Sunday, 13 August 2017

The Jersey Way/Hot-Seat.





It is difficult to determine the subject, or most poignant talking point(s), of this posting/recording as a couple of fundamental issues arise from it and readers will have to determine what they think deserves the most prominence?

The first subject is the quality of "The Hot Seat" programme broadcast on BBC Radio Jersey. It should be said that Tony  Gillham (who hosts the shows) is a first class Disc Jockey, his "Gillham Gold" and other shows make for excellent listening and we highly recommend them to our readers. But to the best of our knowledge, despite being such a capable and excellent DJ, he is not a journalist. Somebody at BBC Radio Jersey has convinced, or may be even pressured him, into taking on a trade he has not been trained to do.

Once every month Jersey's Chief Minister, Senator Ian Gorst, is invited on to the so-called "Hot Seat" in order to be "grilled," supposedly by members of the public who are able to submit questions to him, either live on air (by phoning in) or through the BBC Social Media sites like Facebook and Twitter. Some of those questions are put to the Chief Minister by Mr. Gillham but many aren't.

I was permitted to go on air and put some questions to the Chief Minister (video below) Friday just gone (11 August 2017). I'm very grateful to BBC for allowing me this opportunity but at one particular point it felt like it was ME who was in the so-called "Hot Seat." I asked the Chief Minister the first part of my (three part) question. He took three and a half minutes of valuable air-time to "answer" it, then Tony Gillham asked one of his own questions that the chief Minister took more than a minute to answer. So between Tony Gillham and the Chief Minister, my simple question took more than four and a half minutes to answer.

When I interjected to see if I could ask the second part of my question I was asked by the presenter to "keep it as brief as possible so we can get more people on." Not once was the Chief Minister asked to keep his answers succinct and to the point, yet the person asking the question (VFC) is almost blamed for the amount of time that is being allowed to be wasted. A seasoned journalist would not have allowed the person in the so-called "Hot Seat" to rattle on for the best part of five minutes and then apportion blame to the person who asked the question. It's the person who is in the so-called "Hot Seat" who should be put under pressure and not the member of public attempting to hold him to account.

There are other aspects of this nature in the recording but for brevity I'll not list them here as readers can listen to them below.

For the avoidance of any doubt; this is not a criticism of Tony Gillham. It is a criticism of whoever appointed him to the job of attempting to hold politicians to account and expecting him to do the job of a seasoned journalist. BBC Radio Jersey has a political correspondent and it is he who should be hosting such shows. Certainly a DJ should not be expected to do it. It's akin to asking a (very good tradesman) Painter and Decorator to service your car.

Senator Philip Bailhache

Getting on to the subject(s) of my question(s) to the Chief Minister in the recording. Did he answer the questions? Does he honestly believe that Senator Philip Bailhache is NOT undermining his (Senator Gorst's) authority? How does it look, to the Jersey public, when Senator Bailhache is defending a politician who has been labelled, or exposed, as a liar by an independent Committee of Inquiry? Does Senator Gorst not see this as "The Jersey Way" in all its glory? Should/can the Chief Minister kick Senator Bailhache out of the Council of Ministers and relegate him to the Back-benches?

Is it not inconceivable to believe that Senator Ian Gorst is oblivious to the damage being caused to Jersey's reputation (and his own) by Senator Bailhache's actions? His (Senator Bailhache's) total disregard for the Care Inquiry and its report/recommendations?

There is little doubt that Chief Minister Ian Gorst wants to implement the recommendations of the Care Inquiry. He wants to dispel the negative connotations of the phrase "The Jersey Way." I believe he, like many other good people of Jersey, wants to see the findings of the Care Inquiry as a starting point for cleaning Jersey up. But he will no doubt have some powerful dark forces working against him and if it's true that he does not see the damage Senator Bailhache is inflicting then is he too blinkered or naive to carry out his plans and implement the much needed changes? Does he not see that politicians such as Philip Bailhache, and Andrew Lewis, represent (to a growing number of people) the bad old days of Jersey that need to be consigned to history? They represent an era most in Jersey should want to put right, forget, and move on from. Attempting to defend the indefensible and acting with complete impunity should be a bygone era and not one promoted in a post-Care-Inquiry modern forward looking Jersey.










51 comments:

  1. Senator Gorst is not a good person, he has been actively involved in aiding Philip Bailhache in wrongdoing, and probably was in agreement of Bailhache representing Lewis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's right, Gorst paid a lot of money to fool people into thinking he cares, and now he has to stay stuck in that facade, but Voice defeats the object of investigative journalism and unbiased reporting after recent efforts to use various people to uphold their investigative journalism. If you are biased or unbalanced and favour someone who is a God in your eyes because they can fool you, you aren't reporting a balanced view.
      We know what part Gorst plays in the glue of the Jersey Way, we have suffered it. And for speaking out on your 'balanced' independent journalism, we can expect anonymous abuse and people calling us 'Jon', which you also condone.
      Gorst's part in wrongdoing remains no matter what PR lessons have done to fool you, if you are balanced, report on his wrongs as well as how much you adore him, please. He isn't any better than Bailhache 1 and 2, just less blundering, more careful, in his part in wrongdoing, and undoubtedly helped to arrange Lewis's defence.
      Apparently anyone who speaks against you or gives a counterpoint can expect to be harassed and insulted on here, with your blessing. Which begs the question, how are you any better than the mainstream medias and press who you criticize?

      Lets have the yammering trolls in response now.

      Jon and Sue not-somuch

      Delete
    2. I happen to agree with the main point of the comment at 18:38: - Ian Gorst is a weak, a-moral, sock-puppet. He is a member of the Conservative Party, has connections with the toxic, secretive City of London commune; and his father-in-law is a big-league Jersey Freemason (as is probably Gorst, Masons acting as a kind of "marriage-bureau", it being one of their main methods for extending and cementing their power.) The examples of Gorst's failures in this matter are legion and breathtaking. Just to take a highly relevant example - Gorst carried responsibility for maintaining oversight of the conduct and performance of the CoI on behalf of the States. As Chief Minister, it was his job to make representations to the CoI, if the CoI were defying the States decision, and acting in ultra vires ways.

      So, how did he perform in that task?

      He permitted £24 million of public money to be used by a "public-inquiry" which engage in the following ultra vires acts and omissions: -

      Failing to meet its "legislative-purpose" on numerous grounds, for example, failing to undertake "Part e" of the States instructions;

      Becoming the first statutory "public-inquiry" in all of the British Isles in the post-Profumo years since 1966 to ignore and fail to follow the Salmon Principles;

      Being the first statutory "public-inquiry" to entirely disregard the requirements of the ECHR - a starkly unlawful action;

      Gorst sat back in silence - whilst the CoI failed to call at least two-dozen obvious and vital witnesses; witnesses it could have subpoenaed if it had wanted to, me included; and other - very - very - necessary witness - like Mike Pollard - like Emma Martins - like Jane Pollard - like Richard Lane - like Chapman, of "Ourchap" infamy - like Chris Pitchers - like Mike Wilkins - like Paul Matthews - like Michael De La Haye - like Jimmy Perchard - and so many others;

      The Chair having covert, secret meetings with profoundly conflicted parties - who should have been witnesses - like Emma Martins;

      Failing - in stark defiance of the requirements of the ECHR and of the Salmon Principles - to permit cross-examination - and action on its own, so grave was it, it alone rendered the entire "public-inquiry" void of all vires - and wholly not capable of functioning as a lawful "public-inquiry";

      Engaging in unlawful witness-harassment and intimidation by attempting to coerce me into signing-away my human rights, those of my constituents such as survivors and whistle-blowers, and quiet possibly signing-up to "protocols" which might then have been used to shield child-abusers from future prosecution;

      Introducing as their "methodology" that set of ex cathedra "protocols" - in stark - unlawful - defiance of Part e of the instructive decision of the legislature;

      Constructively excluding me as a witness by unlawfully defying my absolute right to Article 6 compliant legal representation;

      Further engaging in witness-intimidation - by basing itself in the same office-building as an expressly and recently conflicted law-firm;

      Failing to ensure equality-of-arms and a level-playing-filed - instead permitting at least seven, full-time professional representatives for the state and authorities to always be present - in contrast with not one - not one - full-time professional to always be present to represent the abuse survivors.

      And there are others - further examples of frankly extraordinary conduct by what Jersey taxpayers spent £24 million upon - in the clear, contracted belief that what they were purchasing was an objective, lawful, statutory public-inquiry.

      But - of course - the tragedy for Jersey is that a Philip Bailhache Chief Ministry would have been vastly worse; worse than Ian Gorst.

      I would welcome a factually, sensible, discussion on the above-issues, including disagreements.

      Sadly, though - I predict the expected trolling.

      Stuart Syvret.

      Delete
    3. Well Stuart, let's accept you are correct in everything you wrote. Where does such a debate get us in terms of moving anything forward? The COI has finished; it's work is done. The report will already be collecting dust and people's attention moving elsewhere. I honestly don't mean this in any dismissive sense, but where does debating a flawed COI get us?

      My own view - and I say this with all due respect to those who gave evidence and who rightly may feel some form of vindication having their testimony listened to, or from the findings of the report - is that a COI was never actually needed. Worse than that, it was actually a useful distraction to play for time and avoid taking real action. What was, and is, needed is a functioning policing and judicial system free of political control, and a functioning children's services department.

      Rather than expending your emotional energy on criticising the COI, wouldn't you be better doing something more positive and writing a manifesto of changes that are required to make Jersey a functional democracy. Personally, I would find this a more constructive basis of debate than picking over the bones of the COI.

      Delete
    4. I disagree with the negative view of the Committee of Inquiry, because I believe it delivered much better than expected, and many comments from all different sides I have listened to since confirm this.

      It is easy for people who never partook (for whatever excuses or reasons) to pour scorn on The Committee of Inquiry, but they are really wasting their time.

      Let's face it, like Anon 13:22 points out, the Inquiry is finished and there will never be another of it's kind again, so those who did not get involved have missed the train.

      Delete
    5. Interesting.

      Why would 18:38 be worrisome about being compared to "Jon" when they make a reasonable comment, it makes no sense -chill

      13:22 "writing a manifesto of changes that are required to make Jersey a functional democracy" Fair enough, but that is not to say that we should politely ignore the elephant in the room (or the heaps of dung it is standing by)


      16:12 - Yes in some respects the Jersey Abuse Report was better than expected.

      Better than expected does not mean that it is anywhere near good enough so pleas drop this trite "those who did not get involved have missed the train" BS
      No they have not. They still exist and they are still players.

      Analysing your tired analogy:

      a) -The train left without half the carriages !

      b) -The ticket is a ticket to where? -Another loop round the insular circular track.
      Is it a  £23m ticket to nowhere???

      Who is responsible for this fiasco? 10 years was enough time to set up a fit-for-purpose CoI and if necessary have any necessary legislation in place.

      Do we live in Toytown, or what?

      Delete
    6. With all due respect what do you intend to do next?
      You will never get an Inquiry of your own going, you have not managed to take Jersey to any outside Jurisdiction to get Jersey's justice system reviewed, and what are words worth when they are never followed up with any actions?
      The Care Inquiry has been and gone and that was the train.

      Delete
    7. Excellent answers from gorst showing real leadership and seems intent on delivering all col recommendations despite opposition from bailhache and wannabe and has-been politicians, finally we might get the bailiff kicked out of the states and safe child care provision.

      Delete
    8. "The Care Inquiry has been and gone and that was the train"

      Thank you for explaining the obvious but we got the analogy.

      But as said:

      a) -The train left without half the carriages.

      b) -The ticket is a ticket to where? -Another loop round the insular circular track.
      Is it a  £23m ticket to nowhere???

      Delete
  2. Gorst talks the talk, don't know what he talks about half the time but you have to remember he has been on numerous media meeting/confronting courses, and Gillham is only a DJ, agreed. But would you have rather had Price? He would have switch you off after the first question!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Perhaps Ian Gorst could ask Philip Bailhache why, as speaker in the States, he told Lewis, then the responsible Minister, "not to go down that road" when Lewis was invoking the MET "interim report" as supporting his suspension of Graham Power.

    Then, if Gorst is not satisfied with the answer he should sack Bailhache from the Council of Ministers. If he is satisfied he should tell us all what Bailhache's answer was and we could make up our mind about Gorst's resolve, or lack of it, to change the Jersey Way. It might be important to know that in the run up to the election and not let Gorst write his own manifesto and leave it unchallenged.

    Interesting that he should admit that he knew all along that the Island lacked adequate public inquiry legislation (I wonder why?) and that the legislation under which the Inquiry was set up was not fully fit for purpose.

    When you factor in that the Inquiry did not consult the States on its terms of reference, as it was supposed to, and those issues that the Inquiry ducked along the way, you really are talking about failure on a large scale. And Lewis's current situation is just a symptom of this.

    Hopefully the Inquiry will have done some good by its exposure of the extent and depth of abuse and the need to do something about it. And hopefully many victims/survivors will have got some consolation, validation and even closure, from telling their stories and finally being believed. But the Inquiry was supposed to do a lot more than that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dunno why you bother, the listeners on BBC Radio Jersey at mid morning are barely into 3 figures.
    Channel 103 is more listened to these days.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If Team Voice want to show new readers how both ordinary people like us and opposition politicians are treated compared to PR support given to Gorst maybe a link to that recording you had with Deputy Shona Pitman being prevented from telling the truth about her and her husbands treatment at the hands of the Jersey way? Mathew Price? What an embarrassment he was.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Shooting a Tidler14 August 2017 at 16:57

    The BBC have always been as bad as the JEP when it comes to political bias and giving an easy ride, if not in actually spreading lies like the Rag does. Hardly going to give Gorst a tough time.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Isn't it appalling that Establishment and Bailhache lap-dog Deputy Caroline Labey is trying to undermine the great democratic leap forward Trevor Pitman secured by attempting to turn back the clock so that Ministers will again be elected in secret, so allowing cronyism to grow ever stronger.

    How I wish Mr Pitman was back in the States now to put an end to this. Dictatorship comes nearer every day. What do others think? We should all be contacting our representatives to oppose this Labey/Bailhache proposal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is Deputy Russell Labey who is bringing the proposition.

      Delete
    2. Russell Labey finally blows his cover then. Getting these votes for key posts made open so the public knew if candidates had lied to them at the election was one of the few positive steps forward over the last few years. What the heck is Russell Labey playing at?

      Delete
    3. A very strange move for someone meant to be a progressive and for the people.

      Delete
    4. The States Assembly elected in 2014 will be remembered as the worst Assembly of all time. Even the good guys can't get it right. Madness and Gorst and Bailhache will gobble this one up big time. Withdraw the proposition Deputy.

      Delete
    5. Very disappointed in Russell Labey. I thought he was one of the more caring members committed to open government even though he doesn't seem to do or say a lot. Lucky to be re-elected if this goes ahead. Playing in to Establishment's hands.

      Delete
    6. Usually as we get nearer to an election States Members who have done nothing since being elected suddenly come up with blatantly populist propositions.

      Deputy Labey seems to have come up with something the exact opposite. Everyone bar the gang who run the show and their supporters want more openness. This undermines existing problems even more.

      Go back to Spotlight Russell if this is the best you can do.

      Delete
  8. They have never given you a fair crack of the whip when you got on to the phone in. They want questions on dog poop and how Jersey Finance is doing grand.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Andrew Lewis' testimony to PPC has been released. It is painful to read. Can someone close to him not tell him to please stop digging? All I can say is thank god for Deputy Simon Bree. I like his style of questioning. A great deal.

    http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/States%20Assembly/2017.08.01%20Transcript%20of%20PPC%20hearing%20with%20Deputy%20A.D.%20Lewis.pdf

    There are some truly disgusting examples of The Jersey Way just in the transcript of the PPC meeting itself. For example, Lewis was supported and represented at the PPC meeting by former Bailiff, Philip Bailhache.

    Lewis himself draws attention to words spoken by "the Bailiff" during the infamous question session on 2nd December 2008, yet completely OMITS TO POINT OUT that the then Bailiff was indeed Philip Bailhache, the man now sitting right next to him, defending him, at the hearing on 1st August 2017. In what way do either Lewis or Bailhache think that is at all acceptable? It's obscene.

    For example, timed at 15:15 in the PPC transcript, we read:

    "I regret not doing this, but given that the then Bailiff, as you will notice from Hansard, the Presiding Officer, was straining to conclude questions and answer session the moment passed quite quickly and we have all experienced this during debate and questions. At one point the Bailiff indicates that the matter cannot be advanced any further so the opportunity has passed by this stage to correct Senator Le Claire."

    Why can Lewis not say "the then Bailiff WHO WAS PHILIP BAILHACHE, THE MAN SAT RIGHT NEXT TO ME, RIGHT NOW...."

    Why? Why is it such a problem to name people? At its very best, this cloaking people in their titles and leaving the reader to work out who performed which role when, is disingenuous. It wilfully misleads people.

    Just say the ******* name. For the sake of the history books. Other people's names get mentioned. For example, Graham Power. He does not get referred to as "the Chief of Police". He gets named as Mr Power, by both Lewis and Bailhache, at the PPC hearing.

    Lewis evens says, during his testimony "As Members of the Assembly you will know that when in the States, whenever possible, we do not mention the names of officers when speaking in the Assembly. Even mentioning their title by implication identifies them. The Deputy Greffier will attest to this I am sure. She has pulled a number of us up on various occasions." Yet he names Graham Power and refuses to name PHILIP BAILHACHE. It stinks.

    Other examples of missing names, from Lewis' own testimony, are in capitals below:

    "I feel concern, for instance, that I did not receive the advice from Her Majesty’s Attorney General [WILLIAM BAILHACHE], which he had given to the former Chief Minister, Frank Walker. It is a matter for Mr. Walker as to why he chose not to share that advice with me. "

    and

    "I think you make a really good point, because straight away after that, the Solicitor General [TIM LE COQ] has an opportunity to correct it and does not, then Senator Le Claire speaks after the Solicitor General [TIM LE COCQ] and then the Bailiff [PHILIP BAILHACHE] intervenes.

    Why is this man so determined not to name any of the Law Officers?

    ReplyDelete
  10. A significant part of Lewis's defence is that Standing Orders require that States Members do not ordinarily refer to non-members by name in the Assembly, and that he was therefore inhibited from referring to David Warcup. Of course, it's an utter nonsense, most especially given that this was an in camera debate, the very purpose of which was to enable more open discussion of matters outside the public arena

    The notion he and Bailhache are peddling that Warcup was a brave whistleblower who put his career on the line to expose the truth is a truly nauseating lie.

    I must say that, based on the transcript, I think Len Norman did a good job of chairing the hearing, but I am at a loss to understand what Standing Order permitted Bailhache to give a speech to the Panel.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This is an extract from a letter from Ogley to Lewis:

    “In conclusion, David [Warcup] states: ‘I believe these failings have the potential to undermine
    the integrity and reputation of the force and to seriously affect public confidence in policing in the
    Island.’"

    Does anybody else believe that Warcup came up with these words all by himself, or that they were actually drafted by somebody else (probably a law officer) and fed to him to put in his letter? They seem far too studied and deliberately crafted with the obvious intention of providing cover for a suspension to be a simple letter from a police officer expressing concerns about how an investigation is being conducted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have to say that these words sound exactly like what a policeman of that rank would say. And I reckon that would be quite easy to demonstrate - e.g. by searching for police statements made in similar circumstances.

      I do not think this is worth pursuing.

      Delete
  12. Agree with comment 11:30

    ReplyDelete
  13. ‘I believe these failings have the potential to undermine
    the integrity and reputation of the force and to seriously affect public confidence in policing in the
    Island.’"
    The people who came up with these words for Warcup, are the same people who promised Warcup the top job if he was prepared to go along with the illegal suspension of Top Cop, Graham Power....
    Wonder who these people are?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Interesting comment at 11:30.

    It would take a competent forensic computer expert about half an hour to find the origin of that phrase in the States of Jersey email system and/or their document management systems. They might have to restore some backups if the original source has been deleted, but it would be pretty straightforward to establish the provenance of that phrase, in electronic format.

    The problem with these old duffer cover up merchants is that they don't understand the technology. Terry Le Sueur and the cover up of the suspension metadata comes to mind...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous @ 19:22

      Good observation. But, (i) the records (incl backups) may turn out to be "missing" (à la best UK Home Office practice), and (ii) the earlier metadata problem was not a technical one, it was a lack of political will by those who knew exactly what they were doing, & likely to be repeated.

      Mind you, the Complaints Board, if it still has its teeth might allow the issue to be forced.

      Delete
    2. Ha... no chance. If it originated in the law officers department, it will be conveniently hidden behind the iron curtain of legal privilege.

      Delete
    3. Maybe.

      But the problem the States of Jersey have (with their refusal to have any sort of separation of powers) is that all of their emails and documents are in the "gov.je" email system. i.e. A government system. The clue is in the title. A government email system supported by central government employees, stored on central government hardware. And therefore subject to FOI, subject to the usual exclusions.

      If these people were really interested in separation of powers, they would run their own email system "@lawofficers.je" or even better, a separate "@crownprosecutionservice.je". But they don't. They continue to be part of "@gov.je". They can't be part of the government's systems then not part of the government's systems when it suits them. Who do they think they are, Mr K?

      At the very least, whatever got produced on the computers of Ian Crich, Bill Ogley and David Warcup should be subject to FOI.

      Delete

  15. Ben Shenton's article in the JEP leaves itself open to many omissions. Over to the bloggers to put him factually right.

    He really has nailed his establishment colours to the mast, the mast being in the centre of the " Jersey Way Square "

    The Inquiry Report is lifting stones and look who and what is crawling out.

    http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2017/08/15/comment-why-take-this-line-of-inquiry/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sometimes it is best to completely ignore the Shentons, Le Mains, Powers and Perchards.
      Showing online frustration and annoyance only feeds their egos.

      Delete
    2. With thanks to "DW" August 15, 2017 11:29 pm
      Where to start??
      Well let’s start at the beginning and go through the numerous falsehoods in this piece.
      The question of course, as with all attempts to mislead, is ‘why would anyone want to mislead’?
      1
      Ben Shenton writes: “…………. a random BBC News headline from 31 July 2008. .... ‘Remains of at least five children aged between 4 and 11 have been found in the search of a former children’s home in Jersey, police have said.’
      David James Smith, in a lengthy piece for the Sunday Times, (4500 words) published May 10th 2009, said this:
      “I had written in detail about the child-abuse inquiry last year. I had never given much credence to the more lurid tales of possible homicides, mainly because I had been counselled against them by Lenny Harper. There were no missing children, he said, clearly and often, and there was no evidence of murder”
      2
      Ben Shenton writes: “the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (IJCI) Report correctly states that I had no wish to interfere with the core child abuse inquiry”
      Nowhere do they say this. They say something which is related but far from the same. But the Report does make clear that Shenton did not support the Police investigation, and his actions tended to undermine it:
      They write a lot on this matter and conclude (Paragraph 10.294)
      “We find that Ministers in general recognised that, however unpalatable the outcome of Operation Rectangle might prove to be, the Police investigation had to be permitted to run its course unhindered. The alternative, leading to public accusations of cover-up, would have been far worse for Jersey’s reputation, and we find that politicians recognised that fact.
      “10.295 Nevertheless, we accept that CO Graham Power would have felt under
      pressure from the public opposition voiced by Senator Ben Shenton and
      others.”
      3
      Ben Shenton claims that the suspension of former Police Chief Graham Power was a neutral act.
      The Solicitor General at the time (Tim Le Cocq) said this to the IJCI (Day 132 transcript page 107):
      Inquiry lawyer:
      “Did you recognise the reality that if the Chief Officer of Police was suspended his position would be so damaged he was never actually going to come back?"
      Tim le Cocq :
      “I think I recognised -- I certainly recognised that it is a momentus (sic) thing to suspend the chief officer of police in any jurisdiction, that there would be an enormous amount of public interest and public input if that happened and it would make his position very difficult going forward, particularly if what came out
      of it was not a total vindication of his position. So yes, I would have been alive to that.”
      4
      Ben Shenton writes: “A Metropolitan Police Report was quoted from and it showed how the Island had been ‘stitched-up like a kipper’ with regard to the murder allegations.”
      Very strange that. I have just re-read the Met Interim Report, (as it ended up being leaked) and it says no such thing. I challenge Ben Shenton to justify this sentence.
      In fact the Interim report is bland and simply cannot justify a suspension. And indeed using it for disciplinary purposes was a very very serious breach of correct procedure by Warcup and Lewis who should have known better, and probably did know better.
      CONTINUED

      Delete
    3. 5
      Ben Shenton writes: “when Deputy Lewis said during the in-camera debate that he had ‘read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police’ I did not think anything of it, for so had I”
      That is 2 lies for the price of one.
      NEITHER Ben Shenton NOR Andrew Lewis had read the Metropolitan Interim Report, at that time. We know this from the Napier Report
      6
      Ben Shenton writes: “Deputy Lewis currently heads the only government body (the Public Accounts Committee) that can officially examine the legal costs of the Inquiry.
      “I wonder what this whole saga really is all about, as it has nothing to do with childcare and nothing positive can come of it.”
      Shenton is suggesting here that the reason that the Inquiry has stated that Lewis lied to the States and to the Inquiry is that Lewis is in a position as chair of the Public Accounts Committee to launch an investigation into the COI’s spending.
      At one level, this is a nasty piece of innuendo. It is also a laughable suggestion, as anyone who actually reads the relevant passages in the COI report into Lewis’s lying can see for themselves. The case against Lewis is rock solid. The IJCI is not inventing criticisms, they are reporting their finding of fact.
      So, why does Shenton write like this?
      If we are to improve child care in Jersey, the exact opposite of what Shenton writes is true. Lewis and what he did is dead centre of improving child care in Jersey.
      The Chief of Police of Jersey was ousted unfairly, with no evidence, and to “get away with it” Lewis lied to the States according to a well-resourced public inquiry led by a senior QC - and we still do not know the reason why all this happened.
      Shenton still wants cover-up and deception. I hope that most of us do not.

      Delete
    4. Thank you for taking the time out in ripping apart the Shenton story. I have been in contact with former DCO/SIO Lenny Harper who has agreed to respond to the article and I hope to be publishing his Guest Posting in a couple of days.

      Delete
  16. Hopefully you mean Sean Power 23.47!!

    ReplyDelete
  17. The JEP is running a poll asking if Andrew Lewis should resign. Unbelievably it was showing 26 percent had voted "NO." Readers can vote HERE.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Accredited Troll16 August 2017 at 13:06

      Anybody else get the feeling that Andrew Lewis has made an enemy of the JEP perhaps through one of his marketing companies, so they are settling an old score?

      Delete
    2. The Accredited Troll.16 August 2017 at 14:23

      I know they are.

      Delete

  18. Dear VFC,

    The JEP have decided ( so far ) not to publish a rebuff of Ben Shenton's article in their comments section although newer comments are now up. Of course that is their right. One does wonder if the reason is that I give bloggers credit and the media none. Please publish if you think the said item is worthy.

    Dear JEP,

    DW's factual and accurate response offer’s a complete annihilation of the rubbish that ex Health Minister Mr Shenton wrote in the above article, DW being far more truthful, focused and accurate

    I always thought of Ben Shenton as one of the more intelligent and factual based people in politics but no more. He dislikes bloggers, probably because some are educated, articulate, accurate and show up politicians who lie or bulls**t

    ITV.

    " Ben Shenton voted against holding the inquiry " ( sic )

    http://www.itv.com/news/channel/2017-07-04/states-need-to-make-the-most-of-the-ridiculous-amount-of-money-spent-on-inquiry/

    BBC.

    " Senator Shenton thanked his supporters and said he wanted to return to politics at some time in the future".

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-14682943

    Should he ever decide to stand for public office again he has blown it. Not wanting an enquiry into child abuse protects the establishment which Francis Oldham found badly at fault.

    He is another public liability dinosaur that does not realise that an educated public can understand and read reports, and statements of fact, and knows how to use the world wide internet web.

    He should do the same and become truthful and not support a states member whom PPC have agreed ( with the findings of the inquiry panel ) lied and mislead the States. Andrew Lewis quoted a police report he had no access to, but did receive a letter from Mr Warcup the very man that was desperate to get Graham Powers job.

    States members failed to have confidence in Mr Warcup's actions and work and refused to support his application for the job of permanent chief of police. So he left

    BBC

    "He says delays in the States' validating the appointment and political hostility directed towards him are the reasons for his decision.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-10690882

    Thanks to DW and other informed honest researched people.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous @ 13:38

      I wouldn't rule out publication yet.

      New commenters are supposed to be moderated initially and then when they have proven themselves later comments just sail through.

      So if you are a new commenter, or appear to be, you will be shunted into the moderation queue and will definitely appear, if you do, after later posted comments.

      Been there, done that.

      Delete
    2. I have just read the transcript from the PPC hearing and a few things struck me.

      Philip Bailhache's appearance on behalf/friend of Lewis is a stroke of genius on his part.

      He gets to display his lawyerly qualities and, most importantly, gets a chance to have a go at the Inquiry from the high moral ground – remedying an appalling injustice! And all still under privilege.

      It should not be forgotten that he was not exactly enamoured of the Inquiry in the past and that it did criticise him severely, a fact he omitted mentioning when enumerating the “one victim of the Inquiry”.

      Clearly Stuart Syvret should have got Philip Bailhache to draft his original (unsuccesful) application for legal cover to the Inquiry. You need a real lawyer for this sort of a job.

      As for his dissection of the term “lie”, something kept resonating in my head, and then it struck me. 'Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” After he had said this, he went back outside to the Jews and told them, “I find no guilt in him.” ' John 18:38 Exegesis can sometimes be your friend. Despite this, Jesus did not come well out of it.

      One plank of Lewis's defence against his having lied was a lack of motive. After all, he told us, he was not trying to get the States to vote for the suspension. He was just telling them about it out of courtesy. That reminded me that the reason they went for suspension rather than dismissal was that they could avoid needing a States vote on the matter and, with the complicity of the political/judicial system, keep Graham Power on ice for as long as suited them, denying him his rights along the way.

      Of course Lewis had motive to invoke the full weight of the “MET Report”. He needed every bit of backing available for the heinous act he had just committed. The fact that the actual contents of the report did not justify suspension, and that he was not supposed to use it for disciplinary purposes anyway, did not deter this desperate man in his efforts to justify his actions. Even the powerful warning by the Bailiff/Speaker to shut up went unheeded.

      There's at least a pair of them in it.

      Delete
    3. Polo.

      Re; "he was not trying to get the States to vote for the suspension. He was just telling them about it out of courtesy."

      He was NOT telling the States out of "courtesy." He was legally obliged to inform the States he had (possibly illegally) suspended the Chief of Police. He had no choice other than to "tell them about it." It was "legal obligation" not, as it seems Senator Bailhache wants to convince people, a "courtesy."

      Delete
    4. Voice @ 15:25

      Lewis's term for his statement in the States was that it was "merely informational" the point being that he did not need to persuade them of anything in order to obtain a vote.

      I'm afraid, in my enthusiasm, I described this as a courtesy statement which is a different thing and, as you rightly point out, it was not.

      Mea culpa.

      Delete
  19. Why was Bailhache allowed to give a speech to the PPC? There is nothing in Standing Orders that permits this.

    ReplyDelete
  20. It stands to reason that Home Affairs Minister of that time,Senator Kinnard, had no intentions to suspend Chief of Police of that time. That's why Andrew Lewis was brought in. He went straight in with the suspension of Graham Power after reassurance from the Walker, Ogley, Bailhaches that it would be a piece of p###....Thank God that In-camera States debate was leaked!?

    ReplyDelete
  21. How would Ben Shenton know what went on in the States? He was hardly ever there.

    ReplyDelete

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