内容摘要：They had to quickly turn the other sails so the wind worked in their favour, and “take some things apart and do some jerry-rigging” to get the main sail down, Alex says.

They had to quickly turn the other sails so the wind worked in their favour, and “take some things apart and do some jerry-rigging” to get the main sail down, Alex says.

It comes after approval from the Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority (JCRA).The firm said the consolidation of the island's leading producers was "seen by both businesses as key to delivering a sustainable future for the famous Jersey Royal crop, while continuing to deliver a great product for consumers".

Alex Bartlett, CEO of Albert Bartlett, said the company had a long history with the island in the production and marketing of Jersey Royal potatoes and in "supporting the future of Jersey agriculture".He said: "Our purchase of JRC enhances that level of commitment and will allow us to build a compelling and sustainable future for our combined teams, growers and retail partners by delivering a great consumer proposition."There will be lots of hard work ahead, but it is an exciting time for the famous Jersey Royal potato.”

Rachel Cook-Coulson, of Produce Investments, said they were "really proud" of their Jersey business and team.She said: "However, we have a responsibility to look forward and ensure that great tradition continues.

"With current pressures in the supply chain and changing market dynamics, we believe a consolidated approach to producing and marketing this unique product is needed.

"Following detailed discussions, we believe Albert Bartlett are best placed to take Jersey forward.”In April, some 600 British lawyers including four former Supreme Court justices, signed a letter to the UK Prime Minister, asking him to stop arms sales to Israel and referring to “a plausible risk of genocide”.

That triggered a counter-letter from UK Lawyers For Israel (UKLFI). The 1,300-strong group said the ICJ had only ruled that Gaza Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide - in other words, that it had been dealing with a complex and somewhat abstract legal argument.The dispute continued in more letters and interpretations.

Many in the first group described UKLFI’s interpretation as “empty wordplay”. The court, they argued, cannot have been solely concerned with an academic question - because the stakes were far higher than that.And, of all places, the debate crystallised in legal sparring before a UK parliamentary committee, debating the question of arms exports to Israel.