Is the Jersey Dairy site the right place for 73 homes?

I can recall the industrialist Sir John Harvey-Jones once saying that if there were not several silent pauses during the board meetings he chaired then he often criticised his fellow directors for not giving important matters on the agenda sufficient thought.

I presume he contended that unless they gave silent thought to the important decisions they were being asked to make then they weren’t doing their jobs properly. I’m not sure I agree, but it is a useful counter when Herself sees me ‘staring into space’ while seated in The Shed and produces one of her ‘things to do’ lists.

However, there are places other than the peace and tranquillity of The Shed in which I can relax and, since the good lady typed out an idiot guide to looking at this newspaper on the internet, a seat in front of a screen and one hand on a mouse has been one of them.

While nothing will replace physically turning the pages, as far as I am concerned, I do confess that I like reading the comments internet readers make on matters of the moment. That said, and while some of them do make excellent points based on fact rather than fiction or myth – not to mention deliberate attempts to mislead, I would suggest – I somehow doubt that many of the others add significantly to the sum of human knowledge.

Take the first one I read the other afternoon about Dandara (who else?) wanting to build 73 homes on the Jersey Dairy site at Five Oaks, once all the gear with which they play with our milk is shifted north-west a few miles, to sunny Trinity.

‘This is public money – it should be disclosed how much was paid for the site,’ screamed the comment, or should I say the commentator, for much of the sentence was in block capitals, no doubt to emphasise the author’s sense of outrage at that lot in the Big House apparently squandering public assets.

Well, I have to agree that on occasions our elected representatives certainly give the impression that the more noughts there are on the end of a number preceded by a £ sign, the swifter they give the nod of approval – or tell their ring binder to do so.

However – and this will make some of them choke on their Monday evening gin and tonic – as far as I can establish this time they are probably innocent. As I said, as far as I can establish no public money is involved because the Five Oaks site is owned, as it has been since the place was built 43 years ago, by the Jersey Milk Marketing Board which is a co-operative owned by the very milk producers who supply its principle product.

That means it’s theirs to sell and if they agreed a price with Dandara then that’s very much their business and no one else’s, in exactly the same way as Herself and I can sell Chez Clement to whoever we like at a price of our choosing.

That doesn’t mean to say that I agree with a plan to plonk 73 homes – along with the 150 cars that will eventually be housed there once the purchasers’ brats are old enough to drive – smack bang in the middle of one of the busiest school/commuter runs in the Island, but that is very much another issue.

In contrast to that and other fairly misleading comments, one which caught my eye expressed some pretty strong hopes about what will finally be approved. The author of this one wants living/dining rooms that can accommodate a dining table, six chairs and a lounge suite, no miniscule box rooms that add fifty grand to the price but provide little space, garages wide enough for passengers to get out of vehicles without climbing through the sun roof and loft spaces suitable for easy conversion.

Not an unreasonable list of standards for a home, I’d have thought. I wonder if the author of that particular missive is speaking from a somewhat bitter experience?

It’s a sad reflection on night time St Helier that there have to be marshals employed to protect people waiting for taxis from those who, after a few (or more) wets, seem hell bent on making dangerously offensive nuisances of themselves.

Tempting as it is to wonder where the police are – after all, the times and locations of this bother seem fairly consistent and I don’t particularly want to incur the wrath of David Warcup again – I do want to praise the taxi drivers for the advertising on their vehicles initiative which will finance the marshal scheme.

After all, ensuring that those queuing behave themselves and are protected from those who don’t is hardly their problem, but full marks to them for trying. Oh that the minority of li censees and their bar staff were as public- spirited and responsible. As has been pointed out many times before, just as there’d be no thieves if there were no receivers, so there’d be far fewer obnoxious drunks about the streets of town if those serving drinks obeyed the Licensing Law and refused or ejected those with a skinful.

Despite the fact that most people unfortunate enough to be in town at chucking out time encounter at least one person who’s clearly a danger to him(or her)self or others, it seems to me that prosecutions against licensees are few and far between.

And finally – given last week’s news that the EU are getting hot under the collar over our zero-ten tax structure, I wonder where that lot in the Big House get their advice?

Is it the same sort of expensive advice that cost us millions over the Euro/incinerator debacle? It’s time the gravy train stopped and its passengers got off.