To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Colouring the bigger picture
Share this:
Certain Islanders have said very vociferously that the ball is, indeed, firmly in the back of the net, claiming that to change the colour of such a genuinely iconic building amounts to an act of vandalism. Others have said, also vociferously, that this is nonsense, pointing out that all that is needed to return the White House – also known as La Caumine à Marie Best and Le Don Hilton – to its former condition is another coat of paint.
The second set of views is, without much doubt, the more reasonable and realistic, but the green-white controversy is actually rather a minor issue. The important matter is why the National Trust chose to apply the eye-catching and attention-grabbing colour scheme.
In short, the intention was to draw attention to a year-long drive to encourage the Island to adopt more ecologically sustainable practices and to highlight that 2011 marks the trust’s 75th anniversary. Who could say that the gambit failed in either of these aims?
If, however, it is important to look beyond the ephemeral spat about the colour of an ancient guardhouse and powder magazine which, when it was built in the 18th century would not have been painted white or any other conspicuous shade, it is even more important to focus on the trust’s three-quarters of a century of achievement.
Trust stalwarts and the generous benefactors who have supported them have preserved and protected many major elements of Jersey’s built and natural heritage, not least in recent years its magnificent coastline. Many significant buildings – including the White House – have been rescued from dilapidation and in some cases lovingly restored. In addition, tracts of the countryside have been saved from development and held in their natural state for the general benefit of Islanders and visitors.
But the trust’s role goes beyond safeguarding buildings and the stewardship of wild places. It is also a campaigning organisation – as the present ecological initiative, the battle to save our coastline from further despoliation and a host of other initiatives attest.
It would not be surprising to find that the trust’s executives knew exactly what kind of attention would be attracted by a controversial decision that green was the way to go for one of the most prominent properties that they hold for the community, but that coat of paint is of very little significance at all when seen against the background of past successes and future plans.
Related