Palpable silence speaks volumes
I WAS perusing the Monday 8 March 2021 edition of the Guernsey Press when I was confronted by Deputy Ferbrache’s letter entitled, ‘We are all suffering’, which I read with great interest. Even though the letter was a direct, rather public, reply to the latest letter by Mr Chesney, that is not what caught my attention. What caught my attention, which I quote directly from Mr Ferbrache’s letter, is the following: ‘I would have thought what would have been more helpful would have been if Mr Chesney had picked up the telephone and spoken to me or sent me an email.’ I then had an epiphany: Surely, this cannot be the same individual I have tried to contact numerous times through email and telephone without any reply whatsoever? I must be mistaken to think that this is the same person I emailed a couple of months after the 2020 election when committees and presidents had been decided and the States had a relatively quiet period? To test this theory, straight after reading Mr Ferbrache’s letter, I sent two emails to him about Covid and the current restrictions, one email through the official States website, the other to his personal account. I believe that a week is sufficient time for Mr Ferbrache to reply, but I have had no such fortune, all is quiet and am still waiting for an answer to my questions. Answers which I am sure will interest the population of Guernsey, but perhaps Mr Ferbrache has no answers or direction, hence the silence?
If I am correct in assuming that the person I have tried to contact is the same person who wrote the ‘we are all suffering’ letter (surely I am wrong, though?) then I totally understand why Mr Chesney goes through the Guernsey Press and has decided on the course of action that he pursuing. I would strongly suggest that Mr Chesney continues his current course of action, as it is clear he is exercising his democratic right in the current dictatorial environment we live in. After skimming through Mr Ferbrache’s manifesto, I noticed that the words ‘transparency’ and ‘accountability’ did not feature once, which must be a saving grace that he did not dupe the electorate because combined with the palpable silence from questions and observations directed privately to him and the CCA by myself and, most probably, many other individuals, speaks volumes than any reply I or anyone else will ever receive from Mr Ferbrache...
KEVIN HAINSWORTH
Editor’s footnote: Peter Ferbrache responds:
I think I have a very good record for replying to correspondence. I try and reply promptly to all correspondence. Sometimes I may err. I do not know who the individual is [the Guernsey Press sends letters requiring a response without disclosing the writer’s name] and if I have missed the correspondence and not replied then it will have been an oversight for which I apologise. I am not saying that the correspondence from the person who has written to your newspaper falls into that category but occasionally I get abusive correspondence which I then purposely ignore.
If the writer wants to write to me again then I will endeavour to reply as long as I am sure it will be a courteous and civil communication. I note the writer makes reference to Mr Chesney. Since his letter published on 5 March and mine published on 8 March he has sent me two emails. I very much respect the confidentiality of the content of his communications but I do not regard it as a breach of that principle to say I replied to both promptly. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to reply.