Found at the Belmont Club: a Dad’s Story.
Posted by Chez @ 11:32
Filed under: General
comments ?Some new posts at Free Jersey about the Save Plemont campaign, the Poverty report, and ITIS.
Posted by Chez @ 13:51
Filed under: General, Jersey, News
comments ?Not dead - just been really busy with work for the last couple of weeks.
I’m going to seperate the political blogging from the personal stuff. So, I have a new site, called Free Jersey, which is where I’ll be posting about local politics.
The site isn’t fully dressed up, but it’s the content that counts, right?
Posted by Chez @ 15:27
Filed under: General
comments ?Next time I spend 25 minutes stuck in a lift with no power, can I at least have some company of the attractive female type?
Thanks.
There appears to have been an island wide power cut. Traffic lights are out, and the Police are going nuts. On the plus side, the traffic wardens are directing traffic and not ticketing people.
Posted by Chez @ 7:53
Filed under: News
comments ?I have to admit to enjoying Blair’s current predicament. There are plenty of reasons to wish to be rid of Tony Blair… until you consider the options to replace him. He wasn’t wrong on everything: I think his foreign policy aims (if not the execution of such) were good, but domestically… I think it’s fair to say that of Labour’s offerings, he’s the least bad.
Oh dear.
Posted by Chez @ 13:49
comments ?I’ve been setting up the website for my occasionally alluded-to new project. I’m using the Drupal content management system, and… wow. It is amazingly easily to use, and to configure your website the way you want it.
Posted by Chez @ 13:04
Filed under: General
comments ?I finally managed to get in touch with Constable du Feu. Over the long weekend (yes, I was rather late with my second follow up letter) I sent him and Deputy Egre another letter expressing my displeasure at being ignored. It turns out that the Constable responded to my first follow-up letter (having not recevied the e-mail I sent him) the day I posted my second letter. Oh well. Having received my second letter today, he called me to ensure I had received his reply. I had, and it was certainly succint: he didn’t agree with the change in the law.
I think I’d worked that much out.
While I was on the phone with him, however, I asked him to expand on why he didn’t agree with the change in the law. He stated that he felt the issues had been approached in the wrong way, and made things more complicated than they needed to be. Specifically he was referring to issues of breach of trust, covered by the law. I admit to, at this point, having being somewhat sceptical, but the Hansard transcript for the 5th July has Deputy Egre describing his concerns about the legislation in terms of the balance between young people and adults in cases of a breach of trust.
Since I’m sure Deputy Egre and Constable du Feu, being the representatives of St Peter in the States, must discuss these issues, I find it is conceivable that they share the same concerns. It is also, I think, to their credit if they’re prepared to vote against a popular piece of draft legislation over concerns to do with the parts not garnering such attention.
Posted by Chez @ 16:31
Filed under: Jersey
comments ?The front page of the JEP today carries this headline: “Give us our rights, say Muslims”. Not the kind of headline that will endear me to any group, to be fair. Specifically, though, they are apparently asking for two rights: that Muslim marriages be recognised under Jersey law, and that Muslims should have the right to pray during work hours.
The first issue is an appropriate one for the States to consider, the second is not.
If any religion’s marriages are to be protected in law (hello, Christianity) then so must they all*. I’m not sure that the State has any business being involved in marriages, other than to enforce contract law, but the nature of the contract (Muslim v Christian) shouldn’t make any difference.
I think, however, that to have the “right” to pray during work hours is a preposterous notion. What an employee may, or may not, do during the hours they are contracted to work for someone is an issue between them and their employer: the State has no business getting involved.
I am sure that many employers would be happy to allow persons of any faith to take the time required by their faith for prayer during work time - so long as they make up the time lost, or take a proportionate reduction in compensation to reflect the lost time. For the State to mandate that Muslims (or any other group) are entitled to an extra paid break that other groups are not is discriminatory against those other groups, imposes costs on employers (that will ultimately be passed on to the consumer) and erodes their rights and freedoms to organise their affairs as they see fit.
–
* - Subject, of course, that individuals rights are not violated.
Posted by Chez @ 12:56
comments ?Further to my earlier posts about the Draft Sexual Offences vote, I looked up how the votes were cast and as I was rather disappointed to find that both my Deputy, Colin Egre, and Constable, Tom du Feu, both voted against it. So, I e-mailed them to ask why. Two weeks later I have had no reply from either of them.
I hope it is just an oversight - I have communicated with Deputy Egre by e-mail before - but just in case, I’m going to write to them again, this time by dead-tree.
Update 9th August: Still no reply from either Deputy Egre or Constable du Feu. I’ll give them another week.
Update 19th August: Still no reply from either. That’ll be letter number two then.
Posted by Chez @ 9:22
comments ?A couple more book reviews…
The Welfare State We’re In - James Bartholomew. That these days the Welfare State is portrayed as the natural, right and proper way for a enlightened society to conduct it’s affairs makes the impact of this book so much more shocking. No thought is given to what existed before the NHS or public education, to name two. This book takes areas of the Welfare State such as these and systematically demonstrates how they have failed not just at the margins but in core principle as well. Bartholomew does this not just by comparing them to the principles and desired outcomes of the limited-government types, but by using the words and stated intentions of the people who founded the programs. By the end of the chapter on public education I was determined my children would go to private school; by half way through the NHS chapter I’d started researching private health insurance. The modern Welfare State is not just a collection of well-intentioned programs that are not performing as well as they might - they are systemically incapable of outperforming the institutions they replaced. James Bartholomew blogs here.
Capitalism and Freedom - Milton Friedman. This short but superb book is a collection of essays. In this book Friedman demonstrates why capitalism is the best of the available systems for promoting liberty and freedom. Originally written in 1952, it has been updated and reviewed. What is impressive is how the examples still in the book from when it was originally published still hold true, and with the mix of historical and contemporary examples it can sometimes be difficult to tell which is which. For a political and economics based book, it is surprisingly readable, and definately worth reading.
Posted by Chez @ 16:20
Filed under: Books
comments ?Even theBritish Civil Service, which never met bureacracy it didn’t like, thinks “ID Card are Doomed.”
Posted by Chez @ 9:41
comments ?As i mentioned yesterday, the States have voted to lower the age of consent for homosexuals to 16. Today, the JEP reports on some of the debate. They report that:
While some parts of the world debate whether to stone homosexuals to death, I’ve always been rather pleased that we in the West were instead debating whether to allow them to marry. It seems that, once again, Jersey has some catching up to do.
Senator Perchard had the best quote in tonight’s paper when he warned other States members to “beware of prejudice masquerading as principle.” (Oh, and Anthony Lews - you wouldn’t be surprised at this liberal attitude from a “country boy” if you’d bothered to read his election manifesto. It’s entirely in keeping with his stated principles, so a little less stereotyping from you wouldn’t go amiss, either.)
I’m looking forward to finding out which other States Members voted against the law. But the parishoners of St Clement and St Ouen ought to be ashamed of their representatives.
Additional: the only interesting question is at what age a young person is capable of giving consent. Once they are capable of that, what they give consent for is nobody’s business but their own.
Deputy Baudain’s arguments are laughable. For a start, young girls aren’t being had for desserts at dinner parties by old straight men, so why is he so worried about homosexuals, unless he’s prejudiced? Secondly, the latest science suggests that homosexuality may have something to do with conditions in the womb (which, by the way, would make it a natural phenomenon) - nothing do with genes at all. Finally, even if it was, a gene’s defectiveness or not has no bearing on whether homosexuals are capable of giving consent at 16 rather than 18. The only possible logical conclusion is that he believes homosexuality should be made illegal. In that case, to be logically consistent, he must believe other conditions like Downs syndrome should be made illegal too.
As for Deputy Reed’s assertion… as much as I get a warm fuzzy feeling about his concern for my moral fibre, again, it is none of his business what two consenting adults do in private. If James Reed finds anal sex unacceptable, then he shouldn’t do it. But Deputy Reed - or any other elected official - is not competent to make these decisions for us.
Posted by Chez @ 16:37
comments ?Jersey has finally reduced the age of Gay Consent to 16. Quite why 11 members of the States thought that persons of a particular persuasion should not be allowed to expose themselves to STDs, while others (or even the same ones!) could expose themselves to both STDs and unwanted pregnancies is not explained in that article.
Perhaps they just think they know better than us little people.
Posted by Chez @ 20:02
comments ?One more reason to be glad we’re not part of the UK: The Government is a better parent than you.
Posted by Chez @ 11:38
comments ?Senator Syvret is proposing compulsory insurance to cover the costs of looking after the elderly.
While this is possibly one of the more benign expansions of government power, there’s still plenty of room for it be done badly. In the first place I don’t think it’s the government’s place to tell us when, by what means and how much we must put aside for our old age. However, that argument never stops those who think they know best.
The JEP article doesn’t mention it, but I would put money on the proceeds from this fund only being claimable for States-run care homes, or perhaps limited numbers of “approved” homes. If this is the case then it ceases to be insurance and simply becomes another tax and blatant empire-building by Health and Social Services.
The only fair way for this to operate would be for all those who meet the requirements to receive a regular fixed payment. Where and how they choose to spend it would be up to them. Private care, care in the home, reimbursing their family, or States care. Whichever. In fact, whatever. So long as they choose. In the JEP article Richard Jouault, the Director of Corporate Planning and Performance Management (..and breathe) at the Health Department, is quoted as saying: “There are concerns that because people have put into the system, it leads to more people going into institutional care instead of staying in their homes.” Quite. So here are a couple of suggestions to prevent that:
This is an area where I do have some personal experience. These suggestions will have benefits by giving people the power to buy the care they need from people they choose and have the care where they want it. Structuring the payment of this “insurance” like this will, for example, encourage people to be looked after by their own families. If the money can be given to the family then it will act as an incentive for them to take responsibility for each other - and discourage depositing elderly family members in care homes.
Allowing people this level of control will also help improve the care facilities in the island, since every single one of them - States run or not - will have to compete for custom.
In a free market customers can choose who to buy insurance from, based on the price charged and the coverage. In a compulsory State-run system we have no such choice. We are told the price, and we have no choice but to pay it. With this in mind, there is no justification for restricting who may claim, or restricting what they may spend it on.
Unfortunately, I am quite certain Senator Syvret will try to do just that.
Posted by Chez @ 13:56
Filed under: Jersey
comments ?No time recently, with work pressures, family pressures, trips and everything else. I’m away this weekend too, and trying to get my new project up off the ground, so things are quiet.
Some thoughts to bide you over:
The new director of Jersey airport doesn’t want to lower landing fees to attract cheaper airlines/more passengers. His reasoning is two fold: 1) There aren’t enough beds to support increased visitor numbers. Funny that. The current supply of beds meets the current supply of tourists. Someone buy the guy an economics book. 2) He’s committed to stability with the existing airlines. Oh goody! More protectionism. That’s just what we need.
There is simply no logic to this.
I’m not even going to start on the politician who wants to cap Jersey’s population at an arbitrary figure. Because that’s bound to work, will be easily enforceable, won’t introduce any number of massive market distortions, and will have to be administered by the State. All good things, I’m sure you’ll agree.
Posted by Chez @ 19:15
comments ?Pictures from my TT trip:
Posted by Chez @ 19:11
Filed under: General, Photography
comments ?Distance ridden: 750 miles.
Time in the saddle: >15 hours.
Maximum speed achieved (legally): 107 mph.
Bug impacts: so, so many.
Photos taken: 800+.
Breakdowns: 1. Arse.
Addendum: Number of people inserted and removed from the ferry by helicopter: One.
Posted by Chez @ 17:13
Filed under: General
comments ?Off to the Isle of Man tonight, to see family and for the TT. Nothing to do with roads with no speed limits at all. Honest.
There will be something when I get back, promise. Photos, if nothing else.
Posted by Chez @ 18:37
Filed under: General
comments ?My main computer has decided to throw a wobbly and won’t start. Hence no recent blogging. Blogging and links (you did notice the new link section on the sidebar, right?) will return when I’m up and running again.
Posted by Chez @ 16:53
Filed under: General
comments ?