TO give them their due, the thinkers and drinkers down at the pub aren’t afraid of tackling some pretty sensitive subjects and last week’s session – which touched on tragedy as well as other issues – was no exception.
What was perhaps surprising was that there was general disagreement with the use of the phrase ‘the Jersey way’ by virtually everyone who had a bone to pick with some aspect of Island life, be it the role of the Bailiff or the attempt by Clinton Pringle’s father to get UK Prime Minister Theresa May to intervene in Jersey’s judicial system.
As one of the old lads said, it’s become the stock phrase for every nit-picker with a gripe, although I stress he made it clear that he was in no way referring to Michael Pringle. Indeed, there was a tremendous amount of sympathy for that family’s tragic loss – the consensus being that no matter what the circumstances, parents should not outlive their children.
What made the discussion all the more poignant was that among the group was someone who had lost a close relative in an incident involving a car driver and a pedestrian. It happened many years ago and, as the bloke explained, the car driver was prosecuted – a charge of driving at a dangerous speed was based on police evidence about skid marks.
He said that the Magistrate was very clear when announcing his decision to acquit the driver that the charge had been properly brought but it had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. As he remarked last week, to say that the family were upset is an understatement of colossal proportions.
‘Personally, it took me years to come to terms with it but in the end you’ve got to move on or it will continue dominating everything you say and do,’ he said. ‘I well understand how Michael Pringle feels but he must come to terms with it because nothing’s going to change. I just wish that someone would have explained to us why we couldn’t appeal. Having read the statement from the Law Officers it seems that they’ve explored every avenue regarding an appeal and, perhaps just as importantly, employed an independent British QC in doing so.’
Given the contents of Mr Pringle’s letter to the Prime Minister, I doubt very much that he will give up his campaign in the foreseeable future. That’s not a criticism, for who’s to say I wouldn’t be just as tenacious in his shoes.
THE report last week that the Big House’s departments spent over £137,000 (or £2,634.61 a week) on newspapers and magazines comes as no surprise at all to this bolshie little crapaud. Many years ago Herself and I were travelling to London on the early morning ‘Red Eye’ flight and I joined the queue to buy a newspaper.
In front of me was a senior public sector pinstripe who bought not one, but two papers – from memory (for it made a bit of an impression on me) they were The Times and the Daily Mail – and then asked the assistant for ‘a receipt for my expenses form’.
I was actually a trifle miffed that this highly paid chief officer was using my money (and that of thousands of other taxpayers) to buy newspapers that, given his job, had little if anything to do with his ability or otherwise to earn his living.
In fact, I was more than miffed, I was angry.
I subsequently spoke to one of that lot in the Big House who was a member of the committee employing this bloke and from the inquiries he made established that those two newspapers were delivered to the department every working day. Even today, it makes me wonder precisely what else gets put on the ‘expenses docket’.
Significantly, one of only two departments which spends absolutely zilch on newspapers and magazines is that of the Comptroller and Auditor General, Karen McConnell, who has done some excellent work on identifying money wasting practices within the public sector.
Now there’s someone who clearly practises what she preaches. I just wish she had more time or staff (or both) to at least double her workload.
All the evidence suggests it would be profitable rather than simply self-financing.
And finally… I wish that lot in the Big House would understand that I and many of my generation
view things like the use of telephones to pay for using public car parks
with a good deal of trepidation.
From my perspective it simplifies nothing.
