Men arrested after jumping from Condor ferry

TWO Islanders were arrested after jumping off a passenger ferry into the Harbour in an allegedly drunken incident on Friday night.

The men jumped as the boat entered the Harbour
The men jumped as the boat entered the Harbour

TWO Islanders were arrested after jumping off a passenger ferry into the Harbour in an allegedly drunken incident on Friday night.

The men, aged 19 and 35, jumped into the sea from the Condor Rapide ferry, which had travelled from St Malo, while it was docked at Elizabeth Harbour ferry terminal.

Captain Fran Collins, from Condor Ferries' ports and guest services division, said that the men acted 'extremely irresponsibly' and put both themselves and other passengers in danger.

Full report in Monday's JEP.

Comments for: "Men arrested after jumping from Condor ferry"

Renegade

Perhaps someone could tell me as I've always wondered - what specific law is someone breaking when they jump off a ferry? Is it because they're trespassing on the harbour?

Helen Glew

This could possibly be seen as attempting to evade immigration and customs controls, apart from being sectionably stupid.

Renegade

Perhaps you're right Helen, although if they intend to avoid customs they seem to have failed singularly. Fortunately for many people, stupidity is not a crime! :)

Julie

I assume they are causing a nuisance to say the least because the captain can hardly just sail off and leave them to drown?

Overpopulated

They are also possibly endangering rescuers who have to go and look for them. Large ferries and cargo vessels are dangerous and the captain cannot see humans in the water.

Bombass

You can be arrested for being drunk and disorderly. Which fits the bill here!

sideline

lucky they dident get sucked in the inlets .stupid ppl

Crispin

What, the ones that were switched off?

Mr Sensible

What a pair of irresponsible idiots, Condor should put a life ban on them, would have been a different headline if they had been sucked under the boat and chopped to pieces by the props.

Crispin

Er... this is a waterjet catermaran, there are no props.

Bo

Er Crispin, just the impeller blades in the water jet drive!!!!!

Hmmmm

er....jets which have high speed impellers so even more dangerous than props!

I like to watch

What are "islanders"? What does this term mean? It has crept into the media over the past couple of years.

Is it a way of avoiding talking about proper Jersey people because "we're all the same now"?

It sounds like some sterile, pseudo-eugenic, politically correct mumbo-jumbo expression.

Si

“proper Jersey people”

Good luck defining that, everyone will disagree on the definition.

As for “we’re all the same now”, well we were all 'the same' to start with, then we spread out across the globe. Strange how some people got all uppity and decided they were better than others.

Your people didn't even originate in Jersey. Rising sea levels just created an island out of an already inhabited area. Your people are likely some of those that invaded that island over the years rather than the original nomadic hunters (although, given your views, you could make a good argument for being descended from the nomads I reckon).

No-one is the same as anyone else, but we are all equal. Shame Jersey can't see that, it makes us look like a rather unpleasant people.

Jimmy

Watch yourself with "proper" Jersey people. Only 50% of people here were born in our general hospital, only 25% had both parents born here as well.

Is "proper" Jersey a black stamp on your passport or a local accent and a few cows in Grouville? Do folks in St Ouen's count with their surf boards or is owning a field compusory? Are you automatically excluded if you work in a suit on the Esplanade or can you get away with it if the company has a name no one in England can pronounce?

Si

No bigotry at all, just history as to how Jersey was formed and how that area was populated as it formed. Pretty clear that no-one living here today will be from one of the first people to set food on Jersey soil, rather from an invader, so how far back do we want to go to prove our Jersey-ness? I guess, only far enough back to suit us eh?

keith

Perhaps the scots or indeed the Welsh would agree with you, Jimmy. I doubt it.

They have backbone and are proud to be proper Scots people, in much the same way as the proper Jersey people are proud of their heritage and identity.

Jimsi

Plenty of bigotry in your post, Si, you just can't see it, which is a hallmark of someone who is a bigot.

Jimmy's comment is almost as narrow minded- it is more laughable though when you read how silly his examples are

I like to watch

I think that you have answered the question, Si, although I rather think that what your post discloses is not what you intended it to disclose.

What you say certainly bears the hallmarks of bigotry, as well as being self-contradictory in certain areas.

Overpopulated

I assume you are one of the 'no borders' people, very cute but the population is too large now at 100,000 how many more do you want in?

And are you prepared to pay more tax to provide them with housing, education for the children, etc?

Si

Nope, I didn't refer to any of that in my post now did I? Why not read the comment to which I responded, THEN read my response (which is appropriate to the initial stupid post) instead of making assumptions.

Everywhere is overpopulated. Best way to deal with it is to stop encouraging people to breed for benefits/housing etc. Being nasty has been proven to not work, goodness we've been doing it for decades and it clearly doesn't worked. Make people pay for their own kids and they'll soon stop coming here to have them. Meanwhile, those that are here for other (possibly more genuine reasons) don't get treated like dirt.

Brian

Agree, just because your family came here hundreds of years ago doesn't give you the right to think you're better. When food runs out in Jersey, people will move elsewhere. I'm always amused when you people support a football team and 95% of the team aren't local. It's fine if the team gets foreign players to compete in the champions league, but when a foreigner works in Jersey the moaning starts.

Brain

The Australians "think they're better" when you try and get a visa there, so do the Americans.

Other places, too, control immigration and look after their own. They are indeed "better" in the sense that they're grown a pair and know how to look after what they've got, unlike the UK which is overrun.

I don't agree with the football team example either. People only support them because it's all there is. It is not fine at all.

Brian

You can buy a Visa in Australia or America + you can play the green card lottery if you're not from the UK (I did it). People like you make it sound as if countries are sooooooooooooo strict. Funny enough I could get a job in Australia next month & would eventually become a citizen. The British & Irish mafia will also help you get in if you really want to.

Brain

Well, that rather proves the point that has been made- other countries have immigration controls and deal with the matter properly-

you admit that one has to stoop to criminal activity to get into places like Australia illegally, so we already see a clear distinction between those countries (which look after their own and respect what they have) and Jersey, which has no borders and where "we are all the same you know".

Overpopulated

I agree, it seems to cover everyone who lives here, even if they got off the boat yesterday.

Sensible

"TWO locally born men, who can trace their ancestry back 500 years, were arrested after jumping off a passenger ferry into the Harbour in an allegedly drunken incident on Friday night."

"TWO locally born men, whose mother came to Jersey in the 70s, met and married a locally born man who can trace his ancestry back 500 years, were arrested after jumping off a passenger ferry into the Harbour in an allegedly drunken incident on Friday night."

"TWO locally born men, whose parents came to Jersey in the 70s, were arrested after jumping off a passenger ferry into the Harbour in an allegedly drunken incident on Friday night."

"TWO men, one locally born, who can trace his ancestry back 500 years, and one born in UK and has lived here for 15 years , were arrested after jumping off a passenger ferry into the Harbour in an allegedly drunken incident on Friday night."

"TWO non local men, who were 'what's that, this is a local ferry for local people, we will have no trouble here', were arrested after jumping off a passenger ferry into the Harbour in an allegedly drunken incident on Friday night."

Do you see why islanders is used....?

keith

Not really a sensible post there, Sensible.

The media could do what it did until recently and say "Two Jerseymen" if that is indeed the case.

If the people are not Jersey people, then a description, again as used to occur until recently, would be "two men from the UK".

It is very simple to those with a brain. No, I can't see why "islanders" is used and I expect that you will get the point now. The original comment was entirely correct. We won't be shouted down, I am afraid.

Sensible

But are they Jerseymen if their parents were not born in the fair isle?

Preston

A lot of one's sense of being a Jerseyman comes from attitude and loyalty. The starting point must be that a person born and raised in Jersey is a proper Jersey person.

At least you are now being a little more "sensible" in your remarks.

Richard

As a Jersey person, I too dislike the term "islander".

Si is obviously what we can call a "world citizen", yet he speaks of "your people", which is either a "Freudian slip" or is something which detracts from his argument but which he lacks the capacity to recognise.

The nomads were a noble and honourable people, so I would take as a compliment the suggestion by Si that Jersey people are derived from this cadre of peaceful warriors.

Having said that, I would imagine that Si, as a world citizen, might be classed as an idealistic "nomad". Devoid of any national ideal or loyalty, he piously repeats the narrow-minded dogma about how we are no longer allowed to take pride in our heritage. Indeed, we are all the same now, unless that is, one wishes to enter Australia, the USA or any number of other conutries.

The closing comment regarding "us" looking like a rather unpleasant people presents a further paradox, coming as it does from someone who, two lines earlier, refuses to acknowledge any concept of differentuation.

Perhaps, in the view of Si, some of us are more "the same" than others! :)

Si

It wasn't a Freudian slip, I was trying to use language the initial poster might understand, this clearly ruled out anything more intellectual.

As far as your entire post goes, reductio ad absurdum mean anything to you? Sums your post up nicely. People can be essentially the same and choose to act differently, that would be obvious to a toddler, and I'm guessing you are at least a teenager.

I'm not a 'world citizen', I have simply seen that we could go about things in a far more productive and less nasty way, indeed, in a way that would actually stabilise population levels (something that isn't happening with our current discriminatory system!) But this would mean looking at where 'Jersey-people' are taking the proverbial out of the system rather than just taking the easy action of blaming migrants.

But hey, since you presumably think the nasty system is actually working... hmmmm

Richard

It's not a system, Si, nor is it "nasty". Your constant need to put things into boxes and to deny freedom of expression is what is rather unpleasant.

You seem to be intent on putting forward views of a particularly narrow minded nature- that is all very well, but don't be surprised if others pick you up on it.

I like to watch

Many would have understood the unpleasant basic tenor of your comment, Si, but unfortunately, you went wrong when you contradicted yourself.

You seem to continue the error when you misuse latin quotations in order to look clever. It would be better if you were to write properly and to use plain english in so doing.

Read your commentary again carefully and then you might possibly see what others are picking you up on.

Thank you for your contributions.

Dave

Those who argue that they were " trying to use language the initial poster might understand" are trying to distance themselves from what they said. They know that they have been caught out.

I am not really writing this post. I am just trying to use language that Si might understand-this clearly rules out anything more intellectual, to use Si's "wise" words ! :)

Si

Waow the intelligence on here is astounding. Reductio ad absurdum was used correctly :-D

And yes it is a nasty system. A proper VISA system would be far better.

I like to watch

Well at least you have made some sense at last, Si, although you might like to check out your knowledge of latin quotations.

####ing ####er

How the hell can anybody, including you, know that

'The nomads were a noble and honourable people... (a) cadre of peaceful warriors'?

Complete and utter conjecture. They could just as easily have been nasty bastards.

Peaceful warriors? Almost as oxymoronic as my moniker!

Highlander

Have you heard of anthropologists? They will be able to offer a more informed view than yours, not that such a thing would be very difficult.

Do you actually know what the word "oxymoronic" means?

Mjolnir de Jersiaise

"Islanders" is a term, invented by the JEP, which means: anyone who has been on Jersey soil for more than 5 nanoseconds. It can be used in statements such as "New building development provides much-needed jobs for Islanders", thereby keeping Jersey people quiet whilst more and more immigrants are shipped in so as to drive local wages ever lower.

The more often this term appears in the JEP, the more it induces a warm, fuzzy, "we are one" feeling, in the minds of Jersey people; the purpose of this is to get us to accept, unthinkingly, the doctrines of Multiculturalism, Political Correctness and the closely-related policy of mass-immigration.

Of course, it goes without saying that anyone who opposes these doctrines, and policies, is a particularly nasty and bigoted individual...

roger

And how did they put other passengers in danger? Typical overreaction from Jersey.

Hmmmm

Because when you have persons in the water it limits the ability of the vessel and those around it to manoever and avoid collisions with other craft or dangers. As such, anyone in the vicinity is put at risk. Kind of a dumb question don't you think.

don gonit

Doh, I think the boat was stationary.

Nanny state at it again.

norman conquest

The boat was tied up to the docks with the engines off

Rolls eyes.

"Put other passengers in danger."

Hardly.

jim

they saw the food and drink prices onboard and jumped off in shock

bob

the condor rapide doesn't have props ,it uses a water jet system, they could however have been sucked into the intakes

David Jones

Totally irresponsible and immature, as are some of the earlier comment makers who seem to condone this type of behavior....

Ashley Honda

Ha! Ha! It's a hilarious stunt! What a pair of legends. Nobody got hurt so everyone should just stop grumping. They are both heroes!

And as for all this rubbish about Jersey being overcrowded, NO IT IS NOT, there is room for more people here. Everyone should come! David Warr is a legend and a hero for saying we can support 150k people. Roads congested? Just tell the cyclists to ride on the pavements to free up more space on the roads. Anyone who rides on the pavement is a legend and a hero, it's a hilarious stunt!

REG. T

Water Jets Do Have Propellers,Can Be

Called Impellers.

Dating Back To The Very Early CASTOLDI WATER JET Units. Still Have Paperwork For Instalation.

The Propeller Or Propellers,Are

Enclosed In a tube, To Both Suck The

Water In, And Eject It

(The Water Jet) Note, Bob If You

Were Sucked In The Intakes. You

Would Be Expelled In A Very Different State. However Intakes Are Filtered,

IF Not Filtered You Would Be

Certainly Sucked IN.

norman conquest

Boring !!!

youarewhatyouare

To the local that doesn't like being called an Islander. You are an Islander end of because you come from an Island. I was born in Jersy so i am an Islander. People from Fiji ect are allso Islander's. Look in a history book and see what Islander means. You are what you are but if you dont like it move to a country somewhere, but you will allways be an Islander.

Sensible

Wouldn't waste your time, some people just like to moan for the sake of it!

Bill

........whereas others post comments which don't serve any sueful purpose at all!

Sensibility

Those who write about others "moaning" are usually those who are unable to engage in discussion- as seen above, they post silly comments and are then picked up on this by others.

Having no argument left, they then resort to name calling!

Keef

Isn't that the problem? I'm an islander but from a different island. It doesn't tell you anything other than you are from an island.

Jane

I am a Jersey person and I don't like it either. I have no intention of leaving my own island, either.

Kate

Funnily enough, the term Fiji Islanders is defined as meaning the indigenous people there, which must be quite annoying for the "no borders", "we are all the same" bigots who refuse to acknowledge anyone's heritage or loyalty to thier abode.

Si

Some people want it to be made clear that they are 'better' than the rest of the scum that have come here and infiltrated our once glorious island! (sarcasm, since so many missed it before).

Usually it is the ones that have never worked a day in their lives, have numerous children by different partners etc. that hold these kinds of hatred for 'outsiders'. The more educated tend not to consider themselves better than anyone else purely on the basis of where they were born. Mind you, the more educated often have also worked outside Jersey and have proven they can actually hold their own in 'the real world' rather than just be a big fish in a small pond.

Paul

It sounds to me as though you would reagrd yourself as better than many, if your comments are anything to go by, Si. It's generally better to be tolearnt of the views of others, then you really might display some form of intellectual capacity!

I'm me!!

I am a Jerseyman, an Islander, however as the years roll on I'm feeling more of an outsider!! That's what we get for having non Jersey people running our Island.

Crazy Diamond

Me too!

And it is only going to get worse. I think i'm in danger of becoming extinct!

I waited for my primary aged children in the school playground and struggled to hear my language being spoken..... i felt a bit sad.

Eco Warrior

Yay! Finally, I soo agree!

Dave C

Maybe they used the term 'Islanders' because, all they knew about the two in question, was that they were from the Island.

Have we reached the stage where we require instant clarification on the origin of all those transgressors of laws, rules, regulations, moral standards etc. etc. etc. in order that both sides of the immigration debate can immediately point out, what a bad 'immigrant' or 'local' that person is.

To return to the original post on the subject, I don't believe the term 'Islander' has any insidious intent as implied. What does 'Local' mean? what does 'from Jersey' indicate? And what about the iniquitous term 'Bean'? We don't have shared definitions for these terms either. What's the difference between 'Jersey people' and 'proper Jersey people'?

Ken

I doubt if any insidious meaning is intended, but it is nonetheless a term which will be offensive to many Jersey people. It is notable that race relations law in the UK and elsewhere deem something to be offensive, even if it is not intended as such. It is the perception of the term that is the determining factor.

The point has been flagged up now, so any defence as might have existed may well be diminished.

Dave C

Ken,

If we are talking about the perception of an individual here, I don't see how your suggestion would be workable in law. If as a former resident of Doncaster, I claimed to be offended by being referred to as a Doncastrian, are we saying that my case would automatically be proven, simply because that was my perception?

Ken

Thanks Dave. I know what you mean. We see this sort of thing all the time in the UK where a member of some ethnic minority group claims to "take offence". As you state, it is not workable, yet ordinary english people find themselves in difficulties over it once the commission gets the bit between its teeth. The small matter of proof does not seem to get in the way where such case are concerned.

It is indeed a pity that it only seems to work one way. As you again state correctly, an english or indeed a Jersey person is not allowed to take offence at any slur upon his heritage, unlike his fortunate counterpart from elsewhere, who seems to have a body of rights to which the indigenous people have no access.

William

Your analogy does not work Dave C, in the sense that a "Donacasterian" cannot be compared with a Jerseyman.

Jersey is a disparate jurisdiction, whereas Donacaster is merely a region within another jurisdiction, this being England.

The analogy also fails because the offence which is identified arises from the failure to decribe Jersey people as such. Instead, the politically correct term "islander" is used, palpably because the media no longer wishes to identify Jerseymen and Jerseywomen as such. We are, apparently, "all the same now", whether one is born here or whether one has just stepped off the boat.

It is, as others have stated, a symptom of the media trying to ease us all towards a "no borders, we are all the same now" mentality. This in turn is linked to trying to prevent people waking up to what is happening in their island by way of mass immigration.

Whether the odd "self-righteous one-world citizen" may agree with this or not is unimportant. What is important is that it has been identified and discussed within this forum.

Many will not have realised the covert social engineering that proceeds by stealth in their island- the benefit of this discussion is that those who had not noticed the state of affairs will now be fully aware of the same.

Dave C

Ken,

I'm pleased that we have established that there is no law that means the perception of insult is all that is required as proof of intent.

I would point out though, that when you say 'As you again state correctly, an english or indeed a Jersey person is not allowed to take offence at any slur upon his heritage, unlike his fortunate counterpart from elsewhere, who seems to have a body of rights to which the indigenous people have no access.' I didn't actually say that and indeed it’s not the point that I was making.

Cheers

Ken

Apologies, Dave. I thought that you said that. Whether you did or not, it is sadly the case that an english or indeed a Jersey person is not allowed to take offence at any slur upon his heritage, unlike his fortunate counterpart from elsewhere, who seems to have a body of rights to which the indigenous people have no access.

We have not established that there is no law that means the perception of insult is all that is required as proof of intent. If only.

Unfortunately, the opposite is the case, as many an english person has found this to his cost.

Cheers.

Pete

Ken is right. The "rights" only go one way and bever in favour of the people whose country or, in this case, island, it is.

Dave C

Pete,

Who are the people whose island it is?

Dave C

Ken,

Let us advance the discussion then. I feel that there is no law such as the one that we have discussed. You clearly have the perception that laws are interpreted with a certain bias. Do you have any examples whereby people of different ethnicity have been treated differently in law, where the circumstances were the same or similar, for both parties.

Cheers

Ken

It depends what the question is Dave C. Are you referring to cases where subjective offence occurs, or do you refer to cases where certain classes of person are treated differently?

If it be the latter, then there are many cases. One, for example, is where Christians are not allowed to wear a cross, but Sikhs are permitted to carry the "three ks" which pertain to their religion. One of the "ks", incidentally, is an offensive weapon but, in a culture of grovelling appeasement, that is deemed to be acceptable for the Sikhs but not for any other person or group.

In the final analysis, you are correct. This kind of nonsense is not workable in law, hence the chaos and resentment which we see in the uk.

Pete

If you have to ask the question then you need to look to yourself, Dave.

Dave C

Pete,

No, I think that you need to answer the question. Unless , of course, you cannot.

Dave C

Ken,

Let's go with the latter then. Has there been a case where a Christian has been told that they cannot wear their cross and in the same circumstance a Sikh has been allowed to wear the Kirpan? I am not aware of one.

If we examine the case of Nadia Eweida, tha BA employee, the comparison made was between the wearing a Christian cross and muslim garments. The former contravenes the companies dress code and the latter does not. She also refused to work at Christmas and told homosexuals that it was not too late to repent for their sins.

It can be argued that the cross is not a necessary religious item and that some muslim garments are necessary. Also, the '5 Ks' are Articles of Faith in a completely different sense to the Christian cross.

It is all too easy to state one's perceptions but things start to look different when one looks at all the evidence.

Cheers

Pete

Not at all, Dave C. You asked the question so it is incumbent upon you to consider the matter for yourself.

You can't expect others to do your bidding for you.

Have a think about it.

Cheers.

Ken

Thanks Dave C, there are many such cases as we know.

It is interesting to note that you states that it can be argued that the cross is not a necessary religious item and that some muslim garments are necessary. Also, the ’5 Ks’ are Articles of Faith in a completely different sense to the Christian cross.

That might be an argument, but is not a very tolerant one. It sounds somewhat bigoted, in fact, so one can only assume that it cannot be an argument to which you would subscribe.

It also exemplifies and provides evidence of general perception and a subjective element, which takes us back, unless I am mistaken, to the original point which was made.

Cheers.

William

Well, I think that the case of Nadia Eweida provides all the evidence you need that discrimination laws seem to work in one direction only. One hopes that the company concerned was brought to book, but it would not surprise anyone,sadly, if it were not.

Thank you for the example.

Dave C

Pete,

I tried your logic out last night. The waiter asked if I would like mustard with my steak. I answered that, because he had asked the question, it was incumbent on him, to consider the matter himself. He gave me the mustard. I don't like mustard.

Go on Pete; please tell me whose island you think it is.

Dave C

Ken,

When I asked the question 'has there been a case where a Christian has been told that they cannot wear their cross and in the same circumstance a Sikh has been allowed to wear the Kirpan?’ I was hoping that your response might be evidential rather than 'there are many such cases as we know'. If you don't know of any, then please just admit it. Are we required just to have faith in your opinion?

It is such a shame that you resorted to the use of the word bigoted, as a little research on your part, would reveal that my comments are based on fact rather them mere opinion.

Pete

But I dare say, Dave, that if you had asked the waiter "whose island he thinks is it is", he would have given you an old fashioned look.

If you pressed the question, he would doubtless take the view that, if you have to ask such a question, then you need to start educating yourself.

Ken

Thanks, Dave C. The example which you gave regarding the British Airways employee, was very relevant and helpful.

The law did indeed discriminate in the way that I had envisaged. Fortunately, the European Court of Human Rights took a different view and made a ruling of incompatibility.

I understand that a fine has ensued but, perhaps perversely, it is the British Government which will have to pay.

So, the UK taxpayer will foot the bill for the problem of perceived discrimination and as we see here,discrimination which was, until the ruling, exercised in favour of the minority to the detriment of the indigenous person and his or her associated national religion.

Cheers.

Tercel

Bit over-sensitive there, Dave C. Ken did not say that you were a bigot, he stated that the argument that you cited might be viewed as such.

Can you see the distinction?

I too think that the argument is bigoted. In effect, it is saying that the religious paraphenalia of one religion is less important than that of another. If that is not religious bigotry and discrimination, then I don't know what else would be.

Naturally, you only need be concerned if that is a view to which you subscribe. That is something which only you will know. It is of little consequence either way.

Moutarde de Breton

Dave C:

I tried your logic out last night. The waiter asked if I would like mustard with my steak. I answered that, because he had asked the question, it was incumbent on him, to consider the matter himself.

He looked at me and replied that that was an interesting answer.

He went on to say that the matter of the mustard could not be compared to the putting of an inflammatory question with regard to the cultural heritage of the place where one resides as a guest.

Having dealt with that matter, he smiled politely and then suggested that I might wish to avoid the Jersey mustard, because there was clearly something about it with which I did not find favour. He directed me to the English mustard and informed me that it is served on the boat at frequent intervals.

Tony

Do we know what sort of mustard you asked for, Dave C?

Penny

Dave C- your analogy with the waiter and the mustard shows that you don't really know what was meant by the answer to your question.

One can only repeat that, if you have to ask the question, then you need to be looking to yourself.

Ken

Quite right Dave, it was the argument that was bigoted, rather than you personally, unless of course you subscribe to the argument?

I would be disappointed if someone were to come on here and try to argue that one religious emblem was somehow less important than one pertaing to another religion.

I am sure that, perhaps after some thought, you too would be disappointed.

Dave C

Pete,

What I am interested in is, whose island you think it is. I can assure you that, if I have an opinion, which may or may not be the same as yours, I will be aware of it.

Let me give you a starter. Do you believe that the people whose island it is, are

a).Any people who live on the island.

b). Any people whose families have lived here continuously since 1204.

c). Something in between a and b.

d). Something else completely.

If c or d, could you please outline what you believe.

Sorry to put it in these terms but I am just interested to know.

Cheers

Dave C

Tercel,

I wasn't being sensitive at all and you couldn't know that. The distinction made was perfectly obvious. I merely thought that it was completely unnecessary.

The argument I made does not suggest what you suggest that it does. All religious paraphernalia is not equally important in all religions. That is to say, for example, it is not necessary for a Christian to wear a cross to be a Christian, whereas, for other religions, some of their paraphernalia is absolutely necessary in order to be of that religion or of a certain status within that religion.

If you investigate along these lines you will see the evidence for yourself.

Pete

The waiter must have been fallng about laughing when you made the comment about the mustard, Dave- he would have laughed even more if you ahd asked him a naive question which showed a lack of cultural awareness

Dave C

Ken,

I take your point regarding the case but, it does not demonstrate a difference between the way individual religions are treated, which was the main point that I was making.

Cheers

Dave C

Tony,

Tony,

I didn't ask for mustard. Remember, I don't like mustard. But had I asked for mustard, I would have asked for generic mustard as I would never discriminate.

Dave C

Moutarde de Breton,

Which question do you believe was inflammatory and why do you think that it was inflamatory?

Cheers

Dave C

Penny,

What shows that I don’t really know what was meant by the answer to my question, is the fact that I keep asking the question.

Can anyone out there tell me whose island they think that Jersey is?

I own some bits of the Island. Does this mean that I am one of those whose island it is?

Cheers

Dave C

William,

Sorry, I was not aware that the 2 people concerned had positively been identified as being Jerseymen. Had they?

I think that the analogy stands up well as, when it comes to the perception of offence intended or given, then the type of location is surely irrelevant.

Should people from Doncaster not be allowed to perceive offence, because they are from a town and not an island. After all Doncaster is part of the self-proclaimed Republic of South Yorkshire.

Cheers

Ken

Very good that, Dave C. So many questions and so few answers. A little like life itself.

Moutarde de Breton

If you don't like mustard then perhaps you might have been wiser to have just told that to the waiter. I am surprised that he didn't show you the door.

He probably decided, wisely, not to bring the wine list. Heaven knows how you would have articulated an answer to that question.

Similar thoughts spring to mind if you were at the barbers and he asked you if you would like something for the weekend.....

William

The British Airways case does demonstrate a difference between the way individual religions are treated.

It is difficult to find a more blatant case of "anti indigenous" discrimination. An employer tries to ban a Christian from wearing a cross, while, at the same time, allowing an employee of another religion to wear the symbols of that religion.

However we view it or argue it, the European Court came to the same view. This is reassuring, particularly in this day and age.

I can't really follow your confused analagy in the light of your change of stance. The only comment that I can make is to reiterate that a Jerseyman or Jerseywoman is of a jurisdiction, whereas a Doncasterian is a native of a region, albeit one of the most noble and fragrant nature!

Pete Mustard-Horseradish

Surely you need to answer the question yourself? You have stated that you won bits of the island, so you might be some way towards forming a view, one imagines.

Dave C

William,

No, not cross and symbols, cross and garments. I don't see that the European Court came to the same view as you.

The analogy is plain to understand. The confusion may lie elsewhere.

Again someone's location does not dictate their ability to perceive.

I already have my own thoughts on what should constitute a person whose island Jersey is. What I have asked is what Pete thinks. Others are also welcome to comment. I ask you, what attributes does a person have to have to be a Jersey man or Jersey women? Are you going to tell me that I should ask myself?

Cheers

Dave C

Pete,

Sorry, it's still not clear what you think. Are you saying that, if I own property or land in Jersey, then I am a Jersey man or am I person whose island jersey is, or something else?

Cheers

Pete

Well, I am trying to equip you to learn to answer the question for yourself.

Your own anwser will be a matter of your own opinion, but you must find a way of coming to your own conclusion.

William

We clearly differ on our view of the judgment, Bill.

You believe that banning a cross is permissibile while permitting the follower of another religion to carry on displaying their own emblem. The former was a person wearing a cross, while the latter concerned garments. One was subject to a purported ban, while the other was not.

Fortunately, the judges of the european court took a differing view to yours.

,

Re. the British Airways case:

the Archbishop of York has released a statement noting that “Christians and those of other faiths should be free to wear the symbols of their own religion without discrimination.”

Prime Minister David Cameron responded to the ruling saying he was “delighted that principle of wearing religious symbols at work has been upheld.”

Well said William.

Dave C

William,

You seem to be oversimplifying my reasoning, which, whether deliberate or not, benefits your argument.

I have no desire whatsoever from preventing anyone from wearing anything at work or anywhere else, unless the item presents a danger.

What I am saying is that not all religious artefacts are equal in importance and meaning. My earlier question regarding this case was 'Has there been a case where a Christian has been told that they cannot wear their cross and in the same circumstance a Sikh has been allowed to wear the Kirpan?'

I would argue that the Kirpan would have a greater religious significance to some devout Sikhs than a cross would have to a Christian.

William

I don't wish to benefit my argument, Dave. I don't need to in fact. I need only to direct you to the British Airways case, the facts of which speak for themselves. David Cameron also celebrates this judgment.

I imagine that the out come would have been much the same had the court been asked to consider the matter of the kippers.

Tercel

The fact that you would treat the symobols of two religions in a different way, Dave, shows a form of discrimination.

I perceived this when I wrote my message regarding the bigotry which it displays, and you reacted as one might have expected a person making your argument to have done.

The argument is clearly reflects a form of bigotry and religious intolerance. I was careful to avoid making a definite connection between that argument and your own view, but itt would seem that you have now confirmed, sadly, that they are one and the same.

Dave C

Tercel,

The fact that you state is not a fact at all. I did not say that. I believe that all people should be treated the same where ever possible. I simply do not believe that all religious, symbols, garments, objects etc. etc. carry the same significance. I have not displayed any bigotry or intolerance, merely a cultured understanding of the subtle differences between different religious objects. Were I a bigot, as an atheist, I probably would have not married in a Catholic church, to a Catholic person of mixed race and a different ethnic background. I will continue to actively fight discrimination, intolerance and racism when and wherever I find it.

Could you please go and direct your abuse at someone else.

Mainlander

Just when we thought that the thread was back on topic...

Tercel

It is not abuse, Dave C. It is discussion. If you think that discussion is abuse, then you should not be participating within an open forum.

The words which you wrote expresseed the view that the religious syobolism of some religions is more important than that of others. You stated that the Christian cross was not as important to a Christian as corresponding items might be to other religions.

You apparently disagree with the judgment in the British Airways case, notwithstanding that it promotes religious equality in the workplace..

Your stated position was one which endorsed religious discrimination and bigotry. Your stated position would now appear to have changed, so perhaps something has been learnt from the discussion.

Your closing words, which read, "I will continue to actively fight discrimination, intolerance and racism when and wherever I find it" are very encouraging. Let us hope that you now adopt that stance, rather than merely paying it lip service as and when it might suit a particular argument. Otherwise, I rather fear that you will not have to travel beyond your front door in order to find the discrimination, intolerance and racism with which you are so keen to engage.

Cheers.

Alan

It certainly sounds as though your "right on" credentials are in order Dave. Your situation is the next one up from the "some of my best friends are from ethnic backgrounds" argument.

Unfortunately, your wholesome tolerance while bearing the halo of multiculturalism only goes one way. You would fight wholeheartedly to protect the religious mores of everyone, it seems, but that which pertains to the indigenous country.

Unfortunately, the kind of pernicious social drivel which might be tolerated in Doncaster isn't so welcome here.

If you like a cosy discussion, have you considered looking at the Lawrence website and exchanging views with all of the other "one way" liberals on there? Labour is going to make her a baroness you know, depite the fact that she has set back police and public relations at least thirty years!

Dave C

Alan,

Go on matey, just make things up why don't you?

Alan

I wish that I was making it up, David. Unfortunately, the honours list will shortly be published and you will see that it is indeed true, much to the horror of many.

Life imitates comedy in so many ways. Who needs satire when it is right under one's nose?

Dave C

Tercel,

No, it is plain and simple abuse. You are clearly trying to reinterpret my words, with what you must believe to be subtle changes, to suit your own agenda. Why would believing it to be abuse, stop me from participating in a forum. That's just nonsense!

No, not more important per se. They are more significant within their own religion. This is not merely my opinion, it's a matter of record.

As a specific example, the Kirpan is something that Sikhs must wear at all times, in order to obey a religious commandment. The same cannot be said for the Christian cross.

As with a lot of the people posting on here, you see something that you immediately feel that you should disagree with, without really thinking about it and then waste a lot of time arguing against something other than what had been said. You quickly become abusive as you feel that you that are fighting a good cause.

Please reconsider your position.

Tercel

You are still making the same mistakes, Dave C. You confuse abuse with discussion. I am afraid that you will need to learn to tell the difference between the two if you wish to participate within a forum on any meaningful basis.

I believe that the view which you express is one of religious intolerance and bigotry. You have admitted that you would treat a member of one religion differently to that of another.

The excuse which you offer, namely one of apparent heightened cultural awareness vis-a-vis one religion but not another, is an excuse which has been heard before and will no doubt be heard again from others of similar mind to yours.

You have also admitted that a judgment of a superior court, which judgment promotes equality and tolerance, is again something with which you do not agree.

I am committed to promoting equality and to addressing intolerance and bigotry. My views differ to your own and I am again afraid that that is something with which you will have to deal.

Dave C

Tercel,

Re. your post of August 5, 2013 at 5:39 pm.

To continue your theme of largely gainsaying what I have said.

No mistake.

No confusion.

No learning required.

You are still abusive.

I have not admitted what you say that I have.

I offer no excuse.

The judgment promotes equality but not specifically in the sense under discussion.

Consider providing some evidence to support your reasoning.

I am happy to continue the discussion, but please moderate your language. Let's face it, some of the terms that you have used to describe your perception of my views, would probably merit a misconduct charge if used in the workplace.

Cheers

Tercel

No gainsaying, Dave C. No absue either, as we have established. Just an opinion based upon observation.

It is interesting to note that you would view the expression of my view as a workplace disciplinary matter.

That in itself is revealing. It becomes more interesting and predictable when one takes into account the view which you have expressed with regard to discrimination and fairness within the workplace.

Cheers

HR person

Do we know what terms have been used which are likely to be deemed to be "misconduct in the workplace"?

I can't see any.

.

the Archbishop of York has released a statement regarding the British Airways case noting that “Christians and those of other faiths should be free to wear the symbols of their own religion without discrimination.”

Prime Minister David Cameron responded to the ruling saying he was “delighted that principle of wearing religious symbols at work has been upheld.”

Dave C

HR Person,

I imagine that if you were to state that someone's views were bigoted, then that could be cause for complaint. It would not be easy to justify making the statement.

Cheers

Dave C

Tercel,

But surely, if I say you are gainsaying and then you say 'no gainsaying' then that it’s self is gainsaying.

We have not established that you are not being abusive. You have merely said that you are not.

What observations are your opinions based on exactly?

You appear to believe that your word nothing other than your own endorsement, in order to be valid.

Cheers

Moutardey de Bretony

I think that Dave C is trying to tell us that he is making posts during his work time and that therefore he, along with anyone else, might be subject to the rules and regulations pertaining to the workplace.

Unfortunately, I don't think that Dave C has realised that posting material on public forums during work time is itself a disciplinary matter.

Should we tell him?

Dave C

Moutardey de Bretony,

So I work for a living do I? Maybe I'm retired. I might be working but be on a break. I might be on school holidays, either a student or a teacher. I might run my own business. I might be self-employed contractor. I might be Dave Cameron the Prime Minister or Dave Coultard ex. Formula One driver etc. etc. etc.

You are lucky. Your post didn't really deserve a response, did it?

Tercel

Not really, Dave C. You expressed a bigoted view and someone else picked you up on it. It is a very simple matter.

If you were to bring an employment law aspect into the argument, then I would certainly view what you write here with some concern if you worked for me and it were brought to my attention.

Fortunately none of my employees subscribes to views like yours, at least not to my knowledge. Perhaps we manage to determine the "bad eggs" at the interview stage, who knows.

So far as I am aware, they are also more careful than you seem to be about using public fora in work time.

HR Person

Dave C, well, I would not regard the term "bigot" as being any more than a descriptive term, although we do tend to see the term misused, largely by the left, to try to stop others in the British Isles from expressing views about their indigenous culture.

If we return to the case in hand, presumably you would have reported the person who used the term. You would have had complaints form in hand and made quick, mincing, footsteps to the office.

You would then be obliged to give a statement which would disclose the behaviour of both parties prior to the word being used.

After having read your statement, I would have regard to the view that you expressed and I think I can safely say that my decision would fully accord with your liberal conscience.

Moutarded de Bretoned

Don't worry, Dave. I had already concluded from your comments that you are probably not in employment.

Are you a teacher, you ask? I hope not, for our kids' sake. What would be the subject of your choice? It wouldn't be geography, by any chance would it?

.

the Archbishop of York has released a statement regarding the British Airways case noting that “Christians and those of other faiths should be free to wear the symbols of their own religion without discrimination.”

Prime Minister David Cameron responded to the ruling saying that he was “delighted that principle of wearing religious symbols at work has been upheld.”

Paula

Dave C; I would not agree with your statement that Moutarte was lucky when you replied.

Having read your post, we would probably have been more lucky if you had not replied with your "Walter Mitty" delusions!

Dave C

HR Person,

The word 'bigot' is and can be clearly used descriptively as can 'quick' and 'mincing'. Being descriptive does not exclude the use, being abusive or the perception of abusive. Being told that one's views are subjecting others to incoherence or hatred, particularly where little or no evidence is offered to support that view, can be deeply insulting.

Why would my footsteps to the office be either quick or mincing? Do you imagine me to be affectedly dainty for some reason? Can you explain this please?

Dave C

Paula,

What delusions? I don't actually believe that I am either of the David’s mentioned and all the other things mentioned are eminently possible, which is patently obvious or should have been, from what was written.

It is bizarre how you could not possibly understand that, which therefore, leads me to believe that your comment is just another unnecessarily rude one.

Can you explain to me what sort of enjoyment you get out of making that sort of comment? Yes, I know, by asking that question I realise that I am leaving myself open to more of the same.

HR Person

Yes, I agree. The word can be a descriptive, which, as such, describes a particular type of mindset as well as the more obvious external signs.

With regard to a person's gait, I sometimes find that the shoes worn by the person, or the side to which he dresses, may affect this, but there are certain exceptions.

Dave C

HR Person,

Sorry, you are going to have to translate that last bit for me. Or, if you prefer, you could just not bother.

Oh, by the way, what does the HR stand for.

Is Human Resources, Human Rights, Human Relations? Maybe it's Hit and Run, Human Remains or my personal best bet, Hankering for Ritalin.

Cheers

HR Person

No, it is not a bother Dave C. Nothing is too much trouble.

As I have said, you can rely upon me to deal with your case in a way which fuly accords with your idea of fairness within the workplace.

I acn't say fairer than that, can I?

Alan

I like your use of certain terms Dave C. Pompous and sarcastic have a certain ring about them, as do the words intolerance, bigoted and discriminatory.

Your use of all of these words in respect of the postings of another presents a certain irony.

Dave C

HR Person,

I dare say you acn’t.

Surely, you would want to deal with it according to the company process, rather than in accordance with my ideas.

You didn't say what HR stood for yet. I'll have another guess. Is it Hapless Rhetoric?

Cyclone

Having got bored with the nonsense on another thread, I find the off piste commentary persisting with some crabby comments from Dave C.

What has any of this to do with the ferry question; I cannot 'fathom' the point of the workplace comment.

There is no 'plaice' for this and we have all 'haddock' enough. I hope 'eel' desist from further unnecessary posts cluttering up this article.

HR Person

Thanks Dave C. I act'n argue with that.

As I have said, you may rest assured that my decision would accord with your liberal, right on principles.

What about company procedures? I hear you ask. Well, if your liberal, right on, neo-missionary principles are as holy and sancrosanct as you would expect, then it follows that they must correspond with the procedures of any reasonable company. After all, what company would not happily subcribe to such high values?

I hope that this puts your mind at rest.

What does HR stand for? You ask. Well, think about the context. You have mentioned the workplace and you have stated the matter of a possible complaint. We have established that you would approach the relevant office, complaints form in hand, with mincing, dancing footsteps.

Which office do you think that your self-righteous foosteps would move towards? I would sggest that it would not be the office of Hapless Rhetoric, although, were such an office to exist, I am sure that you would find much reason to be there as much as possible, if not to run it. Perhaps you already do!

Bay Icon

"Is the general idea to whip this thread up to 200 comments over an irrelevance?"

A very good question, that. Lets us ask the perpetuator. Any comment, Dave?

Dave C

Moutarde de Breton,

Why would he show me the door. Surely, he would show Pete the door. After all, it is Pete's assertion that we have to answer our own questions.

Cheers

Moutarde de Breton

No, he would probably show you the door because you were asking him a silly question. I would too.

I would show you the door for another reason as well. That reason would be that you cannot tell the difference between a question regarding cultural awareness and one regarding a dinner condiment.

One is moved to tell someone to answer their own question when the person putting the question does so in a foolish or an inflammatory way. Self education of the one putting the question is in order here, hence the need for the person asking the question to do some homework and not expect others to do his bidding for him.

Dave C

Moutarde de Breton,

I really don't see what is inflammatory about my original question.

I'm clearly not asking anyone to do my bidding. I'm merely asking for someone's opinion, which may or may not differ from my own. It's very difficult to have a debate, when people will not tell you where they stand on a particular subject.

Why will no-one answer a simple question? People seem to be very reticent to reveal what it is that they believe.

How can I do homework to find out what someone else believes? Unless their opinion is a matter of public record and I doubt that it is in this instance, then all I can do is ask a question.

I'm not asking what is the capital city of Mongolia is or what year was the Battle of Trafalgar. I'm asking what someone thinks.

What is the problem here?

Moutarde de Breton

If there is not problem Dave C, then I can't see why you can't answer the question!

Pete

Dave C, when you say the following,

"I’m merely asking for someone’s opinion, which may or may not differ from my own. It’s very difficult to have a debate, when people will not tell you where they stand on a particular subject."

Has it occurred to you that the people to whom Jersey belong don't wish to discuss it or debate it with you. I know that I don't.

We are happy with our perception and are correspondingly quite happy just to enjoy our heritage and our island.

The problem seem to lie with you, I am afraid.

Dave C

Moutarde de Breton,

I didn't say that there wasn't a problem. I asked what the problem was. Which clearly means that I think that there is a problem.

Why do you and others keep asking why I cannot answer my own question, when I already have.

I would still be interested to hear anyone's views on who the people are whose island Jersey is.

Are you too embarrassed by your own views to answer the question ? A few people in this discussion appear to be.

Moutarded de Breton

Dave, you didn’t say that there wasn’t a problem. You asked what the problem was. Which clearly means that you think that there is a problem.

What would that problem be?

I would still be interested to hear your views on who the people are whose island Jersey is.

Are you too embarrassed by your own views to answer the question ? From this discussion, you appear to be.

Dave C

Moutarde de Breton,

I nearly fell for that. Misquoting me and then just repeating my questions back to me. You are trolling and I am not going to bite.

Cheers

Moutarde de Breton

I think that we can finally gather from your response that you are not going to answer the question, Dave C.

Thank you for your contribution.

Guardian reader

The form of wording which you used, Dave C was so accurate that it probably seemed an economy of words to simply reuse them.

Imitation is flattery, I think. I don't think, however, that Moutarde is a troll. I do think that this word is used by someone who objects to the opinion of another person and who has a problem with free speech.

It is certainly a covenient word to throw out when a discussion begins to exceed one's capability.

Dave C

Guardian reader,

I understand your point and it may be true that he accidentally wrote something unintelligible, but it's often the case in these discussions, that a seemingly intelligent person suddenly submits something that makes no-sense at all, the purpose of which may be to infuriate the other correspondent/s. If you believe that my use of the word was unjustified, then you might want to reflect on your own assertions regarding other's attitudes towards free speech and their capabilities.

Cheers

Guardian Reader

You misunderstabd, Dave C. I was suggesting that your form of words was so good that it was an economy of movement to use those same words to try to elicit that elusive response from you. It certainly made perfect sense to me.

I was also reflecting on the use of the word troll by you in order to stifle the freedom of expression of the other. Perhaps your ideas of freedom of expression are as wavering and variable as your ideas of religious expression within the workplace. Who knows how the zealous liberal mind works?

Dave C

Alan,

You pick the only part of your entry to have any basis in reality, to assume that I was commenting on.

Ironic

Dave C

Moutarde de Breton,

'Thank you for your contribution.'

Condescension as well? You know them all don't you!

Cheers

Alan

I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, Dave C. Much of what you write is so uninitelligible and peculiar that I simply engaged with the only part of your message that made any sense.

It seemed to be kinder that way.

Puzzled

Can't see any "abuse" here. Can someone tell me what is going on?

Dave C

Alan,

You are another now resorting to condescension rather than engaging in discussion. The discussion has become somewhat convoluted, as it is such a long thread, but please let me know if you want me to re-iterate something. Just is case they is any doubt, there is no sarcasm intended.

Alan

Ceratinly Dave, happy to oblige. Here it is:

It certainly sounds as though your “right on” credentials are in order Dave. Your situation is the next one up from the “some of my best friends are from ethnic backgrounds” argument.

Unfortunately, your wholesome tolerance while bearing the halo of multiculturalism only goes one way. You would fight wholeheartedly to protect the religious mores of everyone, it seems, but that which pertains to the indigenous country.

Unfortunately, the kind of pernicious social drivel which might be tolerated in Doncaster isn’t so welcome here.

If you like a cosy discussion, have you considered looking at the Lawrence website and exchanging views with all of the other “one way” liberals on there? Labour is going to make her a baroness you know, depite the fact that she has set back police and public relations at least thirty years!

Dave C

Alan,

You appear confused. I asked you if you wanted me to re-iterate something and you replied 'Certainly Dave, happy to oblige. Here it is:' etc.

And you said of me 'Much of what you write is so unintelligible and peculiar that I simply engaged with the only part of your message that made any sense. It seemed to be kinder that way.'

Maybe the lunatics have taken over the asylum!

Alan

I am, Dave. I am all confused now.

Can you help?

Dave C

Alan,

Of course, in any way I can. Please forgive the error in my last post. It should read intolerance not incoherent.

Alan

Oh yes, I see what you mean Dave. You refer to your own intolerance, both in general terms and with specific regard to religious equality in the workplace.

We're back on track now, thanks.

Dave C

Alan,

Oh, don't be so pompous and sarcastic. You know that this was not the meaning of my post. Make a discussion of it. Try and give some substance to whatever point it is that you are trying state. Make it worthwhile for goodness sake.

Almost there...

It's a shame that this argument isn't taking place in Guernsey. The locals (islanders?) there have hind legs ready to be argued off.

Is the general idea to whip this thread up to 200 comments over an irrelevance?

Ouennais

All this fuss because of a word used in a news article?

Frankly all the bigoted and self important attitudes of people displayed here is just embarrassing, sticks and stones people!!

And don't forget....a rose by any other name.....

Sarah

I know. One person makes the point that the term is inappropriate and offensive and all hell lets loose! There's certainly plenty of people coming over here who have a problem with free speech. You are quite correct when you identify them as bigots.

roger mark wayne

I arrived in the island of Jersey in the late 60's, from the moment I left the ferry my life changed. I was made more than welcome by every Jerseyman and woman that I ever met, I immediately found employement with the help of a local lad and never looked back. My time in Jersey was the happiest in my life I made many friends and was sad to leave in the mid eighties to return to the UK. Jersey will always be my spiritual home, I often wished that I could have been born a Jerseyman and inherited the traits of kindness and inherrent loyalty shown on a daily basis to each other. I did learn to be 'as a Jerseyman' in my attitudes and friendships, All Jersey people have a right to be proud of their heritage and history.

Ian Holm

Are you living in a parrarel universe?

not a journalist...

I guess that the word 'Islander' immediately tells the reader that it wasn't a 'visitor'...nothing sinister here readers...move along.

Not a journalist either

At the end of the day it is a case of cultural awareness- the media and others will now know that the term could cause offence to Jersey people so yes, let's move on now.

Si

Why? Who are these Jersey people to whom it causes offence?

It doesn't offend me or my Jersey-born mates, we just read the article and figured the newspaper didn't at the time know anything more about the men than that they were residents of Jersey. No big deal, anyone offended by that is an idiot looking to take offense.

Alternatively they were Jersey-born and are, thus, an embarrassment to Jersey, but the newspaper realised that no such people could ever possibly be born in Jersey (sarcasm again) so chose a term that could mean the guys were of any nationality.

I like to watch

Well, something must have caused you some kind of offence because you have posted a number of bigoted comments above. perhaps you and your "mates" are of a similar mindset.

Tracy

The term "islander" is not sinister, it is merely ignorant.

Baz Du Mont

I'm reading this with incredulous bemusement. If you live on an island, you're an islander - what the heck is the problem?

A matter of culture

The orange men probably used to wonder what the problem was when they conducted their peaceful annual march. What indeed is, or was, the problem?

Steve

Agreed. Any non-islander reading this would think that all Jersey Islanders had lost the plot.

Paul

The term "Jersey islander" is another silly one. The correct term would be "Jerseyman" or "Jerseywoman".

Steve

Some people would be offended if islanders were called Jersemen or Jerseywomen.

Amy

I expect they would, Steve, if you couldn't spell them or their island properly

Steve

Thanks for your feedback Amy.

I should of course have typed Jerseymen and not Jersemen.

I hope that this accidental typo has not offended anyone, but if it has, please accept my apologies.

Amy

You are very welcome. Now that you "of" explained the position, I am sure that no-one will take offence at your typographical error, nor even at the point which you seemed to be trying to make!

Simple Sid

Hope they get 5 years each

Simple Sid

I am not an islander and will never be called that!

truthseeker

Quite how this got from drunks jumping off ferries to who has a right to be here and who are stowaways is amusing,as for worrying about a couple of 'Beans' being sucked in,don't fret pet we have been sucked in by allsorts mostly English yuppies for years..or we would have kept work permits and have proper border entry systems in place,and not have half the problems we now have,The Greedy Bean has been his own worst enemy,I have watched and wept as we have been sold out.pride of place has been destroyed,we were the only place with no Debt ,a great health system and many m,any benefits that have been plundered and now Ozouf just like the red indians blinded by the white man's shiny beads has plunged us into irrecoverable debt for a stupid population expanding folly five hundred million to ruin the quality of life further and cram more in,I have not words to describe how much I hate it.

Beaumont

Why does almost every article descend into debates someone's qually status?

You can be arrested for being drunk & disorderly, urinating in public whilst under the influence etc

I assume these guys were considered to be putting other lives at risk, especially the rescuers, so were worthy of an arrest

donald

No other lives were put at risk. They swam to the shore, just like any other diver.

Up a creek without...

Probably were listening to the usual onboard taped announcement ,giving out the regular 'lades and Gents we do apologise for the late yawning departure" ..

so decided it would be quicker swimming home! And no need to worry about being sucked up jets that hardly function now.

As for the arrest, another over reaction from the nanny state...oh deary me.

Pete Mustard-Horseradish

I mean to say "own" bits of the island, but, to an extent, you do win property if you succeed in paying off a mortgage, so hats off to you.

Dodger

As a passenger on the boat, I did not feel the slightest bit in danger watching them jump off a stationary object and have a swim.

Mike the Cleaner

It's possible that their action in jumping off the boat might have caused a microscopic twitch in the vessel which someone of extraordinary gravitational sensitivity might have perceived.

That same person would no doubt need to be securely fastened during the course of the journey in the interests of health and safety.

Swim lane

Or the splashes of water might have scared another passenger. On my.

Finchy pinchy

A droplet of water which was splashed when they jumped overboard could have somehow shorted out the batteries and the ship could have lost radio contact and driven into a buoy.

Wodger

Wha a set of weird comments Dave. Please stick to the thread, others are getting bored

Dave C

Wodger,

Well don't read my posts then or any related to mine.

I tried to stick to the points on which I was challenged but I was unfortunately sidetracked by others, who it appears wish to steer the discussion away from anything that might reveal their true feelings, which one assumes must be embarrassing to them.

My comments would only appear weird to you if you didn't read the whole thread or you didn't understand them.

Roger

"Well don’t read my posts then or any related to mine."

Good advice, Dave C. What a pity you did not initially follow it when Pete posted above.

Perhaps you did not wish to develop your point further because, as you say, the revelation of your true feelings may have proved to have been an embarrassment to all concerned.

Dave C

Roger,

What utter nonsense you write.

If you read the thread you will see that people have steadfastly refused to be drawn on their views on several subjects. The only views expressed are that my views are in someway bigoted. This opinion is not backed up by any evidence as to why, they just are.

Please note that Pete responded to me, not the other way round. You appear to suggest that, should someone respond to a post, one should automatically ignore the. If that is not what you meant by your comment, then your comment is extremely juvenile.

If anyone can be bothered, as suggested by someone else; what, if anything, is wrong with using the word ‘Islander’ to describe someone who lives in the Island? As far as I know, it was not used to describe Jersey men.

Fu Manchu

The irony within your statement, David, is inversely proportionate to the wisdom, or lack thereof, of making the comment in the first place.

Dave C

Fu Manchu,

What is the point of entering an established discussion merely to slag someone off, albeit by wrapping up the insult, in verbose terminology?

Please go and do something more useful, like trimming your moustache.

Dave C

Wodger,

Back to the thread then. What, if anything, is wrong with using the word 'Islander' to describe someone who lives in the Island?