Very Boring blog

[tonytheprof]

Do atheists have confirmation? I only ask because Richard Dawkins was described in a program on Radio 4 as "the devout atheist, Richard Dawkins", which I suppose summed up his almost pious sincerity, and probably why Private Eye calls him "Richard Dawkins of the Church of Latter Day Atheists". Incidentally, he's on next week attacking faith schools on More 4, which I will probably watch. It always amazes me that someone who criticises invisible deities with no scientific testability came out with the theory of "memes"!

On apposite quotations, not as pithy as Spartacus, but just as appropriate for gossip, especially when it is bad news:

"We humans are able to tame and have tamed all other creatures---wild animals and birds, reptiles and fish. But no one has ever been able to tame the tongue. It is evil and uncontrollable, full of deadly poison."

Well, perhaps a little over the top! But do you remember the relish with which dear Senator Le Marquand said (on BBC Radio) of ACPO, "there is a scandal there"! rather than the more neutral, "there appears to have been a potential conflict of interests", which may be nearer the truth, but is not nearly such a good soundbite!

[Rob Kent]

Faith schools - one of the worst ideas ever developed and implemented by our benighted ex-leader. My taxes pay for schools that my children cannot enter. On top of that they are socially divisive and allow their students to believe that Creationism has equal value as the theory of evolution.

I had to get all my children Christened in order to get them into my best local state school. I had to lie and say I was a convert. I didn't mind doing it because I wanted the benefit of my taxes spent on my children.

Richard Dawkins has my full support on this one, and if he starts a political campaign to have them shut down, I will be a member.

Rob

[rogueelement]

The Prof,
Very good , but a shame you did not offer the same advice to an Ex -Senator . I have a sneaking suspicion that you harbor unrelinquished sympathy for the man , as do I, to a very small degree , however in the face of various proofs and actions after the events ,I find it extremely hard to reconcile the words from THE BLOG , the terrible accusations, the life destroying prose , erudite but contaminated throughout by a personal extravagance of vindictiveness ,so much so that suffering has been caused to people who only had the temerity to disagree with him.
My sympathies go to the people who have had their lives devastated by the insane ravings of St SS rather than to the man himself. He has friends and they should look after him , his entire following must bear the shame and a share of the blame for his current circumstances and if they had any balls at all would be supporting him now , they drove him on . It must have been very hard to be a messiah in the 21 st Century.

[Rob Kent]

@Spartacus, "Very good , but a shame you did not offer the same advice to an Ex -Senator ."

I think you'll find that Tony is on record as criticising SS's verbal excesses. Doesn't mean SS was wrong about the people he criticised, just that he could have made the same point using less inflammatory language.

I don't buy all the guff going around about SS's 'poor victims', apart from one, the nurse. For the rest, he has provided evidence of what he has accused them of. According to the Chapman report, the States were supposed to issue rebuttals, which they have singularly failed to do. You have to ask yourself why.

Anyway, it now seems that the Jersey institutional child abuse scandal is dead and buried. Bellwood, Syvret, Power and Harper are history. Everyone must be happy. Oh, apart from the victims.

We can all go back to reading Tennessee Williams and watching Chinatown and think ourselves lucky we don't live in a place like that.

[rogueelement]

@Spartacus, "Very good , but a shame you did not offer the same advice to an Ex -Senator ."

I think you'll find that Tony is on record as criticising SS's verbal excesses. Doesn't mean SS was wrong about the people he criticised, just that he could have made the same point using less inflammatory language.

I don't buy all the guff going around about SS's 'poor victims', apart from one, the nurse. For the rest, he has provided evidence of what he has accused them of. According to the Chapman report, the States were supposed to issue rebuttals, which they have singularly failed to do. You have to ask yourself why.

Anyway, it now seems that the Jersey institutional child abuse scandal is dead and buried. Bellwood, Syvret, Power and Harper are history. Everyone must be happy. Oh, apart from the victims.

We can all go back to reading Tennessee Williams and watching Chinatown and think ourselves lucky we don't live in a place like that.

It most certainly does not mean that he was right either muppet!!
Good grief what does it take for people like you to accept that he was ,is and will be talking utter tripe for the rest of his life? What part of dysfunctional cannot you not get to grips with ?

Your Quote :-
"
I don't buy all the guff going around about SS's 'poor victims', apart from one, the nurse. For the rest, he has provided evidence of what he has accused them of. According to the Chapman report, the States were supposed to issue rebuttals, which they have singularly failed to do. You have to ask yourself why."

He has provided zero evidence , at least not to the police who would have reviewed such evidence, he has provided ,backbiting tittle tattle, gossip, a form of "my mate has a mate who knows someone who definitely knew someone who..."
You think that is evidence?If he has or had an ounce of evidence , he should have/should take it to the police , if he has had or has first hand witness statements , he should do the same thing. You Rob Kent are entirely the type of knob who makes this Island a crap place to live in.
try evidence instead of rumour, strangely enough it has had a fleeting success albeit a fairly unremarkable one for nearly 700 years .
Rob Kent , you shame yourself by your ignorance.

[tonytheprof]

If I can reference myself, my earliest criticism of Stuart's language is

http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2008/03/im-not-sure-i-like-your-tone-sir.html

which was on the 19th March 2008, so it's not something I've just started saying.

There have been several of the same kind since, e.g.

http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2008/03/abusive-comments-and-politeness.html

but more recently

http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2010/03/trial-by-blog.html

where I look at one individual who was named on his blog quite unfairly, in my opinion, and detail why I think so.

[I don't give the name - it's enough that he's been named on Stuart's blog without compounding the accusation.]

I've even commented about his language on his blog, only to be presented with the strange argument that politeness is somehow "the language of the enemy" - yes and that was back in 2008; I've long since given up trying.

But when I wrote my blogging etiquette suggestions, I certainly had him in mind when I wrote:

"I've heard people say that politeness gets you no where as an excuse for being rude. I would ask them: has being rude really got you that much further? I don't think so."

I also suggested (which Rico certainly does ensure happens)

"If you are going to use an email reply that is not in the public domain, ask for permission before posting it on the blog."

which would have saved him some trouble over Data Protection.

[imacrappaud]

I read SS's blog quite a bit when he was in England and what struck me was the number of comments requesting he comes back. I think many were genuine and hoped for the best but I also reckon a good many just wanted him back to revel in more juicy news/gossip and to see someone destroyed, which I also believe is a sad reflection on our society.

We humans tend to revel in seeing people hit rock bottom and don't praise those who have risen from the gutters to make a name for themselves (or read that as made themselves well off in monetary terms). Of course, as soon as the person who has risen from nothing to make something reaches the bottom again it is news worthy! Me, personally I like to hear the good news stories and can't be bothered with the gloating when it turns bad.

I hope that the ones who posted on SS's blog to come back are looking after him and sticking to their guns but as I mentioned in the first paragraph I think many just wanted more gossip to fill in their lives and didn't give a rose about the bigger picture.

He did point out some dodgy dealings in his time that have been proven such as toxic waste dumping, and I believe but may be wrong he also mentioned the zero ten tax policy being a mistake, perhaps he didnt figure it out himself but I think he tried to point out the problem which we are all now facing. It may have been GST issue so forgive me if I got it wrong.

But, as human beings we must not focus on the positives, or at least we rarely hear about them apart from someone landing a monster bass that is! We must only focus on negatives and that is what unfortunately equals news.

I think I might have lost the plot somewhere above but rose it!

[tonytheprof]

http://planetjersey.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2800.0.html

Rob, I've started a discussion on faith schools in Jersey, which might be of interest.

[rico sorda]

Sparty

Stuart is a mate and will always be a mate simple as that. Now contrary to some strange belief i,m not following a once 'Holy Man' or whatever title you guys give him.

I think people would realise this if they read my blog.

I do my own research and form my own opinions. I have a lot of respect for Stuart yes he has his faults and can be a pain in the ass  he is the only one who must face the consequences of his blog.

I remember before the Child Abuse Investigation how I admired him for not conforming, my interest was not that great granted but I still admired him for what he was doing,  so many  thousands voted for him.

This is the man that was expelled for 6 months from the States of Jersey for exposing a little corruption. How the tables turned.

I will also say this. Some of the stuff on his blog and the accusations I don't have a clue if they are true or false I really don't.

Who among us can say what went on in their relationship?

Who among us can say that the accusations on his blog are true or false?

We just don't know only Stuart, (the victims) and the person he accuses can know the truth.

My heart goes out to the Children of 'Blanche Pierre'  thou,  make no mistake. 

So i will finish with this sparty

You don't walk away from friends simple as that its a no brainer

my las post on the subject

rs

[Rob Kent]

@Spartacus, "Rob Kent , you shame yourself by your ignorance."

Don't worry - my ignorance is the least of my shames.

[Rob Kent]

@Spartacus, (edit mod5) "What part of dysfunctional cannot you not get to grips with?"

This bit, actually: someone who spends their lives on forums calling other people 'knobs', 'muppets', 'ignorant', and 'idiot', rather than discussing opinions and evidence.

If you think Jersey is a 'crap place to live', you have two options - try and change it or leave. Insulting people who want to engage in political debate is not going to improve the island or its reputation. People reading the Farce blog - or your comments on this forum - are not going to form a favourable impression of Jersey and its inhabitants - maybe that should concern you more.

The whole thing about democracy is the freedom to discuss and, if necessary, criticise anything. Without opposition, criticism, and a free press democracies could not function. Consequently, people are going to hold different opinions about things, and they are obviously going to disagree as to the evidence supporting their opinions.

You and the Farce blog have a certain line on the HdlG inquiry which seems to differ radically from seems to that of people like Rico, Voice, and myself in some respects. That's okay - your party seems to have won the day anyway. I'm not going to start insulting you personally because of that.

The Farce blog is behaving worse than SS did on his blog, bullying and intimidating people using gossip, innuendo, and tittle-tattle. At least he named individuals who were part of the police investigation into child abuse (whom the police claim they wanted to charge but were prevented from doing so).

It's a cliché that on Jersey everybody knows everyone else's business. It's a small island: I personally know lots of the people who blog under their own name or a pseudonym. I know individuals whose names are thrown up on the blogs, and they know me. So what?

Polonius: My lord, I will use them according to their desert.

Hamlet: Odd's bodikin, man, better: use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping?

Lots of people don't think Jersey is a 'crap place to live'. They might be unhappy with certain aspects of its polity, media and institutions and it is their right as tax-paying citizens to voice an opinion about that. If hearing their voices makes you angry, you can just stop reading them - turn off and go and do something more interesting. Or move to somewhere that is more socially progressive...?

[GeeGee]

Oh Rob - could not have put it more eloquently and politely myself!! Agree with every single word.

(edit mod5)

[tonytheprof]

Th Farce blog certainly seems to have attracted a load of malcontents (mostly anonymous, some of the probably the same commentator) who are pushing the boundaries of acceptable behaviour on the ground that Stuart did that on his blog, so now they can do it to other people too - and see if they like a taste of their own medicine.

It is a kind of lex talionis argument, which encourages the kind of behaviour that Chapman found so reprehensible on Stuart's blog commentators - lots of lists of names in the comments are starting to appear again and again - Tadier, Pitman, Southern etc.

What we do get is "insider" viewpoints from anonymous insiders - or occasionally Terry Le Main, which are mostly rhetorical, but occasionally come out with suggestions (incentivised sterilisation) that are so off the wall that no States member would ever want to be associated with them.

But what we don't get is a platform for States members to make clear the arguments for their own positions, and real documentary data.

To give him some credit, Terry Le Sueur has had an on line Q&A session (some time ago now, alas) on the States website. Isn't it time for another one?

I would like to see a blog by Senator Ozouf, not that I agree with him on a number of issues, but because he is prepared to engage with public meetings to try and get his message across, and I think politicians should use more means to do so, and I'd like a serious debate, not name calling.

I suspect he got in an outsider to try to cut waste at the Treasury because the inside management are not capable of doing so. I know of one case of a proposal being blocked by a civil servant (contrary to Mr Ogley's mantra of "only there to support politicians", which could have come from Sir Humphrey Appleby himself).

The voting record (lower turnouts that Guernsey) shows widespread disaffection with the political process, and politicians don't really attempt to engage with the public except at election time. Senator Ozouf has been an exception, and should be commended for that.

[Rob Kent]

@tony, "The voting record (lower turnouts that Guernsey) shows widespread disaffection with the political process, and politicians don't really attempt to engage with the public except at election time."

It's unfortunate that the advent of blogging in Jersey coincided with the HdlG investigation, which was a highly polarising and contentious event. If you look around at most other forums though (Guardian, BBC, etc), it does seem as if any exchange eventually descends to insult, finalizing in someone calling someone else a fascist, or in the Jersey case, a 'nutter'. It's a problem with the medium: despite the availability of emoticons, people project intentions onto other authors which perhaps were never intended and the whole thing spins out of control.

The other problem is that many people are simply not used to have their ideas challenged and perceive it as a personal attack. If people learn nothing else at university, at least it teaches them that it is normal to have your opinions debated and possibly torn to pieces without it meaning very much. Isn't that what 'peer review' is all about.

In my business - software development - we still have peer (code) review. In fact, you normally have to convince people of your design before you create it. Then other developers look at the code you have written and tell you if you've done something wrong or not used an obvious design pattern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_pattern_%28computer_science%29). It's a good way to learn and improve.

I don't see why it should be any different when discussing politics or facts about local government, apart from the fact that general opinions are more subjective. A few years back I had this idea for Open Source Government, which could be as successful as other Open Source projects, and then discovered someone had already done it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_government).

For it to work though, it needs to be less partisan and more moderated than your typical blog or forum. It would extend the reach of participatory democracy to the actual decision making process on specific government spending. There are numerous people with specialist knowledge who have no input into government decisions - often a lot better informed than ministers themselves who just happen to find themselves promoted to a certain role. There is a large public with knowledge and time to research and comment. A voting process like that used on Stack Overflow (http://stackoverflow.com/) would ensure that the best solutions got voted up.

To avoid trolling, double voting, and malevolent nihilists, forum users would have to be fully identifiable, perhaps correlated with their Electoral Roll number.

[Rob Kent]

It's interesting that the real name of Spartacus has been moderated from our replies. It seems that the individuals who blog and troll anonymously are happy to throw mud from behind their screens of anonymity but are not happy to be publicly associated with their insults. I wonder why?

Is it because, as I said, we all know each other well enough that nobody would 'scape whipping', particularly the people giving it out. I wonder if that explains their anger?