Wednesday, 2 March 2011

The P19 Eleven.

Here are the 11 politicians who voted against P19/2011


 Sen Phillip Ozouf
Sen Ian Le Marquand
 Deputy Ian Gorst
 Sen Terry Le Sueur
 Con Dan Murphy
 Dep Ann Pryke
 Dep Eddie Noel
 Sen Alan Maclean
 Deputy Angela Jeune
 Deputy Rob Duhamel
Con John Refault
Did they vote how you wanted them to?

40 comments:

  1. What have these 11 to hide why O why stop the truth coming out? are they involved who are they protecting others?

    ReplyDelete
  2. And let's not forget KEN VIBERT
    Who abstained
    Why?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Inaccurate reporting from Channel T V again

    "It is a huge U-turn for the States, who only decided last month not to go ahead with an investigation"

    WRONG

    It wasn't a States decision , it was a council of ministers decision and the report was handed out to States members ten minutes before our glorious leader read it out.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well done Neil and VFC, sparkling quick up date.

    There is some good news here. Have several States members realised and turned the corner, and are they facing the real world, at last.

    It could be that they realise that the electorate keeps them in as a politician and not another politician. The wording of the remit is very important.

    Is John Mills ( and panel) busy after their excellent report on the problems regarding Reg's Skips, and the planning departments fiasco. They are to good and Le Suer would not dare let them any where near this enquiry, but he obviously has lost most of his influence, so a vote could install them.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Not as we wanted, but not in the least unexpected.

    We will remember them.........

    ReplyDelete
  6. You have to give them credit. The ones that did vote for an inquiry technically only voted for another white wash. Sorry but I do not share the excitment of some people today, I think this will inquiry will be over in a month and the budget proves it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Not too many surprises here.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks for that VFC, and sorry about the 'BIG BANG' during the disgusting rantings and utter lies of Angela Jeune. That was me storming out and slamming the door as hard as I could.

    These pigs make me sick....

    ReplyDelete
  9. And these 11 do what for there pay?

    Three or four of them I have never even heard of. Maybe thats how they like it.

    Head down say nothing take the money.

    ReplyDelete
  10. How very strange. They voted for a COI yet voted out the 3 main parts of Deputy Hills amendment that is paramount to any COI. I cannot work out this Government.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous said...
    1 How have the Island's children's homes been run in recent decades?

    2 What procedures were in place to recruit staff and how was the performance of staff monitored? Should other steps have been taken to monitor performance?

    5. What processes were in place to assess the performance of the homes and what action was taken as a result of any problems being identified ?


    Will the COI be about the quality of the food with all the above missing. What is going on in that chamber of horrors? If Tadiers went through then why not the above. We are Governed by complete and utter buffoons of the highest order

    ReplyDelete
  12. Andy kate le sewer and a thousand others2 March 2011 at 16:48

    The farce troll said...

    "You have to give them credit. The ones that did vote for an inquiry technically only voted for another white wash. Sorry but I do not share the excitment of some people today, I think this will inquiry will be over in a month and the budget proves it"

    Must have really hurt you today. I can see it in your troll post here and on SS blog. Apart from you making me feel very sick let me explain.

    £500,000 comes from Hills amendment. Under standing orders you must put a figure so he chose that. Now bugger off you slime ball and jerk it on your own blog.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Can you explain in laymen’s terms exactly what was voted on today and what does it mean. Does it mean that a CoI can only consider the four points adopted or can other things be added? Sorry to sound stupid but I really do not understand what today was about except that I think an inquiry will now take place.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Here was me thinking States members were doing the right thing.

    Did they vote for COI knowing Deputy Hills ammendments would get knocked back. I guess so.

    What about impartiality amongst those with responsibility to make the decision on what is allowed in or out of this inquiry?

    ReplyDelete
  15. A show of an inquiry will take place.

    Mistakes were made. Every care will be taken to see this does not happen again. lessons have been learnt move on.

    Front page cover story in the JEP pat themselves on the back all done and dusted.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "And let's not forget KEN VIBERT
    Who abstained
    Why?"

    It was actually the Education Minister Deputy Reed that abstained.

    "Does it mean that a CoI can only consider the four points adopted or can other things be added? "

    Other things can be added, I believe the Council of Ministers now have to lodge a Report and Proposition with Terms of Reference to be debated, and voted on in the States.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Interesting to see Mike Jackson voted POUR. I emailed him, and stressed the nature of civic virtue, of politicians supporting their promises - and the dangers of not doing so in an election year!

    "Spud" Murphy (as I used to know him in the 1960s and 1970s, before he went upmarket and became "Dan" is not surprising.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Why did Deputy Reed of St Ouen abstain? Perhaps the ponytailed resident who collared him at the last parish assembly moved his mind a bit in the right direction

    ReplyDelete
  19. James Reed was dead against any Committee of Inquiry and even spoke against it, why he abstained is a mystery coz he voted against everything else, in Bob Hill's and Montfort Tadier's amendments.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I believe that Reed abstained because he didn't want to go against the CoM's but also to show the CoM's he was not for the Inquiry....

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hi VFC.

    just put the Audio up of Deputy Jeune Speach.

    You just couldn't make it up.

    Have a Listen Here

    ReplyDelete
  22. dear vfc
    i see tls played he,s get out of inquiry card on bbc jersey this morn ie if we have an inquiry gst tax,s will have to go up if we have a full inquiry the states will not vote for more tax,s so it will not be much of an inqiry or none at all why has none of the big news papers got on to this. there seem,s to be only one way left to deal with tls and hes fsl rope and drop come to mind martin

    ReplyDelete
  23. Martin.

    This is why it is essential that any Committee of Inquiry should have in its Terms of Reference the Role played by the "accredited" media.

    They have allowed so much mis-information to be peddled, and peddled it themselves that's without mentioning what they might have covered up.

    The truth about the funding for the COI is that the COCF CAN be used, the Tax payer wouldn't have to pay a penny. The treasury Minister and AG have said that a final decision will depend on its Terms of Reference.

    By the likes of the BBC allowing Terry Le Sueur to say the tax payers are going to have to foot the bill is at best shoddy "journalism". At worst it could be a deliberate scare tactic that will build resentment against the Abuse Survivors, that the BBC are happy to peddle.

    ReplyDelete
  24. dear vfc
    do you belive that the ag or ozouf are going to go with terms unless its what they want sorry just cant see this getting started i hope and pray im wrong martin

    ReplyDelete
  25. Martin.

    It will be the Council of Ministers that will draw up the TOR's they will then have to be voted on by the States.

    You can be sure they will do all they can to narrow the remit of the COI but it is open to other members to bring amendments to the proposition/TOR.

    The COCF, as I said earlier CAN be used and it will be up to ALL States members to ensure the right TOR's are put in place, not just Ozouf and the AG.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Listening to Deputy Jeunes speech she says ''Sir I thank the minister of health for raising the issues of the reach of a COI, but what that reach would be and my understanding from the Attorney General is it wont have the ability to ensure people outside of the Island can be made to turn up & give there contribution.''

    I think a similar statement was given with regard to a previous police chief and his deputy stating the AG sais we cannot enforce there attendance.

    Has it been decided allready who can and cannot submit or contribute?

    ReplyDelete
  27. TLS was a disgrace on the radio this morning. I couldnt believe my ears, he is meant to be an old man not a kid who has just pushed his toys out the pram. Yet, that is what his talk came accross as.

    Money is allways found when it suits him and his little followers so his toys out the pram rubbish just shows him up as a complete idiot. What must outsiders in power think when they hear him speak. It still makes me embarassed that he is meant to be a leader. He is a joke, and I suspect many of his minions know it as well.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hi VFC.

    Just put up some Audio from the COI Debate.

    You & your reader's can Listen Here

    ReplyDelete
  29. Still don't know why James Reed abstained?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Probably James Reed realised the vote was going to get passed by the House and felt conflicted. Depending on the final TOR's he could be forced to explain his protection of a certain Senior Civil Servant in his Department.

    ReplyDelete
  31. There also seems to be a bit of a misconception about the COI. Although Senator Le Gresley brought the proposition, it was Deputies Tadier and Hill, with their amendments that put the meat on the bones of Senator Le Gresley's Proposition.

    This was not a one man band as Senator Le Gresley is the first to agree, it was a team effort. Deputy Hill and Deputy Tadier deserve equal credit, again which Senator Le Gresley has given.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Le Gresley has so far proved to be a good replacement for Syvret.

    He has let it be known that he has always admired Syvret and so far, him taking up Syvret's place is not as dissappointing as it first seemed.

    ReplyDelete
  33. ANON SAID:

    "Le Gresley has so far proved to be a good replacement for Syvret.

    He has let it be known that he has always admired Syvret ......"

    This is delusional. Le Gresley was elected by the voters of Jersey precisely because he was not the Syvret. They wanted anyone but Syvret. I feel certain Le Gresely has said nothing “privately”. It would loose him votes with the anti-Syvret bloc to do so. There is no point his thinking the ex-Syvret voters will vote for him as the new Messiah.

    We need to end the era of right-wing populist politicians that has been the bane of politics in the island and misled the popular vote. So long as fools dream of liberation by the Messiah the Autocracy will continue to rule.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Hi VFC.

    Me again.I have just put up some more Audio from the Debate of Deputy Hill's Amendment, between Senator le Marquand & senator Le Gresley.

    I hope I am doing something toward's the truth coming out. They don't know when I'm recording.

    You can listen to what got said Here

    ReplyDelete
  35. Well...there are certain salient facts. We know that Dep Noel and TLS go back a very long way together (Eddie was Terry's gopher). We also know that Dep Pryke always votes the same way as TLS. ILM has a lot to lose on a public inquiry (over what he did as magistrate), and I rather suspect that Dep Gorst has the same. Ozouf is tied to TLS. That's six of them we can account for: the other five I can only guess really do have things to hide.

    ReplyDelete