Having my say.

Their are many of my "have your says", e-mails or letters to the JEP that they haven't published. Also a majority of their stories that I would like to "have my say" on their website doesn't give me that option.

I find they are very selective as to what subject you are aloud to "have your say" on and equally as selective to what they will publish. So I thought if they are not going to publish my "have your say" then I will. I wonder if it should be re-named "have your say as long as it tows the party line" or "shove your say" or even "shaft your say".

Anyway below is an article from Anna Plunkett Cole and below that is my "have your say" they didn't or haven't yet published.


Watch out! Election campaigners about
June 21, 2008 – 10:00 am
THE trick this week would be to attempt a comment page which managed not to mention Harcourt, the Council of Ministers and the Waterfront.
I suppose separately would be all right but after two weeks of having a go it might be time to have a week off. This does rather leave the question of what to talk about instead, since these topics seem to be the ones occupying most minds.
Commonly heard sentences this week have included the inevitable ‘you couldn’t make it up’, and there has been an unusual amount of head-shaking and tutting aimed in the direction of the States.
The trouble is that at the moment it could probably be a subject for discussion every week. But would there really be anything new to say or would it just be a further attempt to validate an argument with which you may or may not agree?
And anyway, I get the very strong impression that simple answers which satisfy all the dissenting voices are not going to be found quickly so it won’t do any harm to take a week off and regroup the opinions. You never know, in the coming week the groups invited to the Waterfront party might dig another pit for themselves to fall into.
All that said, however, it would be remiss not to address just one of the comments made by the Chief Minister in his defence this week. His point was that much of the criticism was political opportunism gone mad in an election year.
To a certain extent, it may be true that some of those criticising the Council of Ministers are squaring up for polling day but it is equally true that these concerns would have reared their heads anyway and that the comments and concerns that the situation have provoked in the public at large are indicative of a wider feeling of discontent with the Island’s leadership.
Which leads us on to the question of electioneering itself – because over the coming couple of months it is going to become increasingly important for Joe Public to be able to tell the difference between what the politicians smiling genially at them are saying and what they are really capable of and likely to achieve.
Perhaps this year, given all that has happened so far, it is time for both voters and candidates to act a bit more intelligently. Senator Walker may talk of some of those criticisms levelled at him and the council as being electioneering but perhaps the voters need to be given a little more credit for being able to spot polling day bluster for themselves. They have to be able to ask the questions and, most importantly, to separate the rubbish from the reality in the answer given.
However, being able to do so will mean some effort on the part of the voting public in arming themselves with information. It also means taking a step back from, what for some, is a traditional way of voting in Jersey. This way runs along the ‘well, he is a decent sort of chap and he’s kind to his mother’ lines.
That may well be, but can he (or she) control a major States department? Does he have any experience in managing a budget? Will he have what it takes to give a Scrutiny panel the teeth it needs to gain the respect of those who have to take on board its findings?
Do you know what their opinions really are on the subjects which matter to you in their coming term of office and do you know what you expect from your government?
In a way, the final two are probably the most important questions because it is easy to lay all the blame at the doors of the politicians but – deviation from their paths aside – they have agreed to serve the Island by carrying out the desires of their constituents. If you were unclear about what you wanted or voted for someone without actually checking their motivations first, how can you be surprised or miffed when their view appears to contradict your own? In other words, only an informed electorate gets an informed government – all of which sounds terribly pompous but is possibly the only way to make sure subsequent political whinging is justified.
Well, it’s either that or we kidnap Christopher Biggins when he arrives here to be Mr Battle. He’s nice and jolly and seems to make everyone smile. Biggins would have parties and laugh a lot.Let’s have him, it’ll be fun.

My un published "have your say"



Having an "informed public" is almost laughable coming from our only local newspaper.
In my opinion the reason the public are so ill informed about our political state and members is because of all the propaganda the JEP spills out every day. More importantly what it doesn't spill out.
It is no secret the JEP is an establishment paper, in fact I believe it is now world wide knowledge. For the Jersey electorate to be "informed" our local media have an obligation to "inform" us in a balanced and un bias manner.
So you start doing your bit, that means publishing the stuff you and the establishment want kept under wraps. Start practicing some real "journalism" hell why not try finding an "investigative journalist". The question surely has to be asked "why did none of our JOURNALISTS know nothing about the Harcourt law suits"? or maybe they did but just kept it under wraps.
The JEP has zero credibility with it's readers. You start printing the truth about our politicians and we'll start getting more "informed"
It is not only the fault of the electorate but most of it lies with you sorry bunch as to why Jersey is in the mess that it's in.