I HAVE read this newspaper almost ever since I can remember and well recall it being a broadsheet, which meant that, in my younger days at least, the easiest place for me to give it the attention it merited was on the floor in front of the fire.

For some reason which I’ve never quite understood, letters from fellow readers have always had a peculiar fascination for me, perhaps because in those long gone times many of them were written over a pseudonym – Pro Bono Publico, Townsman and Lawman were two which are still easily recalled, although there were very many others.

In the old days the letters were much longer than they are today and, just as they do now, accurately reflected points of view which, in the opinion of their authors, were not at the time being given sufficient attention by our elected representatives.

Others sometimes provided platforms for this newspaper to launch campaigns which, on occasions, led to much needed legislative or social policy reforms which perhaps otherwise might not have been carried out as urgently had those campaigns not been given the publicity they were.

One which springs immediately to mind is that of slum clearance – the ridding of this otherwise beautiful part of the globe of the scandalous world of scores of otherwise innocuous looking alleys which led to yards surrounded by homes housing families whose lives were blighted by communal toilets, no baths or showers as we today know them, and very often a sole hand operate pump providing the water supply to perhaps ten or a dozen households.

In the great scheme of things, that wasn’t that long ago – perhaps two or possibly three at the most generations – and that particular campaign was one of a number for which, to the best of my recollection, this newspaper was never afforded the credit it deserved.

The reason I refer to it now is because, as Jersey approaches what will hopefully be the beginning of another phase in the continuing evolution of its government – a move away from the divisive and counter productive ministerial form of government to something which better serves the community it is supposed to serve – I happen to think that the time is right for another campaign.

Much of the content of the letters columns of this newspaper in recent times has centred on what many perceive to be damage to the environment. We have all become much more environmentally aware and that is no bad thing, although I will continue to criticise those whose motives appear to show more concern for an ‘unspoilt’ area in which to walk their dogs than for allowing their fellow residents to occupy a home out of St Helier and its built-up environs.

The point I seek to make is that while it is obviously desirable to care for the environment, that is as nought if other factors make Jersey a less than happy and safe place in which to live, work and enjoy the sort of right to a family life that seems to have been hijacked as an argument for allowing those whose actions mean (to me, at least) that they abdicated such rights when they embarked on criminal activity.

The catalyst for this train of thought was the letter last week from Paul de Gruchy who in essence asked three questions of those who aspire to serve their Island as elected politicians for the next few years. After cataloguing a dismal record of recent incidents involving wholly unprovoked and sometimes vicious attacks on Island residents he asked:

• In the middle of an election, is there one candidate for whom making Jersey a safer place is a priority?
• Is the challenge of keeping safe the streets of an Island as small as Jersey really too great?
• Or are our politicians now so utterly lacking in conviction that such a hope is itself regarded as fanciful?

Of course the well being of the economy is crucial to our well being and of course the performance of our elected representatives is a matter of prime importance to everyone who lives here. So too is the way we treat or, as is sometimes the case, mistreat the environment but I would argue, as I am sure Mr de Gruchy would, that unless we create the sort of place where it is as safe as it can be to walk about, where the sight of vomit, urine and excreta is a rarity on pavements rather than commonplace, and where the community as a whole demands zero tolerance in respect of crimes of violence and their causes, debates on other matters are of little consequence.

While I acknowledge that it is difficult for the rest of us to sit in judgment on those whose task it is to administer justice unless we too are privy to all the information they have in order to reach their sentencing conclusions, the fact of the matter is, as Mr de Gruchy wrote, for far too long the judiciary have developed sentencing policies that fail the Island while politicians look away.

As he added, the first duty of a government is to protect its citizens from violence. If States Members which to earn the respect of the public they should start by fulfilling that duty. If I might add my couple of bob’s worth to Paul de Gruchy’s last comment, they could also address their own behaviour – both inside and outside the Big House. Far too often it falls way short of what the rest of us are entitled to expect.

And finally,

It was nice of Jill Keogh in a recent letter to somewhat patronisingly welcome Sir Philip Bailhache to politics, given that he served continuously as a Member of the States Assembly – as an elected representative and then as a Crown appointee – from the mid-1960s until just over two years ago.