A Witch Hunt.........In The Public Interest? (3)

With all the fancy footwork, Book-cooking or creative accounting akin to money laundering used by the Treasury Minister to appease Philip Bailhache, the State Media, in recent days, has reported on little else other than the acquisition of Plemont.

A subject covered very well by fellow Blogger Bob Hill where he raises the points, and asks the questions, an independent mainstream media would if we had one. Bob's three part series on the Plemont debacle can be viewed from HERE.

Of course this massive public interest, and newsworthy, story has been a convenient distraction from some of the other items of business being discussed (or not) in the Island's Parliament. Not least the oral question lodged by the Chairman of Jersey's latest Political Party (Reform Jersey) Deputy Sam Mezec.

Deputy Mezec's question (below) sought to make sense of conflicting messages being given out by the Viscounts Department and the discredited and disgraced ITV/CTV.

Regular readers will be aware that the Viscounts Department, in an unprecedented move, gave access, to the state Media, of former Deputies Shona, and Trevor, Pitman's financial affairs, following their being made en-desastres,  reportedly because it is "in the public interest."

Channel Television ITV/CTV who published/broadcast parts of this sensitive data claimed; 

"It is the first time that the Viscount's Department has had to deal with a bankruptcy case involving politicians. The department says it has released the information because it is 'in the public interest".

Indeed The Viscount Department told Mr. Pitman; "it takes the view that the media have a public-interest right to inspect the claims, given the high profiles of Mr. and Mrs Pitman" and mentioned NO caveats/restrictions on reporting the details of the claims. However after further explanations sought by Mr. and Mrs Pitman concerning the Viscount's unprecedented decision to give this information to the State Media, the Viscount then told the Pitman's that there WERE caveats attached to the decision in giving the information/data to the State Media.

According to the Viscount the media were given access to the list of claims subject to certain conditions and those conditions (according to the Viscount) included that the information;

Was provided confidentially, and off the record, to keep the media updated.

Was provided on the basis that it would not be broadcast.

Was clearly stated to be "not for re-publication."

But as we know CTV/ITV DID publish/broadcast the information and if, as the viscount claims, those caveats existed then they were ignored by CTV/ITV.

Naturally Mr and Mrs Pitman require some kind of explanation as to how their privacy could be so invaded and what options are open to the viscount to pursue CTV/ITV now that it appears to be in breach of the caveats allegedly set by the Viscount.

Deputy Sam Mezec, and others, attempted to get this clarity from the Solicitor General last Monday 30th June 2014 and, in true fashion, answers were not forthcoming. 

Questions need to be answered by ITV/CTV, the Viscounts Department, and the Law Offices Department as to how State Media can carry out a witch-hunt (in the public interest)? and not be held to account.

The Solicitor General needs to learn how to answer questions.

Part 1 of this series can be viewed HERE.

Part 2 of this series can be viewed HERE.