Sark needs to see bigger picture
Thursday 13th January 2011, 3:00PM GMT.
If attempts by Sark to justify its faintly boorish rejection of an olive branch from its neighbours on Brecqhou were aimed at easing the situation, they will have failed.
Pretending that the island is not at war with the Barclay family does not wash, even if many might have their own views on who initially started the conflict.
Equally, for the Seigneur now to come over all coy and suggest that this is a matter for the democratically elected Chief Pleas to deal with is also a bit rich.
Sark had to be forced to embrace an elected government and if the Seigneur was genuinely troubled by a personal approach from a member of the Barclay family, he could have written back and suggested an alternative route.
More worryingly, however, for all that this was promoted in some quarters as a David and Goliath struggle, it is increasingly clear that there is a cabal in Sark, largely of people who do not need to work, who have little interest in their fellow residents who do. That is why they insist on seeking to thwart inward investment which last year ran at approaching £1m. a month.
That is bad enough. Worse is the assistance they have received from Guernsey’s Law Officers in progressing legislation which has every appearance of being anti-Barclay.
Guernsey waits seven years for urgently needed animal welfare laws yet, virtually overnight, Sark gets enactments blocking new moorings, hampering the use of the Brecqhou Warrior and pushing through questionable land reforms.
States of Guernsey departments would die for such sweetheart treatment yet no one – except the much-criticised Sark Newsletter – questions what is happening.
Sark itself ought also to ask why it receives such attentive service. Yes, establishments tend to look after their own but Guernsey’s neighbour’s independence has also been a source of frustration to this island’s attempts to get its own laws approved by the Privy Council.
The Sark Newsletter has warned of the risks of Sark losing its autonomy through the creeping influence of Guernsey’s legislators and regulators.
Chief Pleas’s desire to hamper Brecqhou blinds it to the fact that there is more than one game being played and it is merely part of a bigger agenda.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
GP, this is getting beyond a joke. Is this now the Sark Newsletter??
Report abuse
Thanks for explaining this all to me in such an unopinionated way.I had been wondering whats going on over on Sark recently.
Report abuse
GP – Your last 2 opinion columns on Sark matters are a disgrace. It is now quite clear where your loyalties lie and who is influencing you to write this stuff.
Report abuse
The galling thing for me is that under the words ‘Opinion’ in the GEP it says ‘The voice of islanders’.
Please do not profess to speak on my behalf Mr Digard. You appear, increasingly, to be operated by strings from Brecqhou (the Guiton Group has absolutely nothing to do with the Telegraph Group, honest!). Ah well, all that extra advertising revenue from the Aval should make up for the appalling editorial.
Report abuse
one word… ‘biased’!
Report abuse
GP, if you are not with us, you are against us. There is no such thing as independent opinion; either you toe the Party Line, or you are an Enemy of the People. Comrade Stalin has ordered that traitors like yourself (and myself) are to be summarily executed.
Report abuse
At least the Sark people let it be known that they live their lives,
Not to be influenced by s few shekels-or is that sheiks. well something beginng with S.
I admire their strength well done Sark.
Report abuse
A Resi – the issue is not the fact that the GP is voicing an opinion. The objection is caused by the fact that the opinion is so clearly one-sided, even to the impartial observer, and the language so emphatic, accusatory and antagonistic.
Where is the balancing of competing positions? the presentation of a reasoned argument rather than just launching in with immediate conclusions? the recognition that things are never black and white?
Report abuse
To attribute any positive comment to the Sark Newsletter is outrageous. It is the most unpleasant, posionous blatant propoganda I have ever read.
I am appalled by the clear bias in your comment.
As the GP you have a responsibility to be above shareholder influence. You seem to have forgot the fact everyone is sark was sacked when the Barclays didn’t get ther men voted in ?
Report abuse
GP, please – this goes beyond the pale. I implore you to stop publishing such twoddle!!
Report abuse
Sark is Sark & after all the shenanigans of 2008(?) pre & post election, even I would refuse to eat a single olive from said branch.
The residents of a certain Sark offshore island have not lived there long enough for the tree to grow to fruition!
Report abuse
Sark was doing fine until these plutarchs turned up and threw their unwanted power about.
I bet they haven`t even bothered to learn the local language `Sarkese`.
Report abuse
Another tear for Sark
Report abuse
Terry Langlois – how can an opinion be anything but one-sided? Like yours, perhaps?
Since there’s so much accumulated Sark knowledge here, could someone tell me what the seigneur has ever done by way of putting his hand in his pocket to benefit his subjects?
All that trezieme, all that Sark larking… Oh, and the sale of the seigneurie.
What a paradise. For some.
Report abuse
Terry Langlois – I have asked several people who know nothing about the Sark situation – i.e. real impartial observers – to read the article and tell me what they thought. They made various remarks, asked me various questions, but not one of them thought the article was clearly one-sided.
So I’m taking your claim that the article is “clearly one-sided” to an impartial observer with a pinch of salt.
It may look one-sided to you, but maybe this is because you are not an impartial observer and because you do not agree with what the article has to say.
The issue is not that some people disagree with the article’s content, nor even that some who do express dissent in ways which border on the intolerant and give the author a hard time for expressing his opinion. We have freedom of speech, and you are entitled to exercise it, when you are right as well as when you are wrong.
On Sark today, however, writing such an article might have led to the author incurring real consequences, perhaps even the legislative assembly taking formal measures against him. I think this is wrong. Some may think this is right, but I think such people are intolerant Nazis.
I think the article is spot on and the author has clearly seen through Maitland & co. He is no fool. The points made in the last few paragraphs about more than one game being played and it being merely part of a bigger agenda are particularly sharp and incisive. Of course it would be too much to hope that anybody on Sark heeded the warning of the real dangers expressed in those paragraphs. Perhaps some on Sark are part of the bigger agenda too.
Report abuse
I wasn’t aware that Kevin Delaney was now ‘employed’ by the GP to write it’s opinion columns – unbelievable that after issuing this one-sided attack on the Sark authorities/Seigneur the GP can profess not to be influenced by certain quarters. Mind you the last two words certainly have a ring of truth about it – “bigger agenda” – you bet.
Report abuse
The writer of this article is correct. The sale of Sark was a good contract. I’m certainly enjoying its benefits just now……tails with little pointy things on the end can be considered attractive on men of wealth and taste…
Report abuse
If you could all listen to yourselves! It is time to put an end to this carry on. The comments are from people who do not live on the Island or people who have lived there a few years ! Is there no consideration for the real local people who are born and bred Sarkees ?
Life has always been hard on Sark and does not help to be constantly battling!
Report abuse
To A Resident, Not so very long ago there were law suits being handed around to all and sundry should the Barclay brothers have been displeased at whatever was said of them, so much for freedom of speech! I think it is time for GP to stop STIRRING THE POT and let Sark get on with governing themselves, as they see fit. There has been far too many WANNA BE’S. Re this situation. I knew Sark IN THE GOOD OLD DAYS’ and todays version couldn’t hold a candle to then. Should the Barclays get MORE POWER there that will be the end of Sark as I know it. Good luck to the Seignuere and Chief Pleas.
Report abuse
Oh for god’s sake…
‘You don’t know suffering you’ve only lived here 2 years, I was born here, moved away, then came back, then moved away again, then came back again therefore my suffering (i.e general whinging) is much more important!’
Please. From this thread you would think that Sark is the last small community in the world.
The lot of you. Get over yourselves.
Report abuse
I see that Dave is at it again, doesn’t know anything and blames us.
Leave us alone to Govern ourselves, we did it for long enough without all this backbiting and animosity, and had a good life, can’t say the same now, and as for the Barclays saying they do not know whats in their press is laughable.
Report abuse
Here here Margaret Le Page.
Whatever all who speak out against Sark, this I will say.
Mind your own Business, it’s not your place to determine what Sark does,
In my opinion they do alright, they fight the good fight against all odds.
Report abuse
To ‘A Resident’, well I have not been to sark for ages, but to me this article does seem very biased.
Report abuse
So come on all you Sark posters, whats the seigneur ever done for you? Allegedly a director of 650 offshore companies at what, £1000 a pop. Thats nearlt £2mill over three years. No wonder you dont need inward investment
Report abuse
To all above commentators, please read a letter under the SARK heading in Guernsey Press letters from Gary Blanchford on the 14.1.11. I couldn’t have put it better than he has. Well said!
Report abuse
Eric
What have the Bailiff and the Governor ever done for us?
Report abuse
Sark does, indeed, need to be aware of the bigger picture. However, consider this; why is there such interest in such a small piece of apparently insignificant rock?
Could it be;
The natural beauty? The flora and fauna? The fishing and farming? The rugged tranquillity? The quaint simplicity? The individuality? The uniqueness? The inaccessibility? The quirky old laws? The traditional rules? The old fashioned respect for tradition?
Or alternatively;
The lack of motor cars? The lack of pollution? The self governance? The lack of bureaucracy? The lack of a civil service? The lack of big brother? The freedom for self-expression? The lack of accountability? The lack of modern infrastructure? The lack of external interference? The lack of taxation?
Ah ha! Look no further.
Hypothetically, just suppose for a moment that you were a super rich Oligarch and you wanted to create your own mini super state what would be top of your shopping list?
It could be that you wanted to benefit from all of Sark’s attractive attributes but which one would you find MOST attractive?
Why else would anyone pump zillions of pounds into a small island with such an amateur government, a desperate disregard for human rights, a broken society, no community spirit, an ailing economy and no future?
Answers on a postcard please.
Report abuse
Steve good question but there’s a single difference between the bailiff/governor in e Guernsey context and the seigneur in the Sark context.
Both the bailiff and the governor are there on merit. Both have a clear track record behind them and both went through a selection process. Someone wanted them.
The seigneur, by contrast, is there by an accident of birth.
Also, the bailiff and lt governor are there for fixed terms and/or can be sacked (not easily, but the facility is there).
The seigneur is there for life, gets £28,000 index linked pa for life with no job description irrespective of how well or badly he does whatever it is that he does.
And that open-ended liability on Sarkees lasts in perpetuity as it rolls down the seigneurs offspring whether the set foot in the island or not.
And the swivel-eyes there think it’s a good system…
Report abuse
PS I see that the Sark attack dogs still haven’t said what value the seigneur adds with the loot he has sucked out of the system
Report abuse
Eric.
The Seigneur holds the island of Sark in perpetuity from the Crown. You, and others, may not like this fact but that is how the island is constituted. He is the titular head of the island and oversees every aspect of that role, although some of the original responsibilities have been removed recently primarily due to external pressure.
He is generally well liked and well respected on Sark, unless you happen not to be a monarchist, in which case you probably don’t live here in the first place. He is a benign gentleman, not a great dictator as portrayed in ignorance by some.
There are many aspects of the Seigneur’s role that are easy to criticise particularly if you are an outsider. He is the Queens’ representative on Sark and there are many analogies’ with the Crown.
There is significant history attached to the position dating from days when Sark was desperately lacking direction, leadership, law and order. Clearly many of the original responsibilities have been delegated to others as befits a more modern society. It is, however important to retain some elements of tradition, heritage, continuity and stability. I appreciate that this is obviously difficult to accept if you are an outsider and/or wealthy and you crave power, influence and control.
Report abuse
Sarkdog, you misunderstand. Hold on to your false idols, I care not. The issue is your inability to accept criticism or see that it is justified.
Lovely old gent that the seigneur is, he has still taken hundreds of thousands out of your community and given back what exactly?
He even made you pay for the gates of his seigneurie and then repaid the compliment by flogging off the pile and its contents.
No wonder he can beam contentedly when you are all so gullible.
Report abuse
I am truly an outsider -I live in London; but I have to say that on the face of it this article is not a comment article, but the expression of a very definite point of view. It does seem to me very biased indeed.
There seems to be no grasp that the Seigneur could not possible have a private meeting with the Barclays as there is now a democratically elected government in Sark.
By whatever route Feudalism has been ended as the Government system so consequently the Seigneur cannot negotiate on behalf of Sark; nor should the Barclays expect representation as of right in Chief Pleas (which they would have had under Feudalism) unless they can get a candidate they sponsor democratically elected.
Report abuse
David Barry – spot on.
BB battled to rid Sark of the evil feudal regime. Now they don’t much like the democratic alternative and want to negotiate with a feudal overlord who they don’t recognise or accept. Curious indeed.
We must concur that this is part of their increasingly desperate and frustrated attempts to divide and conquer Sark? Well it isn’t going to happen like this.
Their advisors are misguided and their lieutenants are foolish. Time for another regime change?
Report abuse
Bags I the position of Cpl Jones when Sark forms its own ‘Dad’s Army’.
Report abuse
Eric re; Jan 15, 8.56 am.
I think you overlooked, perhaps an accident, or more likely without thinking.
But you reference to being Seigneur of Sark through birth; makes one think about a certain Royal family, who now are there by accident of birth, but allows the nobles of that noble land to blaspheme arrogantly by saying,
“Queen by the grace Of God.”
Did they have special correspondence with God?
I do think that to make remarks as you did, then by me is hardly the way to go about things.
I wished only to point out that white is not always white.
Report abuse
@David Barry: I agree with you re. the seat on GP&A.
Although it’s not as clear cut as it may seem. Brecqhou has no representation at Chief Pleas, nor does it have any hope of having any under Sark’s present electoral system. The same is true of Little Sark, incidentally. There was an amendment tabled to address this very issue (to split Sark into constituencies) at the time the Reform Law was debated. The amendment had a lot of support, and might have passed but the Seneschal suppressed its debate, because the amended law also proposed to split his role. It is well documented that the Seneschal breached the Rules of Procedure repeatedly at the time.
Also, don’t forget that Brecqhou’s Chief Pleas vote was only “created” in 1929 by the Dame immediately before she sold Brecqhou. She transferred the vote from the La Moinerie de Haut Tenement. Since at the time, votes in Chief Pleas were regulated by the 1922 Reform Law (which for the first time introduced 12 Deputies) this transfer was arguably not legal – i.e. that it would have required the consent of Chief Pleas, and the Crown, which it did not have. In any event, before 1929, Breqchou was certainly not a Tenement of Sark; this is not disputed and is well documented. If it was not a Tenement of Sark, how was it a part of the Fief of Sark then? Was it a part of Seigneurial demesne lands, or was it a possession of the Seigneurs of Sark separate from the Fief of Sark? The answer is disputed, but there is evidence that it was the latter. For one, different laws have applied on Brecqhou for yonks (e.g. you can drive cars there and fly helicopters), there are documents which show that people other than Seigneurs of Sark owned Brecqhou and paid the requisite taxes directly to the Crown for much of the Fief of Sark’s post-1565 history. Also, Brecqhou is not mentioned anywhere in the Letters Patent granting the Fief or Sark, which refers to an island (singular) of Sark only. You can read more in Peter Rivett’s books.
Therefore, to request different treatment for Brecqhou may be bold but is not beyond the pale.
I do not want to knock the Seigneur as – unlike in the case of some of our elected politicians – I have no direct knowledge of any reason to. However, it is simply wrong to say that he is unable to have a private meeting with the Barclays. He is, for one, able to do so in his capacity as a private individual. Secondly, he is entitled to do so in his capacity as Seigneur. Thirdly, there is ample documentary evidence that both the Seigneur and the Seneschal have held official meetings – at which many important things were agreed and decisions made – in secret, without the knowledge of, and behind the backs of, both the Chief Pleas and the GP&A. In addition, the Seigneur has the right to bring motions and propositions to Chief Pleas, to file Chief Pleas papers and to speak at Chief Pleas (all unlike the rest of us plebs). Were he to do so, what he says usually carries a lot of weight. He exercises all these rights (except perhaps to file propositions; but he certainly does file papers, often indeed with a special dispensation to do so after the deadline which everyone else has to respect has passed). The reason he did not agree to a meeting is because he did not want to. He is perfectly entitled to do that. Just let’s be clear what went on.
Report abuse
Sorry I typed that comment twice because my browser had crashed; hopefully the moderator will have deleted the first copy, and the second copy was generally more complete, but missed one relevant note: the draft of the reform law with constituencies also proposed to reform the Seneschal’s role.
Report abuse
A correction: my statement about Little Sark was not accurate. It is true that if all the voters from Little Sark voted for one candidate, they would not be able to elect him/her. Of course, people from Little Sark and Big Sark know each other, so it is possible for a person from Little Sark to get elected with support of voters from Big Sark. But there is no interaction between people who live on Sark and people who live on Brecqhou. I can name only one person on Sark who is even likely to know who lives on Brecqhou (and that is Kevin Delaney). It is theoretically impossible for a Brecqhou candidate to get elected to Chief Pleas – assuming anyone from Brecqhou would even participate in such elections, which the Barclays’ past non-taking up of their Brecqhou “Tenant” seat in Chief Pleas, possibly to do with factors described in my previous post, would indicate they might not.
Report abuse
A Resident – I’m confused.
Are you suggesting that the residents of Brecqhou – whoever they may be by name or in number – want to have a say in the democratic process on Sark but they are NOT prepared to join the electoral role?
Are they suggesting that their wealth alone is an automatic qualification to vote or to influence politics in Sark? What sort of democracy is that?
Sounds like a return to Sark politics as it used to be – feudal style – where wealthy landowners had the majority vote in Chief Pleas?
Report abuse
Furthermore, A Resident; are you suggesting that the BB would NOT invest in Sark if Brecqhou was NOT part of Sark?
Please explain how they hope to increase or protect their own wealth by investing in Sark?
Perhaps they are simply feeling benevolent or charitable?
Are they investing in Sark for profit, or pleasure or pain?
Report abuse
I agree Sarkdog.
as for being charitable, and benevolent- well only one name comes to mind-
SOLOMAN,
Report abuse
To respond to A Resident on representation.
If the Barclays want to have someone they approve of in Chief Pleas, and someone (subject to all the proper declarations of interest) to make sure that their point of view is directly articulated, then they can do what anyone else does – sponsor a candidate or candidates and campaign. within the electoral rules, for their election.
Thats the way it works in a representative democracy.
However while the principle of what I am saying is sound, I can see that local conditions in Sark may be obscuring this point as:-
You are in a transition from Feudalism as the formal system and old ways of doing things are bound to persist. (Also, although in a representative democracy each voter is formally equal there is always a tendency for holders of wealth and property to wield extra influence, and one of the dilemmas of a democracy is how to manage this)
Moreover you do not have a formal party system which for all its terrible faults does provide a way of managing these issues. People dont just vote in a party system they have an option of donating money and/or time to the party of their choice and thereby acquire an influence over policy making that the ordinary non part voter – like me – does not have.
In short, as an outsider I can see that Sark is different, and that the processes at work, in say Islington Borough Council cant be just copied across to Sark. But equally as an outsider I dont know HOW or in what sense Sark is different exactly.
Report abuse
why does this only happen in uk/channel islands someone moves to somewhere they like the look of then do as much as they can to change it try it in others places and they will tell you the way to the airport or harbour when in Roam anwhat was it mr powel said ? just seems local people are getting over run by money an politacal correct ness . yes i do have family from sark and most of them are not happy whats happening but money talks its wrecked sark and guernsey an the mainland.
Report abuse
@Sarkdog: I’m sorry to hear you are confused. Re. whether I am saying any of the things you are asking about, I confirm that no, I have not said any of them.
@David Barry: If Scotland were ruled over by Westminster but did not have any constituency MPs of their own, would it be satisfactory to tell them that if they wanted to have representation at Westminster, they should sponsor an English MP and get him elected because that’s how a representative democracy works? What if Scotland then disputed Westminster’s jurisdiction and offered to concede such jurisdiction only if the were allowed to elect constituency MPs of their own? Would such a stance on their part be totally unreasonable?
Would it be totally beyond the pale for them to request one Cabinet minister of their own, say a Minister for Scottish Affairs, considering there are far fewer of them than the English and that they would therefore be unlikely ever alone able to secure the appointment of even a single cabinet minister otherwise?
I agree with you that the request to have representation at GP&A is not the best conceived of their proposals. SEM, or the Barclays personally choosing such a representative at GP&A would be a no-no in my view.
But for the (residents of the) Island of Brecqhou to have such a right is not, in my view, a totally ridiculous idea (although – in practice – this may in effect not be very different from the Barclays having such a right). For Brecqhou to be treated as a separate constituency electing its own Conseillers with the number proportional to their population likewise. One GP&A representative for Brecqhou is a bit disproportionate given their (I suspect) tiny population, so I think that proposal is still a bit bold. I’m not saying we must do any of this, I just don’t think these ideas are so ridiculous they should be derided or taken off the table. Particularly if this would help bring the dispute to an end. Brecqhou and Sark are very different and totally separate communities and like I said there are the open questions over whether Brecqhou was really ever a part of the Fief of Sark or not, so there are some legitimate reasons for making it a separate constituency. There are also good reasons why some laws should be different there (which is why there are currently a number of such laws). For example, Sark Shipping does not operate a route to Brecqhou, so it would be unreasonable for its shipping monopoly between ports in Guernsey and ports in Sark to extend to Breqchou. Similarly, Sark does not provide any infrastructure services (e.g. garbage disposal) to Brecqhou so it would be unreasonable for them to be included in the ambit of the Department of Public Works tax. Etc.
Report abuse
Happy to continue a debate A Resident:_
It seems to me that the core of your concern is another problem with representative democracy – the protection of the interests of minorities -( otherwise called avoiding “The tyranny of the majority” )
By the way , I am not sure that the legal status of Brecqhou, on which I cannot comment is really relevant in the sense that either:-
1. Brecqhou is not part of Sark in which case the issue would not arise
OR
2. Brecqhou is part of Sark which it certainly was regarded as for about 70 years with the Tenant of Brecqhou sitting in Chief Pleas, in which case the residents have formally the same voting rights as anyone else and everyone is voting in a single constituency. I live in the UK parliamentary constituency of Islington North which is Labour controlled. Its a safe Labour seat in fact. However my bit of the Constituency, Hillrise Ward is Liberal Democrat controlled. Does that mean Hillrise ward could complain that it is unrepresented. In the same way Brecqhou is just part of the constituency of Sark…
And yet, as its a safe seat there is a sense in which non Labour voters are disenfranchised…. This is another example of the problem of minorities…
Report abuse
@David Barry: Sorry I don’t follow your logic which seems to be (to use it in its contrapositive form) … the issue has arisen therefore Brecqhou is a part of Sark therefore Brecqhou is just a part of the constituency of Sark therefore it should not complain. This non-sequitur is in fact the Party Line … and it is of course a non-sequitur … for many reasons … for example the issue has arisen yet Brecqhou is by no means clearly a part of the Fief of Sark. The matter is disputed, and the arguments on the side of the position that it is not are real and serious.
Strange for “truly an outsider” who is a real impartial observer to himself “discover” the exact same non-sequitur as is the Party Line, hmm …
Report abuse
A Resident
I feel this needs to be said. You started off on this thread managing quite well. Some valid points covered.
You then went off on a tangent & have done little other than giving the impression you are the type of person who likes the sound of his own voice. Typically being very dull to boot.
I suggest you reread what you have written. With each post you prove to the reader you understand very little in the hope the readers are beneath you.
You wish to give the impression you are more intellectual than you actually are.
I think many others will agree with me too.
Well done for tying yourself up in knots though. You win first prize for baffling yourself.
Very foolish IMO!
Report abuse
To respond to A resident on the issue of Brecqhou’s status.
I am neither qualified or sufficiently informed to say whether or not Brecqhou is part of Sark for governance purpose. I was merely making the point that I can only see two options:-
1.Brecqhou is not part of Sark. If that is accepted then Chief Pleas do not legislate for Sark, and residents of Brecqhou would not be entitled to be on a Sark electoral register. It remains only for this to be established and the current argument is at an end.
2. If Brecqhou is part of Sark then it is possible to argue whether or not it is properly represented in Chief Pleas. In the same way it could be discussed whether Little Sark is properly represented.
It is interesting, tho’ a trifle depressing that it would seem that by virtue of disagreeing with you I am, it would appears, now being accused in dark tones of following a “party line” For the record I have signed on under my real name, not under the cloak of a pen name.
I do not claim to be impartial. I do live in London – a fact, not a claim, and I have been careful to point out that this makes me less informed about detail than anyone on Sark. But sometimes an outside view can help with perspective. But to be impartial? That would be a large claim indeed.
Report abuse
David Barry
The points raised by A Resident are pretty much neither here nor there.
There is a passage of water between Brecqhou & Sark. Regardless, the Barclay’s own a substantial amount of property on the island. This should, in a fair democratic process, allow them to enjoy the same rights as Sarkees. Whoever they might be?
Acceptance is the only issue that needs to be resolved now.
Less legislation & more warm & friendly getting to know each other chats are the order of the day now.
Report abuse
I think Paul that your last posting concludes this discussion.
Best wishes
Report abuse