Archive post: »V politician illustrates the butterfly effect« · 2020-07-10

• Edward Lorenz — Mentioned in the current archived text
• Halldor Henriksen — Mentioned in the current archived text
• Peter Hansen — Mentioned in the current archived text
• Stefan Lydal — Mentioned in the current archived text

Source title: V-politiker underbygger sommerfugleeffekten

Text version dated 9 Aug 2020

Skansegården Venstrepolitiker underbygger sommerfugleeffekten Kan en enkeltpersons relativt banale dumhed starte en lavine af større dumheder, der udvikler sig til en mediestorm og aktiverer en hær af journalister, en lokalredaktør, en chefredaktør, adskillige politikere, en advokat, kommunens forvaltning, et byråd og endog en minister? Og hvem skal betale alle disse gode menneskers løn, mens de beskæftiger sig med opgaven? Desværre ikke ham der startede problemerne.

I stedet lander en del af regningen hos dig og resten af landets skatteborgere. Kaosteorien bliver ofte forklaret ud fra sommerfugleeffekten, der blev lanceret af den amerikanske matematiker og meteorolog Edward Lorenz i 1972. Den stiller spørgsmålet: Kan et vingeslag fra en sommerfugl i Brasilien forårsage en tornado i Texas?

Svaret er bekræftende. Det er faktisk muligt. Et lille puf af uforudsigelighed kan forstærke andre faktorer, som tilsammen kan skabe voldsomme kaotiske fænomener.

I en aktuel sag i Sønderborg kan det samme mønster ses. En enkelt dumhed hos en lokalpolitiker starter en lavine af dumheder, angreb, forsvar, information og misinformation – og skaber et kaos, hvor de færreste kan huske, hvem det var, der baskede med vingerne og hvorfor. Hvis du også har glemt det – eller slet ikke kender sagen, så får du lige et resume.

Fredeligt forfald gennem årtier Ude på Dybbøl Banke lå Skansegården. Den var ikke fredet, men vurderet bevaringsværdig. Alligevel var den ikke blevet bevaret.

Gennem årtier i statens eje havde ejendommen fået lov til at forfalde til nedrivningsmoden tilstand. Der var ingen, der havde bekymret sig om vedligeholdelse, og naturen tog sig af nedbrydningen. Staten skønnede, at det ville være et dårligt signal at sende, hvis man selv stod for nedrivning.

Derfor besluttede man sig for at sælge ejendommen og sende aben videre. Helst til en handlekraftig køber. Ejendommen blev solgt på en auktion med lukkede bud.

Det betød, at man kunne byde anonymt. Det var nok her, hos en anonym byder, at hele hemmeligheden bag de følgende problemer kunne findes. Angreb fra lokalpolitiker Den nye ejer var glad for ejendommen, men erfarede dog, ganske som staten havde gjort, at nedrivning og genopbygning af Skansegården i samme stil var den eneste mulighed for at skabe en ejendom, der levede op til tidens krav til menneskeboliger.

Det bekymrede ham ikke så meget i starten, men det kom det til. En lokalpolitiker, Peter Hansen (V), besluttede nemlig med alle midler at forhindre nedrivning. Peter Hansen havde ikke tidligere offentlig ytret nogen interesse for Skansegården.

Men pludselig brændte kærligheden så stærkt i ham, at han, gennem en stribe artikler og læserbreve i JydskeVestkysten, stod frem som Skansegårdens redningsmand. Ingen anden end Peter Hansen selv ved, hvorfor han i denne ene sag gik stik mod præcedens i hundredevis af tilsvarende sager. Han fik dog opbakning fra sit parti Venstre, Stefan Lydal (DF) og det medie som han sidder som bestyrelsesmedlem i (JydskeVestkysten/Jysk Fynske Medier).

Det førte til en række angreb på Skansegården og dens ejer i det omtalte medie. Byrådet afgjorde sagen Da Skansegårdens ejer ikke havde megen lyst til at udtale sig til JydskeVestkysten, som jo var det medie, der effektuerede Venstres angreb, valgte han at formidle sine budskaber via egne kanaler. Det blev blandt andet gjort via Facebook-siden Dybbøl Banke - Skansegården.

De faglige argumenter, i form af fagfolks vurderinger og udtalelser, der blev samlet på siden, var med til at afgøre sagen. Et flertal i Sønderborg Byråd valgte at følge Fredningsnævnets og Kommunens forvaltnings anbefaling og sagde god for nedrivning. Men det stoppede ikke der Borgfreden burde kunne sænke sig, men allerede i samme uge startede Peter Hansen og JydskeVestkysten en ny kampagne.

Nu mente Peter Hansen, at Skansegårdens ejer lavede skattefusk. At han var lodret uenig med landsdelens førende skatteeksperter dæmpede ikke hans ildhu, der igen blev støttet af lokalredaktør Halldor Henriksen og JydskeVestkysten. Mediekampagne Den lille detalje, at Peter Hansen åbenbart ville gøre alt for at forhindre den nye ejer i at skabe et hjem på Skansegården, startede altså lavinen af indlæg fra JydskeVestkysten / jv.dk (pt. mere end 50 stk.), hvor både journalister, lokalredaktør og chefredaktør blev aktiveret.

Det affødte en tilsvarende mængde af artikler fra Skansegårdens side. Der blev også mange timers opgaver for Sønderborg Kommunes forvaltning, byrådsmedlemmerne og advokater. Ja selv Skatteministeren måtte svare på et temmeligt irrelevant spørgsmål om sagen, da Venstre forsøgte at bruge en udokumenteret påstand som politisk brækstang.

Sommerfugleeffekten var nået helt op på folketingsniveau. Hvem skal betale? Venstres kampagne, som grundet manglende faglig dokumentation ikke flyttede sagen en millimeter, kostede dyrt for mange, men måske var det partiet selv og JydskeVestkysten / Jysk Fynske Medier, der mistede mest troværdighed på den.

De fik nemlig med al tydelighed vist hele landet, hvor tæt deres samarbejde er. Det kan man vurdere som en positiv effekt. Men hvem er det, der skal betale for tåbelighederne?

Tjae, Skansegårdens ejer har naturligvis måttet betale sin side af kampagnen med egne, i øvrigt allerede beskattede, midler. Det er vilkårene, når man går op mod den tredje statsmagt. Jysk Fynske Medier har sikkert holdt skindet på næsen.

De sælger flere aviser, jo mere sensationsprægede artikler de producerer. Og hvis de alligevel synes, at det har været dyrt at grave efter snavs om en lokal erhvervsmand, så har de jo de årlige 66 millioner kroner i mediestøtte som et plaster på såret. Peter Hansen og hans kollegaer i Venstres byrådsgruppe er naturligvis kommunalt aflønnet for deres indsats.

Det samme kan siges om forvaltningens medarbejdere. Skatteministerens arbejde er sikkert også dækket ind via skattebilletten. Du har allerede betalt, så nyd et gensyn med artiklerne Faktisk har du, som skatteborger, været med til at finansiere både Venstres og JydskeVestkystens indsats.

Derfor synes vi, at du fortjener at se eller gense udvalgte højdepunkter fra føljetonen af åndsprodukter fra det såkaldt uafhængige statsstøttede medie. I dag har vi valgt denne: https://jv.dk/artikel/skanseg%C3%A5rden-2020-5-29

This is an automatic reading translation. The source’s allegations and assessments have not been independently confirmed through translation. Check wording, qualifications and meaning against the preserved Danish original. Some retained numbers may use Danish separators: a dot for thousands and a comma for decimals. Check amounts against the Danish original.

Skansegården’s future. Venstre politician illustrates the butterfly effect. Can one person’s relatively ordinary stupidity trigger an avalanche of greater stupidities that becomes a media storm and mobilises an army of journalists, a local editor, an editor-in-chief, several politicians, a lawyer, the municipal administration, a council and even a minister?

And who pays all these good people’s salaries while they deal with the task? Unfortunately, not the man who started the problems. Instead, part of the bill lands with you and the country’s other taxpayers.

Chaos theory is often explained through the butterfly effect, introduced by American mathematician and meteorologist Edward Lorenz in 1972. It asks: can the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil cause a tornado in Texas? The answer is yes.

It actually is possible. A small push of unpredictability can amplify other factors that together create violent chaotic phenomena. The same pattern can be seen in a current case in Sønderborg.

One local politician’s foolish act starts an avalanche of foolish acts, attacks, defences, information and misinformation, creating chaos in which few can remember who flapped their wings and why. If you too have forgotten, or do not know the case at all, here is a brief recap. Peaceful decay over decades.

Skansegården stood out on Dybbøl Banke. It was not legally listed but assessed as worthy of preservation. Even so, it had not been preserved.

Over decades of state ownership, the property was allowed to decay to the point of being ready for demolition. Nobody had bothered with maintenance, and nature took care of the deterioration. The state judged it would send a poor signal to undertake the demolition itself.

It therefore decided to sell the property and pass the problem on, preferably to a decisive buyer. The property was sold at a sealed-bid auction, meaning bids could be anonymous. The whole secret behind the subsequent problems was probably to be found here, with an anonymous bidder.

Attack from a local politician. The new owner was happy with the property, but discovered, just as the state had, that demolishing and rebuilding Skansegården in the same style was the only way to create a property meeting modern requirements for human habitation. Initially that did not worry him much, but it soon would.

A local politician, Peter Hansen (V), decided to prevent demolition by every available means. Peter Hansen had not previously expressed any public interest in Skansegården. Suddenly, however, his love for it burned so strongly that he appeared as its saviour through a series of articles and letters to the editor in JydskeVestkysten.

Nobody but Peter Hansen himself knows why, in this one case, he went directly against the precedent of hundreds of similar cases. He did, however, receive support from his party Venstre, Stefan Lydal (DF) and the media company on whose board he sits, JydskeVestkysten/Jysk Fynske Medier. This led to a series of attacks on Skansegården and its owner in that media outlet.

The municipal council decided the case Since Skansegården's owner had little desire to speak to JydskeVestkysten, the outlet carrying out Venstre's attacks, he chose to convey his messages through his own channels. Among other things, this was done through the Facebook page Dybbøl Banke - Skansegården. The professional arguments, in the form of experts' assessments and statements collected on the page, helped decide the case.

A majority on Sønderborg Byråd chose to follow the recommendation of Fredningsnævnet and the municipal administration and approved demolition. But it did not stop there A truce should have been possible, but already that same week Peter Hansen and JydskeVestkysten started a new campaign. Now Peter Hansen believed Skansegården's owner was committing tax fraud.

His outright disagreement with the region's leading tax experts did not diminish his zeal, again supported by local editor Halldor Henriksen and JydskeVestkysten. Media campaign So the small detail that Peter Hansen apparently wanted to do everything to prevent the new owner creating a home at Skansegården triggered the avalanche of pieces from JydskeVestkysten / jv.dk, currently more than 50, mobilising journalists, the local editor and editor-in-chief. It generated a corresponding number of articles from Skansegården's side.

There were also many hours of work for Sønderborg Kommune's administration, councillors and lawyers. Indeed, even the Minister for Taxation had to answer a rather irrelevant question about the case when Venstre tried to use an undocumented assertion as political leverage. The butterfly effect had reached parliamentary level.

Who must pay? Venstre's campaign, which did not advance the case a millimetre because of its lack of professional documentation, was costly for many. But perhaps the party itself and JydskeVestkysten / Jysk Fynske Medier lost the most credibility.

They clearly showed the whole country just how close their cooperation is. That can be considered a positive effect. But who must pay for the foolishness?

Well, Skansegården's owner has naturally had to pay for his side of the campaign out of his own funds, already taxed, incidentally. Those are the conditions when taking on the third estate of state power. Jysk Fynske Medier has surely managed to stay afloat.

The more sensational articles it produces, the more newspapers it sells. And if it still thinks digging for dirt about a local businessman has been expensive, it has the annual 66 million kroner in media support as a consolation. Peter Hansen and his colleagues in Venstre's municipal council group are naturally paid by the municipality for their efforts.

The same applies to the administration's employees. The Minister for Taxation's work is presumably also covered by the tax bill. You have already paid, so enjoy revisiting the articles In fact, as a taxpayer, you have helped finance both Venstre's and JydskeVestkysten's efforts.

We therefore think you deserve to see or revisit selected highlights from the serial production of intellectual output from the so-called independent, state-supported outlet. Today we have chosen this one: https://jv.dk/artikel/skanseg%C3%A5rdens-fremtid

This is an automatic reading translation. The source’s allegations and assessments have not been independently confirmed through translation. Check wording, qualifications and meaning against the preserved Danish original. Some retained numbers may use Danish separators: a dot for thousands and a comma for decimals. Check amounts against the Danish original.

Fortunately, no demolition. Venstre politician illustrates the butterfly effect. Can one person’s relatively ordinary stupidity trigger an avalanche of greater stupidities that becomes a media storm and mobilises an army of journalists, a local editor, an editor-in-chief, several politicians, a lawyer, the municipal administration, a council and even a minister?

And who pays all these good people’s salaries while they deal with the task? Unfortunately, not the man who started the problems. Instead, part of the bill lands with you and the country’s other taxpayers.

Chaos theory is often explained through the butterfly effect, introduced by American mathematician and meteorologist Edward Lorenz in 1972. It asks: can the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil cause a tornado in Texas? The answer is yes.

It actually is possible. A small push of unpredictability can amplify other factors that together create violent chaotic phenomena. The same pattern can be seen in a current case in Sønderborg.

One local politician’s foolish act starts an avalanche of foolish acts, attacks, defences, information and misinformation, creating chaos in which few can remember who flapped their wings and why. If you too have forgotten, or do not know the case at all, here is a brief recap. Peaceful decay over decades.

Skansegården stood out on Dybbøl Banke. It was not legally listed but assessed as worthy of preservation. Even so, it had not been preserved.

Over decades of state ownership, the property was allowed to decay to the point of being ready for demolition. Nobody had bothered with maintenance, and nature took care of the deterioration. The state judged it would send a poor signal to undertake the demolition itself.

It therefore decided to sell the property and pass the problem on, preferably to a decisive buyer. The property was sold at a sealed-bid auction, meaning bids could be anonymous. The whole secret behind the subsequent problems was probably to be found here, with an anonymous bidder.

Attack from a local politician. The new owner was happy with the property, but discovered, just as the state had, that demolishing and rebuilding Skansegården in the same style was the only way to create a property meeting modern requirements for human habitation. Initially that did not worry him much, but it soon would.

A local politician, Peter Hansen (V), decided to prevent demolition by every available means. Peter Hansen had not previously expressed any public interest in Skansegården. Suddenly, however, his love for it burned so strongly that he appeared as its saviour through a series of articles and letters to the editor in JydskeVestkysten.

Nobody but Peter Hansen himself knows why, in this one case, he went directly against the precedent of hundreds of similar cases. He did, however, receive support from his party Venstre, Stefan Lydal (DF) and the media company on whose board he sits, JydskeVestkysten/Jysk Fynske Medier. This led to a series of attacks on Skansegården and its owner in that media outlet.

The municipal council decided the case Since Skansegården's owner had little desire to speak to JydskeVestkysten, the outlet carrying out Venstre's attacks, he chose to convey his messages through his own channels. Among other things, this was done through the Facebook page Dybbøl Banke - Skansegården. The professional arguments, in the form of experts' assessments and statements collected on the page, helped decide the case.

A majority on Sønderborg Byråd chose to follow the recommendation of Fredningsnævnet and the municipal administration and approved demolition. But it did not stop there A truce should have been possible, but already that same week Peter Hansen and JydskeVestkysten started a new campaign. Now Peter Hansen believed Skansegården's owner was committing tax fraud.

His outright disagreement with the region's leading tax experts did not diminish his zeal, again supported by local editor Halldor Henriksen and JydskeVestkysten. Media campaign So the small detail that Peter Hansen apparently wanted to do everything to prevent the new owner creating a home at Skansegården triggered the avalanche of pieces from JydskeVestkysten / jv.dk, currently more than 50, mobilising journalists, the local editor and editor-in-chief. It generated a corresponding number of articles from Skansegården's side.

There were also many hours of work for Sønderborg Kommune's administration, councillors and lawyers. Indeed, even the Minister for Taxation had to answer a rather irrelevant question about the case when Venstre tried to use an undocumented assertion as political leverage. The butterfly effect had reached all the way up to parliamentary level.

Who has to pay? Venstre’s campaign, which did not move the case a millimetre owing to a lack of professional documentation, cost many people dearly, but perhaps the party itself and JydskeVestkysten / Jysk Fynske Medier lost the most credibility through it. They showed the entire country with absolute clarity how closely they collaborate.

That can be regarded as a positive effect. But who has to pay for the foolishness? Well, Skansegården’s owner has naturally had to pay for his side of the campaign out of his own funds, which, incidentally, had already been taxed.

Those are the conditions when you take on the third power of the state. Jysk Fynske Medier has presumably kept its head above water. The more sensational articles it produces, the more newspapers it sells.

And if it nevertheless thinks it has been expensive to dig for dirt on a local businessman, it has the annual 66 million kroner in media subsidies as a plaster on the wound. Peter Hansen and his colleagues in Venstre’s municipal council group are naturally paid by the municipality for their efforts. The same can be said of the administration’s staff.

The tax minister’s work is presumably also covered by the tax bill. You have already paid, so enjoy revisiting the articles. In fact, as a taxpayer, you have helped finance both Venstre’s and JydskeVestkysten’s efforts.

We therefore think you deserve to see or revisit selected highlights from the series of intellectual productions from the supposedly independent state-subsidised media outlet. Today we have selected this one: https://jv.dk/artikel/heldigvis-ingen-nedrivning

This is an automatic reading translation. The source’s allegations and assessments have not been independently confirmed through translation. Check wording, qualifications and meaning against the preserved Danish original. Some retained numbers may use Danish separators: a dot for thousands and a comma for decimals. Check amounts against the Danish original.

Dybbøl Mølle drops Red Cross centre Venstre politician illustrates the butterfly effect Can one person's relatively banal stupidity start an avalanche of greater stupidities that develops into a media storm and mobilises an army of journalists, a local editor, an editor-in-chief, several politicians, a lawyer, the municipal administration, a municipal council and even a minister? And who must pay all these good people's wages while they work on the task? Unfortunately, not the person who started the problems.

Instead, part of the bill lands with you and the country's other taxpayers. Chaos theory is often explained through the butterfly effect, introduced by American mathematician and meteorologist Edward Lorenz in 1972. It asks: Can a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil cause a tornado in Texas?

The answer is yes. It is indeed possible. A small nudge of unpredictability can amplify other factors which together can create violent chaotic phenomena.

The same pattern can be seen in a current case in Sønderborg. One foolish act by a local politician starts an avalanche of foolishness, attacks, defence, information and misinformation—and creates chaos in which few remember who flapped their wings and why. If you have also forgotten—or do not know the case at all—here is a brief recap.

Peaceful decay over decades Out on Dybbøl Banke stood Skansegården. It was not listed but assessed as worthy of preservation. Nevertheless, it had not been preserved.

Over decades of state ownership, the property was allowed to decay to the point of being ready for demolition. Nobody had bothered with maintenance, and nature took care of the deterioration. The state judged it would send a poor signal to undertake the demolition itself.

It therefore decided to sell the property and pass the problem on, preferably to a decisive buyer. The property was sold at a sealed-bid auction, meaning bids could be anonymous. The whole secret behind the subsequent problems was probably to be found here, with an anonymous bidder.

Attack from a local politician. The new owner was happy with the property, but discovered, just as the state had, that demolishing and rebuilding Skansegården in the same style was the only way to create a property meeting modern requirements for human habitation. Initially that did not worry him much, but it soon would.

A local politician, Peter Hansen (V), decided to prevent demolition by every available means. Peter Hansen had not previously expressed any public interest in Skansegården. Suddenly, however, his love for it burned so strongly that he appeared as its saviour through a series of articles and letters to the editor in JydskeVestkysten.

Nobody but Peter Hansen himself knows why, in this one case, he went directly against the precedent of hundreds of similar cases. He did, however, receive support from his party Venstre, Stefan Lydal (DF) and the media company on whose board he sits, JydskeVestkysten/Jysk Fynske Medier. This led to a series of attacks on Skansegården and its owner in the outlet in question.

The municipal council decided the case Since Skansegården's owner had little desire to speak to JydskeVestkysten, the outlet carrying out Venstre's attacks, he chose to convey his messages through his own channels. Among other things, this was done through the Facebook page Dybbøl Banke - Skansegården. The professional arguments, in the form of experts' assessments and statements collected on the page, helped decide the case.

A majority on Sønderborg Byråd chose to follow the recommendation of Fredningsnævnet and the municipal administration and approved demolition. But it did not stop there A truce should have been possible, but already that same week Peter Hansen and JydskeVestkysten started a new campaign. Now Peter Hansen believed Skansegården's owner was committing tax fraud.

His outright disagreement with the region's leading tax experts did not diminish his zeal, again supported by local editor Halldor Henriksen and JydskeVestkysten. Media campaign So the small detail that Peter Hansen apparently wanted to do everything to prevent the new owner creating a home at Skansegården triggered the avalanche of pieces from JydskeVestkysten / jv.dk, currently more than 50, mobilising journalists, the local editor and editor-in-chief. It generated a corresponding number of articles from Skansegården's side.

There were also many hours of work for Sønderborg Kommune's administration, councillors and lawyers. Even the tax minister had to answer a rather irrelevant question about the case when Venstre tried to use an undocumented allegation as a political crowbar. The butterfly effect had reached all the way up to parliamentary level.

Who has to pay? Venstre’s campaign, which did not move the case a millimetre owing to a lack of professional documentation, cost many people dearly, but perhaps the party itself and JydskeVestkysten / Jysk Fynske Medier lost the most credibility through it. They showed the entire country with absolute clarity how closely they collaborate.

That can be regarded as a positive effect. But who has to pay for the foolishness? Well, Skansegården’s owner has naturally had to pay for his side of the campaign out of his own funds, which, incidentally, had already been taxed.

Those are the conditions when you take on the third power of the state. Jysk Fynske Medier has presumably kept its head above water. The more sensational articles it produces, the more newspapers it sells.

And if it nevertheless thinks it has been expensive to dig for dirt on a local businessman, it has the annual 66 million kroner in media subsidies as a plaster on the wound. Peter Hansen and his colleagues in Venstre’s municipal council group are naturally paid by the municipality for their efforts. The same can be said of the administration’s staff.

The tax minister’s work is presumably also covered by the tax bill. You have already paid, so enjoy revisiting the articles. In fact, as a taxpayer, you have helped finance both Venstre’s and JydskeVestkysten’s efforts.

We therefore think you deserve to see or revisit selected highlights from the series of intellectual productions from the supposedly independent state-subsidised media outlet. Today we have selected this one: https://jv.dk/artikel/dybb%C3%B8l-m%C3%B8lle-dropper-r%C3%B8de-kors-center

This is an automatic reading translation. The source’s allegations and assessments have not been independently confirmed through translation. Check wording, qualifications and meaning against the preserved Danish original. Some retained numbers may use Danish separators: a dot for thousands and a comma for decimals. Check amounts against the Danish original.

Venstre politician illustrates the butterfly effect. Can one person’s relatively ordinary stupidity trigger an avalanche of greater stupidities that becomes a media storm and mobilises an army of journalists, a local editor, an editor-in-chief, several politicians, a lawyer, the municipal administration, a council and even a minister? And who pays all these good people’s salaries while they deal with the task?

Unfortunately, not the man who started the problems. Instead, part of the bill lands with you and the country’s other taxpayers. Chaos theory is often explained through the butterfly effect, introduced by American mathematician and meteorologist Edward Lorenz in 1972.

It asks: can the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil cause a tornado in Texas? The answer is yes. It actually is possible.

A small push of unpredictability can amplify other factors that together create violent chaotic phenomena. The same pattern can be seen in a current case in Sønderborg. One local politician’s foolish act starts an avalanche of foolish acts, attacks, defences, information and misinformation, creating chaos in which few can remember who flapped their wings and why.

If you too have forgotten, or do not know the case at all, here is a brief recap. Peaceful decay over decades. Skansegården stood out on Dybbøl Banke.

It was not legally listed but assessed as worthy of preservation. Even so, it had not been preserved. Over decades of state ownership, the property was allowed to decay to the point of being ready for demolition.

Nobody had bothered with maintenance, and nature took care of the deterioration. The state judged it would send a poor signal to undertake the demolition itself. It therefore decided to sell the property and pass the problem on, preferably to a decisive buyer.

The property was sold at a sealed-bid auction, meaning bids could be anonymous. The whole secret behind the subsequent problems was probably to be found here, with an anonymous bidder. Attack from a local politician.

The new owner was happy with the property, but discovered, just as the state had, that demolishing and rebuilding Skansegården in the same style was the only way to create a property meeting modern requirements for human habitation. Initially that did not worry him much, but it soon would. A local politician, Peter Hansen (V), decided to prevent demolition by every available means.

Peter Hansen had not previously expressed any public interest in Skansegården. Suddenly, however, his love for it burned so strongly that he appeared as its saviour through a series of articles and letters to the editor in JydskeVestkysten. Nobody but Peter Hansen himself knows why, in this one case, he went directly against the precedent of hundreds of similar cases.

He did, however, receive support from his party Venstre, Stefan Lydal (DF) and the media company on whose board he sits, JydskeVestkysten/Jysk Fynske Medier. This led to a series of attacks on Skansegården and its owner in that media outlet. The municipal council decided the case Since Skansegården's owner had little desire to speak to JydskeVestkysten, the outlet carrying out Venstre's attacks, he chose to convey his messages through his own channels.

Among other things, this was done through the Facebook page Dybbøl Banke - Skansegården. The professional arguments, in the form of experts' assessments and statements collected on the page, helped decide the case. A majority on Sønderborg Byråd chose to follow the recommendation of Fredningsnævnet and the municipal administration and approved demolition.

But it did not stop there A truce should have been possible, but already that same week Peter Hansen and JydskeVestkysten started a new campaign. Now Peter Hansen believed Skansegården's owner was committing tax fraud. His outright disagreement with the region's leading tax experts did not diminish his zeal, again supported by local editor Halldor Henriksen and JydskeVestkysten.

Media campaign So the small detail that Peter Hansen apparently wanted to do everything to prevent the new owner creating a home at Skansegården triggered the avalanche of pieces from JydskeVestkysten / jv.dk, currently more than 50, mobilising journalists, the local editor and editor-in-chief. It generated a corresponding number of articles from Skansegården's side. There were also many hours of work for Sønderborg Kommune's administration, councillors and lawyers.

Indeed, even the Minister for Taxation had to answer a rather irrelevant question about the case when Venstre tried to use an undocumented assertion as political leverage. The butterfly effect had reached all the way up to parliamentary level. Who has to pay?

Venstre’s campaign, which did not move the case a millimetre owing to a lack of professional documentation, cost many people dearly, but perhaps the party itself and JydskeVestkysten / Jysk Fynske Medier lost the most credibility through it. They showed the entire country with absolute clarity how closely they collaborate. That can be regarded as a positive effect.

But who has to pay for the foolishness? Well, Skansegården’s owner has naturally had to pay for his side of the campaign out of his own funds, which, incidentally, had already been taxed. Those are the conditions when you take on the third power of the state.

Jysk Fynske Medier has presumably kept its head above water. The more sensational articles it produces, the more newspapers it sells. And if it nevertheless thinks it has been expensive to dig for dirt on a local businessman, it has the annual 66 million kroner in media subsidies as a plaster on the wound.

Peter Hansen and his colleagues in Venstre’s municipal council group are naturally paid by the municipality for their efforts. The same can be said of the administration’s staff. The tax minister’s work is presumably also covered by the tax bill.

You have already paid, so enjoy revisiting the articles. In fact, as a taxpayer, you have helped finance both Venstre’s and JydskeVestkysten’s efforts. We therefore think you deserve to see or revisit selected highlights from the series of intellectual productions from the supposedly independent state-subsidised media outlet.

Today we have selected this one: https://jv.dk/artikel/st%C3%A5-fast

This is an automatic reading translation. The source’s allegations and assessments have not been independently confirmed through translation. Check wording, qualifications and meaning against the preserved Danish original. Some retained numbers may use Danish separators: a dot for thousands and a comma for decimals. Check amounts against the Danish original.

V politician illustrates the butterfly effect 

Can one person's relatively banal stupidity start an avalanche of greater stupidities that develops into a media storm and mobilises an army of journalists, a local editor, an editor-in-chief, several politicians, a lawyer, the municipal administration, a municipal council and even a minister? 

And who pays all these good people’s salaries while they deal with the task? Unfortunately, not the man who started the problems. Instead, part of the bill lands with you and the country’s other taxpayers. 

Chaos theory is often explained through the butterfly effect, introduced by the American mathematician and meteorologist Edward Lorenz in 1972. It asks: Can the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil cause a tornado in Texas? The answer is yes.

It is actually possible. A small nudge of unpredictability can amplify other factors, together creating violent chaotic phenomena. The same pattern can be seen in a current case in Sønderborg.

One foolish act by a local politician starts an avalanche of foolishness, attacks, defence, information and misinformation—and creates chaos in which few remember who flapped their wings and why. If you have also forgotten—or do not know the case at all—here is a brief recap.

Peaceful decay over decades
Skansegården stood out on Dybbøl Banke. It was not legally listed but assessed as worthy of preservation. Even so, it had not been preserved.

Over decades of state ownership, the property was allowed to decay to the point of being ready for demolition. Nobody had bothered with maintenance, and nature took care of the deterioration. The state judged it would send a poor signal to undertake the demolition itself.

It therefore decided to sell the property and pass the problem on, preferably to a decisive buyer. The property was sold at a sealed-bid auction, meaning bids could be anonymous. The whole secret behind the subsequent problems was probably to be found here, with an anonymous bidder.

Attacks from a local politician
The new owner was happy with the property, but discovered, just as the state had, that demolishing and rebuilding Skansegården in the same style was the only way to create a property meeting modern requirements for human habitation. Initially that did not worry him much, but it soon would. A local politician, Peter Hansen (V), decided to prevent demolition by every available means.

Peter Hansen had not previously expressed any public interest in Skansegården. Suddenly, however, his love for it burned so strongly that he appeared as its saviour through a series of articles and letters to the editor in JydskeVestkysten. Nobody but Peter Hansen himself knows why, in this one case, he went directly against the precedent of hundreds of similar cases.

He nevertheless received support from his party V, Stefan Lydal (DF) and the media outlet on whose board he sits (JydskeVestkysten/Jysk Fynske Medier). That led to a series of attacks on Skansegården and its owner in the media outlet mentioned.

The council decided the case
As Skansegården’s owner had little desire to speak to JydskeVestkysten, which was, after all, the media outlet carrying out V’s attacks, he chose to convey his messages through his own channels. This was done, among other things, through the Facebook page Dybbøl Banke - Skansegården. The professional arguments, in the form of experts’ assessments and statements collected on the page, helped decide the case.

A majority on Sønderborg municipal council chose to follow the recommendation of Fredningsnævnet and the municipal administration and approved demolition.

But it did not stop there
Peace should have been able to settle, but in the very same week Peter Hansen and JydskeVestkysten started a new campaign. Now Peter Hansen believed Skansegården’s owner was dodging taxes. His complete disagreement with the region’s leading tax experts did not diminish his zeal, again supported by local editor Halldor Henriksen and JydskeVestkysten.

Media campaign
The small detail that Peter Hansen apparently wanted to do everything to prevent the new owner from creating a home at Skansegården thus started the avalanche of contributions from JydskeVestkysten / jv.dk (currently more than 50), activating journalists, the local editor and the editor-in-chief alike. It gave rise to a corresponding number of articles from Skansegården’s side. There were also many hours of work for Sønderborg Kommune’s administration, municipal councillors and lawyers.

Even the tax minister had to answer a rather irrelevant question about the case when V tried to use an undocumented allegation as a political crowbar. The butterfly effect had reached parliamentary level.

Who has to pay? V’s campaign, which did not move the case a millimetre owing to a lack of professional documentation, cost many people dearly, but perhaps the party itself and JydskeVestkysten / Jysk Fynske Medier lost the most credibility through it. They showed the entire country with absolute clarity how closely they collaborate.

That can be regarded as a positive effect. But who pays for the foolishness? Well, Skansegården’s owner has naturally had to pay for his side of the campaign with his own funds, already taxed, incidentally.

Those are the terms when confronting the third branch of state power. Jysk Fynske Medier has presumably kept its head above water. The more sensational articles it produces, the more newspapers it sells.

And if it nevertheless thinks it has been expensive to dig for dirt on a local businessman, it has the annual 66 million kroner in media subsidies as a plaster on the wound. Peter Hansen and his colleagues in V’s municipal council group are naturally paid by the municipality for their efforts. The same can be said of the administration’s staff.

The tax minister’s work is presumably also covered by the tax bill.

You have already paid, so enjoy revisiting the articles
As a taxpayer, you have actually helped finance both V’s and JydskeVestkysten’s efforts. We therefore think you deserve to see, or revisit, selected highlights from the series of intellectual creations by the supposedly independent, state-subsidised media outlet:

An incredible story about “Skansegården”

Skansegården's future

Mayor: We are awaiting a proposal on the plans for Skansegården

Skansegården. Irreplaceable Danish cultural landscape

Readers’ letter: Skansegården

Officials: Skansegården can be demolished

V and DF take Skansegården to the municipal council

V and DF: The municipality will have less influence on the new Skansegården

Now it is decided: Large majority gives the green light to demolishing Skansegården

Readers’ letter: Skansegården

No to demolishing a rural property from the 1800s in Vollerup

Skansegården remains because of strong opposition to demolition

Letter to the editor: Fortunately, no demolition

Skansegården becomes a political testing ground

Purchase of Skansegården as a prestige home has ended in an application for demolition

Dybbøl Mølle drops Red Cross centre

A farm on shaky ground

Great interest in buying Skansegården

The Red Cross is still fighting on the battlefields

Dybbøl Banke Skansegården