tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-689286252454799616.post7257637760309801823..comments2008-04-23T23:39:12.786+01:00Benjamin Langloishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10828462728926269466noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-689286252454799616.post-72588683421590655092008-04-23T23:39:00.000+01:002008-04-23T23:39:00.000+01:00That is a very good and valid point; the man in question may not have been a Jersey-born resident. However the fact that he was reading the Jersey Evening Post and using public transport alone (he was sitting alone) with no apparent luggage were strong-enough indications that he has either lived in Jersey for a long time or he is in fact Jersey-born. Of course the former possibility may be the correct one, but personally I do believe the latter to be correct in this instance.<BR/><BR/>I may be wrong, but I do not think the message I am trying to convey in this post would be destroyed if this is so. I refer to the racist attitude of a minority of 'Jersey-born' residents, however I realise that it is not <I>solely</I> Jersey-born residents who hold these beliefs, and I apologise if this misconception of the post has arisen from my wording.<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your constructive comment.<BR/><BR/> - Benjamin LangloisBenjamin Langloishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10828462728926269466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-689286252454799616.post-65093334493090535912008-04-23T12:11:00.000+01:002008-04-23T12:11:00.000+01:00Interesting. What made you believe that the man with the newspaper was a "Jerseyman" (you mention "Jersey-born residents")? <BR/><BR/>He could have arrived from the "mainland" last week for all we know?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com