DEAR oh dear, I do seem to have upset Graham Evans, who wrote last week to tell me – along with the world and his brother – that ‘for goodness’ sake, even George Bush accepts that the climate is changing and sea levels are rising’.

Well, there’s a thing. George Bush, eh? The man who, with Tony Blair riding shotgun, embarked on a ‘we’ll show them who’s boss’ adventure – with the servicemen taking all the flak, of course – that will still be losing lives and maiming men, women and children long after they’ve cashed in on their lucrative memoirs, being held up as some sort of expert on climate change.

Just for the record, pal, I doubt that I’ve ever expressed a view on climate change, let alone stuck my head in the sand and refused to accept the opinions of the world’s best climatologists and earth scientists, simply because just as you can ask two lawyers for their legal opinions on a given issue and get two entirely opposing views, so you can get widely contrasting opinions on climate change and its possible effect, depending on which eminent expert you choose to listen to.

In addition, according to Mr Evans – a self-appointed expert on the contents of this column, it seems – my ‘blinkered opinions are those that led to £50,000 being spent on proving that Jersey’s ground water did not come from France by some mysterious undersea route instead of coming from rain that falls on the Island, as is true of the rest of the world’.

Once again for the record, I can’t recall expressing an opinion on that particular issue either, but this self-appointed expert obviously knows better. Indeed, my only information about water-divining – the particular expertise of one of the people who promoted that theory – is that a mate of mine once asked George Langlois where to sink a borehole.

Mr Langlois found the location and told my mate that he’d have to go down about 85 feet. The chap with the big Black and Decker drill found water at 83 feet – and that in the middle of a drought. That’s why, if asked for an opinion on such matters, I don’t pretend to be an expert – self-appointed or otherwise – but simply say that I don’t understand how it all works but it seems to.

But the real coup de grace from Mr Evans – where, I strongly suspect, he betrayed his lack of local knowledge (and, in doing so, his probable origins) – was in what I found to be insulting remarks about whatever prosperity we crapauds enjoy at present being as a result of a quirk of international law rather than ‘their industry’.

So, and this is my interpretation of his comments rather than his words, we are basically an idle lot who don’t work nearly as hard as our ancestors and who rely on a legal anomaly to provide things like health and education. The fact of the matter is that the current standard rate of income tax was put in place long before the finance industry was thought of, never mind born.

Furthermore, I understand that the international legal position holds that a jurisdiction which can demonstrate that this tax has a historic basis, and has not been introduced solely as a device to attract the financial services industry and the inward investment which goes with it, is perfectly in order.

But despite all that, many of the Island’s inhabitants, according to Mr Evans – who refers to local people as ‘they’ rather than ‘we’ (see what I mean about betraying origins?) – are selfish and content to leave important government spending to future generations.

All I can say is if that were the case, the ‘rainy day fund’ – into which we, rather than our more hardworking ancestors, have paid for the last 15 years or more – and the Social Security fund, into which steadily increasing contributions have been paid (thanks to a far-sighted politician called Terry Le Sueur foreseeing demographic changes and how they might affect pensions), would both be in a far less healthy position than they
are now.

You see, Mr Evans, the legacy left to us by our industrious ancestors was based on a very simple but important word – prudence. Neither our forefathers nor we like the ‘spend it as quickly as it comes in’ philosophy. That’s why we criticise politicians for immediately laying claim to savings in States spending, instead of stashing it away in precisely the way we have been taught to.

And that, rather than climate change – with or without the experts who have caused more problems in this small community than they have ever solved – is the only point I sought to make when commenting on the suggestion that the seawall in St Aubin’s Bay should be raised.

But there again, I see that Mr Evans lives on Route de la Haule, which might explain his concern, selfish or otherwise.

BEFORE I close, a pat on the back for the 40 people in the Big House who, faced with one of the most perverse decisions ever made by one of their number, showed an abundance of common sense and booted well and truly into touch the ludicrous idea of allowing drains to be laid on land without the consent of the landowner.
I am at a loss to understand the way in which Transport Minister Guy de Faye operates for most of the time, but this latest debacle should really have the boy Walker and the rest of the Cabinet wondering how long this nonsense can continue. The time is nigh for Len Norman to bail them (and us) out, I think.

AND finally . . . Given that double-deckers may be coming back, do Connex know that these vehicles are higher than the legal branchage level? The JMT used an open-topped such vehicle to do the work themselves when they ran the buses. Will Connex?