Saturday, 24 November 2012

If you really love Plémont...

I just want to make a very brief post tonight to try and counter some of what is being said by what is, admittedly, a very well run campaign by the National Trust of Jersey who have announced that they have received pledges of £2.5m to help purchase the Plémont site to return it to nature.

They've named their campaign "Love Plémont" which I think is very unfair. When I was a kid I used to go to Plémont all the time, my family used to eat at the café up there quite a bit and I used to love exploring all the caves. I love Plémont too, but I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in what the NTJ are proposing. I'm not going to claim to be an expert on the whole process, but I'm more going to write about my general instinct on the whole thing.

We found out today that the States debate on the compulsory purchase of the headland has been delayed until the 11th December so that a valuation can take place following the housing plans being given planning permission. There is also going to be a public meeting on the 5th December.

Now that planning permission has been given, I think it's time for the Chief Minister to back down from his proposal and admit that we are getting an excellent deal from the owner of the land and we really should snap it up without causing a fuss about it.

We have two options on the table - buy the whole area and return it to nature, or let the developer build some housing on it and return some of it to nature.

Leaving it as it is, is not an option. The problem has been left unresolved for far too long and the Pontins site is an eyesore (not to mention very unsafe) that needs to be dealt with sooner rather than later.

The second option sounds admirable at first. At a time when the population is going up, housing inevitably needs to be built, we decide to take a piece of land on the coast and safeguard it for the future to make sure that it is kept green and unspoilt. Well that sounds lovely, but then we find out how much it's going to cost and who is footing the bill. It's impossible to put an exact figure on it, but the £2.5m raised by the NTJ is only a small proportion of it and the final price could stretch into millions more than originally anticipated (I recall seeing a valuation of £8m before the planning permission was given) and it will be paid for by the taxpayer.

This at a time when there are pay freezes all around, public spending is being cut and we're in desperate need for a boost to the economy to get jobs created. The least it will cost us £6.5m, which is £6.5m more than we should be spending on it.

Alternatively, we have a proposition on the table for someone to come and knock down Pontins and build a few modest houses there and even donate a chunk of the land to go back to nature. How much will that cost the taxpayer? Nothing! The building work will even help stimulate the economy a bit.

Here's an artists impression of it* -

See, it looks great! The red lines indicate where the current Pontins building is.

Now, after what happened with Portlet you can understand why people are keen to protect areas like this from development. Portlet was a disaster and something like that must never happen again. But this is nothing like Portlet. The plans actually look quite nice. It's not exactly building Canary Wharf on it, it's like a little hamlet. And a large part of it is going to go to nature anyway.

When they say "return it to nature", well, there hasn't been any nature on that site for over 150 years from what I can gather. So, if there is going to be a bit of development on that land, at least it's somewhere that doesn't currently have any nature on it, rather than taking another part of our coast an ruining it.

My enjoyment of Plémont was never in anyway inhibited by the existence of the old Pontins site and I cannot imagine that it would be even vaguely improved by the addition of a field up there. So spending millions to do that seems logicless to me, particularly when there's a way to get some land back and build a few houses for free.

Both possible outcomes are an improvement from what is currently there, but one is very expensive and the other will cost us nothing. There are far better things the money could be used on.

Some have complained that the houses there won't be affordable for most people. Okay, maybe not (though that doesn't mean they're un-sellable), but then how does it help those that need affordable housing for the States to throw away millions of pounds that could otherwise be spent building cheaper houses, or helping first time buyers get on the ladder, or even building new social housing?

The economy is in a mess and unemployment is a huge problem at the moment, so to spend all this money on a field seems totally illogical to me. The money is much better off going into projects to help create jobs, or into wage increases for nurses and teachers etc, or a tiny part of it could go to stopping this ridiculous £500k cut to higher education funding!

But by the fact that such a fuss has been caused over this, I really do worry about what message the government (and the people of Jersey involved in things like Love Plémont) are sending out to would-be developers who are actually coming up with good ideas and, frankly, being very generous.

It's the same with the David Place/ Bath Street proposals there were a while back where some developer wanted to come in and knock down that hideous old Odeon building and the surrounding buildings to build it up into new shops/ restaurants with offices and flats above. Some bright spark somewhere decided that the Odeon was a "historically significant" building and so couldn't be knocked down, so the developer backed off. Another great opportunity wasted.

When people come up with these ideas, we should be ready to snap them up, not be incredibly ungrateful as we have this time round. This developer even wants to donate land back! I mean, how brilliant of them! Obviously not every idea is a good idea so I'm not saying let anyone come here and build something, but for stuff like this we need to adopt a totally different attitude.

Since the vote is coming up on the 11th December, I want to urge people to get in touch with their States Members just to make the case to them that spending such an excessive amount of money in this case is totally unacceptable when Jersey is in the state it's in.

That's what our States Members are for, so don't be afraid to email them. I sometimes do it myself and they're always very nice and respond pretty quickly to me (I've even had replies early on a Sunday morning or been rung up at 8 in the evening for a chat about it, so just goes to show that it's not a 9-5 job).

If Love Plémont can be as organised as they are, those on the other side of the argument need to step up and make it clear to our representatives that we will not accept such a waste of money from a government that does not have the right priorities.

Rico Sorda has done some good blogs looking at the politics behind the upcoming vote and predicting who will vote each way based on their record and based on who is the one proposing the purchase -

It's going to be particularly interesting to see how Senator Ozouf votes, given that in 2010 he made an excellent case to support his voting against a compulsory purchase of the site, and since then nothing has changed to affect his then argument.

Emails are here -


Senator Paul Francis Routier M.B.E - 
Senator Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf -
Senator Alan Breckon - 
Senator Sarah Craig Ferguson - 
Senator Alan John Henry Maclean - 
Senator Bryan Ian Le Marquand - 
Senator Francis du Heaume Le Gresley, M.B.E. - 
Senator Ian Joseph Gorst - 
Senator Lyndon John Farnham - 
Senator Sir Philip Martin Bailhache - 


Connétable Daniel Joseph Murphy - 
Deputy Carolyn Fiona Labey - 

St. Brelade 

Connétable Stephen William Pallett - 
Deputy Sean Power - 
Deputy Montfort Tadier - 
Deputy John Hilary Young - 

St. Clement 

Connétable Leonard Norman - 
Deputy Gerard Clifford Lemmens Baudains - 
Deputy Susan Jane Pinel - 

St. Helier 

Connétable Alan Simon Crowcroft - 
Deputy Judith Ann Martin - 
Deputy Geoffrey Peter Southern - 
Deputy Jacqueline Ann Hilton - 
Deputy Shona Pitman - 
Deputy Trevor Mark Pitman - 
Deputy Michael Roderick Higgins - 
Deputy Andrew Kenneth Francis Green M.B.E. - 
Deputy James Patrick Gorton Baker - 
Deputy Roderick Gordon Bryans - 
Deputy Richard John Rondel - 

St. John 

Connétable Philip John Rondel - 
Deputy Patrick John Dennis Ryan - 

St. Lawrence 

Connétable Deidre Wendy Mezbourian - 
Deputy John Alexander Nicholas Le Fondré - 
Deputy Edward James Noel - 

St. Martin 

Connétable Michel Philip Sydney Le Troquer - 
Deputy Stephen George Luce - 

St. Mary 

Connétable Juliette Gallichan - 
Deputy John Michael Le Bailly - 

St. Ouen 

Connétable Michael John Paddock - 
Deputy James Gordon Reed - 

St. Peter 

Connétable John Martin Refault - 
Deputy Kristina Louise Moore - 

St. Saviour 

Connétable Sadie Anthea Rennard - 
Deputy Robert Charles Duhamel - 
Deputy Roy George Le Hérissier - 
Deputy Kevin Charles Lewis - 
Deputy Tracey Anne Vallois - 
Deputy Jeremy Martin Maçon - 


Connétable John Le Sueur Gallichan - 
Deputy Anne Enid Pryke -

* - picture is stolen from the Love Plémont facebook page.


  1. There's a novelty - a self-proclaimed socialist who believes in trickle-down...

    1. I'm not sure I said anything that could be construed as to me supporting trickle-down economics?

    2. Excellent piece of sense. I hope you are editing it down for a JEP letter.

  2. I have previously without exception been in staunch opposition to any redevelopment of the island's coastline, but with Plemont I can't see any reason to oppose the plans.

    To mirror the sentiment expressed in your article, when this redevelopment is complete those of us who have for years enjoyed rambling around the area will be able to continue to do so exactly as before, because with this scheme none of the land currently accessible to the public will be lost to the public.

    The style of development itself also seems to be perfectly in tune with the surrounding area and the traditional style of building inherent to the area.

    So I can't argue against the developer in this case.

  3. Yeah, but what about the puffins?

  4. "The economy is in a mess"

    Really? Seems OK to me compared to most of the rest of the world.

    1. You must be doing rather well then, congratulations to you. My countless friends who have been struggling to find work for months at a time would disagree with you though. But comparisons with the rest of the world are irrelevant anyway.

      Jerseys economy is shrinking and the projected growth for next year has been reforecast to be flat. In fact in 2010 the economy actually shrank by a whole 5%. In the UK when the economy shrinks by 0.1% the whole country is up in arms, yet in Jersey 5% doesn't get much of a peep from anyone.

    2. Sam, I will ignore your first comment as its rather insulting.

      But overall, given the world economy and our dependence on it, Jersey has a very healthy economy. We are in a position where we have no public debt and are able to fund healthcare, welfare and education to a level that many economies would kill for. Our economy may be shrinking but that is a natural consequence of where we derive our wealth and we as an Island have managed that decline extremely well. The 2010 economy may have shrank by 5% but it's nearly 2013 now.

      The island is not up in arms because most people are actually quite grateful that our economy is so well managed and has coped so well with the ongoing world economic slump.

      Whilst I do not support the purchase of Plemont I don't think you do yourself and your argument any favours by saying our economy is in a mess as this is clearly not the case.

      Isn't it wonderful that the purchase of a field is one of the most contentious issues in the island at the moment.

    3. If you're insulted, I apologise. That wasn't intentional, I did say congratulations after all.

      I'm going to carry on saying the economy is in a mess because it's the truth.

      It may be nearly 2013 now, but because of the growth figures from the previous years, and the fact 2013 is now going to be flat, it is going to take us several years to get our economy back to the size it was a few years ago. Coupling that with the unemployment and rising population, it's going to be tough. I call that a mess, and if you say it's a natural consequence of where we derive our wealth from, I say we need to look at doing something about it and it's a failure of our politicians for letting a style of economy develop where this is capable of happening. Especially given the hits we're getting to other parts of our industries, like fulfilment. The world is out to get places like Jersey, and things are not going to get better from us. All it will take is one company like RBC to leave Jersey and we'd plummet.

      We also have public sector strikes next year, including nurses who are normally the last people to go on strike.

      I'd put the fact people aren't up in arms about it due to the fact Jersey doesn't have a political culture based on constant scrutiny in the way the UK does. We only have one newspaper and it's barely critical of the government and certainly wouldn't challenge them on any important issues, nor do we have an organised political opposition to play that role. We just don't have the apparatus or culture to do it.

      Apart from the trade unions of course.

    4. "Anonymous24 November 2012 15:07

      "The economy is in a mess"

      Really? Seems OK to me compared to most of the rest of the world."

      Maybe you'd like to swap places with my elderly parents who are having to strictly ration their use of heating because costs of basic neccesities in this island are so high compared to the rest of the world?

      Or maybe not, eh?

    5. Anonymous, you know nothing about me. Don't assume.

      "Seems OK to me compared to most of the rest of the world" is still a valid statement. I'm sure there are far worse off in the world that your elderly parents.

      The fact is Jersey has a lot going for it and if Sam's argument is that we should not buy Plemont because the economy is in a mess then I have to disagree.

      By all objective measurements Jersey's economy is in very good shape.

    6. "By all objective measurements Jersey's economy is in very good shape." Depends what objective measurements those are. Jersey has been in recession for 4 years and next year won't take us out of recession. Our economy has shrunk to the size it was in 1998. I don't really care if we are worse or better off than our neighbours, because such comparisons actually make it subjective, not objective...

      But regardless of all of that, the government is cutting spending across the board. The money that goes to Plemont is money that will have to be saved somewhere else. When les Quennevais is not fit for purpose, when nurses are threatening strike over pay, when university grants are being cut, when pensioners are having to ration heating, when we need a new hospital etc etc etc I don't think it's right to blow millions unnecessarily on a field in the arse end of nowhere.

    7. "I don't really care if we are worse or better off than our neighbours, because such comparisons actually make it subjective, not objective..."

      Have to disagree, economics makes extensive use of numerical comparisons to compare economies in an objective way.

      Jersey tends to come out well in comparisons, not just with our neighbours, but with our neighbours neighbours and their neighbours.

      Let's face it, most people in Jersey lead very comfortable lives, we have no public debt. We are considering spending 450M replacing all our hospitals, we have built several schools recently and are planning at least two more, we have a healthy social security system, government spending is actually rising, not falling, we have a healthy civil service, personal taxation is low with generous exemptions, GST is low compared to the rest of Europe, etc etc etc. I could go on all day but there's no point.

    8. There's a difference between an economy being in a recession (especially where the recession is caused by factors outside its control) and being in a mess.

      We are in a recession but no serious economist would ever go so far as to describe our economy as being in a mess.

  5. Added to all this, just read in the JEP about Le Quennevais School which was declared unfit for purpose in 2010, yet no work is going to be carried out to rectify this until 2017.

    This means several year groups of pupils are going to go through their entire secondary education being "disadvantaged" because of the conditions.

    Is the government mad? How can they even think of spending millions on a field when one of our schools is failing our young people!?

    1. Hi Sam

      Do you have a link to the report that declared it unfit in 2010? I'd like to know how disadvantaged they are before I decide my stance on this.

    2. No unfortunately I don't, I've been trying to google it but can't find it. Nor is it immediately identifiable on the States websites. I've seen it referred to in the news a few times and each time the quote "not fit for purpose" is used.

  6. I seem to recall that the caital spend allocated for Quennevais School was transferred to Mont a L'abbe.

  7. Interesting debate, so the states are looking to spend £5-8m plus the costs of clearing the site and the cost of much replanting I guess, also a loss of a building project, employment, duty on the sale of new houses, it does sound crazy!!

  8. Absolutely disgusted to see you congratulating Richard murphy on his latest ill informed attack on our island. When our island is unable to pay for its schools, hospitals and other essential services, we will look for those who supported this rude, intolerant and will fully manipulative union shill who is happy to spread his statist propaganda to the detriment of well regulated offshore jurisdictions offering perfectly legal services. Local people who suffer because of this man's lies and misrepresentation will not forget other local's treachery.

    I understand your politics, but Murphy is not what you perceive him to be.

    1. That was a great ad hominem, but I'd be more interested in what you have to say if you'd come up with something a bit more concrete in your criticism of him. What exactly makes him a liar?

      As for statist propaganda... well if you understand my politics you'll know that I support the state. I believe it's a fundamental tool to achieving a fair and just society. If that makes me a "statist" I'm more than happy to accept that title.

      But the specific congratulations you refer to was me thanking him for putting forward what I consider to be an accurate interpretation of Jerseys history from 1204, rather than the real propaganda that we're fed in Jersey and that was amazingly included in a government report on external relations. I was praising his history. Hardly reason to put me up against the wall if the economy crashes...

    2. Also, I am always immediately suspicious of someone who jumps up to point out that what Jersey does is "legal". It's irrelevant because no one ever claimed it wasn't. But if you believed it was a "moral" service, that would have been your first line of argument. But it wasn't, so I can only presume that you know it's not moral.

  9. Rather than point out Murphy's individual failings, it is easier to simply refer you to the following site, which regularly explores in greater detail, and with greater knowledge, some of the man's 'work'. and type in 'Murphy' under a search.

    Yes,the site is politically biased, but it does include many contributors with a far greater understanding of the legal, economic and fiscal world's than Murphy, who are able to easily pull apart, and expose his inaccuracies and false conclusions for what they are. There are also many intelligent and insightful contributors who Murphy refuses to allow to comment on his site for the simple reason that they have politely pointed out his errors in the past. (5 minutes exploring his site will demonstrate his tolerance of reasoned and polite disagreement)

    As to one example plucked from just his most recent posting - He states that Jersey is not democratic because there is no party system - Total nonsense.

    Re-read your contribution to Murphy's blog, and tell me if you really believe you are merely congratulating him on his interpretation of our history ?

    It is amusing to read that sombody training to be a solicitor believes that morality should be the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong in an argument, rather than its technical legality. Your measure of morality and mine may be completely different, but I am comfortable with a financial services industry that operates with the continued approval of multinational organisations such as the IMF, even when it attracts the opprobrium of a Trade union paid accountant from Norwich, who has used the very tax system he criticises to his and his client's favour in the past.

    I look forward to following your legal career, and to your sacrifice of all legal concepts at the altar of your morality, in the future.

    I would also repeat my earlier comment which you will discover if you spend any time digesting Murphy's work. He is rude, beligerent, insulting and has a hugely inflated opinion of himself and his work, which is littered with falsehood, a lack of economic knowledge, and a political bias so total that he lacks any ability whatsoever to consider another persons views.

    1. Listen, all I did was congratulate him on getting his history right. I don't think that warrants this childish attack on me as if I'm some sort of signed up member of the TJN. I'm big enough to not really care if he's rude or not on his blog (btw, I agree that he definitely is rude, but I love the irony of your posts actually being quite rude too).

      As for Jersey not being democratic because it doesn't have a party system. You might be stuck in this insular world we call Jersey, but I'm sorry, he is right. You cannot have a proper democracy unless the electorate have a mechanism by which they can kick out a government and replace it with a new one and pick it on a clear line of policy from a manifesto. In Jersey, voting for independents means there is no connection whatsoever between how you vote and what the make up of the government is. The way you fix that is parties.

      Then of course we could also go on about the fact we don't have a proper separation of powers, the Bailiff is still speaker of the parliament, our local mayors have automatic seats in the parliament despite their massively varying electorates, the Deputies constituencies are totally disproportionate and we still use this ridiculously archaic voting system of first past the post.

      All of that means Jersey have a deficient democratic system. So, I'm afraid Richard is right on that.

      As for my future legal career, whoever said I intended on having one?

      "It is amusing to read that sombody training to be a solicitor believes that morality should be the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong in an argument, rather than its technical legality" strawman, I never said that. Though in my 3 and a half years of studying law, our tutors have constantly asked us to have discussions over what is right and wrong. Ever heard the saying "the law is an ass"? A lawyer who is uncritical of the law and just accepts it for what it is is a terrible lawyer. To understand the law you have to understand where it goes wrong, because it's a man-made (and mostly men, not women) institution that has flaws all over the place that lead to absurdities. Judges have the power to make law, so if a lawyer can successfully argue to one that the application of a current common law principle will lead to an absurdity the judge can create a new legal precedent. In fact equity law itself came about because of immoral results in the strict application of common law.

      Morality is FUNDAMENTAL to the law. The fact you think the two are completely separate makes me glad it's me studying it, not you. In the meantime, I recommend a bit of reading up on legal positivism and natural law.

      If you're going to argue in a way that is purely attacking me, rather than a discussion on the issues, don't caricature me.

      Also, do yourself a favour and get over your hatred of trade unions. The fact Murphy receives help from unions does not denigrate his position whatsoever. Unions are legitimate and democratic organisations that can do with their funds what they want. If Murphy is wrong, he is wrong regardless of who funds him. And as for using the system to his clients favour, you have no idea whatsoever what he did on a daily basis as an accountant. He says he never helped his clients use loopholes to mitigate their taxes. I'm happy to believe him.

    2. Murphy's argument seems to be that if anyone holds money in Jersey then it MUST be depriving someone of tax somewhere.

      What he consistently fails to do is join up the dots in his arguments.

      He simply lacks credibility to anyone with a brain who wants to understand his arguments rather then just blindly accept them.

    3. That's just a caricature of his position that 5 minutes reading his work will prove isn't the case.

      Come on, I'm sure there are plenty of holes in his arguments, but attributing a false position to him isn't the best way of tackling it.

    4. 'He says he never helped his clients use loopholes to mitigate their taxes. I'm happy to believe him' - Please see the attached link where Murphy admits exactly that.

      You asked for proof of where he lies ? In case you can't open that link, in response to the question 'As a UK resident and Director of San Serif Print Promotions Limited, could you explain why you chose to set up Eireann Game Manufacturing in Ireland ?

      Answer R Murphy: Of Course. It was to secure tax advantages'

      . You provide a permanent link to his blog

      . It's not a childish attack on you, it's an attack on your support of the man who demonstrably lies (As he seemingly has done to you already) and wants to see the end of our finance industry]

      . I might be stuck in an insular world, but despite your attempted sophistry, political parties are absolutely not a requirement for democracy. We the people are capable of replacing whoever stands for a contested election, (and thus the constitution of the government) irrespective of their political leaning (of which we are all aware ahead of the election), and that is democracy.

      . Lovely straw man criticism of me on the other elements of democratic change required in Jersey, which I never broached, and many of which I actually agree with you on.

      . You are training as a solicitor. I would have thought that would be a pretty good guide to your future career direction. If you intend working in retail or the hospitality industry, or some other career that fails to utilise your taxpayer funded education, then I apologise.

      . The finance industry survives because it operates legally. Your morality judgements are merely an irritation whilst the IMF et al agree, despite Murphy and his ilk's propaganda. I'm not sure where I said that morality and technical legality were mutually exclusive ?

      . Caricaturing our island in a perjorative sense as insular. It seems you can't help yourself doesn't it ? But thanks for revealing once again where your allegiances don't lie.

      . Why should I 'do myself a favour' and 'get over' my hatred of trade unions ? I didn't realise we had resorted to playground taunting now. Are you suggesting my view of unions is an illness ? I thought you welcomed political debate and accepted the validity of views which differed to your own.

      . I'd also be interested if you could highlight my actual criticism of the trade union movement in any of my comments, other than their desire to pay Ricahrd Murphy for publishing articles which favour their viewpoint ?

      Just to revisit your last point again. He has lied to you, and I'm sure you will have the good grace to acknowledge this here

      Finally, perhaps you yourself would benefit from spending that 5 minutes you invited somebody else to spend examining his work in a little more detail to see if he has told further lies ?

    5. More caricatures and strawmen.

      Securing tax advantages is not synonymous with tax evasion/ avoidance or immorality. But that's a pretty selective quote. He goes on to explain that that occasion was because he was young and naive and, crucially, that he did not realise what he was doing was harmful and after he realised it was, he stopped acting like that. That exonerates him, surely? His integrity remains perfectly intact.

      Your bullet points in turn.

      - So what? I also provide permanent links to Darius Pearce and James Rondels blogs and they are of completely different political traditions to me. Trying to create an archive of relevant blogs doesn't indicate an endorsement...

      - "I look forward to following your legal career, and to your sacrifice of all legal concepts at the altar of your morality, in the future." That is a childish attack.

      - Another strawman. I never said parties was the symbol of democracy. I said that a mechanism to get rid of a government and replace it with another one was the democratic element. I merely said parties was the way to do it. We don't have a connection between our votes and the composition of our government. If we did, in 2005, Stuart Syvret would have been Chief Minister.

      - So you think Jersey is a paragon of democratic virtue or what? I can't tell, now that you've said that.

      - Assuming makes and ass of you and me, as the saying goes. And I'll have you know that a significant proportion of my uni fees and expenses are paid for by myself, thank you very much. If I choose to utilise the skills I've gained from studying law working behind a shop counter, that's not really any of your business.

      - Another strawman, how is it's legality relevant? I have never claimed anything was legal or illegal. Drop it.

      - My allegiances? I don't have an allegiance to any geo-political entity because it's a dumb idea. My allegiances are to ideas and principles and I like to think I'm fairly consistent in them. As Dr Johnson said "patriotism is the final refuge of a scoundrel". The implication in that comment that I am somehow an ungrateful anti-Jersey deviant is just ridiculous.

      - Well in fairness you started it by listing his trade unionism as if it's either relevant or something to hold against him. If you want to criticise trade unionism, I'm happy to have that debate with you. But the only reason you've mentioned his union links is to paint him as some sort of union hack. If it weren't relevant, you wouldn't have mentioned it. But you did (just like this whole "legality" nonsense) for other reasons.

      - errr well that comment in itself. The whole point of a union is to put their viewpoint across... they're not exactly going to be anti-worker are they? haha

      You keep telling me he has lied, but every time you've tried to point one out, it either hasn't been a lie or you've used a selective and out of context quote to back yourself up. I'm happy to be convinced, but you'll have to do a better job.

    6. Your quote was ' he says he never helped his clients use loopholes to mitigate their taxes and I believe him'. It does not say he did once and he was sorry, but he NEVER did so. If you won't accept this basic point, then I have lost a great deal of respect for you.

      This damascean moment wasn't as early in his career as claimed, because he was still writing articles about how to minimise tax for the self employed, Maximise your tax allowance by taking out a stakeholder pension and criticising tax avoidance reporting legislation in the early 2000's. (All legal of course, but I know you will question the morality of each ). As was his approval of the guardian media group's 2008 accounts where they managed to pay zero corporation tax on profits of £302 million, something he has been very active in criticising non-left wing publishing companies who pay him for contributions, recently.

      There are countless examples of the man's hypocrisy and lack of economic knowledge available all over the web. I happen to believe he is a destructive force which is why I am exasperated that individuals from our own island would ever support him in anything.

      I am appalled that you are making excuses for his lying to you on the 'never' point, and until you can concede that you misjudged his integrity, I see little point in discussing anything further with you. I honestly never imagined you were like the other bloggers who will never admit to being in the wrong. What a shame.

    7. Well for a start, if you want to convince someone to accept they are wrong, you're better off approaching them in a calm and reasoned manner and not caricature them, throw up strawmen arguments and make childish attacks on them. And all because I congratulated him for getting some of his history right. How on Earth did that provoke you to launch this silly tirade against me? If I'd congratulated him on making an economic assessment on something, that you then presented evidence to me wasn't the case, then that would be different. You're clearly just out to get me for whatever reason you can find, which is why I'm not so sure that you really have lost respect for me.

      This business about the Guardian stuff may well be accurate, I'll have to have a look into it. But that's a much better point than what you were making before. Implying I'm a traitor, that the taxpayers have wasted their money on my education and all sorts of incorrect views you've attributed to me, was a terrible way of trying to convince me of something. See the Anonymous comment below (no idea if it's you or another person), which is a much better contribution that manages to make some good points without the ad hominems you've used or strawmen.

      You're also being far too pedantic. I should have thrown in the word "knowingly" to that quote.

      But even in this comment, you lump me in with his supporters. When have I ever professed to be a supporter of his? You are never going to convince someone of something if you are telling them what they think.

      I'll lay it out simply - I am far more interested in Richard Murphy's blogs and discussions on UK internal economics and politics. The views he's expressed on the philosophy of economics and the role of the state is bang on the same page as me and I enjoy reading what he has to write about it. That is totally separate from his views on the role of the Channel Islands, which I spend very little time thinking about.

      So don't get so indignant over my non-existent support.

    8. Say what you like about Murphy but he has been proven to know more about the future of the Jersey economy than those who are in charge of it.

      Way back years ago he predicted the zero ten black hole would be £100 million, he was of course ridiculed for this. Read any of Ozouf's recent budget speeches and see how he now says " the change to zero ten caused a £100 million black hole".

      He also correctly predicted the the original version of zero ten with deemed distribution would fail to pass EU scrutiny. Again he was ridiculed, Walker, Le Sueur and Ozouf continually assuring us all it had been approved. As we now know, when the time came it failed and the promises of it having previously been assessed turned out to be false.

      Believe me, I don't like everything he says or agree with everything he does but I can't help being impressed by his ability to predict major things about our economy better than those we entrust it with.

  10. OK, here's an example of not joining up the dots.

    "This document estimated that the world’s High Net Worth Individuals (HNWIs) held around $11.5 trillion of assets offshore, which would generate a return of about $860 billion a year at a 7.5% rate of return, and a consequent tax loss of $255 billion"

    The gaping hole in this line is that it assumes that ALL HNW personal wealth held offshore is being hidden from tax authorities.

    The TJN site is full of such assumptions which leads me to treat everything they say with scepticism. It's a great way to get support from people who are prepared to accept everything they say without question but, having spent considerably more than 5 minutes studying their position I have to conclude that they have little to offer those of us who actually seek arguments based on fact, logic and reasoning.

    1. I asked you plainly and simply, yet you still will not admit that what he told you, and what you professed to believe, was incorrect. No excuses, no obfuscation yet you decline to answer.

      You are obviously fond of quotations so here is one I feel to be appropriate from the poet Ishmael:

      ''in man or fish, wriggling is a sign of inferiority'.

    2. What is this "what he told you" I've never met him nor had a conversation with him?

      Firstly, you spent several messages talking rubbish and insulting me. It took you a whole day to finally make one potentially good point. that I've said I need to consider further. Because at the moment it's just your word. There's every chance that when I research it it could transpire to be bollocks, just like your earlier point on the Irish thing.

      If I look into it and find that Murphy intentionally sought to abuse a loophole to save the Guardian millions of pounds of tax, I will call him a hypocrite on this blog. But you should be disappointed in yourself for how long it's taken to get to this point. If you had made one simple comment "Sam, check out the 2008 Guardian tax receipts, that was down to Murphy, bit of a hypocrite isn't he?" you could have saved a lot of time and wouldn't have totally discredited yourself in my eyes by pursuing an awful line of argument this whole time.

      If you can't argue like an adult, you're on the wrong message forum.

  11. Resorting to bad language merely exposes the paucity of you argument.

    'he says he never helped his clients use loopholes to mitigate their taxes' and I believe him.

    He did it. He regretted but it doesn't change the fact that he did it.

    On the guardian issue,try and keep,up. Nobody has accused him of being complicit in the original avoidance of tax. People have however criticised his hypocritical attitude to recent events involving Starbucks and others when he approved guardian media group accounts showing a significant profit without the payment of corporation tax.

    No doubt you have obviously looked hard to try and find details of this, however just type ' richard murphy hypocrite ' into google and look at the second link hat comes up for a full explanation of murphy's approval of the accounts.

  12. Thought this was about Plémont? Sam, stay on subject. There are some out there who are board with the comment section on thisisjersey.