2

Mike Bisson

Of course something must be done, and done quickly, to ensure the continuity of Jersey’s heritage sites. These represent the history of an island which is rightly proud of its past, and if they are allowed to close during a time of financial hardship, there will be no guarantee of their opening again when times are better. What is the point of having a ‘rainy day’ fund if it is not to be used, and used in such an important area, when the rain falls?

It must also be recognised that Jersey’s history is preserved primarily for the benefit of islanders of today and tomorrow. The attraction for tourists is of secondary importance and, if there are not going to be sufficient visitors to support these sites, then other ways must be found to fund them. On the other side of the coin, if visitor activities linked to the past, and others such as the Living Legend are to be allowed to close, what hope is there for tourism in the future? Gone are the days when mum and dad and their 2.4 children are satisfied by a day on the beach with a bucket and spade.

Report abuse

4

terry

Wow Sir Philip that’s more like it! i never thought i’d ever agree with you but i think this is an excellent idea. i totally agree that the Jersey Heritage trust needs the support and backing of the island and this idea is a brilliant one which will support the island’s assets and eventually fund the museums and heritage resources on the island. you have my support for the first time ever.

Report abuse

6

Mick

Why is he bothering to do anything about our heritage when Crowcroft is throwing it away?

Report abuse

8

Pip Clement

There is not enough money in the Strategic Reserve to pay for luxuries.
Even the small structural deficits of £50-100M that the CoM are planning on running over the next half decade or so will see most of it disappear.
Plus there is the huge structural deficit within the States employees pension fund, the deficit on the roads fund etc.
Jersey needs to rack up taxes and charges to pay the bills.
The current bunch of numpties in the States are just putting off the awful day.

Report abuse

10

Nick

This is an excellent idea and quite the way to progress this matter.
To all the detractors rubbishing this idea on the grounds of enmity towards the person suggesting it and on the even more preposterous grounds of “Wasting Public money”,what on earth do you think these reserve funds were set aside for?!!
Jersey Heritage for all it’s faults (Most of which, including those here mentioned:”So called actors who don’t change their act from one year to the next as indeed don’t their managers change their tune”, stem from underfunding in the first place!)provides local jobs outside the finance industry and in providing ongoing, and hopefully improving activities, will help revive other economic sectors such as tourism!
That is “Quantitative Easing” in practice which is exactly what these funds should be used for, not just for handing out to private property developers to secure short-term local jobs in the construction industry, which incidently seems hellbent on destroying any “Local Heritage” it comes across, if Janvrin’s Farm and Windward House are anything to go by!
Once this underlying fund is set up there should be some kind of ongoing regular scrutiny system established to ensure ongoing Heritage management is on track in developing existing and newly acquired sites and attractions.

Report abuse

12

truthseeker

When you stand down,you really need to butt out.this kind of attempt at using previous privileged indulgence to influence others as to what should be done is typical of a pomposity and an air of expectation that those whose lives have run on gilded castors have come to expect…..time has moved on and the sort of attitude that has ruined the place needs to retire gracefully also….

Report abuse

14

Nick

Truthseeker: I never thought I would read such a load of rubbish coming from you!!
“Butt out”! how convenient that would be for this Island’s fifth columnist “friends?”, all of whom spout the same old “C—p” year after year in the forlorn hope that they will eventually bore everyone too death with their constant Anti -establishment B-ll—s!and that then people will rush to support their hair-brained ideas (All disproved in countless starving and destitute countries throughout this globe whose populations fell victim to their S—t!)
Having said all that I am no establishment lackey either but the former Bailiff gave years of loyal service to this Island, and the benefit of a very fine legal brain, which could have benefited it’s owner far more if he had taken the selfish option and remained in private practice!If he now choses to use that brain, and it’s expertise, in retirement for this Islands benefit without reward then I am not going to stop him or ignore what he says, knowing that he has had the benefit of years of experience that the rest of us lack!
You have good points to make truthseeker you don’t need to fall victim to the “Green eyed monster” to make them! doing so damages your credibility, not his!
Nowhere in the World gets everything right for everybody but Jersey comes damn close, maybe you should relocate to Darfur, Somalia or the Calcutta or Rio slums for a few years and get things in perspective!Maybe you should define your definition of a “Ruined place” and then visit Beirut or Zimbabwe and see how it is done properly!
Danny: if a Trust type fund was set up with a capital sum of say £10-£20mn to provide an ongoing income p.a. for Heritage projects then the Heritage management would be accountable to the Trustees of that Fund on an ongoing and regular basis! As it is Public money one would expect that the Trustees’ Board would include a mix of expertise along with appropriate elected States members, such as at least one finance Minister or a member of the Scrutiny Panel.
Surely that is a better way than the current paltry (In relation to what it is trying to achieve) handout every year and then unrealistic expectations of what can be achieved with it?
I do agree that if the Heritage Management then fail then the axe should fall, but at least they would have failed trying to achieve some realistic targets with sufficient resources,and at least with the Fund capital such failure would not be an “Overnight closure disaster”.

Report abuse

16

Clown Advocate

Mad Foetus at number 9; good comment.

Bear in mind, though, that the legal information board is something which makes the law accessible to the general public. I do not think that there was any intention to over inflate Jersey’s image there. Anything which enables openness is to be encouraged, particularly in these days of Human Rights and access to legal remedy.

Similarly, the Institute of Law was opened in order to properly train students in the laws of Jersey. Those laws differ from England. Again, this promotes openness. The previous position was that the big firms would privately tutor their trainees and would not allow any of their notes to go elsewhere. The result of that was a two tier system which disadvantaged those in small firms or without connections. In a profession riddled with nepotism, the Institute has to be a good thing although the cost of nearly £10,000 may not promote equality and fairness perhaps as much as Sir Philip would have liked!

Report abuse

18

Nick

Truthseeker: whilst understanding your frustration with pomposity and the upper class system which in the wrong hands (Normally those of people who have aspired to that status and not inherited it)can be oppressive and condescending,the plain fact is that if you remove all the historic roles from a system of Government you remove the cohesive identity of the country so ruled by it. Many of these roles, such as the Bailiff, The Governor, and the Constables were created for reasons that may have become outdated, but they were also created for reasons that were symbolic, many of which have with the passing of time become forgotten.That does not mean that those underlying reasons are any less important today as they were originally.
The Bailiff acting as “Speaker” brings a Judge’s legal training to the procedure of the House,something that ex Mr Speaker Martin at Westminster would have found useful.
If the Bailiff has no vote then his involvement is entirely procedural and the pressure is on to remain bi-partisan.
That is supposed to be the same for the Westminster Speaker even though he/she is an elected individual who has loyalty to a particular Party, which as was amply demonstrated by Mr Martin can lead to the role becoming vey partisan in the approach to procedural matters.
The position of Island Governor, as well as being a reward role for ex senior service personnel, is symbolic of the Island’s loyalty to the Queen as Head of State.The reason it is a military appointment was a practical one of having someone on hand with the expertise to organise some kind of defense of the Island from Military attack, but with all such threats removed, it could be argued that these days the role is there in the physical absence of the Head of State (HRH)to guard against the local political seizure of that role. The role also provides an internationally recogniseable symbol of authority, stability and leadership synonymous with a particularly stable and successful system of government.
Anyway why shouldn’t retiring senior Military men get a few perks?It keeps them out of mischief which if you study the recent history of certain African countries such as Libya you will see can involve aspiring to appoint oneself Head of State for life!
As for the Constables, well if there are any comparisons they are the Hereditary Peers of Jersey, although, as at Westminster, these days the actual historic connection of the incumbent individual to the role is relatively recent!
They represent the man in the street, if the role is carried out effectively, and for all their failings, real and imaginary, generally they do a good job in that role, bringing to the States contact Island wide with residents of their respective Parishes.
And yet truthseeker you want to remove them and replace them with 50 individuals,presumably superimposed on the Island electorate without any localized knowledge of specific Parishes or their inhabitants?
Individuals who may or may not have the intellectual ability to perform well in the role to which they are elected!

Report abuse

20

J Lamborrari

Is this £10m on top of the amount(was it £25m?)he wanted for the ‘National Gallery’? Both of course on top of the 1% public art ‘tax’ on planning applications?

Report abuse

22

Bean

Many years ago when Jersey Heritage took over the general day to day running of our heritage treasures I had the privalage of working as a private contractor for the then custodians, the states of Jersey, on speaking to the various people in charge at the differant attractions they all expressed their concerns as follows, We have operated in profit for donkeys years, bet you they will come in, cut staff, and I bet it wont be long before it all becomes a comercial driven entity and another bet, it wont be long before their skint and looking for a large handout from the states, how right these people were, another sad day for Jersey as university trained management and the new & expensive consultants are yet again proved wrong, consultants as you all agree, know best, they dont always know best, you are selling yourself short Jersey yet again in trying to be modern and compete with world wide attractions, WAKE UP !!!!!!!

Report abuse