AS The Reader may have already learned, I actually have a bit of time for Ian Le Marquand.

Indeed, I had time for him when he was sitting in little Jackie Pinel’s chair in the Magistrate’s Court and I have at least a couple of times applauded the refreshingly open approach he has brought to the Home Affairs department since being appointed Minister.
That said, I think his condemnation of Detective Superintendent Mick Gradwell for criticising parts of the Haut de La Garenne police investigation really was a step too far and – depending on which way the wind is blowing at the time and a host of other irrelevancies – may well provide ammunition for those who (usually only when it suits them) allege a cover-up when someone like Mr Gradwell declines to answer questions from journalists.

Senator Le Marquand asserted in the Big House the other day – in relation to comments by Mr Gradwell that, among other things, the excavation at Haut de la Garenne was a waste of public money, time and effort – that ‘in general terms it is highly regrettable when police officers who are retiring start to express views on matters on which they were involved professionally’.

I wonder if that applies only to senior police officers in the Home Affairs Minister’s view, or should the blanket order of silence extend also to senior civil servants, public servants such as the recently retired Bailiff, or indeed politicians such as Senator Le Marquand himself, who might well have a tale or two to tell once he gets fed up with some of his political colleagues doing
little more productive than talk about how many of them should be doing what, for how long, what titles they should have and for how many years the season ticket to the gravy train should last.

I wonder if the following (wholly imaginary, of course) scenario of a short extract from an exchange between Mr Gradwell and a journalist might suggest to Senator Le Marquand what might have happened had the retiring officer acted appropriately and professionally, rather than the opposite, as suggested by the Minister.

Journalist: ‘What are your impressions of the investigation you took over?’
Mr Gradwell: ‘I’m sorry but the Home Affairs Minister doesn’t like officers coming up to retirement expressing views about matters on which we were professionally involved so I can’t answer that question.’
J: ‘How do you view the work that was done at Haut de la Garenne?’
G: ‘I’m sorry but I have to refer you to the answer I gave to your previous question.’
J: ‘I understand that you have suggested that you were left with a poorly managed mess to sort out. Can you elaborate on that?’
G: ‘No comment.
J: ‘Do you think that there was any justification for
digging at the Haut de la Garenne site?’
G: ‘No comment.’
J: ‘Do you think the excavation made effective use of public money, time and
effort?’
G: ‘No comment.’
J: ‘Is there anything that the Home Affairs Minister would approve of you discussing on the record and for publication?’
G: ‘The weather?’

So there it is Senator, and the ‘no comment’ headlines would be larger than the story and would put some of the red-top daily newspapers to shame. There is nothing worse than anyone in public life refusing to comment when asked specific questions because the immediate reaction of most journalists would be to write a story starting: ‘So and so today refused to comment on suggestions that….’

I read the interview with Mr Gladwell and, unusually for me, I also saw him on the idiot box. In both cases he had much the same to say and he certainly didn’t give me the impression that he was the type of bloke who was looking for a soundbite, or indeed someone who was somewhat aggressively ‘in your face’.

He said what he had to say with little trace of any emotion or excitement about what he was disclosing. He certainly left me with the impression that he said what he said because it was how he saw it.

Senator Le Marquand is naive in the extreme if he thinks any good will come of banning anyone in the public service from talking about their work on their
retirement and he really should think again.

I am aware that I have a bit of a reputation for dismissing the protests of the ‘Not In My Back Yard’ mob, in much the same way as I tend to scorn those from the eastern parishes who suggest public money should be spent on buying Stan Parkin’s holiday camp for no better reason that they like taking their dogs for a walk out at Grosnez and besides, they’ve got to pick up the mess if their pets ‘do it’ on the breakwater.

However, my sympathies are entirely with the residents of St Aubin and their objection to closing Market Hill for months so that someone can build a house. That said, I doubt that they’ll get anywhere. If up to 3,500 tonnes need excavating then the house is likely to be big and, as we all know, Freddie Cohen thinks big is beautiful.

And finally, surprise, surprise, lawyers on this small rock are the ‘most expensive on the planet’ according to some survey or other. Not a surprise, however, is the Jersey Law Society reaction.
Its president, Charles Thacker, said that without having more detail about the research methods it was ‘not possible to accept’ the accuracy of the figures. In other words, unless you tell us who grassed we’re hoping this will blow over.

It’s worth repeating the old joke about who picked up and pocketed a £50 note lying on the ground in the Royal Square – the rich Jersey lawyer, the poor Jersey lawyer or Father Christmas? The answer of course is the rich Jersey lawyer because the others are just figments of the imagination.