First peace move ‘must come from Brecqhou’
Thursday 20th January 2011, 2:29PM GMT.
CHIEF PLEAS went on the offensive yesterday as conseillers voiced their thoughts following the publication of correspondence between Sir David Barclay and the Seigneur, Michael Beaumont.
Details of letters that passed between the two last year were published in a recent issue of the Sark Newsletter, a publication edited by Kevin Delaney, the manager of Sark Estate Management. In response, the Seigneur asked that they be circulated to members of Chief Pleas, via the General Purposes and Advisory Committee, for discussion at yesterday’s meeting.
In their explanatory note, the committee said: ‘While seeming to hold out the hand of friendship, the campaign of harassment and litigation has continued unabated. The committee would agree with the Seigneur that if relations are to be improved then the first step must be the reform of the Sark Newsletter and the adoption of a more civilised, less belligerent approach.’
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. See below for subscription details.
- 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
Which part of ‘you can’t tell the press what to write’ is unclear to the GPA Ctte?
A frequently nasty press is part of any functioning democracy….oh, I see the problem…..
Report abuse
I cannot see why the Island does not publish there “Not the Sark Newsletter”. KD is the only person i know that receives it.
Report abuse
I wish the Barclays would get more involved in Guernsey politics :-)
Report abuse
The infected carcasses SNL has been trying to lob over onto Sark dont seem to be clearing the channel between the Islands recently. The boiling oil up on the ramparts didnt work either as the Seigneur wisely was not willing to come and ring the front door bell.Perhaps if they build a large wooden badger and roll it up the gates of the Seigneors house he might bring it in out of curiosity..
Report abuse
Can a resident of Sark confirm it it is true that the letters were first published in the SNL? That is what the above article seems to suggest.
Report abuse
Flying Scot… “A frequently nasty press is part of any functioning democracy”, says who precisely? Possibly in Scotland?
The 600 residents of Sark don’t need this sort of constant diatribe of mainly old news.
Surely SEM must realise that Sark doesn’t buy into this free, vitriolic rubbish forced through our mailboxes each week?
Report abuse
The letters where first published on the Sark gov web site then a week later by the sark news letter (mr delaneys propaganda leaflet). Not as suggested above.
anon.
Report abuse
@Sark Attack Dogs – I have read some of these – in my view the useful exposure of potential short comings in the governance of Sark are undermined by the rather hysterical tone – but the point remains ‘telling the press what to write’ has NO role in a democracy.
Report abuse
Yes ANON -first published by GP&A then later on in the SNL. GP&A put them in the public domain first.
Freedom of the press is an essential right of us all whether it be a press we agree or disagree with. Surely it is sensible to read everything available on any given subject then form one’s own opinion. The day that the press in any form is silenced would mean that one is living in a dictatorship. To threaten to silence any form of the press is, for me, the beginning of the end of life as I know it.
For a responsible parliament or group to demand such silence, in any form, of the press as a bargaining weapon shows how irresponible they are and that they should not wield such power.
It is reprehensible and shows a lack of caring for those they are answerable to.
Do they think that the ‘underclass’ are not able to form their own opinions and should be kept safe from differing opinions. Sad day for any, especially on Sark where we were always able to have differing views and opinions but still live together in harmony and enjoy healthy debate. Those days seem sadly to have gone.
Divide & rule is working well on Sark.
Report abuse
Sark Attack Dogs
“The 600 residents of Sark don’t need this sort of constant diatribe of mainly old news.
Surely SEM must realise that Sark doesn’t buy into this free, vitriolic rubbish forced through our mailboxes each week?”
This is not forced through our mailboxes each week, like any paper if you don`t want it say so & if 600 residents do that then there would be no point in writing it
problem solved
or do some residents want to read it?
Report abuse
Jay – I don’t think that anyone is saying that the SNL should be suppressed.
My objection is that a newsletter with little following or mandate is given a mouthpiece via the GP.
Anyone would think that the alternative to the current elected Chief Please is to throw ones support wholeheartedly behind SEM and the Barclays. Surely there are reasonable people who want what is best for Sark, rather than adopting either a pro-Barclays or anti-Barclays position? They are only 2 people!
Report abuse
If no one reads the SNL then what is all of the furore about and the ultimatum that until the SNL stops its comments and views, communications with the Barclays are at a standsill. Freedom of the press is ultimate.
If the SNL has so little following then what is the problem? Let them say what they like and it is up to us all to decide whether to read it or not.
Whether or not it is given an airing by the GP is also not really an issue as it is published on line as well as delivered so anyone who wants to read it, and a lot of people seem to, then it is in the public forum anyway.
My objection is to using any publication as a weapon/excuse for not trying to get the Barclays on board rather then in a seperate camp.
As for the issue raised earlier during the week and the suggestion that maybe a member of the SEM group sit in on a relevant committee thus giving them a small voice that can be ignored, is a valid one.
Many Sark committees have non-C.P’s co-opted members sitting in on their meetings (the Minutes of which are not published).
Persons on Sark are co-opted onto committees, presumably as their advice, input would be of assistance to those particular committees.
As the Barclays have so many employees working/living on island but maybe not with an entitlement to vote necessarily, then someone from the organisation on hand to look at new legislation that may affect their employees, future building plans, investment etc. would be useful. They would not have any powers – just be able to give an insight into their particular problems/views.
Report abuse
Who are the barclays anyway ? there just a couple of guys who own land on Sark and elsewhere in the world. big deal!
anon
Report abuse
Well, the thing with freedom of speech is it cuts both ways, it’s no good likeining someone to the Taliban and then complaining when you are likened to Hitler. And the thing with Democracy is it’s, well, deomocratic. It’s no good pressing for democracy and then trying to change the rules when the vote doesn’t go your way…
Report abuse
The freedom of the legitimate press is not in doubt. The SNL makes some valid points but the writing style is so personally abusive, abrasive, juvenile, destructive and vitriolic, that it has ceased to be taken seriously as a credible journal of local political comment.
It would be far more believable and acceptable if it were written in a positive, polite, helpful and constructive way.
Jay – people are co-opted on to CP committees because they have some specific and useful expertise to contribute.
No one should be able to ‘buy’ their way on to a committee in a democracy.
Report abuse
It is rumoured that the associate editor in chief designate of SNL briefly attended the same school of creative writing and media studies as Chairman Mao, Robert Mugabe, Nicolae Ceauşescu and Robert Maxwell?
I suspect the editor left the course early, possibly after morning coffee, and missed the tutorial about engaging the reader with warmth, honesty, irony and subtle humour.
Apart from that it’s a stonking good read, rather like the Beano with no jokes or cartoons but lovely use of circles and arrows.
I excitedly await the next copy after it rolls off the presses at tax avoidance towers and thumps on to my door mat. A great use of 36p.
Report abuse
Sark attack dog – would you define ‘legitimate’ press please?
That would be a press authorised by chief pleas/seigneur/Maitland?
Or one that none of you object to?
True colours emerge indeed
Report abuse
Eric – ‘legitimate’ press. One that represents no bias and respects the intelligence of the reader by presenting the facts and the truth, not the convenient spin of some paranoid minority.
The ‘Alliance party’ could equally be accused of the same by some quarters.
The electorate of Sark only want the truth and the facts in plain English, with no bias and no spin. Oh, and no personal character assasinations because committees are elected groups of people and not just individuals.
They are all going their best and giving their time freely in the name of the community.
Report abuse
Sark attack dog – that doesn’t wash I’m afraid. Unbiased? Like the Daily Mail or the Guardian?
Most read a newspaper that suits their natural bias and avoid those that don’t.
The opposition to SNL is that it says some uncomfortable things and the sark cabal can’t bear what they can’t control
Report abuse
Eric how much do they pay you.
Report abuse
Anon, if you mean the Barclay family or SEM, the answers nothing. Just an interested observer is all.
You on the other hand are part of the chief pleas bunker mob – if you’re not for us you’re against us.
Difficult questions? Must be from SEM
Do try to see yourselves as others do
Report abuse
One thing I don’t get is why the Sark conseillers are so called? Guernseys were a select number of ‘super deputies’ with a different brief from the representational deputies.
Sark used to have deputies, to represent electors, as distinct from the tenants.
Surely it would have been better to have had members of Chief Pleas unless the intention was for ethe ‘conseillers’ to be seen as having elevated status proportional to the tenants they replaced.
Is that why there’s no debate any more? Because the wise men and women of chief pleas just know what’s best rather than representing public opinion?
Like in land reform
Report abuse
Eric – I’d like to see your pay slip.
The only bunkers in Sark are in the twilight zone of a nearby dependency. Only their agent provocateurs are paid to operate in daylight.
SNL should have another sub-heading saying, “we don’t spoil a good story with the inconvenient truth”.
Report abuse
Sark Attack Dogs-
Your valid augment seem to have diminished significantly over the past few days.
You start out by stating that the presence of a free press in a democracy is not at question. Yet you go one to argue about the way in which it is written. I agree that the SNL can sometimes go a bit to far, like any national newspaper in the UK. However part of a free press is being able to report stories and information in the way the editor see best too, is it not?
The insinuation of ‘ANON’ that ‘Eric’ is being paid by SEM to express their fews seems to me that your arguments are now wearing a bit thin and you have resulted to the policy of ‘if your not with us your against us’. It is this policy that has seen little progress be made on what is and i hope remains to be a wonderful island.
Report abuse
Simon – spot on.
What was it Nick Clegg said in his speech on civil liberties earlier this month?
‘We will be publishing a draft defamation bill in the Spring. We intend to provide a new statutory defence for those speaking out in the public interest, whether they be big broadcasters or the humble blogger. And we intend to clarify the law around the existing defences of fair comment, and justification.’
Let’s just have Sark’s definition of ‘legitimate press’ again, shall we?
Report abuse
Well said Simon.
Report abuse
Simon – that’s all fine and dandy. The freedom of the press is not in doubt, and thankfully it is still possible to challenge the style and content of the press without being vilified or shot.
SNL will, no doubt, continue to publish it’s own interpretaion of Sark politics which it is entitled to do.
The editor-in-chief designate, his legal poodle and the owners may eventually come to realise that it’s current tone will continue to deny potentially good candidates a seat in CP. Furthermore it will stifle fair and open debate for fear of intimidation and repercussions against inviduals, their homes and businesses. This is really what last week’s 80 minute debate was all about and this is the real sadness.
SNL will not divide and conquer Sark.
Report abuse
Sark Attack Dogs-
I am glad to see that you agree that SNL should not be prevented in reporting sark news in the way it wishes to. For this reason why should the SNL have to be changed in oder for any talks between Chief Pleas and Brecqhou to take place?
I am also confused at how the SNL “is preventing potentially good candidates” from gaining a seat on Chief Pleas. Surly the support of the SNL does not change a candidates suitability? In the same way that by not being supported by the SNL does not make a candidate ideally suited for a position with CP.
Report abuse
Simon, unfortunately anyone seen to be associated with SEM or approved by SNL are tainted irrespective of their actual ability and their true potential to make a positive contrubtion to CP and Sark.
Tony LeLievre is one such candidate, and Fiona Bird – your mother (?) – is another.
Until the tone and content of SNL becomes less confrontational and more conciliatory these potentially good candidiadtes will continue to be side lined as tainted goods.
CP would be better for having such candidates but they are denied the opportunity by the SEM propaganda machine.
Democracy might be a new participation sport on Sark but the electorate are not daft or stupid. SNL should give peace a chance.
Report abuse
Sark Attack Dogs- Yes your are right that the electorate of sark are not daft or stupid. It is for this reason that i would strongly disagree with anyone who say that the SNL dictates the way in which voters will vote. It provides a source of information into the ongoings of Cheif Pleas and it members on matters to do with the running of the island.
You also fail to state why, in your opinion, simple association SNL or SEM will prevent a candidates such as Tony and Fiona, yes my mother, from being elected to Cheif Pleas. How are they “tainted” by this association? How will changing the SNL suddenly make these candidates suitable to vote for?
Report abuse
Sark attack dogs – isn’t the ‘inconvenient truth’ what SNL publishes? I haven’t seen anything in there that’s actually wrong. Embarrassing, certainly. Wrong, no.
But it does contradict the rose coloured specs view of a certain few
Report abuse
I am simply reminded that propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive themselves.
Report abuse
Simon Bird glad to see that someone else has the courage to use their full name.
Your Mother showed the biggest percentage rise of any candidate (20.0%) in the election just gone compared to 2008. This despite being associated with S.E.M.
The electorate is not stupid and votes for those candidates will do the their best for the Island.
Report abuse
Tony- Thank you for your comment, what is the point of expressing your views if no one knows who the came from?
I am aware of my mothers percentage increase. It is for that reason I asked why ‘Sark attack Dogs’, felt that a possible reason why my mother, among others did not get elected was because of their association with S.E.M. I interpreted it as that they felt that there are some voters that will not vote for certain candidates purely as a statement against S.E.M and not on the biases of the candidates manifestos.
It is this attitudes, in my opinion, that is hampering any progress being made and allowing sark to move forward.
I will add that it does not matter why people vote they way they do. In a democracy everyone has the right to vote and in the way the wish to. Thats the beauty of it.
Report abuse
Unless I have the voting figures wrong, between the two Sark elections in 2008 to 2010, Fiona Bird’s vote went up from 90 to 152. I make that an increase of 68.9%.
Simon, good luck with your engineering finals, but may I suggest you spend a little more time revising the maths.
Report abuse
Thanks Arthur, will make sure i have another look over.
Report abuse
To be fair, I think it is true that the *Sark News* had a large degree of responsibility for how the election went in 2008. When it told the people how to vote, I think many decided to vote precisely the opposite way as a sign of protest. How else do you explain the performance of e.g. Charles Maitland who was a virtual unknown on the Island at the time? I don’t think this was the most rational reaction on the part of the electorate (my own reaction in such a situation is to stick to my choices and not to be swayed either way by an apparent order from anyone on how to vote), but it is an understandable one, and one that should have been expected.
Now it is true that the Sark Newsletter is not the Sark News (and is much less abrasive than the former), but it is seen in some ways as a successor publication.
I do think the tone of the Sark Newsletter does often assist its critics and allows them to deflect attention and debate, to their advantage, from its content to its tone. Its message (content) can be lost on many people for that reason. That is not to say that if its tone changed, its critics wouldn’t find some other excuse, but it would make it a little bit harder for them. And, it is also genuinely not unreasonable for people to be less sympathetic of those who are more abrasive.
By playing into the cabal’s hands in portraying themselves as victims of vicious attacks and by providing itself as a willing bogeyman, the Sark Newsletter does, in my view, often help the cabal and by fostering their public support in this way hurts the support of reasonable candidates.
I would prefer it if it kept its informational content (often good and indeed very inconvenient to the cabal) but changed its tone to be more tactful / diplomatic and any remaining barbs to be more subtle. I think if it were, it would be more effective. There is a lot to be said for sticking to the moral high ground and remaining a gentleman, even when your opposition does not.
I also don’t always agree with the choice of people it picks to whack on the head (Tony Ventress being one such example), although more often, I do.
Having said that, its tone and style – and indeed, content – are a personal choice for its editor. If he wants to write it that way, he is entitled to do so and it is not for the Chief Pleas to interfere with his freedom of speech.
I think the increase of Fiona’s vote is perhaps more a reflection of the fact that in the long run, substance tends to win over form (and content over does over tone) rather than of the tone of the Sark Newsletter being optimal.
Report abuse
A very reasoned and well thought out post. My sentiments also.
Report abuse
Arthur Rolfe the method I used to calculate the percentage vote of the various candidates between the 2008 & 2010 elections was to percentage of the vote cast for the candidate against the valid number of papers each election and deducted the percentage of 2008 from the percentage in 2010. The number of valid papers in 2008 was 410 and 360 in 2010.
A. Ventress (2010) 201 votes 49% (2010) 192 votes 53.3% Diff +4.3%
F. Bird 90 22% 152 42% +20%
Hope this is clear!
Report abuse
Your methodology is clear Tony for calculating the change in percentage share of the vote but not for ‘percentage rise’ as mentioned in your earlier comment.
As an example, the UK has just had a change in the VAT rate of 2.5% from 17.5% to 20%. This represents a percentage rise of 14% in the VAT rate.
Fiona’s result of a 68.9% percentage rise in her vote is an even more remarkable personal achievement when you consider that there were 12.2% fewer people turning out to vote.
Report abuse