Saturday, 15 December 2012

A Rebuttal to JEP Propaganda 3 Re Plémont

I listened intently and followed all of the online coverage as the battle for Plémont took place in the States earlier this week. Once the result had been called and the proposition to buy Plémont had been lost, it was time for members of the various classes of States Members to give their Christmas addresses to the assembly to reflect on their performance over the past year. Ignoring the slightly irritating fact that no-one saw fit at any point to thank the electorate, one thing that all members (including the Dean and Bailiff) did mention was how well the last debate had been carried out and how it was a credit to the assembly to have been able to debate something that was so divisive across the usual political lines but (with a few exceptions) conduct it in a well mannered way that produced a result that no-one could cry foul play on.

All in all, I would have to agree with all of that. As I said, there were a few exceptions but I've heard a lot worse. However, reading the JEP you would not have even vaguely gathered any of that.

The worst of all was this astounding opinion piece -

I'm going to wager that whoever wrote this pathetic piece didn't even listen to the debate. They just can't have. It is so far from being an even vaguely accurate representation of what happened that no reasonable sound minded person could have sincerely come to the conclusions that are arrived at in this article. They just can't be serious.

But before I dissect it bit by bit, my own position on the matter -

I made my views on Plémont clear before the debate in a previous post and then happily published an alternative point of view from Daniel Wimberley. As with all things, when you read more on a subject, listen to debates and hear points of view from all sides of an argument, you gradually become more informed and aware of the criticisms of your point of view, and so you have to refine your position taking all of that into account. Sometimes you can even be totally swayed and find yourself on the other side of the argument after evaluating it all. Throughout the debate I honestly found myself wavering on aspects of my original views on Plémont.

Senator Bailhaches opening speech on the proposition can only be described as brilliant, by far the best speech I've ever heard him give. It was passionately delivered, it used all the right language and used all the sorts of persuasive tools that make a great speech. That's not to say that I agreed with everything he said, much of it I strongly disagreed with, but simply how he delivered it was wonderful. I've given a few speeches in my day and know that there is a real art to it, and he must have spent a good amount of time in a room by himself practising delivering it rather than just writing something down and reading it out aloud on the day.

Most importantly, what his speech did was make me conjure up images and feelings towards Plémont that was exactly what he wanted people to feel when they made up their mind on how they would vote.

I'm flying back to Jersey on Sunday after having been at uni for a few months and I know that I'm going to do what I can't help but do every time I go back which is look out the window at Jersey as it approaches on the horizon and look forward to that feeling I'm sure we all get as we walk down the stairs from the plane and think "I'm home". And I remembered the very first time I came back to Jersey after the development at Portlet had been finished. I came back by ferry from England and remember the sinking feeling I had in my stomach as we sailed around the corner and I looked up at what had once been one of the most beautiful parts of the island now in the shadow of what can only be described as a monstrosity. All of this made me think a lot harder about how valuable that site at Plémont really is and how maybe it is actually worth spending the money on.

But despite all that, as with all States propositions, the devil is in the detail and you have to put emotion aside and think pragmatically on whether the specifics of what is being proposed are actually right.

It became very obvious in the debate that there was actually a clear majority in favour of saving Plémont, the problem they had was with this specific proposition. Some members had a staunch principled opposition to compulsory purchase. Senator Ferguson objected on the basis that compulsory purchase is only acceptable during times of war and any other time it is just theft. Some members felt they could not possibly sign up to a proposition that didn't have a definitive price on it which they were being asked to pay. Some felt it was wrong to have just concluded a debate on the Medium Term Financial Plan and then focus on something that they didn't believe fitted in that context and should have been dealt with before those commitments were made. Some felt that the developer had not been treated appropriately by the politicians and had he been treated better it may have been possible to come up with a settlement that benefited all parties and avoided a compulsory purchase and potentially high costs. And then there were those that thought the best option was to loan the NTJ the money to buy the whole site, rather than let them buy it from the States after they had made a loss.

All of these were legitimate worries that the proposition made no attempt to settle and on balance of it from that it was, in my and most members view, a poorly constructed proposition. It was made worse by what I think was a very poor decision from the Treasury Minister who only spoke in the debate at the very last minute rather than getting their early to frame the debate. Since he is the person that signs the cheques, it wasn't right for him to let the majority of the debate go on without a statement from his perspective on the funding implications, which is what much of the opposition was about. Contrast that with his Assistant Minister who spoke quite early on and in opposition to the purchase.

That is where the failing lies. Had any more assurances been made on any one of those points of objections, the vote would have been won. But it was lost because it just wasn't done well. Senators Bailhache and Gorst were too complacent and clearly thought they would be able to pass it by playing to the emotions of other members. As a result, we as an island a now a poorer place.

When something like this happens, the most important thing is to reflect and come to terms with what went wrong so that lessons are learnt for the future so this sort of thing doesn't happen again. And this is why the JEPs opinion piece is so inappropriate because it does nothing for reconciliation but instead tries to use the issue to make petty political points with no grounding whatsoever. And from a paper in such a position of power as the JEP is, being so widely read, it leaves impressions in people that are not helpful for the island.

So lets look at the article itself.

It starts by making all sorts of comments about how insignificant the amount of money was going to be or the message the move sends out to developers etc, there isn't a huge amount to say about that because it's a legitimate difference of opinion that doesn't particularly fly in the face of the facts as they are.

Then we have this paragraph - 

"The intellectual poverty of that argument set the tone for a dispiriting display of this disappointing States Assembly at its worse, with the added irony that the vote was in effect swung by the decision of the spectacularly ill-titled Environment Minister, Deputy Rob Duhamel, whose position on the Council of Ministers is surely now untenable."

I'm not sure he was listening to the same debate as me because I think there were excellent contributions from both sides of the argument and there were plenty of bad arguments from both sides (including the pro side) too. But to single out Deputy Duhamel is totally unfair. The vote was not swung by any particular member because it would have only taken one from any of the 25 to change their mind (or get their ring-binder in the way) and the vote would have gone the other way. But why should his position on the Council of Ministers now be untenable? The Health Minister Deputy Pryke and TTS  Minister Deputy Lewis voted against the purchase, and the Economic-Development Minister was against it too. Even the Assistant Treasury Minister was against it!  The proposition was specifically brought forward by Senator Gorst as an individual member, rather than with the backing of the Council of Ministers, and so it was a free vote that all ministers were allowed to express a view on either way without breaching collective responsibility. In fact I think that the fact so many ministers were against it shows how poor a proposition it must have been if they could not be convinced by their colleagues that it was feasible.

"The defeat of the Plémont proposal must be a personal disappointment to its lead advocate, Senator Sir Philip Bailhache, who made an apparently irresistible case with skill and eloquence. It must also weaken the position of Senator Gorst, whose first year in office ends not with a decisive assertion of his influence over the House but with an embarrassing failure to win an argument on a major matter of policy direction."

I've acknowledged that he started the debate with a very good speech, there is no doubt about that, but a States Member that falls for a good speech is not a good States Member. We want members who are capable of looking past any spin and going through things like this with a critical eye and be sceptical. But whilst Senator Bailhaches opening speech was good, his closing speech was not. He wasn't particularly convincing and he made a few jokes that didn't go down very well about other members being "amateur valuers" which was meant to belittle them. Not really the best way to win friends and influence people.

I certainly agree that Senator Gorst doesn't have any influence over the House, but that's because the strings are being pulled by the more dominant Senators Ozouf and Bailhache. But by no stretch of the English language can this failure be considered a failure to win an argument on a "major matter of policy direction". It was no such thing. Plémont was not part of a major policy direction, it was a one off case. Had it been part of policy it would have been brought forward by the Council of Ministers with a three line-whip, not an individual in a free vote.

Though isn't it odd how the JEP seems to be far harsher on Senator Gorst than Senator Bailhache, especially given it was more a failure of Bailhache than Gorst?

"It is, meanwhile, difficult to resist reaching the conclusion that some who voted against the proposition did so merely because it was brought by the former Bailiff, perceived by them as the embodiment of the so-called establishment."

Of course it is only really difficult to resist reaching that conclusion if you didn't actually listen to the debate and hear the arguments that were being made. No personal attacks against Senator Bailhache were made by any member. Though, the article is wrong, it was not brought by Senator Bailhache, it was brought by Senator Gorst who nominated Senator Bailhache to speak in favour of it. Why he couldn't bring it in his own name isn't clear. Maybe it has something to do with his core complaint in his election campaign against members who bring up matters for debate that have already been discussed.

But here comes the most pathetic part -

"Indeed, the spectacle of dyed-in-the-wool left-wingers flying in the face of the public good and supporting a development which will be of benefit to an extremely wealthy developer and those with the very substantial means required to buy property on the site’s projected luxury estate was an exercise in the absurd."

Ignoring the frankly idiotic and childish assumption that left-wingers have a problem with anyone with substantial means, to say it was "in the face of the public good" is subjective but to then say that this was ruined by the left-wingers is such a pathetic attempt to play petty politics on something that was never a right or left issue, and was reflected by the way the vote turned out.

In fact it's so illogical given that the left-wingers make up a minority in the States and so therefore the right-wing majority is capable of passing whatever legislation it likes, so long as they are united, and on this occasion they were not united, so arguably it would be their fault. Gorst and Bailhache only had to convince one more right-winger to agree with them, but they couldn't do it. It is their personal fault, not the fault of any particular caucus in the States (not even the Constable caucus!).

My blog alone has dispelled this idea that it is a right/ left issue by the very fact I have published two posts, both from a left-wing perspective that reached opposite conclusions. Not only that, but the JEP itself even published a letter from Daniel Wimberley outlining the progressive case for purchasing Plémont and another by Deputy Power outlining why he was against it!

A list of which members voted which way can be found here -

It's worth noting that even though Senator Maclean (that well knowdyed-in-the-wool left-winger) was not in the island to be able to vote, he had sent an email to all States Members outlining why he was against the purchase, so it would have been 24-26 had he been there.

Just looking at that list you can so clearly see that plenty of left-wingers voted for the purchase (Deputies Tadier and Maçon, Senator Breckon etc) and plenty of right-wingers, including ministers, voted against it (Senator Ferguson, Deputies Baker and Bryans). You'll also note that the Constables were split on the issue, but with a small majority against the purchase. So perhaps the JEP could alter their editorial position on the Costables as the wisest and most "in-touch" of all States Members...

But one of those "dyed in the wool left-wingers" is Deputy Tadier who very consistently votes against the Council of Ministers, sometimes being in a group of just 5/6 members that vote contre, actually voted for the proposition. Not only did he vote for this proposition but he was even part of a band that had been campaigning for the purchase and released a song in support of it. The song which, in my opinion at least, contains rather Socialist lyrics (the bits in English that I can understand anyway) with lines like "when will those with deepest pockets give something back to the island that's dressed you so well". So this petty attack on left-wingers is totally unjustified.

What the JEP can't stand is that the proposition failed on it's merits, and there is no excuse for it other than it just wasn't thought out very well, despite being led by the JEPs favourite Senator. So to make sure his reputation stays intact, they try and divert attention away from legitimate failings onto others that had absolutely nothing do with it and it's utterly contemptible. How can the island progress if we can't honestly pin-point our problems accurately and learn how to overcome them in a sensible way?

So as the title to the article says, it is indeed a very sad day for Jersey, but not for a single reason that this ridiculous article has disgracefully tried to attribute it to.

One tweeter said to me "Imagine if in the Constables referendum they are voted in by one vote. The JEP will proclaim it as a victory for common sense". Quite.


  1. Its just an opinion. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I enjoyed reading it as much as I enjoy reading the letters page.

    I also enjoyed this blog apart from unnecessary comments like "despite being led by the JEPs favourite Senator." Bitchy comments like this don't do you any favours.

    It's interesting that you actually know what Baillache and Gorst 'Think'. How do you do that?

    Senator Maclean may well have changed his mind after hearing the debate.

    "Ignoring the frankly idiotic and childish assumption that left-wingers have a problem with anyone with substantial means"

    It's not idiotic or childish. In my experience some do.

    "It is, meanwhile, difficult to resist reaching the conclusion that some who voted against the proposition did so merely because it was brought by the former Bailiff, perceived by them as the embodiment of the so-called establishment."

    I agree totally. Its easy to decide how you are going to vote and then formulate an argument accordingly.

  2. I bet some voted against it because they thought it would get through but they did not want to be seen to be siding with the establishment.

    Some members sounded like they wanted it to be returned to nature but still voted against it. Did they realise that there were no other options on the table and it is now lost forever?

    1. Just as I'm sure some voted for it thinking it would be lost and didn't want to be seen to be siding against the NTJ etc.

      From what I heard they all did realise that and regretted it very much and agonised over it but couldn't commit to a proposition they felt was ultimately too flawed. Which is a real shame and the fault of Senator Bailhache.

    2. How could it have been less flawed? It represented the only option available that would have saved plemont from development.

      Negotiation had gone as far as it could. Any further negotiation would have been futile. Nat. Trust committed to as much as they possibly could. There was no where else to go.

      All this blaming PB is just political shite.

      At the end of the day those that voted against it knew what they were doing and knew that there were only two options on the table that day and they chose not to buy it.

  3. So there's going to be some houses in the field by the lane? Big deal, we get the bit by the cliff path for some more wilderness. I really don't have a problem with that.

    1. I agree. Portelet is just a few flats by the sea. Can't see what the fuss was about.

  4. A good piece Sam! As an aside I think legal beagles get adequate training in speech delivery and acting the part *giggle*


  5. Sam,

    One of the many likely reasons that Philip Bailhache lost the vote is that he personally insulted John Refault, the Constable of St Peter, in his summing up speech.

    As far as I recall, JR's cv is: Airport firefighter (retired), Estate Agent at Broadlands for many years, then States Member.

    Unwisely, PB singled him out for personal criticism, calling him an "amateur valuer". JR rightly stood his ground, pointed out his experience in the local property market and, through the chair, forced PB to withdraw the remark. PB tried to dismiss the remark as a jest. Hansard will tell the tale, when published.

    Who knows, without such a sneering and cynical attitude, PB might have won JR (who had spoken against the proposition) over? That could have been the vote that counted.

    I hope the National Trust for Jersey and Senators Gorst and Bailhache remember PB's spectacular balls up for years to come. There are many reasons why the proposition failed, not least the aggressive use of compulsory purchase to steal land way below its market value. But PB's personal failings must have contributed to losing the vote. What a cock up.

    As a law student, you will know that the courts should be a last resort. Roy Le H was bang on that there was not enough evidence to show that those in favour of the proposition had tried to achieve a mediated outcome.

    1. "use of compulsory purchase to steal land way below its market value."

      CP isn't theft and its not below market value.

    2. JR worked at Broadlands in the residential property side after he retired from the Airport Fire Service.

      As far as I can tell he has no qualifications or experience as a commercial property valuer. In respect of commercial land he is an amateur valuer.

      PBs remark may have been unfortunate but sadly many of our states members do think they know the value of commercial land better then the three professional valuers.

      When the States are presented with opinions from highly qualified professionals it would be nice if they were guided by this.

      I wonder how many of our states members would believe they know better than qualified medical professionals. Maybe we will find out when the new hospital is debated.

    3. I agree.

      That last point you make I think is particularly important.

      There were all sorts of comments made at various parts in the debate about how at stages the developer had indicated he might be willing to sell the land to the States at a good price but given the way he's been treated it would be amazing if he'd still want to.

      If more work had been done before, the proposition would have easily been won.

    4. Sam.

      "I wonder how many of our states members would believe they know better than qualified medical professionals."

      Former Senators Ben Shenton and Jimmy Perchard believed they knew better than qualified professionals and the cost was astronomical not just in monetary terms. The human cost was much BIGGER

    5. Re Deputy Duhamel and JEP comments he has handed over the environmental side of P&E to Deputy Labey as his Deputy, so having passed the buildings had very little option but to vote against, having inflated the value of the land then asking the public to buy it was not acceptable.

      Anonymous it was questioned how Senator Ozouf could ignore the value of Lime Grove yet accept the one for Plemont without question by the very same company.

      It is this type of "flip flop" approach by the politicians that interested me.

    6. "If more work had been done before, the proposition would have easily been won."

      What more could have been done? The states valuations were up to 7.8M making it pretty impossible for them to offer any more. The developer wanted 14M and wasn't going to budge. I understand he turned down requests to meet PB?

  6. Just a quick note, I realised I accidentally originally wrote that the Constables had a small majority in favour of the purchase. This was wrong, it was 7-5 against, I've corrected it in the above posting.

  7. Re: "CP isn't theft and its not below market value."

    That depends on your point of view. Mr Hemmings is a willing seller, at £14m. I regard it as theft if the government forcibly tries to make him sell an asset way below market value.

    The proof of the market value will be a) whenever Mr Hemmimgs sells to someone else or b) whenever he builds 28 executive homes with sea views. £4m to £5m for 28 prime plots with sea views was a gross underestimation.

    1. You are missing the point. Just because Mr Hemmings wants to sell at 14M that does not make 14M the market value. The CP process is legally bound to determine the market value if the parties can't agree.

      Also, the market value does not include Mr Hemmings lost profit. Something many states members failed to grasp.

    2. A market valuation is based on 28 x net sale value less build cost and less profit expectation. If the houses realise £900k each then a 14m valuation would only leave £400K per house for the build cost and the profit. Clearly this makes 14M ridiculous.

      The States 'amateur valuers' have been well and truly conned.

    3. The states top valuation of £7.8M, when you take site clearance costs into account, values each plot at around £325K. I think this is quite generous when you take the build cost of granite houses into account.

    4. "Also, the market value does not include Mr Hemmings lost profit. Something many states members failed to grasp"

      That's EXACTLY the point. It SHOULD include the lost profit. Nobody should be surprised if those promoting a flawed process get given short shrift. A skilled and diplomatic negotiator who did not reach for the lawyers as a first resort might have achieved a better outcome for the island.

    5. It should not include lost profit. The value of a plot of land is what someone would pay for it. No one would include lost profit in the price they would pay for a piece of development land. Land valuations do not include lost profit. Mr Hemmings would be free to use the proceeds to make a profit elsewhere. He should not profit twice.

      If a developer bought the land from Mr Hemmings he would expect the price to allow him to make a profit.

      If we had considered a land swap instead then we would not have swapped Plemont (worth say 7.8M) for another piece of land worth £14M.

      This proposition failed because many of our politicians were simply too stupid to grasp that simple fact.

  8. In most places such a defeat would have led to some resignations at least. Chief Minister Gorst - equivalent to PM - must be first to ask himself the question or others should. It was a substantial "government" defeat after all. But the significant defection of 4 Ministers plus several Assistant Ministers and other usually safe pairs of hands does really mean that this government has died and should be buried - but of course Jersey government is not organised like that!
    As we all know, we have no means of removing an unwanted government and the Electoral Commission reforms seem unlikely to change that.

    Also, as I have commented elsewhere, this was a resounding defeat for the embryo plan of this government to draw the "Third Sector" (Charities mostly) under its control. This rejection of the plan in such a public way has damaged the already struggling scheme to tie up charities and their many volunteers with contracts as "cheap labour" and providers of resources and money.
    WE all know that the JEP Jobs page often reads more like a volunteering advert and the fear that income support might be witheld from those unemployed who refuse or are incapable of doing "voluntary work" is very real in some quarters.
    Such sentiments are regularly expressed at Scrutiny hearings and there were several outbursts during the Plemont debate that would encourage the "chain gang" mentality. If the deal had gone through to "buy" Plemont the call for "volunteer" labour gangs to prepare the site and build the paths etc would have soon followed.

    Of course, there is nothing at all wrong with people who genuinly volunteer for such projects but we shoud learn a great deal from recent government behaviour re "Silkworth" and "Home Nursing" etc. and realise that the line between "charity" and "contract" is becoming very confused. Let this latest Plemont failure be a warning to all of us!

    There are many lessons to be learned from the Plemont fiasco and the "so called political progressives" should be meeting ASAP to discuss these....

    1. Tom, don't take this the wrong way but you sound a bit like a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

      Comments like "embryo plan of this government to draw the "Third Sector" (Charities mostly) under its control." do sound a bit silly.

    2. If that's how people think then thank god we don't have party politics in Jersey.

    3. Tom, good idea for a meeting. I'll try and get one organised in the first few weeks of the new year. Nows obviously not a good time because of people being away and family commitments etc. So will get in touch with you when one is organised.

  9. What is the right way to take the suggestion that I am a "paranoid conspiracy theorist"?
    I don't want to get paranopid about it but I am puzzled to know what this means...
    ...and if there is a god and that is how I think (whatever that means)the relatinship with party politics is also a bit any further clarification would be appreciated...
    ...are you two anonymous beings in any way related ?

  10. I too noted the calls by certain States Members to use unemployed labour on some form of workfare scheme to clear Plemont.

    When analysis starts getting too close to the uncomfortable truth, there is sure to an Anonymous jumping up to allege "paranoid conspiracy theorist". It almost confirms the validity of the argument.

    Of course we have party politics in Jersey, its just that its a one party state of the Right. Interestingly the Plemont debacle shattered Establishment party unity in an unprecedented fashion. The Jersey Tories were all over the show. Ideological inversion and confusion was everywhere..

    1. Party politics in Jersey only seems to exist in the minds of those who disagree with the majority.

    2. Jersey has covert party politics and it has ever since the end of the overt party politics a few decades ago when the Jersey Progressives (no relation to my brand of "progressiveness" won power then voluntarily disbanded because it was seen as the easiest way to maintain their power. Every government since then has been an ideological continuation of that party.

      All you have to do is look at voting patterns on policy matters and see that there clearly exists a whip system.

    3. I disagree. There are no party politics by any definition of the words. What we have is a 'council of ministers'. It's impossible to behave like a COM without seeming a bit like a party. But they are not a party and we do not have party politics either overtly or covertly. We have a Council of Ministers and how they behave, vote etc is entirely consistent with that.

    4. How did the Progressives win power. Only 11 of them got elected?

    5. Because there were fewer States Members back then and they did not stand candidates against independents that supported most of the parties programme. Their perspective made up the majority of the house.

      Doing some reading on it now and seeing a few interesting things. Namely that the JEP openly supported the JPP, and that's not a silly conspiracy theory, the paper openly admitted it. This is why I think the very first commenters issue with me referring to Senator Bailhache as their favourite Senator as "bitchy" is not a good criticism. The JEP has a track record of openly supporting or opposing various things/ candidates/ policies, so me pointing it out is not unreasonably.

      Interestingly, the opposing party in that 1945 election were the Jersey Democratic Movement, which was a Socialist coalition led by Norman Le Brocq and others who had led the resistance in the island to the Nazi occupation.

      The JEP refused to print their manifesto, even when they offered to pay for it as a normal advert.

      Their manifesto included these points -
      Reconstruction of the States Assembly
      (a) Sole members to be deputies, each elected for three years in the proportion of
      one for each 1,500 inhabitants. Property qualifications abolished for both
      candidates and electors.
      (b) A Council or Cabinet will be appointed, each member of which shall be in
      charge of a States Department.
      (c) Deputies to receive adequate remuneration.
      (d) Electorate shall have power of recall over deputies when two-thirds of the
      voting register shall demand their resignation.
      (e) Electorate to include all males and females over the age of 21, with the
      exception of (1) Foreigners; and (2) Citizens of the British Commonwealth
      with a local residence of less than one year.
      (f) Voting to be by the preferential method
      (g) The Assembly shall be the only legislative body in the Island. Judicial power
      shall be vested in the Royal Court which shall be independent of the
      Assembly. The title of Bailiff shall be reserved for the Chief Magistrate.
      (h) A Permanent Committee of Constables shall be formed to watch over
      parochial affairs

      Isn't it amazing how a party that was clearly years ahead of everyone else at the time (and even many today) was treated so contemptibly?

      This is the historical trend of attitude to socialism. As Tony Benn said - "It's the same each time with progress. First they ignore you, then they say you're mad, then dangerous, then there's a pause and then you can't find anyone who disagrees with you."

      Ladies and Gents, always remember that this is what the JEP always has done and still does to this day.

  11. Senator Bailhache on the politics hour on BBC Radio Jersey on Sunday -

    He gave a little bit of a giggle and odd answer when asked if parties are being formed. Sounds like it might be a possibility. Not the first time I've heard a rumour like this.

    Bring it on, I say.

  12. Hi Sam.

    Put up some Audio of Senator Bailhache attacking who ever doesn't agree with himself, the Jersey People need to wake up & see this man for what he is. A Bully & a Spoiled One at that.

    You & your readers can Listen HERE


  13. Plemont? Plemont who?
    Already just a footnote in history but as you and your thousands of readers know Sam, 2013 will witness the first ever "Jersey Reform Day" celebrations when you all will be waving flags, blowing trumpets and remembering the hundreds of unsung Jersey heroes form the past and present on 28 September.
    and start planning now - but don't forget to let us know what you will be doing in good time so that we can share our experiences etc

    Have a creative festive holiday ....