Saturday, 3 December 2016

Those pesky kids again

About a month ago there was a piece in the JEP on mental health and kids under 10.
It troubled me , especially the bit more than 800 children referred to the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services since 2011 were under the age of ten.  So I did a bit of sniffing about.  Since we are talking sensitive stuff and children and professional services it was never likely that anything substantive would be obvious.

However I did come across one very worrying thing told me by several sources concerning autism spectrum children, particularly asperger's.   There is a facility to  request an assessment for ASD/Aspergers.  No problem with that.  However my information is that if school suspects a child might be autistic spectrum, it is policy they cannot  indicate or suggest that is the case.  I cannot fathom this.  It means a child having some difficulties can go right through school getting no help  even though school is aware there might be something amiss that can be diagnoses and assisted.  It relies on parents being aware and knowing enough to ask specifically for the right assessment.

 There is a quick summary of Aspereger Syndrome at The UK policy and  practice on autism is at 

Two other things I came across reading up n this.  It is not uncommon for high functioning  people to only get assessed /diagnoses late in life.  There is an inheritance trait, though no specific gene influence is known.  The parent becomes aware and gets assessed because the child has been assessed.  That's only adds to the concern about the non disclosure policy in schools - parents might  find they have and can be helped too.

The other is the reported  tendency for people with high functioning ASD to be found disproportionately in some jobs, such as notably engineering.  Eg


I'll relate you an anecdote of my time at University when I was  a Student Union Officer.  One of the supposed perks of holding  one of the execute roles as I did few over 2 years was tickets to the various balls and Hall parties that happen annually.  There were quite a few  at Nottingham University - at least 15 a year.  I never knew quite how it became public but in my third term of office it was revealed I had never actually taken any of these free tickets to these events. There was quite a commotion about it.  Some saw it as good news- more tickets for the party goers on the executive, others  thought it inappropriate -all the exec members had a duty to represent the SU at such things. In the end they had to have a vote on it and I was instructed to go to a least one.  I never had a problem doing  formal events where there was a protocol, I was even able to give  impromptu speeches to  large student gatherings.  But  going to that party was easily the most daunting of all the  things I had to do.  Without clear rules/reference points I was lost.  

So you will not be surprised I think  to know that I recognised some of the traits in the  material I had been reading. I took an online test just to see. I wasn't even borderline but way into the typical scores for Asperge'rs people.  Of course it is not a formal assessment, or a diagnosis.  But its not a surprise.  Of course there might be other reasons fo rsome of the traits that are picked up by that test.  Being  in care as a child for starters.  I don't know anything about my first year of life, but learning at the age of about 7 that the people you thought were your parents aren't and understanding, if only in a vague way, all that you think is solid and safe might be changed at the stroke of a pen by some anonymous bureaucrat might have had some influence  too.

What am I going to do about it? Nothing.  What point is there in seeking a diagnosis and putting a label on things  now. Whatever the cause for my  rather unusual scores and tendencies re unstructured social groups and understanding  individual people, I've made it to my mid 50's in far better shape than so many who have been through the care system , or had a disorder analysis (the two are probably correlated too). The world is just going to have to learn to deal with me as I am just I have had to cope with it  the way it is.  My one regret is if I do have Asperger's I may have unwittingly lumbered my children with issues I'd rather they didn't have to deal with.  It might be a different matter for some other child or parent out there struggling  for whom an assessment and diagnosis and a bit of help realy would make a world of difference. 


Saturday, 5 November 2016

Good advice

Despite my technical backgound, or more likely  because of it, I've never had a smart phone.  The same applies to cars, those little bubbles of isolation.  So I think I can be excused for posting this.

Thursday, 27 October 2016

Taxing matters

I have been rather amused by the sudden realisation by the middle class of Jersey that their so wonderfully effective and efficient low taxing government is costing them more in tax than if they lived in the UK.  It has long been thus for some lower earners.  Actually it has also been the case for many who save and invest personally too  - if they had taken advantage of the UK's (now defunct) PEP's and still going  ISA's.  There are indeed a few who have amassed a tax free million pot.  See How to be an ISA millionaire Even at the FTSE100 dividend yield of  around. 3.5% that's £35,000 income  tax free.  Of course Jersey has no equivalent to these tax efficient saving and investing schemes

For lower earners the problem is the Jersey government's inability to comprehend that  increasing tax thresholds don't help those who fall somewhat below the thresholds.  In the  UK many equivalents of child allowances etc are credits - paid items, not exemptions.  In effect they boost income rather than allow a reduced tax bill.  It makes a difference because of course in Jersey once you are a 0 rate tax payer that's the end of the benefit.  So if like me your income is  below the thresholds by more than  a child's allowance, that allowance is worthless. That situation  does not occur in the UK where tax credits are paid.

Nor is it the case that such people will be  cushioned by having social security benefits.  The ability to claim those is quickly eroded by the  impact of capital  the potential claimant may have.  And this is not just theoretical stuff.

Each government department in Jersey  has a different perception about what is and isn't in need of assistance.  Equally each appears to think any income or assets you might have can be applied to offset any help you might get from their department alone. You can lose several times over as the same capital or income is used against you by each department  that might otherwise help.  It is a fine example of the inconsistent approach of a piecemeal  non-system without any common coherent thinking.  It is unsurprising given we elect individuals who have between them  no coherent strategy and each policy is a cobbled together compromise of individualist  foibles and interests. There is no plan or design or underpining philosophy here.

Thus it is quite possible to be in the situation I find myself.  No income tax, health charge or care charge to pay because our income falls way short of the threshold in marginal taxation.  Since I am not an employee I don't pay class 1 social security.  I am theoretically liable to play full class 2 social security ( ~£6,000 per year!), but even they have realised you cannot get blood from a stone.  Asking people with income  significantly below the tax threshold to pay that sort of money is madness.  So I have an exception. Of course I'm not entitled to most benefits and not building my pension contribution.

You might have the picture from the foregoing that we are not exactly rolling in it.  But the Education Department would disagree.  If either of my bright children want to go to university in a few years time I am, according to them, so well off that we wouldn't get a penny in help with the living costs or tuition fees.

I'll leave it to you dear reader to figure out the logic of how you can be so poor as to not be liable for tax or social security payments but simultaneously be so well off you can be expected to find £60,000 plus for each child to go to university. 

Thursday, 20 October 2016

No, Ministers

There is a consultation out on pay, technically actually remuneration, for Ministers. Ministers are past holders - usually such people are not paid for work, they are remunerated. (The same is often true for directors of companies, but the Manpower returns seem unable to grasp the essence of post holders are not employees).  It isn't a States consultation, but the States Member's Remuneration Body.  The details are at States Members Remuneration beyond 2018.pdf

The consultation quite explicitly asks about the Chief Minister's  remuneration because they have more responsibilities.  "In the first instance we suggest that pay differentiation should apply only to the Chief Minister, who undoubtedly has significant additional responsibilities when compared with other members. In our view, a supplement of 15% of salary (in other words £7,000 (after rounding) at the present level of salary) would be appropriate. This would apply from the election of the Chief Minister in 2018".

A lot in that proposal rests on what is meant or understood by responsibility.  For the longest time in politics generally to be responsible meant to be answerable for , to be held accountable for.   Especially in British parliamentary system , the Ministers were the temporary public face while the unseen unheard civil service was the  semi permanent advisory and implementation mechanism.  If things went wrong in their department, the Minister was held responsible, could lose their post, though more likely would  be expected to resign. It may not even be  mal administration,  just error of judgement. 

In theory the tough sanction on the Minister puts  proper focus on them properly and fully scrutinising what happens in their department.  Ignorance is no defence.  There is a feeling these days that far from taking responsibility, Ministers are inclined to try to defend the failings.

It is arguable under such a system when working as intended more responsibility, ie more things to  take the flak, and possible lose your position for, deserves a higher remuneration to compensate for the higher risks.

The question now is are Jersey's Ministers, including the Chief Minister, really responsible, accountable for anything?  Just last night we saw civil service officers being put up in front of camera to defend policy, not the minister. When was the last time a Jersey Minister resigned over failings in their  department?  Are they accountable, really?  I'd say not, and if not, the argument for increased remuneration is  faulty.

There are other arguments for not increasing, or actually decreasing, Minister's pay relating to research on performance and incentives.  See
But that's a different debate and not one the SMRRB is ever likely to want to consider - being composed largely of the very people who would under such  logic be paid less.....

Wednesday, 5 October 2016

Not good enough to be true?

It is often said that if an investment looks too good to be true it probably is.  I read in  the  report of the winding up of  Lumiere Wealth that investors were being offered 14% return on their money from a couple of Brazilian investments.  See  That may well sound too good to be true in the current low interest rate environment.

It is of course very sad that people have lost significant sums of money in the scheme .  However it is not really fair to say the investors were being unrealistic in hoping for a 14% return.  To add great insult to injury, the Brazilian stock market index has gone from 45,000 in  October 2015 to around 60,000 today - a gain of 33%. See brazil stock-market

Monday, 3 October 2016

No stamp of approval

Jersey likes to crow about the various companies based here, everything it seems from African mining to international arms traders. Here's one that many people have heard of, Stanley Gibbons.   But I'm guessing this wont make the headlines of the local commerce friendly media.
The board of directors are listed You might recognise a few local names, a former chairman of the JFSC, and another former chairman of CI Traders. . It has been going 150 years, though was only brought to Jersey about 5 years ago as I recall.

Nothing dodgy there, surely a sound investment prospect?

So here's the annual report out today. Not good.

Most of the directors listed on their web site stood down over the year it seems. Rats jumping the sinking ship is the metophor that springs to mind. Actually the company appears to me to have come within a day or so of being suspened from AIM for not producing the report on time. Here are a few snippets.

Following its acquisition of Mallett plc in October 2014, the Company learned that government regulators in the United States were investigating transactions that had occurred since 1 January 2010 involving a former client of Mallett Inc., Mallett's New York-based subsidiary. The former client is not a related person or affiliate of the Group. This issue had not been disclosed to the Company by the directors of Mallett plc during the due diligence process prior to the acquisition.

Buy back
In fact, whilst the new management team has already acted swiftly to resolve the first two cash outflows detailed above, it is the last element which has both proved more complex to isolate and represents a more fundamental deterioration in the Groups core business. It is now clear that the non-cash sale/reinvestment profile of the Stanley Gibbons Investment division`s investment contracts, sold between 2005 and 2013, which also retained an element of contractual buy-back, also fuelled the worsening net debt position. The Group no longer offers investment plans with contractual buy back options of any kind .
 A number of the Groups previous investment contracts, Guaranteed Minimum Return Contract ("GMRC" and the Capital Protection Growth Plan ("CPGP") both were contracts that had an element of contractual buyback. The contractual buy backs within the CPGPs were at a level of the original purchase price and within the GMRCs were above the purchase price to include a finance charge. This finance charge is recognised in the profit and loss throughout the period of the contract. These contracts were sold between 2005 and 2013 and have resulted in a restatement of prior year earnings relating to open contracts as at April 2014, as described in note 31b).  The GMRC and CPGP contracts ceased to be sold in April 2011 and December 2013 respectively.
Revenue recognition
 The Board has revisited the accounting treatment previously adopted in connection with certain transactions and has concluded that it was not in accordance with the applicable accounting standards. Accordingly the Board has decided to adopt some, significantly changed, accounting policies in the presentation of the accounts. These have resulted in a restatement of prior years' results and a substantial write-down of balance sheet assets. These changes stem largely from fundamental errors in the accounting treatment previously adopted, most notably of investment product "sales" recognised in previous years. 
Comments from the  auditors 
 Matters on which we are required to report by exception
In respect solely of the limitation on our work relating to the matters identified above in the Basis of Qualified opinion paragraph:

    we have not received all the information and explanations we require for our audit; and
   we were unable to determine whether proper accounting records have been kept.

We have nothing to report in respect of the following matters where the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 requires us to report to you if, in our opinion:

    proper returns adequate for our audit have not been received from branches not visited by us; and
   the financial statements are not in agreement with the accounting records and returns.

Tuesday, 27 September 2016

Greenacres Farm

Autumnal rain has arrived finally.  I'm not complaining - the soil needs it and I have made great progress in the field while the dry spell lasted.  Wet weather jobs have been piling up so it is a chance to catch up on those.

Things are not loooking so rosy elsewhere however.   People may be aware that Brian Adair has had his organic business up for sale for a while.  I know there have been interested parties, but so far nothing has materialised.  He was the first certified organic producer  in the Island and has a well established  business with a strong customer base.  If thats not viable or attractive as a business , then some serious questions need to be asked politically of ministers about what they do think is valuable and worthwhile in the Island. 

 In reality the answers will be made obvious today in the States  with the MTFP  debate.  It comes down to one thing  economic growth - the magic fairy dust that, like entropy in thermodynamics and dark matter in cosmology, has to be conjoured up conceptually to make the number work according to the the theory.

Unsurprisingly  I have been asked by a number of people if I am going to take on Brian's business.  I suppose it is an obvious question as I do go on so much about organic food, have some experience as a smalholder and  have run a few successful businesses in the past.   I have not entertained the possibility previously.  There are several reasons.

What I do in my own field is not a commercial operation  - I don't intend it to be. It is informal research based on my observations of that might constitute a bioethical food production system.  It is deliberately small scale and  in the last few years devoid of all mechanisation.  There's the first problem - scale.  Brian's operation would need at least 2 people to work as a  market garden/horticultural  concern, based on Eliot Coleman's maximum 2.5 acres per person observation.  Plus of course I'd still have my fields to manage and maintain. That means going back to a walk behind tractor at least, and that takes me away from the direction I have been experimenting on.

Another reason I havent entertained it  was commitment.  I am at an age where I have probably energy and time for one , perhaps  just two big projects left in my life.  Big projects I think of as those that require 'all in' effort - typically starting a new business  is like that - certainly those I have done before have been.   In the current state of organic production locally it certainly would  have to be an all consuming commitment.  If I were to do that it would have to be the right project.  There is a sort of opportunity costs here - other projects would have to be ditched or forgone.

All that  (and more) before even looking at the commercial figures and viability.  It is a fact that in Jersye  access to the land is controlled.  Even if you own fields you are not allowed to work them unless  you have permission! There are financial requirements of marginal profit  be a bona fide farmer (£40,000 per year) and to occupy  good agricultural land, or even more than a few vergees of less favoured land you have to qualify financially (interestingly they appear to have dropped the main income from farming  obligation that used to exist, I wonder why ;) ) See Land Control

There is a facebook group looking at the possibilities for saving the farm .  See  The groups s interested in a Community Supported Agriculture model. It has worked elsewhere. There's a useful UK site on how that might work  at  Community Supported Agriculture.  The Soil Association also has promoted CSA for organic production.  It is certainly a better bet than hoping the States of  Jersey will support organic agriculture in the Island!

I posted on that group some  thoughts about how this might go forward.  I've reproduced them below.

I know people are interested in CSA, but there may be another way to do this. If you have seen any of my rantings over the last 2 years you will know we have been losing certified organic land and growers for some time. Warnings fell on deaf ears politically. We have long had a problem in Jersey that farming and horticulture is viewed as a purely commercial activity. It can be done that way of course- that's how you get the agri chemical industry. But it needn't be. 2,500 years ago Hippocrates said (in greek of course!) Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food. I've posted a link below to a scheme in the USA taking that literally.

It isn't just immediate human health we need to consider either. There is the health of the soil and less well known to many is its ability to sequester carbon from the atmosphere. Possibly the last great hope for avoiding significant climate change. And there is the diversity and abundance and health of the eco system and biology around agriculture and horticulture - the water quality, wildlife and the psychological benefits of access to deep nature.

Put that lot together and it suggests to me a different approach , a different mind set is required. Not a commercial venture but a social one. Not a financial imperative, but a health one. If you think of it as a business the particiapnts expect a return. If you think of it as a charity , you get a different answer. Its not incompatible with CSA you can have supporting subscribers and charities can and do have volunteer workers and paid professionals. 

The question is whether you are in it just for what you can get out of it, or for what good can come out of it.

In Jersey we have low-income people with diabetes and high blood pressure. So what about this bleedin' obvious idea from the USA. Load fresh fruits and vegetables into a refrigerator truck and drive it to a health clinic. To improve the diet have a doctor write a “prescription” for food . Even better if it were local wholesome organic produce.