IN THE ordinary run, an apology – a regretful acknowledgment of an offence or failure – is generally the end of whatever difficulty has triggered the need for it.
Unfortunately, in the case of the chief minister’s letter to the Royal British Legion over the order in which wreaths are laid on Remembrance Sunday and which is reproduced on this page, it will have the opposite effect.
Critics of the chief minister will seize on the fact that the apology is not for the matter of precedence having being raised but for any distress caused by the ‘unintended publicity’.
They will also point to the clear declaration in the letter that, far from this now being allowed to rest, it will be raised again so that an elected people’s representative can place a wreath ‘at the appropriate moment’ in the ceremony.
Ah, they will say, that means Deputy Trott wanting to come higher up the pecking order.
Whether an accurate reflection of the situation or not, that reaction is neither helpful – nor should it be necessary.
While there might, although there is scant public indication of it, be an issue with precedent over how the island greets VIPs on state or political occasions, there should be none over something as sensitive and poignant as Remembrance Sunday.
The overarching priority is firstly that the act of supreme sacrifice is recalled, reflected upon and the lessons of bloody conflict never forgotten, and, secondly, that the coming together to remember the fallen is truly representative of the community as a whole.
Order, surely, is irrelevant to that.
If the Policy Council believes that one of their number should come before a representative of the Royal Court or even, for all we know, a representative of the Crown, then they should set out calmly and clearly why, and what the benefits of any change might be.
But a solemn act of remembrance should not – and must not – be used as justification for a debate few islanders believe is warranted and most, frankly, regard in this context as distasteful.
Whatever happened in council when the Bailiff’s neutral note of procedure was considered, it did not involve all ministers.
They now need collectively to make their intentions clear and stop tainting what should be a solemn and dignified act of tribute to the fallen.
So what do ministers really want?
IN THE ordinary run, an apology – a regretful acknowledgment of an offence or failure – is generally the end of whatever difficulty has triggered the need for it.
Unfortunately, in the case of the chief minister’s letter to the Royal British Legion over the order in which wreaths are laid on Remembrance Sunday and which is reproduced on this page, it will have the opposite effect.
Critics of the chief minister will seize on the fact that the apology is not for the matter of precedence having being raised but for any distress caused by the ‘unintended publicity’.
They will also point to the clear declaration in the letter that, far from this now being allowed to rest, it will be raised again so that an elected people’s representative can place a wreath ‘at the appropriate moment’ in the ceremony.
Ah, they will say, that means Deputy Trott wanting to come higher up the pecking order.
Whether an accurate reflection of the situation or not, that reaction is neither helpful – nor should it be necessary.
While there might, although there is scant public indication of it, be an issue with precedent over how the island greets VIPs on state or political occasions, there should be none over something as sensitive and poignant as Remembrance Sunday.
The overarching priority is firstly that the act of supreme sacrifice is recalled, reflected upon and the lessons of bloody conflict never forgotten, and, secondly, that the coming together to remember the fallen is truly representative of the community as a whole.
Order, surely, is irrelevant to that.
If the Policy Council believes that one of their number should come before a representative of the Royal Court or even, for all we know, a representative of the Crown, then they should set out calmly and clearly why, and what the benefits of any change might be.
But a solemn act of remembrance should not – and must not – be used as justification for a debate few islanders believe is warranted and most, frankly, regard in this context as distasteful.
Whatever happened in council when the Bailiff’s neutral note of procedure was considered, it did not involve all ministers.
They now need collectively to make their intentions clear and stop tainting what should be a solemn and dignified act of tribute to the fallen.
Article posted on 24th November, 2009 - 3.32pm