Shenton (or "accredited" media) Exposed.

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?

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

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

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?

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.

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”!

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.