of the Knife

Do you remember Doris Luke (played by Kathy Staff) in Crossroads? A do-gooder whose interventions invariable caused more problems for those they were trying to help.

Bloggers can sometimes do harm, even when they intend to do good. This short piece tries to communicate what that can feel like if you are vulnerable, sensitive and have bad memories brought back by those who think they are doing you a good turn. It's not about me. It's about someone I know who has trouble persuading "do-gooders" that their interventions can do more harm than good.

I hope it conveys something of how this makes those "helped" feel, and how disruptive it is to getting their life back together again.

Parable of the Knife

He was an old man now, but he could still remember the events. The cell. The strangeness of the court. Many people speaking to him. His head hurt. And then, he’d agreed something, and it made them happy, and it was all over.

For them, not for him. Suddenly he was on a plane, landing, left, nowhere to go.

“Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.”

He was homeless, sleeping rough for many years. The cold and hunger remained in his memory, pain etched deep. But it was also liberating: no people speaking, telling him what to do, not understanding, and with their own ideas of what was in his best interests.

It was in the past now, and he was rebuilding his life, far from the troubles of the past, but flashbacks still haunted his days from time to time, made worse by those who still thought they could speak for him.

The world had become global, and blogs from those who had decided to support him came, and came, each time, a turn of the knife, each time a dagger of the mind, bringing back that past.

Wasn’t that patronising? How dare they think they knew him better than he did? And why wouldn’t they leave him alone?

He told them to stop, but they would not listen. He begged them to stop, but they would not listen. He emailed, and ranted at them – stop, stop, stop – but they would not listen. That cut deep.

Sometimes those who take your side can do more harm than your enemies.

And so he wrote this down, wrote how he felt, how miserable this made him, the pain, the memory. Memory never goes away. Traumatic memories may be held back, but they are always there, waiting to be released. Sometimes it can be a scent, a sound, and sometimes – a blog.

"Think before you blog" would be a good maxim, especially when dealing with vulnerable people. Have some fellow feeling for the harm that well-intentioned support can do. That’s all he wanted to say, all he wanted them to hear. You are damaging me.

But they would not listen. And in the end, he put his head in his hands, in despair, and wept.

And still they blogged on his behalf. And twisted the knife deeper.

Save Our Shoreline Report on Scrutiny Hearing

In case anyone may have missed it, I'm posting the Save Our Shoreline Report on the Scrutiny Hearing, and after that, a brief extract from "Yes Prime Minister" in which Bernard, Private Secretary, askes Sir Humphrey Appleby for advice. You may think the two are connected; I couldn't possibly comment.

Save Our Shoreline Report on Scrutiny Hearing
http://sosjersey.co.uk/esplanade-scrutiny-panel-with-sojdc-report/

Yesterday afternoon the SoJDC Chairman, Directors and three non-executive board Members gave evidence to the Corporate Service Scrutiny Panel Public Hearing in the States buildings.Here we have tried to take out the mundane Qs & As and bring you the salient points.

(We were there and took our own notes; they are not as good, however, as the full transcript of the Hearing which should be available soon on the Scrutiny .gov site.)

WHAT WENT ON...

** Esplanade Scrutiny Panel & the SoJDC

The key to the whole matter revolved around who was responsible for the decision to override the clear requirement that SoJDC was not to proceed without obtaining sufficient pre-lets to cover the construction costs.

It was an instruction from us, the public, via our representative, the States Treasurer Senator Alan Maclean, as to how to eliminate risk.

This is crucial.

If it transpires that there was a meeting and that the Minister had instructed the JDC as he told the States, then the JDC are not following the instruction.

However, if it transpires:

a) There was no meeting, OR

b) There was a meeting, but the JDC were not instructed as the States were told

...then the Minister was guilty of misleading the States on this most critical of issues.

This critical issue is the fundamental financial policy of the ‘risk elimination‘ when building the IFC to safeguard the public.

This is what the States members voting ‘pour’ in all five States debates had all been assured of.

One would have expected, given the much publicised confirmation to the States of Jersey by our former Treasury Minister (Sen Ozouf) on 4 February 2014, that only the previous day, he had instructed the SoJDC not to start building until the buildings were fully-let, that the SoJDC would have brought along minutes of this meeting, so important was it.

But this was not to be.

** Scrutiny is 'an irritant'

JDC Chairman Mark Boleat, who recently branded Scrutiny 'an irritant', would not confirm or deny who the relevant Minister was when decisions were made, whether the date was right, or even if there had been a meeting.

Neither would he clarify whether they had discussed the instruction or even whether he or the Minister were there or not.

Mr. Boleat then said, 'The Minster’s speech may have not been minuted verbatim' anyway.

Mr. Boleat and the CEO Lee Henry were instructed by the Chairman Deputy John Le Fondré to go back and look up the details of the meeting and produce the minutes.

Mr. Boleat vigorously complained that they should have been notified of the question beforehand and then they could have had time to prepare. Given this question has been all over the media, we would have thought they would pre-empt this problem. Were they being disingenuous or just ill-prepared?

This grumbling attitude is not very helpful. (The JDC Chairman’s irritation for the Scrutiny process was very evident, but Chairman Deputy John Le Fondré and the other panel members were very polite and measured at all times.)

In addition, Vice Chairman Deputy Simon Brée had, at one point, to clarify to the SoJDC Chairman exactly what the Treasury Minister’s position is as Shareholder for the States of Jersey, and the responsibility that role carries in relationship to the public. To be clear, Senator Maclean is the representative for us, the public of Jersey, and we, the public, are the shareholder.

The former Treasury Minister, Senator Philip Ozouf, has been uncontactable by the press. He was last heard of on important States business in deepest Capetown. It seems he does not wish to use Skype, email or even a phone (we are assured countires outside of Jersey do have phones) to answer the media and give his version of events.

It was left to the Directors of the SoJDC and the others present to shed light on the 'pre-let' statement, but they would not, or could not, do so yesterday.

The other huge stumbling block to any progress by Scrutiny was the continual refusal by the SoJDC to release documents to Scrutiny, even under confidential disclosure agreements. Their reason being (they said) is that both the HSBC and Camerons contracts have non-disclosure clauses as well as confidentiality agreements.

The JDC were instructed to go back to both parties and request that they release the documents to Scrutiny on the understanding they would be kept confidential.

** Finance

Key Financial points that emerged included:

- - The income from UBS rentals will be used to service the HSBC interest on the loan.

- - Another loan will be taken out from HSBC to pay the interest on the first loan

This will be extant until the tenants start paying rent at an undisclosed date (we think 2020).

- - The projected profit on the total development will be approx £50million which may well be used to sink La Rte de la Liberation if the States want to use it for that, said the Chairman. However, the JDC said they had not yet thought about the road sinking.

- - All of the income from UBS will be used to service the HSBC interest in the construction loan.

- - The 6 blocks and underground car park will take 10 years to build. It transpires the capital component on the first building is actually the value of unlet office space which will not be fitted out.

Other than for UBS, the SoJDC are not providing offices fitted out as category A. They are building shells not ready for immediate use.

Any future buyer will be be faced with empty floors with bare concrete walls much like a house without bathrooms or a kitchen; the idea behind this is that they will want their own layout and apparently this is common practise. Nonetheless, this takes away from the buildings' values.

Indeed, much was the problem with the office at the Green Street roundabout that was supposed to be the new Police Station (until someone messed up). That building was vacant for 10 years.

Detailed financial analysis will follow when our team have read the transcripts.

**And finally...

SOS Jersey conclude Mr Boleat and his directors at the JDC are proceeding in a manner which perhaps shows they do not understand the purpose and powers of a Scrutiny Panel. It is a States body.

In the same way that they are dealing with the Treasurer in (presumably) supplying him with the confidential information he needs to make informed decisions, they should surely do the same with Scrutiny?

The SoJDC should submit all their information automatically to Scrutiny who will treat it as confidential in the same manner as any other States Body would and will naturally, before they issue their report, agree this and any details that may potentially be commercially sensitive with JDC.

The JDC are treating Scrutiny as if they a rogue organisation. Scrutiny are elected members of the States and will abide by all normal procedures and confidentiality matters that relate.

The Treasury Minister would have to know all these details in order to make informed decisions and so should Scrutiny.

We await the release of those minutes with interest.

Extract From Yes Prime Minister

Sir Humphrey:- Yes?

Bernard:- Sir Humphrey, have you got a moment?

Sir Humphrey:- - Yes, Bernard.

Bernard:- Er... I've got a problem.

Sir Humphrey:- - Yes, Bernard.

Bernard:- The PM has just had lunch with Derek Burnham, the editor...

Sir Humphrey:- - I know who he is.

Bernard:- - The PM told him that the minutes of Cabinet Committee confirm that he didn't try to suppress chapter 8 and that he'd publish them if necessary.

Sir Humphrey:- - So what is your problem?

Bernard:- - Well, the minutes aren't written yet.

Sir Humphrey:- - I see.

Bernard:- - So, er, what should I do?

Sir Humphrey:- Write them, dear Bernard.

Bernard:- - The problem is the PM did try to suppress the chapter, didn't he?

Sir Humphrey:- I don't know. Did he?

Bernard:- - - Don't you remember?

Sir Humphrey:- What I remember is irrelevant. If the minutes don't say that he did, then he didn't.

Bernard:- - - So you want me to falsify the minutes?

Sir Humphrey:- - I want nothing of the sort!

Bernard:- - - So what do you suggest, Sir Humphrey?

Sir Humphrey:- - Minutes do not record everything, do they?

Bernard:- - - No, of course not.

Sir Humphrey:- - People change their minds during a meeting.

Bernard:- - - Yes...

Sir Humphrey:- - So the meeting is a mass of ingredients.

Bernard:- - - Oh, like cooking.

Sir Humphrey:- - Like... No, not like cooking, Bernard. Better not use that word in connection with books or minutes. You choose from a jumble of ill-digested ideas a version which represents the PM's views as he would, on reflection, have liked them to emerge.

Bernard:- - But if it's not a true record...

Sir Humphrey:- The purpose of minutes is not to record events, it is to protect people.

On Rats and Rabbits

Something historical today - a letter from Michael Halliwell, sent to but not published by the JEP.


To the Editor, Jersey Evening Post.
Sir,

It is wonderful that those of us who were evacuated from the Island in 1940 have been included in the splendid celebrations of t he 70th anniversary of the Liberation. From recent statements it is clear that a misunderstanding of the Bailiff’s recent speech has arisen. My father, having sent my mother and us four children to England, kept press cutting of some important events of the time. A look at the press reports of the time will make it possible to put the whole ‘rats’ story into its proper context.

On Thursday June 20th 1940 the States met for ‘another urgency sitting’, fully reported in the ‘Evening Post’. The Bailiff reported that he had been advised that farmers were turning their cattle loose and threatening to burn their crops. The Constable of St Saviour said a poultry farmer had called on him and told him that he had locked his poultry up and was leaving the Island. The Constables of St Peter and St Martin reported similar incidents.

The Attorney General then affirmed that all States and Parish officials should remain at their posts and the Bailiff made a solemn declaration that the States would repay any money which the British Government expended on the evacuation of people from Jersey to England.

Then Jurat Dorey, who had just returned ‘very tired’ from England on States’ business addressed the house. He recognised that certain categories of persons were desirous of leaving the Island, especially those going to ‘join up’. He then continued, as the Evening Post reported:

Speaking with deep emotion, Jurat Dorey said that that morning he had been filled with disgust; he could understand some people were desirous of going, but he did not understand those of old Norman stock, who should be rooted to the soil, pressing to leave. We were always a calm, steady people, who had jogged along in our own way loving our lands and our surroundings. He would like the House to express its utter contempt at what these people were doing (Applause) … Clearly the young men should be got away … Such men would be sent on a good mission and they should not be herded together with the rabbits and rats that were leaving otherwise. (Applause).

It is clear that the ‘rats and rabbits’ Jurat Dorey was speaking of were those farmers who were threatening to leave their animals and crops untended and quit the Island. That he was not fully understood at the time is seen from a subsequent intervention from Jurat Le Feuvre who said he objected to people being tarred with the same brush as Jurat Dorey had done. He had a son who was anxious to serve his country; ought he to keep him back. He had a daughter who was also desirous of serving the country; should she remain here. It was unfair to make such statements as had been made.

From the above it can be seen that the ‘rats and rabbits’ Jurat Dorey was speaking of were certain farmers who were cruelly abandoning their livestock, and not those of us who had good reasons to leave. Perhaps it is not surprising that in the heat of the moment Jurat Dorey’s plea was misunderstood. Hopefully the ‘rats and rabbits’ story can now be consigned to history and given a decent burial.

Your sincerely
(Canon) Michael Halliwell,

Protest and Survive

“Thousands lined the sides of a proposed new finance centre in St Helier in protest at its development.

The development on the Esplande Car Park, by government-owned Jersey Development Company, will consist of six buildings and a car park. A group including a festival organiser, a former politician and former journalist organised the protest. Treasury Minister, Senator Alan Maclean, has said campaigns against the project were costing the island money. There were up to 3,000 people at the protest from a range of ages and backgrounds.” BBC Radio Jersey

Sean Power said: "There was a lot of passion here, people felt they weren't being listened to and hopefully now they will sit up and pay attention."

I saw Sean cycling round, as a wave of “No, No” was chanted around the perimeter. I saw young people there, as well as old people hobbling on sticks or wheeled walking frames on this pleasant sunny day.

They paid tribute to the fact that a democracy has to allow protest if it is to survive, however much that might irk Senator Maclean.

Just along from me was Max De La Haye and his wife. Max was a former Constable of St Brelade. By no stretch of the imagination could he be described as “left wing”, and yet he had left his beloved dahlias to come here and sit on the old Esplanade wall, once the sea wall.

One thing that emerged from the “Yes Campaign” for the Referendum was that the Constables were a steadying influence in the States, a force for stability, and yet evidently Max has felt that the Council of Ministers has become so disconnected from the ordinary people that he turned out to protest.

And this BBC story also came out of late, another time when Constables are treated with disrespect:

“St John Constable Chris Taylor told the States Assembly yesterday that he and other members of the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel had refused to sign a non-disclosure agreement relating to a BNP Paribas appraisal of the viability of the development, following advice from the States Greffier.”

Who was responsible for this request, which showed complete contempt both for the long established principle of Parliamentary privilege, and also for the members of Scrutiny as individuals not to be trusted? Step forward Senator Alan Maclean,

The document has now been released, late in the day. Senator Maclean said that “I have made it clear that I would not release this document, which is commissioned by the States of Jersey Development Company, unless a non-disclosure agreement was signed by the panel, specifically because of the involvement of third parties.”

He has apparent also said that in future matters of confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements in the States “must be clarified”.

He’s done a lot of clarifying recently, but the only thing it has clarified for me is how out of touch the Minister is with the electorate. Had he behaved like this in the run up to the election, it is unlikely that he would have achieved such a high number of votes.

The BBC report on the protest repeats what he said: "It is bad enough seeing front page articles talking about protests against the finance centre with thousands of people. That gets picked up internationally. What sort of impression does that give of this island as a whole? It does no good for any of us."

I have to say that what does no good internationally is a Minister who seems determined to bulldoze his way through obstacles, not refer matters back to the States, and imagines that he can “clarify” his way out of difficulties. It gives the impression to me of a Minister who does not listen, who does not refer his "clarifications" back to the States for proper approval, and who has scant regard for the ideals of representative democracy.

I'm sure that does not do the Island any good, but the remedy lies not with the protestors, but in Senator Maclean's hands. If instead of "clarifying" matters, he brought a proposition to the States to ratify the decision to build with only one pre-let, and with only so many square feet, he would at one stroke undercut the protest. Is he so scared that the States as a whole would not approve it?

It is perhaps not so surprising that Senator Maclean had problems with the promise that no work would start until 200,000 sq ft (18,581 sq m) had been let. He was, after all, responsible for just handing over £200,000 to a film company to make a film that never has been made, and in all likelihood will never be made. He never saw fit to bring that as a proposition to the States. Clearly bringing matters to the States does not sit well with his style of government.

And finally, a lot has been said about Senator Ozouf being mistaken, and yet this exchange in the States Assembly dates from the 9th December 2014, by which time Senator Maclean had risen to his current post. At no point does he contradict the assurances given by Senator Ozouf.

Deputy J.A. Hilton of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the pre-letting of buildings on the Esplanade car park site:

In light of the indications by the previous Minister that the States of Jersey Development Company had to have substantial interest by companies in pre-letting the majority of the gross areas in the proposed Buildings 1 or 4 that were approved by the previous Minister for Planning and Environment, before proceeding to construction on the Esplanade car park site, can the Minister confirm that this is still the case?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):

I am delighted to be able to say on this occasion to the Deputy, yes, I can.

The objective of the States of Jersey Development Company is to deliver projects in the most beneficial and risk-adverse manner. It was proposed, before committing to construction costs, the States of Jersey Development Company will have to secure a sufficient level of legally binding prelets to fund the cost of construction in the first phase of this scheme. Are there any in place and, if so, are they as per assurances given by the Minister for Treasury and Resources on 4th February 2014 in answer to a question to Deputy John Le Fondré where he spoke about pre-lets totalling 180,000 square feet?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

There are a number of interested parties for the building to which the Deputy is referring. I can say that of the total of 470,000 square feet that are available across the entire Esplanade Square development that there are expressions of interest - early stage some of them, I accept - of around about 370,000 square feet. There is significant interest in development on Esplanade Quarter and the Deputy would be, I am sure, interested - as indeed Members will be - to know that in the first quarter of next year we hope that the States of Jersey Development Company will be in a position to secure enough pre-lets, as per the undertaking contained within the M.O.U. (Memorandum of Understanding) that will allow development to progress.

And on the 24th February 2015 he states, again suggesting a high level of pre-lets:

“I might add that in an attempt to de-risk this development we have hamstrung, if I can put it that way, S.O.J.D.C. into undertaking its duties by putting conditions on it such as these pre-lets, which no normal commercial developer would undertake.”

That doesn’t sound like the small amount of space that’s recently been signed as a pre-let by the States of Jersey Development Company. It sounds far more like the original figure given by Senator Ozouf.

Perhaps Senator Maclean would like to “clarify” these answers? Did he too make a mistake?

Archive on 4: This is the Army: A Review

This is the Army: Archive on 4, BBC Radio 4

I’ve been listening to a documentary about this presented by John Barrowman on BBC Radio 4.

In May 1941, ex-Sergeant Irving Berlin, then 53, was on tour at Camp Upton, his old Army base in Yaphank, New York during World War I. There he spoke with the commanding officers, including Capt. A.H. Rankin of Special Services, about restaging his original 1917 Army play, Yip! Yip! Yaphank.

As Laurence Bergreen notes:

“To set the wheels in motion, Berlin called Gen. George Marshall in Washington to propose his new all-soldier show. General Marshall approved Berlin's plan to stage a new morale-boosting revue on Broadway, and the production was under way.”

Berlin's daughter, Mary Ellin Barrett, who was 15 when she was at the opening-night performance of "This is the Army" on Broadway, remembered that when her father, who normally shunned the spotlight, appeared in the second act in soldier's garb to sing "Oh, How I Hate to Get Up in the Morning," he was greeted with a standing ovation that lasted 10 minutes.

This was put on to boost morale for the war effort, but it did more than that.

Berlin was granted the chance to add African Americans into this play, which he was not allowed to do in Yip, Yip Yaphank. This would not be unconventional for Berlin, but it would be for the United States Army—no whites and African Americans would appear on stage simultaneously.

This was deliberate on his part. He wanted the show to reflect the whole army, not just part of it. As Bergreen notes:

“This extraordinary gesture derived not so much from Berlin's social beliefs as from his show business background and savvy. In the show business milieu, blacks had long been stars, popular with both African-American and white audiences. By integrating the revue, Berlin was simply importing the conventions with which he was familiar into the army.”

“However, he was not blind to appearances; he knew his gesture would at the least be progressive, and probably controversial. But he believed the armed forces were the great leveller in American society. In his youth, he had seen the Great War reduce barriers separating Jewish, German, Irish, and Italian ethnic groups in the United States. Yet blacks had been excluded from this quiet revolution; even in Yip! Yip! Yaphank, the black numbers had been performed by whites in blackface in the manner of a minstrel show.”

Berlin also in insisted on donating the proceeds of the sheet music sales to the army, a move which upset his financial manager Saul Bornstein who could not believe that such a lucrative source of revenue could simply be handed away.

After Broadway, and a special production for Roosevelt in Washington, the musical production went on a national tour. The national tour of the revue ended in San Francisco on February 13, 1943. By that time, it had earned $2 million for the Army Emergency Relief Fund.

A movie was made, and earned $9,555,586.44--a sum that Jack Warner had agreed a trifle reluctantly, donated to Army Emergency Relief.

Then came the foreign tour. The plan, at first, was for the company to play throughout England for three months, after which This Is the Army would be disbanded for good.

It began in London, when it continued at the Palladium, despite on one occasion a possible bomb on the roof, and despite the air raid sirens and blitz. These were, after all, soldiers, and they stayed. So did the audience. After London the revue toured the provinces--Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow, Belfast--and returned to London to perform for General Eisenhower on February 6, 1944.

Thanks to Berlin complaining to General Eisenhower about the plans to disband, Eisenhower wrote to General Marshall proposing that This Is the Army play to soldiers on all fronts in the field of combat.

They went to North Africa, Italy, Rome, Egypt, Iran, New Guinea. This was a punishing schedule, and Bergreen notes:

“Few theatrical troupes have suffered as many hardships as did the company of This Is the Army, but the beleaguered soldier-actors prevailed through a combination of ingenuity and enthusiasm. Part of the credit belonged to the men themselves, by now welded into a band with a fanatical devotion to their cause, a fanaticism required to survive, and part belonged to Berlin himself, whose indomitable will had made the worldwide tour possible.”

“The overcrowding aboard decrepit ships, inferior food, isolation, constant danger, and lack of women had all subjected the members of the company to an unusual degree of stress. Without Berlin's example of persistence in the face of seemingly insurmountable obstacles, the company would have quickly disintegrated. With it, however, they could be resourceful and tenacious, even when their surroundings mocked their efforts, battered their health, and reduced the show from a Broadway smash to theatre of the absurd.”

And the prejudices returned in that arena. As Anderson recalled: “In the Pacific, they tried to separate the black guys from the rest of the outfit. We had to produce a paper that said, 'General Marshall gives us orders to travel together.' And they listened to us because they didn't want us to go back to General Marshall. So we were not segregated in living quarters, or in eating, or working.”

As Seymour Greene, trombone player recalled when 93: He everyone in the show felt so strongly about it, that if they arrived at a camp, station or city that was segregated, and the African-American cast members were told they would have to sleep and eat separately, the whole cast and crew would join the African-American Soldiers in the “colored” barracks. -

Forgotten now, one thing that struck me with the BBC Radio 4 archive, and those recalling memories from those days, was the amount of racial prejudice. It was clear that Irving Berlin wanted not only to reflect the mix of races in the musical, but to go some way towards breaking down those barriers.

It could only do so much. Onstage, the numbers were racially separated, but backstage, the company lived and worked as a team, regardless of race. Black and white soldiers lived together, worked together, and travelled together–meaning that they all stayed in the same hotels and boarding houses as they travelled around the country.

As Max Wilk, the oldest surviving member of the company explained in a PBS documentary, the show was the first instance of black and white integration in the armed forces. Private Max Wilk served as the advance man for the company, arranging lodging and booking theatres in places where African-Americans were not welcome, and frequently having to produce a “By order of the Secretary of War” letter to secure blocks of rooms for the entire company in the same facility.

Prejudice runs deep, and in Jersey, there is still, I suspect, a submerged degree of xenophobia against the more recent immigrants. Perhaps we need a musical review to bring together and celebrated the different cultures and diversity in our own Island.

Links:
http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1996/summer/irving-berlin-1.html
http://soldiers.dodlive.mil/2013/01/this-is-the-army-mr-greene-2/



http://www.pbs.org/michael-feinsteins-american-songbook/irving-berlin-this-is-the-army.php

Menhir Magic

Menhir Magic

Mother earth, bless sacred ground
Farmers we, pray bless our toil
Chanting, circle round and round
Our menhir standing firm in soil

Sun marking shadow on the sand
Sky gods, oh, pray descend in light
Our menhir linking sky and land
Sea and sand and shell in sight

Moonlight casting shadows long
Now we walk the paths of dead
Between the stones, a simple song
Drink the mead, and break our bread

Come spirits of the earth and sky
And let our magic soar and fly

The Untouchables

"I regard the Masterplan as a living document that must be allowed to evolve and be flexible enough to respond to changing circumstances." (Senator Jim Hacker, "Yes Minister")

Philip Ozouf was “mistaken” with his pre-lets figure of 200,000 square feet. That is how Senator Maclean tried to spin away the assurance that was given in February 2014. Apparently, with this kind of mistake, it doesn’t come to light until just after you have one tenant for an office block.

And now Alan Maclean has “clarified” that we didn’t need that condition because it only applied when Harcourt were developing the site, and now the States is doing so in phases, there is not that risk.

Apparently, with this kind of clarification, matters only need to be "clarified" after you have signed one tenant for an office block and decided to send in the bulldozers.

Scrutiny, meanwhile, were given notice by the same Alan Maclean (who was dismissive of commercial risk of the building) that they needed to sign a disclosure agreement making them personally liable for any leaks of commercially sensitive information. Suddenly unique and unprecedented conditions appear like a conjuring trick.

The Greffier, thank goodness, advised them that this would set a very bad precedent. Constable Chris Taylor from Scrutiny was on BBC Radio to explain about it. This is not Reform; these are central standing politicians who are being treated with distrust as if they cannot behave responsibly in accordance with the standards of Scrutiny. And Alan Maclean gets away with this!

And the whole matter is kept from debate in the States. Scrutiny no longer has time to do its job thanks to Senator Maclean’s refusal to hand over documents until it is too late to prevent the bulldozers going in.

If anything, this reminds me of China, where the rulers decided to just bulldoze out a space for the Olympic stadium, regardless of any people living there.

Now there are no people living on the waterfront, but the same arrogance is present. Senator Maclean, of course, stated before the election that this was his last time in the States – unless of course he decides to “clarify” that!

Like a good conjuror, with a glib patter, there is a lot of trickery and smoke and mirrors. So far, he has not decided to saw Senator Ozouf in half, but the day may be coming soon.

Senator Ozouf is becoming unstuck elsewhere. He did not leave a note, as far as we know, saying “there is no money”, but he did give what seemed to me to be a rather contemptuous dismissal of John le Fondre’s claims about a budget shortfall of around £100 million when speaking to a Scutiny panel - pre-election, of course.

Everything was rosy before the election, but now we know that there was indeed a shortfall, possibly as high as £130 million. The Financial Times reports Alan Maclean saying that “80 per cent of households may have to pay more tax next year. An increase in the marginal rate of income tax from 26 per cent to 27 per cent is under consideration for 2016. The move could raise £8m from lower and middle income earners.”

Evidently Senator Ozouf, in both his statement to scrutiny, and his aim to reduce the marginal rate, was again “mistaken”.

And now Jersey’s Health Minister has announced that the island’s new hospital will be built on a single site.

As Channel News reported: “At a meeting this evening, Senator Andrew Green has confirmed two potential sites are being investigated, but they are waiting to put together a costing plan before naming them.”

“It comes after tens of thousands of pounds has been spent on consultants looking at whether the hospital should be spread over one or two sites.”

And how much money was spent producing a report which went to the States suggesting the Hospital should be built on two sites? And who proposed it to the States? Step forth Senator Ozouf. 

"It became very clear that no other option existed that was realistic, affordable and would deliver a hospital within a timeframe, apart from the dual-site option"

He also appointed a "design champion" - a post which he decided did not need advertisement - "We did not advertise it. We needed to make progress. "

Presumably, his plans, promoted as “the solution”, were – what is that word – “mistaken”.

Meanwhile Senator Ozouf remains an Assistant Minister but with a special prerogative of being part of the Council of Ministers – when he is in the Island, of course. There are no reprimands, no blame apportioned to him, and it seems as if his position is secure as ever. He can come and go as he please rather like the Cheshire cat, for this is Wonderland.

And Alan Maclean can just send it the bulldozers regardless of waiting for Scrutiny reporting back. Forget Scrutiny, because evidently when something is to be forced through, Scrutiny is treated as toothless and ignored. Is this a good way to govern?

It appears that whatever mistakes they make, or how appallingly dictatorial they can be Senator Ozouf and Senator Maclean are the modern “untouchables”. The mistakes of one can be "clarified" away by the other, and no one is ever held accountable.

Breakfast with President Reagan

Former Senator Reg Jeune died this year at the age of 94.

He was a devout Methodist, lay preacher and a humanitarian. That background comes through with this article which he penned for "The Pilot" in 1987. 

It is also a fascinating glimpse into an American custom - the National Prayer Breakfast which is actually a series of meetings, luncheons, and dinners. It has taken place since 1953 and has been held at least since the 1980s at the Washington Hilton on Connecticut Avenue NW. It is designed to be a forum for the political, social, and business elite to assemble and build relationships.

The main event, the Thursday morning breakfast, typically has two special guest speakers: the President of the United States and a guest whose identity is kept confidential until that morning. Every U.S. president since Dwight D. Eisenhower has participated in the breakfast. 

Breakfast with President Reagan
By Senator R.R. Jeune
The Pilot 1987

This was the third occasion my wife and I had received an invitation to the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington. On the two previous occasions we were unable to make the journey but we were determined to go this time and we did.

What is the Breakfast about? Apparently it all started when Eisenhower was President and he called a friend of his, Senator Frank Carlson, and told him how lonely the White House was. His friend said that he should come and join their Tuesday morning fellowship breakfast in the Senate. He did just that and out of it grew the National Prayer Breakfast which every President has taken part in ever since. Thirty-five years and each year the President has made a special point to come and deliver a message.

It is held in the Washington Hilton-where President Reagan was shot-and this year a record number were invited and accepted - 3,700 in all. Quite a feat for any hotel to cook and serve an excellent hot breakfast for that number. But they did and well.

The vast majority of invitees were American but they had come from every corner of the States. In addition there were representatives from about a hundred countries. Whilst the central point is the Breakfast itself, there are many other meetings organised over a period of two or three days. A luncheon to which all Ambassadors in Washington are invited and at that meal, two Senators and the Attorney General of the USA spoke about their Christian belief. A Breakfast for Commonwealth Parliamentarians and another meal to meet European invitees and so on.

But the main gathering, the Breakfast, was at 7.30 a.m. on Thursday, February 5th, and it was a triumph of organisation. Many folk give up days and hours in an honorary capacity to achieve this, honoured to be one of the few

Each year a small number of persons are invited to meet the President and I was honoured to be one of the few, about twelve or thirteen, and they included the King of Tonga, the Ruler of the Zulus, Chief Buthlellsi, the Minister of Health for Canada, the Prime Minister of Bermuda, the Egyptian Ambassador in Washington and myself.

In this private room we also met the Vice-President of the USA and Mrs Bush. Mr Bush expressed the coincidence of meeting me because he had just finished reading a new mystery novel about Jersey by 'Jack Higgins'.

Then the President and Mrs Reagan were announced and they came in accompanied by many guards - the President, still unwell from his prostate operation, had been advised by his doctors to come only for ten minutes to deliver his message, but he said that this gathering was so important to him that he had come for the whole time which in fact lasted two hours.

After meeting the President and Mrs Reagan, I went into the hail to join my wife at our allotted table, the official party came in and after grace breakfast was served.

Then we had a message from the Senate and Congress from members of those two Houses. We had Bible readings read by Vice-President Bush and the widow of Martin Luther-King; we had prayers from the Governor of Missouri and the Chief of Naval Operations.

The highspot was a wonderful address based on the story of Esther, by the Hon. Elizabeth Dole, the Secretary for Transportation in Mr Reagan's cabinet. The address was very moving and she received a standing ovation.

The President then gave his message; we all sang 'Amazing Grace' and Dr Billy Graham concluded the proceedings with a closing prayer.

As part of the week my wife and I stayed the weekend before with a family in Boston. The American character is noticeably more forthcoming, but I learned that Christians in that country want to share their faith. We build walls and consider our belief to be something very personal. They, on the contrary, want to tell the 'Good News' to all.

I found, also how generously they supported their churches-we stayed in Boston with a family who belonged to a United Reformed Church which has 700 members, three Ministers and four paid secretaries, and the Church Treasurer who was our host had a budget of $400,000 a year. This kind of figure was equalled and surpassed by other churches.

What' do they do with all this money? Well, in addition to keeping their churches and staff they also helped in the community around. An outreach of Christianity in immediate social problems.

To sum up, altogether a memorable and soul searching week which I am glad to have experienced.

What, therefore, is the purpose of these Fellowship Breakfasts? Not only do they take place regularly at the Senate and Congress in Washington, but at the House of Lords and Commons in London and lots of other places including, yes, Jersey, because a number of States members meet monthly in this way.

The objectives are to encourage a fellowship of responsible people banded together to find through Christ a better way of everyday living, in order to promote for home, community, country, and at every level of society a leadership led by God; and to work together to encourage a spiritual awakening throughout this country and the world through prayer, discussion and fellowship.