THERE are times when my well known affinity with most things French could easily turn to something close to divorce and right now, if only it was possible, I would be considering suing that nation for mental cruelty.
Yet again, like brats who cannot get their way, out of the playpen come handfuls of toys – this time, they say, because of the increasing price of diesel fuel.
On reflection, if only it was toys coming out of the playpen. In reality, those who wish to enter that country through three of the ports closest to these islands have been barred from doing so because a minority have decided that, once more, they will stick a Gallic pair of digits in the air at the rule of law and have embarked on another protest.
Fishing boats blockade the entrances to these ports, mattresses, wood and rubber tyres are being set alight on roads and even the yacht marina at St Malo is closed off because the entrance is blocked.
And all the while, if track records are anything to go by, the police, politicians and regional and national officials presumably shrug their shoulders, walk across the way and enjoy their fill of vin ordinaire and the occasional puff on a Gitane or Gauloise.
Next week, when either the national or regional government have given the fishermen part of what they want – probably with European Union money squeezed from, among others, British taxpayers – the protest will end, the fishing boats will be moved, the burnt rubbish on the roads will be brushed away, and those of us who like to visit France on occasions will presumably be required to express grateful thanks that a once great nation has yet again caved in to anarchy.
Young Stuart Syvret once managed to persuade a majority of our elected representatives in the Big House to make direct representations to the French government about the very real fears many of us feel about them messing about with nuclear power on what is, after all, our doorstep as well as theirs.
I now wonder if he could be persuaded to do the same in relation to this continued threat of major disruption to our freedom to travel that ruins so many holidays at intervals which, over the years, have increased substantially from the occasional one?
While at first glance I would support the innovative homebuy scheme in which those who qualify will be able to purchase what in effect will be about two-thirds of the value of homes in certain categories, I really do hope that all the legal bits and pieces associated with this idea have been tested a good deal more vigorously than some of these ‘let’s help’ schemes have allegedly been in the past.
I say allegedly simply because, as with all these things, it is often difficult to determine what is fact, what has developed into folklore and what has been extensively embroidered, the latter often fuelled with a measure of malice and a liberal dose of the politics of envy.
Which of these categories into which the information given to me recently falls is impossible now to determine but I repeat it nonetheless, if only to warn the ministers involved to check and check again.
Some years ago what might be loosely described as a first-time buyer development was offered to the sort of purchasers the powers that be probably have in mind for this scheme.
The word went round very quickly that because the seemingly obvious (to a lot of people) legal loopholes hadn’t been plugged, some of the properties were actually sold without those to whom they had been allocated – in order to help them, it should be stressed – ever even living in them before selling them on, no doubt at a very substantial profit.
As I said earlier, I have no idea whether such reports are true but if they are then perhaps those involved in administering this scheme will understand my reluctance to give wholehearted support to what, on the face of it, seems an excellent idea.
It is difficult not to sympathise with those – both in the Big House and among a great many outside – who throw up their hands in horror at the news that what the national newspapers variously described as all manner of things sinister has now turned out not to be part of a child’s skull but in all probability either a bit of wood or a section of coconut shell.
However, much as the temptation exists to jump up and down and point fingers at everyone in sight, would it not be better for everyone involved – and I mean everyone – to exercise the sort of caution that perhaps should have been exercised from the outset.
With that in mind, it would be helpful if people like Deputy Sean Power refrained from making what I believe to be political capital by suggesting that the ‘coconut’ revelations made the position of Home Secretary Wendy Kinnard ‘vulnerable’.
As I read the report in which his comment was recorded, Senator Kinnard – when asked last month by Senator Jim Perchard if the remains were human – expressed the belief that they were but added a very wise rider: ‘I think it is very important that we do not try and get drawn on the details of this. This is still a live ongoing investigation and I urge Members to be sensible and realise that there is an awful lot more to go where this matter is concerned.’
Wise words, as I said, and the public interest would be best served if everyone heeded them.
And finally . . .
So we’re now going to be able to find out easily about grants (of our money) of over £100,000. Whoopee. There was a time when all grants of public money, irrespective of the amount, were detailed in the Budget, right down to the couple of hundred quid to deserving charities.
The French are revolting . . . again
THERE are times when my well known affinity with most things French could easily turn to something close to divorce and right now, if only it was possible, I would be considering suing that nation for mental cruelty.
Yet again, like brats who cannot get their way, out of the playpen come handfuls of toys – this time, they say, because of the increasing price of diesel fuel.
On reflection, if only it was toys coming out of the playpen. In reality, those who wish to enter that country through three of the ports closest to these islands have been barred from doing so because a minority have decided that, once more, they will stick a Gallic pair of digits in the air at the rule of law and have embarked on another protest.
Fishing boats blockade the entrances to these ports, mattresses, wood and rubber tyres are being set alight on roads and even the yacht marina at St Malo is closed off because the entrance is blocked.
And all the while, if track records are anything to go by, the police, politicians and regional and national officials presumably shrug their shoulders, walk across the way and enjoy their fill of vin ordinaire and the occasional puff on a Gitane or Gauloise.
Next week, when either the national or regional government have given the fishermen part of what they want – probably with European Union money squeezed from, among others, British taxpayers – the protest will end, the fishing boats will be moved, the burnt rubbish on the roads will be brushed away, and those of us who like to visit France on occasions will presumably be required to express grateful thanks that a once great nation has yet again caved in to anarchy.
Young Stuart Syvret once managed to persuade a majority of our elected representatives in the Big House to make direct representations to the French government about the very real fears many of us feel about them messing about with nuclear power on what is, after all, our doorstep as well as theirs.
I now wonder if he could be persuaded to do the same in relation to this continued threat of major disruption to our freedom to travel that ruins so many holidays at intervals which, over the years, have increased substantially from the occasional one?
While at first glance I would support the innovative homebuy scheme in which those who qualify will be able to purchase what in effect will be about two-thirds of the value of homes in certain categories, I really do hope that all the legal bits and pieces associated with this idea have been tested a good deal more vigorously than some of these ‘let’s help’ schemes have allegedly been in the past.
I say allegedly simply because, as with all these things, it is often difficult to determine what is fact, what has developed into folklore and what has been extensively embroidered, the latter often fuelled with a measure of malice and a liberal dose of the politics of envy.
Which of these categories into which the information given to me recently falls is impossible now to determine but I repeat it nonetheless, if only to warn the ministers involved to check and check again.
Some years ago what might be loosely described as a first-time buyer development was offered to the sort of purchasers the powers that be probably have in mind for this scheme.
The word went round very quickly that because the seemingly obvious (to a lot of people) legal loopholes hadn’t been plugged, some of the properties were actually sold without those to whom they had been allocated – in order to help them, it should be stressed – ever even living in them before selling them on, no doubt at a very substantial profit.
As I said earlier, I have no idea whether such reports are true but if they are then perhaps those involved in administering this scheme will understand my reluctance to give wholehearted support to what, on the face of it, seems an excellent idea.
It is difficult not to sympathise with those – both in the Big House and among a great many outside – who throw up their hands in horror at the news that what the national newspapers variously described as all manner of things sinister has now turned out not to be part of a child’s skull but in all probability either a bit of wood or a section of coconut shell.
However, much as the temptation exists to jump up and down and point fingers at everyone in sight, would it not be better for everyone involved – and I mean everyone – to exercise the sort of caution that perhaps should have been exercised from the outset.
With that in mind, it would be helpful if people like Deputy Sean Power refrained from making what I believe to be political capital by suggesting that the ‘coconut’ revelations made the position of Home Secretary Wendy Kinnard ‘vulnerable’.
As I read the report in which his comment was recorded, Senator Kinnard – when asked last month by Senator Jim Perchard if the remains were human – expressed the belief that they were but added a very wise rider: ‘I think it is very important that we do not try and get drawn on the details of this. This is still a live ongoing investigation and I urge Members to be sensible and realise that there is an awful lot more to go where this matter is concerned.’
Wise words, as I said, and the public interest would be best served if everyone heeded them.
And finally . . .
So we’re now going to be able to find out easily about grants (of our money) of over £100,000. Whoopee. There was a time when all grants of public money, irrespective of the amount, were detailed in the Budget, right down to the couple of hundred quid to deserving charities.
Article posted on 27th May, 2008 - 3.00pm