voiceforjersey

How many people in Jersey can spell Auschwitz or Holocaust?

2012-01-29T17:30:00.000Z

The first “open to the public” Scrutiny hearing of 2012 and the newly elected States of Jersey took place on Friday 27 January.

This also happened to be world-wide Holocaust Memorial Day and the scrutiny panel hearing with the Minister of Health, two Assistant Ministers and several most senior civil servants of the Health Department did not have human rights on its collective mind.

In fact, although the whole hour of scrutiny talk was taken up with discussions about the latest external report to condemn Jersey’s Children’s’ Care services nobody mentioned international obligations such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

This was especially strange, not just because this was Holocaust Memorial Day and most of the politicians present were keen to finish the talking in order to attend the ceremony on the quay – but such international safeguards as the Convention on the Rights of the Child have featured so prominently in previous reports...not to mention strategies. Besides which, the letters HDLG may yet be concealing an even greater Jersey scandal concerning the welfare of children and those who should ensure it.

So we had another hour of talk and promises of action from Deputies Pryke, Martin and Constable Refault for the Health Department supported by their painfully complacent officers whilst Deputies Moore, Hilton and Reed asked predictable scrutiny questions.

Deputy Tadier sat in the public seats along with a couple of bloggers to witness the proceedings but no other elected States members were there and neither was the accredited press.

Probably a couple of hundred people turned out on the cold quay to remember the fallen of the Second World War and to catch a glimpse of special guest Michael Portillo.

Another 98,000 Jersey residents neither attended the scrutiny hearing nor bothered to pay their respects at the ceremony to the 50 millions who perished in the war.

Interviews with Deputies Moore and Tadier appear here.

Words and images from Michael Portillo and Chief Minister Gorst can be seen and heard HERE where pictures of wreaths and flowers must speak for the rest.

Submitted by Tom Gruchy.

Jersey Deputies Hustings T. Pitman/Shaw

2011-10-13T11:57:00.000+01:00

Hustings speeches Trevor Pitman, Keith Shaw. St. Helier District No1.

Jersey Deputies Hustings Le Main/S. Pitman

2011-10-07T10:01:00.000+01:00

Hustings speeches Terry Le Main, Shona Pitman.

Jersey Senator Hustings 2011 Colley, Farnham.

2011-09-22T18:41:00.000+01:00

Hustings speeches of Rose Colley and Lyndon Farnham.

Jersey Senator Hustings 2011 Cohen, Richardson.

2011-09-21T12:32:00.000+01:00

Hustings speeches of Senator Cohen and Mr. David Richardson.

COMMITTEE OF ENQUIRY 1

2011-06-28T19:16:00.005+01:00

The latest on the "Committee of Enquiry"

Just a quick post

This COI is so important that it must not be nobbled like every other report our ruling elite get their hands on

Team Voice want to keep you up to date on any developments concerning the TOR's

In the statement released by the Chief Minister on the previous Blog Posting the Chief Minister said that his department had now engaged with an independent facilitator with expertise in the field of public enquiries; this person is Ed Marsden from Verita.

Now, my own concern about this is that Ed Marsden has already carried out work for the States of Jersey. Having said that, the Verita Report was damning - is he what you would call independent if he's now picking up work so easily? These are just my views and I would hope that others will express theirs.

As far as I know, no Abuse Survivors have had any input into the setting up or TOR's of this COI.

Let me ask the readers what you think the Terms of Reference should include. If it was me I would want the local Media included, they really have been a disgrace

Who sits on the COI?

Who would you like to sit on the COI

Lets start getting some feed back concerning this COI

Team Voice

COMMITTEE OF ENQUIRY

2011-06-22T18:21:00.005+01:00

On March 1st 2010 the States of Jersey voted for a Committee of Enquiry

Things are moving about as fast as a Massy Ferguson with One Wheel

We will now be keeping a close eye on this and posting updates on"VoiceforJersey"

Let us now look at the Statement released By the Chief Minister this week. I have highlighted in Red where I see problems with this statement.

Statement by the Chief Minister

Historical Child Abuse: Committee of Inquiry Terms of Reference

On the 1st March 2011, the States’ Assembly agreed by 37 votes to 11 that there should be a Committee of Inquiry to investigate some unresolved issues in relation to historical child abuse in the Island. The States also approved four points that the Committee of Inquiry should consider and asked the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers to establish such a Committee.

During that debate, and indeed since then, there have been representations from interested parties about the need for further consultation on the terms of reference for any inquiry given the different opinions as to the purpose of the inquiry and what the investigation needs to achieve. The Council of Ministers have wrestled with this issue and the imperative for the inquiry to have a clear purpose with clear terms of reference. I have no doubt that whatever terms of reference are finally agreed, that some parties will not be satisfied as their views on the purpose will be different.

I discussed this matter with Senator Le Gresley and Deputies Hill and Tadier who had brought successful amendments to the Council of Ministers original proposition not to have a Committee of Inquiry. I am pleased that we all agreed at this meeting that we needed some independent expert help from an external body to seek the views of interested parties and recommend terms of reference to the Council of Ministers with various options on how an inquiry of this nature might be conducted in Jersey. It needs to be made clear here that under the States of Jersey Law, it would be for the Committee of Inquiry to ultimately determine how the investigation would be conducted.

Senator Le Gresley attended the Council of Ministers on 16^th June and reported back on the meeting. The Chief Minister’s Department has now begun to engage with an independent facilitator with expertise in the field of public inquiries in the UK, and with the benefit of knowledge of the Island, to take this idea forward as a matter of urgency. I hope that this initial piece of work will take weeks rather than months and given States business is unlikely to be debated until the autumn.

As you can see we have a problem with all of it. I don't know what we do if im honest. Yes, there must a Committee of Enquiry but we don't trust this present Government one little bit.

I fully trust Senator Le Gresley and Deputies Hill & Tadier but lets not forget how the Chief Minister shafted Deputy Hill concerning the Napier Report. Deputy Hill was meant to have oversight and we know what happened to that.

Just look at the bit concerning the terms of reference. Since when has a minor problem like TOR's concerned this present lot? Remember part D of the Napier Review and Verita they just dropped and changed as they pleased.

This expertise must have some knowledge in Child Abuse Enquiries

This is just the first posting of many concerning the "COI" and I hope people will leave their views on the comment section. This COI is so important to so many people it cant be sabotaged like everything else

Roughly 40 members of This Government & the ruling elite don't give a damn about the Abuse Survivors you can see this through their voting over the last couple of years.

What pro-active steps have they taken in helping the Survivors ?

They were dragged towards this COI

We must watch them like a Hawk

Team Voice

Scrutiny is dead – what next?

2011-01-24T11:33:00.000Z

There were no scrutiny panel meetings for the week commencing Monday 17 January – but does it really make any difference if there are any meetings at all?

The States rejected Alan Breckon’s recent reform proposals that would have weakened the sick patient even more – so presumably somebody must believe that the current scrutiny system has to live on – but what can that justification be?

Obviously, scrutiny is intended to provide some sort of restraint upon ministerial government excesses in the absence of an organised or official opposition. In that sense it is a bit of pseudo-democratic window dressing to show to the world. However, proper governments (the UK might be that) have both opposition parties and select committee systems to regularly test and challenge their every action – besides all manner of audit procedures and special one-off inquiries and “Royal Commissions” when necessary.

Outside of government, most communities have scrutiny by media and a myriad of lobby groups, experts, political parties and international agencies such as the UN, Council of Europe, ILO etc. but Jersey opts out to a large extent because there is no effective and challenging local press and the adherence to international standards (on human rights and related issues) is mostly an illusion.

Jersey’s smallness is not an excuse for lack of scrutiny.

That scrutiny can work is demonstrated by the fear of IMF and EU examination of activities in the finance world. Jersey’s Zero-Ten debacle could have been so easily avoided if only our ministers had listened to the likes of Richard Murphy years ago. In fact, the upgrading of standards throughout the finance sector has only happened as a direct result of scrutiny by such bodies as the IMF. Likewise, the recent Council of Europe report on Jersey’s poor prison conditions will have much more impact than the Home Affairs Department could ever achieve unilaterally.

It is apparent too that a proper scrutiny process is an essential part of the protection afforded to individuals against oppressive government and administration. The huge number of complaints received in other places by Ombudsmen panels demonstrates that there is a universal demand for such procedures. Jersey is no different.

Jersey’s Complaints Board procedure against administrative decisions is hopelessly flawed and ineffective and deals with just a handful of cases each year. In a community of 92,000 people there should be hundreds of cases considered each and every year but the Scrutiny Panels system is virtually debarred from taking on individual cases to take up the slack. The sum total of these two procedures in Jersey amounts to a very substantially defective aspect of Jersey’s failing government system.

But, scrutiny is not effective unless there is status.

20,000 people can sign a petition against GST but they can be ignored by our ministers unless there is some enforceable process. Even the best scrutiny report can be ignored if it lacks the status to be taken seriously and, unfortunately, even some of the States members who sit on scrutiny panels clearly do not even take the process seriously. They are just filling their publicly funded time as backbenchers.

During a recent States discussion it was claimed that 12 backbenchers (that is those members who are not ministers or assistant ministers) are not on any scrutiny panels. This is not entirely correct since some, like Constable Crowcroft, are looking at dog pooh on the Policing of Open Spaces scrutiny sub-panel or Deputy Le Claire at Population - but it is evident that some scrutiny members are mere passengers. They contribute very little. As they used to say under the former system “they are very good on committee”- which usually meant they did not snore whilst sleeping.

That recent discussion arose following the announcement of Senator Cohen’s appointment as Jersey’s own Foreign Secretary (no prior scrutiny process of course), Deputy Le Fondre’s sacking as an assistant minister and appointment to a scrutiny panel, Deputy Egre’s and Constable Refault’s appointments as assistant ministers and their resignation from scrutiny panels etc etc.

All these decisions were made without any concern for the scrutiny system itself because it is not taken seriously and can be disregarded at whim. If it is ineffective then the ministers are unchallenged and happy.

It should not be thought that our States members actually do most of the work in producing Scrutiny reports. In fact, it is the Scrutiny officers who carry out most of the research and write the papers. Our elected States members mostly just talk. Very often they do not even bother to attend the scheduled meetings. Recently, the number of scrutiny officers has been drastically cut but this does not mean that our States members will be undertaking more work. The inevitable result is that fewer reports will be written, taking much longer to prepare whilst the quality of research and presentation diminishes.

Already, our States members have their minds on the autumn elections.

Scrutiny panellists are actively clearing desks in preparation for this year’s beauty pageant.

Although the Education and Home Affairs scrutiny panel ought to have enough serious issues to examine for many years to come – they are starved of real work because the ministers of the two departments (Deputy Reed and Senator Le Marquand) have effectively removed most issues from the scrutiny agenda through the use of internal inquiry procedures and other delaying tactics.

Thus, this important scrutiny panel meets, to a large extent, only to agree when it will next meet. Yet it declined, at its most recent meeting, to take up serious topics submitted by the public.

Unfortunately, although the scrutiny panellists keep saying how they want to engage with the public and to be more effective, we know this to be untrue and have reported on it endlessly in past blogs.

Since so many of the scrutiny panels refuse to allow recordings to be made of their proceedings or permit only minimal public participation during meetings, the obvious conclusion is that the whole sham process is just the latest manifestation of “cosy club” government.

We on The Voice have attended more scrutiny meetings than any the “accredited press” during the past two years and can report on the basis of knowledge.

The scrutiny system has failed and needs to be radically reformed or buried. It cannot carry on like this.

We have been monitoring the scrutiny process itself and some of our so called elected representatives resent this activity. Scrutiny itself does not generally like being scrutinised and more and more agenda are disappearing from public gaze behind “Part B” exclusions. It is all part of a very worrying trend to suppress and stifle free expression and the dissemination of knowledge and information.

As part of our monitoring, we asked scrutiny officers to provide a list of topics submitted by the general public over the past few years and to indicate how many of these were taken up or rejected. It is posted here. We know it to be an incomplete list but it does refer to nearly 70 topics that members of the public have submitted - yet very few have been adopted.

Extraordinarily, we know that some members of the public have not even been advised if their suggestions were accepted or rejected and we have previously reported how members of the public are sometimes excluded from the scrutiny meeting when their own suggested topic is discussed.

Such a system should be buried without ceremony or benefit of clergy.

List of scrutiny topics submitted by the general public and outcomes:

Corporate Services Panel

*1 Addition of GST to JEC utility bills

Discussed 26 Jan 2006. Agreed to incorporate into Panel’s review of GST exemptions.

*2 Legal representation in matters pending at European Court of Human Rights.

Discussed 26 Jan 2006. Agreed this was not an area the Panel could review.

*3 Communications Unit

Discussed 26 Jan 2006. Agreed it was an issue for the Chairman’s Committee to consider

*4 Financial Services Commission

Discussed 26 Jan 2006. Passed onto the Economic Affairs Panel

*5 Legitimacy Law

Discussed at Panel meeting on 3 March 2008.Member of the public notified that a draft law was being prepared and would then go out to public consultation

*6 Civil Partnerships

Discussed by Panel on 13 April 2006. Agreed it should be passed to the Minister for Home Affairs and the Legislation Advisory Panel

*7 Tax allowances for non-married couples

Discussed by the Panel on 13 April 2006 and member of the public advised that the Panel had conducted preliminary enquiries but was unable to undertake any further work due to its programme having already been finalised

*8 Jersey Legal information Board Website

Panel received further clarification on the issue from the Law Officers Department and discussed this at the meeting on 5 May 2006; however it agreed not to review the issue further

*9 re 20 means 20

Discussed at Panel meeting on 7 July 2006 and although the Panel undertook initial work on this issue it agreed not to undertake a full review due to other review commitments. The Panel contacted the Minister for Treasury and Resources highlighting all concerns that had been raised by members of the public and requesting for them to be responded to prior to the debate on the proposition

*10 Taxing empty commercial property and unsold dwellings

Panel undertook initial research and contacted the member of the public with the information received as a result of this research

*11 Government Bonds

Meeting held with member of the public on 15 February to discuss the issue. Full review not undertaken

*12 Review of Jersey’s Overseas Aid contributions

SR11/2007

*13 Private Pensions

Panel undertook initial research and contacted the Minister for Treasury and Resources on the issue. Member of the public was contacted on 25 May 2007 explaining the work that had been undertaken by the Panel and confirming that as a result the Panel was unable to undertake a full review.

*14 Civil Service Complaints Procedure

Discussed at its meeting on 17 September 2007. Undertook initial research however agreed that the Panel did not have the capacity to fully review the issue.

*15 Bovine Semen

SR 10/2008

*16 Zero Ten (taxing non resident companies)

SR3/2007

SR3/2007

SR20/2007

*17 Scrutiny of the Scrutiny process – special regard to Data Protection and Freedom of Information

Discussed by Panel on 15 March 2010 – decided it was not within its remit and was passed onto the Chairman’s Committee on 26 March 2010

*18 Publication of all government information

Discussed on 17 and 31 March 2010 – decided it was not within its remit and was passed onto PPC on 9 April 2010

*19 Ratification of the UN Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination against Women

A question was posed to the Chief Minister at the quarterly hearing on 30 June 2010. No further action was taken

*20 Bonus Payments

Discussed on 28 July 2010. Proposal rejected on the grounds that it concerned money laundering procedures in the private sector therefore not within Panel’s remit. Mr Dun informed on 30 July 2010

*21 Nurses

4 March 2010; Panel considered request from the public to investigate use of nurses time.

Follow up was undertaken with the Department no review was deemed necessary

*22 Member of the public submission

08.01.08 no record of subject or action just mention in the minutes

*23 Use of Agency Staff

07.09.10 forwarded to CSP. On next agenda – discussed on 6 October 2010 – decided that it would be undertaking a full review into the Human Resources Department in 2011.Mr Dun advised 11.10.10

Economic Affairs Panel

*24 The “Excessively high cost of travel and its effect on tourism, business and residents of Jersey.”

27.02.06 The Panel noted concerns about the cost of travel to the Island but agreed to delay any review into this matter until the Executive published its anticipated air and sea transport strategy

*25 Non-local companies and their use of the Island’s infrastructure, given that they were to pay no tax under the Zero-Ten tax proposals

08.0306 and 22.03.06 The Panel considered the matters which the fulfilment review was intended to investigate and that the remaining issues in his submission were primarily related to taxation policy

The Panel agreed to pass the submission to the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel for its consideration and invite the proposer to a meeting to discuss the concerns further with the Chairman of two Panels.

*26 Environment/ Food Costs/ Tourism

16.01.09 The Panel noted receipt of a topic proposal but decided that it would not be able to undertake a review at that stage

*27 Residential Qualifications

Ditto

*28 Trading Standards and the role of the Citizens Advice Board

12.04.10 The Panel agreed to write to the proposer of the Trading Standards Review to advise that the Panel would not be undertaking a review but that there may be a related Private Member’s Proposition lodged shortly for debate by the States

*29 Jersey Competition and Regulatory Authority

12.04.10 The Panel agreed to write to the proposer of the Jersey Competition and Regulatory Authority Review to advise that the Panel would be considering the matter further and was undertaking background research. No review undertaken

Education SC and Home Affairs Panel

*30 Prison Board of Visitors

SR7/2009

*31 Higher Education Fees

Review on hold

*32 UN Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and Disability issues etc

15 March 2010 Considered by Education and Home Affairs. Letter sent to Minister for Home Affairs. Agreed not its remit and passed to Corporate Services.

*33 Policing of Beaches

Panel undertaking a review. Scoping document and terms of reference to be discussed at meeting on 17 August

*34 Surveillance

Panel undertaking a review in Autumn 2010. Review cancelled January 2011

*35 Dredging

Submitted July 2010 – yet to be considered by Panel (01.09.10)

Environment Panel

*36 Effect on boreholes, wells, streams and drinking water of spreading treated sewage sludge (biosolids) on agricultural land

Will be reviewed as part of Liquid Waste Strategy

*37 Choice of technology and location for EfW plant

No – previously investigated by Environment Panel. Also subject of States debate

*38 Why was Ramsar authority not informed about the construction of the EfW plant

Full review of Environmental Impact Assessment SR1/2010

*39 Operational performance and past health effects caused by local chimneys

The Panel will monitor progress with Air Quality Strategy

*40 Milk packaging at the Dairy

Not a matter for political scrutiny – Proposal forwarded to Transport and Technical Services

*41 Re-use and repair

Proposal forwarded to Economic Affairs Panel

*42 Parking; introduction of double yellow line

Issues considered within review of Sustainable Transport Policy

*43 Parking provision in new developments

Issues to be considered within new Draft Island Plan

*44 Trinity Landfill

Issue subject to legal proceedings. Individual case not policy therefore not considered appropriate for Scrutiny review

*45 Bus service complaints

Issues to be considered within review of Sustainable Transport Policy

*46 Temporary agricultural buildings

Issues discussed with Minister at quarterly briefing

*47 Taxi/Cabs

Panel to monitor the outcome of a forthcoming review by DVS

*48 Parking

Issues to be considered within review of Sustainable Transport Policy

*49 Methane Gas deposits in St Ouen

Not pursued due to lack of supporting evidence for the claim

*50 Radon – adequacy of existing legislation and monitoring provision

Research carried out – ongoing meeting with Medical Officer of Health and Head of Health Protection Services

*51 Planning approval process

Not appropriate for the Panel to review individual planning consents. General issues discussed with Chairman of Association of Jersey Architects

*52 Abattoir – time available for killing pigs

Matter resolved without Panel intervention

*53 Road-works Audit Board

Panel agreed to consider review of highway maintenance in future work programme

*54 Building Bye-Laws; Carbon content of imported electricity

Discussions with Jersey Gas, JEC and Planning and Environment Minister. Minister undertook to commission an independent study ; however, agreement between stakeholders could not be achieved. Amendments to Bye-Laws have resulted in removal of reference to carbon emissions.

*55 States policies on oil

Subject to be considered within review of Draft States Energy Policy

*56 Farm Shops

Issue investigated by the Panel – Minister has commissioned an independent review

*57 Encouraging low emissions and alternative energy vehicles

Issue to be considered in the context of the Panel’s review of the Sustainable Transport Policy in the first instance. There is also a relevant proposed policy contained in the draft Energy Policy

*58 Support for waste timber recycling project in St Ouen

Panel visited the site. Investigating Regulations regarding flues for pellet stoves

*59 Public Toilets

Sent to Environment Officers 25.08.10

Heath, Social Security and Housing Panel

*60 Doctors and Dentist Disciplinary Procedures

3 March 2009; Considered by HSSH Panel. Proposal acknowledged. Questions were asked in the States. No further action was taken

*61 Suicide and self-harming

13 July 2010 ; Panel would consider the subject as part of its work programme in September 2010

*62 Pension Provision

13 July 2010.Panel considered and provided a copy of the Government Actuaries Report. No review to be considered at this time

*63 Respite Care and Regulation of Care Providers

2009 submission by member of the public. Re-submitted by a member of the public.

13 July 201; Panel in both instances monitoring the progress of the Regulation of Care (J) Law 200- Deputy De Sousa is working with the stakeholder group established by HSS and will report to Panel. Also part of the work on the Long Term Care of the Elderly

*64 Housing Adaptations

13 July 2010 ; Panel to consider as part of its work programme for the last quarter of 2010 – pursuing protection of the budget as an amendment to the States Annual Business Plan

*65 Legal Highs

24 November 2009; considered by HSSH Panel letter sent to the individual concerned

*66 Social Housing

12 January 2010 Panel considered allocation of housing and agreed to consider as part of 2010 work programme. Delay to consideration has been caused by delays in any outcome from the Whitehead Report. Panel to meet Minister for Housing early September.

Submitted by Thomas Wellard.

CHANGE STARTS WITH A SMALL STEP…

2011-01-07T11:16:00.000Z

We start the New Year here with an interview with Sam Lally.

He is a young man like so many others viewing the future with some apprehension.

Shall things get better or worse in 2011 – what opportunities lie ahead? A new place to live, a decent job, improved political representation – maybe even election to the States as a people’s representative?

We have heard a great deal during the past few years about the failings at the Jersey Hospital but Sam lives with the result of somebody’s neglect there, 23 years ago, every day of his life.

Naturally, he is concerned at the prospects for his welfare when the compensation money runs out – what then?

We propose to monitor Sam’s progress during 2011 and will return with more interviews as the months roll by…..

Submitted by Thomas Wellard.

French Asylum for Maurice Kirk.

2010-12-10T11:14:00.000Z

Not since the French Revolution have Brits been granted political asylum in France - but Maurice Kirk tells us that he has been given sanctuary at Rennes today.

According to the information, the dangers that he might be shot, or sectioned, in Wales were enough to convince the French authorities to offer him their protection.

It’s a modern “Tale of Two Cities” - between Rennes and Cardiff.

Maurice’s attempts last week to gain protection in Guernsey (where he stood for election many years ago) or Alderney, were not successful and we interviewed him just before he left Jersey.

Perhaps the Prince of Wales, and his good wife, should seek protection in France too?

Submitted by Thomas Wellard.

JERSEY PLANNING can be bad for your wealth

2010-11-21T15:39:00.000Z

We have posted a number of blogs on planning and related matters in Jersey and we have looked at the administrative board appeals process.

Here we speak with Peter Grainger who was the senior Planning Officer in Jersey and has been involved in the planning process here and in the UK, for a lifetime.

He is somebody who should understand planning law and practice but he expresses some substantial criticisms of the Jersey system. In particular he is concerned at the weight of bureaucracy that bears upon the ordinary planning applicant besides the cost and difficulty of appealing against planning decisions.

Why is the planning process becoming such a burden - why is there so much antagonism in our dealings with the planning department - and does the Jersey planning appeals system contravene Human Rights standards?

Submitted by Thomas Wellard

Power, the Butcher and the cruellest cuts….

2010-11-11T08:43:00.000Z

So, the cold wind of austerity has claimed its first 11K victim. The Minister for Housing has revoked the licence of a 11K who has fallen on hard-times and has ordered him or her to vacate the Jersey up-market home.

Shall this family be debarred from joining the queue for social rented accommodation? Or can they make an application for G category “hardship” status and carry on living in the same dwelling or something smaller?

Similar decisions are made every day by many other people in Jersey. Not usually in the 11K super-rich class of course, but the harsh reality of living at the lower levels in this Island need to be much better understood and discussed.

The fact is that there is no obligation on Jersey government to house anybody and the Housing Law is designed to prevent people occupying accommodation rather than enjoying it. Since its introduction in 1949, the housing problems in Jersey – the “shortage” is just one aspect – have become worse. Yet, Deputy Power says that the law will stay in force because it is the main tool of “population control”- and States policy is based upon an annual growth of 150 new households per annum. There must be some logic there somewhere?

Of course, the housing department knows very little about the largest part of housing accommodation in Jersey – the private sector – because it has no need to interfere in this except insofar that it determines who shall or shall not have “quals.” Beyond that, the private sector is more or less left to manage itself under “market-forces” rules. Unfortunately, the old game of catch-up is still being played out between private and public housing costs. If private rents are increased (and many are linked to cost of living rates) then the public sector wants to follow-suit in case it is perceived as “subsidizing” tenants with public money.

Deputy Power’s limited knowledge is mostly based on the 4,500 publicly owned (States) flats and houses that his department administers out of 38,000 total households in the Island. Housing department properties are mostly one bedroom units and the majority of tenants are economically inactive.

Of the 4,500 States households (13,000 people), about 70% receive Income-Support (including reduced rents) and the other 30% pay full rents but it is not known how many can actually afford to do so, because most do not give details of their income etc to the housing department. This is where Graeme “the Duke of Cumberland” Butcher aka Assistant Minister comes in, because he has been tasked to find out.

It is not just out of curiosity either – because the Minister and “the Duke” are desperate to raise money in extra rents where possible and also to invite tenants to leave, if they can afford to rent “in the private sector.” Thus, they hope to free up some accommodation for the 1200 or so household believed to be “on the waiting list” – although nobody has really got a clue about the actual levels of housing need in Jersey because nobody asks the right questions of the right people

.This simple failure was fully exposed at the recent Draft Island Plan public examination but it does not seem to stimulate a more enlightened look at the whole question of housing provision in Jersey.

To his credit, Deputy Power would like to reduce housing “quals” to 5 years residence in parity with the employment laws of Jersey. But he knows full well that the 60 years of institutional discrimination and prejudice supported by the 1949 Housing Law cannot be shifted from the insular mentality. That over £30 millions in “rents” are paid by the “non quals” workers of Jersey each year into the pockets of lodgings landlords does not seem to be critically considered. Yet, that is virtually the same sum that is denied the housing department each and every year, preventing it from providing the social housing that the Island population – as a whole – desperately needs.

Quite how the broken 11K family came to Deputy Power’s knowledge is not clear. Presumably a little bee rather than a large Butcher discovered and disclosed the information upon which the Ministerial power was applied. Whether this family can, in fact, be forced to vacate their property would make an interesting challenge under Human Rights rules – as will the threats of expulsion for the 30% of States tenants who pay the full “fair rents.”

Deputy Power has a bag full of wish list reforms lined-up for the Housing Department which include its virtual scrapping or amalgamation with the Planning Department, the creation of a Housing Association (run on the lines of Jersey Post or Telecoms) and a separate Regulations body... He already favours a 5 – 7 years residence period in granting certain “G” category hardship consents, is against the granting of “J” category permissions to buy but favours 3 years “to lease” only deals, and he is against selling off any more housing stock (except for the 40 deals already agreed) and he has reduced his staffing levels in accordance with CSR cuts…..

Sadly, his plans to widen the criteria of people that can enjoy “social housing” are unlikely to be realised on the basis of post-war Jersey housing history. He acknowledges that there is no longer a category of “affordable housing” for people to buy and he is looking at reviving the States Loan scheme or breathing new life into “shared equity” (but not “shared ownership”) developments….

…..And he wants to be able to borrow money to finance his schemes because his department is sitting upon a £billion of assets yet is starved of funds to do virtually anything. Even if there was time to implement any of his ideas before next summer – as he proposes – the lack of money must surely scupper his and many other departments’ plans. The failed 11K household should be a lesson to us all.

Submitted by Thomas Wellard.

Shenton (or "accredited" media) Exposed.

2010-10-22T18:31:00.000+01:00

So Senator Ben (P9-26) Shenton believes that States Members should be paid by what title they hold, Minister, Assistant Minister etc. It is no wonder that he doesn’t want States Members to be paid by adhering to the oath they take, part of which says “ the greatest responsibility as an elected representative is to be in the states chamber and vote on behalf of their constituents.”

St Saviour Deputy Jeremy Macon has (in my opinion) completely exposed Senator Shenton and his “populist” propositions regarding States Members pay, for what they are…….”populist.” So who now is going to bring a proposition that States Members get paid by the amount of votes they are present for?………………..Not Senator Shenton that’s for sure!

Deputy Macon has published a Press Release along with the statistics of those present, or not, to do what they are supposed to do, and that is, to vote in order to “represent” the people who put them there.

Just as revealing is how Deputy Macon’s statistics expose (in my opion) the inadequacies of our “accredited” media. Why have they never worked out these statistics, or if they have, then why have they never published/broadcast them? I’ve come to learn that it took the Deputy less than an hour to compile these statistics, yes that’s less than an hour.

I’m quite sure BBC Jersey will come out with the old “we haven’t got the budget or resources” sketch, that’s why they don’t publish or broadcast such revealing statistics about our elected “representatives”. Well I’ve got a solution to that. The next time they send Roger Barra half way across the world to report on a minority sport like cricket, after he’s checked in at the airport (an hour before the flight) he could spend that hour gathering statistics about our elected “representatives” from the States website, just like Deputy Macon did, problem solved!!

Deputy Macon Press Release.

Press release - States members who are not present in the chamber to vote

During the debate over States members remuneration where by Senator Shenton was arguing that states member should receive remuneration according to their title (Minister, Chairman, etc) arguing that these were roles of greater reconcilability.

Deputy Jeremy Maçon revealed the number of times that all states member had not been present to vote. He argued that because of the oath of office taken by states members that the greatest responsibility as an elected representative was to be in the states chamber and vote on behalf of their constituents.

From January 2009 (when the current house began to debate public business) to October 2010 there had been a total of 520 votes. (Not including the votes taken beginning the week 19th of October)

Out of the 53 three member those at the bottom were

49. Connétable Graeme Buycher of St John not present for a total of 126 votes
50.Senator Freddie Cohen not present for a total of 136
51.Senator Ben Shenton not present for a total of 139 (over a fifth of all votes taken in the time period)
52.Connétable Simon Crowcroft of St Helier not present for a total of 142 votes
53.Deputy Geoff Southern of St Helier not present for a total of 192 votes

Out of the 53 member those at the top were:-

3.Deputy Rob Duhamel of St Saviour not present for a total of 6 votes
2.Deputy Bob Hill of St Martin not present for a total of 2 votes
1.Deputy Jeremy Maçon of St Saviour not present of a total of 1 vote

Notes to the Editor:-

All of the voting records can be found at www.statesassembly.gov.je

All votes are a matter of public record

When votes are recorded illness, being excused and being away on states business are recorded as such. Thus, a not present vote in only recorded when a member has been present for the role call and left the chamber not to return in time for a vote. A not present vote is recorded only when the appel is called for (the electronic vote where member have to push their buttons). Standing votes do not record who is and who is not present.

Any question can be directed to Deputy Jeremy Maçon

Senator Le Gresley was exempt as he came in on a by-election and had not served the same term as other members - but for the record he has also not been present for 1 vote in his 4 month term.

The information of all member is attached in an excel spread sheet.

DRAFT ISLAND PLAN – examined in public – decided in private?

2010-10-17T12:37:00.000+01:00

Messrs Chris Shepley, Alan Langton and their helper Helen have gone away to read through boxes of papers and transcripts of hearings submitted to them over the past few months from Jersey.

They are the “outside planning inspectors” appointed to consider Freddie’s legacy – the Draft Island Plan – which will serve the Island for the next ten years or so if approved by the States next year.

Unfortunately, it is a bit worrying that the final submission to the inspectors was a 7,000 word statement from Planning Officer Peter Thorne in defence of the proposed plan delivered after lunch on the last day of the public proceedings.

Throughout the hearings the inspectors had maintained a strict timetable and admitted nobody to speak before their scheduled time. They usually enforced a guillotine too on talking once the Planning Office had responded to any verbal representations made around the discussion table. Thus, Peter Thorne had already finished the proceedings before lunch on the final day with the official policy line – so why was he allowed to sum up at such length after the final bell had been rung for everybody else?

Not only were these final public proceedings a bit worrying because any “late” written submissions sent in prior to the public hearings were also barred although the Planning Office still seemed to be sending in controversial policy statements almost to the end. There was certainly a flurry of participants e-mailing discussion papers amongst themselves because these had been officially rejected as “out of time.”

The outside inspectors had also maintained a vow of virtual Trappist silence during tea breaks between the hearings and removed themselves from the room at every opportunity so as not to engage in conflicting conversations with anybody. They are very senior guys in the UK planning enquiry business so should know the rules.

Yet, their attention to such details did not extend to ensuring that an effective sound system was available so that everybody could be heard. Only constant nagging resulted in a somewhat reluctant response to install a sound system. As is so usual in Jersey – we expect public hearings where speakers cannot be heard – but we might have expected higher standards from such experienced people from the UK (where anti-discrimination laws rule).

Having attended the public hearings every day and participated in several group and individual discussions, this resolute and concerned citizen was nevertheless impressed by the general standards of the examination and the smooth manner in which it progressed.

Whether the inspectors were receiving the critical signals being transmitted by the public is anybody’s guess but at the end of the day, Freddie Cohen and his Department will not be bound to accept any proposals for modification. Soon after Peter Thorne had delivered his final 7,000 words statement, this citizen met Freddie on his way to meet the inspectors but whether they just exchanged Trappist silences is not known.

It wasn’t the final round either for the inspectors and Helen because your resolute citizen encountered them during the Sunday evening following supping in a local CAMRA pub. Alas, the omerta rule prevailed and they would not even exchange hellos or soccer incantations for fear of contamination.

Helen e-mailed later to explain that even such minimalist exchanges with the public were not allowed….

So we must await the outcome of their deliberations and we shall see whether the States will approve the Plan in any shape or form next year. If the whole process is of any real benefit to the Island is doubtful – the best buildings in Jersey were built long before planners were even invented. The worst buildings are the direct result of post-war planning professionalism and now the Jersey Development Company is about to be launched!

Whether or not Freddie will see it through to the end must be doubtful….during our brief street encounter he said “I shan’t be there much longer” or something similar. Was that an iconic or an ironic statement from the Minister?

Submitted by Thomas Wellard.

Freddie Cohen’s Castle – under siege

2010-10-03T11:59:00.000+01:00

The Reg’s Skips fiasco should have finished him off but the scandals seem to be coming thick and fast up at the Mount Bingham citadel.

Freddie promised that this was to be his last stand and that he would not contest the next year’s elections. There are fresh complaints every week about the planning permits that are granted or those that are not and the current Draft Island Plan review process is revealing serious shortcomings on a daily basis.

Last Friday Terry Le Main was arguing the case for the “CTV” green field housing scheme that had been approved up ‘til the very last minute and then rejected after local lobbying. He was shouting foul play and demanding that it should be re-instated into the Island Plan but the other complaints against Le Main himself and planning offices staff a la Labey will no doubt run and run….

We interviewed Freddie in his castle about eighteen months ago and its well worth looking again at the recordings.

Here we have Part Two (of a three part interview) and it is remarkable how the issue of affordable housing continues to be such a live issue in this tiny Island. Surely it cannot be so difficult to ensure that everybody is adequately housed – especially since the money was running so freely for most of the past thirty years?

Corruption in high places might be at the root of the problem – who knows –but the Planning Inspectors from the UK currently hearing the bitching at the review must wonder what sort of place Jersey is.

Of course, very few members of the public are able to attend the hearings and the accredited press hardly ever drop in.

Team Voice asked to be allowed to make video recordings but was refused. The accredited crowd were permitted – but what use have they made of the facility?
If there is corruption or just plain incompetence at the Planning Department how on earth shall it be exposed and those responsible brought to book?

If you care - look at the video(s).

Submitted by

Thomas Wellard.

EMILLE COLLINS 21 September 2010

2010-09-18T17:18:00.002+01:00

A brief biography of Emille Collins is published here. We have previously written about this extraordinary man and are pleased to do so again because he will be 98 on Tuesday when his lifelong democratic, political campaigning will be celebrated with a small reception at the Town Hall.

His bronze portrait (commissioned by Team Voice), will also be handed over for display at the Town Hall because we think that people such as Emille are so important in our history and should be acknowledged and remembered.

Please read the biography and realise that Emille’s own family history is typical of so many in the past. The hardships that we experience today need to be compared with those of the people who have lived in this Island before us. We need to be aware of their struggles and in particular, their bravery in fighting for social justice here just as we celebrate their participation in wars - often on foreign soils.

Emille is especially unusual because even at 98 he is still challenging the unfairness in Jersey society and he has not lost his faith in Trades Unions or the validity of political action.

He follows in the respectable tradition established by “ordinary” brave Islanders over eight centuries. Their history is usually not recorded and there are very few monuments to their memory and it is doubly appropriate that on 28 September 1769 Jersey experienced its own forgotten “revolution,” or Jersey’s REFORM DAY.

We have no doubt that Emille or his ancestors would have been there in 1769 just as he would support such a public demonstration today. BUT we do wonder where others like Emille, are in Jersey now?

Happy Birthday Emille – keep fighting and ‘phoning – your Island needs you!

Emille was born in a house behind the “Old England” public house, Cheapside, St Helier on 21 September 1912. His mother was originally a Rondel from St John but had married Emille’s father - also Emille - as a widow with three children.

Emille's mother

Emille Collins senior was a sometimes lamplighter with the Jersey Gas Company and gardener at St Saviour’s Church. He had fought in the Boar War with the Devonshire Regiment and was usually based at the St. Peter’s barracks. He also served in the First World War where an elder brother died. They had been sent to the Jersey Home for Boys at Grouville with another brother (until reaching the age of 14), after their father died.

Emille's father

Emille junior and his parents, moved to Hue Cottages in 1918. He attended the Old St Paul’s school, New Street until the age of 14.

On finishing at school he commenced working at 7a.m. on the first Monday following as a trainee carpenter for five shillings per week, with Reuben Le Feuvre in Ann Street.

Emille far left, front row.

Le Feuvre had such a regular clientele that he never had to give a price but was simply trusted to carry out his work.

There were no paid holidays and the working week was of 56 hours over five and a half days. A first class carpenter would earn £3/10s/0d (£3.50p) per week whereas an average pay was 35 shillings (£1.75p).

Emille remained with the same business until retirement in 1977 but he carried on working as a jobbing/seasonal carpenter for many more years. He was a member of a local branch of the T & G W Union for woodworkers.

He married in 1933 to Doris Le Maistre from St. Ouen and they had one daughter Pamela. Both died in recent years. Emille has one grandson.

Doris and Pamela

Emille remained in Jersey throughout the Occupation with his family. Emille had tried to leave shortly before the outbreak of hostilities but was told that he could only sail without his wife and daughter, so they all stayed.

During the war, when such activities were punishable by death, he was a founder member of the Jersey Democratic Union Party which met at a house in Stopford Road. He retains a lively interest in political issues to this day, attending meetings whenever possible and is a regular participant on BBC Radio Jersey Phone-Ins.

Emille

The Standard of Wiltshire Policing?

2010-09-05T15:42:00.001+01:00

Regular readers of the Team Voice Blogsites will be well aware of the investigation carried out on former Jersey Police Chief Officer Graham Power QPM by Chief Constable Brian Moore of the Wiltshire Constabulary.

You remember the investigation, where the investigation into the investigation took longer than the original investigation that they were investigating? The one that went hopelessly over budget and missed just about every deadline set? It cost the Jersey Tax Payer in excess of one million pounds, although it is strongly believed to have cost closer to two million pounds if not more.

Well despite all that, in certain circles, the Report that emerged from this Investigation is/was hailed as the "Holy Grail of all Reports." Some of us thought, who the Dickens do Wiltshire think they are, judging somebody’s investigation when there own investigation appeared to be so flawed? but more of that in a later Blog.

So one could believe that the Wiltshire Police set a very high standard of policing….right? I mean they investigated our highest ranking Police Officer’s involvement of probably the biggest and most complex case ever to hit our shores. They believe they found fault in our most Senior Policeman’s Policing and could face disciplinary charges (under UK Policing regulations).

Then let us have a look at one example of the kind of policing standards “dished out” by Wiltshire. Somebody’s going to need a “bl--dy” Holy Grail Report to explain this one away.

Submitted by VFC.

Briefing notes.

2010-07-23T14:10:00.000+01:00

Since Monday the 12th July 2010 Team Voice have been publishing a series of briefing notes, sent to ALL Jersey “accredited” media by recently retired Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM.

We know there are those, including some parts of our “accredited” media, who couldn’t care less what the former CPO has to say. However we also know that there are those that are following this case very closely and want to know every word that Graham Power has to say.

Naturally if this subject does not interest you, and if you haven’t clicked off already, then now is the time to do so.

For those who are interested in the briefing notes issued by Graham Power to our local “accredited” media in response to our Home Affairs Minister, making available to them the NINETY PER CENT REDACTED Wiltshire Report they are listed below in the order they have been published by Team Voice.

We are doing this for ease of reference for those who have a serious interest in studying, not only the sham that has gone on but an interest in how our local “accredited” media report.(or don’t)

First briefing note can be seen HERE

Second HERE

Third HERE

Fourth HERE

Fifth HERE

There are three more briefing notes to come, possibly four, but the “accredited” media might not know too much about the possible fourth!

“LIAR”!

2010-07-18T19:42:00.003+01:00

Today on BBC Radio Jersey we heard Senator Ian “Skippy” Le Marquand accusing our Chief Police Officer of being a “liar”. It was over the subject of who was dragging out the disciplinary process. “Skippy” claims it was the Chief Police Officer and vice versa. So I believe it is safe to say, one of them is a liar.

Here’s where it gets a little curious. As regular readers will be aware, CPO Graham Power sent out a series of 8 “briefing notes” to ALL local “accredited” media. And this was on the 12th July 2010 (6 days ago) so Christie Tucker would, or certainly should have been able to quote from them, can’t remember if she did or not, but I don’t recall her challenging Skippy with the briefing note below (but stand to be corrected).

Briefing note 8.

This briefing note has been prepared by Graham Power in an attempt to assist editors in reporting issues arising from the decision by the Minister for Home Affairs to abandon all disciplinary proceedings.

Topic:

“Running out of time.” What was said during the Judicial Review hearing.
In September 2009 the Royal Court published its verdict in relation to my application for a Judicial review of my suspension. My application was refused but the Court made strong criticism of how the suspension had been carried out by the previous Minister. The current Minister applied to the Court for the award of Costs. The Court refused his application.

The Minister when challenged has sometimes been heard to say that the Royal Court found that he was “right” to maintain the suspension. That is not strictly true. Courts rarely pass a view as to whether a Ministerial decision was “right” or “wrong.” Courts are concerned with whether decisions are lawful or unlawful. In particular a Court will determine whether a Minister acted within his powers. That is not the same as deciding that the Minister was “right.” A Court could, for example, come privately to the view that a Minister had acted unwisely or even foolishly, but that he had not exceeded his powers. That is not the same as deciding that the Minister was “right.”

My application to the Court was wide ranging but one feature is now particularly relevant. This was the part of my submission which invited to the Court to consider whether the Minister was drawing out the process to a point at which there would be no possibility of a return to work, and that there was a diminishing probability that I would get an opportunity to present my defence at a fair hearing. In my submission to the Court I said “The applicant invites the Court to consider whether the Minister is in fact engaged in a process of ‘dismissal by stealth’ which would effectively by-pass the need for an evidence based assessment and a fair hearing.” (Skeleton Argument paragraph 91.) The Minister opposed this submission. It was said on his behalf that a report from the Chief Constable of Wiltshire would be available soon and, should disciplinary issues arise, the Minister had every intention of arranging a fair hearing at which evidence on my behalf could be heard. Having considered both arguments the Court found in the Ministers favour. In the published judgement the Court states “Judging from previous precedents, he (Mr Power) maintained that the suspension of a person of Chief Officer rank was normally a career ending event and in perpetuating the suspension the Minister knew full well what he was doing. The longer the suspension, the less the probability of the Chief Officer successfully resuming a career. As it transpires, Mr Power is due to retire in any event in 2010.

We can sympathise with anyone in Mr Power’s position and can understand the deleterious effect of a lengthy suspension. However, there is no evidence that the Minister is engaged on a cynical exercise of his powers to bring about a constructive dismissal without a fair hearing.” (Court Judgement.Paragraphs 51 and 52.)

The judgement was of course delivered in September 2009 and a good deal has happened (and not happened) since that date.

With the benefit of hindsight Editors may feel entitled to form a view as to whose evidence to the Royal Court on this issue has proved to be the more accurate.

Submitted by VFC.

Proper Job (2).

2010-07-12T15:29:00.002+01:00

Following on from Chief Police Officer Graham Power’s Briefing notes to the media the first one being HERE. Team Voice are happy to bring to our readers, the second in this series.

One must remember ALL island “accredited” media have copies. As the story is unfolding, we are more, and more able to become aware as to how Senator Le Marquand, and others, have been “operating”.

Briefing note 2. July 2010.
The following briefing note has been issued to Editors by Graham Power in order to assist with the reporting of issues relating to the decision by the Minister for Home Affairs to abandon all disciplinary proceedings.

Topic:

How did all the delays happen?
There is already a lot on this subject in the public domain regarding missed deadlines and commitments which have not been kept. (Remember that the Minister originally stated that he expected to be in a position to take decisions in respect of the Wiltshire investigation in March 2009.)
This briefing note will seek to set out some additional information which may not yet be in the public domain.

Key to the issue is paragraph 2.1.2 of the Disciplinary Code for the Chief Officer of Police which sets out the processes which must be followed before there can be a disciplinary hearing. All media organisations have previously been provided with a hard copy of the Code. I do not have an electronic copy available at this time but will search further and forward one if it can be found.

Three features of this paragraph of the code are relevant for the purposes of this note. The first is the requirement that the Chief Executive (in this case the Deputy Chief Executive) conducts a “Preliminary Investigation” (in this case assisted by the Chief Constable of Wiltshire.) The second is that the Chief Executive prepares a report on his investigation, which has been referred to as the “Preliminary Report.” The third is that the Minister and the Chief Officer are provided with copies of the Preliminary Report and meet to discuss its contents along with the Chief Executive and representatives as appropriate. It is at this meeting that the Minister has to decide whether the matter goes any further, for example to a disciplinary hearing. It is probable that the authors of the Disciplinary Code saw the meeting as an opportunity to settle matters without further formal process. We cannot be sure of that. What is however certain is that there can be no disciplinary hearing until both parties have received copies of the “Preliminary Report” and a meeting has taken place. It may therefore be worthwhile exploring the history of the “Preliminary Reports” in this case and the meeting which did not occur.

On 11th February 2010 the Deputy Chief Executive wrote to me and said that he had received the information he needed from Wiltshire to produce a Preliminary Report in relation to the management of the Historic Abuse Enquiry and that he expected the Minister to arrange a meeting “as soon as possible” in order to progress matters under the Code.

It was however not until 19th April 2010 that received a copy of the “Preliminary Report.” This nevertheless appeared to clear the decks for a meeting with the Minister under the Code and for the process to move forward.

However, at this point an issue arose which was the subject of correspondence over the following months. Namely, was the proposed meeting about “Haven 1” (the abuse enquiry) alone? Or would it also cover “Haven 2” (Operation Blast?) It was hard to get a clear answer to this question but eventually it emerged that the Minister appeared to want to deal with both issues together. That being the case he then had to comply with the requirements of the Code in relation to “Haven 2” and provide a further preliminary report. But by that time “Haven 2” was seriously behind schedule. It did not get off to a good start. The investigation was announced by the Minister in June 2009 (source-Hansard) but no Investigating Officer was appointed until September 2009 (source – letter from the Chief Constable of Wiltshire.) Even then it was clear that the estimated timescale of “three to four months” (source-letter from Chief Constable of Wilts) was seriously over-running.

An exchange of letters took place in April 2010 in which the Deputy Chief Executive spoke of his intention to arrange a meeting under the Code. I replied reminding him that the meeting could not take place until the Preliminary Report in relation to “Haven 2” had been received and studied by the parties. I also asked for a draft agenda for the meeting. I did not receive an agenda and I did not receive a Preliminary Report. A similar exchange took place in May 2010. Again, I did not receive an agenda or a Preliminary Report. It therefore remained impossible for a meeting to take place in accordance with the Code.

Running alongside these exchanges were discussions I was having with the HR Branch of the Chief Ministers Department, regarding the administrative formalities associated with my retirement. As part of this exercise I asked that Department (who I should add have been courteous and professional throughout) to designate my “last working day.” Most readers will be familiar with this process but I will give brief details for the benefit of any who are not. In order that retirement can be a “clean break” it is necessary to identify any outstanding entitlements, such as untaken leave, and to resolve these before the actual retirement date. This ensures that after retirement neither party has a claim on the other in respect of untaken leave or related issues. The Chief Ministers Department applied this process and identified Tuesday 15th June as my “last working day. I was told that I would thereafter be on leave until the end of my service. Having been given this written assurance I made appropriate leave arrangements with my family.

Subsequently, the “Preliminary Report” in relation to “Haven 2” was delivered. It was sent to my home address by courier and was received and signed for by a family member who was at the house at the time. Its receipt is therefore a matter of record. The delivery of the Preliminary Report took place on the morning of Wednesday 23rd June 2010 over one week after my “last working day.”

My professional representative, Dr Timothy Brain, learned of the delivery and wrote to the Minister pointing out that my “last working day” had been and gone and that matters were effectively at an end.

While I am not an impartial judge in these matters, the sequence of events does appear to raise some questions regarding the extent of the Ministers commitment to allow a hearing of my case. Why for example did he not proceed on the basis of “Haven 1” when he was in a position to do so? Also, what was the thinking behind providing a copy of the Preliminary Report for Haven 2 after I had effectively retired? Was it some sort of token gesture or had the Minister simply lost sight of the passage of time?

Whatever explanation is correct there is some irony in this sequence of events. The whole saga began in November 2008 in a confusing exchange in the midst of a family holiday.It appears to have ended the same way.

I hope that this note is helpful. Other notes will be circulated as issues are identified.

Submitted by Team Voice.

Let’s “play ball”?

2010-07-11T12:03:00.002+01:00

After the Sates and their Communications Unit have repeatedly refused to accept “Team Voice” as “Media” and after Team Voice have played along with all the daft “rules” of the establishment, as in the completely un-workable three day notice for filming Scrutiny Hearings and abiding by all media embargoes we have become very tired of it all.

We have repeatedly been leaked documents, and not reported on Court Cases that have been embargoed, and adhered to these restrictions. However after once more not being "included", this time in the distribution the “cherry picked” Wiltshire Report, by the Communications Unit, although in fairness we believe it was the decision of the Home Affairs Minister or his Department. We explained that as they refuse to treat us with any kind of recognition, then that would inevitably result in us not “playing ball” any longer, but that is their decision not ours.

The absolutely disgraceful decision of the Chief Minister’s Department to furnish the “accredited” media with a copy of the cherry picked Wiltshire Report, without supplying CPO Power with a copy and then “refusing” States Members and Team Voice a copy, “the inevitable” is about to happen.

Team Voice were leaked a copy just hours after it was released to the media and as we are not recognized as “accredited” media, we have no obligation to adhere to the “media” embargo.

Nonetheless to further prove, we are trying to work “with” the powers that be we will not breach the embargo but will publish a “cherry picked” paragraph from the cherry picked Wiltshire Report. We will do this for two reasons. That is to give our readers/viewers a “flavour” of this almost laughable Report and also to let the powers that be know that we are not bluffing.

It is time for the powers that be to start playing ball, we’ve proved that we are willing to!

Excerpt from Cherry picked Wiltshire.

"During the course of our investigation, thousands of States of Jersey Police e-mails relating to CO Power were assessed by Operation Haven Personnel. Two, in particular, are noteworthy for their inappropriateness. One on 23 February 2008 (the day of the significant “find” at Haut de la Garenne) indicates at best, a flippant or dismissive attitude or at worst, a contemptuous attitude towards some elected politicians, but which on either interpretation set a poor example to DCO Harper who read it. However, one dated 29 February 2008 contains “joke” comments which are considered simply inexcusable by this inquiry. This e-mail was sent from the Force e-mail system to a friend and former colleague of CO Power in the United Kingdom. The appropriateness of the e-mails is reflected in the charges suggested against CO Power."

Submitted by Team Voice.

CARSWELL that ends well…..

2010-07-05T12:08:00.000+01:00

The panel of 3 lawyers, a lawyer’s wife and a nurse, has ended the first part of its look at the Jersey Crown Officers.

Your intrepid non-accredited reporter has attended most of the hearings which have largely consisted of lawyers and royal courtiers defending the status quo. Not too surprisingly, they did not have to defend too hard because the level of questioning seldom tested or stretched minds.

From the outset – when Deputy Bob Hill was in the witness chair – Lord Carswell made his bias in favour of his legal brethren and hostility towards most of the rest, abundantly obvious.
Lawyers talking shop – politely of course – has been the order of the day, so don’t expect too much change from this lot in September when their report is published.

The consultation process is not quite finished yet. Your reporter asked about the overbearing dominance of lawyers talking to lawyers and not enough plumbers etc taking part. Lord Carswell promised at least one general public evening session to come - so plumbers or plebs – there is another chance to express views.

However, it has been remarkable how little public interest has been shown in this most important process initiated by Deputy Hill (after a hard fought struggle).
The accredited media have predictably reported only the hearings with the Crown Officers plus a few other safe pairs of hands or VIPs.
The public have stayed away more or less altogether from the hearings – is this contempt for the Crown Officers’ system or the usual indifference and apathy?

The panel received about 45 written submissions according to those published on its website:
www.gov.je/crownofficersreview

About 13 are from the “lay general public,” but since these are often just a paragraph do not generally contribute much to the discussion. As Mrs. B. Murphy wrote “It is my belief that the Crown Officers fulfil their roles well, particularly in these modern times.”
Not exactly a major contribution to reasoned discussion.

Others were:
Jersey Lawyers 5 Non Jersey Lawyers 3 Acting Chief of States Police 1
States Members 8 Parish Constable 1 Ex-States Members 5

There is a degree of overlap because some ex-States members (like Reg. Jeune) are also lawyers and some Jurats have been States members or Honorary Police but the dominance of self-preserving Crown Officers (all Jersey lawyers of course), Jurats, lawyers and their establishment supporters is painfully obvious.

Thus the Bailiffs and Deputy Bailiffs, past and present, Attorney and Solicitor Generals (past and present) feature prominently and repeatedly along with the Viscount/Judicial Greffier and even the Dean.

Virtually all the serving dozen Jurats seems to have put their names to one or other of the submissions.
Group submissions from the Scrutiny Chairmen’s Committee (just single paragraphs from 4 Scrutiny Panels), the Chefs De Police (signed by Centenier Scaife), the Constables Committee (Ken Vibert) and the Honorary Police Association, purport to present a solid front of loyalty. However, the latter managed only to write that “The Honorary Police of Jersey support the role of the Attorney General and have no wish to comment further.” Again, not a very substantial or challenging point of view there.

The Jersey Human Rights group offered a unique submission from the more “progressive” side of the Jersey way of life but the more traditional, conservative “change nothing” lobby was overwhelming.

Lord Carswell had personally written to the Guernsey Bailiff inviting his comments. No harm in that – but did he write to any plumbers etc in that Bailiwick or even in Jersey, soliciting their views? The Guernsey AG and SG equivalents also responded as did an ex-Deputy-Bailiff.
Is this a case of all hands to the pump on an ancient sinking ship?
Even a UK Judge (Page) aka a Jersey Commissioner rallied to support the cause.
Adrian Lee, the UK Political commentator and BBC political pundit also offered. an academic analysis.

Those called as witnesses included only two “lay members of the general public” and one of those (John Henwood) had sat on the Clothier Panel.
All the other 30 or so called to speak were either lawyers (Jersey qualified or not), Crown Officers past and present, Jurats, States members past and present, Constables or Honorary Police, the Judicial Greffier and the Acting Chief of Police.

Can this really be considered as a representative slice of Jersey opinion on this most important subject? Especially since some of the Crown Officers have been called back to repeat much the same evidence repeated ad nauseum by themselves and others.
Lord Carswell’s panel, it seems, just so enjoyed chatting to them.

Strangely, the texts of the Bailiff’s and Deputy Bailiff’s oral hearings are not yet published on the website and some witnesses (e.g. Frank Walker and Senator Shenton) seem to have appeared as witnesses without having submitted written statements previously. Senator Shenton expressed some very interesting comments on the failures of the Scrutiny system – but who did he speak for and did he seek prior approval from the Scrutiny Panels?

Strange too that so few of Jersey’s so called “progressives” made any submissions at all or showed any interest in this panel’s activities, Why no JDA comment or participation, or the Jersey CAB or the States Greffiers, past and present?

Anybody interested in the future of democratic government in Jersey is urged to look at the website and study the written and oral submissions.

Note especially those from Bob Le Brocq, Advocate Kelleher, John Henwood, Mike Dun, Frank Walker and Nick le Cornu.

For a special treat read the written submission from Advocate Philip Sinel and wonder if he was invited to meet the panel!

For starters he wrote:

“Jersey’s legal system is, in its entirety, fundamentally incompatible with the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention)” and

“The attitude of Jersey’s authority in relation to the non compliance by the Island with the Convention is one of calculated defiance.”

AND THERE’s MORE.!!!

Remember the public hearing yet to come. You can still have your say.
We cannot wait another 800 years for reform.

Thomas Wellard

NEWSFLASH! Vet Vet gets red card again…

2010-06-25T14:42:00.000+01:00

Flying Vet Maurice Kirk has been grounded again by the red dragons of justice in Cardiff.

In court yesterday there was an alleged sighting of a levitating case file headed for the judicial bench but of course poor visibility at the time means that the particular circumstances are disputed.

As usual the judicial red dragon’s fire was stoked up and he was soon uttering the dreaded contempt of court fumings from every orifice.

Maurice was sent back once again to Cardiff Prison for 28 days.

He must be careful though because contempt for the high and mighty of the British judicial system is not for the feint hearted. When Maurice is released he is liable to be brought back before the fiery beast to show how he has purged his misbehaviour and demonstrate how he humbly accepts the majesty of the court.

This might be too much to ask on the basis of previous history – see Maurice Kirk Flying Vet’s own blog and interview here

Shall local Jersey Courts be similarly tested by our own enfant terrible soon?

Tom Wellard.

There’s one born every minute…….

2010-06-20T08:51:00.002+01:00

Well, not at the former Maternity Hospital now known as the Le Bas Health Centre in St Saviour’s Road but…….
This extraordinary structure appeared there recently and we thought that the public should know more about it in this time of belt tightening and austerity.
We did consider running a guess what it is for competition but couldn’t decide on an appropriate prize so for those who think it’s a bus shelter or outside sun-tanning booth….
In fact it is of course a bicycle shed – except that it’s not really a shed at all because it has no walls and the roof is so high that it affords no shelter from the weather either.
So, if it is wet bums that our Health Execs are worried about then a bit of plastic wrapping would have been a cheaper option to slip over saddles – assuming (if you will excuse the expression) that anybody will ever use this smart ass new feature.
In fact, we seem to remember that there already is (or was) an existing bike shed around the corner of this very same building – perhaps somebody has happy memories of it and of the unhealthy activities carried on there…..

Anyhow, we understand that this fine structure cost in excess of £10,000 to create and that designer’s fees alone (Morris Architects according to the Planning Department file although it was exempt from needing Planning or Bye Law permission) were said to be £1,500……..

Oh well - perhaps cycling is good for the leg muscles but rots the brain. If anybody knows more do please tell us – and also let us know if any bicycles actually use it?

Submitted by Thomas Wellard.

Social or un-social housing. Who cares?

2010-06-08T17:32:00.001+01:00

We are all entitled to decent housing. It’s supposedly one of the reasons we fight wars - homes fit for heroes and all that stuff.

Yet here in Jersey, amidst all the wealth, there are thousands of people who have to tolerate sub-standard housing conditions. They are not all temporary farm workers nor the ten thousand adults without housing “quals”

The interview below is with a Jersey born young woman who describes the conditions that have to be endured on one States housing estate by her and her family.

Why in 2010 does anybody have to put up with such treatment?
How many other States tenants are in similar circumstances?

With the appointment of Deputy Sean Power as the new Housing Minister can we expect a positive plan to end such conditions for all tenants?

Submitted by Thomas Wellard.

The MET “Interim” Report DOES NOT exist.

2010-05-27T11:23:00.002+01:00

That is the opinion of Deputy Trevor “Big Trev” Pitman, along with a growing number of politicians and members of the public.

Regular readers/viewers of Team Voice will know that we have been trying to verify the existence of the MET “Interim” Report for quite some time and will continue to do so. Big Trev is now convinced it does not exist, and who can blame him? Here is a crucial document alleged to back up the letter sent by acting Chief of Police, David Warcup, criticising his boss’s (CPO Graham Power) handling of the Haute de la Garenne Child Abuse investigation, which subsequently led to the (illegal?) suspension of our most senior Police Officer and only David Warcup, that we know of, has ever seen it!

Now it's (whatever it is) locked away in a bl--dy safe where no-one apart from David Warcup can get sight of it and he is supposedly on holiday. Team Voice believe a document does exist and we believe it is more of a “favour” from a mate of David Warcup’s sending him an e-mail to help him, or/and others to “nail” Graham Power.

Although we have no evidence to back that theory up, that is not our fault, until Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand, or anybody else can give us proof, to the contrary, what choice do we have?

You will notice that Deputy Pitman is “none the wiser” after asking a question in the States of Senator Le Marquand. Deputy Bob Hill also is “none the wiser” for asking a question of Ian Le Marquand in the States. Time to start making the back benchers and general public that little wiser Senator………it’s not only Graham Power's reputation that’s on the line, IT'S YOURS!!

Submitted by VFC.

SCRUTINY SCRUTINY CULTURE and NO OBLIGATIONS in sight….

2010-05-19T09:50:00.001+01:00

We all know that Jersey has an obsession with money. So it should come as no surprise when a Public Accounts Committee Scrutiny Panel looked today at the Jersey Heritage Trust and discussed little else.

Apart from a few references to Marilyn Monroe and a failed plan to bring (fellow American) John Singleton Copley’s painting of the 1781 Battle of Jersey here, there was very little mention of specific artistic or cultural activities at all.

Of course, the Heritage Trust is bust and we would hardly expect a room full of accountants and business worthies to be too concerned with the needs of local artists, composers, actors, dancers, writers, musicians, historians, designers and others.

That the artists and all were absent from the meeting also says a lot about Jersey too. But how ironic that it took place in the Blampied room of the States Building with pictures of Jersey’s greatest 20th century artist hanging ominously over the proceedings.

None of this lot had presumably been collecting vraic recently – or ever?

Just for the record, Senator Ben Shenton chaired the meeting with colleagues Senators Breckon and Perchard and Constable Refault.
Mario Lundy (Director ES and Culture), Nick Danby, Jon Carter and Clive Jones (JHT) answered their questions and several more men in suits also sat around the table and interjected about money matters from time to time.

Women did not participate - except as secretarial scrutiny officers.

Also absent was any mention of international obligations with regard to culture. No great surprise there – but in two and a half hours surely somebody could have acknowledged Jersey’s supposed commitments under the UN Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)? Had nobody ever heard of it?

According the Jersey’s 5th Report under ICESCR to the UN in 2007;

“The adoption of the Cultural Strategy commits the States of Jersey to a strategic approach to the encouragement of cultural activities.”

Unfortunately, as the discussions sadly revealed, the infamous Cultural Strategy document was just so much eye wash. There was no money to back up the grand ideas and the lack of commitment to the arts for arts sake was everywhere apparent.

Even the UN must be despairing of Jersey’s failure to incorporate ICESCR into local law as it has requested (Jersey has promised to keep the matter under review!). Nevertheless, the UN has advised that even without incorporation, Jersey has an obligation to comply with it and “to give it full effect in the domestic legal order.”

Jersey has conceded that it is an international obligation and will be taken into account by courts of law (see Benest v Le Maistre JLR 1998 p 213 C of A) and “in addition the States of Jersey will not enact laws which would put the island in breach of its international obligations.”

Jersey has also promised the UN that;
“Jersey government takes this Covenant into account in the formulation of legislation and policies that bear upon economic, social and cultural rights.”

Somebody should tell Senator Shenton and his team.

Anybody interested in reading Jersey’s 5th Report to the UN can find it lodged between the Reports from Guernsey and the Isle of Man by Googling the link on gov.je un report icescr. (Jersey’s report is on pages 335-397).

The next report from Jersey is due soon. NGOs and other groups are supposed to be encouraged to participate in its preparation!
We wonder what whoppers will be told to the UN and the people of Jersey this time?

Submitted by Thomas Wellard.

Stuart Syvret Returns.

2010-05-04T19:19:00.001+01:00

Today saw the unexpected return of former Senator Stuart Syvret. Immediately after his arrival at Jersey Airport he was arrested airside so kept from the waiting media “accredited” and “unaccredited”. He was taken directly to the Magistrates Court for a special hearing where he was released on bail after refusing to stand on his feet for Assistant Magistrate Bridget Shaw, even after being warned he could be in contempt of court, to which he explained to Mrs. Shaw that he has nothing but contempt for the court.

Team Voice secured an interview, where we believe the “accredited” media were declined an interview despite their protestations.

As you will see in the (exclusive) video below, Team Voice will be interviewing the Senator, ex Senator, Mr. Syvret in-depth and exclusive to Citizens Media in the coming days.

COMPLAIN!!!!!! You must be on re-play……

2010-04-21T11:18:00.001+01:00

That annual Report of the past 12 months Complaints Boards has been published again by Constable Gallichan’s lack lustre PPC.

For an island with a population of over 92,000 people there were just 15 complaints against government mal-administration in the whole year of 2009!!!!!!!

Of those ONLY 3 complaints were upheld!!!!! Who are we kidding?

With all the discontent in Jersey about so many aspects of our government administration are we really supposed to believe that only 3 people had justifiable grievances in 12 months?

Look here – last year we published several blogs about this very same subject (see voiceforjersey June 3rd and 4th 2009) and responses from Deputies Bob Hill and Roy “the fence” Le Herissier.

We at The Voice also undertook a great deal of research into the subject and attended Complaints Board hearings and we submitted our own complaint against the unhelpful and discriminatory policies of the Chairman’s Committee of Scrutiny. This was not even allowed to be heard because that Committee is exempt – like so many other bodies in Jersey – from Complaint Board examination.
We cannot allow scrutiny of scrutiny!!!!!

As we reported before – in little Gibraltar with a population of just 28,000 – their equivalent (Ombudsman) Board receives over 400 complaints per annum and they uphold about 50 out of the 100 that receive a full hearing.
The main areas of maladministration in Gibraltar, according to their Board are;

“Bias, neglect, inattention, delay, incompetence, inaptitude, perversity, turpitude, arbitrateness…..”

In the UK about 35% of complaints are upheld each year by the Government Ombudsman and there are several different specialist Ombudsman offices to receive specific complaints on such things as Local Government or Insurance (which should be very busy following the Icelandic volcanic ash).

In other places the Ombudsman will take up complaints without even being asked and will prosecute if necessary to achieve a satisfactory conclusion.
Our Complaints Board procedure is a disgraceful farce that won’t (according to Chairperson Carol Canavan – a Jersey Lawyer) even consider human rights violations!!!!!

We recently attended the two latest 2010 Complaints Boards – one versus the Planning Department and the other regarding the States Pension scheme.

These are supposed to be public hearings – but they are not advertised in advance and the “accredited” Jersey press hardly ever attends but waits for the official, ready prepared official “press release” before reporting anything.

We at The Voice have to make enquiries even to discover when Complaints Boards are due to take place – the Greffe will not tell us in advance.
In Gibraltar they give out details to the public on the street!

Thanks heavens Deputy Monty Tadier has had the sense to resign from the absurd PPC farce – but shall he be re-energised now to tackle this Complaints Board disgrace and the other 1001 issues that need addressing in this “paradise island”?

Submitted by Thomas Wellard.

JCLA Press Release.

2010-04-03T12:01:00.002+01:00

The Jersey Care Leavers Association have issued the following Press Statement. Which is a stark reminder to us all that REAL people have suffered REAL atrocities whilst in the “care” of our government.

The one’s that are fortunate enough to still be with us, and the families of those who aren’t, carry on living this nightmare on a daily basis and deserve recognition and not least JUSTICE and AN APOLOGY.

To Carrie and the JCLA. The “good” people of Jersey recognise your suffering, even if we are not capable of comprehending the true extent of it.

I am sure Lenny Harper, his dedicated team of professionals and CPO Graham Power appreciate the full support of the Care leavers.

Press Release

From Jersey Care Leavers Association
For attention of Newsrooms
Dated: 2nd April 2010…For immediate release and action
Issued by: Jersey Care Leavers Association

2nd April 2010.

Over the past couple of weeks the subject of the suspension of the Chief of Police Graham Power has once again been prominent in the headlines and on the radio with conflicting reports.

Naturally, this impacts once more on all the care leavers who have been, and still are, part of the Abuse enquiry who are continually subjected to innuendo, doubt and having to re-live periods of their life that they would prefer to put behind them.
Until this whole Abuse enquiry, and Mr. Power’s suspension are finalised our emotions are once again brought to the surface, discussed in the media and furthermore ridiculed by our Home Affairs Minister on last Sunday’s BBC radio Jersey’s talkback programme when suggesting that 65 teeth ‘accidentally’ fell through a gap in the floorboards at Haut de la Garenne, a flippant remark which does not sit well with a lot of the Care Leavers and the general public.

Contrary to what has been suggested at no time were we given false hope of convictions by Lenny Harper and his team. We were invited to come forward with information as part of the ongoing investigation, and at all times were treated with dignity, respect and understanding in our dealings with the investigation team at that time. It is indeed due to the sympathetic manner we were dealt with that we felt at ease talking with this team, and thanks to that, some convictions have taken place.
It is indeed unfortunate that the resurfacing of the media publicity surrounding Mr Power’s suspension which now appears to relate to the historic abuse enquiry handling, has led to yet more trauma for the survivors.

May we request some respect for our feelings in this matter not only from the media, but from some politicians who make light of some of the evidence when asked for an opinion.

We have suffered greatly as it is – we do not deserve to suffer more.
Furthermore, we now have in the public domain the findings of the independent review enquiry by the JCPC which has highlighted a shocking case of abuse and neglect within a family situation which was allowed to continue for 12 years. This was due to a failure, lack of communication and action by all the agencies involved. A damning indictment indeed which would make us query how many other abuse cases have been handled in the same manner or glossed over.
Concerns over the failings and the failed were highlighted by Senator Stuart Syvret some time ago, and as a consequence he was sacked from his position as Health Minister in 2007
.
What does this say about our Government and the agencies concerned?
Likewise, when Senator Alan Breckon brought forward a proposition for an enquiry into child protection last year it was heavily defeated, and furthermore two former Health Ministers voted against it.

Again, what does this say about our Government?
We support wholeheartedly Senator Alan Breckon’s call for an enquiry and debate into the management of Health and Social Services and would ask all States Members to support this course of action, which is imperative to re-assure us that lessons have been learnt and will be acted upon.
Is this too much to ask?
Carrie Modral
Jersey Care Leavers Association

Bring back P145/2009

2010-03-31T11:12:00.004+01:00

In early March 2009 Senator Alan Breckon, Deputies, Roy Le Herissier Trevor Pitman and Geoff Southern formed a Scrutiny Sub Panel to look into the “care” of vulnerable children administered by our States.

The sub panel soon become aware that not all was well, and in particular there were, how shall we put this? “failings” “misgivings” “malpractice” “short comings”? perhaps incompetence, cover up, corruption, and total neglect of our children might be too strong a phraseology but perhaps shouldn’t be ruled out.

So concerned were the sub panel that after some 18 - 20 weeks of taking testimony and collecting data that they felt it necessary to bring a proposition to the States (P145/2009) asking for a committee of enquiry to look into the management at Health and Social Services. They believed our most vulnerable children had been “avoidably” horribly failed by these people. But guess what? THIRTY of our States members didn’t want this to happen, that is THIRTY people who believe they are voting how we, the electorate, would like them to vote. I shall list the THIRTY below. Needless to say the proposition got defeated.

Subsequently the Jersey Child Protection Committee (JCPC) conducted a Serious Case Review (SCR) on a particularly troubled family. I believe, and stand to be corrected, that the SCR was forced upon the JCPC by the family’s Lawyer, Advocate Tim Hanson. The report that followed was nothing short of DAMMING and SCATHING of just about every department, and more, that deals with, not only “vulnerable” children, but children in general - as well as our Law Offices and one, as yet unnamed (unaccountable) Judge.
The full JCPC SCR report can be read here, and again it is another one of those documents that doesn’t make for comfortable reading.

Senator Alan Breckon must be encouraged to submit P145/2009 again, the people (highly paid Civil Servants) and others, that so tragically failed this family, and possibly many other families must be held to account.

Below is an interview with Senator Breckon, although it must be remembered that Deputies Southern, Le Herissier and T. Pitman also put the best part of twenty weeks work into trying to unearth who or what allowed this tragic, unforgivable and avoidable chain of events to occur.

Although, as things stand it looks like our elected “representatives” and in particular Education Minister Deputy James Reed and H&SS Minister Deputy Ann Pryke, are not going to hold any of their Civil Servants to account. So we as voters, must make sure these elected “representatives” are held to account at the Ballot Box in the next elections.

Senator Terence Augustine Le Sueur
CONTRE

Senator Paul Francis Routier
CONTRE

Senator Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf
CONTRE

Senator Terence John Le Main
CONTRE

Senator Ben Edward Shenton
CONTRE

Senator Frederick Ellyer Cohen
CONTRE

Senator James Leslie Perchard
CONTRE

Senator Alan John Henry Maclean
CONTRE

Senator Bryan Ian Le Marquand
CONTRE

Connétable Kenneth Priaulx Vibert
CONTRE

Connétable John Le Sueur Gallichan
CONTRE

Connétable Daniel Joseph Murphy
CONTRE

Connétable Michael Keith Jackson
CONTRE

Connétable Graeme Frank Butcher
CONTRE

Connétable Peter Frederick Maurice Hanning
CONTRE

Connétable Leonard Norman
CONTRE

Connétable John Martin Refault
CONTRE

Connétable Juliette Gallichan
CONTRE

Deputy Robert Charles Duhamel
CONTRE

Deputy John Benjamin Fox
CONTRE

Deputy Judith Ann Martin
CONTRE

Deputy James Gordon Reed
CONTRE

Deputy John Alexander Nicholas Le Fondré
CONTRE

Deputy Anne Enid Pryke
CONTRE

Deputy Sean Power
CONTRE

Deputy Kevin Charles Lewis
CONTRE

Deputy Ian Joseph Gorst
CONTRE

Deputy Philip John Rondel
CONTRE

Deputy Daniel John Arabin Wimberley
CONTRE

Deputy Edward James Noel
CONTRE

　
　
　
　
　

A credible fictitious story?

2010-03-14T19:32:00.003Z

Today Sunday the 14th March 2010, our Chief Minister, Senator Terry (P9-26) Le Sueur, along with Deputy of St Marin Bob Hill were “live” guests on our local weekly Radio Show “Talkback”.

The subject matter was “who is running Jersey, the Civil Servants, or the Politicians.”

One member of the public who phoned into the show was a member of Team Voice. Where he put it to Senator Terry (P9-26) Le Sueur that the Civil Servants are running the island, and in particular, the Head Civil Servant Bill Ogley.

The Team Voice member went on to explain, that no less an authority than our most Senior Police Officer, had sworn an affidavit claiming that Mr. Ogley had been involved in engineering the dismissal of a democratically elected member of our parliament namely the (then) Health and Social Service Minister Senator Stuart Syvret. Indeed CPO Graham Power had this to say in his Affidavit.

“I attended a meeting of the Corporate Management Board (C.M.B.) This is a body which brings together the heads of the islands public services to discuss policy issues and provide collective advice to Ministers.

T he feeling in the room was tense and there was general talk about the questions asked by the Health Minister and the need for some sort of action in response. I had the feeling that “something was going on” to which I was not a party. After the meeting the Chief Executive, Bill Ogley, asked me to stay behind. Also remaining were the head of States H.R., Ian Crich, the Chief Officer of Health, Mike Pollard and the then Chief Officer of Education, (Tom McKeon who has since retired.) The Chief Executive said that it was anticipated that the Council of Ministers would tomorrow be asked by the then Chief Minister, Senator Frank Walker, to pass a vote of “no confidence” in the Health Minister and that this could result in his removal from office. I was then told of measures that had apparently been put in place to facilitate this. I was told that the islands Child Protection Committee (C.P.C.) was due to meet at the same time as we were meeting and that arrangements had been made for it to pass a vote of “no confidence” in the Minister. It was then suggested that as the heads of the relevant public services we should do something similar and that this would give support to the proposal that the Chief Minister would bring forward the next day.

I was shocked by this and initially did not know what to say. I eventually made two points. Firstly I said that the Minister was entitled to ask difficult questions. As I saw things that was his role and it was our role to provide a response, and secondly, even if that was not agreed, what was being proposed was civil servant and police engagement in political activity. I stated clearly that I did not see that as acceptable and that I would have nothing to do with it. At this point the Chief Executive asked me to leave the meeting which I did. I then made contact with a police colleague who had been at the C.PC. and discovered that this colleague had also had left their meeting for similar reasons. Shortly afterwards we both made brief notes in relation to what had happened. This was my first noteworthy experience of the formation of an “inner circle” of politicised senior civil servants loyal to the Chief Minister. The Chief Executive and the head of H.R. subsequently played a significant role in my suspension.”

Let us remember, this is a sworn affidavit submitted voluntarily, should there be any falsehoods contained in it the Chief Police Officer risks a perjury charge.

The Team Voice member went on to explain to our Chief Minister that contained within the same affidavit was an allegation from CPO Power that the Chief Executive Officer Bill Ogley had stated if “they” (presumably the police?) wanted to “get” a fellow Civil Servant who was a suspect in the ongoing historical child abuse investigation, (and remained in post, not suspended as a neutral act) then they would have to “get him first” (Bill Ogley). Chief Police Officer Graham Power had this to say in his affidavit.

“The third example I have chosen relates to a Strategic Planning Workshop held at the St Pauls Centre on Friday 24th October 2008. The Workshop was attended by a number of senior public servants including myself and the Chief Executive. At the commencement of the workshop the Chief Executive asked for silence and said that he had an announcement to make. He named a senior civil servant who was present. The person named is a suspect in the abuse investigation but has not been suspended. The Chief Executive said that the suspect had his total support and that “if anyone wants to get…….(the suspect)…….they would have to get me first”. This announcement was applauded by some but not all of the persons present. I took it as a further indication of the “in crowd” closing ranks against the “threat” of the abuse enquiry. The Chief Executive later played a significant role in my suspension.”

The Chief Minister replied by saying he hasn’t seen any evidence to prove any wrong doing by his Chief Civil Servant, and his Chief Civil Servant has denied the claims, and he (the Chief Minister) has every confidence in Mr. Ogley.

So this is how things work over here in good old Jersey. Our most senior ranking Police Officer, swears an affidavit that the most Senior Civil Servant has been involved in, what most would consider to be “illegal” and anti-democratic activity. The Senior Civil Servant denies it and that’s good enough for our Chief Minister. No investigation or inquiry into the claims made in the affidavit, there’s no need the Civil Servant has denied it, nothing more needed.

I believe it was Lenny Harper who first used this quote and it sums it up really and that is you couldn’t make up a credible “fictitious” story with this stuff.
For those who would like to view Chief Police Officer Graham Power’s Affidavit in its entirety click HERE

What a difference a Child Abuse Investigation makes.

2010-02-25T12:56:00.003Z

Back in early 2007 (not sure of the date) Chief Police Officer Graham Power and Deputy Chief Officer Lenny Harper were “the good guys”. They were rooting out the corruption in our “outdated” Police force and according to the Jersey Evening Post “ It goes without saying that in the police - beyond all other institutions - there is no room whatsoever for corruption or malpractice. If the professional standards section of our force determined that it was necessary to act with exemplary firmness, its stance deserves support rather than criticism.”

Below is that editorial published in, and by, the Jersey Evening Post early in 2007 where one would believe, after receiving glowing reports from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate, Lenny Harper and Graham Power were doing this right. This appears to be endorsed by the Jersey Evening Post, hence their “positive” Editorial.

But along came a Child Abuse Investigation, and these two cops who had received glowing reports from HMI and others also the support of the Jersey Evening Post - before you know it - they’re the bad guys! Come on JEP you can’t have it both ways, at what point did they lose your support, when was it that they went bad?

Everything all seemed Hunky Dory until these guys started investigating institutional Child Abuse.

I should like at this point to throw out a challenge to the Jersey Evening Post.

In their Editorial of February 23rd 2010 (below) they have written “One is that Mr Power’s deputy, Lenny Harper, was not effectively supervised as he pursued with ever increasing public zeal his unsubstantiated suspicions that torture, murder and institutional cover-up had taken place at the former children’s home.”

Could you please point us in the direction where Lenny Harper has ever said there was any “murder” at HDLG?

JEP Editorial from 2007.

Police Chief delivers change.

Six years ago the States of Jersey Police were the subject of a less than flattering report compiled in the wake of a visit by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary. Since then, problems clearly have been solved and new standards have been set, the latest HMI report

having described the force as “modern and fast-moving”.
Police Chief Graham Power and his officers can be proud of this achievement. In common with forces up and down Britain, the States Police are a complex and many-layered organisation. Accomplishing the turn-around of the past six years can therefore, have been no easy undertaking. Nor can it have been particularly pleasant. The process of major change is always likely to upset those set in their ways or content to roll along in accordance with comfortable but outdated routines.

This process of transformation was undoubtedly at its most challenging when the professional standards department, led by Mr. Power’s deputy, Lenny Harper, embarked on a systematic programme to root out corruption. Mr. Harper’s determined efforts have been attacked - to the extent that they have been described as “out of control” by a prominent former politician - but the result of the latest HMI inspection would seem to justify the decision to probe as deeply as possible and to remove those officers who were less than a credit to their uniform.
It goes without saying that in the police - beyond all other institutions - there is no room whatsoever for corruption or malpractice. If the professional standards section of our force determined that it was necessary to act with exemplary firmness, its stance deserves support rather than criticism.

There are, of course, areas of the force where improvements can still be made. Indeed, the inspectorate has listed 78 suggestions for further change. With the combination of improved morale, high levels of confidence in the top echelon and firm political support, Mr. Power and his colleagues are in an excellent position to deliver that change.
We in Jersey are fortunate to live in a community where serious crime is mercifully rare. While important questions remain over the failure of the States to establish a new police authority , the force itself is organised and led in a way more than capable of maintaining this happy state of affairs.

Mr Power: Time to call a halt
February 23, 2010 – 3:00 pm

ALMOST exactly two years since the name of Haut de la Garenne hit the world’s headlines, Jersey is still dealing with the fall-out.

The ramifications of how the police and politicians handled that dramatic escalation of the Island’s historical child abuse inquiry will once again tax the wisdom of States Members this week when they debate Deputy Bob Hill’s call for a committee of inquiry into the suspension of States police chief Graham Power.
We may never know precisely what arguments he will make because the debate is to be held in private, but they will need to be powerful ones to justify the protraction of an already extensive examination.

There seems to be little, if any, doubt over the two key points. One is that Mr Power’s deputy, Lenny Harper, was not effectively supervised as he pursued with ever increasing public zeal his unsubstantiated suspicions that torture, murder and institutional cover-up had taken place at the former children’s home. The other is that in suspending Mr Power because of that failure of oversight, the powers that be slipped up in one or more parts of the procedural minefield that now surrounds employer/employee relations in Jersey.
Unequivocally damning evidence in respect of the first of those points has already been presented by the States police’s own review of the conduct of the abuse inquiry, carried out by a suitably qualified senior officer from the UK. More expert comment on the whole affair is due soon from the Wiltshire Constabulary, who have been commissioned to take a further independent view.

Meanwhile, Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur has offered a review of the way Mr Power’s suspension was carried out. All this has already taken longer and cost more than is reasonable, with the delay providing a field day for conspiracy theorists in the process.In reaching a decision this week, the States will have to balance a number of tricky questions, including, crucially, what is fair to Mr Power but also what is fair to Jersey and to the taxpayer.
Mr Power has been suspended for more than a year. He is now near retirement and, one way or another, will undoubtedly leave Jersey well rewarded for his ultimately disappointing time in the Island. There is, nevertheless, understandable sadness that a dedicated, respected police officer who has given long and distinguished service should find himself in this position at the end of his career.

Depending on one’s point of view, that sympathy will either be diluted or reinforced by the knowledge that Mr Power and Mr Harper co-existed as two sides of a triangular relationship with a weak Home Affairs Minister in former Senator Wendy Kinnard.
From any perspective, though, there is strong evidence that Mr Power has largely brought his troubles on himself through his failure to control Mr Harper. For that reason Deputy Hill, himself a former Metropolitan Police officer of the old school, will have a hard task convincing the States that there would be any overwhelmingly important purpose served by dragging out this whole grim process even further.

Who's Proposition would you vote for?

2010-02-21T17:26:00.005Z

After reading the exchange below, who do you trust? who's proposition would you vote for?

Either Chief Minister Le Sueur, or Deputy Bob Hill, has something to hide and something to fear.

The Black text is the Chief Minister's comments, answered in red by Deputy Bob Hill.

P9 COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY:

SUSPENSION OF THE CHIEF OFFICER

OF THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE

Comments from the Council of Ministers

The Proposition calls for a Committee of Inquiry to be established to review the manner in which the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police was suspended. Following the suspension of the Chief Officer, Wiltshire Police were commissioned to review the background to the way in which the investigation into the Historic Childcare Abuse Enquiry was managed by the States of Jersey Police and in particular, identify evidence of misconduct by the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police.

The Wiltshire Investigation is being undertaken in accordance with the Disciplinary Code of Conduct for the Chief Officer of Police which requires confidentiality to be maintained by all parties throughout the investigation. As a consequence, is not possible to discuss in open debate the background or context to this investigation, much of which might be required in a meeting the Inquiry’s overall objectives as set out in Part (a) of the Proposition.

Comment.

The Chief Minister is attempting to use the confidentiality requirement of the discipline code in an attempt to “close down” discussions about the suspension itself. This argument is flawed for a number of reasons. Firstly, it should be possible without too much difficulty to separate the two. The terms of reference for Wiltshire Police do not include any investigation of the actual suspension, only my proposition allows such an investigation to take place. Wiltshire has finished most of their enquiries and there should be no overlap. Secondly, the attempt to continue to enforce the confidentiality rule under the disciplinary code implies that some form of disciplinary proceedings are possible. The disciplinary process for the Chief Officer of Police envisages a long and detailed process which consists of an initial meeting, a subsequent hearing with witnesses, an independent appeal chaired by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service and potentially a full debate in the States. Reliable estimates indicate that it could take up to a year to complete. At the time of writing the process has not even started. The Chief Officer is retiring from the service and is currently in his notice period. Allowing for leave he has a little over four month’s service remaining. He has effectively already been dismissed through a process which extended his suspension to a time when a return to work was impossible. If the Chief Minister really intends that there should be even more expenditure on a disciplinary process relating to someone who is leaving anyway, then he should explain how he would intend to progress this in the time available, and what justification he sees for the effort and expense this would involve, other than to provide a thin excuse for opposing the proposition. Finally, the States are fully entitled to have a view on which is the greater priority in these circumstances. Is it more important to pursue a pointless disciplinary process than to establish whether the States, the public, and others were wilfully misled by the statements and actions of those involved in the original suspension? Which would be the greater priority in the minds of the public and which choice would do most to restore confidence in the integrity of government?

Part (a) of the Proposition for a Committee of Inquiry can be split into four particular elements:-
The manner in which the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police was suspended from his duties on 12 November 2008.

The procedures and the documentation used in the suspension process.

The grounds relied on by the previous Home Affairs Minister in taking his decision.

The role of the Minister and of other parties who were involved in the suspension process.

The issues covered in i, ii and iv above could be investigated by a Committee of Inquiry. However, item iii requires the background information that led to the Home Affairs Minister to take the decision to instigate disciplinary procedures to be available to a Committee of Inquiry. Under the Confidentiality Agreement in place with the Chief Officer of Police and given that this line of enquiry is fully covered by the Wiltshire Investigation as part of the Disciplinary Procedure against the Chief Officer of Police, it is hard to see how a Committee of Inquiry can gain access to, and use this information in an open inquiry whilst the Disciplinary Procedure is running that requires confidentiality to be maintained throughout.

Comment

The Chief Minister appears to be relying on two arguments here, one of which is invalid and the other which is a repetition of an earlier point. What is apparently being argued is that the grounds on which the previous Minister took his decision cannot be within the remit of a Committee of Enquiry because it falls in some way within the remit of the Wiltshire investigation. At the risk of being repetitious, the suspension itself is outside of the Wiltshire remit. What evidence was or was not available in November 2008 is at best a footnote. Wiltshire have been tasked to begin at the beginning and to review the management of the HDLG enquiry from their own perspective and to gather evidence on their own authority. What any other authority did or thought in November 2008 is not totally irrelevant, but it is hardly fundamental to what is essentially a completely new look at the evidence. On the repeated point of any potential conflict with the disciplinary process, the Chief Minister has it within his capacity to remove this alleged difficulty from the table at a stroke. It could be argued that it simply requires a public statement of the obvious, namely that there is now no prospect of concluding any disciplinary process in relation to the Chief Officer and that the process is therefore effectively at an end. This would then “clear the decks” for a proper examination of the conduct of government in this issue which is what my proposition is about. If the Chief Minister will not agree to “clear the decks” for this to take place then States Members, and doubtlessly others, will be entitled to speculate as to his motives.

Consequently a Committee of Enquiry, as proposed, could not commence activities until the Disciplinary Procedure had been completed.

Comment

As stated above. Ministers could “complete” the disciplinary procedure now by admitting that it has nowhere to go, and that all that remains is to examine “how we got into this mess” and to learn lessons for the future. The longer this is put off the greater the speculation, and the harder it will be to repair the reputational damage which government actions have caused.

The Chief Minister has reviewed all correspondence over the past few weeks and recognises that some Members are concerned at the way in which the management of the suspension process was handled by his Department at that time. As a result, the Chief Minister has given an undertaking to commission a review and report on specific areas as outlined in the attached Terms of Reference. This Review will be undertaken by an independent external expert qualified in Employment Law and the Chief Minister has undertaken to make the findings of the Report public.

Comment

I submit that the reason why the Chief Minister has performed a “u turn” is because I have lodged my proposition. In letters to me dated 13th and 22nd January (see pages 24 & 26 of P9) he stated that he was satisfied with the current arrangements and saw no reason to lodge a proposition in the manner I sought.

The problem which my proposition is attempting to address is that of confidence in the integrity of government and the possibility that Ministers and others may have colluded in a way which misled the States and then sought to cover up the truth. These concerns are hardly likely to be addressed by an informal review established by the very people whose actions must be examined.

With the recent publication of the sworn Affidavit by the suspended Chief Officer of Police, it is essential that the Review of the Suspension Process be undertaken in the shortest possible time frame, to enable all relevant facts from all parties to be fully investigated to establish the true position. However, the Proposition as drafted would appear to prevent this course of action being taken as a Committee of Inquiry will not be able to gain access to all relevant information. The Chief Minister is of the view that if the Committee of Inquiry were to be approved, the terms of reference would have to be amended in such a manner that allows it to perform its function before the disciplinary process has been completed.

The alternative, which is proposed by the Chief Minister, is that an independent expert should be engaged in the shortest possible time frame to undertake this review and report. The Chief Minister has requested Deputy Hill to assist him in the appointments process and has also asked JACS to assist in the selection and appointment process for the Reviewer to ensure transparency. Subject to the successful appointment, the Chief Minister will bring a Report to the States advising Members of the individual selected with their background and curriculum vitae.

Comment

Again, this argument is flawed and to some extent self contradictory. There is still the reliance on the illusion that the disciplinary process can be “completed” when it plainly cannot. It then goes on to argue that a Committee of Enquiry is in some way unable to gain access to the relevant information but that a less formal enquiry would. Nobody familiar with the facts could sensibly dispute that this situation needs intrusive investigative powers. Not some friendly review which relies on the cooperation of the people involved. All should agree that there should be no unnecessary delay, but it is more important that Islanders are convinced that everything possible has been done to get to the bottom of the matter. What is more important is that we get to the bottom of this matter and put it to bed once and for all. Otherwise, it will continue to be an issue which demands our attention. The concern of the Chief Minister for the achievement of a result in “the shortest possible timeframe” is touching, but does not sit easily with the history of a disciplinary enquiry and suspension which have lasted for 16 months without a single disciplinary charge.

The Chief Minister on one hand is complaining that I have not gone through an advertising procedure, yet he is intending to do the same. It should be recalled that he never advertised for a Chairman to review the role of the Crown Officers. If we go down the Chief Minister’s route it will be several weeks before a review could begin. He is also implying that my proposed Committee lacks credibility because its selection process lacks transparency. Yet he is entrusting me and JACS to assist in the selection and appointments process. In my speech I will explain how I was able to find 5 highly respected individuals and that I was assisted by JACS.

The Chief Minister is of the opinion that conducting a review as outlined in his Terms of Reference will be a much quicker and simpler process to that required in the formation of a Committee of Inquiry, but still provides the level of assurance Members are looking for.

Not so, if my proposition is approved the Committee will be able to make an immediate start.

It is important to recall that last August I lodged P131 seeking States approval to request Verita to investigate the events surrounding the suspension of a Hospital Gynaecologist. As with this proposition the Chief Minister intervened, lodged 11th hour Comments proposing that my proposition be rejected in favour of his external “Expert” which would conduct a review within weeks but no mention was made re costs.

Unfortunately when my proposition was debated last September it resulted in a tied vote which allowed for the Chief Minister to appoint his expert without seeking States approval. Six months have elapsed, although Verita has published its report which exonerated the Gynaecologist, the Chief Minister’s “Expert” has not published a report and the latest confirmed cost is £40,000.

Members will note however, that the Terms of Reference proposed by the Chief Minister contain a specific clause that asks the Reviewer to establish whether there are grounds for a full Committee of Inquiry. Should this be confirmed, the Chief Minister commits to bringing back to the Assembly a Proposition for a Committee of Inquiry and for the appointment of a panel of members through a formal advertising and selection process in line with best practice.

This appointments process is seen to be open and transparent for all parties and in contrast to the appointments process outlined in this Proposition whereby members are pre-selected by the proposing Member.

Comment

The Chief Minister acknowledges that a full Committee of Enquiry may be required but hopes to put this off until a more informal enquiry has reported. The issues in this proposition are serious and current. Hoping that they can be fobbed-off or will just go away demonstrates lack of vision and leadership. This is a situation which needs to be grasped in a way which is firm, decisive, and reassuring to the public and the outside world. The more the problem is allowed to fester the worse it will get. A firm decision which is decisive and reassuring to all sides is what is called for. The Chief Minister’s position represents none of these things.

Part (b) of the Proposition is unacceptable and should be rejected. For complex investigations such as this where professional reputations of senior ranking officials are at stake, the recruitment and selection process for individuals to form a Committee of Inquiry must be managed in an open and transparent manner. If Members are minded to approve a Committee of Inquiry, it must be subject to the input of an independent body responsible for the recruitment process, the outcome of which will be presented to the Assembly for final approval.

Comment

Standing Order 146 requires names to be put forward for States Approval, It does not prescribe how they are chosen, however it is open for any Member to propose alternative names, no one to date has done so.

I have been attacked and my integrity question by both PPC and the Chief Minister about the selection of the Committee of Inquiry. If both are concerned that Standing Order 146 does not meet a transparent recruitment process why has the Order not been amended? As it is, I have complied with the Order’s requirement and until it is amended both PPC and the Chief Minister should accept that I have done nothing untoward.

My report and proposition has been prepared by a backbench States Member without any of the professional support and advice which Ministers take for granted. The surprise is not that it may not have reached the highest standards in terms of the selection process. The surprise is that it got to this stage at all. If Ministers want to do something POSITIVE as opposed to rubbishing the good work of others, they should support the proposition. Otherwise it appears that once again they are in denial of the real issues and clutching at technical straws rather then address the legitimate concerns which have arisen.

Financial and Manpower Implications

The costs shown in the Proposition for the Committee of Inquiry appear to cover administrative costs only and, given the timescale for previous Committees of Inquiry these costs appear to be on the low side.

The main cost that is not identified for a Committee of Inquiry will be that of meeting the costs of legal representation for individuals called to give evidence. Providing an accurate cost for this legal representation is not possible but assuming that the key witnesses will be past and current politicians and employees, most, if not all of whom will be seeking legal support, costs could be in the order of £20,000, in addition to those costs identified in the Deputy’s Proposition. If individuals called to give evidence no longer live locally, travel and accommodation will also have to be factored in.

Comment.

It is a bit rich for the Chief Minister to concern himself with the provision of legal funding for those who may be called to give evidence. This is another “U turn” because his proposal is a reversal of the policy so far followed in this matter under which the suspended Chief Officer has been denied any legal support and in consequence has represented himself in both the Royal Court and the Administrative Appeal Hearing. In the former he was opposed by the then Solicitor General in person, and in the latter by a member of the Law Officers Department. The Police Chief Officer was even denied access to his office not only to retrieve personal items but documents to assist in his pursuit for justice. Had he been a criminal he would have been granted rights and they way in which obstacles were placed before him could certainly not be considered to a “Neutral” Act. The Chief Minister’s new-found regard for fairness in the provision of legal advice and representation is to be applauded but it is very late in the day.

The Committee of Inquiry are giving freely of their time and expertise. I have allowed for £15,000 for covering admin and incidental costs. If the figure below is between £5 and £10,000 then there will be very little difference in the costs. However I don’t know what sort of “Expert” the Chief Minister will get for the money and presumably if he considers that witnesses called to the Committee of Inquiry might require legal assistance, so presumably they too may require legal assistance when being interviewed by the Chief Minister’s “Expert” but no funding has been allowed.

There is of course one other legal aspect which distinguishes the two proposals. A Committee of Enquiry would be able to grant immunity to witnesses in a similar manner to a scrutiny panel. This protection would enable staff to give evidence which may be damaging to others with less fear of reprisal. The Chief Ministers proposal seeks to withhold that immunity. Witnesses would be required to give an account without the protection of legal immunity, and what they say would be reported to the Chief Minister and his Civil Servants. This is bound to have the potential to create a reluctance to say things which are detrimental to those in senior positions.

Based on previous independent reviews of this nature, the Chief Minister believes that the cost for the review as proposed in the Terms of Reference would be in the order of £5-10.000

Recommendation

Members are urged to reject this Proposition on the basis that it will become a lengthy process and as presented, does not provide the required level of transparency in terms of the selection of a panel to form the Committee of inquiry.

Members should instead support the proposal from the Chief Minister to commission an independent review, with the safeguards as outlined in this report and if the findings are of such magnitude, the Chief Minister commits to bring a Report and Proposition to this Assembly calling for a full Committee of Inquiry.

Comment
Lest anyone forget, this proposal attributed to the Chief Minister comes from individuals who, with all of the strength, finance, time and resources they could muster, have at every stage and with every sinew, opposed, obstructed and sought to deflect, any enquiry or investigation whatsoever, into the actions of Ministers and their advisors in November 2008. The Chief Minister now offers this concession, not because he is persuaded that it is a good thing. He does so through clenched teeth because he is now cornered and can think of nothing else. Why should anyone trust the Chief Minister to deliver anything which is impartial and fair now? He has opposed fairness, justice, and transparency at every turn. I regret to say that he does not deserve to be trusted, and nobody should accept his assurances. His ineffective proposal should be rejected and a proper, independent and robust Committee of Enquiry be established in accordance with my proposition.

APPENDIX

A review of the management process that led to the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police.

1. Commissioner

The Chief Minister wishes to appoint a Commissioner to undertake a review of the manner in which the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police was suspended from his duties on 12 November 2008. Given the length of time that has elapsed since the Chief Officer of Police was suspended, and the concerns raised by States Members particularly following the publication of the Affidavit from the suspended Chief Officer of Police, the Chief Minister is proposing to commission an independent review to assure himself and States Members that the management of the process was conducted correctly.

2. Terms of Reference.

The purpose of the Review is to:-

a. Examine the procedure employed by the Chief Minister’s Department and the Home Affairs Minister in the period leading up to the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police on 12 November 2008.

b. Review the manner in which senior officers collated the information and presented it to the Home Affairs Minister that ultimately led to the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police.

c. Investigate whether the procedure for dealing with the original suspension was correctly followed at all times including:-

i. The reason for the immediate suspension of the Chief Officer of Police

ii. Whether there were any procedural errors in managing the suspension process.

d. Review all information relating to the original suspension procedure including relevant sections of the published Affidavit from the suspended Chief Officer of Police

e. The Report should highlight any areas where in the opinion of the Commissioner sufficient evidence exists that would support in the interests of open government a full Committee of Inquiry into the manner in which the Chief Officer of Police was suspended on 12 November 2008.

In the Chief Minister’s reply to me on 13th January (see page 24 of P9) He states “I am aware of comments made could be subject to challenge in terms of accuracy and these will be fully addressed by the Wiltshire Constabulary.” As Wilts Police is not investigating the reasons relied on by the previous Home Affairs Minister and the Chief Minister shares my view that there is some inaccuracy in the information disseminated, why does he need to go to the time and expense of employing some one to confirm a matter which we both agree on. Therefore it makes sense to support my Committee of Inquiry which will get to the heart of the matter in an effective and cost efficient manner.

3. Report

A Report should be prepared for the Chief Minister. The Commissioner must be aware that the entire disciplinary process for the Chief Officer of Police is conducted under his Terms and Conditions of Employment which include a Code of Conduct for Disciplinary Process. This Code requires confidentiality to be maintained by all parties throughout the disciplinary process. As such, the report should therefore be in two parts:-

i. Part I should consist of matters appropriate for immediate publication to States Members and the Public;

ii. Part II relating to those matters specific to the Chief Officer of Police which under his Code of Conduct have to remain confidential until the disciplinary process has been completed.

Comment

Apart from the general ineffectiveness of what is proposed there are two obvious flaws. The first is the fiction that there is some form of continuing disciplinary process which constricts the scope of any enquiry into the suspension. The second is that the report should be “prepared for the Chief Minister.” This requirement is made irrespective of the fact that it was the Chief Minister himself who, over a period of many months, sought to prevent access to the information relating to the creation of key documents, which is one of the key factors leading to my report and proposition. Any fair and independent enquiry must inevitably examine the actions and motives of the Chief Minister and his advisors in this matter. An enquiry commissioned by him and reporting to him will strengthen, rather than diffuse, the suspicions of a “cover-up” which have characterised this affair. The failure of the Council of Ministers to recognise this reality, even at this stage, is in itself a matter of concern and a further indication of their failure to grasp the nature of the situation to which they have brought themselves.

Pink v Grey Power at Scrutiny.

2010-02-19T19:23:00.002Z

Jersey has no anti-discrimination legislation and has not signed up for many of the most important and basic Human Rights treaties like the UN Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).

Yet, at today’s Data Protection Scrutiny Sub-Panel meeting/hearing in Jersey, a little bit of history was surely made for female emancipation?

The Sub-Panel consisted of Deputy Tracie Vallois (chair), plus Deputy Debbie De Sousa and Senator Sarah Ferguson with legal adviser Helen Ruelle of Mourant’s and two female scrutiny officers and the initial witnesses under examination were Deputy Anne Pryke the Minister of Health and her female, civil servant, adviser.

In other words, the entire proceedings were conducted by women.

Only the presence of your Team Voice observer detracted from the all-female activity and the question needs to be asked if there is any need for anti-gender discrimination at all if this is the future pattern of government?

Can such a degree of equality occur in other aspects of Jersey life? Is there gender discrimination at all in Jersey?

Of course, the Data Protection Commissioner for Jersey is yet another woman, namely Emma Martins and it was her proposed amendments to the current 2005 Law that were being considered and she was the final witness called at today’s session. She answered her questioners confidentially and with obvious knowledge.

What a contrast this was though with the earlier appearance and performance from Senator Alan Maclean – the Minister for Economic Development – and his male sidekick. These two smug witnesses were visibly unprepared and seemed not even to have read the proposed legislation and knew next to nothing about existing practices. They were obviously “winging it” and were a disgrace – yet they were presumably pre-briefed and had had time to prepare their answers.

Feminists should not get too excited however. This Sub-Panel (Deputy Mike Higgins had joined them by the time that Emma Martins appeared) questioned with a painfully light touch and hardly challenged any of the witnesses. There was no interrogation and Human Rights issues did not seem to be within their agenda either.
But the final verdict must wait until their report is published.

In the meantime, one observation needs to be made and that is concerned with the greyness of the proceedings.
Just like their mediocre, (usually middle-class, middle-aged) male colleagues, the initial all female grouping today wore sober grey clothes just like a uniform. More akin to a scene from the grey cabinet of John Major (that our so conservative male politicians, civil servants, lawyers and finance people seem so keen to copy) – at least women brought some colour and individuality to political proceedings.
Here just Senator Sarah Ferguson sported a bright pink top in a dull grey sea.
Is this the real future? Does female emancipation just mean equal political dullness too? Must we expect no more from women in traditional male roles?
Can we really judge the book by the cover?

Submitted by Thomas Wellard.

It’s all about “image” and “strategy”.

2010-02-10T11:15:00.000Z

How a continent, country or “small nation island” sells or markets itself to the rest of the world is crucial to its economy and prosperity. Negative press is not good for the image, so when a child-abuse scandal erupts, it can only bring negative publicity because this is the ultimate taboo subject.

This bad publicity needs to be addressed and – if possible – turned into good. For this you need the right people at the helm both politically and within the media and the services of a Max Clifford might be deemed useful. But, in our case, in Jersey, we are stuck with the States Communication Unit, the Council of Ministers and some extremely highly paid Civil Servants.

For these people, restoring the image of Jersey is paramount and they must come up with a political and media strategy to suit – but thus far they have failed miserably.

Nobody will forget the musical chairs Press Conference (below) orchestrated by Chief Minister Frank Walker where some of the silliest behaviour ever was displayed. Then we had the BBC “Newsnight” debacle which everybody, especially Big Frank, would prefer to be erased from the memory.

More recently we had Mick Gradwell all over our “accredited media” doing his utmost to discredit a fellow police professional with an unprecedented tirade of “opinions.”

Last week “Verita” held a Press Conference but Louise Journeaux – the latest recruit to the government PR machine – refused Team Voice entry because it was only for her “accredited” press chums.
As a former press-pro she must have felt some unease - and she did tell us that it was not her decision - but she could not actually pluck up the courage to say who’s it was.
Only carrying out orders as they say!

What Louise and her employers in the States Communications Unit (surely a trades description issue there?) don’t seem to grasp is that refusing to allow Citizens Media into a Press Conference can only do more harm than good. What is the worst that might have happened had we been allowed in? Suppose we asked a couple of questions. So what!?
By her refusal to deny our access she has done more harm to the reputation of our government than we could ever have done if admitted.

Unfortunately, it seems that our government and their media clones have devised a strategy of “batten down the hatches”, ”deny everything” and “do everything behind closed doors” and hope it will all go away.

But, that strategy evidently has not worked.
Instead, people have been forced onto the internet where our government has very little control.
If only our government’s strategy had been to “face up to our failings”, “let us be responsible” and “show the world how we want to put things right” – then we might just have rid our government and Civil Service of the disease that has festered for decades.

It need not have turned into a disaster.
The reputation of Jersey would have dived for a while but we could have demonstrated to the whole world that we are a responsible, caring little community that is capable of doing the right things in a prompt – albeit now belated - fashion.

Instead, the whole sorry saga looks to be grinding-on for years yet and an international audience now has more questions than ever left unanswered and many personal reputations lie in tatters.

Besides which, for far too many survivors of child abuse in Jersey, there has still been no justice achieved after decades and they must continue to seek peace of mind, as best they can.
And, so far as the running of Jersey’s General Hospital is concerned - and the patient death three years ago that provoked the damming “Verita” report – the reform clock is already ticking.
The initial responses from the current Minister of Health and the closed attitudes demonstrated at the Press Conference do not promise well.

Yet, we would still implore our government to CHANGE STRATEGY and to start being open with the people of Jersey and the wider world audience.
Only further damage and anguish can result from current press policies and Jersey’s reputation will remain damaged for many years to come.

Credit must go to Eric Blakley for this bulletin.

Submitted by Team Voice.

"Accredited" statistics and "The Jersey Way"

2010-01-31T19:56:00.006Z

Only the most careful readers of the Jersey Evening Post will have spotted one of the more significant statistics relating to the historic abuse enquiry which emerged in the small print of an article on page two on 26th January 2010.

A news release, notably by the NSPCC and not by the Jersey government, appears to have forced the disclosure that since the peak of the abuse enquiry the number of child abuse cases coming to the notice of the Jersey authorities each year has increased from 65 to 234.   In other words the official statistics have more than trebled.

In spite of this massive increase the official Jersey figure is still “just below the national average for a population of our size” according to the Minister for Home Affairs.

Although nobody would expect penetrating journalism from the JEP, let alone an admission that there may have been a problem of unrecorded child abuse which has existed for decades, the burying of this information in the small print of an article contrasts sharply with their priorities of only four days previously, when they managed to turn comment on Lenny Harpers book-keeping arrangements in to a front page shock headline when two of the Child Abusers that he brought to “justice” failed in their attempt to appeal against their convictions.

Nobody appears to be disputing that the increase is down to the impact of the abuse enquiry when, controversially, and to the rising anger of the Jersey authorities, the police made direct appeals for victims to come forward, and the government agencies charged with the “protection” of children found themselves having to accept, record, and deal with, the real scale of the problem rather than the “pretend” figures which had been used earlier.

Before we become too immersed in the statistics let us not forget that behind every number there is a real child and real suffering.   234 minus 65 equals 169.    That is, one hundred and sixty nine real children every year whose suffering and right to justice would not “officially exist” had it not been for the efforts of the police during the events at Haut de la Garenne and elsewhere.   Any normal person would have thought that a reasonable society would have fallen over itself to reward those who brought protection and justice to these children, and would have viewed harshly those responsible for their “protection” who had hitherto kept the problem under wraps.

Not so in Jersey.   Lenny Harper, although long retired, is subjected to vitriol and abuse at every opportunity.   Graham Power, who was head of the force at the time, has been suspended for fifteen months without any disciplinary charge being brought. Meanwhile, Wiltshire police, who are tasked with finding evidence against him in a “no expense spared” investigation funded by the Jersey taxpayer, continue to scrape every available barrel to justify the unjustifiable.    Unsurprisingly the politicians and civil servants behind decades of cover-ups continue to see their careers prosper.   An outside observer might think that Jersey has got its priorities the wrong way around. If so they do not understand the “Jersey Way.”

Jersey’s Holocaust Hypocrites

2010-01-27T13:37:00.001Z

The Good and the Great of Jersey will be remembering Holocaust Day again today and that should be the very least we can do for those millions of people that died in the extermination camps of WW2.

But of course, the lessons of that terrible war should not just be evident on one day each year – the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is for every day and everybody and it’s just one among dozens and dozens of international treaties and conventions that the people of Jersey should have embraced.

In fact the post war human rights history of Jersey is a dreadful disgrace and those people who assemble at the Jersey Holocaust memorial really do need to examine their own purposes.

This Island has still not even ratified such UN Conventions as the Rights of the Child or the Elimination of Discrimination against Women or the Protection of People with Disabilities. There are many more too.

Even where treaties have been ratified, Jersey lags behind other territories and has not ratified the “optional protocols” that make them effective. Thus Jersey still has no anti-discrimination legislation in place – 65 years after the end of the Occupation! It is an insult to those Jersey people who died and to all those people who have given their lives or been injured in conflicts the world over.

The attitude of Jersey’s government and people towards Human Rights and the adherence to basic international standards is one of ignorance and the failure to learn anything very substantial from the experiences of the Holocaust and the related inhumanities of war.

In accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the message of peace and respect for the dignity of mankind is supposed to be an integral part of education and promotion but in Jersey Human Right awareness is treated with contempt.

It is not enough to wreath lay on just one day per annum. The people of Jersey must accept their Human Rights responsibilities every day of the year in the workplace, in care homes, schools, homes, the courts and such like and the knowledge that enables people to understand the meaning of International Obligations should be an essential part of life.

Without the proper respect for Human Rights standards protected by law in Jersey – such potentially important occasions as Holocaust Day and Liberation Day are discredited.

Submitted by Thomas Wellard.

Did your elected "representative" "represent" you with their vote?

2010-01-12T09:58:00.001Z

Below is Proposition P182 submitted by Connetable Simon Crowcroft on the 18th of December 2008. Below that is how our elected "representatives" voted.

Were you "represented" with the vote? Who is your "representative"? and have you asked them why they voted how they did?

STATES OF JERSEY
Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police: review of procedure regarding suspension
Lodged au Greffe on 18th December 2008
by the Connétable of St. Helier
STATES GREFFE

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion -
to request the Minister for Home Affairs to commission a compliance check on the procedures followed by his predecessor, the former Minister for Home Affairs, in suspending the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police on 12th November 2008 and to report to the States on the outcome of this compliance check no later than 1st March 2009.
CONNÉTABLE OF ST. HELIER

REPORT
Introductory note
Given the provisions of Article 9(4) of the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974, the debate on this proposition must take place in camera. It follows that the contents of this report have been kept as brief as possible and that there is as little enlargement as possible upon its subject matter in order that the provisions of the relevant law are complied with.

Purpose of the proposition

This proposition seeks a simple check by an appropriately qualified body such as the Jersey Advisory and Conciliation Service, or any other independent body with expertise in the interpretation of industrial relations, into the actions taken by the Minister of Home Affairs in suspending the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police on 12th November 2008.
Any employee of the States of Jersey should be able to expect any complaints against them to be dealt with correctly. Therefore, the proposition has more general relevance as a willingness by the States to have their employment procedures checked for compliance should reassure all States of Jersey employees that their employer, the States, will not disregard the principles of good employment relations and of natural justice in their dealings with their employees.
Financial and manpower implications
Should this proposition be approved I would estimate that the work in reviewing the suspension procedure could be undertaken by a local, appropriately qualified and experienced Human Relations practitioner in half a day. The cost of this work would therefore be relatively insignificant.

APPENDIX 1
Statement by the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police
This Statement gives me no pleasure but I wish to inform the Assembly in accordance with my powers under Article 9 of the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974, on 12th November 2008 I suspended the Chief Officer of Police from duty pending an inquiry under the Disciplinary Code applicable to the Chief Officer. The terms of that code place on me obligations of confidentiality and there is little that I can say about this matter at this time. I can, however, say that pursuant to that code I have taken steps to put an investigation in hand into matters of concern and that investigation is part of a process that when completed will result in a decision on the part of my successor as to what steps should then be taken. I am sure that Members will entirely understand that it would be most inappropriate to discuss any of the substantive matters that caused me to suspend the Chief Officer and to initiate the procedure under the Disciplinary Code. I cannot comment on them and I would ask the Assembly not to seek to explore them at this time. At some stage at the end of the process, my successor, whoever it will be, will need to make a decision about these substantive matters and he or she should not be influenced in any way by any views expressed by Members of the Assembly. In addition, of course, the Chief Officer cannot comment and has not yet had the full opportunity that the process allows to answer to these matters and to defend himself. Any debate would thus be unfair to him as the full facts are not yet known. I am sure, however, that Members will readily understand that a suspension in these circumstances is a neutral act and implies no finding one way or the other, but is rather an entirely prudent course to preserve the integrity of the investigation. If the Assembly wishes to ask questions I will endeavour to be helpful, but I do not propose to answer any questions that will breach the obligations, confidentiality or that I will disclose the detail of any of the substantive matters under investigation.

The Bailiff:
Now Members will be aware, I am sure, that the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974 requires that any discussion in the States regarding the suspension of the Chief Officer shall take place in camera and I must, therefore, ask the transmitters to close down the transmission and ask those in the public gallery to withdraw so that the period of questioning allowed by Standing Orders may take place.

[Questioning proceeded in camera]

APPENDIX 2
Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974, Article 9:
9 The Chief Officer and Deputy Chief Officer
(1) The Chief Officer shall be appointed by the States on such terms as to salary and conditions of service as the States Employment Board may from time to time determine.
(2) The Chief Officer may be suspended from office by the Minister which shall refer the matter to the States at their next Sitting and may be dismissed from office by the States.
(3) The Chief Officer shall be responsible to the Minister for the general administration and the discipline, training and organisation of the Force and of the Port Control Unit.
(4) Any discussion in the States regarding the appointment, suspension or dismissal of the Chief Officer shall take place in camera.
(5) The Deputy Chief Officer shall be appointed by the Minister on such terms as to salary and conditions of service as the States Employment Board may, from time to time, determine.
(6) In the event of the absence, incapacity, suspension or vacancy in the office of the Chief Officer, the functions of that office shall be discharged by the Deputy Chief Officer.

POUR: 21

Senator S. Syvret
Senator A. Breckon
Connétable of St. Helier

Connétable of St. Peter
Connétable of St. Lawrence
Connétable John Martin Refault

Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)
Deputy of St. Martin
Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S)
Deputy J.A. Martin (H)
Deputy G.P. Southern (H)
Deputy of Grouville
Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire (H)
Deputy S. Pitman (H)
Deputy M. Tadier (B)
Deputy of St. Mary
Deputy T.M. Pitman (H)
Deputy T.A. Vallois (S)
Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)
Deputy A.K.F. Green (H)
Deputy D.J. De Sousa (H)
Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)

CONTRE: 29

Senator T.A. Le Sueur
Senator P.F. Routier
Senator P.F.C. Ozouf
Senator B.E. Shenton
Senator F.E. Cohen
Senator J.L. Perchard
Senator A.J.D. Maclean
Senator S.C. Ferguson
Senator B.I. Le Marquand

Connétable of St. Ouen
Connétable of Trinity
Connétable of Grouville
Connétable of St. Brelade
Connétable of St. John
Connétable of St. Saviour
Connétable of St. Clement
Connétable of St. Mary

Deputy J.B. Fox (H)
Deputy of St. Ouen
Deputy of St. Peter
Deputy J.A. Hilton (H)
Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L)
Deputy of Trinity
Deputy S.S.P.A. Power (B)
Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
Deputy I.J. Gorst (C)
Deputy A.E. Jeune (B)
Deputy A.T. Dupré (C)

ABSTAIN: 1

Deputy of St. John

Press Statement from “Friends of Graham Power".

2010-01-05T16:05:00.002Z

Below is a Press statement that, to the best of my knowledge, has been sent to all local “accredited” press or “news” outlets.

I thought it best to post it on a Blog, just in case it doesn’t get to see the light of day with our “accredited” press. It has coincidently come at a pretty good time as I will be publishing a Blog on VFC later tonight that will further demonstrate the struggle Chief Officer Graham Power has had, and is having, trying to find out “the truth” behind his (illegal?) suspension. And believe me this will be a posting that nobody will want to miss!

Mind you, this Press release makes for pretty scary reading in itself. There is becoming little doubt that the suspension of Chief Officer Power was a big mess and possibly even bigger mistake of our “ruling elite”.

#NEWS UPDATE. JANUARY 2010.
This update has been issued by friends of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police. It is intended to assist editors in reporting any issues which may arise in connection with his current suspension from duty. Please note that the Chief Officer is not able to speak personally to the media.

THE CHIEF OFFICER OF THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE IS TO RETIRE THIS YEAR.

The contract of Graham Power, QPM, Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, requires him to retire in 2010. His terms and conditions require that he gives six months notice of his retirement date.
Mr Power was sworn in as a Police Officer in 1966, and served in a number of senior positions in the UK before moving to Jersey in 2000. In 1994 he was decorated by the Queen for distinguished service. He will be 63 this year. He reached his designated “Normal Retiring Age” under the Jersey Public Employees Retirement Scheme in June 2007. Since then he has been engaged under a contract and terms and conditions which provide for him to work beyond his retirement date. The extended contract was approved by the States Employment Board in order to preserve continuity in the police management team at a time when a number of senior officers were all due to retire within a twelve month period. However, in doing so the Board determined that the Chief Officer must retire before the end of 2010. His notice period is six months. His intended retirement date must therefore be given in the first half of 2010, and in any event no later than the end of June. Mr Power’s specific retirement plans and his intended retirement date have so far not been publically disclosed. Editors will recall that since 2008, statements issued by friends of Mr Power have repeatedly said that he will retire in 2010, and that this information has regularly appeared in the public domain. Details of his contract dates and his terms and conditions are known to Ministers.
In 2008 Mr Power was suspended from duty by the former Minister for Home Affairs, Deputy Andrew Lewis, and informed that he might face disciplinary action. Wiltshire Police were appointed to prepare a “preliminary report” for the Minister to consider.

· No disciplinary action was taken in 2008.
· No disciplinary action was taken in 2009.
· No notification has been given of any decision to take disciplinary action in 2010.
· It is understood that although an incomplete draft report has been made available, Wiltshire Police have not finished their enquiries and that a completed report has not yet been presented to the Minister.
· Should the Minister for Home Affairs, after studying the completed report, eventually decide to take disciplinary action, this would need to be done in accordance with the process set out in the relevant Disciplinary Code. The disciplinary and appeal process for the Chief Officer of Police involves an initial meeting, and then potentially three separate hearings to consider the evidence. It is estimated that once it has been commenced the process could take up to a year to complete.
· Mr Power has consistently denied any wrong-doing and stated that he would strongly contest any disciplinary allegations which are made.

In November last year the total costs of the suspension and the Wiltshire Police investigation were given as approaching £700k. It is projected that they could reach £1m in 2010. To date no disciplinary charges have been brought and no hearing has been called.

Note to Editors (1)
Editors may have noticed what appears to be some attempted re-positioning of the purpose of the Wiltshire enquiry in statements made by the Minister for Home Affairs towards the end of last year. This has often occurred when the Minister has faced questions on the cost and value of the enquiry. For example, in a radio interview on 20th November 2009 the Minister spoke of the potential value of the Wiltshire report to any future public enquiry into the historic abuse issue. When answering a question in the States on 8th December he spoke of what he alleged was the adverse publicity for the island in February 2008, and the need for responsibility to be “unravelled in due course.” He also referred to the responsibility of “senior police officers” (note plural.) In answering the same question he is reported to have said “It is my belief that the public actually want to know what happened in February 2008 and the months after.”

Friends of the Chief Officer have taken advice and cannot reconcile the statements by the Minister with the known purpose and legal framework of the Wiltshire investigation. The Chief Constable of Wiltshire was requested to prepare a “preliminary report” under local police discipline procedures. The purpose of the Wiltshire investigation is to assist in determining whether there is evidence of misconduct by the Chief Officer which merits consideration by a disciplinary hearing. Police disciplinary reports are confidential documents and discipline hearings are held in private. The relevant Disciplinary Code (paragraph 1.2) provides only for the “outcome” of a case to be publicised. However, the code stipulates that even this may only occur if circumstances justify departure from a general rule of confidentiality. There is no provision in the Discipline Code or the Law for anything else to be made public. Article 9(4) of the Police Law specifically requires that any discussion in the States be held “in camera.” Wiltshire Police are preparing a report which is focussed on one person, and subject to strict rules of confidentiality. It is not therefore apparent how the investigation can serve any of the wider purposes suggested by the Minister.

Note to Editors.(2)
Editors may be aware of a media report in December 2009 which made reference to a Senior Police Officer being due to face a disciplinary hearing in February. That report related to a different officer. The allegations in that case are unconnected to the historic abuse enquiry or to any other matter affecting the Chief Officer.

Senator Ozouf’s Eastern promises….

2009-12-09T16:22:00.002Z

Winning the star prize in the raffle even before leaving London must have seemed a good omen for Senator Philip Ozouf so far as the latest India project is concerned.

But we should bear in mind that a £10,000 holiday trip is not on the agenda for most of that huge country’s billion plus residents and that grinding poverty is their everyday reality - and we raise such issues in this 2 part blog interview with Jersey’s Finance Minister.

So why are we now trying to sell our latest Finance Foundations to India’s wealthy minority or encouraging them to buy expensive properties in London? Surely we could be better and more usefully engaged in addressing some of India’s social problems rather than creaming off new wealth from the most fortunate few?

Even if the Jersey cattle breed is no longer the international force that it once was – surely there is still some local farming expertise that could be sold in places like India OR why not utilize our financial knowledge and contacts to promote genuinely beneficial projects? It doesn’t have to be done on a charitable basis – expertise can be sold and partnerships formed which can boost our own economy just as much as helping the world’s poorest peoples.

In Maharashtra region, over 1,000 poor farmers have killed themselves per month because they cannot pay back the money-lenders who financed the purchase of GM seeds. In Chattisgarh, 125,000 have killed themselves and Prince Charles has launched the Bhumi Vardian Foundation in Delhi to help alleviate the suffering. But it’s not just about lack of rain or even the 1000% increase in the cost of GM seed over more usual local variations. The problems are tied to the whole IMF initiative of making huge loans to India in the 1980’s and 90’s to stimulate the development bonanza that is now taking place around the cities and their techno-parks and to pump-up agricultural production too.

Not only have rivers been dammed and forests cleared so that the traditional water tables have dropped in rural areas but the American suppliers of seeds and petro-based technologies have been encouraged as part of the IMF development package and the farmers are desperately trying to keep up and produce more. Gandhi’s vision of a sustainable future and the country’s Socialist ideology, look doomed in the face of the international capitalist demands of growth and profit.

On paper, India’s projected economic growth rate of 7% looks good on the IMF/OECD balance sheets and there are many other finance centre vultures circling but somebody surely has to intervene on behalf of the poor millions and to speak out against the horrendous human rights violations against men, women and children that are still commonplace in this diverse and troubling country.

Of course, Jersey’s own human rights record so far as signing up to Human Rights conventions is deplorable and we have no claims on the high moral ground – but is this latest carpet bagging initiative really the best that we can do for the world?

What is the benefit to the majority of Indians if we open yet more finance based offices – whether in St Helier or Delhi – and what does the Jersey balance sheet for Dubai and the rest of the Middle East bonanza of yesterday now look like?

About 20 local leaders of the Finance sector went on this latest jolly which was a confusing and worrying mix of commercial promotion with official Jersey government support and regulatory (JFSC) participation. Senator Philip Ozouf was accompanied by Martin De Forest Brown from the Chief Minister’s Department together with Wayne Gallichan for the Economic Development Department, at tax payers expense.
John Harris represented the JFSC with the Commission paying his costs – which really means taxpayers too.

We thank Philip Ozouf for his time and assistance in preparing this blog and would welcome any comments - especially from those who took part in the India trip.

Submitted by Thomas Wellard.

Masters of Disguise.

2009-11-27T21:34:00.001Z

Let’s have a quick look at the States Employment Board and how they‘ve been duped.

If our powers that be, and their very friendly media, are to be believed then the States Employment Board are responsible for employing, or appointing, some expert masters of disguise who are actually really bad people that are trying to make or government look bad, you don’t believe me?………. Well read on!

First of all they are/were ultimately responsible for the employment of Simon Bellwood. A highly competent and able social worker with fine credentials and pedigree in Social Services and in particular Child Protection………………..or was he?

Mr. Bellwood was employed by our States to work up at Greenfields, formerly Le Chennes, children’s secure unit up at Five Oaks. Despite his, up until then, very successful career in this field and indisputable qualifications he is/was infact a complete madman and trickster, part of a very large organization attempting to make our government look bad.

He had managed to dupe, one would imagine, a wealth of people employed by the SEB into believing he wanted what was best for our most vulnerable children in the States “care” system. But it didn’t take long before his alter-ego raised it’s ugly head! He started making claims like the regime(s) up at Greenfield were actually abusive towards the children they are supposed to be caring for! Can you believe that? One minute he is a competent, well respected childcare professional with a CV to prove it, the next thing you know he’s making wild and crazy accusations that effectively our government are abusing children! One can only assume he was a master of disguise who’s real intentions were to make our government look bad, and rightly so he was got rid of, and thank god there’s not too many of him around!

Not to be out-done this seasoned delusional Jekyll & Hyde character took his absurd accusations to an even more delusional and deceptive character than himself! Yes I know you can’t believe it but wait ‘til you hear this!

He took these claims to a man called Stuart Syvret who was the Minister for Health and Social Services who turned out to be a real master of deception. Stuart Syvret had successfully duped no less than 15,000 people to believe he was going to serve their best interests by representing them as a States member, so in comparison Simon Bellwood was a mere amateur of deception, no matter how many people he had deceived it was nowhere in the region of 15,000. On top of this he managed to get our States Assembly to elect him as Health Minister.

So Senator Syvret’s alter-ego subsequently raised its ugly head and he started making equally absurd allegations but being the true pro that he is, Senator Syvret went a couple of steps further! Not only did he agree with Mr. Bellwood, he started saying that Civil Servants should be held to account! Well what to do? Get rid of him and thank god there’s not too many of him around!

But there was!

The seasoned master of deception that the (now ex) Health Minister is, he managed to dupe a group of people called The Howard League for Penal Reform into believing that what he and Mr. Bellwood were saying just might actually be true, that our government have been engaging in illegal and abusive treatment of the children in their care.

And would you believe it? The Howard League for Penal reform were also masters of deception and disguise! They too just wanted to make our government look bad and they were even more seasoned at trickery than the master himself because they had managed to dupe THE WHOLE WORLD into believing they were some kind of authority on how’s best to care for children!

They came up with a report that in all intense and purposes agreed with all that Simon Bellwood and Senator Syvret said and it really didn’t make our government look very good! Our government, and it’s media, couldn’t have the good people of Jersey being duped by such a gang of professional tricksters and downright unbelievable stories of illegal and abusive regimes, Civil Servants being held to account and all that!

No that just wouldn’t do.

The good public of Jersey needed to be told something much more believable than that and as luck would have it they had just the two men and the media to do it.

You see while all these shenanigans were going on with Syvret, Bellwood and the Howard League for penal Reform there were two other masters of deception and disguise that were trying to make our government look bad and had managed to convince the government that they were good honest cops!! But they weren’t!! I know I can’t believe it myself!

These two slippery individuals went by the name of Chief Police Officer Graham Power and Deputy Chief Officer Lenny Harper. Now these two characters really had honed their skills in the art of deception! They had spent most of their adult lives fighting crime locking up Child Abusers, Gangsters, murderers and such ilk and even duped the bloody Queen into decorating them! The Queen for god’s sake!! these guys really are the con artists of the century. They had a long and distinguished career in several Police forces and locked up many a bad guy at considerable threat to themselves and their families all so they could come over to Jersey to make our government look bad.

Deputy Chief Officer Harper started saying things along the lines of children were horribly sexually, physically and emotionally abused and possibly by people who were employed by our government, which again would mean that Civil Servants might be held to account and our government would look bad.
Luckily Deputy Chief Officer Harper was retiring so at least he will be out of the way. But what about Chief Officer Power? Well since the government knew he was part of the “make Jersey look bad gang” along with Bellwood, Syvret and the Howard League for Penal Reform, they just had to play him at his own game.

They would pretend they are doing everything by the book, suspend him, and get their top Civil Servant to destroy his notes of the suspension hearing, you see sometimes you have to set a thief to catch a thief, play them at their own game. That’s a sign of a good government, one that can play these slippery tricksters at their own game and able to think outside the box.

So for the believable story the public needed to hear and the men to tell it. They were Mick Gradwell and David Warcup and their story had to be believed because it is a story that just couldn’t be made up.

During his investigations Deputy Chief Officer Harper and the police forensic and archaeological team he had managed to dupe discovered, at a Jersey Children’s home, some 65 teeth with a number of them still having root attached suggesting they did not come out of the child’s mouth before death. They also discovered what was identified as a piece of child’s skull. The alleged child’s skull, it has been reported, went on to change size, shape, wait and texture and then mysteriously disappeared!

So with the Howard League for Penal Reform and their ghastly report, Syvret, Bellwood, Harper and Power all conspiring to make our government look bad. Mick Gradwell and David Warcup, with the help of the ever so friendly media held a press conference to coincide with the releasing of the HLFPR’s ghastly report and told the public something much more believable than any of the tricksters could dream up.

That is the children’s teeth that still had root attached and that could not have come out before death were in fact teeth that were left out for the tooth fairy! The alleged piece of child’s skull that allegedly changed weight, size and texture before just vanishing was a piece of coconut!

So let this be a warning to any future slippery shysters that want to come over here and start talking about child abuse, cover up or any such like to try and make our government look bad. Just remember any evidence, documentation or commendations from the Queen you might have, you’re not going to fool the good people of Jersey.

Our government will know just what you are up to and so will their media!

Human Rights Group AGM

2009-11-21T15:20:00.000Z

The first Annual General Meeting of the Jersey Human Rights Group will be held on Monday 23rd November at 5.30. The meeting will take place in the States Members Lunch Room, States Building. You should arrange to be in the Royal Square before 5.30pm outside the Members' entrance in order to be let in to the building by Deputy Bob Hill.

Do Jersey children have rights?

2009-11-16T14:56:00.001Z

Apologies for the past ill-treatment of thousands of British children are being uttered in Australia and Prime Minister Brown is working up towards it. But who will apologise for the treatment that British children receive today and who gives a damn about children in Jersey?

We should not “kid” ourselves that Deputy Judy Martin’s well meaning but inadequate reforms will do anything very useful. The Health Department’s funding sounds ok but it is just a cosmetic sticking plaster remedy for the immense and far reaching problems that face children in Jersey.

It is time to get realistic.

November 20th is UN International Children’s Day and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) has been around for 20 years. Yet the Children’s Rights Alliance for England (CRAE) has prepared a damning report which shows how children’s rights in the UK continue to be abused on a systematic basis. Children under detention are especially vulnerable and English child protection services “are not fit for purpose.”

The problem lies not with the UN Convention but with the entrenched failures of governments and the public to embrace change.
Jersey still refuses to ratify CRC and very few people have even bothered to read it.

The Childrens Rights Alliance is fighting in England for the full implementation of CRC there – but NOBODY is doing so in Jersey. There is certainly no alliance of like minded people promoting children’s rights in Jersey although there has been no shortage of reports published in the past few years – usually by outside organisations.

As is usual in this island, where prima donnas outnumber the chorus, working together for a common cause seems to be reserved only to the pursuit of profit. The pursuit of protection for children is very low on the agenda.

Those people who have experienced child abuse in Jersey, either at first or second hand seem to find organised and effective lobbying especially difficult. Understandably, there is a great deal of personal anger but it does not translate easily into coordinated campaigning - and professional bodies and so called elected representatives are noticeable, for the most part by their absence. When did Jersey ever have a campaigning GP? Do Jersey doctors and other health or education professionals NEVER make a policy statement on anything of public interest?

How is it possible that the thousands of professionally qualified people supposedly engaged in children’s welfare, education, justice, punishment, health, housing and recreation have so little to offer by way of public comment? Don’t they have children of their own?

The Swine Flu jabs currently being offered demonstrate just how the “official” line is seldom if ever challenged by other “professionals”. How shall the general public in Jersey ever become better informed if professional silence is maintained on so many matters?

In most communities it is the professionals who lead the public debate. In Jersey, like so many others, the professional are restrained from speaking out or even giving advice to lobbyists and our 250 Jersey qualified lawyers are hardly human rights pioneers. When did the Society of Jersey Lawyers last call for ratification of CRC?

So don’t be fooled into believing that any current official Jersey initiative will address the many problems for children. Without active and coordinated lobbying every abuse that you can imagine will be inflicted in the future just as it has in the past.

The starting point for Jersey’s reality check is ratification of CRC. That won’t solve any problems on its own but without it - the rest is a more or less total waste of money, effort and time.

Submitted by Thomas Wellard.

Jersey Stitch - Up, Cover - Up and Denial continued…..

2009-11-12T14:32:00.002Z

Deputy Bob Hill says “it’s a Stitch up” and here Constable of St Helier Simon Crowcroft says it’s a cover up (in so many words) - but what really is “it”?
Why has Graham Power the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police been under suspension for 12 months?

These 2 “people’s representatives” cannot be dismissed as renegade States Members or trouble makers, they are both long serving and responsible public servants and both have policing pedigrees too. So just what is really going on? Why on earth would anybody want to rubbish the career of such a respected and senior Police Officer as Graham Power? What is the hidden agenda and when oh when will the Jersey tax paying public ever know the truth?

There are many such questions that need to be answered and if and when any complaints against Chief Officer Graham Power are proved to be unfounded, who shall then carry the can for this expensive fiasco?

White Poppies for peace in Jersey.

2009-11-05T16:22:00.002Z

Remembrance on the 11th of November is dominated by the Red Poppy theme and sales display boxes seem to be on every shop, pub and garage counter besides street sellers trays.

This year Team Voice has distributed a few white Poppies for peace as part of the long established Peace Pledge Union (PPU) campaign.

We have been pleased how many people have said that they have been trying to obtain a White Poppy for years in Jersey and we hope that the white alternative might become a regular feature here every November.

We are pleased too that some States Members accepted White Poppies to wear - often alongside their existing red British Legion flowers and badges.

Submitted by Thomas Wellard.

The White Alternative.

2009-10-21T11:04:00.001+01:00

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

2009-10-14T13:55:00.003+01:00

The Voice previously posted a blog on the Complaints Board Hearing of (illegally?) suspended Police Chief Mr. Graham Power HERE. We posted that the argument(s) made by the Chief Minister’s Office for withholding “information” sought by Mr. Power was “dive behind the couch cringe worthy.”

Today, after a media embargo, the findings of the Complaints Board have been put into the public domain and if anybody doubted the absurdity of the Chief Minister’s Department’s argument then you must read the Complaints Board’s findings in full. And then bear in mind in an answer to a question from Deputy Bob Hill in the States when the Chief Minister stated that he “wasn’t embarrassed” about his legal rep attempting to defend the indefensible at the hearing.

The Complaints Board have found in favour of Mr. Power and it is impossible to see how they couldn’t have.

Mr. Graham Power had been trying to obtain some “information” from the Chief Minister’s Office for NINE MONTHS! And during these NINE MONTHS he has been fobbed of with all sorts of excuses as to why he shouldn’t have it, including the argument that the “information” he requires isn’t “information”!

One must be aware Mr. Graham Power is a very experienced and highly regarded Police Officer and he is well used to appearing before Tribunals and preparing legal arguments. His performance at the hearing was impressive but try to imagine how difficult it would be for the average member of the public to present a case in similar circumstances but without legal knowledge or representation.

Even as the laws now stand Graham Power’s access to this information should have been a mere formality and all the time and resources devoted to this Complaints Board hearing was so wasteful and unnecessary.

How much better things could be if we had a proper Freedom of Information law in Jersey which would require our government to disclose such materials and would give teeth to the Data Protection Officer who would be empowered to call for the release of information if asked by a member of the public.

This is a small, but very significant battle won by Mr. Power and is testament to his determination to uncover the truth. Joe public would not have stood a chance in getting this far.

This, in the opinion of The Voice, is another nail in the coffin of Senator Terry Le Sueur as Chief Minister and must reinforce the “very strong” rumours for his January exit.

To view the Complaints Board Hearing decision in full you will have to go the;
statesassembly.gov.je site click reports (near the top of the page) and then click R115/2009.

Below are copies of Press Releases of Mr. Graham Power and the current Chief Minister.

MEDIA RELEASE BY THE CHIEF OFFICER OF THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE FOLLOWING THE PUBLICATION OF THE RESULT OF HIS APPEAL TO THE STATES OF JERSEY COMPLAINTS BOARD IN RESPECT OF ACCESS TO INFORMATION.

THE CHIEF OFFICER OF THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE, MR GRAHAM POWER Q.P.M. HAS RELEASED THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT FOLLOWING THE PUBLICATION OF THE DECISION RELATING TO HIS APPEAL IN RESPECT OF ACCESS TO INFORMATION REGARDING THE TIMES AND DATES ON WHICH DOCUMENTS PROVIDED DURING HIS SUSPENSION WERE ACTUALLY CREATED. IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THE GREFFIER TO THE STATES HAS ALREADY PROVIDED THE MEDIA WITH COPIES OF THE DECISION UNDER EMBARGO. THIS RELEASE IS SUBJECT TO THE SAME EMBARGO.

Full details of the background of the case and the arguments submitted by both sides are to be found in the findings of the Board, which have been provided to the media separately. They have not therefore been repeated in this release.

The Chief Officer has said:

“I am obviously pleased that the Complaints Board has decided in my favour. I hope that the Chief Minister will now make use of the opportunity given by the Board to reconsider his decision and provide the information requested. The provision of the details of the times and dates on which the suspension documents were created will be an important step towards discovering the truth behind the reasons for the suspension, and whether the public, the States and the media, have in any way been misled by any of the statements made to date by Ministers or by others acting on their behalf.”

Note to Editors.
Editors may consider that the findings of the Complaints Board set a precedent which has important implications for future Freedom of Information applications in the island. It is recommended that they be studied in full. In particular the ruling of the Board on the Presumption of Openness, required by the Code, and its consequential impact on the burden of proof, may be particularly significant in respect of future media and public requests for information made to government bodies. This is referred to in various parts of the document and in particular paragraph 6.1 which states “it is clearly incumbent on the Chief Minister to justify why he is refusing to disclose the information that Mr Power is seeking and it is not for Mr Power to justify why he has requested it.”

From the current Chief Minister
The Chief Minister, Senator Terry Le Sueur, has responded to the findings of the States of Jersey Complaints Board set up to consider a complaint by the suspended Chief of Police, Mr Graham Power.

"I fully accept the findings of the board and will ensure that the information requested by Mr Power is provided as soon as possible," Senator Le Sueur said. "The findings of the board have clarified our understanding of the Public Access to Information Code of Practice and our policy will be revised in the light of this."

Submitted by Team Voice.

Jersey Justice.

2009-10-10T17:10:00.004+01:00

So everybody can breathe a sigh of relief because what started out as £300,00 worth of Wacky Backy that mysteriously ended up as being £1m worth has been prevented from hitting our streets, or has it? And just as importantly HOW might it have been prevented?

Once more our media, police force, judicial system and Law Offices have left us (well “The Voice” anyway) with more questions than answers and yet again left us with the feeling we have an out of control Police Force and law officers who are all seemingly above the law.

Make no mistake we deplore drugs and even more so drug dealers, but just too many things don’t add up with the case against Curtis Warren and his convicted co-conspirators.

First of all, what would a man worth a reported £125m be doing involving himself with 5 people in Jersey, who it appears haven’t got a penny to scratch their arses with, and a boat that is not sea-worthy, all in order to bring in A MILLION pounds worth of drugs? Surely it’s a non-starter from the get-go?

Secondly, how did it start off at £300,000 worth of drugs and finish up at a million? How does a man worth £125m get legal aid? How come Advocate Baker was appointed as his Legal Aid Lawyer? Why didn’t the Police wait for the drugs (if they existed) to hit these shores and then catch the gang red-handed?

Why wasn’t the alleged dealer from Amsterdam in the dock? Was he part of a sting?

How can illegally obtained evidence be allowed in court? How can Advocate Baker , whilst defending this alleged drug gang, completely trash our Police Force and their illegal methods of obtaining evidence in this court room and then walk into another courtroom to prosecute Senator Syvret and tell the court how great the Police are?

Judge Tucker said in court that the way some of the evidence was gathered by our Police was “reprehensible UNLAWFUL and regrettable”- so why did he allow it into court?

One of the more worrying statements made by David Warcup (Acting Police Chief) was reported as “officers were doing what they needed to collate the best possible evidence” This is so alarming because it appears his officers broke the bl--dy law! They lied to and deceived 3 different National Police Forces in Europe. So, shall we all throw the rule book out of the window and break any laws we feel necessary because it’s ok for our Police to do it?

Why aren’t the Police, Attorney General and other Law Officers so vigorous - in pursuing child abusers employed by the State of Jersey, extraditing alleged child abusers from France or arresting Civil Servants who have been reported as being questioned for violently physically abusing children in their “care” - as they were in persuing these wrongdoers?

Advocate Baker said to the appeal court judges before this trial reached the Royal Court. “Your duty is to send out a message that this jurisdiction is governed by the rule of law. It is not a tin-pot jurisdiction where Police and law act how they will”. The court of appeal judges rejected the appeal and none of this could be reported at the time.

There is little doubt we have an out-of-control Police Force who can not only turn over a senior politician’s place of residence on an alleged “fishing trip” and seize (among many other things) computers owned by the children of his partner, but they can do all this without a warrant. They, can so it seems lie, cheat and break the law in order to get a chosen outcome when it suits but they are answerable to no-one.

Are you sure this cannot or will not happen to you? If we are governed by the RULE OF LAW who will ensure that your rights will be protected. Do you trust the Police and Judicial system of Jersey?

Team Voice contacted Advocate Baker’s office to seek an interview or at the least an answer to some of our questions off camera. We were refused but given a statement that “Mr. Warren will be appealing his conviction”.

To which we say “NO SH1T SHERLOCK”

The Contender?

2009-09-30T16:57:00.001+01:00

Senatorial Poll Topper Senator Ian Le Marquand has wasted very little time in getting to grips with his Ministerial Duties at Home Affairs.

He has inherited a huge backlog of unfinished business left by his predecessor - the HDLG scandal, (illegally?) suspended Police Chief, Operation Blast, staff shortages, budget constraints and who knows what else?

Besides which he came in (in the eyes of many progressives) as a right wing, authoritarian, ex Magistrate, Devil Dodger.

However despite these fears he has, in a very short time, knocked the long awaited Sex Offenders law into shape and will be presenting it to the States this coming week. Not only does he want the public to be in the States gallery to give him support, he has actively invited them/us to turn up and do so. He did this at a public meeting he chaired last night at St Paul’s Centre which he agreed we could video (below)

Previously he had also agreed to “The Voice” filming his Scrutiny Panel Meeting and at the same time encouraged members of the public to engage in discussion with him, and the Panel, on the proposed Sex Offenders Law.

The importance of this “democratic development” can not be overstated. Firstly we, “the public”, “Bloggers”, “Citizens Media” call us what you will, were allowed to video record the proceedings the same as the “accredited” Press and the world didn’t stop turning!! Secondly the “3 day notice” rule was once again shown to be a nonsense because prior notice was neither sought nor necessary. Thirdly the value of allowing the public to participate in the discussions with Scrutiny and the Minister was demonstrated (the Scrutiny “rules” state members of the public must remain quiet).

However we at “The Voice” do still have reservations. We are concerned at his expressed sentencing policies for young offenders and his lack of enthusiasm for anti discrimination legislation. We have been critical of the Senator in the past and no doubt will be again in the future, and some credit must go where it is due.

But we are pleasantly surprised at his willingness to engage with the public and his strongly independent Ministerial stance. If rumours are to be believed that there might be a vacancy for a Chief Minister in January then Senator Le Marquand must be a strong contender!

No accounting for bad taste

2009-09-21T08:43:00.002+01:00

We at “The Voice” were invited to meet the Scrutiny Chairmen’s Committee last week to discuss some of the practical absurdities of the current restrictions - like the 3 day permission to video rule - imposed on us.

Of course, we know that the in-built prejudice and hostility towards bloggers of Committee Members like Deputy Phil Rondel and Senator Sarah Ferguson cannot be countered by reasoned discussion, but we did our best in the little time allowed. And this was especially difficult when these 2 wanted to have an argument about much wider issues then those we were complaining of. Sarah was even protesting that Deputy Dawg was not her son!!!! Nothing to do with us surely!! (We advised her to publish a disclaimer on the blogs – but she was flying around the room spitting fire by then.)

Before our part of the meeting took place it was amusing to witness the Committee discussing the merits of the “Isle” freebie “newspaper” which they said ex Senator Mike Vibert, Peter Troy and Deputy Paul Le Claire are involved in. This latest publication was apparently seeking paid adverts from the Committee claiming a monthly circulation of 20,000 copies. With advertising rates of £900 per page the Committee were trying to decide if it was worth 4 ½ p per reader yet nobody even asked if the publication was to be considered as “accredited” or a genuine newspaper at all and here they were considering spending public money on it!!

The same Committee has been considering adverts in Parish magazines too in a desperate effort to let the public know more about Scrutiny activities yet here we are pleading to be allowed to video their meetings and to stimulate discussion on our blogs – at absolutely no public cost - and they are performing cartwheels to prevent us!!!!!

But the Committee is obsessed with the objective of controlling bloggers and kept returning to “accountability” and how the “accredited media” is supposedly answerable for any falsehoods published etc but bloggers are not. It’s such a pity that our so called elected representatives don’t even bother to discover the facts.

Like for example Don Mitchell CBE, QC the blogger behind the excellent “Corruption Free Anguilla” blog. He is a very experienced lawyer and we believe still teaches in Anguilla (and has a Jersey wife) yet he was successfully sued for some comments he made and had to pay substantial damages. So anybody can make mistakes and we are ALL answerable for what we publish.

And now the “Vox” weekly newspaper and website in Gibraltar is before the courts facing a £50,000 libel action because of a story published about the Rock’s very own HDLG scandal at the Giraldi Childrens Home.

So far the Gib Judge has refused to order the withdrawal of the printed The Vox saying;
“In any democratic society which values freedom of speech the recalling of a newspaper must be seen as something of a last resort”
But some material on the “Vox” Website has been removed because it offers comments on the libel action and might prejudice the eventual jury trial, if and when it ever takes place.

Anybody interested in such matters is urged to link to “Vox” and study what is going on there although we know that the dangerous people in our government with the power to legislate would rather impose restrictions than encourage public freedoms.

Fortunately, the Committee has withdrawn the absurd Proposition 112 to restrict bloggers but they will be back with even more repressive proposals soon.
We are told that there will be a full consultation process before the latest crazy proposition is lodged – but we were promised that before 112 and it never did take place.

We at “The Voice” will continue to monitor and lobby any developments as best as we can but ALL people concerned for freedom of expression must do their bit too. It is essential to attend as many so called “public” meetings as possible and to report on and expose the absurd processes of our governments, courts and tribunals.

Anybody who saw Terry Le Sueur, more like the Archie Andrews “dummy” than our Chief Minister - with absolutely nothing to say or contribute before Graham Power’s recent Complaints Board Hearing – will have realised that SS Jersey is already embarked on the final voyage.

Submitted by Thomas Wellard

Noble Cause Corruption.

2009-09-14T16:29:00.003+01:00

It is a cruel and ancient truism, but Doctors do bury their mistakes.

We all know that medics are not infallible, that genuine mistakes do happen and sometimes blame is apportioned but nowadays, in our much regulated society, when somebody dies on the operating table, serious questions must be asked and answered.
Historically in such cases a scapegoat is often found. It’s a well established diversionary tactic to contain and limit the damage and can be described as “noble cause corruption” but what it really means is “stitch-up” or “cover-up” or both. As explained by Deputy Bob Hill in the video below.

In Jersey we all know of the tragic death of a nurse employed within the very same Jersey main hospital that employed her and no amount of questions can restore her to life or to her family. That part of the tragedy cannot be remedied. But the surgeon who carried out the fatal operation has been cleared of manslaughter in the Jersey Courts and a very senior and experienced consultant – “Mr D” – has been suspended (or “excluded”) for the past 3 years on full pay because ( so we are told) he authorised the surgeon’s initial employment in Jersey as a locum. ”Mr D” was not even in the operating theatre when the surgery took place yet his long career may be in tatters and he is not even allowed to undertake private work in the UK. The potential costs for damages and lost professional reputations, besides the already declared costs of payment for suspended employees and their replacements, are astronomical. The expense of the Haut De La Garenne investigation could be “peanuts” in comparison.

Deputy Bob Hill has been a tireless – and often lone – voice in trying to unravel the complexities and unfairnesses of “Mr D’s” suspension and to discover what actually happened in an around the operating theatre and what has happened since.

Yet, extraordinarily, there are other senior medics under suspension as a result of other non-related incidents and this is not the only death being investigated.
Furthermore, the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police has also been suspended from duty for years and few details have been made public and the senior Magistrate designate has also been prevented from working whilst investigations into an off-shore investment fund are carried out.

Deputy Hill has been trying to introduce proper suspension procedures and to have them applied throughout the Jersey public sector and he is achieving some success with his persistent lobbying and probing. But, these headline “senior person” cases are just the tip of an iceberg – the Health Minister (Deputy Ann Pryke) and her Senior Civil Servant did not even know how many of her 1200 or so staff was currently suspended when asked at a recent Scrutiny Board hearing.

If the very top people in public employment can be treated with such disregard for fairness – what must be happening to the many thousands who serve lower down the “pecking order” in Jersey? And what hope is there for the innocent victims like the bereaved families, of ever receiving any sort of justice? Can they be compensated?

Those of us with long memories will recall the name Mary Alexander and how she was arbitrarily removed from her Tourism & Recreation post decades ago. She was, if memory serves “The Voice” well, compensated with a £100,000 belated payment but the Jersey system seems to have learned absolutely nothing from that experience or the many incidents that have occurred since.

Multiply £100,000 by 100 or any figure you care to think of and you might just be starting to understand the potential financial cost of such institutional incompetence and mismanagement.
It’s a good job we have Deputy Hill but what are YOU and your other elected representatives doing about this enormous problem?

If you want to express your interest take note that Graham Power the suspended Chief of Jersey Police has a Complaints Board Hearing this Wednesday the i6th at 3.30pm in the Blampied Room of the States Building.
Normally such hearings are open to the public, the press and even bloggers. It is most important that this hearing is not concealed “in camera” – so please attend if you can to ensure that transparency is maintained in this most important matter.

Submitted by Thomas Wellard.

May God Forgive You!

2009-09-08T16:30:00.004+01:00

Today Jersey Care Leaver Carrie Modral held a Press Conference in response to the past two weeks of intense, one-sided, media coverage of this confusing and dreadful scandal.

This is just the latest chapter of institutional failure for the abuse victims.

Once again, they have been mere bystanders whilst the Jersey Police and others fight in public over the merits of evidence for abuse inflicted over decades and the handling of recent Police investigations.

Here Carrie Modral speaks for so many of the abuse victims and their never ending anguish that they have endured for so long and are still suffering.

CTV and JEP only were present, from mainstream local media, at this Press Conference.

We at “The Voice” will post the full text of Carrie Modral’s Press Statement shortly.
These wholly innocent victims of abuse should not have to beg for justice.
Submitted by Team Voice.

Children’s Rights on a Shoestring - The Jersey Way?

2009-08-28T21:12:00.002+01:00

We at “The Voice” attended another Scrutiny Panel hearing today with Health and Social Services being in the “hot seat” but as usual it was the same “cosy club” performance and you would never have guessed that this little community has been exposing dreadful scandals like that at Haut De La Garenne (HDLG) and the alleged hospital “suspicious deaths”.

The Health Minister Deputy Ann Pryke seemed to think that although there was not enough money to fund existing services that her department could still cope with a population increase to ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND. The Scrutineers never really challenged this extraordinary claim and nobody asked either if the HDLG was a factor frightening away potential staff (as alleged in Guernsey) and neither the politicians nor their highly paid Civil Servants knew how many staff at Health were currently suspended!

Nevertheless, we took the opportunity to interview Deputy Judy Martin (Assistant Health Minister) about her progress with the “Williamson Report” and we remain very concerned that lack of funding and lack of urgency will ensure that Children’s Services are deficient for many years to come.

The Scrutiny Committee consisted of Senator Alan Breckon, Deputy Geoff Southern and Deputy Debbie Da Sousa. Witnesses were Deputy Ann Pryke (Health Minister) Deputy Judy Martin (Assistant Health Minister) and three senior Health Civil Servants. Two Scrutiny Officers were also present along with three members of the public including a couple of members from Team Voice.

Deputy Pryke refused to be interviewed but it was not all bad news because “The Voice” was allowed to video the committee proceedings, so that was a small victory.
Below is the interview kindly granted to us by Deputy Judy Martin.

Submitted by Thomas Wellard.

The Road to Hell (Jersey) Law 2009

2009-08-21T13:30:00.001+01:00

We all know where good intentions lead us but there is a view that paedophiles should be sent there and some would even have them burning for eternity. It’s all very worrying stuff and there is no doubt that the population in this Island needs protective laws – but what laws precisely and what are we trying to achieve?

The Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law will be lodged soon and has been delayed for many reasons including that the “agencies involved” have not yet decided how they would operate it and what resources would be needed.

This is the law that proposes to create a “Sex Offenders Register” and will enable Jersey courts to make orders in order to prevent paedophiles from offending again. But is that just a dream in reality?
It is going to be expensive to run and in the first 2 years the courts will be catching up on the backlog of existing offenders.
And the law will enable orders to be made for the protection of children in certain cases even without a previous criminal conviction.

More legislation is centred on Proposition 121 which is due for debate in Jersey very soon. This arises because the UK laws will change in October so that Jersey will lose access to ENHANCED CRIMINAL RECORD CHECKS.
Enhanced means that additional information will be supplied about SUSPICIOUS behaviour which could render a person unsuitable to work with children or vulnerable adults (and work can mean voluntary or charity activities).

The UK system has been changed without adequate thoughts or consultation about how it will affect Jersey (or the other Crown Dependencies) so once again we must wonder why our
elected “representatives” and our expensive civil servants have allowed this to happen?
So now, all of a sudden, we have to agree to this Order in Council in a panic, just to maintain the status quo and so that we can continue to access the inadequate UK records system.

Another part of the package is the proposed Vetting and Barring legislation in accordance with the new UK procedures that are being introduced following Ian Huntley murdering 2 girls at Soham. There, the police incompetence over years had failed to log his previous activities and because he had no convictions, he did not appear on any register and was able to obtain work at a school as caretaker.

It may or may not be relevant to remember also that a police officer employed on the Soham case was subsequently convicted of child pornography offences so we should not under-estimate the scale of the problem that runs throughout society – both there and here.

In theory, the UK system will ensure that anybody working with children or vulnerable adults will have to be registered CENTRALLY in the UK and will be given a UNIQUE number so that their status can be checked by employers etc. Their status in terms of being barred or not may change from time to time. In theory, those who have nothing against them will be able to demonstrate this quickly. It’s another version of the civil servants favourite gimmick the “ONE STOP SHOP”. It will apply to all people already employed or engaged in sensitive areas as prescribed as well as future applicants.

It is not yet determined how the Jersey system might actually work in conjunction with the UK system but it is anticipated that Jersey will be fully integrated into UK Central but with a local appeals procedure. But how any Jersey tribunal will have authority to correct mistakes or decisions made in the UK is baffling and especially worrying.

Not the least worrying aspect is that so much information that is based upon a name or post code has been shown to be incorrect on computer files. And, with the complexity of spelling for many Channel Islands names - besides “Foreign” ones – and the lack of records for many people from overseas, working or seeking work in the British Isles, the potential practical problems are immense.

The Jersey Home Affairs Department proposes to put on explanatory meetings in September with regard to the Sex Offenders Law for both States members and the general public but does not have any similar plans yet with regard to Vetting and Barring.

Since the whole package needs to be understood and discussed from the outset it seems very silly not to have a proper explanation and full consultation facility offered ASAP.
It will be absurd if we lock into the reformed UK system only to find that it is incompatible with future Jersey Vetting and Barring proposals.

Proposition 121 needs to be treated with caution as the first chapter of a possibly very flawed remedy to some extremely serious problems. Are you sure that YOU understand what is proposed?

Submitted by Thomas Wellard.

No Credit where Accreditation is Due

2009-08-10T12:07:00.003+01:00

As we all know – Jersey government already curtails the reporting activities of Bloggers – the Citizens Media – because we are not “accredited press” and are not supposedly subject to the same professional and legal constraints as the professionals.
Yet the letter from Constable Peter Hanning of St Saviour published in the JEP on 8th August 2009 HEREdemonstrates amply just how facile such claims are and shows yet again that the so called “accredited press” is

very likely to be inaccurate in its reporting and there is very little available by way of a remedy.

Constable Hanning bemoans the JEP for poking fun at the recent Visite Royale in his Parish and that “the JEP chose not to report factually or accurately on this scrutiny of the good running of St Saviour.”

Notably the JEP have not allowed the online public to “have your say” regarding Constable Hannings letter.

How ironic this is because Bloggers are being discriminated against at scrutiny panel meetings on the pretext that we might not report accurately or might somehow interfere with any video recordings that we make of these and other supposedly public meetings.

Dubious and discriminatory restrictions are already imposed on Bloggers and Proposition 112 is already lodged by Senator Shenton’s Scrutiny Committee to enshrine these in law. Yet no action is proposed against the JEP when it publishes false or misleading reports about a Visite Royal or anything else and the same double standard is applied to other media outlets in Jersey too. Why?

We as bloggers have not done anything wrong.
No complaints have been made about our reporting of Scrutiny Panel meetings but

we do know that some senior States employees and politicians have personal objections to our activities and they are sufficiently influential to interfere with Free Expression and reporting for all of us.

Even Constable Hanning was strongly opposed to our reporting of a supposedly public Complaints Board hearing recently – so he is no defender of Press Freedom.
But we should take notice that there are no effective restraints on the so called “accredited press” and the idea that there are codes or professional standards in place that ensure high standards of reporting or remedies for mistakes – is just simply a myth in practice.
We say that a genuinely open and Free Press that gives everybody the right to express opinions and to have the right to reply is our best guarantee of our rights.
We do not need half baked legislation such as Proposition 112.

Submitted by Thomas Wellard.

Book Now for the VBS Road show

2009-08-06T13:25:00.001+01:00

When did you last speak with your Parish Constable?

Well, why not give him or her a call now and ask to discuss Proposition 121 which is coming our way soon.

It is possible that your Constable might know what the SVGA or ISA or POCA or POVA or even the CRB are but my guess is that this is unlikely but since he or she will already have received a copy of Proposition 121 in the States bag of papers – well you never know…….

But be sure to suggest that your Parish should book the CRB Vetting and Barring Scheme Roadshow soon because it’s sure to be a sell-out and you don’t want your Parish to miss out this autumn when Part V of the Police Act 1997 becomes law and you have to agree to apply for an Enhanced Disclosure to stay in your job or when you apply for another one………

Oh, and why not ask if your Parish will have a branch of the new Jersey Vetting Bureau too because it could save everybody a great deal of time and money if you could be put through the vetting process in the comfort of your own Parish – among friends so to speak – rather than be subjected to an impersonal and anonymous “car wash” like process in the UK.

I say speak to your Constable rather than your Deputy or the Dozen Senators who “represent” you because he or she is nearer to the everyday policing process and will no doubt have a much better knowledge of such procedures. And who knows you might be related by marriage or something. Also, since Parish duties carry on all the year round your ever diligent Constable is less likely to be swanning around the Caribbean taking a well deserved vacation whilst the States is in recesss….

And talking of money, ask your Constable if the projected cost of this new Vetting Bureau at £98,000 for 2009 is for the full year because Proposition 121 will only be enacted after October so that the cost for a full year could be considerably more…….

And perhaps your Constable can explain why this legislation is in the unusual form of an Order in Council – like it’s direct from Her Majesty herself – so it must be very important. Ask how this works and how on earth we can possible refuse it if it’s really an Order from the Queen our Duke…….?

And why are we discussing it at all, if we don’t have a choice……..?

Submitted by Thomas Wellard.

Deputy Tadier and the Battle for Jersey 2009

2009-07-24T20:55:00.003+01:00

Deputy Montfort Tadier bravely broke rank today – he walked out of Scrutiny Panel meetings for both Education and Home Affairs – because they are “discriminatory” against the public of Jersey and in particular “Citizens Media” like “The Voice”.

At both meetings Channel Television were allowed to film without any restraint and nobody objected but Deputy Tadier said this filming was not acceptable, made his protest and walked.

Regular readers/viewers will know that our Government is plotting to formally legislate so that “non accredited” Journalists or Bloggers will not be allowed to video or record Scrutiny Panel Meetings at all see proposition P112 on the gov website http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/frame.asp and this is just the start because all so called “Public” meetings of our Government will inevitably follow suit.

“The Voice” challenged Minister of Home Affairs Senator Ian Le Marquand afterwards and he confirmed that he objected to non “accredited” people being allowed to record Scrutiny Meetings on the grounds that “lay people” must be protected. But there were NO lay people at the meeting and he refused to defend his own stance any further.
Such is the low level to which our “representatives” will sink in order to suppress FREE EXPRESSION and Government transparency.

Be warned such freedoms are too valuable to lose and once again the whole Scrutiny Process is called into doubt.

This is especially sad because some of the Scrutiny Panel Members work endlessly – but what is the point if the Tax Paying Public is kept in the dark and nobody takes any notice of Scrutiny Panel Reports.

THE SYSTEM MUST CHANGE.

Screw thingy or Useful Scrutiny?

2009-07-20T19:59:00.000+01:00

We at “THE VOICE” have previously despaired at the Scrutiny Panel System.

Here Deputy Mike Higgins - who is in the firing line as chair of the Economics Affairs Scrutiny Panel over the Bank Depositors Protection Scheme - doesn’t quite defend the Scrutiny system. He says that when usefully critical Scrutiny reports have been produced in the past, it is the Council Of Ministers who have ignored them.

BUT we ask what is the use of Scrutiny reports at all if they can be ignored?

We have previously Blogged on the similarly inadequate Complaints Board process where decisions cannot be enforced either. What is the point?

In some countries Complaints Boards (as Ombudsman Tribunals) can strike down Government policies and decisions and even initiate criminal prosecutions where necessary.

So why can’t Scrutiny Panels in Jersey be given greater powers so that their decisions and reports MUST be taken notice of?

At a recent Scrutiny Panel Hearing Minister of Education Deputy James Reed refused point blank to answer any questions concerning Haute De La Garrenne and threatened to leave the meeting if he was pressed. He should have been encouraged to walk.

The recent threat of Scrutiny Panels to resign en masse was the best news possible.

The power still rests with the exclusive Ministerial Club in Jersey. The system must change soon!!

JERSEY’s MR NOBODY

2009-07-14T07:51:00.001+01:00

Readers will know that OUR government is clamping down on “The Voice” and others who might want to record and publish the proceedings of Scrutiny Panels and similar supposedly public meetings.

We aren’t therefore allowed to show you what actually happened at some recent meetings but we can understand why our government doesn’t want you to see or hear. They must be so ashamed of themselves. Their incompetence is so great. Their contempt for the public is just simply so enormous.

Today it was a special PAC Scrutiny panel meeting called to hear our Chief Minister explain about his role in the Incinerator Funding Joke. You know – the one about the agreement that everybody knew of to take account of currency fluctuations when signing the huge contract with the French builder – but NOBODY was responsible to actually do it.

So it’s pass the accountability parcel time again and it turns out that NOBODY is to blame and even if there was a culprit the matter has been dealt with in accordance with internal procedures and it is NO BUSINESS of the public.

Once again, a whole roomful of expensive civil servants and our so called elected representatives sat around talking politely amongst themselves and ate the sandwich buffet provided – but WE the paying public have discovered nothing except that the whole process is a total waste of time and expense and that this kind of SCRUTINY process will discover absolutely nothing at all.

WHERE oh WHERE is the desire to uncover the facts? The Chief Minister was a bumbling schoolboy and his Chief Officer was just simply not tested – talk about being savaged by a dead sheep!! Senator Breckon and Chris Swinson “the Comptroller and Auditor General” did not even speak at all – why were they there? Haven’t they got any real work to do?

Yet last week we heard the Education Minister and his Chief and Assistant Chief Officers actually threaten to walk out of their quarterly Scrutiny meeting if the Panel pressed any questions to do with Haut de la Garenne or Staff Disciplinary matters!!!!! So Deputy Le Herissier and his limp team of public scrutinizers simply backed down and found some other more polite questions to ask instead.

Once again the cosy relationship was maintained and no useful information was discovered except that the SCRUTINY process is a total farce and NOBODY can be called to account but the sandwiches were devoured eagerly as usual.

And that very afternoon it was the turn of that oh so new and nice soft talking Senator Le Marquand and his quarterly Home Affairs Scrutiny examination before the very same Panel - and Lo and Behold it is still a total mystery who instigated or researched OPERATION BLAST and NOBODY knows who it was - and if is left to this bunch of clueless Closeaux we never shall!!!

Just how much longer can this ridiculous procedure be allowed to continue? What a waste of time it is and how many £ millions are wasted each year in occupying so many hours of civil servants’ and politicians’ time.

And how significant it is that the general public shows virtually no interest in the proceedings at all and the public seats remain empty - but when a few bloggers like US do show an interest and try to publish something via CITIZENS MEDIA on the WEB. – our pathetic government reaches for the PANIC button and seeks to legislate to STOP US!!!!!!

AND they say that they want to ENGAGE with the public!!!!!!!!

Submitted by Thomas Wellard.

Video Rodeo (part 2) What a bunch of Cowboys!

2009-06-29T18:09:00.004+01:00

So public consultation is off!!

Senator Shenton, Chairman of the Scrutiny Panels Chairmen’s Committee has changed his mind. We on “The Voice” thought that we had a breakthrough and that the general public, Bloggers and “Journalists” would all be encouraged to voice their opinions before any more crazy rules or legislation was proposed.

But now it’s back to the dark ages again and Constable Juliette Gallichan and PPC are to be lumbered with the problem of finding a way to keep Bloggers sidelined whilst the so called “accredited” media only enjoy privileged access to “public” meetings such as Scrutiny hearings.

For fuller details of the “plot” so far see our previous Blog below and others on this site.

We have offered to publish any comments from these committees or any others of our so called elected “representatives".

Jersey’s VIDEO RODEO and the threat to FREE EXPRESSION

2009-06-28T09:45:00.002+01:00

Thursday, just gone “The Voice” attended the “public” meeting of the Scrutiny Chairmens Chairman’s Committee.

Apart from that ridiculous title we endured (in silence) about one and a half hours of the largely meaningless jawing of Senators Ben Shenton, Alan Breckon and Sarah Ferguson together with Constable J. Refault and Deputies Roy Le Herissier, and (briefly) Mike Higgins and the Scrutiny officer, before we were invited to leave.

Of course, they think that their purpose is useful but if only they could sit in silence on the public chairs like us, they would surely soon realise just what a waste of time it all is although Alan Breckon did point out during their ramblings that the public of Jersey might be alarmed if they knew that the proposed Depositors Protection Scheme £100 millions was to be taken from the public’s own Strategic Reserve - rather than the Finance Industry itself!!!!!! Yes he might be right there…….

But we were then asked to leave because the “Part B” agenda approached and in spite of the fact that the matter under discussion would be US and our very personal battle over the video recording of Scrutiny meetings – we were to be expelled without making any comment or hearing what they said!!!!! Such is democracy in action in Jersey.

However, we protested and made our arguments and to be fair they listened and agreed – or most of them agreed – that the situation was ridiculous and that we should be invited back to a proper meeting together with PPC, and along with any other interested bloggers, journalists or members of the public.

So, before any more mischief is done we ALL have a chance to put the case for blogging or citizens media or just the general public’s right to know what goes on behind the closed doors of government in Jersey. AND YES we really must be prepared to make submissions and to argue the case against censorship and the perpetuation of the notion that there is some sort of accredited and privileged media class in Jersey.

If meetings are open to the public then we must ALL be enabled to report and record the proceedings on an equal basis. This is OUR government at work – it is not a private club.

However, as we left we noted that the luncheon buffet had arrived and that the crusts had been cut from the sandwiches. So nothing too tough for our “elected representatives” to chew on here either………….

Submitted by Thomas Wellard.

WHO is this man to YOU and WHAT are you to HIM?

2009-06-15T14:34:00.003+01:00

GORDON BROWN MP is the Prime Minister.
Or more correctly he is Her Majesty’s Prime Minister of the UK and Gt Britain and Northern Ireland and 1st Lord of the Treasury and Minister for the Civil Service.
(Jersey is not part of the UK or Gt Britain, has its own Treasury and separate Civil Service.)

Gordon Brown is Labour MP for the Scottish constituency of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath and was elected by 24,000 voters in 2005.
He is the Leader of the Labour Party and was invited to form a government by the Queen in accordance with constitutional convention, as leader of the majority party in the House of Commons. He chooses his principal ministers (the Chancellor of the Exchequer is 2nd Lord of the Treasury) and the Sovereign confirms their appointment.
His Prime Minister’s salary is £127,000 and he receives a MP’s salary too of £60,000 and officially occupies No 10 Downing Street as the office of the 1st Lord of the Treasury.
(Jersey residents pay nothing towards UK Government (including PM) expenses.)

The Prime Minister appears on Facebook and has a blogsite; number 10.gov.uk

BUT WHAT HAS ALL THIS TO DO WITH JERSEY?
If you live in Jersey is he YOUR Prime Minister? If not, who is your Prime Minister?

In fact the title Prime Minister has a vague origin in British constitutional history and was originally used to describe Sir Robert Walpole’s role after he attempted to rescue the national economy following the great South Sea Company collapse in 1721- so no change there.
And even in 1904 Balfour observed that “the Prime Minister has no salary as Prime Minister, no statutory duties as Prime Minister, his name occurs in no Acts of Parliament and though he holds the most important place in the constitutional hierarchy, he has no place which is recognized by the laws of this country.”

By the Ministers of the Crown Act (1937) a joint salary became payable to the 1st Lord of the Treasury and Prime Minister but the former was recognized as “an office” whereas the latter was “a position”.

Of course, nobody actually elects the British Prime Minister. The 24,000 Scots elected Brown as their MP and “English people” generally have grounds for feeling resentment at the overwhelming dominance of Scottish voices in UK government during the Blair/Brown reign.

Residents of Jersey do not generally vote in UK or EU elections although recent residents of the UK retain their franchise and it is possible that a few might even have voted for Gordon Brown as their MP – but Jersey is not an electoral constituency for the purposes of UK/EU elections.
(This was tested re Protocol 1 ECHR under Application 8873/80 before the European Commission of Human Rights 1980/82 and declared inadmissible)

YET, in theory, the UK Parliament could legislate for Jersey on any matter – subject only to the constraints of historical convention - and if Gordon Brown decides to declare war on France, with or without the approval of Parliament, then Jersey would be at war too.
In practice there are many international matters where the UK legislates for Jersey and all Jersey laws have to receive the approval of the “Crown” before they can be enacted.
The British government - with the Prime Minister at its head - scrutinizes all Jersey laws prior to their approval.

Jersey was ordered to send “MPs” to Westminster in the 16th and 17th centuries – but declined to do so.

Traditionally, the people of Jersey are fed a diet of misleading pro-Royalist anti-Parliamentary historical/constitutional propaganda to support the prevailing vague and confusing status quo. The “official line” promotes the notion that historical and constitutional development ceased in the year 1204 and that Jersey is somehow frozen in a medieval relationship with the Duke of Normandy in which King John was a good guy, Charles 1st was not executed, James 2nd was not sent into exile, William and Mary did not embrace the Bill of Rights, Edward did not abdicate in 1936, the countries of Scotland, Wales, Ireland and England were not variously united and then devolved, the Empire was not conquered and relinquished and anti-discrimination legislation is still an undiscovered world.
The concept that the various people of Britain might too have their own histories and have determined their own ever evolving relationships with government and the Sovereign and all sorts of institutions such as the EU or the UN – does not seem to enter the official Jersey political mind.

SO, where does the UK Prime Minister fit into the Jersey arrangements?
If you contact him does he have any powers to solve your problems? Can he influence the way in which you are governed? Can he veto or promote Jersey legislation or policies? What part does he play in the appointment of the Bailiff and the other Crown Officers or the Lt Governor? Can he discipline the Royal appointees or was the removal of Deputy Bailiff Vernon Tomes just a Jersey matter?

A couple of weeks ago, the peoples of the UK and Gibraltar voted in EU elections. Soon there will be a “national election” and almost certainly a new PRIME MINISTER will occupy No 10 – but what does it mean for Jersey? Are we sure that we understand how the existing system operates and should it be reformed in a changing world?

Submitted by Thomas Wellard.

DIVERSIFICATION – the Guantanamo Bay Way

2009-06-12T13:12:00.001+01:00

GOOD NEWS for Jersey’s ailing economy! Never mind about the unstable monoculture of the Tax Haven oops Finance economy – we can now throw open the doors to a dozen very valuable ex Guantanamo prisoners.

Little Palau Island in the Pacific (pop 20,000) – one of the smallest Republics in the world – has agreed to take 17 ex prisoners from the Cuban hell-hole and the American Government is paying them 200 million dollars to do so.

And British Bermuda (pop 68,000) has also agreed to take 4 prisoners too – which ought to be worth about 50 million dollars or, at least a high rating on the OECD list of approved Tax Havens.

(see the Vexed Bermoothes blogsite HERE)

So why worry about GST or our other tax raising problems or financial constraints – just get Terry 1 to phone Washington DC and place the order now before all the best prisoners are disposed of and they can be granted IIK (Social) Housing consents in a jiffy by Terry 2.

And, whilst we are at it, why not throw in a few homeless Gurkhas too – now that we are on a Human Rights roll.
Surely the UK Government would re-instate the Reciprocal Health Arrangement if Jersey takes a dozen or more of these ex British War heroes.

Furthermore, the population of Jersey could soon reach the planned 100,000 and just think of how much lovely money that would be. We might even be able to employ some more civil servants or consultants. Happy times ahead!!!!! We could solve all our problems within 2 years; build the Esplanade Quarter, construct 10,000 workers dwellings at St John and declare independence too and there would be no need for any further Strategic Plans. Oh thank the Lord for Obama and Brown.

Submitted by Thomas Wellard.

COMPLAINTS BOARD! You must be joking – Part 2

2009-06-04T10:29:00.002+01:00

Yesterday we posted our comments on the dismal Complaints Board system in Jersey together with Deputy Roy Le Herissier’s helpful observations.

Today we follow up with Deputy Bob Hill’s comments taken from a letter to Greffier, Michael De La Haye dated 2nd June 2009.

Deputy Hill had assisted the complainants present their case against the Planning Department’s decisions regarding a fence erected at “Saval” and we at “The Voice” attended the hearing and tried to video the proceedings.
We have posted several previous blogs arising from this case because it raises many important issues.

Deputy Bob Hill wrote to Mr de la Haye regarding the Complaints Board for the property known as “ Saval “ and how he had assisted the owners with their Complaint which was heard by the Complaints Board at Trinity Parish Hall on Monday 6th April 2009. The result is recorded in RC43/2009 and he says;

“I believe it would be helpful to PPC if I reported my concerns relating to the way on which the Complaint was reviewed. My concerns are about the acoustics in the Parish Hall, the media’s request to film and the issues of the Human Rights Law.”

Regarding Acoustics, Bob Hill did not object to the use of Parish Halls but wrote that there were problems where the public might not be able to hear the proceedings because of poor sound or seating arrangements and concerns had been expressed to him by some attendees. He said that it should not be too difficult for the Chairman to ensure that everybody could hear properly.

Regarding Filming, he explained that he had been asked by Channel TV and “The Voice” for permission to film the hearing and he requested the Board accordingly. But this had been refused within the Parish Hall but that non-intrusive filming of the site visit was acceptable.

“Neither my complainants nor I had any problems with filming inside the Hall but concern was raised by Planning and in particular from its political representative. I gather that the Board is going to discuss the issue of the filming.
The Reviews are supposed to be public therefore I believe there should be no objection to filming provided it is not obtrusive.”

He further observed that “the issue of filming meetings is not going away” and that he was aware that this matter is already being considered by the Chairmen’s Scrutiny Panel and the Complaints Board but he believes that this is a matter “that it would be appropriate for PPC to ensure that consideration is given and that its decision is made known.”

Regarding Human Rights he wrote;

“Part of my case was that Planning had failed to respect the complainant’s Human Rights, in particular Article 8, the ‘Right to respect for private and family life’. The matter was included in my report dated 15th December. Planning had responded to my claim but was of the view that no violation had occurred. I do not wish to comment on Planning’s view other than to say I do not agree with it.”

“However I was surprised and disappointed at the Board’s response in that it chose not to consider Human Rights issues. As one will see at 4.4 on page 9 of its Report RC43/2009it states;
‘The Board did not consider itself to be competent to determine any human rights issues which might be involved and considered that, in any event, if human rights aspects were to be raised by the Complainant, relevant precedents should be presented by the Complainant or his/her representative.’
Human Rights are very much a part of any decision taken by Authorities and it is incumbent on them to ensure that their decisions are compliant. It is also incumbent on any Review Board to be a competent Authority.
I consider it to be most unsatisfactory that the Board refused to consider the Human Rights merits of my case. I had raised the matter in my letter of appeal and if the Board wanted precedents it could easily have asked for them prior to the Review.”

“The Complaints Board is intended to review decisions and it is inexplicable that it did not consider itself competent to consider Human Rights issues. I believe it is incumbent on the Board to have an understanding of Human Rights Law and if it requires precedents to be provided before the Hearing it should make that requirement known in good time.”

Deputy Hill concluded by asking for his concerns to be “considered at a PPC meeting” which he would be happy to attend and that he had informed both Channel TV and “The Voice” of his intentions so to do.

Needless to state, but we fully support Deputy Bob Hill’s efforts and applaud his open and transparent methods of proceeding. We hope others will lobby their own elected representatives and the PPC and that reform might be soon achieved with regard to the ineffective Complaints Board system.

COMPLAINTS BOARD!!!!! You must be joking

2009-06-03T08:14:00.003+01:00

Jersey’s Administrative Decisions Review Board was largely the creation of Jersey Lawyer Senator Reg Jeune back in the very dark ages and he always resisted the notion that the Board should be empowered to overturn Government Decisions. Thus the Review Board was always a toothless body and was really just a bit of window dressing. It was never designed or intended to be effective and was always a pale shadow of the Ombudsman original from Scandinavia.

Under Deputy Roy Le Herissier’s Chairmanship the PPC reviewed the whole process in 2005/6 but failed to change anything very much except that it became known as a Complaints Board. It has remained as a very ineffective tribunal – not helped by the predictably safe people who sit on it – and Chaired by the ultra conservative Solicitor Carole Canavan who recently declared that it was not even constituted to consider Human Rights violation arguments from complainants!

On average the Board receives about a dozen complaints each year and upholds hardly any at all and Solicitor Canavan always reports how busy they are!!!!!

Compare this with the Gibraltar Ombudsman who dealt with 412 complaints and 213 enquiries in 2008 from a population of just 28,000 and according to the most recent report there these are mostly to do with Governmental maladministration on the basis of;

“Bias, neglect, inattention, delay, incompetence, inaptitude, perversity, turpitude, arbitrateness etc.”

This year in Gibraltar the Annual Report (actually handed out on the street) includes a Disc of all Annual Reports since 1998 – compare that with the publication of information in Jersey and the labyrinth of the gov.je website where the Greffe is hidden as a “non executive department”!

On average in Gibraltar, about 50 Complaints are upheld each year – about 45% of all cases that make it through the screening process.
In the UK about 35% of cases are upheld by the Government Ombudsman and there are many specialist Ombudsman Offices for specific activities – like Local Government or Insurance Services.

In Finland the Ombudsman can order a Police investigation, reprimand an official or order a prosecution.
In Norway the Ombudsman can take up issues even without a complaint being made.

So it seems that in Jersey the big public complaint should be about the Complaints Board itself and the sooner we dump the current charade into the Hurd Deep the better.

“The Voice” invited Deputies Roy Le Herissier and Bob Hill to comment.
Deputy Le Herissier’s reply follows and he corrected some of the complicated history of the current procedures and his role and he offers suggestions for further reform of the system.

Bob Hill’s response will be published tomorrow and he offers specific criticisms following the recent “Saval” Complaints Board which we attended and tried to report on and to make video recordings of the proceedings. He also proposes reforms.

This is an important dialogue for anybody interested in Human Rights in Jersey and the provision of an effective Complaints procedure against the administrative decisions and abuses of government.
We must all lobby for reform of this absurdly ineffective process.
Submitted by Thomas Wellard.

Submission of Deputy Roy Le Herissier.

Complaints
First, a revised history. The Reforms to the Complaints Board were carried
out under Senator Lakeman's chairmanship of PPC by a sub committee
consisting of Deputies Hill and Scott Warren.
I was a member of that Committee and supported the reforms.
When Senator Lakeman left the States I took over but because of other
demands on the Committee the reforms were promoted by the new PPC Commitee
under Constable Gray.The original reforms were put forward together with
amendments from Deputy Hill which allowed for an Inquiry to be reopened
should new evidence come forward.
The main issue when the review took place was the disregard of decisions by
committees. There was always a reluctance-mirrored in most systems-to allow
a non elected person (an Ombudsman) or a non -elected group to override the
will of the Legislature.
That is why such bodies can only recommend. On reflection, I think we should
be much more emphatic and that where a Mnister rejects a finding,the PPSC
should bring a Proposition to the State asking the Assembly to approve the
Board's findings.
Human Rights was not an issue when we reported and I think this has to be
revisited. However, the Complaints Board is not a Court of Law . Unless we
invest it with such powers, it will always be reluctant to go there.
However, that has to be reviewed .
Many of the complaints were about Planning decisions and these were often
rejected, to the chagrin of complainants, because the Board was not a second
review body for Planning issues-its focus was maladministration.
Gibralter-we were aware of its active Ombudsman.
We found that a lot of complaints that would come to members in Jersey went
straight to the Ombudsman in Gibralter. They have a much smaller
legislature(13 I think).
The other major reform was to withdraw the discretion of the Greffier as to
whether or not to accept cases. Instead this was passed to the Chairman who
was also given the role of dealing with complaints at the first stage to see
whether more informal and/or quicker resolution was available.
However, I accept your view that the Board's role and findings need to be
pulicised much more energetically.
I think one of the real frustrations complainants have is that they expect
the Board to essentially be a Court of Law and not the half way house it is.

In summary, the Board's work needs to be energetically publicised, the
States needs a more effective mechanism to deal with Ministers who ignore
its findings and we need to see if the kind of powers possessed by the
Finnish Ombudsman could be introduced here.

Childrens Rights in Jersey.

2009-05-25T16:13:00.002+01:00

How much longer must we wait before our Jersey government ratifies the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?

It is evident that Philip Ozouf has no motivation to ratify this Convention and on the most recent “BBC Talkback” made it clear that no funds were available to implement it or other missing international obligations.
Jersey is just one of a few countries – like Somalia – that have not ratified this most important Convention and Ozouf resorted to the same old scare tactic of suggesting that ratification might inhibit the employment in Jersey of children under the age of 16. This was the ancient pretext that the late Senator Rothwell used to kill ratification years ago and the thought that paper boys and girls might in some way be stopped from delivering the Financial Times was just too much for this uncaring community to deal with.

I wonder if Ozouf is so careful to ensure that none of his clothes are stitched together by children in the far-east for pennies and I wonder too if he has ever tried to discover whether the profits from such exploitation are remitted through Jersey’s Tax Haven business?

The fact is that the Convention on the Rights of the Child is accepted world-wide as the framework of minimum standards that should apply to children everywhere. Most countries that have signed up make a genuine attempt to try to ensure compliance and it is especially perverse that such a wealthy place as Jersey cannot even be bothered to try.

Of course, virtually every candidate during the most recent Senatorial elections declared support for ratification and the creation of a Minister for Children with responsibilities to implement the Convention and a coordinated and comprehensive Children’s Service. Did any of them actually mean it? If so, where are they now?

The text of the Convention was published as an Appendix in the Howard League review of Jersey’s youth justice system. Printed copies are available for free from the Greffe bookshop (few copies only left) or the Howard League at £10 (info@howardleague.org) or you can download a copy from the UNICEF site together with lots more information;
http://www.unicef.org/crc/

The newly appointed Minister of Health is Deputy Ann Pryke of Trinity and she is ultimately responsible for implementing the new Children’s strategy for Jersey. When she was asked in the States recently by Deputy Tadier about the Convention on the Rights of the Child, she clearly knew next to nothing about it.

It will be necessary to push Ann Pryke every inch of the way if any progress on the Convention is to be made. Her telephone number is 86114 and her e-mail;
a.pryke@gov.je

The Assistant Minister at Health is Deputy Judith Martin of St Helier No 1 District and she is specifically charged with implementing the half-baked ( and already watered down) Williamson report on Child Protection in Jersey. The recommendations of Andrew Williamson fall short of adopting the Convention and even if adequately funded – which seems unlikely – will still leave children in Jersey with an inadequate service.

For what it is worth you should lobby Deputy Martin too. Telephone her on 780641 or e-mail at;
ju.martin@gov.je

What is certain is that Jersey children will not enjoy the protection of the UN Convention if we leave it to our so called elected “representatives”. We must lobby them and ask questions at every opportunity. Neglect and do nothing are the standards that have prevailed for centuries in Jersey and our government will not reform willingly or with any enthusiasm.

Submitted by Thomas Wellard

bugged with conspiracy.

2009-05-14T12:05:00.001+01:00

Yesterday “news” hound Gillian (Paxman) Maritindale got what would seem like the scoop of her career. Channel Television led with this world wide exclusive “revelation” It was headline news on the 6 o’clock channel report.

What was this major exclusive revelation, that deserved to be the lead story? Was it that the Attorney General had admitted to obstructing the police in prosecuting child abusers? Was it an interview with a top Civil Servant or Politician commenting on the allegations there is a possibility we had a mass murderer employed at our hospital who hasn’t been sufficiently investigated? Was it a senior Civil Servant or Politician commenting on the allegations we have a Senior Civil Servant in our Education department that could possibly be a child abuse suspect? Was it the Attorney General admitting our States members phones are being tapped? Was it a senior Civil Servant or Politician telling us why an ex cop, still employed by the States, has been arrested four times under suspicion of child abuse and been released without charge every time?

No, don’t be silly, this is Jersey and Channel Television we are talking about! None of the above is real “news” items. The massive scoop and revelation was a Parish Deputy has a couple of drinks and got his head down in the States building……. STOP THE PRESS, SHOCK HORROR!! This is on par with a newly elected (one of the youngest) politicians taking advice from his mother!! What are we to do? The General public will be horrified by all this and it is all groundbreaking investigative “Journalism”. We really must bring it to the publics attention in case they start worrying about trivial issues like a corrupt Government covering up for child abusers etc.

Personally I was a little more concerned that our elected “representatives” phones might be tapped and asked Gillian (Paxman) Martindale if she would be “grilling” the AG in the same manner in this respect. She told me she had filed a report the day before on that subject. I watched that report where she didn’t interview the AG and gave us, what appeared to be, her own view which was “the conspiracy theory lives to die another day”.

As you will see (above) Deputy Trevor Pitman gave me his interpretation of the AG’s “answer” to the very frightening reality our Politicians phones might be tapped. Can we as the general public afford to dismiss these possibility’s as conspiracy theories. Should we be more concerned that Parish Deputies are working late (drunk or not) in the States Building?

“OUR NATION” and whose “HISTORY”?

2009-05-11T08:10:00.000+01:00

The Bailiff introduced a recent talk on Jersey’s occupation history saying such things as “history is a faithful record of historical details etc”. He took the opportunity to bemoan “the tide of misinformation about the occupation” that had been regurgitated as a result of Haut de la Garenne publicity and how the Island had been “an object of lies and distortions.”

Of course, as a lawyer – with or without the autocratic powers of a Bailiff - he likes the certainty of words and meanings and the idea that there is “an official history of the occupation” (written some years ago by Cruickshank) would no doubt suit his viewpoint.
It is also a disturbing thread in concepts of “nationality”.
The ever present problem that different people with different agenda might come to totally different conclusions after studying the same historical “facts” is at the root of free speech and expression – but it does not suit those who believe in an “official line”.

Indeed, the worrying notion that “Jersey is a brand” was the concluding theme for the evening’s talk and the main speaker, historian and marketing man Prof Paul Saunders seemed to think that there was much work to be done in “managing the brand” and “monopolizing public opinion” and he referred to the obscure application of “threshold dynamics” at the point when old certainties are about to be replaced by new ones in the public mind……….and the Bailiff likes to refer to Jersey as a “Nation”.

The “Prof” also explained how the media can damage a brand image and that even campaigning NGOs could make the largest commercial organizations vulnerable when they mounted a campaign on an ethical or environmental basis. Thus he explained how in a Europe where post war agenda changed – and writers had access to fresh archives notably from the East – yesterday’s heroic Resistance fighters could soon be re-branded as Collaborators and the Jewish ownership of the Holocaust might have to be shared with millions of Slavs who were also to be exterminated in the Nazi plan……..

It was especially significant that Freddie Cohen was seated next to the Bailiff because the “Prof” emphasized how it might be necessary to promote the annual Holocaust Day at the lighthouse memorial in future as a counter-balance to possible changing views on the monumental presence of German bunkers et al in Jersey. It might also be desirable to emphasize how Islanders had helped escaped “slave workers” and how the distant historical “memory” would be modified as modern Eastern Europeans settled in Jersey and brought their own perspectives of reality whilst the local “memory” might be neglected.

So there it is. If we thought for a minute that the interpretation of history was casually left to the vagaries of fashion – we could not be more wrong. Everything is marketed to suit market-place demands – just like Jersey Fresh Milk and the sacred Jersey Cow – it’s all part of a “Jersey Brand”. Historians are not expected to be impartial tellers of stories that need to be told – they are just another cog in the official misinformation machine.
The Finance Industry is beneficial;” Tax Havens” are Finance Centres; “Tax Avoidance” is good “Tax Evasion” is bad; German bunkers were not built with the help of Jersey collaborators because they were too busy helping and hiding escaped “slaves”…….

And it’s all part of the process of making and breaking “myths” too – like the ones that now must show that civilian populations played their glorious part in history too as well as being the dead bodies near the battlefield.

Of course “working class heroes” have never really featured in the official view of Jersey history unless they are supportive of the official historical line. It would be difficult to imagine any Conscientious Objectors’ names being placed alongside those heroes awarded the VC in the Victoria College stained glass. But soon (for example), those unfortunate civilian individuals who perished abroad during the 2nd World War are likely to have their memories lionized as part of the latest Jersey “re branding” process.

(It’s probably too early yet though to see pre 2nd World War Trades Union activists or militant political reformers being cast in bronze….!)

The Bailiff apparently wants Jersey to be an independent “Nation” in the future and that is a cause he can pursue during his retirement from office if he chooses but it’s a pity that he and others seem to want official ownership of Jersey’s past history too.

Submitted by Thomas Wellard.

Press Pass Club – “Media” LATEST! Channel want to Televise the States.

2009-05-03T11:08:00.000+01:00

So PPC had their May Day public meeting but only dumb animals need have attended.

Our jolly team of elected so called representatives Gallichan, Le Marquand, Fox, Tadier and Martin kicked the talking ball around the table for about an hour with Greffiers De La Haye and Harris acting as rather expensive goalies – but it was really all the usual waste of time and money. The result was to defer to another day, to carry out research and to consult (in other words find some other country’s restrictive policies to follow) but the blogging public in attendance were not allowed to speak or share their extensive knowledge.

“Sit down and shut up” was the order of the day and the existing rules stand – so no improved access to States sittings for the plebs – and maintain the status quo and the special privileges that the “accredited press” already enjoy.

But it’s obvious where PPC are heading – more controls and another layer of bureaucracy to give only selected bloggers a badge so that they can join in sometimes provided that they “behave” themselves and are subject to a code of discipline.

It’s amazing that our representatives ever allowed electricity into the States building so we should not be surprised that the potential role of the internet is seen only as good PROVIDED that the establishment maintains control over it. Thus, the cheap option of putting so much essential government information on the often useless and confusing gov.je website has been embraced - rather than publishing it in paper hardcopy form through the Greffe and Parish Halls and other public user points – and make sure that blog journalism is kept firmly under governmental control by REGULATION in future.

BUT we on “The Voice” know that Channel TV have attempted to blow the whole fiasco wide open by applying to televise States meetings LIVE! (if that’s the correct word!) and of course if they are given permission to bring in their cameras – how will PPC keep out the bloggers too and all public meetings will be in the same boat……..

AND won’t Denzil Dimwit and his team at the Boring Brainwashing Corporation really be so annoyed…….Open a bottle Hamish the end of the world is nigh.

Watch this SPACE – you saw it here 1st!

Submitted by Thomas Wellard.

Vital Public Meeting - "Are you Media?"

2009-04-29T15:47:00.002+01:00

On Friday the 1st of May at 9.30 am there is a meeting of PPC (Privileges and Procedures Committe) that is of vital interest to all Bloggers and Journalists and those interested in political matters and freedom of expression.

The meeting is open to the public and takes place in Le Capelain room of the States building (Royal Square main entrance). You can watch and listen but cannot speak or make video recordings of the proceedings.

On the agenda is the question "what are media?" and this arises as a direct result of our Blogging activities as "The Voice".

If the PPC decides on a definition of "media" that seeks to exclude Bloggers or other so called "non accredited Journalists" the implications could be very far reaching and damaging.

Of course the meeting has not been advertised and we only discovered it by chance and we have only had a few days to prepare our written submission in response to the Goverment's paper, which as far as we know has not been circulated to anybody else, whether press, Bloggers or the general public.

Once again, Free Speech and Expression are under threat in Jersey. The cosy relationship of the established press with the Jersey government has been upset by Bloggers like us and others who dare to challenge the status quo.

If you have the time we urge you to attend the meeting but if not you can contact your elected "representatives" and especially the members of PPC who are;

Constable Juliette Gallichan of St Mary (Chairman)
Senator Ian Le Marquand
Deputy Ben Fox
Deputy Judith Martin
Deputy Collin Egre
Deputy Montford Tadier
Deputy Mike Higgins

More Jersey Law and Disorder

2009-04-25T20:41:00.002+01:00

So after 800 years of legal isolation since 1204 – we can now study Jersey law in a “properly structured” course with tutors and we don’t have to be employed by Jersey lawyers.

Not only is this an educational “breakthrough” but it also marks the beginning of the end of the Jersey lawyers’ discriminatory monopoly so far as entry to the profession is concerned. Until now, the only way to become a Jersey lawyer has been if your face fits and provided that you could gain employment – and pupilage - within an existing lawyer’s office. Thus, political dissidents have been effectively kept out of the profession and the Victoria College based bastion of privilege has latterly prevailed.

Historically of course, the Bailiff had total control over the profession and the number of Advocates was restricted to just 6 but that limitation was removed (there are now about 250) as was the more recent but temporary and elitist requirement to study at Caen University ( like Guernsey lawyers still must).

Now, the suggested cost at about £10,000 for the privately organized 2 years training course will still ensure that many are excluded and it is not yet certain whether financial assistance will be available and how many places will be on offer etc etc – and it was significant that the Bailiff was interviewed on the radio rather than the Minister for Education to announce the scheme.
Whether the training will finally be offered as a full degree course at Highlands was not yet confirmed either but in those days when Senator (Jersey solicitor) Jeune was President of Education he opposed any Jersey law courses being offered at Highlands and at least one new Head of the Commercial Section received a rap on the knuckles when he suggested it.

Subsequent requests to provide training at Highlands were also resisted and a course in the History of Jersey Law and Constitution as “Our Norman Heritage” was the nearest that was permitted, taught by a renegade Guernsey born English Barrister and Law Lecturer ( and now senior Guernsey Advocate). He wanted to publish his course notes in book form so that others might study his teachings but even that was resisted by the Jersey Law establishment. It was not a question of cost – just a resistance to losing control over access to the knowledge!

For a while Advocates Lakeman and Kelleher offered a short introductory course at Highlands College in Jersey Law but without any examination structure their useful little venture was of limited professional value.

Le Quesne’s Report on Jersey law and Legal Services put forward the abolition of Jersey law and the adoption of another system – presumably English law – in its place and that suggestion received a particularly cold response from Jersey lawyers. But the obscurity of the Jersey system, the lack of text books and training, the ever increasing dominance of others law precedents from the EU and other jurisdictions – all seem to be factors that would ensure the death of Jersey law sooner or later.

So, it is especially significant that Bailiff Pip Bailhache should be able to announce this training initiative just prior to his retirement because it fits in with the “Independent Jersey” agenda very nicely.

Without some form of structure in place to preserve and promote the unique Jersey Law alongside the Jersey Language, the Flag and the sacred Jersey Cow, spud and Wonder an independent Jersey would be a particularly vulnerable entity in a competitive world.

As usual, it’s the preservation of the Finance Business rather than the need to make knowledge generally available that has really inspired this latest move and Pip was anxious to stress that the new course would be available to those employed in that business just as much as those employed in lawyers offices.
It was noteworthy that he did not dwell upon the need to train lawyers to promote social equality or human rights because such concepts are not at the top of his list of priorities and they hardly feature in traditional Jersey law either.

Whether Pip intends to devote his looming retirement to writing the Jersey Law text books that the new course will demand is something we must wait to discover but the Jersey Law Encyclopedia that former Solicitor General Stephanie Nichols had long promised has not yet landed on the library shelves.

Presumably, access to the secret tomes and words of legal wisdom will still only be available to those that can be trusted with them and Jersey Lawyers, led by the Bailiff will still maintain their control over their exclusive professional monopoly – but this little chink is significant and could lead to greater reforms in due course.

Submitted by Thomas Wellard.

police state? Democracy?

2009-04-21T15:25:00.001+01:00

Jersey “Democracy” took a further dive today when the States (Jersey government) refused to debate the circumstances surrounding the police raid on Senator Syvret’s home and the consequences of that action.

Just like the raid on Damien Green MP at Westminster the Jersey police raid has raised a multitude of very important questions but unlike the UK - where there has already been an enquiry and a critical report published - the Jersey Oligarchy has resisted examination once again!

Senator Stuart Syvret (our most senior politician) had his home raided and all sorts of confidential information taken away because he has (like Damien Green) been daring to expose all sorts of defects in the administration of justice and government in Jersey.

He has even published information on an alleged mass murderer employed at our General Hospital and he has challenged , among many other things the investigation into the Haute De La Garenne children’s home scandal.

So today, true to form the Jersey government decided 20 - 25 votes with our Home Affairs Minister (Home Secretary equivalent) abstaining, that the general public shall not know whether the action was legal, who ordered it or whether it is safe to give confidential information to our elected representatives.

We are told that the raid was carried out in accordance with Data Protection law requirements but we can find no authority under that law for such a raid.

Bloggers - once again - must be especially vigilant because it is that Data Law which is most likely to be used to curtail our activities.

Have we got an out of control Police force? Have we got a Police force doing the dirty work for our “ruling elite”? Is this typical Democratic behaviour? Who can we communicate with in confidence if not our elected officials?

These are very worrying times here in Jersey.

Silent Peaceful March

2009-04-21T07:48:00.002+01:00

On April the 25th 2009 at 12 noon there is to be a silent and peaceful march from Peoples Park to the Royal Square. The march will be in support and acknowledgement of victims of child abuse past and present across the world.

On October the 21st 1996 up to 300,000 Belgian citizens took to the streets wearing white ribbons and arm bands as a symbol of hope which became known as “The White March”. It was not only a march for hope but also a silent peaceful protest against their governments handling of the of the Marc Dutroux case which bears many similarity’s, not only to the way our government has handled the child abuse scandal that has hit Jersey, but the way child abuse is handled by some governments across the world.

We would like the Jersey White March to be non political or critical of our government or police investigation. We believe it will be an opportunity to show abuse survivors and the rest of the world that the good people of Jersey do not condone abuse of any human being - child or otherwise.

Abuse survivors, across the globe, have had theirs and their family’s lives torn apart, wrecked, and destroyed, not only by the heinous abuse they have suffered at the hands of their abusers but the wall of silence that inevitably surrounds the taboo subject of paedophilia and child abuse.

This March has the support of the Care Leavers Association (CLA) and the Jersey Care Leavers Association (JCLA) Please give this march and all abuse survivors your support and show the world the good people of Jersey DO care.

We would ask if you are able to attend the march that you wear something white, a symbol of “hope”

If you are a Blogger and support abuse victims around the world, please copy and paste this onto your Blog until the day of the march SATURDAY 25th OF APRIL 2009 12.p.m

When is a fence an offence?

2009-04-16T17:40:00.005+01:00

We referred previously to the Complaints Board hearing v Planning and the timber fence built at “Saval” a little cottage in Trinity and that Decision is still awaited here

But in the meantime there are many issues that need to be raised – not least that of the different standards that seem to apply to Senator Freddie Cohen and his property in St John which we have previously discussed on this site here

For simple clarity we have a short video clip here to show “Saval” which is a BLI (Building of Local Interest) and Freddie’s House in St John which is a SSI ( a site of Special Interest). Freddie’s house is not only much larger – it is also much more important on the Register as an SSI. So any alterations on Freddie’s house need extra special planning controls and limitations……

Freddie has already complained that he is furious with us and that by showing his house on our blog we have put his family in danger! Obviously the Minister for Planning values his privacy and the timber fence built on top of the roadside wall with its Security Group warnings make that very clear BUT we can find no evidence that planning permission was ever granted for the fence AND that is the very same issue which the “Saval” dispute arises from.

In fact, according to the “controversial” permission given to Freddie to construct an entirely new house for his mother in his garden (in October 2008) the timber fence has to be removed under the pretext of improved vehicle sight lines – but there is certainly no hint that the fence was illegally built in the first place or that Freddie might have broken the planning laws of Jersey. Of course, we simply don’t know whether the laws have been broken or not but Freddie has owned the particularly fine SSI property since 1986 at least………

……and there is no exemption for BLI and SSI buildings when it comes to alterations - even building a humble fence to afford privacy to the occupiers – formal planning permissions must be obtained first and that is just what “Saval” is all about.
The occupiers of “Saval” built their fence in order to achieve privacy in their garden and security for their pet dog and of course those reasons are supported under the Convention of Human Rights and Freddie gave a long written answer as Planning Minister in April 2007 to Senator Ben Shenton to explain the importance of Human Rights obligations and listed buildings and what might be done to them - so neither he nor his department can claim to be ignorant on the matter.

Yet extraordinarily, at the Review Board hearing ( which we heard but were not allowed to video record) Roy Webster the Senior Planning Officer claimed that in over 20 years with the department he had never heard of anybody even raising Human Rights as a challenge to a planning decision and whilst he said that the department always took account of Human Rights issues he clearly did not have a clue that Privacy was such an important issue and neither he nor the planning committee had even previously entered the garden of “Saval” to get to know the property!
He did though explain that the general public right to be able to see and enjoy BLI and SSI buildings was one of the specific reasons why the erection of fences was so strictly controlled – so that loss of privacy for the occupiers was necessary in the interests of the public right to gaze.
So what does that say about Freddie’s mansion and his fence and the public right to see his house and our right to blog its image?

Also raised was the question of whether or not it was appropriate for the Constable or Deputies of a Parish to sit on planning committees when own parish sites were being considered and the role of the conflicted or not conflicted Deputy Ann Pryke of Trinity (and Deputy Planning Minister) was a joy to hear (in her absence) as explained from the lips of Constable “I know how to be impartial” Hanning of St Saviour……….

But, of course, there were many many issues of great importance raised at this insignificant hearing and it is ever more frightening to know just how the government and administration of Jersey carries on behind the scenes. Thank heavens for the likes of Deputy Bob Hill who is constantly niggling away to expose the unfairness but where are the other 50 or so elected representatives or concerned lawyers or even journalists who will give him the support that he deserves?

And who will have the nerve to challenge Freddie Cohen and ask when his fence was approved by his own department and why his family’s rural privacy is so important above others with equal needs?

For more pictures of Saval Cottage please see http://s628.photobucket.com/albums/uu3/sblampied/?albumview=grid

Submitted by Thomas Wellard.

Piracy in the Blood?

2009-04-12T11:19:00.000+01:00

The desperate activities of the pirates from Somalia are currently attracting world-wide attention and universal condemnation but the Channel Islands were once notorious too as centres for the sea robbers.

Now as then, the ransom was a favourite method for extracting wealth without too many questions asked and it suits the tactics of the small, lightly armed and fast vessels with just a dozen or two fearless men on board.

Blatant piracy was substantially curtailed around the Channel after about 1700 but it was not eliminated and many vessels sailed from Guernsey and Jersey with official “Privateering Licences” issued by the Admiralty in London and they often behaved more like pirates and continued to ransom captured vessels and their crews, long after London had decreed that they should not.

The extensive smuggling trade also meant that many hundreds of illegally armed vessels sailed out of the Channel Islands in peacetime because it was not against the law in these regulation havens to arm vessels. There were frequent and ferocious battles and many were killed or injured by the Channel Islands smugglers and just occasionally some of the culprits were captured to be punished as pirates. More usually though they died in battle or were sent to serve in the Navy or they evaded capture altogether and prospered………..

Philip Bailhache was the commander of the “Resolution” licensed privateer lugger of Jersey in 1782 and he and his crew of 24 men went to sea armed with just 1 small cannon, 2 swivel guns plus hand arms. Their lugger was about 30 feet long and would have been remarkably similar to the craft that the Somalians use today.
Clement Bailhache commanded the tiny “Surprize” lugger with a crew of 12 men and the “Enterprize” lugger of just 10 tons at about the same time.

The Le Cocqs were active in all the islands and around Weymouth as successful smugglers and privateers and Peter Le Cocq typically commanded the “Tartar” a 14 gun lugger based in Guernsey in 1799 with a crew of 70.

In those days there was a much greater camaraderie among the Channel Islands families and the Syvrets were another who seemed to be well integrated into the dubious maritime business. But James Syvret who commanded the 50 men on the “Aurora” in 1779 may or may not have realized that his part owner Edward Millais was in league with the French and was helping with the planned French invasion of Jersey.
Millais was lucky to escape with his neck but young John Syvret served on several small Jersey vessels later and spent a lot of time in French prisons as a result.

Peter and Thomas Labey also commanded several armed vessels of the smaller class that were flexibly suited to all sorts of activities. Their “Fox” and “Lark” were very suitably named luggers carrying about 30 men armed with swivels guns and hand arms in 1779 and their “Diamond” was another with a solitary small cannon and a couple of swivels and just 12 desperadoes as crew. Their vessels were probably based at Grouville because the nearby French Island of Chaussey was a favourite rendezvous where they traded with Regnier, the great French smuggler and ally of Ed Millais. There were all sorts of strange allegiances in those days. Philip Dupré who had commanded the little “Adeventure” in 1756 might have been a near neighbour until captured by the French off St Malo in 1757 but he had Guernsey based owners.

There were no such doubts about Capt Philip Jeune who sailed out of Jersey in the diminutive “Hazard” lugger in July 1780 with just 12 men, armed with cutlasses and pistols and 2 swivels and victuals for a 6 months cruise. But it was a wonder that they had enough storage space even for the toilet paper! When John Jeune commanded the little “Lively” cutter with just 14 men in 1793, these included a Peter Dupré as carpenter so they were possibly from the eastern side of the Bailiwick and the Jeunes were from a refugee French family. John Jeune part owned the ultra tiny “Lively” lugger of just 6 tons in 1782 carrying a crew of 9 men, with small arms and I barrel of gunpowder on a 1 months cruise. They probably operated a no smoking rule.

The Viberts took to “privateering” like ducks to water and John, Thomas, Philip and William all commanded vessels after 1779 as did John and Noah Le Sueur. The latter had a long and varied career including a spell as commander of armed West Indies rum smugglers such as the “Mars”. But inevitably the luck ran out and the “Mars” was seized for smuggling in 1815 although Le Sueur had by then ceased to command the ‘Jerseyman’.

In 1778 the “Lively” of Jersey Capt Kirby was captured by the French although she was armed with 16 cannon. In fact she was a French built vessel so they were probably claiming back that which justly belonged to them. But some of the captured crew, including a Rondel presumably questioned the fairness of it. He scratched his name on his prison wall at La Rochelle where it remains to this day – as a sort of early “Hansard” record of history.

William Reed commanded the “Alderney” of that island in 1778 but he was most likely from Weymouth and the vessel was a notorious smuggler and it was all part of the devious game to disguise true ownership or details of the business activities.

The Perchards were also predominantly from the sister isle and Capt Daniel Perchard was sailing out of Southampton in 1747 in the “Guernsey privateer” and the “Fame” 10 years later. But this family were more into ownership of vessels than actually sailing them and James Perchard was prophetically in partnership with the Le Mesurier and Dobrée families as owners of the “Hopewell ” sloop in 1705.
Later, a Perchard and a Le Mesurier would both serve as Lord Mayors of the City of London and a Dobrée would be Governor of the Bank of England.

When you reach the top as they say, the only way thereafter is down……….

Submitted by Thomas Wellard.

More Blogging battles........

2009-04-06T16:29:00.003+01:00

Today Deputy Bob Hill presented a "complaints board" appeal regarding an "offensive" fence around a cottage at Trinity.

Thirteen people including 82 year old (former Senator) Dick Shenton assembled at Trinity Parish Hall to hear the officially "open to the public" meeting together with Team Voice and Channel Television. But, although we and CTV could video the visit to the cottage, it was decided (in one of those infamous Jersey instant decisions) that no recording could be made of the "open to the public" proceedings at the Parish Hall.

So, almost as crazy as the Scrutiny Panel "3 day rule" - but in this ruling the entire Media can only show you external video. Ironically, the cottage owners were happy for "The Voice" to video and publish on the internet.

More on this complaints board hearing and the "amazing planning office" will follow soon..............

Blogging gaining support........

2009-03-31T15:21:00.004+01:00

Constable of St Helier Simon Crowcroft, one of the more enlightened of our twelve Constables is a Blogger!

Here in this brief interview he supports Citizens Media and we hope he does so when PPC bring their propositions to the States on Media access. As part of the ongoing debate into Blogging, Citezens Media and the "accredited" Press - Channel Television will be broadcasting a feature on these issues this Thursday.

We (The Voice) will be posting an "in-depth" interview with Constable Crowcroft regarding the regeneration of the "St Helier Ghetto" on voiceforprotest in the next day or so.

"Journalism" the JEP way.

2009-03-27T12:59:00.002Z

The JEP once more has "come up trumps." Those of you who have read the previous postings on here regarding how the Scrutiny Chairmens Panel have come up with a new "rule" in order to hinder members of the public and Bloggers videoing Scrutiny hearings will be aware this is almost certainly a dicrimatory "rule" and was put in place purely to "inhibit" Bloggers and not accommodate them.

One could be forgiven after reading this in the JEP that we have an open Goverment trying to be transparent. When nothing could be further from the truth.

It is a shamful piece of "Jounalism" where the "Journalist" has taken a soundbite from Ben Shenton and published it with doing little or no research at all!

I have e-mailed the JEP and offered them the "facts" as their story is a very poor reflection of them (the facts.) I even phoned them to offer the facts and talked with Andy Sibcy, who told me Rob Shipley or Chris Bright wouldn't want to talk with me. The "facts" are members of the public were allowed to video Scrutiny hearings up until, I believe, the 18th of February this year. After a complaint was made about VFC our esteemed leaders must have thought "how do we shut the Bloggers up"? and came up with this ridiculous new "rule" It wasn't as the JEP published. "Senator Shenton said that the whole matter of filming Scrutiny hearings came to light when a member of the public wrote on his blog that he wanted to video one".

The JEP are now in possession of the facts but as Andy Sibcy informed me they will not be publishing them unless they run with the story at a later date, never let the facts get in the way of a good story eh? I wouldn't mind but it's not even "a good story" it is a "sounbite" which is inaccurate and in my opinion misleading.

What future can the JEP believe it's got when it peddles out this kind of tripe? If you haven't watched the video's and extensive reporting on this subject please scroll down on the main page and watch them, it has been covered in depth and paints a very different picture to that of the JEP.

Here is a copy of the content, in the unanswered, e-mail I sent to their online editor.

For reasons only known to yourself you have once more "censored" fair comment made by me on the Scrutiny videoing article submitted by Dolores Cowburn here http://www.thisisjersey.com/2009/03/26/scrutiny-may-open-up-to-video-cameras/ It is a missleading article and not factual. I believe your paper should issue an apology to it's reader for misleading him/her. For the "real story" please look here http://voiceforjersey.blogspot.com/. If there is no apology given I shall make a complaint to the relative authority. For the benefit of the people BCc'd in to this e-mail here is my "fair comment" that was not published.

"Either Ben Shenton has told you a complete pack of lies or this is yet another piece of ill researched shoddy "journalism" one has come to expect from your paper.Start reporting the "facts" and give your readers the "truth" of how members of the public have been filming Scrutiny Panel hearings for quite some time. And how the Oligarchy and it's media are trying to squash the public and it's opinion in a discriminatory manner.You people at the JEP are so, so, sad. Somebody tell Shipley and Bright about the internet will you"? VFC.