Unhappy Anniversary

On Armistice Day 2008 – 11th November – Mr Graham Power, the Chief of the States of Jersey Police, a very senior, highly qualified and decorated, uniformed officer with 42 years in the service of Her Majesty the Queen was on holiday at home when he received a phone call from the then Deputy Andrew Lewis the Minister for Home Affairs.
The phone call from the very recently appointed Minister was to invite Mr Power to attend a meeting the following day (12th) along with Mr Bill Ogley (CEO of the Council of Ministers),the Head of Human Resources and Police Officer David Warcup.

Warcup had in August 2008, with the authority of Graham Power, commissioned the Metropolitan Police to review “Operation Rectangle” aka the historic abuse inquiry and an interim report by the Met was prepared for the 10th November and handed to Warcup on that day and to the Minister on the 11th.

On the evening of 11th November Police Officers Warcup and Gradwell had briefed the Council of Ministers about the interim report and a proposed Press Conference to be held the following day (12th) which would rubbish much of the “Operation Rectangle” investigations carried out under Deputy Chief Police Officer Lennie Harper’s supervision.

At the brief meeting, (for which Bill Ogley famously destroyed his hand written notes) commencing at 11am on the 12th Minister Lewis produced a letter which quoted from the interim report and advised Mr Power that he was to be immediately suspended from duty claiming that “this is a precautionary suspension only and does not imply that any conclusions have been reached about your alleged role in the management of the historic abuse inquiry at this stage.”

However, as is now known - following Mr Power’s successful Complaints Board Hearing against Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur for the release of information - the decision to suspend Mr Power was clearly made on or before Saturday 8th November because that was when the suspension notice was prepared.

In other words, the DECISION to suspend Mr Power was made BEFORE the Met interim report was published.

Yet, the reasons offered in support of Mr Power’s suspension on the 12th November were wholly related to his alleged failings with regard to the management of “Operation Rectangle”.

This blatant contradiction is just one small piece in this strange jigsaw.

Mr Power has subsequently had judgment against him in the Jersey Royal Court re his Judicial Review of his suspension and he represented himself.
The current Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ian Le Marquand now says that he reviews the suspension every month - but it is not clear if the original reasons for the suspension are now valid or if some other complaints have been raised .
It seems that Mr Power does not know why he is suspended and the tax - paying public certainly have no idea.

Everything about this year old case is something of a mystery and lives are being damaged and reputations destroyed.

There is no cause for celebration in this anniversary and we do wonder whether ex Deputy Andrew Lewis will be the one chosen as the sacrificial offering when our government finally seeks to close this particular file.

Below is an interview with Deputy Bob Hill who tries to make some sense of all this.

Fair and Impartial reporting?

Recently Channel Television sent Jess Dunsden over to Westminster where she interviewed Senator Stuart Syvret. The interview can be seen HERE.

The interview and the interviewer have come in for a bit of stick from the ever growing online community and supporters of Senator Syvret’s cause. It must be said that some of the stick might be justified, that is to say Jess Dunsden appeared way out of her depth, ill researched, and at one particular point, absolutely barking when she suggested to the Senator he bring a proposition to the States!

Her questions, it is claimed by Karen Rankine, were based on comments and questions left by readers of the Channel Television website. It has since become apparent that many of those questions came via bogus or dubious means (B. Riantz 29 Belmont Rd. springs to mind!) So were the questions a true reflection of what the majority of Jersey people are really asking? Possibly not.

It could be argued that this was a very one-sided interview, where Jess Dunsden did her level best to hold Senator Syvret to account and answer to the public he serves, and so she should. Senator Syvret should get “grilled” even if it is an attempt by a fairly young and inexperienced journalist who will no doubt be constrained by her editor(s).

So was this interview “Fair and impartial reporting”? Well that remains to be seen, so far we hold judgement. In favour of CTV and Jess Dunsden, as far as we are aware, they are the ONLY local mainstream “accredited” media to contact Senator Syvret in order to get an in-depth interview and indeed hold him to account.

Now in order to gauge the impartiality and objectiveness of this interview we shall wait and see if Jess Dunsden, or even Gillian (Paxman) Martindale “grills” Magistrate Bridget Shaw, Balliff Michael Birt, Deputy Balliff William Bailhache, AG (designate) Tim Le Coq, or Advocate Steven Baker.

All the above mentioned are looked upon, in certain circles, as “the untouchables”, that is to say if they say “I’m not giving you an interview” then the “accredited” media will report something along the lines of “so and so was not available for comment” because that is “The Jersey Way”. Any self respecting journalist would then go and “doorstep” the said individual in order to give balance to the interview broadcast of Senator Syvret and give the public the answers they deserve.

So we shall wait and see what CTV and Jess Dunsden do next. Will they be “grilling” any of the above in order to show fairness and impartiality or will they know their place in the pecking order of the “Jersey Elite” and only report what they are told to by the echelons of the Jersey Hierarchy?

We shall see!

What is the elusive “Right Way”?

Senator Stuart Syvret, has for the last couple of years or so, been attempting to hold the executive to account involving the decades of failures of our Jersey child “care” system.
He has, in the opinion of Team Voice, worked harder and exposed more truth’s than any of his elected colleagues ever have or perhaps ever will in this area.

He has been thwarted at just about every step he has taken, whether it be the “right way” or the “wrong way”. Which has forced him not only to publish very serious allegations on his Blogsite (after offering evidence to the “accredited” media to no avail) but has now forced him to flee the island and seek protection from “The Jersey System”.

Many of the Senator’s detractors have argued “he’s gone about it all the wrong way”, “he’s held his own Kangaroo court on his Blog” “he’s accused people of crimes, on his Blog, and they have no right of reply” etc. etc.

There is possibly merit in some of these arguments, but what choice has he had and just what exactly is “the right way” in Jersey to bring child abusers to justice?

Senator Alan Breckon as Chairman of HSSH Scrutiny sub Panel has just brought a proposition P145/2009 to the States where the panel have asked for an independent inquiry into the management of Health and Social Services and their handling of, among other things, cases concerning vulnerable children.

It would appear the Scrutiny sub Panel had received some very disturbing evidence that might expose some massive failings in certain departments charged with the “care” of our children. It became apparent the sub panel neither had the time or resources to investigate these very alarming claims submitted by witnesses giving evidence.

Furthermore if this proposition was accepted by our States it would give all those accused by Senator Syvret and others of serious failings, Child Abuse, covering up for Child abuse, incompetence, Corporate Manslaughter , etc. a right to reply, a chance to clear their names and put the record straight. This proposition would have also showed the world that the government of Jersey is ready to face up to any failings in it’s “care” system. It would also put the words of ex Chief Minister Frank Walker into action when he said something along the lines of “no stone will be left un-turned” “ a full and independent root and branch inquiry will be held” Just as importantly this proposition might bring some families some justice and possibly a step nearer to some closure.

So if Senator Syvret has gone about things the “wrong way“, it must be argued that Senator Breckon and his panel have gone about things “the right way”?

Well as Senator Breckon, and his panel’s proposition, failed miserably to gain support of the house by 20 votes for, and thirty votes against, will people now be saying “well Breckon went about it all the wrong way”? If this is the case could somebody please tell us all, how do you go about investigating all the allegations made against departments and staff, MADE BY DEPARTMENTS AND STAFF? And how do you give those people accused of wrong doing an opportunity to clear their names? Will somebody please tell us what “The Right Way” is?

I think we all know what “The right Way” really is but it doesn’t apply to Jersey.

After the failing of this proposition to gain the support of the house many other questions arise. One being just what is the effectiveness of Scrutiny? Does it matter what they bring to the house because it’s only going to get defeated by the Constables, Ministers and Assistant Ministers? Another being, just what is the HSSH Scrutiny Panel going to do now? Are they going to say “well we gave it a shot” and forget about it? Is there any other States Member with the balls to put their neck on the line to bring some justice and closure to this whole sorry affair that is going to haunt Jersey and it’s people until Justice is at least seen to be done?

If there is, then make sure you do it “The Right Way” .

Deafening silence.

Not since John Stonehouse MP did a Reggie Perrin many years ago has there been anything quite like the mystery of Senator Stuart Syvret.

But, since he is Father of the House and one of the most able of our elected representatives we can be forgiven for wondering why so few of our 52 other States Members seem to show so little interest in the issues raised by him or concern for his welfare.

Even the Magistrates Court Hearings have been boycotted by Senator Syvret’s working colleagues and whilst we would expect some to be delighted at his absence, we at Team Voice are surprised that his more sympathetic workmates are maintaining such a low profile.

Leadership in our States is now at a deplorably low level at the best of times but this single issue must surely demand somebody to step forward with words of wisdom and guidance for the electorate?

Behind Senator Syvret’s absence are such claims as multiple Child Abuse, corruption at the highest level in our government and judicial system and Administrive incompetence besides suggestions of multiple murders within the hospital system.

Of course these are difficult issues to grapple with but unless Senator Syvret has fallen victim to illness it would not be at all surprising if he has sought sanctuary in the United Kingdom where his allegations might stand a chance of “proper” investigation.

We at The Voice are as mystified as others and we want certainty and clarity just like everybody else with an interest in these most important matters.

Next week members of the Education/Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel under the Chairmanship of Deputy Roy Le Herissier are visiting the Westminster and Welsh Assemblies in search of knowledge about UK Scrutiny . Would it really be too much to ask that these elected representatives undertake to meet with Senator Syvret and bring back to Jersey a clearer statement and analysis of his political problems, intentions and personal welfare?

Interviews with Deputy Tadier, Deputy Wimberley and Senator Breckon follow. It must be said Many of our elected “representatives” refused us an interview on this subject.

Submitted by Team Voice.

Where was the new Deputy Balliff?

Today, 20-30 extremely brave protesters turned up at the Royal Square to voice their anger and disapproval at the appointment of Attorney General William Bailhache as Deputy Balliff. Among the protesters were survivors of the Jersey “care” system, victims of the Jersey Judicial System and all are victims of this government and Civil Service.

So if the Jersey folk are so disheartened with the way this island is run - why such a small turn out? This is a question everybody will have their own answer to and something that will be argued vigorously by both camps pro and anti establishment but never agreed.

My question is “Where the fack was Bailhache“? This was his big day, the day to be paraded to the public and soak up all their adoration. A massive day in Jersey History where all his thousands and thousands of supporters and admirers should be sharing in his “achievement” in being immortalised in the history books. Where were all the “Red Cloak Brigade” and the fanfare of the band piping him on this triumphant historic day?

Alas they were nowhere to be seen. It appears this momentous occasion was all done behind closed doors, something that has become known across the world as “The Jersey Way”.

Could it be that a group of 20 - 30 frightened and vulnerable “peasants” have the Establishment on the run? Could it be that these frightened and vulnerable people have more courage in their little finger than the entire establishment of Jersey?

You decide.

Justice for Jersey.

On Monday November the 2nd 11.30a.m Mr. William Bailhache will be taking an oath and will be sworn in as our Deputy Bailiff. He is of course our current Attorney General and brother of recently retired Bailiff Phillip Bailhache.

“Justice for Jersey” will be staging a rally from 10.30.a.m in the Royal Square to coincide with this farcical fancy dress charade with a fancy dress of their own.

Why would people want to turn up to this rally? William Bailhache’s 6 figure salary is paid for by the public purse, the tax payer. He is the Attorney General who failed to extradite, from France, (let alone convict) two alleged child abusers employed by the States of Jersey to “care” for children. He is also the AG who has dropped, somewhere in the region of EIGHTEEN alleged child abuse cases involving, we are led to believe, high ranking Civil Servants employed by the States of Jersey and still in post!!

This is a man who makes extremely political decisions, decides what is or isn’t in the public interest and what is best for the States of Jersey and is not answerable to the public who pay his wages, Which we are led to believe are in the region of £300,000 with a pension of around £120,000.

“Justice For Jersey” would like to invite anybody and everybody who have suffered an in-justice at the hands of our Judicial System, Education System, Health Service, Social Services, Planning Department to attend this Rally to show our Ruling elite enough is enough.

Team Voice whole heartedly support Justice For Jersey in their campaign to bring Jersey into the 21st century by calling for a fair and impartial Judicial System along with an open and transparent DEMOCRATIC government.

Justice For Jersey should also like to extend the Rally invitation to all supporters of Senator Syvret’s quest for justice and this includes ALL States members.

Senator Syvret has felt the full wrath of the Bailhache Brothers and the Civil Servants for attempting to hold the executive to account, deal with decades of abusive treatment of our most vulnerable children and attempted to bring some kind of justice for the victims of the Jersey “care” system.

For his troubles he has had his residence (illegally?) raided by a politicised Police Force on what has been described as a “fishing expedition” for the ruling elite in order to get any kind of dirt they can to shut him up. He has faced prosecution (in a Kangaroo Court) for attempting to expose a potential Serial Killer. It has been reported He was investigated by 2 police officers who’s sole duty it was to find some dirt on him
Inevitably he has been forced to flee the island for doing exactly what a politician is paid to do. That is to hold the executive to account and represent the people of Jersey in an open and transparent manner.

One must remember Senator Syvret has the widest mandate on the island, he is the longest serving Senator and father of the house. If what has been done to him by the Ruling Elite then what makes other States Members believe it can’t happen to them if they decide to speak out? And if all this can happen to ANY States member, then what chance does any member of the public stand of being heard?

Please support “Justice for Jersey” in this VITAL show of DISCONTENT that is growing among the ordinary folk of this once beautiful island. They will be meeting at 10.30.a.m on Monday the 2nd of November in the Royal Square. The “peaceful” Rally will start at 11.30. Some people will be turning up in Fancy Dress in order to highlight the charade that will be displayed by our “Great and Good” feel free to dress up if you like.

Below is a video of the swearing in of the Balliff which will go down in history as the first demonstration in eight hundred years against a swearing in of a Balliff. The demonstration on Monday will also be in the history books for the same reason.



Submitted by Team Voice and Justice for Jersey.

The Bridget Bullsh1t Corporation.

Apparently, so I am told by the above, there is no difference between BBC Jersey (Bridget Bullshit Corporation) and National BBC. So when they were reporting on Senator Syvret’s Legal Asylum case and claiming that the Senator declined to comment to the BBC - that was factually correct.

However it wasn’t strictly true. Senator Syvret had quite clearly stated that he would not comment to BBC Jersey but would talk with BBC London and when I phoned the Jersey “news”room to help them put the record straight in order to inform their listeners that much better, they were having none of it and insisted the BBC is the BBC and were not interested in telling their listeners the full facts.

This did not surprise me in the slightest, you see, I Know how the local BBC operate and in particular Chris Stone. Although I can’t say for sure if he is his own man or a mere Puppet for Denzil Dudley and Matthew Price.

Chris Stone does not allow me on his phone-in any longer. When I was allowed on - before I went on air I had to tell the producer “exactly” what I was going to say. I was told if I deviated in any way or criticised the local BBC in any way then I would be cut off.

I’ll not go on too much about my particular case but would like to concentrate on the bigger picture.

Have you ever noticed how he (Chris Stone) starts the phone-in most days? It is (in my opinion) “Agenda Setting“. He will say things like “scientists have discovered the smell of freshly cut grass is a stimulant, have you got a smell you want to talk about”? or “While on holiday I was stung on the foot by a wasp, have you ever been stung by a wasp”? If the main headline “news” is anything damming towards our government he doesn’t want to talk about it.

He will later be on his “Home Time” programme saying something like “ today’s phone-in was dominated by callers who wanted to talk about wasp stings” No sh1t Chris! I wonder why that is?

When the Attorney General decided not to prosecute two alleged child abusers who had moved to France it was their (Bridget Bullshit Corporation) headline “news” item. I phoned up to talk about it, was put through to the producer and was told “oh we’re not talking about that today” so I said “what…..we’re not allowed to talk about the top news story”? I was then told “no, the subject at the moment is poor quality tarmac on the roads”

These are just a couple of many examples how the phone-in is managed or should I say how public opinion is managed?

Nick Griffin was (a very controversial) guest on Question Time just recently broadcast by the BBC. Chris Stone, on the phone in, was quoting things like “I might not agree with what you have to say but I will defend your right to say it”……. Bullsh1t Chris you won’t even let an anti establishment caller on your radio show.

Then we get on to the “Talkback” programme (I’m prevented from going on there as well). One of the last things Senator Syvret did as the Minister for Health and Social Services was to commission a report by the Howard League for Penal Reform to look into how the States of Jersey “cared” for vulnerable children. Whistleblower Simon Bellwood was removed from his post at Greenfields after challenging the illegal and abusive methods employed up there against the children. Senator Syvret subsequently was driven out of his post as H&SS Minister.

The report completed by the HLFPR was totally damming to our States of Jersey and in my opinion vindicated Senator Syvret and Simon Bellwood. There was MASSIVE support for Senator Syvret, and others, to be guests on the Talkback programme (and still is) The Bridget Bullsh1t Corporation have refused this from the outset. Senator Syvret is an Opposition Politician who upsets the status quo and it appears this does not fit with their agenda. Perhaps he should get stung by a wasp! That might get him on the show.

As I have done all that I can to contribute to the phone-ins and been denied a voice by Chris Stone, before I am forced to “doorstep” him I am publicly requesting an interview. If he refuses to allow me on his show then perhaps he would like to come onto mine. If it is the case that he is merely a puppet for Denzil Dudley and Matthew Price then the request for an interview extends to them also.

Thanks to the internet, not only the Bridget Bullsh1t Corporation, but our entire local media are slowly getting exposed for years of cut and paste “journalism” and opinion management. How long can it continue?

Goldilocks or Rosa Parks?

During the summer holidays my nine year old daughter (Voicette) took part in “Quest Seekers”. A scheme where you read 6 books from the library and describe the story satisfactorily to the Quest Seekers member then you are awarded a medal and a certificate.
I am very pleased to say she successfully completed her mission and received the medal and certificate yesterday.

The dilemma was, what 6 books do we choose to read?. Had this been a few years ago I would have liked her to have read something along the lines of Little Red Riding Hood, Goldilocks and the Three Bears, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.

A little while ago I got a massive wake up call as to how our government operates and was left no choice other than to “warn” or “alert” my children to the dangers they face because of our government. The said books therefore were not in the running.

As a small part of warning or alerting my children, I took my daughter to the States one day, I think it was the day of the Air Display this year. Although she knew some of the Politicians on a first name basis she didn’t know a vast majority of them or what they do.

I explained to her that I believe a vast majority of them are complicit in the cover-up of child abuse, she asked “which ones”? I pointed to the elected and un-elected members and told her their names. She asked “is someone paying them to cover up for child abuse”? to which I said “yes, about £44k by the people they are supposed to represent and considerably more for some of the un-elected members”.

I went on to point out and name the “good guys” and the “bad guys”, the Senators, Ministers, Constables and deputies. I tried, as best I could, to explain what they do, and how 10 out of the 12 Constables are only there to do, and vote, what they are told by the Council of Ministers.

It was not that long ago when I never knew who our Politicians were, or what they did, but I was propelled into this very dark and sordid world involuntarily and as they say “we are where we are”.

Our elected members and their Civil Servants have a lot to answer for, including my daughter’s view on Politicians and government.

So back to the books we chose and she enjoyed immensely. They were “Mother Theresa”, “Guy (Guido) Fawkes”, “Dr Martin Luther King Junior” “Mahatma Gandhi” “Nelson Mandela” and “Rosa Parks”.

Congratulations to my very articulate and beautiful little girl for achieving this certificate and medal. Shame on you elected members and Civil Servants (you know who you are) for influencing our choice of reading.

Are the mainstream media “holier than thou“?

Our elected “representatives” are busying themselves trying to dream up legislation and rules in order to prevent Bloggers and Citizens Media reporting on, or videoing public meetings and continuously refusing us interviews because we are not “accredited”.

But thanks to the recent Panorama programme on offshore finance centres the tide just might be on the turn or the penny might be starting to drop with some of our elected “representatives”

The “accredited” Media, on regular occasions, employ surreptitious filming techniques and covert surveillance is a part of everyday life. As Bloggers we do our very best to “play by the rules” set by our ruling elite. We ask permission to film public meetings and when, as so often, we are refused, we don’t resort to “secret filming”. Any elected member we film knows they are being filmed. But the question our elected leaders must soon have to be asking themselves is how long is it before they force the hand of the Bloggers and leave “us” no alternative other than to resort to more dubious practices in order to report events?

Because the mainstream media are, in the eyes of our government, “accredited” it seems they are looked upon as holier than thou. When the truth is they have their own agenda just as Bloggers do, the difference is that Bloggers don’t pretend otherwise.

Here Senator Ben Shenton reluctantly concedes that the argument for Bloggers (thanks to Panorama) has been strengthened!

Accreditation and Accountability

Recently retired Jersey's Deputy Chief Police officer Mick Gradwell (or was it the States Comminications Unit?) went on - what might be described as - an unprecedented , media assault on a fellow professional.

He was afforded a three part "interview" by Channel Television and our local BBC as well as given front page headlines and a double page spread in the Jersey Evening Post.

Mick Gradwell went on to make all kinds of critisisms and offer his opinions on Lenny Harper and his team's handling of the child abuse scandal that had rocked Jersey to its rotten core.

Gradwell made statements such as the alleged child's skull fragment "turned out to be coconut" and the digging up of HDLG was "a waste of time and public money" and many more "questionable" claims.

Lenny Harper (in the opinion of Team Voice) had no choice other than to respond to these very damning and reputation wrecking statements. Mr. Harper replied with a THIRTY ONE PAGE and 16,500 word posting on Senator Syvrets Blog HEREwhich includes documented EVIDENCE, and not just opinion. How many of those 16,500 words have you seen published/broadcast by the same,so called, accredited media that gave Gradwell such a free run?

Senator Syvret (to the best of our knowledge) published Lenny Harper's response in it's entirety . That Mr. Harper should choose to give his reply to a Blogger and not our local accredited press is a story in itself!

Two days ago Deputy Roy Le Herissier asked the Home Affairs Minister (Senator Ian Le Marquand) to make a statement regarding the actions of the outgoing Deputy Police Chief and his comments made in the media. Senator Le Marquand went on to use words like "inappropriate" and "unprofessional". Although Deputy Roy Le Herissier ought to be applauded for his question, we are not sure it was the right one and does not go far enough.

To our thinking the question(s) should have been along the lines of "how is it a man can be given such a forum or soapbox, like almost our entire local "accredited" media to discredit a fellow professional"? "How is it that somebody could make so many claims and not be challenged by the interviewers or "journalists"?. "What was Gradwell's (or the States Communications Unit's) motive"? And possibly more to the point "what was the "accredited" media's motive"? "what did he/they hope to achieve? "What was the purpose of this media campaign?
Should Senator Le Marquand have said that it was the local media that was "inappopriate and unprofessional"?

Which poses a few more questions or dilemmas. How is it that the local accredited media can take the opinions of one man and print, or broadcast them, unchallenged knowing they could wreck, not only the careers, but the lives of those mentioned? Before printing or publishing any of this didn't the local accredited media have any kind of obligation to substantiate ALL of the claims being made? Don't they (in this case) have any obligation to warn the abuse victims this media campaign was about to take place? Didn't they have any obligation to take into account the damage that could (and has) been done to some victims? Where is the accountability of the accredited media?

So although Deputy Roy Le Herissier's question should be applauded there are equally important issues that need addressing and serious questions need asking in the States on the role of our accredited media, their motives and their accountability.

It isn't the role of citizens media or Bloggers that needs to be looked at. For instance, if a Blogger, or member of the public wants to film a public hearing we are told we can't because we are not accredited (whatever that is) so therefore lack accountability! The same goes if we want to film a public Scrutiny Hearing. We are told we can't film because we are not accredited, we have no accountability and the best of the lot is we might misrepresent what was said at the meeting............and the meeting is Freakin Transcribed by States employed staff!

So we urge States members to stop trying to legislate against Bloggers and take a look at what the accredited press are doing (or aren't doing) and consider just how unaccountable they are?

Submitted by Team Voice.

Graham Power Complaints Board Hearing.

Yesterday there was a “complaints board” hearing against the Chief Ministers Office brought by (illegally?) suspended Police Chief Graham Power.

The complaint centred on “information” or “data” that Graham Power claims has been withheld from him by the Chief Ministers office concerning 3 letters he had received involving his suspension. Mr.Power wanted a simple question answered, and that was, when were these letters authored? Everybody knows what date was on them, but a simple task of looking on the computer where they originated from would let him know when the letters were created and modified etc.


A simple request one would think? Oh no it’s not! This is the pantomime of Jersey Government. If it proves these letters were created before November the 11th 2008 it might show that his suspension was orchestrated before (perhaps long before) the powers that be would have us, and him, believe.

The ensuing arguments at this complaints board hearing revolved round “what is data”? “what is information”? and equally pathetic (in my opinion) “barrel scraping” and embarrassing arguments made by the Chief Ministers’ legal representative Sylvia Roberts.

There was not a spare seat in the public sitting area, there were at least a dozen members of the public who were there to support Mr.Power and a number of them could not help themselves but laugh out loud when hearing some of Sylvia Roberts’ arguments. If there had of been a couch in the room, I believe everybody in that room, would have dived behind it cringing every time the Chief Ministers representative tried to defend the indefensible.

I reproduce below Mr Powers opening (oral) submission to the board, (the board already had his written submission) which was read out before any of the legal Wrangling took place and the frankly embarrassing attempt made by the Chief Ministers Department to look even half credible.

There was not a single member of the public, that I spoke to after the meeting, who believed the board could not find in favour of Graham Power. However this is Jersey, so literally anything is possible!

The submission below has been distributed to the local “accredited” media, have you seen it anywhere else?

SPEAKING NOTES.

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL HEARING.
WEDNESDAY 16TH SEPTEMBER 2009.

These notes have been made to assist the memory of the applicant when addressing the Board. No undertaking is given that they are the actual words used on the day. No responsibility is taken by the applicant for the accuracy of the content of these notes. If the notes are used by any other person as part of an account of what occurred at the hearing it is for that person and not the applicant to take responsibility for the accuracy of whatever is written or said.

1. MR CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. IN THIS MATTER I AM REPRESENTING MYSELF BUT AS YOU CAN SEE I AM ASSISTED AND ADVISED BY THE CONNETABLE OF ST HELIER WHO HAS AN INTEREST IN THE ISSUES BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY.

2. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING OF TODAYS PROCESS THAT THE PAPERS PREPARED FOR THE BOARD AND CIRCULATED IN ADVANCE CAN BE TAKEN AS READ AND THAT WHAT THE BOARD REQUIRES FROM ME IS A SHORT SUMMARY OF THE ESSENCE OF THE COMPLAINT. THAT BEING THE CASE I HOPE THAT THE FOLLOWING WILL SUFFICE AT THIS TIME. I WILL OF COURSE ATTEMPT TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS WHICH THE BOARD MAY HAVE IN RELATION TO THE MATTER.

3. TODAYS HEARING RELATES TO AN APPLICATION MADE UNDER THE CODE OF PRACTICE ON ACCESS TO INFORMATION HELD BY THE STATES AND STATES DEPARTMENTS. THE COMPLAINT IS MADE BECAUSE I HAVE MADE AN APPLICATION FOR THE DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION TO THE CHIEF MINISTER WHICH THE CHIEF MINISTER HAS REFUSED. THE CODE PROVIDES THAT IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AN APPLICANT MAY APPEAL TO THIS BOARD.

4. AS THE BOARD IS TO HEAR BOTH SIDES OF THIS ARGUMENT IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL AT THIS STAGE IF I WAS TO SET OUT MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN RELATION TO A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION. PARAGRAPH 1.2.2.(a) OF THE CODE STATES THAT IN THE APPLICATION OF THE CODE THERE SHALL BE A “PRESUMPION OF OPENESS.” I HAVE TAKEN THAT PRESUMPTION TO HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS SIMILAR PRESUMPTIONS IN LAW WITH WHICH MANY OF US ARE FAMILIAR. FOR EXAMPLE THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL MEANS THAT INNOCENCE IS ASSUMED UNTIL GUILT IS PROVED. OR TO PUT IN ANOTHER WAY, IT IS THOSE WHO ASSERT GUILT WHO CARRY THE BURDEN OF PROOF.

5. SIMILARLY I SUGGEST, THE PRESUMPTION OF OPENESS SET OUT IN THE CODE BEFORE US TODAY HAS THE SAME EFFECT. THAT IS, AN APPLICANT IS ENTITLED TO THE INFORMATION REQUESTED UNLESS THE CONTRARY IS PROVED. NO APPLICANT HAS TO PROVE WHY HE OR SHE SHOULD HAVE INFORMATION HELD BY A DEPARTMENT OF THE STATES. IT IS FOR THE STATES DEPARTMENT TO PROVE, TO AN ACCEPTABLE STANDARD, THAT THERE ARE GOOD REASONS WHY INFORMATION SHOULD BE DENIED. IN OTHER WORDS THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN TODAYS BUSINESS SITS WITH THE CHIEF MINISTER.

6. MR CHAIRMAN, THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY TOUCHES ON ONE ADMINISTRATIVE ASPECT OF AN EVENT WHICH HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF THIS ISLAND, NAMELY THE SUSPENSION FROM DUTY OF THE CHIEF OFFICER OF POLICE. THE APPLICATION MADE TO THE CHIEF MINISTER, AND NOW SUBJECT OF TODAYS HEARING RELATES TO THE DOCUMENTATION USED IN CARRYING OUT THAT SUSPENSION, WHICH CONSISTS OF THE THREE LETTERS WHICH CAN BE FOUND AT TAB 4 IN THE BUNDLES. ALL THREE LETTERS ARE DATED 12TH NOVEMBER 2008. THE REQUEST WHICH IS SUBJECT OF TODAYS HEARING IS A SIMPLE ONE. IT IS FOR THE CHIEF MINISTER TO PROVIDE THE TIME AND THE DATE ON WHICH THESE THREE LETTERS WERE ACTUALLY CREATED.

7. MR CHAIRMAN, THE OTHER DOCUMENTS IN THE BUNDLE SET OUT WHAT I THINK, IN THE INTERESTS OF BREVITY, WE MIGHT CALL THE “OFFICIAL VERSION” OF THE PROCESS WHICH PRECEDED THE SUSPENSION. THE OFFICIAL VERSION, SET OUT IN STATEMENTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS, IS THAT ON TUESDAY 11TH NOVEMBER 2008 THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS, WHO AT THAT TIME WAS DEPUTY ANDREW LEWIS, RECEIVED CORRESPONDENCE AND VIEWED A PRESENTATION WHICH IS SAID TO HAVE GIVEN HIM CAUSE FOR CONCERN REGARDING THE MANAGEMENT OF THE HISTORIC ABUSE ENQUIRY. IN CONSEQUENCE OF THIS INFORMATION HE DECIDED TO INVOKE THE DISCIPLINARY CODE FOR THE CHIEF OFFICER OF POLICE. IF TRUE, THE ACCOUNT OFFERED BY FORMER DEPUTY LEWIS WOULD AT LEAST HAVE THE MERIT OF FOLLOWING THE PROPER SEQUENCE OF EVIDENCE BASED DECISION MAKING, THAT IS, THE EVIDENCE IS CONSIDERED FIRST, AND THE DECISION TAKEN AFTERWARDS.

8. IT IS AGREED BY ALL PARTIES THAT DEPUTY LEWIS ARRANGED TO MEET WITH ME IN THE PRESENCE OF THE CHIEF ECECUTIVE TO THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS THE FOLLOWING MORNING, THAT IS THE MORNING OF WEDNESDAY 12TH NOVEMBER 2008, WHEN I WAS SUSPENDED FROM DUTY AND THE DOCUMENTATION, SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION WAS PROVIDED (ALTHOUGH THE BOARD WILL SEE THAT ALTHOUGH ONE OF THE THREE LETTERS ARRIVED BY POST TWO DAYS LATER, IT IS CLAIMED BY THE CHIEF MINISTERS DEPARTMENT THAT IT WAS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME.)

9. I AM SURE THAT THE BOARD WILL BE AWARE THAT THE INITIAL SUSPENSION HAS BEEN SUBJECT OF SOME CONTROVERSY AND THAT AN APPLICATION WAS MADE FOR A JUDICIAL REVIEW. THAT APPLICATION WAS OVERTAKEN BY A REVIEW CARRIED OUT BY THE CURRENT MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS, BUT NEVERTHLESS, IN ITS JUDGEMENT, THE ROYAL COURT RECORDED THAT ALTHOUGH IT WAS NOT ABLE TO RULE ON THE ORIGINAL SUSPENSION IT FELT CONSTRAINED TO RECORD ITS SERIOUS CONCERN AT THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED IN THAT ACTION.

10. THE APPLICATION TODAY IS INTENDED TO ASSIST IN A FUTHER EXPLORATION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE FIRST SUSPENSION, AND IN PARTICULAR THE VALIDITY OF THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS. THE APPLICATION IS PART OF A CHALLENGE TO THE ACCOUNT OF EVENTS WHICH HAS BEEN PUT FORWAD BY SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS AND MINISTERS, ALL OF WHICH, IN DIFFERENT WAYS, SEEK TO MAINTAIN THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS VIEWED FIRST AND THE DECISION TAKEN AFTERWARDS. THAT OF COURSE WOULD BE VERY DIFFERENT FROM A PROCESS IN WHICH THE DECISION WAS TAKEN FIRST AND EVIDENCE SUBSEQUENTLY ASSEMBLED TO JUSTIFY WHAT HAD ALREADY BEEN DECIDED.

11. THE CHALLENGE MADE TODAY IS AN IMPORTANT ONE. IF IT TRANSPIRES THAT MYSELF AND OTHERS HAVE BEEN MISLED AS TO WHAT REALLY OCCURRED, THEN WE HAVE A LEGITIMATE CAUSE FOR COMPLAINT, WHICH WE MAY WISH TO PURSUE BY THE APPROPRIATE MEANS. SUCH A REVELATION WOULD ALSO HAVE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CRIDIBILITY OF KEY WITNESSES IN ANY DISCIPLINARY ACTION WHICH MAY BE ATTEMPTED. IF WITNESSES ARE WILLING TO LIE ABOUT ONE THING, THEN THEY MAY BE EQUALLY WILLING TO LIE ABOUT ANOTHER, AND THEIR CRIDIBILITY IS UNDERMINED. FINALLY ON THIS ISSUE, BUT CERTAINLY NOT LEAST, THERE IS THE QUESTION OF THE INTEGRITY OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE DEGREE OF TRUST WE CAN PLACE IN THE STATEMENTS MADE, AND ASSURANCES GIVEN, BY THOSE IN EXECUTIVE POSITIONS.

12. MR CHAIRMAN, I HAVE, IN MY ARGUMENT TO THE BOARD, GIVEN REASONS WHY THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF EVENTS DOES NOT SEEM TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE KNOWN FACTS, AND WHY IT IS REASONABLE TO SUSPECT THAT THE KEY EVENTS TOOK PLACE IN A SEQUENCE WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT CLAIMED. THAT IS, IT APPEARS POSSIBLE THAT THE DECSION TO SUSPEND WAS TAKEN BEFORE 11TH NOVEMBER 2008, FOR REASONS AT PRESENT UNKNOWN, AND THAT THE REPORTS AND PRESENTATION ON THE 11TH WERE PUT TOGETHER TO JUSTIFY A DECISION WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN TAKEN, AND TO SUPPORT A FALSE ACCOUNT OF THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS.

13. IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT, SINCE THE VERY BEGINNING OF THIS ISSUE, I HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN A SERIES OF PROCESSES TO DISCOVER THE ANSWER TO A SIMPLE QUESTION, NAMELY, WHEN WERE THE THREE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS ALL DATED 12TH NOVEMBER 2008 ACTUALLY CREATED? WHAT DOES THE TECHNICAL EVIDENCE, HELD BY THE RELEVANT STATES DEPARTMENT, SAY ABOUT THE TIME AND DATE OF THEIR CREATION. IT IS A SIMPLE AND UNCOMPLICATED QUESTION, YET IT IS ONE WHICH HAS BEEN PERSISTENTLY AND SYSTEMACTICALLY REFUSED BY A VARIETY OF MEANS OVER A PERIOD OF TEN MONTHS AND HAS STILL NOT BEEN ANSWERED. THAT MR CHAIRMAN AND BOARD MEMBERS IS WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY.

14. FROM THE PAPERWORK PROVIDED THE BOARD WILL BE AWARE THAT THE FIRST WRITTEN REQUEST FOR THIS INFORMATION WAS MADE ON 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 AND THAT THIS SAME REQUEST HAS BEEN REPEATED IN A VARIETY OF WAYS SINCE THAT DATE. THE CHIEF MINISTER, AND THOSE ACTING ON HIS BEHALF, HAVE PERSISTENTLY REFUSED TO ANSWER WHAT IS BY ANY STANDARD A SIMPLE QUESTION. IT IS IN CONSEQUENCE OF THAT REFUSAL THAT I HAVE EXERCISED MY RIGHT OF COMPLAINT UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS REVIEW LAW.

15. IF I MAY I NOW TURN TO WHAT I UNDERSTAND TO BE THE REASONS WHICH MAY BE OFFERED AS JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CHIEF MINISTERS REFUSAL TO MEET THE REQUEST.

16. I SEE FROM THE SUBMISSION OF THE CHIEF MINISTER AT PARAGRAPH 29 AND ELSEWHERE THAT IT WILL BE SAID THAT THE INFORMATION DOES NOT EXIST, IN THAT THERE IS NO STATEMENT OR OTHER DOCUMENT IN EXISTENCE WHICH SETS OUT THE DATES ON WHICH THE THREE LETTERS WERE CREATED.

17. YOU WILL SEE FROM MY OWN SUBMISSION THAT I HAVE ANTICIPATED THIS ARGUMENT AND SET OUT SOME REASONS WHY I THINK THAT IT IS INVALID. FIRSTLY, THE CODE REFERS TO “INFORMATION” AND YOU WILL SEE THAT I HAVE ARGUED THAT THIS PLAINLY APPLIES TO DATA HELD ON A COMPUTER, WHETHER THAT DATA HAS BEEN RETRIEVED OR NOT, AND THAT I SUPPORT THIS VIEW WITH AN EXTRACT FROM COLLINS DICTIONARY AT TAB 15, WHICH CLEARLY INCLUDES COMPUTER DATA WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE WORD “INFORMATION.” (REFER TO DOCUMENT.) INDEED, I SUGGEST THAT IF THE OPPOSITE VIEW WAS TAKEN THEN, IN THE MODERN AGE, THAT WOULD EFFECTIVELY MEAN THAT MUCH OF THE INFORMATION HELD BY GOVERNMENT WAS OUTSIDE OF THE RANGE OF THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION CODE, WHICH SURELY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE INTENTION OF THE STATES WHEN THE CODE WAS APPROVED.

18. SECONDLY, ON THIS PARTICULAR QUESTION, AND IRRESPECTIVE OF THE ISSUE OF THE MODERN MEANING OF THE TERM DATA, YOU WILL SEE THAT I HAVE ARGUED THAT, GIVEN THE PERIOD OF TIME DURING WHICH THIS INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUBJECT OF REPEATED APPLICATIONS, IT IS BEYOND BELIEF THAT AT NO TIME HAS ANYONE IN GOVERNMENT ASKED FOR A BRIEF OR REPORT, OR A DRAFT RESPONSE, ADDRESSING THE QUESTION OF WHAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE CONTAINED IN A RESPONSE TO MY REQUEST, SHOULD ONE BE PROVIDED. IT IS AGAINST THIS BACKGROUND THAT I NOTE, THAT THE CHIEF MINISTERS SUBMISSION ON THIS POINT, AT PARAGRAPH 29 AND ELSEWHERE, APPEARS TO BE ENTIRELY IN THE PRESENT TENSE. THAT IS HE SAYS THAT THERE IS NO DOCUMENT “IN EXISTENCE” WHICH GIVES THE INFORMATION. IT MIGHT BE THAT THE EXCUSIVE USE OF THE PRESENT TENSE IN THIS MATTER IS COINCIDENTAL. NEVERTHLESS IT IS NOT SO FAR CLAIMED BY THE CHIEF MINISTER THAT SUCH A BRIEF OR DOCUMENT HAS NEVER EXISTED DURING THE PERIOD OF THE APPLICATION. IT IS SIMPLY CLAIMED THAT IT DOES NOT EXIST NOW. I AM SURE THAT I CANNOT BE THE ONLY PERSON WHO FEELS TEMPTED TO ASK WHETHER, DURING THE PERIOD PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE CHIEF MINISTERS SUBMISSION THERE HAS BEEN ANY SUCH DOCUMENT IN EXISTENCE WHICH, FOR WHATEVER REASON NOW NO LONGER EXISTS. PERHAPS THE CHIEF MINISTER WILL SHORTLY TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE REASSURANCE ON THAT POINT.

19. I NOW TURN TO WHAT IS UNDERSTOOD TO BE THE SECOND OF THE CHIEF MINISTERS GROUNDS FOR RESISTING THE APPLICATION, THAT IS, THAT TO DO SO WOULD BREACH LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEDGE. PERHAPS IT WOULD HELP AT THIS STAGE IF I WERE TO MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT I AM NOT ASKING FOR IN THIS MATTER. WHAT I AM NOT ASKING FOR IS ACCESS TO ANY LEGAL ADVICE WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN GIVEN OR RECEIVED. IF THE FORMER MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS, AS IT NOW APPEARS THAT HE DID, TOOK LEGAL ADVICE BEFORE TAKING ACTION, THEN I DO NOT WANT TO SEE THAT ADVICE. I AM, TO PUT IT PLAINLY, NOT INTERESTED IN THE ADVICE THAT THE FORMER MINISTER ASKED FOR OR RECEIVED, I AM INTERESTED IN WHAT HE DID AND WHEN HE DID IT.

20. ADVICE IS ADVICE, WE ALL GET ADVICE FROM TIME TO TIME, AND IF WE HAVE DECISION MAKING POWERS TO EXERCISE, WE CONSIDER THE ADVICE AND THEN WE TAKE OUR DECISIONS.

21. I BELEIVE THAT THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS OF THE MINISTER FALLS SQUARELY WITHIN THE CODE. INDEED TO HOLD OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT ON THE WORKINGS OF THE CODE ACROSS THE PUBLIC SECTOR. IF IT REALLY IS BEING SUGGESTED THAT IN ANY MATTER IN WHICH, AT SOME STAGE BACK IN THE HISTORY OF A POLICY OR A DECISION, LEGAL ADVICE WAS TAKEN, THAT THE TAKING OF THE LEGAL ADVICE PUTS SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS OUT OF PLAY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE CODE OF PRACTICE ON ACCESS TO INFORMATION, THEN AGAIN, THIS COULD EFFECTIVELY MEAN THAT MOST AREAS OF GOVERNMENT ACTIVITY WOULD FALL OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF THE CODE. MOST DECISIONS OF CONSEQUENCE ARE TAKEN FOLLOWING LEGAL ADVICE. IT SURELY CANNOT HAVE BEEN THE INTENTION OF THE STATES THAT THE FACT THAT LEGAL ADVICE HAD BEEN TAKEN AT SOME STAGE SHOULD BE A DISQUALIFYING FACTOR IN A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION.

22. FINALLY IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE TO MAKE MENTION OF THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATIONS, AS THIS HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE CHIEF MINISTER AS SOMETHING WHICH IS RELEVANT TO THE BOARDS DECISION ON THE ISSUE OF PROFESSIONAL LEGAL PRIVILEDGE.

23. THERE PLAINLY ARE PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATIONS AT WORK HERE, AND THE RECENT DISCLOSURE ON BEHALF OF THE CHIEF MINISTER, THAT IN TAKING HIS DECISIONS, THE FORMER MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS WAS THE RECIPIENT OF LEGAL ADVICE MAKES IT MORE SO. THIS I SUGGEST IS BECAUSE THE FACT THAT LEGAL ADVICE WAS ASKED FOR AND GIVEN, FURTHER UNDERMINES THE CREDIBILITY OF THE OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF EVENTS. THE FORMER MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS HAS CLAIMED THAT HE ACTED ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION WHICH WAS RECEIVED ON 11TH NOVEMBER 2008, INCLUDING A PRESENTATION WHICH TOOK PLACE IN THE EVENING, AND IN CONSEQUENCE IMPOSED THE SUSPENSION THE FOLLOWING MORNING. THIS TIMESCALE LACKED CREDIBILITY FROM THE BEGINNING, AND IF WE ARE NOW BEING TOLD THAT LEGAL ADVICE WAS SOUGHT AND OBTAINED DURING THIS SAME PERIOD, THEN WE ARE ALL ENTITLED TO WONDER WHETHER THIS COULD REALISTICALLY BE POSSIBLE.

24. MR CHAIRMAN, IF MINISTERS, ASSISTED BY CIVIL SERVANTS, HAVE, FOR WHATEVER MOTIVE, PUT TOGETHER A FALSE ACCOUNT OF EVENTS, AND HAVE PRODUCED PAPERWORK AND MADE STATEMENTS TO SUPPORT THAT FALSE ACCOUNT, AND IF OTHERS HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BECOME AWARE OF WHAT HAS BEEN DONE, AND HAVE USED THEIR POSITION TO COVER UP THE TRUTH AND ATTEMPT TO PREVENT IT FROM BECOMING KNOWN, THEN THERE IS CERTAINLY AN ISSUE OF PUBLIC INTEREST.

25. MR CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, THE CODE ON ACCESS TO INFORMATION IS INTENDED TO ENABLE THE PUBLIC TO GAIN ACCESS TO THE TRUTH ABOUT THE ACTIONS OF GOVERMENT. THE CODE REQUIRES THAT ISSUES ARE APPROACHED WITH A PRESUMPTION OF OPENESS. GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL ARE STRICTLY DEFINED. THE POTENITAL FOR AN APPLICATION TO CAUSE MINISTERIAL EMBARASSMENT IS NOT ONE OF THE GROUNDS ON WHICH INFORMATION CAN BE REFUSED. I ASK THAT THE BOARD ALLOW THE APPLICATION AND THEREBY ALLOW THE CODE TO SERVE THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS INTENDED.

Taking aFENCE

The Story behind this interview with Deputy Le Herissier which is part of This one comes from a moment of inspiration, Let me explain.

I went to the “reform” meeting out at St Ouen which was chaired by Constables Juliet Gallichan, Ken Vibert and John Refault. I (mistakenly) believed, as it was a “public” meeting, there would be no objection to me filming it, how wrong I was.

Before the meeting started I began setting up my camera equipment. No sooner had I started and Constable Ken Vibert strutted over to me and exclaimed “I hope you don’t intend on filming this meeting”? To which I replied “yes I do as it goes, is there a problem with that”? After scratching around for any excuse he could find, including the public might not want to be filmed and I assured him if the public didn’t want to be filmed then I wouldn’t film them. Then he came out with an absolute peach! He said “yeah, well you just want to put it on your Blog with your opinion on it” and I replied “yes! That’s exactly what I want to do, that’s what a Blog is”!

Enter stage left Constable John Refault who said “Ken if you permit him to film, I’m going to walk out” To which I replied, “I’m not going to film the public and only point the camera at the stage and film the three constables” He then tried to tell me that he has “a right to privacy” so could refuse me permission to film him. Him being an elected member of the “public” at a “public” meeting to discuss “public” matters declared his right to privacy! This is the calibre of Constables we have “representing” us. One telling me I can’t film because I will have my own opinion and another one telling me he has “a right to privacy” at a “public” meeting that he’s co chairing!

I know people across the Channel and Atlantic are going to think I’m making this up but believe me I wouldn’t, more to the point I COULDN’T!

Back to the interview with Deputy Le Herissier. The good Deputy was at the said “reform meeting” as, I suppose, a member of the public. He got up and spoke and, not so much what he said, but how he said it truly inspired me. He was frustrated, passionate, perhaps even angry at the direction our government were heading, as in his words, it was in the direction of an ice berg and it was going to sink them and us.

He was critical of the way our government were, and are, dealing with the child abuse scandal, he was critical of the media campaign mounted by Mick Gradwell, and more than likely, the States communications unit which was (in my opinion Constable Vibert) an out and out assault on Lenny Harper which was backed up with no real evidence and was designed to discredit Lenny and his team so the States could put this “embarrassing” child abuse scandal to bed and go on expecting the public to believe in Tooth fairies.

With that (Deputy Le Herissier’s speech) I thought “great” here is a politician, and serial fence sitter, actually coming off the fence and just as importantly was as frustrated, passionate and angry as the rest of us. I was disappointed I was not able to get his speech on video.

I contacted the Deputy and asked him for an interview. Without probing me what I wanted to talk about or what questions I intended asking him, he agreed to the interview.

The Deputy has a nickname (he’s probably got a few) but in certain circles he is known (affectionately) as “the hedgehog”. So after his speech at St Ouen and agreeing to an interview I already had the title of the Blog set up, it was to be, “Hedgehog jumps off fence” but unfortunately during the time of the “reform meeting” and the interview he had, sadly, climbed back up again!

The fundamental point to this is, some of our States members arses are going to be chewing their Y fronts knowing that “the hedgehog”, the “serial fence sitter” is starting to “jump off” on occasions and talking about that horrible subject of Child Abuse.

Deputy Le Herissier (in my opinion) is one of the hardest working States members we have, he is always accessible and is one of the few members who votes with his conscience, which is more than I can say for any of my elected “representatives” in St. Clement.

In this video (in my opinion) the Deputy concedes Mick Gradwell has provided us with “words” and Lenny Harper has provided us with “evidence” even if he does jump straight back on the fence.

Lenny Harper has questioned the Deputy’s choice of phrase when he says it has turned into a “slagging match” between Lenny and Gradwell. My opinion is Lenny had no choice other than to defend the slurs against his character and professionalism made by Gradwell and backed it all up with “evidence”.

If Lenny should have any questions for Deputy Le Herissier I’m sure he will be only too pleased to answer them on here.

I would like to give a mention to Senator Stuart Syvret, Senator Alan Breckon, Deputy Roy Le Herissier and Deputy Debbie Da Sousa for having the COURAGE to attend the Jersey Care Leavers meeting yesterday, let’s hope you can encourage some of your colleagues to start “taking part”

Submitted by VFC.