Isn't this whole debate about milk zoning a bit wide of the mark? Forgive me if I am wrong (I may well be, I only read the Billet yesterday!), and forgive me if I sound like a Commerce and Employment spokesman. But, as I understand it, the milkmen have never had more than 'de facto' protection of their territory. There never has been any legal provision for zoning; the wording printed on round licences until a few years ago has never conferred legal exclusivity.
So there never has been any legal reason why one retailer couldn't serve a customer in another's 'zone', and the chaos which the Guernsey Milk Retailers' Assocation tells is it won't be able to save us from has always been a possibility. As I understand it, what is being purchased when a milkman buys 'a round' is not a legally drawn-up territory, but the goodwill of the other members of the GMRA not to compete on what is mutually agreed to be their territory.
A milkman who tries to poach customers from other rounds will lose this goodwill. A milkman who obtains a licence but does not buy 'a round' will find it very difficult to get a foothold because the GMRA won't let him in. It'll be even harder after the new C&E proposals are introduced which will require retailers to buy in commercial quantities.
So it seems that implementing the Lowe/Jones amendment will mean very little additional protection for the milkmen (who are very well protected by the GMRA anyway), but it will create a whole heap of headaches for C&E (like where do they draw the boundaries at big new developments like Leale's Yard...), costing a twonk-load of taxpayer's money in administration costs to resolve fights between milkmen.
I can understand the milkmen being aggrieved that what they thought they were buying was a legal zoning, and in fact it was no such thing. The licence reprinted in the Press this week does look pretty misleading. But what they have is in fact worth just as much - in fact, it will continue to be worth exactly what the milkmen and the GMRA think it is. The only thing which can cause a collapse in round value is if the milkmen and the GMRA lose confidence in it, and they are doing their best to talk themselves in that direction!
So where is all this debate coming from? Presumably C&E have let the GMRA bandwagon career off in this direction without wasting too much time debunking it because it's a good foil to draw media and public attention away from the meat of the proposals.
But I may be completely wrong - I'm interested to know what you think!
Wednesday 25 April 2007
Monday 23 April 2007
Flybe v Michalke
Poor old Reiner Michalke. In an incident, featured in the Press last week, Flybe somehow managed to fail to get him and his family onto their flight out of Guernsey to Gatwick, after his frustration with Flybe's inane hand-baggage restrictions escalated via baggage searches, swabs of his 'explosive' eau de toilette and a comment about exposives in his boarding cards, to confrontations with special branch officers, threats of arrest, passport confiscation, interviews and denial of boarding.
It's worth reading his version of events verbatim. However, I wasn't there, so for all I know Mr Michalke might have been belligerent and obnoxious. And it seems there may be some confusion about what was actually said - in particular the airport notably omits the details of the eau de toilette swab in their precis quoted in the Press.
But whatever actually happened, the Press saves the best bit till last. These comments from Ian Taylor, Flybe General Manager, have left a jaw-shaped imprint on my coffee table:
Security policies are there to deter and prevent terrorism, but they will never be completely unbreakable. We have to make sensible trade-offs between safety, convenience, respectful treatment and civil liberties (and, as the airlines are always quick to point out, low cost). There is always a debate to be had about where the trade-offs lie, so knowing about incidents like this is clearly in the public interest.
Flybe also tells us 'there has to be a general recognition that anyone claiming to have explosives ... can expect themselves to be refused boarding'. Well, in his version at least, Mr Michalke didn't claim he had explosives. The flippant comment he did make about explosives only came after being accused (or at least believing he was being accused) of having explosives in his baggage. And remember this conversation was being conducted in his second language.
The term in Flybe's conditions which Ian Taylor is referring to is 7.1.1.13 - 'we may refuse to carry you if you have made a hoax bomb threat'. I hardly think Michalke's reported comments constituted a 'hoax bomb threat', but by that stage it seems Flybe were trigger-happy enough to leap on that excuse to chuck him off the flight anyway, whether or not they really had good enough grounds.
It's already bad enough that the aviation and security industries have turned security into security theatre, in which people like Reiner Michalke become the fall guy. We are awash with rules and regulations which seem designed just to create frustration and inconvenience for innocent travellers, and turn security staff into overbearing jobsworths.
But, for the moment, let's assume that we are stuck with all this for the time being. So if Flybe wants respect and compliance, then perhaps their staff should show a little more respect for the plight of their customers and sympathy with their concerns. And perhaps their management should show some respect for the public's ability to reason about what is and is not a sensible security measure.
On the other hand, if Ian Taylor's attitude is the best they can give, they deserve every obnoxious and belligerent passenger they get.
It's worth reading his version of events verbatim. However, I wasn't there, so for all I know Mr Michalke might have been belligerent and obnoxious. And it seems there may be some confusion about what was actually said - in particular the airport notably omits the details of the eau de toilette swab in their precis quoted in the Press.
But whatever actually happened, the Press saves the best bit till last. These comments from Ian Taylor, Flybe General Manager, have left a jaw-shaped imprint on my coffee table:
'We have absolutely no apology to make to this passenger. There has to be a general recognition that anyone claiming to have explosives on them in an airport, for whatever reason, can expect themselves to be refused boarding to a flight.The astonishing implication is that Flybe thinks it is irresponsible for the Press to report the inconvenience which can be felt by innocent, upstanding, professional people as a result of airport security measures. I think that's bull.
'I think it is irresponsible of media to highlight this kind of incident because they will only end up encouraging people to do it more often.
'It will inconvenience other passengers and could well lead to even more security than is already in place.'
Security policies are there to deter and prevent terrorism, but they will never be completely unbreakable. We have to make sensible trade-offs between safety, convenience, respectful treatment and civil liberties (and, as the airlines are always quick to point out, low cost). There is always a debate to be had about where the trade-offs lie, so knowing about incidents like this is clearly in the public interest.
Flybe also tells us 'there has to be a general recognition that anyone claiming to have explosives ... can expect themselves to be refused boarding'. Well, in his version at least, Mr Michalke didn't claim he had explosives. The flippant comment he did make about explosives only came after being accused (or at least believing he was being accused) of having explosives in his baggage. And remember this conversation was being conducted in his second language.
The term in Flybe's conditions which Ian Taylor is referring to is 7.1.1.13 - 'we may refuse to carry you if you have made a hoax bomb threat'. I hardly think Michalke's reported comments constituted a 'hoax bomb threat', but by that stage it seems Flybe were trigger-happy enough to leap on that excuse to chuck him off the flight anyway, whether or not they really had good enough grounds.
It's already bad enough that the aviation and security industries have turned security into security theatre, in which people like Reiner Michalke become the fall guy. We are awash with rules and regulations which seem designed just to create frustration and inconvenience for innocent travellers, and turn security staff into overbearing jobsworths.
But, for the moment, let's assume that we are stuck with all this for the time being. So if Flybe wants respect and compliance, then perhaps their staff should show a little more respect for the plight of their customers and sympathy with their concerns. And perhaps their management should show some respect for the public's ability to reason about what is and is not a sensible security measure.
On the other hand, if Ian Taylor's attitude is the best they can give, they deserve every obnoxious and belligerent passenger they get.
Wednesday 18 April 2007
Pupils' cars clogging Jenny Tasker's streets
I was wondering how far I would be able to get with this blog before writing an article about that great Guernsey obsession: Traffic.
Not very long it would seem...
Oh yes. The Guernsey motorist is beset on all sides by petrol tax, motor tax, preaching environmentalists, parking charges, speed humps, road closures and of course his arch-nemesis - other motorists clogging up the roads and car parks with their cars.
And there's a particular class of motorist which these whining ninnies would like to blame all their troubles on - the mum or pupil on the school run. At the start of each term, there's always a few who will crawl out of the woodwork to whinge about the space taken up on the roads by people driving to school (whereas the space they take up, 52 weeks of the year, is of course theirs by right).
To be honest, I very rarely find it in my nature to sympathise with these views, considering the monstrous amount of taxpayer's money and public resources which are poured into keeping the whole private transport show on the road. So I found Deputy Jenny Tasker's comments on Radio Guernsey yesterday, suggesting as she did on air that we might consider evicting pupils from their cars entirely, rather bizarre. I agree with most of what she says most of the time, but I think she's gone a bit over the edge on this one.
Obviously I'm not alone - the Ladies' College girls featured on Morning Report this morning put their case pretty well. Basically, if mummy and daddy gave them a car for their 17th, and the state deems them to be skilled enough in its operation, then they have just as much right to drive where and when they want as anyone else. In fact compared to the average office worker or, dare I say it, States Deputy, they've probably got a good deal more gear to cart about, so all the more cause to drive.
To their concerns, I might add these: If the alternative to pupils driving is mum doing the school run, then in many cases turfing pupils off the roads will mean replacing one journey with two. And it's hardly encouraging students to continue their sixth form education to be told that it will mean putting off the time when they can cruise around in the ultimate teen status symbol. Finally, how do you enforce it? I have hideous visions of roadside school-uniform-sensitive cameras!
At some point, the solution to our traffic problem has to mean using sticks and carrots - sticks to get people out of their cars, and carrots to get them onto buses, bikes and those spindly things that connect their hips to the ground. But it has to apply to everyone; unfairly bumping one (fairly small) group of motorists off the roads will achieve little more than delaying inevitable gridlock. So rise up, oh ye pupils from affluent multi-car families, and cast off the chains of whiny motorist oppression!
Not very long it would seem...
Oh yes. The Guernsey motorist is beset on all sides by petrol tax, motor tax, preaching environmentalists, parking charges, speed humps, road closures and of course his arch-nemesis - other motorists clogging up the roads and car parks with their cars.
And there's a particular class of motorist which these whining ninnies would like to blame all their troubles on - the mum or pupil on the school run. At the start of each term, there's always a few who will crawl out of the woodwork to whinge about the space taken up on the roads by people driving to school (whereas the space they take up, 52 weeks of the year, is of course theirs by right).
To be honest, I very rarely find it in my nature to sympathise with these views, considering the monstrous amount of taxpayer's money and public resources which are poured into keeping the whole private transport show on the road. So I found Deputy Jenny Tasker's comments on Radio Guernsey yesterday, suggesting as she did on air that we might consider evicting pupils from their cars entirely, rather bizarre. I agree with most of what she says most of the time, but I think she's gone a bit over the edge on this one.
Obviously I'm not alone - the Ladies' College girls featured on Morning Report this morning put their case pretty well. Basically, if mummy and daddy gave them a car for their 17th, and the state deems them to be skilled enough in its operation, then they have just as much right to drive where and when they want as anyone else. In fact compared to the average office worker or, dare I say it, States Deputy, they've probably got a good deal more gear to cart about, so all the more cause to drive.
To their concerns, I might add these: If the alternative to pupils driving is mum doing the school run, then in many cases turfing pupils off the roads will mean replacing one journey with two. And it's hardly encouraging students to continue their sixth form education to be told that it will mean putting off the time when they can cruise around in the ultimate teen status symbol. Finally, how do you enforce it? I have hideous visions of roadside school-uniform-sensitive cameras!
At some point, the solution to our traffic problem has to mean using sticks and carrots - sticks to get people out of their cars, and carrots to get them onto buses, bikes and those spindly things that connect their hips to the ground. But it has to apply to everyone; unfairly bumping one (fairly small) group of motorists off the roads will achieve little more than delaying inevitable gridlock. So rise up, oh ye pupils from affluent multi-car families, and cast off the chains of whiny motorist oppression!
Wednesday 11 April 2007
Art for arts' sake
"When you play music you discover a part of yourself that you never knew existed."
Bill Evans (1929 - 1980)
It's always disheartening to read another diatribe railing against funding for the arts such as this pot-shot aimed at Guernsey's new Performing Arts Centre.
As a little aside, I have a feeling I know where these moans come from. What image does the phrase 'the arts' conjure up in the imagination of the uninitiated? How about bespectacled goatee-laden twenty-something slackers musing over a Jackson Pollock? Or tails-wearing toffs at the opera tutting condescendingly in the direction of the less well-bred in the cheap seats? Or maybe grey-headed choir biddies warbling away well past their prime? Or am-dram divas exclaiming 'darling' somewhat more than is strictly necessary?
"The arts! It's all airy-fairy namby-pamby elitist twaddle!'
I doubt anyone would condemn 'music', 'dance', 'drama', 'film', 'photography', 'painting', 'sculpture', 'architecture' and 'poetry' in one breath. This phrase 'the arts' brackets disciplines which have little more in common than they they exist in a world of aesthetic ideals. With this phrase at their disposal, the naysayers are empowered to smash it all up in one go with fists of fury under the guise of egalitarianism.
Enough of that, back to the point - why fund 'the arts', or more specifically, education in performing arts? I could digress again and drivel on about the evidence for causative relationships between performing arts and improved school discipline, academic achievement, crime reduction and societal well-being. But the research is all out there anyway, the arguments have already been made.
In the aforementioned spirit of aesthetic ideals, let me offer an alternative defence. A student may spend years acting in plays or playing in school orchestras. He may detest every minute of it. But one day he may stand up and perform a Shakespearean soliliquy and find the text gets under his skin, the audience evaporates, and it his entire soul is dragged inside the play. Or, performing a Beethoven trio, he will suddenly be aware of a feeling of total unity with the other two players and of the perfection of musical structure and form unfolding at their command.
Those involved in performing arts education know what they want to achieve. It's not to solve society's ills, even if that is a handy side-benefit. They want to give every student a taste of profound and intangible truths.
Without public funding for the arts, both at the elite and grass roots levels, our children can never discover that part of themselves which they don't know exists.
Wednesday 4 April 2007
Liberation Day?
A couple of weeks ago Culture and Leisure announced that the Liberation Day 'funfair' will be scrapped. Well, huzzah for that!
Inevitably, a letter published in the Press yesterday rebukes the 'nanny culture' which is responsible for the funfair being 'banned'. I say inevitably, because the Press's slightly misleading inclusion of that word 'banned' in the headline on their original article was obviously geared to provoke this response, but that's beside the point.
The point being that 'banning' the funfair has nothing to do with 'nanny culture'. The funfair costs the taxpayer money, police time and organisational resources, plus of course it deprives the island's poor long-suffering petrol-heads of the use of a car park for a week (and how could we be allowed to forget that!) Last year's spectacle of stunningly ignominious chavvery was the end result of spending 14 years injecting these resources into a tawdry entertainment aimed at the lowest common denominator.
One can only hope that the time and money saved by ditching the funfair might be diverted to entertainments which do not result in a sea of pea-brained delinquents converging on Town, driving out anybody who doesn't like to spend their day tripping over beer cans into piles of vomit.
In any society, in any country, it's going to be difficult to play host to an all-out street piss-up without cutting families and vulnerable citizens out of the party. But Guernsey is a small place, and there isn't room for that kind of event without stomping on people's faces. So why stop at the funfair? Why is the Home Department still too weak-willed to impose some extra restrictions on where people can swig their brews?
On this face of it this goes against my libertarian instincts, but just perhaps it's because I feel the residents of St Peter Port have a right to walk around the streets without have to engage in a turf-war with drunken louts. Few would question that licensing laws exist to give the government the power to contain the anti-social consequences of alcohol - so why don't we use them where we most need them?
My prognosis for Liberation Day 2007 is better than it was two weeks ago, but even with that hideous boom-box scream-fest cut out of the equation, there is more work to be done. For the time being the irony will remain: Many Guernsey residents will still not feel the slightest bit free on Liberation Day.
Inevitably, a letter published in the Press yesterday rebukes the 'nanny culture' which is responsible for the funfair being 'banned'. I say inevitably, because the Press's slightly misleading inclusion of that word 'banned' in the headline on their original article was obviously geared to provoke this response, but that's beside the point.
The point being that 'banning' the funfair has nothing to do with 'nanny culture'. The funfair costs the taxpayer money, police time and organisational resources, plus of course it deprives the island's poor long-suffering petrol-heads of the use of a car park for a week (and how could we be allowed to forget that!) Last year's spectacle of stunningly ignominious chavvery was the end result of spending 14 years injecting these resources into a tawdry entertainment aimed at the lowest common denominator.
One can only hope that the time and money saved by ditching the funfair might be diverted to entertainments which do not result in a sea of pea-brained delinquents converging on Town, driving out anybody who doesn't like to spend their day tripping over beer cans into piles of vomit.
In any society, in any country, it's going to be difficult to play host to an all-out street piss-up without cutting families and vulnerable citizens out of the party. But Guernsey is a small place, and there isn't room for that kind of event without stomping on people's faces. So why stop at the funfair? Why is the Home Department still too weak-willed to impose some extra restrictions on where people can swig their brews?
On this face of it this goes against my libertarian instincts, but just perhaps it's because I feel the residents of St Peter Port have a right to walk around the streets without have to engage in a turf-war with drunken louts. Few would question that licensing laws exist to give the government the power to contain the anti-social consequences of alcohol - so why don't we use them where we most need them?
My prognosis for Liberation Day 2007 is better than it was two weeks ago, but even with that hideous boom-box scream-fest cut out of the equation, there is more work to be done. For the time being the irony will remain: Many Guernsey residents will still not feel the slightest bit free on Liberation Day.
About this blog
To contact us, send an e-mail to 25squaremiles@googlemail.com. All e-mail will be treated privately and in strictest confidence.
Contributing
If you are interested in contributing posts to the blog then get in touch at the address above, giving us an idea of the sort of things which really get on your goat...
Contributing
If you are interested in contributing posts to the blog then get in touch at the address above, giving us an idea of the sort of things which really get on your goat...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)