Friday, 18 August 2017

PPC Lodges vote of Censure against Deputy Andrew Lewis.


Deputy Andrew Lewis


The Privileges and Procedures Committee (PPC) has lodged a PROPOSITION today asking the island's parliament to censure Deputy Andrew Lewis after he was found to have lied, by the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (IJCI), to the Inquiry itself and to the States Assembly. PPC has also found that the Deputy breached States Members code of conduct "by failing to maintain the integrity of the States." 

VFC e-mailed the PPC Panel Members (who sat on the case) this morning at 08:16 asking them for an interview regarding PPC's proposition. Little more than thirty minutes later Deputy Simon Bree replied to the e-mail and agreed to an interview. At the time of publication none of the other PPC Members have acknowledged the e-mail.

Deputy Bree makes it quite clear that he is NOT speaking for PPC (in the interview) but is speaking in a personal capacity which is something we would like to reiterate here.

The video/interview below, we hope, should speak for itself and inform readers of the decision making process, what happens next, and much more.

Deputy Scott Wickenden

Team Voice would like to thank Deputy Bree for agreeing to an interview (he is a supporter of our Blogsite) and answering the questions as best he could. Although I'm not sure if the question was answered as to whether Deputy Scott Wickenden or Constable Chris Taylor (PPC Members) agree with the Independent Care Inquiry that Deputy Lewis told lies. May be the question was answered and I didn't understand it? I've tried asking Deputy Wickenden (on Facebook) to confirm with a "yes" or "no" as to whether he agrees with the IJCI, concerning Andrew Lewis' lies, but as with the e-mail I sent this morning he has NOT answered, or acknowledged, the question.

I have also requested an official comment from Deputy Andrew Lewis with regard to the vote of censure lodged against him by PPC. I have also asked him for an interview (as I have on many occasions) but have not yet received a reply/acknowledgement. Deputy Lewis has recently intimated to VFC that an interview ISN'T out of the question and is considering the possibility.

We should also point out (despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary) that Deputy Lewis denies lying to the IJCI and the States.

Should it turn out that ANY of the PPC Members (who sat on the Andrew Lewis hearing) disagree with the IJCI findings in that Andrew Lewis lied to the States and the IJCI then a complaint against PPC for being as guilty as him will be getting submitted..................................




282 comments:

  1. A very interesting interview, on both sides.

    Just in relation to people who were criticised not being allowed to see a the draft of the report in advance, or at least the criticism of them in it, it is worth remembering that in the Jersey context there was a fear that the establishment, or those likely to be criticised in the report, would either then attempt to influence the content of the report or to stall its publication for as long as possible.

    My understanding of the Inquiry's intention, that a draft would not be shown and that the report would not, therefore, be capable of being influenced/delayed in that way, was to ensure its independence from the political process in Jersey and that this would be seen to be so.

    I haven't yet read the report with the proposition so perhaps I am missing something here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NOTE TO READERS TO AVOID MISSING COMMENTS:
      If this blog posting stays current for much longer, the number of comments will exceed 200.

      When it passes 200, readers will only see those first 200 comments unless on arrival/refresh they click on the little bit of text saying "Load more..." right at the end of the comments thread.

      NB. later replies, even to the first 200 comments will NOT BE DISPLAYED until AFTER that *Load more* link is clicked.

      Readers who wish to read the whole thread without omissions need to click "Load more..." right at the bottom, and then read from the beginning.

      Delete
  2. Ordinary people who commit perjury (a lie under oath) , can expect a prison sentence of 3 months, more if serious https://www.jerseylaw.je/judgments/unreported/PDFs/[1985]116.pdf Id say the Leewsi case is hardly run of the mill. a sentence of 6 months would mean explusion from the States and a by-election. Oh and if you are convicted of perjury, here or elsewhere, you are automatically debarred from being an officer of any company registered in Jersey conducting financial business.

    S.O.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am getting sick to the death of this fcukin bullshit - Andrew Lewis quotes source: Bailiwick Express

    quote "It is also disappointing that this deflects so much from the important content of the Care Inquiry report, which is fundamentally about abuse in our care system. That’s where the focus should be," he added.


    THE FOCUS IS ON YOU YOU FCUKIN LIAR - THE REASON WHY THOSE VICTIMS NEVER GOT JUSTICE IN THIS ISLAND, AND ABUSERS DID WHAT THEY DID AND DO WHAT THEY DO, IS BECAUSE OF SELF SERVING FCUKS LIKE YOU DEPUTY LEWIS WHO WILL CONTINUOUSLY DO THEIR HARDEST TO COVER UP THE COVER UP.

    How the fcuk that this scumbag Lewis can sit there and keep spewing this bullshit angers me - he does it because the real problem behind the failings in care for children comes from the top - the people who are defending his lies , the people who he lied for on their behalf.

    I'm also getting getting sick to death of this bullshit about the problem being our solely in our social services- WHY CANT ANYONE JUST TELL THE FCUKIN TRUTH IN THIS ISLAND !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The truth is that this is not "deflecting so much from the important content of the Care Inquiry report, which is fundamentally about abuse in our care system. That’s where the focus should be,"

      The abuse, and the Care Inquiry's report IS still being discussed and it is he who is using the Victims/Survivors of abuse to deflect the story away from him. Which is another example of how low he will stoop. (IMO)

      What has Deputy Lewis ever done to bring attention ON to Victims/Survivors? What questions has he submitted to the States on their behalf? How has he ever attempted to champion the cause for Victims/Survivors?

      Delete
    2. A good question VFC, and one which can be answered in one word - NOTHING - absolutely nothing. Showing false concerns now and at the Inquiry about the victims really does show him in his true colours.

      He was instrumental in the illegal ( and I refuse to put allegedly) suspension of an honourable police chief and destroy his reputation in one fell swoop. The victims/survivors had great trust and faith in Messrs Power and Harper, and when they had gone, so did all the trust go.

      Lewis's interest is his own self survival, nothing more, nothing less. How dare he use the suffering of others to justify his own malfaesences? Yes VFC he could not stoop any lower.

      Delete
    3. Comment at 18:24 Maybe it would be good to remember that most of those trying to defend the indefensable were educated? at the 'pile' at the top of Mont Millais....must defend the reputation at all costs what. "Teachers perks" was the term used I seem to remember. The whole lot of them should be deep sixed.

      Delete
    4. "Lewis's interest is his own self survival, nothing more, nothing less." with respect Gillian it is not. Its much deeper than that as Stuart, I and others continue to say. Its about defending a group of corrupted, egotistical, cheating, thieving, bar stewards, who run this Island for their own personal gain. Lewis is bit player, the joker in the bottom layer of this house of cards. If he goes the whole lot will be unstable and may come tumbling down.

      JRCBean

      Delete
  4. It was an independent committee of inquiry So it is irrevelant that members of PPC took the side of Andrew Lewis in feeling the committee owed some sort of explanation to their findings. If Andrew Lewis's lies leave him trying to justify himself its obvious he would come up with some gumf What is not obvious is why PPC went along with him.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Andrew Lewis has no alternative than to try to persuade others his lie was not a lie. The States members do have an alternative but appear to be playing along with him. The Jersey Way

    ReplyDelete
  6. PPC can not , officially , determine if he committed perjury or not i.e that he lied . Members may have their own belief aswell as the care inquiry , however they are not a court of law and even if he was prosecuted he would be acquitted anyway as there is enough reasonable doubt - not motive can be proved .

    Lewis did what he did because the people who he lied for - Bailhache and his mateys in the AG's office , were always going to protect him - he gets a vote of censure ..so what ! This will always carry on with states members and civil servants because the ruling mafia have their back.

    The Jersey Way will continue until the people can actually prove , without any reasonable doubt , criminal intent of Ministers , civil servants, or any of the usual mafioso faces .

    How is that ever going to be done when they run the fcukin police and States Chamber ! All this stuff with Lewis is not new . Self serving States members lie everyday and they do so because they know the whole show is a charade , a racket , a game of musical chairs !

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well done Deputy Bree for speaking to you.

    But can I ask why someone as useless as Deputy Wickenden has been allowed to sit on PPC?

    He shouldn't even be in the States given that he could not get the required ten nominators at the election.

    Doubt he will talk to you either. Being under the blog spotlight must be his second biggest fear after Trevor Pitman coming back to re-claim his seat.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Great interview. I have been very impressed by Deputy Simon Bree in this, his first term of office.

    He is Chief Minister material. The Chief Minister this island should have.

    Not a single, uhm, ahh, erm or uhhmm. A straight-talking, confident man who knows his own mind and who puts fairness at front and centre.

    He's frankly a person I could listen to all day long. It is very, very rare that you can say that about a politician.

    People of St Clement - you are lucky to have him as your deputy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A stark contrast to Wally Wickenden for sure and a great im[rovement on former Deputy Ann Dupre. Need another one like him to oust the rubbish and uncaring Suzi Pinel. Reform ought to ask to join though I doubt Mezec's ego could handle that. Maybe Bree will stand for Senator?

      Delete
  9. Can't everyone see this is an Establishment set-up by Lewis' mates? So he faces and loses a vote of censure. Then his supporters will say well, he has been punished for his lies. Now we must move on. Then Walker, Bailhache and Crowcroft and Co get right behind him at the election. Jersey is finished. Truth, honesty and justice simply cannot win.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I see Liz MacKean - former Savile exposure "hero" - but more latterly, very expensive spin-doctor to what passed for a "public-inquiry" in the Crown tax-haven of Jersey - has suddenly and unexpectedly died. Of a "stroke", apparently.

    Something similar happened to the original chair of the Jersey public-inquiry.

    What a most curious end - to an otherwise good career. Who knows what MacKean's motives were for getting involved with Jersey - and what she was working on?

    Stuart Syvret.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stuart, what are you planning to do next?

      Delete
    2. Hopefully forget trying to save corrupt Jersey and get on with deservedly enjoying the rest of his life.

      Like Trevor and Shona Stuart deserves that. They all gave of themselves hugely for our grubby island and should now leave us to stew in our own Jersey Way juice.

      Delete
    3. Stuart your comment is interesting more for what it doesn't say than what it does.

      JRCbean

      Delete
    4. As someone said leave those who have been screwed for standing up against the establishment alone. Time some of our other politicians stepped up to the Syvret/Pitmans plate.

      Delete
    5. Stuart, who was the original proposed chair of the Jersey inquiry please?

      Delete
    6. "An inquiry into historical abuse in Jersey will be delayed after its newly-appointed chairman suffered a stroke."
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-23434942

      The original chairwoman was to be UK judge Sally Bradley QC.
      She had a stroke on (or just before) 24 July 2013

      And died 27th January 2014:
      Sally ELLIOTT (Of Burnt Yates). Harrogate. Sally (aka Sally Bradley QC), died peacefully in hospital following a period of illness on 27th January, aged 58 years, irreplaceable and devoted wife of Eric and proud mum of Arabella and Nicholas.

      Delete
  11. The vote of censure in respect of Lewis is to take place on 12th September as the first item on the States agenda starting at 9.30am. It will help States Members to focus on the real issues if the Public Gallery is as full as possible. We, the public, must make States Members aware of how we feel by being present during the debate.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It is a shame that Andrew Lewis can't do something really worthwhile for Jersey such as his St, Helier No.3/4 colleague Deputy Higgins does every year with the brilliant Air Display. Always a great day out and brings in plenty of cash to the economy and charities. A top man is Higgins.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Deputy Higgins is a waste of space . He wasted my time with a problem i was having with the Police . We both agreed that i had been treated unlawfully with paperwork from my lawyer saying so , but he would never get back to me . He wasted 6 months of my life thinking he was going to help me with what he could do as a States Member.

      Delete
    2. Indeed, your mileage does tend to vary with all States Members, including those that appear to be champions of those wronged. Surprising, really, as they would likely become stronger as more and more cases of substantive injustice are recorded in the States Chamber.

      Delete
  13. Hopefully the public gallery will be packed. Nice if Graham Power could be persuaded to come and sit there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That option should not be ruled out..........................

      Delete
  14. Andrew Lewis will have to live with his lie and his suspension of Graham Power at the time great strides and trust had been gained by victims in the police investigation under Graham Power. He had the chance to say no do your own dirty work to those leaning on him at that time It was his actions and suspension of Graham Power based on his lie.

    No amount of JEP column inches or highly paid spin using terms such as report instead of letter nor protestations by Andrew Lewis's surprised faux concern that the COI had not provided the justification for its findings will alter or detract from the actual report from the COI who did find and report he lied. Andrew Lewis is now left trying to convince the public the COI got it wrong or have failed in some way by finding as they did and its a mistake by them not him.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The JEP/RAG had a public pole on whether Andrew Lewis should resign. It started off with 100% saying yes then went down to 76% saying yes. Anyone know how it ended up? Or was it stopped?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Published HERE. Showing more than 1,000 votes with 77% voting that he should resign.

      Delete
    2. If he reaches 1,126 then its as many who took an interest in him in the 2014 Elections.

      Delete

  16. I try and remain positive but Jersey States fails yet again. Without proper manager accountability at the for front of any government department you get problems like golf jollies, lack of responsibility, pass the buck, lack of professionalism, awful waste of the tax payers money and even worse.

    JEP.

    The Royal Court heard yesterday that the 83-year-old woman hit her head on the ground after falling out of a bath hoist at Rosewood House at St Saviour’s Hospital while she was being helped by two nurses. She suffered serious injuries and died four days later.

    It was heard that there had been a ‘catalogue of failings’, including that the nurses had failed to use the seatbelt on the hoist and that neither had received training on how to use the equipment.

    Deputy Bailiff Tim Le Cocq said that the woman’s death was wholly ‘avoidable’ and that there were ‘failings at all levels’ within the States that contributed to the tragedy.

    http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2017/08/19/50000-fine-for-states-in-case-of-avoidable-death/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The event of this ladies tragic demise was bad enough but once again there appears to be no accountability for those resposible, at least not publically. But where has the £50,000 fine gone? hopefully to the ladies next of kin? but more than likely into the Law Officers ever bulging pot.

      Delete
    2. You'll notice that, by and large, the Health and Safety enforcement department only tends to get involved when there does not appear to be scope for a sizeable monetary claim being brought against the States of Jersey, and when it suits the establishment to be able to say that "lessons have been learned". In all other situations, the Law Officers' role is to reject the allegations and play games to avoid liability (or improvement in the behaviour of civil servants with respect to the execution of their duties and powers).

      Delete

  17. The UK laws regarding a politician that lies or missleads Government is expected to resign.

    Jesey States in 2005 passed a law allowing for Jersey politicians to lie to Government without having to resign or apologies. Why id the Queens representative not objecting and further more protecting the Queens citizens from these cheap antics.

    The misleading of parliament is the knowing presentation of false information to parliament, a very serious charge in Westminster-style parliamentary assemblies.[1][2] Government ministers that are found to have misled parliament will generally lose their ministerial portfolio.

    By convention, a minister found to have misled parliament is expected to resign or face being sacked.[citation needed] The Scottish Government ministerial code requires ministers to resign if they mislead Parliament.[3][4] For witnesses giving testimony to an Australian parliamentary committee, giving misleading evidence can be considered a contempt of parliament.[5]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_of_parliament

    ReplyDelete
  18. The censure motion is certainly nowhere near strong enough for Andrew Lewis' appalling bahaviour toward an excellent police chif who was trying to do a job none of his predecessors were willing to confront.

    I also think the idea of getting the former police chief whose career Lewis helped ruin to sit in the public gallery is a great one.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Can we at least stick to the truthful facts.
    Deputy Andrew Lewis is not responsibly for ruining Graham Power's career.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You should likely direct that comment about truthful facts to your hero Andrew Lewis. Doubt he would know the truth if it grew teeth and nipped him on the gonads.

      As for not being responsible for ruining Mr Power's career you could hardly claim that suspending someone on the back of claims of reading a report that you hadn't actually seen, was not meant for any disciplinary action and was, most crucially, not even damning any way (as verified by the Met itself) would help their career would you?

      Or are you Andy Integrity Himself?

      Delete
  20. For those of you arguing that there should be a law which allows an elected member of the states to be removed, all I can say is be careful what you wish for.

    Would you really have confidence that in a corrupt little island like Jersey, such a law wouldn't be used to eject an anti-establishment states member?

    It's surely a basic principle of a representative democracy that the only people who should be able to remove an elected member are the electorate?

    Andrew Lewis cannot be lawfully ejected from the states, and in my view, nor should he. What should happen, however, is that he should be subject of a criminal investigation for possible misconduct in a public office.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree with all of that, and in particular, that Andrew Lewis should face a criminal investigation for alleged misconduct in a public office. I hope to soon get an update from former Chief Police Officer Graham Power on the CRIMINAL COMPLAINT he has asked Chief Minister Ian Gorst to look into.

      Delete
    2. If Andrew Lewis stated that the reason he suspended the Chief of Police is because of what he had read in the MET Interim Report and he did not read or see the met report why did Andrew Lewis suspend Graham Power was he promoted to the position for the purpose of the action he took? Who promoted Andrew Lewis on 29th May 2008 was it Ian Le Marquand?

      Delete
  21. Andrew Lewis has come up with another version of his story which equally holds no weight and is destroyed by his own words to the Care Inquiry. By trying to defend himself he has pretty much hung himself. Readers should take a look at Rico Sorda's latest Blog Posting HERE.

    ReplyDelete
  22. from my perspective Graham Power ended his career as an "honest cop" Total respect to the man.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Daft question if I could:

    From from I can work out it became clear quite clear soon after the suspension / debate that the Met report did not criticise Power and therefore the so-called Met Interim report was clearly a 'tissue of lies'.

    How was DCO Warcup then allowed to be promoted and managed to carry on heading the States of Jersey Police for a further two years when in reality he should had been immediately charged with gross misconduct / perverting the course of justice?

    Furthermore if I was Lewis I would have been furious at the whole sorry mess when it became clear in reality I was 'set-up' and was forced to make a very controversial executive decision force based on what were clearly miss-truths / lies. That anger would be compounded by the actions of the Bailhache brothers and Frank Walker who just stood back and watched.

    Lewis - your actions / statements do not correspond with what a 'reasonable person' would do if faced with a similar situation. JUST GO - NOW.

    PS Has Stuart been advised yet that the super injunction and the threat of bankruptcy has been lifted? Jersey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Lewis - your actions / statements do not correspond with what a 'reasonable person' would do if faced with a similar situation."

      You've hit the nail on the head. Warcup knew the MET interim report (which the Care Inquiry found he exaggerated) was not to be used for disciplinary purposes yet he presented it to Lewis in order to back up his (Warcup's) allegations against Graham Power.

      Andrew Lewis should be shouting from the roof-tops how he was misled by Warcup and others. Yet he remains silent. Worse than that, he hails Warcup a "whistleblower" in his latest new found story of events.

      This stuff is beyond parody.

      Delete
    2. With Lewis' latest version of "God's honest truth" I can't help thinking that he is being played for a fool by whoever is advising him.

      Lewis lid and misled Parliament - that was obvious to anyone with an IQ over 70,
      even before it was somehow made "official" by a £25m Public Inquiry.

      Lewis' multiple versions of the "truth" make him look like, not just a liar but a pathological liar.

      This plays into the hands of those who he is shielding because it makes him a larger and larger receptacle to pour blame into. Blame which is ultimately theirs.

      Do they have real dirt on Lewis to make him dance to their tune, or is he just that weak and dim?

      Delete
    3. No - he is a Freemason, but probably weak and dim as well! Masonry is a blight on society hiding behind a wall of charitable respectability.

      The 'Brotherhood' which is probably more dangerous in the Island because of The Jersey Way.

      Delete
  24. You can hardly see Lewis dobbing anyone in (The Jersey Way fear factor etc) i feel he is now in power holding all the cards if he can bluff his way through this then the pressure is off. A golden handshake Payoff for Lewis may be on the cards.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dear Mr Voice.

    Do you or your team know which States Member bravely leaked the now infamous In Camera debate? I have heard a number of names but They deserve a medal whoever they are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He or she won't be getting it from poor old Andy Lewis, chuckle, chuckle.

      Delete
  26. I see on another forum that the question is being asked,"Is Andrew Lewis telling the truth ,that sometime before the 21st October 2008 he DID actually read the Met Interim Report ,which prompted the Kinnard meeting ? All other actions since have been ass covering to prevent the whistleblower and he being in even deeper poo?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Deep poo because he was not cleared and authorized to view it and he would have known that, and Warcup would be in similar deep poo because he should not have shared it for same reasons. Plausible. Some one needs to ask this question of him in a formal setting (the States if possible) although of course it seems he can still lie there without any fear

      Delete
    2. Just thinking about this some more, "the do not go there minister" comment could mean the baliff had read the exact same report. Again against all the rules and leaving the baliff also in the poo if this is correct. No doubt if this is the case then also Frank Walker and Bill Ogley would most likely then have seen it. Now at last I can see a trail of events that makes perfect but corrupt sense.

      JRCbean

      Delete
  27. http://planetjersey.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=554.msg61503#msg61503

    With thanks to "boatyboy":

    How do you send out signals of desperation to save your £330,000 a year wage packet, your title of first Citizen and that large expense account ?You write a letter to the Chief Minister  agreeing with your brother and ex Bailiff Phil. Bailhache ( whom did not want a child abuse enquiry and spoke against ) that the care enquiry are wrong and so is Napier et al. The rolls of chief judge and speaker in the house are politically neutral and should remain.

    To every thinking politician, I would suggest Bailhache the bailiff, has just lost the debate ( that he should not be taking part in ) and for those in the assembly it is clear that the rolls should be split.

    Bailiwick Express.

    But, in a letter to Senator Ian Gorst and the Council of Ministers, excerpts of which are included in a proposition which is expected to be lodged by the Privileges and Procedures Committee later today, the Bailiff explains why he believes it would be a bad idea to split his job in two.

    He describes the inquiry’s recommendation 7 as ‘illogical and unnecessary’. And concludes by writing: “I should be grateful for your assurance that you will not take the line that the Care Enquiry’s Recommendation 7 is a reason for supporting the proposition of Deputy Tadier, or indeed for re-visiting the issue of the Bailiff’s role generally.”

    One of the committee’s members, Deputy Sam Mezec, says the Bailiff’s intervention is totally unwarranted and goes to underline why the role should be split. He claims it shows that despite the Bailiff claiming to be apolitical, he is playing an active role in politics.

    Deputy Mézec says: “The Speaker of a Parliament is meant to be politically impartial and it is totally inappropriate for an unelected judge to attempt to influence how an elected Chief Minister argues for the implementation of his political policies. The Chief Minister is perfectly entitled to choose to act upon the recommendations of a £23m inquiry, and it is not the place of a Speaker to try to influence him one way or another.

    https://www.bailiwickexpress.com/jsy/news/bailiff-criticised-undermining-findings-abuse-inquiry/#.WZqiEkvGPLQ

    ReplyDelete
  28. Forgot to update readers. In this posting I wrote:

    "I have also requested an official comment from Deputy Andrew Lewis with regard to the vote of censure lodged against him by PPC. I have also asked him for an interview (as I have on many occasions) but have not yet received a reply/acknowledgement. Deputy Lewis has recently intimated to VFC that an interview ISN'T out of the question and is considering the possibility."

    The Deputy did respond:

    "Thank you for your invitation but I would not wish to participate in your proposed online interview.
    Regards

    Deputy Andrew Lewis

    Chairman Public Accounts Committee"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wear that as a badge of honour VFC. Clearly he does not want to get caught out yet again.

      On a similar vein, I must say how very impressed I was with Deputy Bree's interview. He came across as honest, fair and also answered all questions unhesitatingly, albeit with a wry smile sometimes.

      A good man - St. Clements are lucky to have him.

      Delete
    2. Lewis wouldn't give you an interview in a year of Sundays.

      Delete
  29. Replies
    1. Nothing but grandstanding and procrastination from Constable Taylor.

      The Committee he sits on (PPC) found that Deputy Andrew Lewis breached Members Code of Conduct. PPC agrees with the findings of the Care Inquiry who found that Deputy Andrew Lewis lied to the States and to the Inquiry itself. Two other (now former) PAC Members have resigned as they have reportedly lost confidence in Deputy Lewis as Chair.

      Constable Chris Taylor wants "to see what happens" at a vote of Censure before (if) he resigns from PAC?

      It's a phrase possibly too often used but you really couldn't make this stuff up.

      Delete
    2. I think Chris Taylor is able to say he will resign depending on the vote of Censure knowing the nodding heads will support the establishment

      Delete
    3. What makes it even weirder is that if Deputy Lewis resigns from PAC, the whole committee falls. So, either way Chris Taylor will have to leave PAC. So he may as well just do it now.

      Delete
  30. Well this gets weirder by the day, Now we have the current Bailiff William Bailache sending a letter to CM Ian Gorst (So NO political influence there then according to former Bailiff Philip Bailache,he who turns off elected members microphones)
    What those out side of this Island might like to know is that the Bailiff has the power to 'decide' what questions an ELECTED member of the States can ask!!! so once again we can clearly see that the Bailiff has NO political power....why are you all laughing? Stop it right now or I will have a Supper Injunction slapped on you courtesy of Data Protection. Seriously this Monty Python nonsense has got to stop before this Island goes belly up.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Yep, desperation from Bailiff William Bailhache. On overtly political act on his part. He says:

    "Neither the Deputy Bailiff nor I will preside over the debate on Deputy Tadier's proposition, and it follows that no conflict of interest arises by my making the comments which I am about to make."

    Erm, so I'll just go and write this overtly political letter....

    What planet is this dude on?

    http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/assemblypropositions/2017/p.62-2017com.pdf

    Memo to Mr Bailhache...you are unelected. It is ELECTED members who get to make decisions around here nowadays. The world has moved on, and obviously not taken you with it. Roll on the debate.

    You can almost feel him failing to come to terms with the fact that an 800 year old iron grip on power is over. Finished. terminated. Kaputt.

    ReplyDelete
  32. My take on the outrageous political intervention made by William Bailhache.

    http://sammezec.blogspot.com/2017/08/an-outrageous-political-intervention.html

    If he was going to use his position to interfere with the political process and try to influence elected politicians, he should have at least made an argument which makes sense!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What elected politicians would be influenced?
      I cannot see why WB is not allowed an opinion on this, like anybody else Sam.
      It is not as if his views are binding.

      Delete
    2. The Bailhache views are binding when it comes to what questions elected representatives are allowed to ask !!!

      .......or when it comes to switching off microphones

      Delete
    3. He is the Speaker of a Parliament.

      Speakers are not entitled to use their position to influence elected governments policies.

      Delete
  33. Sam's piece is worth a read as a contribution to the debate. But it might have concentrated a bit more on the role of the Bailiff as Speaker as this is the role that the proposition is attempting to end.

    The Bailiff would still be the chief judge and the powers of prosecution and final adjudication would still be his.

    The proposition is to be welcomed, but only as a first step in establishing a proper justice system with an independent prosecution function, an adequate appeals system, and an obligation on the Lieutenant Governor to act on behalf of the people rather than in the interest of the suppression of dissent and turning the blind eye.

    One small step.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the power of prosecution is with the AG not the Bailiff. Of course it is sometimes a little confusing knowing which Bailhache is undertaking which role.
      S.O.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous @ 10:40

      You're quite right, of course. The revolving doors have left me a bit dizzy.

      My middle paragraph is wrong.

      I should have referred to the conflicting advisory roles of the AG, the separation of which should be next on the list along with the establishment of an independent prosecution service.

      Mea culpa.

      Delete
  34. The Bailiff actually makes a good point:

    My own view is that the evidence before the Care Inquiry clearly demonstrated that the States did not set out to do so deliberately but rather failed to give sufficient attention to having a proper system in place and to monitoring appropriately the limited number of people who were actually responsible for the abuse which took place.”

    Obviously there are some good people that work for the States who never have or will be kiddy fiddlers.

    Then the Bailiffs following comment is ridiculous in the extreme. It would have been the judiciary, that organised a secret super injunction trial and certainly advised a States department headed by Emma Martin in getting together four witnesses two who had criminal records.

    He [ Bailiff William Bailhache ] writes: “The Committee links an alleged system of sweeping serious issues under the carpet so that people avoid being held to account for abuses that have been perpetrated with the Bailiff’s dual role. The link between any so called brushing under the carpet and the judiciary is not just unproven but it is intrinsically illogical. Once issues get to the judiciary (that is, the court) they have by definition not been brushed under the carpet, because the court sits in public.”

    Why not ask Stuart Syvret about justice by the Jersey judiciary in full and open view to the public.

    https://www.bailiwickexpress.com/jsy/news/bailiffs-views-jersey-way/?t=i#.WZwdp0vGPLQ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do hope that Stuart Syvret also shares his views on this:

      In claiming the above @13:17 perhaps Little Brother Bailhache has forgotten that Big Brother Bailhache Bailiff switched off the Ex Health Minister's microphone (unlawfully) while he was expressing seasonal compassion and trying to tell of his experiences investigating decades of child abuse and supporting victims.

      The Jersey Way

      QED ?

      Delete
    2. Switching a microphone off in such circumstances looks pretty deliberate to me!

      Whereas a vacuous and complementary speech would have been permitted

      The chickens have come home to roost and Team Bailhache is demonstrably talking tripe

      It should make any informed listener sick to hear Baby Bailhache claiming that it was a failure of "systems"

      They run the system.
      They ARE the system

      They are personally responsible for much that has gone wrong and for the subsequent cover up.

      Delete
  35. In my view, Sam's blog article is an abysmal fail, for the following reasons:

    1. It is straighforwardly dishonest:

    "Let's put that in simple English - an unelected judge (and supposedly impartial Speaker) has written to an elected Chief Minister to instruct him to disregard the evidence and findings of a £23m Inquiry whilst pursuing his policies."

    No he didn't. William Bailhache sought an assurance; he did not give an instruction. If Bailhache was in the position to give such an instruction to Gorst, he would have done so privately, not in public. I think the wording used by Bailhache smacks of arrogance, but no reasonable person could believe that this amounted to an instruction. In simple English, Sam, you are making shit up.

    2. Absolutely uneccessary and irrelvant leftist drivel about UK Tory politicians and Brexit:

    " Now, when he says "senior politicians", what he should mean is the hard-right, Brexiteer Tory MPs who are so hell bent on leaving the EU that they don't care what it does to the British economy or what impact it has on British democracy. Labour politicians were at the vanguard of defending the independence of the judiciary throughout that process, and they cannot be lumped in together with right-wing politicians who were blinded by their extreme agenda."

    This issue has nothing to do with UK party politics or Brexit and Sam's analysis (Labour good, Tories bad) is embarrassingly childish, irrelevant and diversionary.

    3. As asked in the comment at 10:54, why shouldn't William Bailhache be entitled to express his opinion on the issue? While the Bailiff is expected not to interfere in the political process during the normal course of States business, it seems absolutely appropriate that, when it comes to reviewing the core responsibilities of the role he currently occupies, he should be entitled to express his opinion prior to the debate, given that he will not be presiding.

    Is Sam's ego really so great that while he, possessed of such great intellect, can see the logical fallacies in Bailhache's letter, he is concerned that his weak-minded colleagues might have their heads turned and vote the "wrong" way?

    I happen to agree with the proposition to separate the roles of speaker and head of the judiciary, and I also happen to agree that William Bailhache's arguments are weak and self-serving, but that isn't really the point. It's a shame to see a self-styled progressive seek to stifle free speech and open debate just because he happens to disagree with the person involved, and to make such a weakly argued case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh dear.

      1.

      Come on. "I should be grateful for your assurance" is blatantly used as an idiom in this context.

      2.

      What gave you the impression that I'm some sort of non-partisan?

      3.

      He's not an ordinary member of the public. He's the Speaker of a parliament. There are expectations that come with that title and he hasn't met them.

      How am I stifling free speech? I've just done a blog outlining my views. I haven't sent the heavies round to his place to tell him I should be grateful for his assurance that he'll keep keep quiet in future.

      Delete
    2. Sir William seeks this "assurance" in his role as Patrician

      Has this benign Jersey Way not protected us all?

      The way you lot go on you would have thought that there had been decades of child abuse.

      Why change?

      Delete
    3. The Patrician confides that every States Member will do their duty......

      Delete
    4. " oh dear " - people who patronise in this way exhibit an arrogance which does not reflect well on themselves. You don't win arguments by being immature and condescending. Actually it doesn't make you look at all clever either, just smug and ignorant.

      Delete
  36. Sam:

    1. Umm, nonsense. Why would William Bailhache write a coded public letter to covertly "instruct" Gorst? If he was in any position to instruct the Chief Minister, why wouldn't he just pick up the phone, or write to him in private?

    2. Oh don't worry, not under any illusions about your political leanings. Just surprised that you felt it advanced your argument to refer to Brexit and Tories.

    3. Yeah, but, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

    Seeking to stifle. You are a member of the legislature who is arguing that an individual should not be permitted to express their personal opinion. How is that not seeking to stifle free speech?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. Because he chose a letter instead.

      2. I was stating my opinion. Now who is the one trying to stifle freedom of speech!

      3. You've totally missed the point of my comments. My problem was with him telling an elected Chief Minister to disregard the ICJI when he's meant to be an impartial speaker.

      It's not hard.

      Delete
    2. "It's not hard" - people who patronise in this way exhibit an arrogance which does not reflect well on themselves. You don't win arguments by being immature and condescending. Actually it doesn't make you look at all clever either, just smug and ignorant.

      Delete
    3. Well if we're moving onto ad hominems, I guess the argument is over.

      Delete
    4. Sam.

      As a member of PPC why have you not sought to do something to put an end to what even the JEP has highlighted as being rotten in the States of Jersey ie the lack of fairness in the political process. I'm talking specifically about making it fair as to who can stand for election. Not just the no taxation without representation side of things either, but who can be a Deputy or Senator.

      The JEP would probably not want to highlight this example for obvious reasons but on top of the non British nationals problem we have the current case of your fellow socialistas the PItmans. That these two are not currently allowed to stand for election but banned for nine years after their en desastre is appalling. Especially while en desastre Constables can still, at least until Deputy Higgins proposition is enacted in law sit in the States regardless.

      I don't know the Pitmans and quite likely I accept they might not even want to put themselves in the firing line again but the principle is indisputable. I would also like to know what you think about how the Bailiff or his DEputy continue to preside over questions directly relating to the judiciary within question time. This all seems to have been overlooked with the focus on propositions alone. Shouldn't PPC or you as one of the few Progressive politicians bring something forward to change all of the above points.

      Hopefully Deputy Tadier's proposals to end the role of the Bailiff will be successful in the autumn but I would still like to know what PPC are planning to do about the rest.

      Delete
    5. Good to see one States Member prepared to come on here and try and answer question so well done Deputy Mezec.

      I whole-heartedly agree with the points made above especially the outrageous treatement of the Pitmans. What I would like to ask the Deputy though is if he can explain the logic for non UK citizens being able to stand for Constable but not for Deputy or Senator?

      Can't be Human Rights compliant surely?

      Delete
    6. Can Sam also tell us where he stands on the Lewis issue and PPC's joke censure motion? Was this a unanimous decicion and why was it not a vote of no confidence?

      PS

      I too agree that PPC should be doing something to bring the bankruptcy bar in line with the United Kingdom. It is obviously an anti-Pitman thing isn't it.

      Delete
    7. To the Anonymous at 10:55 -

      I think most members of PPC if you asked them would tell you that at our committee meetings I often break what would otherwise be a consensus and I've tried to argue for PPC to take action on a whole variety of things where the other members have outvoted me.

      I have argued for PPC to back the separation of powers and to back the proposition to abolish the citizenship requirement for election eligibility. I've found my time on PPC frustrating because I think because we often are split 50/50 so we don't put our force behind these propositions and just take a neutral stance. Because of that, I don't think this PPC has achieved anywhere near as much as it could have done.

      Delete
    8. To the Anonymous at 12:39 -

      I can't explain the logic. I don't think there is any and I think it's shameful that the States recently voted to perpetuate this unfairness.

      It makes those in government who claim they want to see more Portuguese and Polish Islanders get involved in politics absolute hypocrites.

      Delete
    9. To the Anonymous at 12:51 -

      Some of this answer is complex, but I'll try my best to make it clear.

      PPC was divided on what Deputy Lewis did which breached the code of conduct.

      Three of us (Len Norman, Simon Bree and myself) concluded that lying to the States (as the IJCI found) was a breach, and he further breached the code by perpetuating this in the aftermath and in the inquiry hearings.

      Two others (Scott Wickenden and Chris Taylor) did not agree that it was right to use the ICJI finding to determine for us his actions in 2008 were a breach. I found this argument to be utterly bizarre and made my case very robustly in the meetings.

      In terms of the decision to bring a motion of censure, it was because it was basically the only thing we could do.

      We couldn't bring any motion to expel him from the States because that wouldn't be lawful. We couldn't do a vote of no confidence because the conduct we had examined didn't relate to his chairmanship of PAC. We could have brought a motion to suspend him, but the maximum length of time we could have done would have been just 7 days. That would have meant his suspension would be over by the next States sitting, so it wouldn't actually have any practical effect.

      The whole process we had to use to do this was completely unsatisfactory and it's unfortunate that this was actually the last time this will be done by PPC, because the responsibility to investigate breaches of the code of conduct is being passed to an independent Commissioner for Standards next month.

      Delete
  37. Having read the rather long epistle from our current Bailiff as to why he (wonder if we will EVER get a lady Bailiff?) should keep his job and at the same time (in simple terms) saying what happened over many decades of child abuse was not at all the responsibility of "myself and my predecestor Bailiffs". Well taking a very deep breath perhaps it might be appropriate to suggest to our current Bailiff that he and those before him sat in the States chamber and oversaw the goings on for all those decades. That said, and based on his 'passing the buck' comments surely it was his (and those before him) to get off their bottoms trot up to Goverment House and sit down with HM rep. LG and say "Excuse me sir but the States and their various departments are running amok, will you please call in the UK Goverment cleaning crew to sort it all out please. Right? Wrong! They all just sat back and did sweet F.A. and now £23,000,000 later it is apparently all the Care Inquiries fault. Just wonder if 737 has cashed in his share options yet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The current bailiff, like his predecessors, also held the office of AG prior to his appointment. No doubt he would claim that failure to prosecute child abusers wasn't his/their fault either.

      Delete
  38. Regarding the comments above relating to Deputy Mesec my take on PPC just lodging a censure motion is that they all really support Lewis' disgusting behaviour. PPC have done nothing in years to tackle issues such as is highlighted above so we probably should not be surprised.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Sam,

    In your blog, you made the following comment:

    "Of course William Bailhache is entitled to his opinion as an individual, but as our Speaker, he is not entitled to use his position to influence our elected politicians. In doing so, he has shown himself to be unfit to hold the office he does, and has shown how absolutely imperative it is that the States votes to relinquish him of these responsibilities."

    How do you reconcile your position with Articles 35 and 36 of Standing Orders
    "35 Who may present report or comment
    (1) A report or comment may be presented to the States by –
    (a) the Council of Ministers;
    (b) any Minister;
    (c) any member of the States, on a public matter for which that member has an official responsibility

    36 Content of report or comment
    A report or comment may relate to a proposition or any other matter."

    Article 35(1)c and Article 36 clearly and expressly provide a statutory right for the Bailiff to comment on a proposition that relates directly to the role of Bailiff. By extension, there is clearly nothing even remotely unacceptable about the Bailiff writing to the Chief Minister on such an issue, and copying his letter to PPC.

    As a member of PPC you really ought to know this, and I expect your assurance that you will withdraw your comment and offer William Bailhache a public apology.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Standing order 35 refers to "present[ing]" a report or comment. In this context "present" is a parliamentary term which has a specific meaning.

      Reports and Comments are official parliamentary documents which are laid down (presented) on the parliamentary records under a P number or R number.

      They appear on the States order paper and are published in the Gazette and States website as a matter of procedure.

      This was a letter and it was "sent", not "presented". Standing orders do not govern correspondence.

      Nice try though.


      [Note - this is a repost as I noticed my original attempt at posting this had a typo in it]

      Delete
    3. Sophistry Sam. The thrust of your point was that it was not acceptable for William Bailhache to use his position to attempt to influence states members.

      Legislation clearly and unambiguously allows him to do exactly this in the narrow circumstances in question (a propostion that affects his office).

      Whether he does this by the official means you describe or the means he used does not alter the underlying fact that he has done nothing wrong here.

      Nowhere in your blog did you say "he has shown himself unfit because he didn't write his comment on vellum with a rampant unicorn seal with a big letter R embossed in gold."

      Delete
    4. It's only sophistry because you're a little bit embarrassed at having been proven wrong.

      Here's a question you could ask yourself - if the Bailiff has the right to lodge comments on States propositions, why did he ask PPC if we could lodge it for him instead of doing it himself?

      Have a think on that one.

      In any event, this is all irrelevant because Speakers don't behave this way. They just don't.

      Delete
    5. How on earth have I been proven wrong? You are the one who are arguing that his "interference" is outrageous, despite the fact that Standing Orders expressly permit him to "interfere".

      As for why the Bailiff asked PPC, I honestly have no idea - why do you think he did it? There's no "if" about whether he has the right to make comments or reports: the law is clear.

      And no, it isn't irrelevant. In these specific circumstances, where there is a proposition to fundamentally change the constitutional nature of the speaker, it is patently absurd to argue that the present incumbent should not be able to express his opinion. Especially when your argument now amounts to "just because".

      Why should I, as a member of the electorate, not be able to listen to his views on the subject? To be honest - even though I don't agree with him at all - his opinion is of much greater interest to me than yours, since he has actual experience of performing the role.

      Delete
    6. It's difficult to know where to start with this.

      Firstly, even if States standing orders said what you are claiming they do (which they don't) I wouldn't care. Speakers of parliaments are not meant to go round trying to pressure the heads of governments to disregard the findings of the inquiries they set up. This isn't normal and you are defending the indefensible.

      Secondly, the standing orders do not say what you are claiming they say.

      The standing orders say members can lodge comments or a report on a public matter which they have an official responsibility on. The Bailiff does not have an official responsibility for this matter. The Privileges and Procedures Committee does. That's why it's PPC lodging comments, not the Bailiff.

      These are just facts. Are we going to keep going round in circles?

      If you're interested in William Bailhaches opinion, you can read his submission to the Carswell Review, as he was entitled to write it. Instead you're defending an unelected judge trying to influence the elected Chief Minister. Bizarre.

      Delete
  40. I do hope Sam will reply here. Personally I am not much of a fan. He has gone along with Deputy Lewis' attempts to rehabilitate himself before as we know.

    In reference to other points made I also have to doubt whether Sam would really want the likes of Trevor and Shona or Stuar back in the States anyway. They might take away some of his limelight?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "He has gone along with Deputy Lewis' attempts to rehabilitate himself before as we know."

      No I haven't.

      "I also have to doubt whether Sam would really want the likes of Trevor and Shona or Stuar back in the States anyway."

      I would support any motion to remove the legal barriers which currently stands in their way of being candidates.

      Delete
    2. Yeah? So when can we expect you bringing forward such measures? You are now apparently the leading light in what some call Jersey's progessives but others like me think are just outdated moaners. Like someone said you are also on PPC. Have you been pushing for all of this? Might have been more useful to your 1970s socialist cause than all the work you put in to supporting Lewis in his unworkable hotch-potch of a reform that would have undermined the island wide vote.

      Delete
    3. As I said in an above comment, I have argued on PPC for many things including those mentioned above where I was outvoted. On the floor of the States Chamber I have voted in favour of every one of these changes.

      For the record, I'm a 2017 socialist and have no interest in what governments in the 70s did. The world has moved a long way since then.

      I support having one category of elected States Member, elected in equal sized constituencies. I make no apologies for having voted and supported proposals which would have taken us in that direction. To those who were more stubborn than me on this, they are the ones to blame for perpetuating the awful system we have now.

      Delete
    4. So what about bringing such a proposition yourself Deputy? Montfort Tadier has done so regarding the dual role.

      I don't understand exactly what the situation is with Stuart Syvret and this rumoured threat of bankruptcy and I also understand he has said he will never go back in to politics. But he should be free to do if he wishes.

      Likewise I don't know what the Pitmans attitude to politics is now after they were also stiched up. But they should be able to stand also once free of their own situation if they wished.

      For the record I have voted for Syvret and Trevor Pitman in the past and would do so again. I have never voted for Shona simply because of where I live. I should add that I also voted for your Reform candidate in 2014 in number one district simply out of principle on believing in party politics being best.

      My question is that from your answer to a reader you seem to imply that you were voted down on PPC about bringing proposals on making the bankruptcy issue fair and others. Is this correct and if so why and who was against it?

      I ask because I feel we should know. One member of PPC or so I believe is Deputy Wickenden who would almost certainly lose his seat if Trevor Pitman stood again in his old seat so hardly appropriate?

      Surely Reform are most keen to see more capable left leaning people able to stand? We don't seem to have many such people on the horison with the exception of former Deputy Duhamel.

      Delete
    5. What about Judy Martin? She is a St Helier 1 Deputy and on PPC. How did she vote on this issue? I suppose if Sam can't tell us her and Wickenden must have voted to block any moves that might have put the gravy train at risk? Wouldn't vote for either of them myself even if I could.

      Delete
    6. I'd have to go back and check the minutes to remind myself exactly what was said in these meetings as they were quite a while ago. But the point has to be made that Deputy Wickenden was not a member of PPC in those days as he is relatively new to the committee.

      I don't want to sound too hopeless (although maybe it is hopeless...) but when Deputy Higgins brought his proposition to reduce the length of time someone is banned from standing for the States, the vote lost quite substantially (although Judy Martin did support it). So any proposition to get rid of the disqualification altogether is doomed.

      Delete
    7. That's a bit defeatist Sam. Geoff Southern for all his faults always used to bring things on principle knowing he might well lose but doing it to raise the issue at hand and embarrasse the States.

      Higgins proposition should also not have been lodged because it was clear the AG had misled him when he lodged it. Higgins was clearly thinking that the 4 years someone is bankrupt was separate to the 5 years someone is barred from standing when actually they run one after the other.

      Unless you are a Constable obviously.

      You should bring a proposition anyway. You are probably the only one apart from Higgins with enough balls. Besides you have a law degree do you not? You know this is not Human Rights compliant. Someone earlier said this staying in place is an anti-Pitman thing. Dead right.

      Get it sorted my son. If you don't who will?

      Delete
    8. Reference to your comment at 21.47 Deputy Mezec. I would like to say that I voted for you in 2014 after Shona Pitman was ousted from the States, and I should say that she advised me to vote for you. Now I here that you wouldn't even attempt to bring a proposition, to ensure her human right, because it is just that, to stand for election as a citizen of the place she was born.If the bankrupcty is up there is no moral reason for her not to stand. Where do you start a fight for what is right and legal, if your approach is that it is already 'doomed'. A young man, already given up on a cause without a fight for someone who also spoke very highly of you.She, and her husband are one of you. Why hasn't your colleagues who were in thr JDA with her done or even said anything publicly about the way they were treated by the judiciary? The more I learn about states members the more I am disheartened with politics. Your approach saddens me Deputy.

      Delete
  41. Replies
    1. Agreed, but I doubt Gorst will have the balls

      JRCbean

      Delete
  42. Will Bailhache major have to declare an interest in this vote and abstain, given that little bruv is bailiff?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alexander the Collaborator23 August 2017 at 19:46

      Well not judging by the Constables being allowed to vote against reducing the period Senators and Deputies can be debarred from the States for being made bankrupt as referred to above while said Constables were able to keep their seats in throughout and still can. Bailhahce and Bailhace run the States. People like Gorst, Moore and the Constables will all backtrack to let their master remain once the chips are down.

      Delete
  43. See the JEP website has been changed and they have removed all comments about Lewis and the Bailiff.

    ReplyDelete

  44. Agree @17.10 just when the possibility - no even stronger than that, the light of transparency and brave reporting and engaging and getting the attention of the public was transforming the JEP, it has a heart attack and paralyses its comments section which was a good read. I have been following both the Bailiff writes a letter and the St Lawrence Church articles both had diverse and intelligent comments. Both ( at time of writing ) have been wiped clean with an epilogue saying Sorry no comments allowed, or words to that effect.

    Interesting that the JEP should cop out as the Bailhache boys make a stand to stop the duel rolls being split. Is that not strange ?

    It looks like VFC and other local blogs may become a lot busier as they try and print the facts and the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  45. The Filthy Rag is also using its anonymous Comment pages to mislead people that backing Russell Labey's call to go back to secret ballots for ministerial roles like it was before Trevor Pitman's successful proposition is a step forward. They do hate Pitman don't they! I expect we will see Russell Labey becoming an Assistant Minister before long if he keeps on doing the establishment party's dirty work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hang on a minute. Before you criticise Russell Labey as being an establishment lickspittle, perhaps you should consider that there is a genuine argument for holding a secret ballot. It reduces the scope for covert patronage / obligation ("vote for me and I will make you a minister" doesn't really work if the person can just say "OK" and then vote for another candidate without you knowing), and it reduces the scope for members who voted for a losing candidate to be locked-out of power out of spite.

      Not saying that election should be by way of secret ballot, but there is certainly a valid argument in favour, and absolutely no reason to eviscerate Russell Labey for taking this view. This is one of the aspects of modern politics that I find so frustrating: people treat nuanced issues as being black or white, and shout down anybody who takes a different view as though they are an idiot or an evil fascist.

      Delete
    2. Labey's propistion will allow things to go back to the days when candidates can say to electors that they will be voting for Joe Bloggs as Chief Minister to get a vote and then due to the secrecy do the exact opposite. It is a step backwards and a foolish move by Deputy R Labey. Getting near an election I suspect no more than a proposition to give the impression that he has actually done something instead of spending half his time in Londow or so I am told. If you cannot stand up manfully or womanfully in the States and say openly sorry Sir Philip I will not be voting for you people really should not be in politics.

      Delete
    3. Yes 13:07, that is true and at least in theory is a very valid point. However, I have to ask how candidates for the states can say in advance who they will vote for as chief minister when they don't know who will be returned by the electorate, and who will seek nomination?

      Does anybody know what proportion of candidates actually say up-front who they want as chief minister? I don't really pay much attention to these things, but it seems to me that it would be somewhat unwise for most candidates to name their preferred chief minister. Wouldn't the prudent answer be "I will make that decision when I know who is standing for chief minister, after consulting with my constituents"?

      Delete
  46. Looks like the JEP has been got at !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Rag never changed anon. Just did a bit of token anti-Establishment whinging to con a few people back in to buying it before it goes bust. Promoting the Balls ache brother says it all.

      Delete
    2. Looks like they're moving to a new site and all previous comments will vanish.

      Just got this in the post.

      Seems to refer to both Jersey Evening Post and Guernsey Press, though it's a bit confusing.

      _________________________________


      Be the first to use the all new jerseyeveningpost.com

      Hi there,

      As a valued user who has previously registered on our site, we wanted you to be among the first to view the new guernseypress.com.

      We’ve relaunched guernseypress.com with a fresh design and loads of great new features. You’ll be hearing lots more about that over the coming weeks.

      Your existing username and password will stay the same.

      We’d love to hear your thoughts via the simple feedback button that you’ll see on the right hand side of every page.

      Please note that comments made on the old website will not appear on our new website.

      Thanks for your time.

      Yours,

      JEP Digital

      Delete
    3. The JEP is all but dead. Site probably being monitored by a work experience kid because they are laying people off due to tumbling sales.

      Delete
  47. The JEP comments sections has been all but wiped out.
    Few stories allowing comment and the comments on there are hidden down the bottom of the story among adverts. Back to Facebook.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Haven't bought one in 10 years now won't bother with online either as comments were the best feature

    ReplyDelete
  49. Sam's getting a hard ride here. It is important for the younger generation in the Island to have Sam in the States. My advice to Sam would be to stay independent of mind, don't be bullied and act with your conscience. The PPC on which Sam sat did throw Andrew Lewis under the bus though without getting to the nub of the issues. Did Sam have any choice but to go along with Simon Bree? Electorally speaking, probably not. Rise above the melee Sam, Jersey politics has to change and become less personal and vitriolic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that there was only one poster who was on here primarily to give Sam a hard time.

      This may have been motivated merely by a hatred of Sam or all politics/politicians on the left rather than an intension to disrupt this important thread with endless repetition. I suspect that VFC may have pulled the plug on an sideshow which was going nowhere.

      Several of the other posters have been critical of Sam (as I would be), but their comment and advice has been polite and constructive imo.

      Delete
    2. Unfortunately Deputy Mezec probably deserves 'a hard time'. Defeatism as used by a reader says a lot. What happened to the brave an angry young man? Ironically he is exposed here as abandoning the Pitmans who in regard to Trevor he was actually once being tipped to be the new version. All because getting justice for them and Syvret is 'doomed'.

      Sam has commented from time to time about the COI and even refused to sit on Gorst's advisory panel. Probably the right decision. But what this shows is that he must be well aware of what came up in the evidence revealing that the Jurat who cost the Pitmans their seats in their the States, and their home for God's sake, was a man the police from the Victoria Clooege abuse scandal said was completely without integrity (dishonest), should never have been allowed to be a Jurat, and was revealed by one of the abused children to have tried to bully him in to silence.

      WTF Deputy?

      Why aren't you and your Reform colleagues shouting from the rooftops that the Pitmans case should be overturned? I'll say it again, the COI evidence from Pitman himself exposed that this Jurat had even been taking a director of the JEP's owners to diner AT HIS OWN HOME! in the leadup to their defamation case.

      And you do and say nothing. Reform? What a joke.

      When I then read here that Shona Pitman was actually telling people to vote for you I find it difficult to know what to say. Reform means sorting out our justice system as well as that of our car crash of an electoral system. Doesn't it? Perhaps you should take your defeatism and become a lawyer? Be a rich man in no time,

      One thing I can say. Unlike the byelection you won't be getting my vote come next year.

      Delete
    3. LOL @11:00
      Was that impolite or just angry?

      I too feel that Sam should be more robust in his non acceptance of the abuse of these people.

      I get the impression that Sam is a left-winger 1st and a campaigner 2nd

      There is only so much you can do quietly within the system, when the system is this broken

      For me, Left and Right are a sideshow - Both have their merits, and both are a disaster if Right and Wrong are not sorted first

      Political expediency is fine up to a point but it is best have minimum standards

      Delete
    4. I honestly find comments like this completely mind boggling.

      I support ending the bankruptcy rules yet you're talking as if I'm some sort of enemy.

      It isn't my fault that the rules exist, because I've voted to move towards abolishing them. But I've been outvoted. Why isn't your ire directed at those who got in the way of reform instead?

      I haven't sold out. I haven't changed my mind. I haven't started voting with Council of Ministers.

      Jeez, you'd have thought I'd become a signed up member of the establishment with these sorts of comments...

      Delete
    5. "Why aren't you and your Reform colleagues shouting from the rooftops that the Pitmans case should be overturned?"

      This goes against everything people are standing for in a separation of powers.

      Delete
    6. Don't they say a man shall be known by his deeds? I guess your critics observations are justified then. this is the sort of stuff you should be taking a lead on. Don't know about other readers but I will still vote for you. Can't deny that I am disappointed with you though. To enlarge on what someone else said I would say that the reform needed isn't just about things like getting rid of the Constables and the dual role.

      The Pitmans being banned from standing for nine years is every bit as important. Its all part of the same thing. And why should Syvret have some sort of sword of democles hanging over him should he want to come back? It is all wrong. Not surprised your colleague Southern has done nothing in support of the Pitmans. Most will remember is cowardly comments to CTV when the Pitmans were shafted and lost their seats. "That's what happens when you take on the media".

      As for Tadier he always goes missing when there is something contentious. Saddest part of all of this (unless you are the courageous Pitmans) is that this failure by groups like Reform and others to do the right thing is making many even more apathetic. To emphasise my point Mike Higgins must be knocking on for 70 but he is always there when when he should be. Even Guernsey politics is more democratic and challenging then ours.

      Delete
    7. If I can join this fscinating and lively debate I would first say. Hardly. Government is meant to be sovereign. Not dictated to by an obviously corrupy politically motivated judiciary. You obviously think corruption of the kind the Pitmans and Syvret were the victims of is all hunky dory. What does that tell us?

      Delete
    8. I was obviously referring to the comment at 11.58 for the sake of clarity.

      Delete
    9. Who says Mr & Mrs Pitman and Stuart Syvret want to ever go back?
      Stuart Syvret said in a recent JEP interview that he regrets ever going into politics and it would look strange for the Pitmans to go back after some of their comments over the years.

      Delete
    10. To what comments do you refer Anonymous@12.20?

      Delete
    11. Some of these comments are just so bizarre.

      I support the policy you're complaining at me for not supporting! I support ending the bankruptcy rules. They're unfair and don't make sense in the 21st Century. I've spoken publicly to that effect, and I've voted in the States to support moves in that direction (and, since you've mentioned him, so did Geoff by the way).

      I'm not the problem. You do your cause no favours at all by acting as if your allies are actually your enemies, whilst letting your real enemies completely off the hook. The establishment laugh every time they see these splits.

      "this failure by groups like Reform and others to do the right thing is making many even more apathetic"

      You are so wrong on this.

      There is absolutely nobody out there is who is looking at a party which has been - fighting to raise the minimum wage, supporting our Family Nursing workers, leading the fight to protect pensioners from harsh government cuts, putting forward costed policies on higher education funding and holding the government to account on their sham of a population policy - and thinks "well this is all well and good, but I can't support these people because they haven't done enough to repeal a law which most of us have never heard of". It's just not happening.

      I support ending the bankruptcy rules, but for most Islanders it's a complete non-issue. They are far more concerned about making ends meet, their standing of living and the life opportunities they are worried their kids won't have. Reform Jersey is focused on the issues that matter to the majority, and it's paying off.

      At the by-election last year I doubled Reform Jersey's share of the vote and I now struggle to walk through a park or go into a pub without people recognising me from the video of that speech I gave in the States, and coming up to me to say they've never voted before, but they will next time because they feel like there are finally people who want to stand up for their interests.

      Delete
    12. You cop out. The Pitmans represented ordinary working people like me. Shona Pitman was my representative. And I'll tell you what she was a damn sight better at her job than you. So to say people don't care is bollocks. We might not be in a position to do much but you are. You should probably say that you don't care. Sorry to say it but you are becoming a bad joke

      Delete
    13. I really feel like giving up on you reading your last paragraph. Swollen head or what? 'Finally there are people who stand up for their interest'? What an insult to others who have worked hard for the people who voted for them.

      As for the comment about walking through a park and people all recognising you from your video (it wasn't even a good speech) please! Reality check called for.

      No party candidate even wholly unknown ones got less votes than you did in your tilt for Senator apart from Geoff Southern in 2005. Yet you come on like your politics answer to Harry Styles. Get that reality check and stop putting others down.

      Delete
    14. Alright so Sam thinks no one cares about the injustice to the Pitmans so he shouldn't either. It is his opinion and he is entitled to it. But talking like it is only now that people have politicians fighting for them is a gross insult. I had a quick look at the records for elections here in Saint Helier 2. Guess what? Shona Pitman's vote far outstriped Sam Mezec's so I guess some people did value her even if Sam doesn't. I hope he gets re-elected. But I wouldn't go for Senator if I was him. He isn't half as popular as his mirror might tell him.

      Delete
    15. I honestly have no idea where these comments are coming from.

      If you'll reread my comments, I haven't actually said a single negative word about Trevor or Shona in any of my comments here. I like both of them, they both showed me kindness and generosity when I was starting out my political career and I think they both contributed some really positive things in their time in the States.

      The way you lot are reacting you'd have thought I'd dismissed them as establishment sellouts or something.

      Calm down.

      Delete
    16. Unfortunately much as I liked the Pitmans, they were naive and foolish to go down the route of suing the JEP and Broadlands. The cartoon would have made no difference to their political circumstances - those who disliked them would have got pleasure out of it, those who liked them would have ignored it. It would have been forgotten about within a couple of days, but they sacrificed their home and political careers over it

      Delete
  50. Wonder if Constable Crowcroft really resigned from PAC over Lewis or because he is lazy? He resigned from PPC a few years ago did he not? Seems like hard work just doesn't agree with our Constable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Lewis situation gives other grasping politicians room to intrigue. Probably time to move on and stop kicking Lewis now. He is on the floor and curled up in a ball already.

      Delete
    2. Crowcroft never sees anything through. But I doubt anyone will challenge him next year.

      Delete
  51. I do not understand the logic of some of these comments sometimes.

    *Why aren't you and your Reform colleagues shouting from the rooftops that the Pitmans case should be overturned?*

    The only people who can apply to have this ruling overturned is the Pitmans themselves to the Court of Appeal.
    What is it with people, do they want us to have North Korea political control or something?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But sadly untrue. The Pitmans if you have followed the story were denied justice by the Appeal Court. Not surprising this is appointed by the Bailiff from their chums and just rubber stamped by the UK. They then had the Privy Council claiming to have no powers to act. Which in turn meant they could not access the Court at Strasbourg. A very neat little set up. Possibly the finest example of the Jersey Way ever. As for North Korea this blog used to parody the place and say |Jersey was the western version. How right they were.

      Delete
    2. Yes but Reform Jersey are being asked to use Political influence to over turn a Court Judgement which they can neither do or should ever be able to do.

      Delete
    3. No. I read it as being asked and expected to highlight the obvious abuse of process and corruption when our Bailiff for obvious reasons wants it all swept under the carpet. That is a politician's job. Unless you are just there for the nice fat pay cheque? Nothing to do with interfering with separation of powers.

      Delete
    4. I sat in court to watch a fair amount of the Pitmans case and my view is that there were serious flaws in the process used, and the concerns the Pitmans raised at the time were not adequately dealt with. There were all sorts of dodgy issues with Jurats involvement who should not have been anywhere near their case and their right to appeal was wrongly withheld, in my view. And they aren't the only people to have suffered these failings in our judicial system.

      But a parliament cannot overturn a court judgement. We can only pass laws to ensure it doesn't happen again and, for the millionth time, I have voted to support those laws being changed!

      Delete
    5. The Pitmans were never going to be win because it would have set a dangerous precedence against Freedom of Speech.
      A Politician successfully suing a Newspaper for a satirical cartoon.
      Never been heard of.

      Delete
    6. You are right Deputy. A government cannot and should not overturn a verdict. But it is without doubt an honest politician's duty to make public such goings on and perhaps call publiclly for the decision to be investigated and re-tried with an honest court. You and your Reform colleagues, and the rest too I accept, have done no such thing. You instead come out with trite comments about restoring some justice being doomed so doing nothing. That is my only personal beef with you.

      Whether your inaction is due to you not wanting the competition or being out of fear I don't know or really care. What annoys me is the silence on the injustice when you and Deputies Tadier and Southern have a platform to raise the issues. As just one example how can anyone be denied the right to continue their appeal by the Privy Council claiming they do not have jurisdiction.

      To end I would just add that for any readers not familiar with Trevor Pitman's blog postings which I believe can still be accessed, or the excellent interviews the Pitmans gave this blog and the national Peoples Voice on line TV news show I strongly suggest they read Trevor's huge witness statement to the COI. I believe that anyone doing so cannot fail to be disgusted that politicans in the States now just keep quiet about what happened.

      Delete
    7. They were never going to win because of the corruption old boy.

      Delete
    8. Sam I agree with you in so far as your talk about all of the positive things that you and fellow reform members have done and are trying to do for the less well off in this island and also to further the cause of true democracy and justice. Please, please keep that up. With respect though I still think its worth while someone again bringing a proposition to try and reduce the time that an en desastre is prevented from standing for election, and leveling the playing field as far as constables are concerned. The point being that the more that the establishment is forced to ride rough shot over what is clearly equitable fair and reasonable the more damage they will naturally do to themselves. I honestly believe that the people of Jersey are starting to finally wake up to all of this and the wind of change is growing in strength. Every little chip at their armor, every time they clearly rally around a bad decision in preserving the status quo then the more they damage themselves. If you don't have time to do it then maybe another team Reform member, or maybe Deputy Higgins. You could even rely more on a team of activists from the party faithful doing the research and drafting documentation and speech writing for you if that helps. I get the impression you need to delegate more. Don't let another opportunity pass you by through lack of time.

      JRCbean

      Delete
    9. Sam you are an upstanding young man and I am sure the votes will roll in come May 2018. If these detractors don't like the bankruptcy rules, why don't they campaign themselves? You don't need to be a States Member to be politically active. Jersey's political discourse needs to stop singling out individuals for abuse. There has been far too much politics of personality in recent years. News from the voters by the way is that politicians squabbling over procedural matters is a turn off.

      Delete
    10. There is another case that exemplifies the Jersey Way even more clearly than the Pitman's case. Jurat Le Breton presided over that one as well. If the Chief Minister wanted evidence of the unhealthy relationship between the judiciary and the executive, inarguable evidence is available.

      Delete
    11. Yes satirical cartoon for sure BUT was the cartoonist given instruction by others as to that element of the cartoon? Anyone with half a brain knows full well that Trevor and Shona Pitman were well and truly setup. Foolishly they thought that they could get justice over the matter, I have met and talked to Trevor Pitman and he was without doubt a true lose to this Island (as was Shona) but like it or not we are left with the dregs of the establishment resting in the bottom of the can. And with regards to the 'rocks' being thrown at Sam Mezec, perhaps instead of putting the boot into Sam the writers should step forward to put their own names up for election?

      Delete
  52. What a lively debate. Obviously lunchtime sees a lot of people checking out vfc instead of wasting hard earned cash on the JEP.

    All I will add being a quite polite sort of person is that we need the Pitmans and Syvret back now more than ever. They had guts and principles which appear sadly lacking in those who claim to be ant-Jersey way.

    I won't lay this just at Deputy Mezec's door though. None of them are brave enough to fill the boots of Mr and Mrs P and SS. That is why I think even fewer will vote next time. Politics is now all just posturing.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I sort of think the Pitmans and Syvret need to shoulder some of the blame for the situations they find themselves in today. Nobody made anybody do anything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True the Pitmans and Syvret took the decision to trust a court. They may have been foolish to do that. But if you can't trust a court for justice where does the real blame lie?

      Delete
    2. Quote from Collas Crill who defended the JEP - "In July 2013 (some 15 months after the Royal Court giving its judgment) Collas Crill successfully resisted an application made by the Plaintiffs for permission to appeal against that judgment out of time. The Plaintiffs renewed their application for permission to appeal out of time to the full Court of Appeal and that application was dismissed in November this year. The Plaintiffs have now been declared bankrupt – due to the legal costs they incurred from the case. They have recently applied to the Privy Council for leave to appeal."

      So they were out of time.

      Delete
    3. They were out of time because the information that Jurat le Breton was taking a senior figure of the JEP's owners to dinner in the lead up to the case, like the information about Le Breton's serious failings and dishonesty according to the polices at Victoria College were not known until after the court case.

      As has been pointed out many times the truth that the very Bailiff who appointed Jurat le Breton to preside as Jurat on the case, Sir Michael Birt, was already well aware about the police view that he was dishonest and should be charged for his part in the Jervis-Dyke's abuse cover up only came out at the Care Inquiry in 2016. So how could the Pitmans not be out of time.

      The fact here which may be lost on you, or perhaps you just choose to ignore it for other reasons, is that we now know the court case was ultra vires. Unless a person is just happy that a couple of leftwingers lost their seats and can no longer make life difficult for the judicary as they did you would have to concede that being made bankrupt on the back of such clear dysfunction/corruption is far more important than being unavoidably out of time.

      Le Breton should have declared his behaviour and recused himself. As I think Stuart Syvret has observed Le Breton should not have been allowed to sit on a case involving one of the key champions of the abuse victims given his own indifference to abuse described by the police.

      I believe mMost would say he that should also have never been allowed to become a Jurat or Bailiff Birt be allowed to appoint him. But that is Jersey. You seem happy to make ecuses for such behaviour.

      Delete
    4. So where do Collas Crill come in all this?
      They defended the JEP against this action and as they put it - won, or is it all down to John Le Breton solely with some alleged personal vendetta against the Pitmans and nothing else?
      Can VFC put a link to the actual Judgement to see why the Jurats rejected the Libel Case?
      Might be the best place to start.

      Delete
    5. I replied to your comment but the moderation on here is awful.

      Delete
    6. The judgement was made by those who ran the kangaroo court. Hardly helpful. The point is Le Breton was clearly unfit to hold office and the police had wanted to pursue him at Vic. As was highlighted this was the same Bailiff who was named as one of those blocking this allowed him and actually had his office place him on the Pitmans case.

      That is probably all that needs to be said and we can get back to attacking Andrew Lewis for being a liar and doing FW and BOs dirty work. Meanwhile Deputy Mezec stop having to defend his inaction and can get back to pushing his way through adoring crowds.

      Delete
  54. Talking of lunch breaks I have to be back in the harness in 20 minutes. What I think nobody is picking up on here is that this heated debate sums up perfectly why the Mezcs, Macons, Tadiers, Martins, Labeys, Southerns and Co won't do anything for their fellow progessives. Unlike what they did to Stuart the Jersey media were never able to destroy and smear the repuation of Shona and Trevor Pitman. Most fair-minded folk out there who are aware of the facts, and that is a huge number from the people I chat to at work or over a pint, know the Pitmans were well and truly buggered to get them out of the States. They know their court case was a farce. Because of this there remains a lot of respect and support for them. If either stood again they would walk an election. The establishment know this. And the gimps who pose as progressives know that. The progessives don't want the Pitmans back any more than they want Syvret because they would steal their thunder. So they make excuses like Sam Mezecs and the status quo rolls on. It is pathetic I agree but that is Jersey politics for you. A pantomime full of actors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not just ' full of actors' but full of overpaid actors, playing at politics trying to justify their existence and their bloated wage packets, rent a mouths doing nothing worthwhile as evidenced by a pathetically low turn out at elections.

      Delete
    2. Too true bruv. But at least not as overpaid as our tin pot dictator Bailiff to be fair, eh?

      Delete
  55. Trevors ego got in the way in my humble opinion. The cartoon was satirical. Yes it probably did have an element of a nasty, vindictive dig at the Pitman's as well, and if so was factually incorrect in its logic of such dig. But they were supposed to be grown ups and experienced politicians for Christ sake. They should have taken this as part of the rough and tumble of political life. After a day or two no one would have remembered it anyway, yesterday news tomorrow's chip paper. Instead we are still talking about it years later. No Trevor's ego could not let it go, and could not let one of his regular sparring partners get away with this and saw it as a way to attack them instead. Very misguided given the overt corruption in the legal system and the difficulty in persuading a court of the JEP's intent. As a result we find ourselves short of two of the finest politicians the island has ever had. It was a very disappointing end to two fine political careers to date.

    JRCbean

    ReplyDelete
  56. As one of the commenters here who has been giving Sam a hard time with regard to his blog posting, and criticism of the bailiff for having the temerity to express a view, I think some of the criticism of him here regarding the Pitmans is totally absurd.

    While I clearly have very different views to him on a number of issues, I will say he is dead rights about one thing: issues such as changing the law to allow discharged bankrupts to stand are of interest to hardly anybody. I doubt he has had a single constituent come up to him and say "I want to stand for the States, but I am an undischarged bankrupt, what can you do to help me?"

    There are far, far more important issues to deal with. First and foremost being the out-of-control population on this island.

    ReplyDelete
  57. The Pitmans chose to take the JEP to court. apparently a number of legal firms were approached and they advised against it due to the risky nature of proving libel from a satirical cartoon, contained within an estate agents Christmas advert. Not so much shafted as misguided. The alleged dodgy Jurat is a side show (albeit a fairly important issue to be addressed) and only really worthy of consideration if this case had gone in the opposite direction of all precedent, expectation and common sense, which it obviously didn't. You can't really take a massive punt like this, against all advice, lose and then claim it was rigged. I also seem to recall that the Pitmans opted or volunteered for bankruptcy, maybe someone with a better memory can confirm this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed, and it is my understanding that had Stuart Syvret simply taken material down as instructed by Data Protection at the time, then he would never have been taken to Court or ended up in prison. So he could still be in the States today.
      So who advised on that?

      Delete
    2. Totally agree with this comment as well

      Delete
    3. Who advised on what? Why would Stuart have taken legal advice on a matter of principle? Lawyers don't do principles.

      Let's be under no doubt, Jersey's data protection commissioner colluded with the attorney general, the police and the judiciary to get Syvret. In doing so, she made a mockery of the law she supposedly upholds.

      Not only did a sitting member of the states suffer an illegal invasion of their home by the police, and theft of property, but the DPC stole the right to safely make a public interest exemption disclosure, making a mockery of the law.

      The question you should be asking is who advised the data protection commissioner, and who advised the police to break and enter a states member's home?

      But we already know that. The current bailiff.

      Delete

  58. Oh dear, as I sit here shaking my head. I like very much the Pitmans, and also Syvret as no hold bars politicians but they are inteligent grown up men, that were aware of the dark forces in the corridors of power, but should have gone about their business differently.

    Mr and Mrs Pitman as much as I respect them made a gross mistake in bothering about a stupid cartoon in the powerful and only paper on Jersey. Investing tens of thousands of pounds to employ Jersey lawyers to get involved in such a stupid battle was a gross error of judgement. Look at it this way, even if they had won in court there is no guarantee that the court would have awarded damages to cover the considerable cost of the action.

    It was simply a bad move by the Pitmans.

    Stuart Syvret should have voiced his concerns back in 2008 to States members about child services and quietly brought in outside independent help by way of inspectors to prove what a shambles child services were. He should have played the States at their own game, gently gently catch a monkey. Instead he hammered staff and although no doubt correct on many levels, should have payed his cards closer to his chest.

    A week is a long time in politics both Syvret and the Pitmans will go down in history as true and honest heroes who did their level best against the " Jersey Way " and club of the corrupt but also for being human and not infallible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Future Progressives have to learn from these mistakes.
      Don't get wound up by cartoons in the paper and even if it frustrates you, do as the Data Protection Commissioner says.
      The moral of the story is - play it calm.

      Delete
    2. Don't think Shona Pitman is a man Anonymous@17.50. Found her rather dishy actually. It was a bad move though hardly as trivial as being about a cartoon. It seemed to me it was about a third rate Establishment newspaper being allowed, along with a wannabee estate agent to spread lies about people they wished to damage and misrepresent to the electorate. I'm sure the financial damage the Pitmans and Mr Syvret suffered has been huge. But they have certainly gained far more in the eyes of the public as being people who walked the talk. Something none of our current radicals seem capable of. True and honest heroes as you say.

      Delete
  59. There is nothing that puts me off threads even on brill blogs like this than people trying to down play corruption like the Pitmans suffered. So I'll just say keep up the great journalism don't give too much space to the Pitman hating trolls and good night. I'm out of here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nobody is showing hatred against the Pitmans, where has that come from?
      What people are doing is being a bit more open minded about their plight today and what mistakes were made.

      Delete
    2. A good move Anon. Too many comments answering the haters get blocked by the moderator(s) for my liking.

      Delete
    3. Anon 21:06 I don't see very much on here from "Pitman hating trolls" instead I see quite a few people (including myself) making valid criticisms of their decision to pursue this through the courts. Indeed if the comment about multiple lawyers advising against this is true then it was very ill advised to proceed, although how the author of that comment knows this as fact I am not sure.

      Also generally I don't see people disagreeing with the corrupt nature of the system they were fighting in that was stacked against them in the first place or indeed "playing that down".

      So maybe you should stay in bed and mull these points over for a while.

      JRCbean

      Delete
    4. @21:06 & 21:17
      As a long term reader and commenter I have found VFC's moderation to be fair, virtually without exception. That also seems to be the widespread perception.

      I am always a little suspicious of commenters suggesting that they or others should go elsewhere.

      Why would genuine readers make that suggestion?
      If you genuinely know of a better news and child protection site, then please do let us know......

      Delete
  60. Casting all the finger pointing and claims of an unfair trial aside, I have spent some time revisiting the Pitman Libel case and the conclusions drawn, and not just by Sir Charles Gray but other Legal Firms commenting afterwards.

    Putting it simply, the Cartoon in question was not clear enough to show libel.
    The Court was not convinced people in general viewing the Cartoon would have translated it as money grabbers as the Pitmans claimed.

    Though to me personally the Broadland translation of '4 times salary' being a standard mortgage lending criteria is difficult to translate as well.

    It was a controversial case which should never have been started.

    https://www.jerseylaw.je/judgments/unreported/Pages/[2012]JRC092.aspx

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anyone who could not translate putting two successful election candidates inside an election rosette depicting pound signs and banknotes would proably have to be a bent jurat or have a distinct dislike of those who it sought to misrepresent.

      My other problem with it though would have to be why would a newspaper let people, any people, be portayed in this way? For those who sat in court and I sat through one day of three or four the JEP editor admitting that in his understanding the 4 x the salary darling! was clearly about the Pitmans getting a big pay rise any defence of the insult being related to mortgages flew straight out of the window.

      I agree that the case probably should not have been brought. Not because it was not libellous. It clearly was. But because the Jersey court unfortunately has a reputation even in Britain for being at best highly suspect. At worst all too often corrupt.

      The only other point I would make is the one many apologists for the verdict seem keen to push aside is the Jurat in question clearly was unfit to sit just as the COI panel heard.

      Delete
    2. It is intriguing is it not that this blog allows the spreading of false stories by people like JRCbean to try and back up his opions and undermine the Pitmans yet other comments exposing this are blocked.

      As a union member (Trevor had once been a union representative and that is how I first met him) I once asked Trevor about this when it first surfaced a few years ago. It seemed a bad move if true.

      He made clear to me that he and his wife had not been advised as such by any legal firms because they had not gone to any other legal firms.

      Trevor said they went to Viberts because that was the union's lawyers and he had had dealings with them before. He evidently trusted them which quite possibly he doesn't now?

      As any union member could confirm Viberts being the union's lawyers is a longstanding reality. What is probably more important in dispelling these myths that some like JRCbean seek to spin is that as Trevor also highlighted on his blog several times the couple also had the fact that the cartoon was defamatory confirmed via the legal opinion of two libel specialist lawyers in London by their Jersey lawyers before going ahead.

      Jrcbean probably needs to ask himself why would he, me or anyone else go ahead if everyone and their dog had advised against it? Me thinks a little bit of animosity to the Pitmans underlies this. The constant mention of Trevor's alleged ego sounds a little to close to the multi-avatar troll.

      These attacks on Trevor and his wife are getting as tiresome as those on Stuart. But if the moderator is determined to let them go then he should also be allowing posts that put the other side. The blog has always been known for fairness even to the likes of Andrew Lewis and Ian Le Marquand.

      Delete
    3. Also a bean, I can assure you I am not the infamous troll, but I would say that clearly you are not reading my comments fully or correctly, and are quoting totally out of context.

      Re me spreading false Stories you clearly can't understand what I wrote, which was "if the comment about multiple lawyers advising against this is true then it was very ill advised to proceed, although how the author of that comment knows this as fact I am not sure." Note the magic word "if", I AM questioning whether it was true, and also implying that I can't see how the writer would know this to be 100% true.

      I never said it was not defamatory what I in fact said was "The cartoon was satirical. Yes it probably did have an element of a nasty, vindictive dig at the Pitman's as well, and if so was factually incorrect in its logic of such dig" but I never said is was not defamatory indeed saying it was factually incorrect, whilst whilst also satirical implies that it could be considered defamatory

      Re "why would he, me or anyone else go ahead if everyone and their dog had advised against it?" I said, in my humble opinion, Trevor's ego got in the way. That's my opinion and I stand by it. But as for showing animosity towards the Pitman's, quite the contrary, as evidenced by "As a result we find ourselves short of two of the finest politicians the island has ever had. It was a very disappointing end to two fine political careers to date." If you take professional advice, and advice from trusted and knowledgeable people, excluding your dog of course, and all the advice says you may have a case Trevor but I would advise against pursuing it in court then you take it on your own head. That's still ill advised as I also said.

      I mentioned Trevor's ego in one post two times by the way and like I say I stand by that. I don't think I have used it excessively therefore, and have said its my opinion. So to accuse me of trolling is a bit rich quite frankly.

      I think my "you should mull this over in bed" comment or words to that effect got to you didn't it?

      Changing subject it seems to me that now that I have deliberately risen to the challenge of no longer posting totally anonymously, as I promised to do following a challenge by another poster on another thread, I'm fair game for possibly trolling myself. If that's not the case then please do respond but start responding using some kind of handle so I know its you, and visa versa. Oh and if you want to communicate and have a go at me directly if you have the balls then I'm also on Twitter under the same name.

      JRCbean

      Delete
    4. "If you take professional advice, and advice from trusted and knowledgeable people, excluding your dog of course, and all the advice says you may have a case Trevor but I would advise against pursuing it in court then you take it on your own head. That's still ill advised as I also said." I meant of course to refer to comment above That IF THAT COMMENT AND ADVICE WAS TRUE" or words to that effect

      JRCbean

      Delete
    5. Hey JRC. You also said, did you not, that poor old Trev's ego and decision was linked to him needing to have a pop, not being able to let it go, with the JEP who were one of his old sparring partners. Correct me if I am wrong. I only flag this up because by memory this advert, cartoon call it what you will, was published on Christmas Eve. Mr Pitman would only have had one States sitting by then by my reckoning. That would have been just to choose the Chief Minister and Ministers? So how he would have had time to make the JEP a sparring partner is difficult to see. Just your bad memory perhaps or justifcation for your onw views.

      Delete
  61. If every newspaper or magazine or tv show or web sites that displayed unsavoury or controversial cartoons of politicians were successfully prosecuted for libel then there would be very little worth reading or watching

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In a tiny community like Jersey the potential for damage to a person's reputation is obviously magnified a hundred fold. No doubt if Pitman had put similar on his blog about the Esate Agent there would have been a quite different outcome. Look what happened to Syvret for just posting truth. The Data Protection Commissioner goes out and looks for people to take him to court.

      Delete
  62. This blog posting is getting tiresome. No great fan of Mezec but I think it is unfair to single out him for doing nothing about what happened to the Pitmans in Jersey's Banana Republic. There are 48 more just happy to sit on their backsides doing nothing about legal abuses too. Until it happens to them no doubt. Mezec is just one more. People are just highlighting Mezec because he clearly likes to put on a show about being the big champion of fairness and the downtrodden. He isn't. He is just another no different to the rest with his snout in the trough. Leave him be. He has made it clear he does not give a monkey's about the Pitmans. The days of politicans who stood up against wrongdoing died with the demise of Ted Vibert, Stuart Syvret and yes, ironically the Pitmans. Today's bunch are just sheep.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If that's how you think, then (as Stuart used to say) you get the government you deserve.

      Delete
    2. That's not how I think by the way and for the record Sam. Please do keep doing what your doing but do also consider again trying to bring some change on these baring of on desastre rules.

      JRCbean

      Delete
    3. Yes Sam. You are right. We got you. I would love to know what your seeming issue is with the Pitmans though? I thought they both endorsed you? You don't seem to have much respect for them now though by the tone of no one is interested comments.

      Well I am and I know many who would love to see them back though |I don't think it will ever happen. Which is a bloody shame because we need more dare I use the term progressives to challenge this rotten government.

      Delete
  63. It is obvious that there are a couple of people on here who will defend the Pitmans 'no matter what' and there are those who are saying, 'look maybe this should never have been pursued, it didn't look clear cut'. The latter being more realistic.

    The other question - is this Court really bent?
    Well there is hardly a deafening outcry about other cases involving this Jurat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Think you have it the wrong way around. A couple of people clearly determined for whatever motivation to blame the Pitmans and pretend the Jersey court is in any way above board. The jurat in question was flagged up by the police and the Sharp report first and foremost. The Pitmans clearly didn't even know. As for no deafening outcry about the jurat you only have to read Stuart's blog over the years to know otherwise. Of course the friends of the Jersey WAy will "play down" his dishonesty. Nothing new there peeps. The Pitmans themselves and no dsirespect intended were just a sideshow, victims if you like. The real issue IS the Jurat and how he was allowed to ever become and remain one.

      Delete
    2. You are not addressing the case itself.
      Forget the Court/Jurat/ Judge, was this Cartoon really libel?
      I do not believe it was because it was never clearly mocking the Pitmans.
      The other thing against them was that they were Politicians and had they won it would have created a tsunami.

      Delete
  64. Anybody else noticed how any times the word 'truth' gets posted on here in comments....
    He says the truth, this is the God's honest truth, let's be truthful.....
    Must be a new thing since the Lewis debacle....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. ~ Aldous Huxley

      Mad! It would probably make me F*&^*£ng livid if I knew what was really driving Lewis on this path of destruction.

      JRCbean

      Delete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.