I’ll step down if Barclays own too much of Sark, says the Seigneur
Monday 14th February 2011, 11:30AM GMT.
SARK Seigneur Michael Beaumont has said he will resign if Chief Pleas is in a position where it can no longer work democratically.
Speaking on Saturday, he said if such exceptional circumstances occurred he would hand the island back to the Crown.
Mr Beaumont (pictured) said around 30% of Sark was owned by Sir David and Frederick Barclay, and if that reached 60 or 70% he might resign.
‘We are not there yet and I hope we never get there.’
- 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
I think you will find the brothers plan to buy a lot more and when its a name the price people will sell.
Report abuse
I find this hilarious – the Seigneur sticking up for democracy!!
This looks to be more a case of his nose being put out of joint by the Barclays’ money and the power that it may bring.
I don’t recall him shouting for democracy when he was trousering small fortunes from property transactions. A tad on the hypocritical side methinks!!
Report abuse
THE SOONER HE GOES THE BETTER!
WAISTED YEARS BY A FEUDAL LORD, WHO WISHES US TO BELIEVE HE IS THE VICTIM. HE IS THE ARCHITECT OF HIS OWN FAILURE TO BRING DEMOCRACY TO THE ISLAND OF SARK.
Report abuse
I think the Gu Press article will get minds churning over in respect of the petulance of Mr Beaumont whose democratic principles have been exposed as presiding over proceedings from the elevated carved wooden throne flanked
by his appointees and loyal followers.
In spite of all the knowledge accumulated over my years on Sark I am still reading the revelations in amazement
at the sheer arrogance of the autocrat who is Michael Beaumont. I am appalled at the prospect of continuing to pay
for the privilege of being cheated following his effective breach of contract and to add insult to injury he continues to
duck, dive and manipulate when exposed by the free press. His whinging and pleas for U.K. government and taxpayers
support is illustrative of his character and if it takes the purchase of more property to rid us of this torment then lets get
on with it on the condition that he goes and takes his ill gotten gains back to the U.K. where at least he will be subject
to taxation which will be some recompense to the hapless population to whom he has directed his begging bowl.
Sorry but as you will gather my sympathy is wearing thin for our feudal lord.
Report abuse
What I don`t understand is what he means by handing the island back to the Crown. Is Sark not under the Queen`s juridiction then?
Report abuse
He is very bitter now I see.
Good.
The majority are starting to wake up to his delusional self serving ways.
About time too!
What good has he ever done for islanders is what I would like to know?
The sooner he leaves the sooner the island will be able to progress forward without hindrance.
He has stifled many areas of island life to protect what he has come to enjoy & wishes to protect.
When revelations are made, if people have the sense to question his past conduct that is, many will see him for what he is.
His personal wealth needs careful scrutiny. With this latest revelation it would be wise for people to do it sooner rather than later.
Report abuse
Good question @slep. Perhaps someone will give us the answer? Meanwhile, how about handing the Barclays back to the ‘crown’?
Report abuse
I think the Sark Newsletter said it all last week on the front page:
37 WASTED YEARS
During the 37 years of Mr Michael Beaumont’s rule, many families have been driven off the island of Sark through a lack of work and a lack of prospects for the future. Others have been driven off after falling foul of the feudal system.
New arrivals came to fill the gaps in the population; some from neighbouring islands and others from far away places like South Africa, Canada and Poland. Led by Mr & Mrs Beaumont, many of these new arrivals have taken full advantage of Sark’s off-shore status by their prolific participation in the Sark Lark. Some of them left again after the Sark Lark in its original form was closed down by off-island authorities. For a fee, these people all signed on as directors of thousands of obscure off-shore companies in numerous disreputable jurisdictions across the globe. This financial “cottage industry” generated no income for anyone other than the participants themselves. Paying no tax, they were allowed to prosper whilst the island’s economy and infrastructure went into decline from the lack of enterprise, direction and investment.
If you walk with kings, the Lt Governor or HM the Queen’s private secretary the Rt Hon Christopher Geidt, as the Seigneur no doubt did during their visit this week, you should not lose the common touch. Mr Michael Beaumont never understood that leadership is about having vision and ambition that takes into account the aspirations of ordinary people, their need to have a job, put food on the table and educate their families. Leadership means to unite the people for the common good. Leadership is not about creating division and a culture where malice thrives and bullying and intimidation is commonly used by the feudal system of unaccountable committees against those who will not toe the party line. Sadly, these strategies, worthy of a totalitarian dictatorship, are the hallmark of Michael Beaumont and the last 450 years of unchallenged feudal rulers of Sark.
Mr Beaumont has chosen to ignore the island’s prosperity and future. Sadly, he never understood that by an accident of birth he inherited a unique and privileged position from which he could have done a lot of good. Sadly, he has instead fought to maintain his feudal power to his own benefit and the exclusion of all others.
Thanks to the power of a free press in the form of the Sark Newsletter, Sark’s Seigneur has been exposed for what he is: Aloof and removed from the realities of the real world, he is an autocratic, self-serving feudal ruler who endlessly enjoys his power whilst presiding over a questionable system of government.
Report abuse
As a casual observer from Guernsey I have to say Claire that yours is a very impressive post. It really does resonate with me and persuades me that there is no place for the Seigneur and his brand of feudalism in the 21st century.
The last time I was in Sark was a couple of years ago and it seemed to me then that the Barclays’ economic input, although painful for some, had begun to breathe some much needed new life into a tired and jaded island.
Also an excellent critique of the Sark Lark.
Report abuse
This is hilarious!
So the Sark Newsletter is the “free press” is it?
The Barclays are going to be good for Sark are they?
When the Barclays own Sark you’ll have two fuedal leaders whose henchmen will make the present incumbents look like the Vienna Boys choir.
Enjoy!
Report abuse
Gilthead, this is about how the Seigneur’s feudal power combined with his self-interest and lack of leadership has been, is and will continue to choke Sark. It is not, as far as I can see, about putting anybody else on his feudal pedestal.
Report abuse
Claire
Thats an interesting post, would love to hear your take on Guernsey?
Report abuse
As a Guern I appreciate that my comments are those of an outsider and it is up to the people of Sark to deal with these issues.
Nevertheless as a regular visitor I do love that island dearly and feel sorry for the Sarkees that these external pressures have arisen.
Firstly, just picking up on Claire’s extract from the Sark Newsletter criticising the old “Sark Lark”. Is it just me or is it a little ironic for the Barclay brothers to criticise this (now obsolete) tax con? Why do you think they bought their own Channel Island for goodness sakes? Certainly not so they could pay more tax.
Secondly, (regardless of the debate about the merits or flaws of feudalism) I share the Seigneur’s concerns that the Barclay family now own 30% of the Island. I find that quite horrifying.
OK, so they have invested money in hotels and businesses and jobs – all very noble – but I am sure they are not doing so because they care deeply about the people of Sark. They are ‘money men’ and I cannot help but suspect that they have a bigger game plan to commercialise that beautiful Island.
If they continue to buy up the Island – and they have more than enough money to own every single property – who is to stop them eventually turning the place into a hideous up-market tourist resort?
There is little doubt in my mind that, if they are not challenged, dear scruffy old Sark will soon be covered in golf courses, infinity pools helipads and manicured lawns.
Sark’s biggest and most valuable asset is the fact that it has remained more or less unchanged for centuries. It is the very fact that it is a genuine, slightly shabby, incredibly beautiful living community that makes it so appealing. Sell that and you have lost everything.
Report abuse
But CD, even the living community on dear, scruffy old Sark needs something to live from. Occasional day trippers from Guernsey is not enough to keep an economy going.
And occasional day trippers from Guernsey go back to their democratic island at the end of the day. Where the living community is led by an elected representative as opposed to a feudal lord who rules the roost.
And, if your elected leader gets up to such shennanigans, you can get rid of him. Sark is not that lucky.
Report abuse
CD – brilliantly put.
Claire – I totally respect your viewpoint. However, my point is that once the Barclay’s own Sark they will simply replace one Feudal lord with another.
You say Sark is choked – from what? The rest of this miserable world? Well that’s a good thing I’d say.
As CD says if Sark is turned into some hideous Sandals type “resort” with Luxury Included TM then many many people will shed tears and hancker back to the days of the benign Feudal system.
Report abuse
I’ve said it before, but it probably needs saying again – it seems to me that it is not a case of one extreme or the other, despite being consistently depicted that way.
Surely there are reasonable people who can be elected to the Chief Pleas who hold a middle ground, neither favouring one camp over the other and just wanting what is best for Sark?
True democracy needs to take root in Sark – not the election of an old clique, nor the election of the appointees of the money men. Just normal Sarkees doing what they think best.
The Barclays will soon tire of buying up the island if the population shows that it can distinguish between politics and business, without resorting to petty tribal squabbling.
Report abuse
I tend to agree with CD on this one – I’m an outsider and how Sark is governed and by whom is up to the people of Sark. However, I do love the place the way it is and would personally be disappointed if it changed. I understand that tourism is the main industry and daytrippers will not keep the economy going, but surely the thing that is such an attraction to tourists who do return to Sark, whether for one day or a few or longer, is it’s uniqueness. And this can only be improved by the recent publicity surrounding the “dark sky island” status. If it were to just become another upmarket resort with vehicles, helecopters, streetlights and golf courses (but more difficult to get to, even with choppers, than many of the other, even more sunny, such resorts), I can’t see how this would be a good thing for the island (though as I say, not my choice to make) and it may not even improve tourism income.
One thing I would appreciate an answer to if anyone has time (and this is a genuine question, not a snide dig). Some have posted that Michael Beaumont is a feudal lord and used words like autocratic. My understanding was that Sark was now democratic and that the people did vote for who they wanted to run it, and turned out in high numbers to do so, but that the BBs/SEM’s chosen/preferred candidates were not amongst those elected. I had thought that the Seigneur was a bit like the queen (head of state but not elected sort of thing) and that the recent fracas was caused because he passed some letters between him and DB to the Cheif Pleas as they were the deomocratically elected body and therefore the people who legislatively should deal with it. Have I got my wires crossed here?
Report abuse
I TOTALLY agree with the above comments by CD and Gilthead. My family the Carre’s, Henry, Great Uncle Phillipe, my grandfather Ernest Douglas Carre’ and my father Jack Carre’ would turn in their graves if they knew what has now been happening on Sark over the last number of years. The Sark as we all knew it is going down the drain as I have stated over quite a while. Also very questionable is CLAIRE s identity???? May Japanese Ragwort take hold and THRIVE on the walls of that castley thing on Brechou.
Report abuse
What are the Monnaco residents plans for Sark?
Come on people, ever heard of 0-9?
Report abuse
I have posted before, pointing out I am an outsider, who lives in London.
I have two comments:-
1. The seigneur is accused of being an autocrat because he threatens to resign? Leaving office is an odd way of being an autocrat.
2. The seigneur is a tenant of the Queen, or Crown. Should he resign his tenancy then it reverts to the Crown. The, Queen, on the advice of the Government in London would then have two choices. To assign the Tenancy to someone else -another channel Island? Just as Herm was bought by Gurnsey at the end of the war, or more likely to change the law relating to Sark so that it became like, say, the isles of Scilly. With a local council, but now part of the UK with uk tax.
Report abuse
On threats to democracy:
So far the only one we have seen was the Barclays’ reaction to the first election, when they responded to their candidates not being elected by closing their businesses. They relented it would seem because the world wide publicity AND coverage in the UK was dreadful. It was understood to be an attempt to take over.
Given that track record the suggestion that in principle there could be a problem with democracy if 60 per cent of Sark owned by one landowner is overtaken by the experience of the actual problems there have already been, caused by the Barclays.
If the Seigneur, given his current powers is a threat to democracy please explain why this is so. I am really curious to know, and as an outsider am willing to accept that I could be better informed.
Report abuse
I totally agree with Margaret Le Page but I keep seeing the words “…..when the Barclays own Sark” in some of these posts and – to put it mildly – the words jar violently inside of my brain! What does ” …when the Barclays own Sark ” mean? CAN they own Sark? Is it possible for them to do so? From whom would they ‘buy’ it? Is Sark not a part of the Bailiwick which in is ‘owned’ by the people of the Baliwick? Does anyone have the knowledge to answer these questions for me?
Report abuse
p.s. I knew sark over fifty years ago – a beautiful gorgeous island with a lovely way of life. Very sad that it has changed and as far as I can tell it’s deterioration has taken place only since the Barclays arrived. What is happening to Sark is appaling. And if they and their money and supporters(if any) are to blame, cannot they be gotten rid of?
Report abuse
In answer to EXPAT80. I have been very lucky to acquire a book, written by Edith F. Carey titled The Channel Islands published 1904. Won against quite heavy bidding here in Australia at a local auction house, however I digress here but I would suggest if at all possible view at a Library. After a LOT OF DETAILED HISTORY it states on page 262 that Helier de Carteret, Seigneur of St. Ouen soon after 1558 he and his wife Margaret de Carteret (both of Jersey) Settled on Sark and made it habitable. Helier sailed for London and presented to Queen Elizabeth 1st. a chart of Sark and its’ environs, “and in consideration of the great trouble, labours, and expense the Seigneur had endured The Queen in 1565 created the island into a fief, which was to be accounted as the twentieth of a Fief Haubert, and then presented it to Hellier and his heirs in perpetuity on payment of UK40 pounds sterling and fifty shillings of annual rent on the proviso that there be forty men, at least our subjects” she also provided artillery “six belles pieces d’artillerie” plus ammunition, apparently still on one of these cannon is inscribed “Don de Sa Majeste’ la Royne Elizabeth, au Seigneur de Sercq, A.D.1572. Eventually the Le Pelley family became (originally from Guernsey) “Lords of Sark and its Dependencies” – that is to say, Little Sark, le Tas, and Brechou or as it is also called , L’Ile des Marchants until 1852 when Mr Ernest Le Pelley lost his wealth to silver mining, he was then compelled to sell it all to Mrs. T.G. Collings of Guensey, and at the time of writing this book it was passed to her grandson in 1904.
I would recommend this book to anyone interested in just about most of the history of ALL the Channel Islands to way way back. There are many beautiful paintings of places in the Islands, painted by Henry B. Wimbush.
Where this leaves the subject of Brechou is hard to say, it’s all very questionable???
Report abuse
The Barclays are no mugs. By accident or design they are basically buying a country.
Report abuse
Neil you are SO RIGHT! If, or when the Seigneur of Sark loses the right to be Seigneur the whole concept of Tenements will become redundant. Not long ago the lease of Herm was sold for 15 million UK pounds sterling. In 1993 the tenement of Brechou was sold to F. & D. Barclay for 2.3 million UK pounds sterling. Was this for the tenement or for the whole of Brechou lock stock and barrel. Is it any wonder that the Seignuer has been pressured by the Barclays’ over the last decade? There’s a lot of food for thought here and that doesn’t include their tenements on Sark, even more food for thought. Me thinks.
Report abuse
I read with disbelief the scaremongering about golf courses, infinity pools, vehicles, streetlights and other such malarkey. Have you people been to Sark and seen what the Barclays are doing with their properties? They have actually scrapped the plans for the golf course, for which the approval was obtained by the previous owner of that Tenement. Some truly dilapidated properties were redecorated to look presentable, and some hotels have been redeveloped, externally inconspicuously but internally to be of a higher standard. Delaney has expressly stated that he is conducting the developments so as to preserve the traditional look of Sark, and if anyone had doubts a few years ago, his actions have now proven his words true. Admittedly, they are going a bit overboard with their vineyards, and I don’t like some of what they’ve done to some of their buildings (e.g. having removed the charming old bar in the Bel Air), but overall, I think their developments have been positive and mesh into the traditional Sark well. Certainly a lot better than the buildings having been recently erected by members of the establishment. The New Island Hall and the new houses built on the Seigneur’s land come to mind.
But the worst environmental abuse being proposed – again, by the establishment – is the creation of tidal power plants in our waters. They will blight our seas and our coastline, cause noise and light pollution and damage our tourism.
So much for who is the vandal destroying traditional Sark and risking us losing what we’ve got.
Re. claims that the Seigneur is non-executive just like the Queen, as those people who have said such things have said themselves, they do not live on Sark. If they did, they would not be talking such nonsense. It is not actually him so much, as his appointee-for-life, the unelected Seneschal, who has powers which would have made a Roman Emperor proud.
Nevertheless, the Seigneur does have considerable – although much lesser than the Seneschal – executive powers himself. Does the Queen personally select and appoint the Speaker and all the judges of the United Kingdom? Do the police need her permission to investigate crimes? Can she speak and propose laws in Parliament? Can she veto laws passed by Parliament? Is she, and three of her appointees, the Trustee of all the United Kingdom’s public assets, does she decide how to dispose of them and is her signature required on every transaction involving the UK public assets?
Report abuse
Nice. Ask a polite and genuine question (which I pointed out was a question and not a dig) and the only response I get is rude and abusive and accusing me of talking nonsense.
Report abuse
@ A resident
The “scaremongering” regarding golf courses, street lights etc were the genuine fears of a lifelong Sark resident who I spoke to the first time I visited. Despite this person’s fear and anger they did manage to impart their views and answer my questions in a civil and uncondescending way without resorting to patronising me by answering questions with questions or accusing me of talking nonsense, despite my absolute ignorance at that time of any of the events in Sark. I agree with you that the hotels they own in Sark are nice and tasteful, I stayed in one the first time I went and it was fine. And I genuinely (no, really, genuinely) hope that you are right in saying that this is because SEM/BBs want to keep it the way it is rather than because of the current restrictions and fear of a backlash following the reaction to the golf course proposals etc.
I do not pretend to know everything about Sark’s constitution (hell I don’t know everything about the UK constitution and I live here!) hence my politely asking a question and clearly pointing out that this was a genuine question. I am not sure whether or not the current system was approved by the voters in Sark “in a round about way” through the policies of the candidates that they voted for in the recent elections or whether this was not an issue that was campaigned/discussed by any of the candidates at all – hence I cannot offer any more of an opinion on their powers. I would ask for clarification but am a bit concerned that my quest for more information in order to arrive at an informed view would just lead to me being accused of talking nonsense again.
You clearly have very strong views about unelected people having power in a democratic system and I absolutely respect this point of view. I am in saying this of course, assuming that being consistent and logical, you will disagree equally as strongly to any other unelected representative having a say in the running of your island’s affairs – including an unelected representative of SEM on the Chief Pleas – or was that nonsense too?
Report abuse
The Seigneur ought to appoint a young fresh and angry new Seigneur out of the pool of people who have the heredity to qualify as his last act and leave the Barclays to recon with a new leader who is going to outlive them both and give the Island a new direction.
Report abuse
It occurs to me that the Seigneur could hand his lease back to the Crown (he is the Crown’s tenant), but this would not affect the way Sark is governed or the constitutional status of Chief Pleas very much. He would simply end being the Crown’s tenant, and lose his rights as Seigneur.
If you think about it, if a Tenant had forfeited his Tenement for failing to meet his obligations under his lease to the Seigneur, or if he’d sold his lease back to the Seigneur, his seat would have disappeared, but the government of Sark would have continued.
The Fief of Sark was established by a Letters Patent, but the constitution of the legislature of Sark is governed by an Order in Council (the Reform (Sark) Law, 2008). The Seigneur has no power to repeal it.
There would be issues with how the constitution of Sark was applied where there was a requirement for the Seigneur to exercise his rights (such as appointing the Seneschal), but presumably such rights (as all rights of the Seigneur) would just revert to the Crown.
To hand Sark over to Guernsey would require the consent of the Chief Pleas, of the States of Guernsey and of the Crown.
Report abuse
Can anyone tell me how Mr Beaumont came to inherit Sark in his current capacity? I don’t think he was a direct descendent of the Dame. He appears nonetheless to have enjoyed a very good life and related income, until the Barclay Bros kicked him into touch.
Report abuse
Stiletto, Michael Beaumont inherited his position by being the grandson of Dame Sybil Hathaway. Sybil Hathaway did not inherit the position but bought it with the permission of the King of England at that time, from William Collings who was at that time Seigneur of Sark.
Michael Beaumont is also in the position that if he wished to do so, he could sell the position of Seigneur with the consent of Elizabeth 2nd. Just as his grandmother did. Or just hand it back to the Queen, or perhaps even choose to come under Guernseys’ wing. What ever he chooses I do hope it will be with the best interests of Sark at heart.
Just keep in mind it is the very fact that Sark (up until recently) retained its Feudal system of government that brought visitors from all over the world to the island PLUS its’ most beautiful natural assets. Do we really want to lose this GEM???
Report abuse
Stileto
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-560645/The-feudal-baron-New-laws-bring-island-Sark-21st-century.html
Report abuse
On the occasions when I have bumped into the Seigneur around the island I have found him to be a friendly and approachable person. I am surprised at the suggestion in the Guernsey Press that he would do someting so egocentric as to hand the island back to the Crown without first ascertainig the wishes of all of us who live on the island.
Margaret Thatcher sent the task force to the Falkland Islands because she rightly felt that self determination over how they should be governed was paramount.
I have no doubt that in the private conversations between the Seigneur and the Seneschal, Reg Guille, who incidentally played a distinguished role in the Falklands campaign, the question of self determination of the islanders on Sark on how we should be governed will be uppermost in their minds.
Report abuse
Arthur Rolfe – I don’t think that anyone is suggesting that Sark would come under direct rule from Westminster. What has been talked about (or threatened?) is handing back the tenancy to the Queen. The tenancy has to be held by someone, if not the current Seigneur, then a new Seigneur or the Queen – but the Chief Pleas remains in place.
Report abuse
Margaret La Page is wrong. Sybil Hathaways maiden name was Collings and she inherited the job from her father.Run the name on Wikipedia and you will see I am right.
Report abuse
The title (and office) of Seigneur is a property owned by the holder and reflects the fact, established by the letters patent, that while the Crown (currently Elisabeth the second and so forth) is the freeholder of Sark the Seigneur has a lease on the whole of Sark. So he is a Tenant of the Queen. The Terms of his lease require him to sub let the Island into forty parcels of land, excluding the land he holds directly himself – so thats 41 parcels in total.
So everyone who “owns” land in Sark is actually a lease holder with the seigneur as the person they lease from. The Seigneur can either sell his lease, subject to the consent of the leaseholder, or bequeath it. (He inherited it as the designated heir of the Dame of Sark.)
Lest this arrangement be immediately described as somehow hugely out dated, its basically the system under which huge numbers of people own flatshare in London. Almost no flats are freehold, almost all are leasehold, being leased from the Freeholder. So when you buy a flat, you buy a lease. This will include an obligation to pay ground rent to the Freeholder, and if you want to extend the lease you have to pay the freeholder to do it.
In short the Seigneur, owns the Island, but not as a freeholder. And those who lease from him have rights and obligations under Sark law.
Report abuse
Po Boy you are right re. Dame Sybil Hathaways’ lineage, I must get my facts straight in future. My apologies to Seigeur Michael Beaumont for my error.
Report abuse
Let’s be realistic here. It’s an idle threat. 28K per annum is a pretty decent living for somebody on Sark.
Where else would he earn that kind of money at his age? He is onto a good thing. It’s very little compared to what he has been use to.
All good things come to an end.
He has a very healthy nest egg built up over the years. Realistically, next to nothing has been handed back to benefit others living there.
He needs to quit the whinging. Every time he tries to put up a fight he gets diminished further.
He will end up embarrassing himself if he’s not careful. I’m sure his personal wealth would shock many!
Report abuse
Err, of course Mr Beaumont is wealthy.
He owns, having acquired it by inheritance, the Island of Sark. I dont see why his personal wealth would shock. Or surprise Of course he is entitled like anyone else not to make his wealth public. Or am I missing something?
But to respond to the points Mr Beaumont makes with personal insults hardly advances the argument, and certainly does not make me feel better informed on any points other than one.
You, “Paul” are not a pleasant person. But nonetheless, if you have a case to make, why not make it?
Report abuse
Margaret-I think the Seigneur is a good man and I miss the dignity and magic of Sark as it was too, so dont let me discourage you from continuing your posts. I have read them with interest.I consider my job to be as a sniper who fires at anyone who gets something wrong in the GP and I have to be non partisan about it. There is no manipulative intent involved in your mistake about Sybil Hathaway. You should read the book written about her life.Its sort of opinionated but does tell her story and explain the foundations of todays situation well.
Report abuse
David Barry
You make a wild claim that I’m not a pleasant person. How would you know?
You then ask me to enlighten you. Things are coming to the surface all the time. I have every confidence all will be revealed in due course.
Report abuse
“Paul”
A word of advice start checking out the Barclay Brothers’ business achievements over the years, from impoverished roots in London onwards to current day. They have for many years been living in a very Cut Throat business world.
In comparison Seigneur Michael Beaumont is a Pussy Cat and a very pleasant one at that!!
So I shall observe these changes that you forcast for Sark with GREAT interest but from afar.
Report abuse
Margaret Le Page
Do a search on how much they have done over the years for the numerous charities & good causes. The majority of which are kept hush-hush.
Their equipment is on 24/7 standby for SAR purposes.
Please feel free to enlighten me on the last time the Seigneur done anything of note that hasn’t prospered himself in the process.
Some very leading & uncomfortable questions are going to be asked of his activities that will go to show him for what he is.
For far too long he has had the luxury of manipulating processes that directly affect the future of the island & conveniently prosper himself & the few he relies upon to keep things sweet.
The island can’t afford him & don’t actually need him.
Do the taxpayers want to waste good money on what can only be described as nostalgia?
Time will tell.
Report abuse
Hi “Paul” back again I see. How much of your personal wealth do you donate to charity or to those in need in your community? Everthing in this world is RELATIVE! Here’s a bit more knowledge for you if you Google Advocate Gordon Dawes then click on Sir Frederick Barclay there’s a lot there that will interest you I’M SURE! While your on that website click into the Ebenezer Le Page Blogspot GREAT STUFF THERE!
Report abuse
I would like to announce that “The Sark Newsletter” is not at this present time available on line. Australian time 11am AEST 02/02/2011. Now I wonder why?????
Report abuse
Margaret Le Page
None of your business.
Those that advertise their good deeds taint the gesture.
Report abuse
NB: In my last post re. “The Sark Newsletter” the date should read 02/03/2011 and NOT 02/02/2011.
Report abuse
Re: My statement that “The Sark Newsletter” isn’t available ‘on line’. It is!! “B*##+r” !!!!!!!
Report abuse
you do all lighten up my afternoons. ths little chat room has become my new sitcom. I think most of you have lost your minds a little. Try keeping it to facts, use this as an educational view point, not just another SARK NEWS LETTER, to slag each other off. You’re really loosing site of what is important! WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN (basil)!
Report abuse