Chief Minister To Seek Re-Election

Chief Minister Ian Gorst.

Jersey's Chief Minister, Senator Ian Gorst, has declared his intention to put himself, once more, before the electorate and seek a third, and final term, as Chief Minister.

Last week VFC was granted an interview (video below) with Senator Gorst to discuss his decision/reasons for seeking an unprecedented third term as the head of the island's government. As an anti Child abuse campaigner I wanted to know how much his support for the Jersey Independent Care Inquiry, and its recommendations, might have hurt him politically, how can he appeal to reformers and traditionalists at the same time? How can he make the public, and States Members, aware of the atrocities which took place (for decades) in State-run "Care" Institutions when some people (and media) only want to discredit the Care Inquiry, and its panel, for ordering a Prawn Cocktail rather than the soup of the day (a-la Operation Rectangle)?

Senator Philip Bailhache

We discuss (among much more) the possibility of (long time critic of the Care Inquiry) Senator Philip Bailhache challenging the leadership role, either openly, or by proxy and what this could mean to the implementation (or not) of the Care Inquiry's recommendations should Senator Bailhache, or a proxy, be successful?

The way I see the up-coming contest for Chief Minister is a two-horse-race. It's either Senator Gorst or Senator Bailhache in the running. Who we elect, at the General Election in May this year, will decide who leads Jersey for the next four years. Who is committed to implementing the Care Inquiry's recommendations? Who is committed to reforming the States and bringing it somewhere close to the 21st Century? Who favours "The Jersey Way" and would take the Island back to the 15th Century? 

Senator Lyndon Farnham

Gorst has come in for a lot of criticism over his leadership across Social Media. One doesn't have to look far on the internet to see remarks like "get Gorst out" "Gorst is useless" "wait until the next election Gorst will be history." This is all well and good but I don't see anybody saying who he will be replaced by? So far the only other declared candidate is Senator Lyndon (Philip Bailhache by proxy) Farnham. With his track record of the Jersey Innovation fund, the Aircraft (non) registry, Condor, and so forth is he really the man to replace Gorst?

Would Senator Gorst be my first choice for Chief Minister? No. But one has to be realistic and look at the "realistic" alternative(s).

Of course this all does depend on either/both Senators Gorst and Bailhache being re-elected in May and unless there's a huge (monumental) shift in the demographic of the voter (traditional Jersey) I think it is a forgone conclusion that both will get back in comfortably. 

Hopefully readers/voters/perspective voters will find the video interview below informative and might encourage them to the polls at the General Election. Vote.je is a very useful site which explains how to get registered to vote and much more which can be found, on the left hand side of this Blogsite under the "My Blog List" banner or  it can be accessed from HERE.  

Abraham Gorst.

Abraham Gorst.

On 20th June 2017 our heroic Chief Minister, Senator Ian Gorst, faced a Vote of No Confidence tabled (but possibly not authored) by St. John Constable Chris Taylor. The proposition listed a number of failings/concerns the proposer (or its author) had against Senator Gorst and sought to convince the rest of the Assembly that it was time to relieve Senator Gorst of his role as Chief Minister. Something Team Voice warned to be careful who/what you wish for. Thankfully (because the alternative was unthinkable) Senator Gorst comfortably survived the vote and was not unseated.

We say; "comfortably" because going into the debate he did not have the support he had at the end of the debate, and we argue that this is for one reason and one reason only.

What we learned from one particular speech, during the debate is the horrendous ordeals, life tragedies, to include assassination attempts, mental breakdowns, the tragic death of his childhood sweetheart, bankruptcy, and a war (what's going on out at St. Ouens?) that Senator Gorst has had to overcome in order to finally get elected (after many unsuccessful attempts) not only as a legislator but Chief Minister (or president) of Jersey. The inspiring part of this triumph against adversity is the humility displayed by Chief Minister Gorst who has NEVER once complained, or even mentioned, the struggles he has had to overcome in order to get to where he is.

Deputy Rod Bryans

Below is a shortened/edited recording of what we believe is the speech that saved Senator Gorst's neck. The speech delivered by Education Minister Rod Bryans, we are sure, will go down in the annuls of Jersey political history as the most inspirational speech ever spoken in the Jersey Parliament. The speech that saved the political career of possibly the most courageous, determined, leader Jersey has ever seen or is likely to see.

The research Deputy Bryan's must have undertaken in order to draw all the parallels between our Chief Minister, and that of former U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, must be commended. It would have been exhaustive work, not only researching all the parallels, but collating them in such an inspirational, and informative speech, that would persuade sworn Gorst enemies to vote in favour of him keeping his position as Jersey's leader. Deputy Rod Bryans' speech should be equally celebrated as the achievements of Senator Gorst/Lincoln. We have a new found respect for the Deputy and are reassured that the education of Jersey's children is in his hands. Children for decades to come will be talking about "that speech." The "Abraham Gorst" speech will be quoted by political commentators, speech writers/analysts, politicians, and historians for decades also.

We know how humble Senator Gorst is and feel sure that he will be thinking to himself "what the hell was Bryans thinking of giving that bl--dy Abraham Gorst speech?" Or "WTF possessed him to go on about assassination attempts, mental breakdowns and Bankruptcy and the rest of that gumph?" Well Chief Minister, he did, it almost certainly saved your political career and you should be as proud of that speech as no doubt Deputy Bryans is. You should feel proud to have a Minister on your team of such calibre and of un-questioning devotion to you.

The full (inspirational) speech can be viewed HERE. It will only be available for 6 months online so we hope our shortened/edited version will go some way in preserving this momentous occasion in the annuls of Jersey political history.

#Satire.

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.

Former Police Chief lodges Criminal Complaint Against Sitting Politician.

Former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM

Following the publication of the Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry (COI) Report and the revelation of the legal opinion from the island's Attorney General that Deputy Andrew Lewis, after being branded a liar by the COI, will NOT face prosecution for perjury (like you and I would) as he was allegedly covered by Parliamentary Privilege when giving evidence to the COI.

Team Voice has interviewed former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM and asked him his thoughts on the COI's findings and recommendations and indeed his thoughts on Deputy Lewis apparently (legal "opinion") being protected by privilege or not as the case may be. Mr. Power's observations (as one would expect) are far ranging/reaching on this and all subjects discussed in the exclusive interview.

Deputy Andrew Lewis.

He tells us that the public were duped into believing Deputy Lewis and all States Members who gave evidence to the COI were doing so under the same circumstances as everybody else giving evidence. Why was he asked to swear an oath before giving evidence? Why didn't the  Panel ask him to just be truthful as there was no point in swearing an oath? Victims/Survivors and witnesses (who weren't politicians) gave evidence under the threat of prison for perjury. Andrew Lewis didn't.

There are other opinions on the definition of Parliamentary Privilege that don't sit alongside that of the Jersey Attorney General. Mr. Power, for instance told us:

"It has been suggested to me that there is no known precedent for the use of privilege to escape prosecution for perjury and that the AG is quoting the law out of context in that the overall purpose of the immunity is to allow members to speak openly and honestly without fear of legal reprisals. Not to lie through their back teeth."

The former Chief Police Officer asks what implications this might have further afield (Grenfell Tower Inquiry) and much more. By referring Deputy Lewis's apparent lies to PPC isn't this already going against the COI's recommendations and in particular recommendation 7 (Below)?

Regular readers will be aware that PPC has already looked at the evidence against Andrew Lewis when VFC made a complaint about his apparent lies but PPC did NOT act on my complaint and further denied me a properly constituted (PPC) Hearing where I would have been granted the protection (which I need(ed)) of privilege enjoyed by Deputy Lewis. my complaint to PPC can, and should, be read HERE and HERE.

Recommendation 7 features heavily in this interview which is why we have published it below so readers can make themselves aware of it when considering the action/inactions of the government in the coming weeks/months or even years. It has to be said that it doesn't look like the best of starts after spending £23m on an "independent" judge-led Inquiry which found that one of our politicians lied and our politicians want politicians (PPC) to look into it.

Chief Minister Ian Gorst.

Team Voice can also exclusively reveal that the former Chief Police Officer has lodged a formal criminal complaint against Deputy Lewis with the Chief Minister Senator Ian Gorst. Mr. Power is asking that the Chief Minister put into place an "independent" criminal investigation into the actions of Deputy Andrew Lewis. At time of publication the Chief Minister had not responded to Mr. Power and we hope to keep readers updated as we are.

Readers are encouraged to watch this interview (below) in its entirety as it is full of thought provoking revelations few might have thought about. One thing readers/viewers can be certain of  Mr. Power is not going away any time soon. In fact VFC has been liaising with Mr. Power for not far off a decade now and we have to say we have never seen him as animated, and determined, as he is now. He looks to have the bit between his teeth and so he should. He, and his family, have been badly wronged. This needs to be put right and he is determined for this to happen.

Recommendation 7: The “Jersey Way”

13.41 Throughout the course of the Inquiry, we heard reference to the “Jersey Way” notwithstanding that there did not seem to be any set definition of the term. On some occasions it was used in a positive way, to describe a strong culture of community and voluntary involvement across the island, and this is something we recognise as a strength of the island, from the many contacts we had with voluntary organisations and individuals who give generously of their time to serve the interests of others. On most occasions, however, the “Jersey Way” was used in a pejorative way, to describe a perceived system whereby serious issues are swept under the carpet and people escape being held to account for abuses perpetrated. A Phase 3 witness told us: “we [also] have the impossible situation of the non-separation of powers between the judiciary and political and there is a lot of secrecy, non-transparency and a lack of openness. This brings with it the lack of trust, the fear factor that many have spoken about and contributes greatly to the Jersey Way”. 

It is this strongly held perception by many of those who experienced abuse that will continue to undermine any attempts to move the island forward from the matters into which we have inquired. We therefore recommend that open consideration involving the whole community is given to how this negative perception of the “Jersey Way” can be countered on a lasting basis.

13.42 Jersey has a long and proudly held tradition of governance, but that is not to say that steps should not be taken to reflect the modern world in which the island exists. As with many long-established jurisdictions, there can be a resistance to change, which is something that seems to be acknowledged. We are of the opinion that this serious matter cannot be addressed without further consideration being given, in the light of our findings, to recommendations contained in the Clothier and Carswell Reports.

13.43 While these involve constitutional matters, we are firmly of the view that the progress that must be made in relation to future care and safety of children in Jersey will be undermined if they are not dealt with such that all perceptions of there being a negative “Jersey Way” are eradicated once and for all. Achieving this would, in our opinion, provide a very strong visible marker that there was a deep determination in the island to use the conclusion of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry as a platform to ensure that the island’s children and young people will be looked after in a caring and compassionate system that is underpinned by a system of governance in which there is the utmost confidence among all of the island’s citizens.(END.)

Compare and Contrast.

Senator Philip Bailhache

In our PREVIOUS POSTING we warned readers/politicians to be "careful what (who) you wish for" concerning the Vote of No Confidence against Chief Minister Senator Ian Gorst. A vote that he comfortably survived.

Our concerns, as Anti Child Abuse Campaigners, were that if Senator Gorst (who is a supporter of the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry) was ousted then we could almost certainly end up with Senator Bailhache as Chief Minister. As pointed out in our previous posting (above link) Senator Bailhache is NOT a supporter of this Inquiry and has attempted to thwart it at any given opportunity. We believe that if he had become Chief Minister the COI report would not have seen the light of day. (It still might not)

At this point it should be of interest to readers to note that during the Vote of No Confidence debate Senator Bailhache did NOT speak. He had nothing to say, either in support of his Chief Minister, or otherwise. Could it be that he didn't want to show his hand and reveal that he was after the top job?

The very next day after Senator Gorst was voted to remain as Chief Minister and Senator Bailhache realised that he's not getting the top job just yet. During "arrangement of public business" he (Senator Bailhache) proposed that the in-committee debate to discuss the findings of the Child Abuse Inquiry's report should be deferred. It is due to be debated on the sixth, and if needs be, the seventh of July. He wanted it deferred until the tenth of July. His reasons, apparently, is to give members time to read and digest the report because three days aren't long enough.

We reproduce below the video of Senator Bailhache's short speech making the proposition to have the debate deferred. We ask readers, in spite of the revelations in our previous posting, where we reported that the Senator, while in his role as Bailiff, delivered a now "infamous" speech at a Liberation Day ceremony where he said words to the effect: "Child Abuse is a scandal but the real scandal is the denigration of Jersey and its people by the outside media." When asked by Council to the Inquiry if he had considered the effect this might have on Abuse Victims/Survivors he replied in the negative.

We ask readers (after watching the video below) has Senator Bailhache learnt anything since then? How much compassion for Victims/Survivors does he demonstrate in his reasoning for deferring the debate?

But here is one of the more curious aspects of his proposition. He wanted the debate deferred until the tenth of July. But as Senator Gorst pointed out in his speech (below) during the debate, and indeed another States Member pointed out in their speech, Senator Bailhache is due to be off-island on the tenth of July on what sounds like official States Business (Jersey-London Day). Despite being reminded of this by two States Members during the debate, the Senator did NOT acknowledge it in his summing up speech.

It could be that he completely forgot that he would be off-island on the tenth, and he completely forgot to acknowledge this despite being reminded by two States Members during the debate and did NOT address the issue in his summing up speech. In his defence we must say that the Senator's evidence to the Committee of Inquiry did demonstrate he has a woefully inadequate memory. Under questioning from Council to the Inquiry he could barely remember a thing and was unable to answer many questions.

It could also mean that he fears he is (rightly) going to be heavily criticised in the Inquiry's report and doesn't want to be around when it is being debated?

Readers should compare and contrast the speech of Chief Minister Gorst against that of Senator Bailhache and ask who considers the interests of the Victims and Survivors and who doesn't?

Be Careful what (who) You Wish for.

Chief Minister Ian Gorst.

Now that the vote of no confidence against Chief Minister Senator Ian Gorst has been officially LODGED It's potential implications need to be examined and some pragmatic questions asked should it succeed.

Including Constable Taylor (the mover of the proposition) 14 States Members have signed the proposition and agree the Chief Minister should go. There is a rule of thumb, or an unwritten rule, that if a vote of no confidence against a Minister is brought then the proposer of the proposition should put themselves forward for the post. In this case Constable Taylor has publicly stated that he doesn't want the job claiming he has "the best job in the world" being Constable of St. John. None of the other 13 signatories have publicly declared an interest in the top job either.

So where does this leave us should the proposition be successful? As things stand NOBODY has put their name forward to replace the Chief Minister and 14 politicians have signed a proposition to get rid of him without knowing who his replacement might be. Some names have been banded around who might make a good/competent Chief Minister but none of these people have publicly declared they want the job.

Deputy of St. John Tracy Vallois' name has been mentioned a few times, not least by her Constable, that she could fill the Chief Minister's shoes. She has since ruled herself out of the running. Treasury Minister Senator Alan Maclean's name has also come up in the mix but he has not said anything publicly about it that we are aware of.

Another name that is strongly rumoured and there is a real possibility (he has previously ran for the post) that former Bailiff and current External Relations Minister Senator Philip Bailhache could put his name forward and has a good chance of winning the vote. He was asked on BBC Radio Jersey recently if he would stand for the position and would not give a categoric "NO." This only serves to strengthen the rumour and possibility of him putting his name forward.

Looking at this as an Anti Child Abuse Campaigner there could not be anything more concerning than the thought of senator Bailhache becoming our next Chief Minister. The former Attorney General and former Bailiff has consistently attempted to derail the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry. He spoke against giving the Inquiry extra funding HERE. He stands accused of receiving a leaked witness statement and attempting to intimidate WITNESSES to the Inquiry, accusations he strongly denies.  He has employed what have been termed as "scare tactics" by indicating the Inquiry's cost could reach as much as £50m (it cost less than half that amount). Whilst Bailiff he gave an infamous speech at his Liberation Day address saying:

"All child abuse, wherever it happens, is scandalous, but it is the unjustified and remorseless denigration of Jersey and her people that is the real scandal".

A man who seems to believe that children being horrendously abused and tortured in the "care" of the States of Jersey, and elsewhere, is less scandalous than Jersey getting some bad press?

From the TRANSCRIPTS of the Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry. Senator Bailhache being questioned by Counsel to the Inquiry Patrick Sadd:

Q. Did you discuss the (Liberation Day) speech and the draft with anyone?

A. I usually used my family as a sounding board on these occasions. I find my children to be my most ferocious critics so I would have shared it in the family, but beyond that, no.

Q. Does your family include your brother William?

A. I think not on this occasion.

Q. So aside from your family you discussed it with no one else?

A. No.

Q. Before making that speech, Sir Philip, the suggestion that damage to Jersey's reputation was "the real scandal" {WD009001/2}, did you consider the effect that this might have for instance first on those victims who had come forward to say they had been abused?

A. I think, Mr Sadd, I would have considered all the circumstances in the round. I can't -- I don't think I can say to you that I specifically identified the alleged victims as a group of people to be considered, (emphasis added) but I certainly would have viewed the matter in the round.(END)




Firstly he refers to the Victims/Survivors as "alleged" despite there being a number of convictions against abusers all be it a couple of Lambs thrown to the SLAUGHTER and indeed the numerous cases that weren't taken to a JERSEY COURT by, among others, Senator Bailhache's brother, former Attorney General and current Bailiff William Bailhache. Who has serious questions of his own to ANSWER.

Secondly he states:  "I don't think I can say to you that I specifically identified the alleged victims as a group of people to be considered,"

He is giving a political speech on a Liberation Day about Child Abuse and didn't consider the Victims/Survivors?

Thirdly he should be aware that there are more "ferocious critics"than his family members and he should be using them as a "sounding board" as he is being hopelessly let down by his family members.

Then we come to his apparent desire for Jersey to break ties with the UK and become independent. Quoted in an ARTICLE (June 2012) by The Guardian Newspaper as saying:

"The island should be prepared to stand up for itself and should be ready to become independent if it were necessary in Jersey's interest to do so."

Former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM

The former (possibly illegally suspended) Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM wrote in his (BURIED BY THE MEDIA) interim defence case to the Wiltshire Constabulary:

"Such views are not confined to the older elements of the honorary service. They can be found, albeit in a more developed form, in the senior levels of government and the legal establishment where some notable figures favour an eventual severance of links with the U.K. and would see the ready acceptance of U.K. working practices as running counter to this agenda. I recall that in 2007 I assisted a small working group which included, among others, the Bailiff Sir Philip Bailhache and the Attorney General William Bailhache. The purpose of the group was to prepare a draft contingency plan for complete independence. I submitted papers to the group on the implications for law enforcement, and used some contacts from my previous role to offer suggestions as to who outside of the island, could assist in developing such a plan. I provided contact details of key figures in the Scottish Government and Administration including the Scottish National Party. I recall that some of the advice and contacts I provided were in an email I sent, probably in July 2007. This and other experiences reinforced my understanding that there was a tide flowing against closer association with the U.K, and a strong local agenda to develop working models and solutions within the island."(END)

VFC can also confirm that Senator Bailhache does NOT have the confidence of the Jersey Care Leavers Association (JCLA) or any Victims/Survivors we have spoken to. Senator Gorst on the other hand DOES have the confidence of the JCLA.

The Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry is due to publish its final report within weeks and it is anticipated that those in power at the time, both judicially and politically, are going to be heavily criticised.

Chief Minister Gorst has been a supporter of the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry, firstly by voting for it to happen in the first place (Senator Bailhache was absent for the vote) and secondly for bringing the successful proposition to grant the Inquiry further funding. (Which Senator Bailhache spoke against but did not vote because of conflict.)

We don't know for sure that Senator Bailhache will throw his hat in the ring for the top job or indeed if he will achieve enough votes to get the job. What we are saying is that it's not worth the risk. (In our opinion)

Readers (including politicians) should seriously be considering what the implications could be of getting rid of Gorst. We are not saying that he is the perfect person for the job and that he hasn't got questions to answer concerning his leadership. What we are saying to politicians: You need to find out who might end up with the job if Gorst goes before you cast your vote. To readers/members of the public; don't lobby your States Member to get rid of Gorst until we know who his replacement might be. Be careful what (who) you wish for............................

Public to Discover How Much "openness" £50k can Buy?

Senator Ian Gorst

Tomorrow (Tuesday 2nd May 2017) we should find out if the reported £50k plus spent by the Chief Minister, Senator Ian Gorst, (the Taxpayer) on UK Spin Doctors has paid off.

In answer to Deputy Russell Labey's previous WRITTEN QUESTION the Chief Minister claimed that the aim of the £33,500 spent on Spin Doctors (Portland Communications) was in order to help him, Ministers and Civil Servants "to improve upon the past handling of such matters by the Island and being fully open and informative in the public response."

We have since learnt that the Chief Minister has spent a further reported £18,000 obtaining advice from former Tory Spin Doctor Ramsay Jones presumably for the same purpose of being open and informative in the public response (with regard to the Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry's final report)  TO BE PUBLISHED 3rd July 2017.

Deputy Russell Labey

2. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –

“Further to his answer to my written question on 18th April 2017, will the Chief Minister advise whether the £33,500 spent on consultancy in preparation for the release of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry’s findings included any expenditure on engaging Ramsay Jones; and, if not, what was the cost of engaging him and what is the total anticipated spend for all such P.R. advice and training relating to this issue?” 

Deputy Sam Mezec

3. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Chief Minister – 

“What measures, if any, will the Chief Minister be taking to ensure that, in the aftermath of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry publishing its report, the evidence it received remains publicly accessible and complete?”

Deputy Mike Higgins

8. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Chief Minister – 

“In light of the States expenditure on public relations consultants, legal representation and civil service time in preparation for the publication of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry’s report, will the Chief Minister undertake to investigate what measures, if any, can be taken to ensure there is ‘equality of arms’ for all parties involved with the Inquiry to be able to respond to that report?”(END)

We look forward to finding out how much "openness and informativeness" fifty thousand pound can buy.

Ian Gorst's Guide to the Galaxy.

Chief Minister Ian Gorst.

The meaning of everything, according to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, was/is 42 but Chief Minister Ian Gorst has his own version.

After the scandal of the Jersey Innovation Fund (JIF) was exposed serious questions needed to be asked, or more importantly answered, of those politically responsible i.e Senator Philip Ozouf who signed off two of the loans, and Senator Lyndon Farnham, along with Senator Alan Maclean who between them signed off five of the loans and last but not least Chief Minister Ian Gorst who surely has ultimate responsibility for the actions/in-actions of his Ministers and Assistant Ministers?

We reported HERE. how it looked like Senator Ozouf was being slung under the bus for his part in this fiasco, and in fairness to him, he resigned as Assistant Minister So we know he did "The Honourable Thing." What we DON'T know is if Senator's Maclean and Farnham have also offered to do "The Honourable Thing" or if Chief Minster Gorst asked them to?

Deputy Montfort Tadier.

Reform Jersey's Deputy Montfort Tadier attempted to find this out on 14 February 2017 by tabling the following Oral Question to the Chief Minister:

“Given that Senator Ozouf was not the only Minister to have signed off loans from the Jersey Innovation Fund, will the Chief Minister also be asking Senators Farnham and Maclean to 'step aside' from their Ministerial duties until the relevant investigation has fully reported back?”

This is where we discovered that senator's Farnham and Maclean signed off the majority of the loans but we DIDN'T get an answer to Deputy Tadier's question. So on 14 March 2017 the Deputy attempted once more to get his question addressed if not answered where he tabled the following Oral Question to the Chief Minister.

“Will the Chief Minister state whether, following the publication of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report entitled ‘Jersey Innovation Fund’ (R.3/2017), Senator Farnham and/or Senator Maclean offered to resign as Ministers or whether he, as Chief Minister, asked them to resign?”

Again a pretty straight forward, clear and concise, question? But this is where we discovered that Chief Minister Gorst has his own version of "42" which appears to be "the former Assistant Minister did the honourable thing."

If this (edited video below) didn't make such a mockery of our so called "Democratic Process" it could almost be funny. The fact that the (unelected/unaccountable) Chair(s) of the States Assembly rule it perfectly acceptable for the Chef Minister (and by implication ANY Minister) to "come out with their own version of 42" in "answer" to any question makes the whole so-called "Democratic Process" that much more (almost) laughable and tragic............ 

Is Senator Ozouf Being Thrown Under a Bus?

Following the scandal of the Jersey Innovation Fund (JIF) and Senator Philip Ozouf's RESIGNATION. The question has to be asked "Is he (Philip Ozouf) being thrown under a bus here?"

On the 17th January 2017, in an answer to a question from Reform Jersey's Deputy Geoff Southern (video below) The Economic Development Minister, Senator Lyndon Farnham acknowledged, admitted, or even "confessed" that five out of  seven grants issued by JIF were NOT signed off by Senator Ozouf. Two of them were apparently signed off by Treasury Minister Senator Alan Maclean, three of them were signed of by Senator Farnham, and two by Senator Ozouf. The latter having fallen on his sword and resigned from his Assistant Ministerial duties.......At least for as long as there is an investigation happening into the alleged waste of millions of £'s of taxpayers money that was JIF.

So is Senator Ozouf the only person who should be shouldering all the blame here? We're not saying he does not have serious questions to answer and he must take responsibility for his actions and/or inactions but is he really the ONLY one who should?

Didn't JIF have some kind of an "Advisory Board?" What kind of advice was it giving? Was its advice acted upon or was it ignored? What about the Chief Minister himself? Doesn't ultimate responsibility lay at his door? Shouldn't he (and others) be offering his resignation or "stepping aside?"

It could be that the supposed Inquiry will answer these questions, or it could be that it won't. Who is conducting the Inquiry? Will it be another "Our Chap" Report? Is it, or why isn't it, a "public" Inquiry?

Reform Jersey's Deputy Montfort Tadier has submitted an Oral Question, (below) to the Chief Minister, tabled for this Tuesday 14th February:

Deputy Montfort Tadier.

Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –

“Given that Senator Ozouf was not the only Minister to have signed off loans from the Jersey Innovation Fund, will the Chief Minister also be asking Senators Farnham and Maclean to 'step aside' from their Ministerial duties until the relevant investigation has fully reported back?”

It's a fair question when one considers Senator Farnham's "confession" in the video below. But it doesn't sound/look like an absolute confession. One can't help thinking he was trying to absolve himself of any real blame and appeared to be laying it more at the door of Senator Ozouf. That's the impression I got but readers/viewers might get another impression.

Could it be that if every Minister was to resign through incompetence, or malpractice, that we would no longer have a Council of Ministers?

P.19/2016 A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing.

P.19/2016.

On the 14 June 2016 one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation ever to have been brought to the Island's Parliament (and there have been a few) is expected to get voted through unanimously.

The Proposition (P.19/2016) was submitted under the name of the Chief Minister, Senator Ian Gorst, signed by Assistant Chief Minister, Senator Philip Ozouf. Although all sorts of other propositions, and protocols, have been brought forward, by a number of different bodies/politicians in the past in an attempt to silence Blogsites, this is the latest incarnation.

In theory this piece of legislation, when passed, could also silence the mainstream/accredited/State Media (MSM). It seeks to make a criminal out of anyone who offends anyone online including the MSM. That is to say that if the BBC, or the JEP (the latter having an online comment section on its website) broadcast/print something about a friend of mine (or yours) and our friend DOESN'T find it offensive but you and I DO  then we (according to what Philip Ozouf has said) can go to the police and make a criminal complaint against the BBC/JEP and it could be charged. The same goes for all media including ITV/CTV etc.

Of course we know, in reality this is utter nonsense, any complaint made against the media, to the cops, will be ignored and the cops will tell the complainant to take it up with the media's regulatory body. (even if it is unfit for purpose or non-existent.)

Where are the media, the journalist, in all this? Why aren't they speaking out against it? The Media should be challenging government and speaking up not only for the little guy, but for themselves. As something as important as free speech they should be campaigning hard against this draconian law. Their silence  deafening.

We, as responsible online Bloggers, argue there is no need for this law/proposition because there are adequate harassment/libel/defamation and not least Data Protection laws. The four proxies who, through the data Protection Commissioner, were able to bring a court case against former Health Minister, and Whistle-Blower Stuart Syvret. The court case had the added bonus (for the proxies) of being held in secret so the proxies didn't have to go through the added "stress and harm" of having the allegations made against them public. The court case was brought under the guise that what Mr. Syvret said about them, online, caused them "stress" and "harm." Being offended on the internet can/will bring stress and harm so there is no need for this law because any alleged victim can go to the Data Protection Commissioner with their complaint and have their court costs paid for by the taxpayer.......All in total (not so) secret.

Former AG and current Deputy Bailiff 

Tim Le Cocq.

VFC filled in the online survey published before the proposition was tabled and it mostly covered internet sites geared up for children. snapchat/Bebo/Facebook etc. If this legislation is supposed to deter children from bullying other children online then why is it that children between the ages of 14-18 will almost certainly NOT be prosecuted? This little nugget came about from answers given at the Scrutiny Review Hearing (Thurs 26th May) where the Chief Minister and Home Affairs Minister were being questioned, although it was a member of the Law Office who was doing all the answering and there really was no need for either Minister to be there. Indeed it was the former Attorney General, (Tim Le Cocq)? who dreamed up this proposition so instead of sending one of his minions to the Scrutiny Hearing why didn't he turn up himself?

It has been stated that there is next to no chance of any 14-18 year old being charged with any crime as a result of this law. In fact the worst that can be expected to happen is they will appear before a Parish Hall Inquiry. That's not all together a bad thing because children should not have to be criminalised, but I thought this law was to protect children online? Where's the deterrent? But we know it's not being brought to protect children, it's being brought to silence political dissent and Blogs.

Former Deputies Trevor and Shona Pitman

Jersey's alleged corrupt and politicised judiciary has history in financially ruining those who have spoken out against the government, former Deputies Trevor/Shona Pitman, Stuart Syvret and possibly many others (we can't know how many secret court cases there have been). The legislation allows for a two-year prison sentence and an UNLIMITED fine. As became apparent at the Scrutiny Hearing, the fine imposed will be reflective of the crime and NOT the ability to pay. So the person writing the "offensive" comment online can be financially ruined for life as well as imprisoned for two years. It also became apparent at the Scrutiny hearing that the legislation seeks to approve two years in prison AND (not or) an unlimited fine.

This is a scary piece of legislation that will kill what very little free speech this island has left. Far from being a protection/deterrent for children against online bullying it is the latest tool being used to shut down free speech..........It's a Wolf in Sheep's Clothing.

Readers should also be interested in this comment from TOM GRUCHY.

Submitted by Team Voice.

The Propaganda Hour.

After the latest so-called "Hot Seat" programme broadcast on State Radio, Friday just gone, Team Voice were appalled at the inadequate questioning (again) of Jersey's Chief Minister Ian Gorst.

Every month the Chief Minister is invited on to the show supposedly to be challenged on his policies, actions, and in-actions, but the reality is, there is no challenge, and the programme is little more than a Party Political Broadcast for The Establishment Party, or according to the leader of Jersey's only political party REFORM JERSEY  Deputy SAM MEZEC A "propaganda Hour."

The Chief Minister is NOT joined on the show by any politician with alternative views or policies, he holds court, and listeners could be led to believe there are no alternatives to his policies including the Medium Term Financial Plan and the austerity measures being implemented by the government. How is this a balanced view for State Radio listeners? In the interest of fairness and balance the Chief Minister should be joined on the show by somebody/ANYBODY with an alternative view or a researched/challenging compare/host. Unfortunately the BBC looks to have adopted a policy where there can be no robust political debate and politicians/people with differing views cannot be live on-air together.

If the leader of the incumbent ruling party is afforded an hour-long show every month then the same should be offered to the only official opposition party but the BBC is resisting this.

VFC spoke with Deputy Sam Mezec (video below) about the continued BBC bias, the inadequacy of the "Hot Seat" (propaganda Hour) show and much more.

Team Voice has offered to fill the void left by the (un-challenging) State Media and offered to host an online live and interactive head-to-head debate with the Chief Minister and opposition party leader Deputy Sam Mezec. Deputy Mezec has agreed to the offer and we will be e-mailing the Chief Minister to invite him on "the show."

Details of the Chief Minister's response, and hopefully the show, will follow shortly.

Senator Gorst Crumbles.

Alleged Chief Minister Ian Gorst has caved in and withdrawn his vote of confidence against Planning and Environment Minister Rob Duhamel.

Those who have followed this debacle will know that Senator Gorst saw the writing on the wall and knew he was going to lose the proposition so has come out with the below excuse in order to save face.

Although he has lost face by withdrawing the proposition, as he would have, had it of been debated. He was in a lose, lose situation that ONLY he couldn't see.

It is clear to most political observers that Senator Gorst is being manipulated by those who want him out as Chief Minister to make room for the "rightful King."

"Following a constructive dialogue between Senator Ian Gorst and Deputy Rob Duhamel, the Chief Minister has decided to withdraw the proposition seeking the dismissal of the Planning and Environment Minister.

 

Deputy Duhamel has apologised for not disclosing information to the Chief Minister and for not clarifying the background to meeting a potential applicant without officers being present. He has confirmed that the relevant protocols will be followed strictly in future regarding meetings with existing and potential planning applicants. The Chief Minister has accepted these assurances and has expressed his regret regarding the recent escalation of events which led to the decision of the majority of the Council of Ministers to support the proposition for dismissal.

 

Senator Gorst and Deputy Duhamel have agreed that, while the move to Ministerial government has brought many benefits, there are some aspects of the current system that are not always conducive to good government and which are in need of improvement. Following last year's Machinery of Government Review, the Privileges and Procedures Committee is currently preparing amendments to the States of Jersey Law to create a more effective structure, which, if agreed by the States Assembly in the Spring, will clarify that the Council of Ministers should work to the principle of collective responsibility and will bring about a more effective Ministerial Code.

 

Until the new structure is in place, the Chief Minister and Planning and Environment Minister have committed to work together in a constructive manner within the current legal framework in order to serve the best interests of the Island.

 

They have agreed to work in partnership in order to:

·         review the relevant protocols so as to clarify the correct balance between privacy and disclosure in relation to planning information

·         decide what future role, if any, the Planning and Environment Minister should have in the initial determination of individual applications and whether changes are needed to the planning law

·         work with the Council of Ministers to develop an updated Ministerial Code in anticipation of the principle of collective responsibility and other machinery of government improvements being adopted by the Assembly

·         consider the interaction between the introduction of collective responsibility and the responsibilities of the Planning and Environment Minister under the planning law.

 

While this work is underway, the Planning and Environment Minister has confirmed that he will restrict his involvement in individual planning applications to those where it is absolutely necessary, having regard for existing procedures and the proposed amendments to the law to introduce a new planning appeals process, and that he will explain clearly to fellow Ministers if he is unable to engage in a discussion due to conflicts with his official responsibilities under the planning law.

 

The Chief Minister has welcomed these confirmations and has committed to seek to ensure that the Planning and Environment Minister can work in a positive and constructive manner within the Council of Ministers through better dialogue and mutual understanding between all Ministers." (END)

Now there must be a vote of confidence against Senator Gorst. Question is who in the States Chamber has the courage and integrity to bring it?

Deputy Trevor Pitman speaks on Jersey so-called "Justice."

Deputy Trevor Pitman delivered a speech in Jersey's Parliament on Wednesday 25th September 2013 while debating the proposition below.

For those with an interest in how Jersey is run, and who runs it, then please listen to/read Deputy Pitman's speech and you might want to ask why none of Jersey's State Media have reported on some of the subjects contained in it?

To include, according to Deputy Pitman, a child abuse victim of Haut de la Garenne being told "if he did not drop his allegations, he would be prosecuted and could end up in prison." 

Possibly one of the most, "to the point" speeches made in modern times during a States session spelling out who holds the real power in Jersey, which as regular readers will be aware, is the alleged corrupt and politicised, not fit for purpose, so-called "Justice" system and its unelected, unaccountable officials.

VFC credit TJW for this recording.

 2. Justice Policy and Resources: Responsibility (P.92/2013)

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion that, within the Executive branch of Government, the Chief Minister is responsible for justice policy and resources, as clarified in the accompanying report.

2.1.11 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

It is ironic, after allowing a lot of people to be betrayed yet again, as we did earlier, here we are talking about justice and yet it is all going to be done and dusted in about 10 minutes.  The fact is, in my opinion and in a growing number of the victims of the Jersey justice system, there is zero accountability to those at the top of the justice system in Jersey.  It is a very scary, frightening fact.  I do not know if the Chief Minister kids himself, but he is not in control here.  The political power in this Island lies with the law office; it is an absolute fact, certainly as far as enforcement of its will.  As has been said, and I never used to believe this, but it is all too often a tool of oppression.  It is a great example here today of how we could be saving money and how we do not need the Bailiff; the Greffier and his Assistant are proving that admirably.  We do not need any individual in a red cloak.  I will be quite honest, the reason I did not come to the special sitting last week, I find it highly offensive to see a judge, any judge - and this is not a personal thing - as our first citizen in the 21st century.  It is absolutely ludicrous.  I supported Senator Farnham’s idea for a Minister for Justice, but this is one of those watered-down fudges, and I think he is putting a brave face on and trying to be nice about perhaps convincing himself, wishing to convince himself that this is all going to move in a positive direction.  I think he is mistaken in that.  Senator Gorst, well, I told him yesterday I was not going to support this because I voted for him, as he knows, and I have been appalled that I did vote for him.  He is, in my view - I have to say that or I will get into trouble - utterly too weak to ensure justice in this Island.  If Members ask themselves when do you hear the Chief Minister talk about justice, speak out about it and upholding it?  Practically never.  You cannot go against the rule of the Bailiff.  It is one of the most striking things when you come into this Assembly: the ridiculous and quite offensive deference that is given to someone just because he is a judge.  Let us put it quite clearly: the Bailiff deserves no such deference, any Bailiff.  He is just a judge, and yet he can interfere, he can block what elected representatives to this Assembly say and ask.  As we saw yesterday in a quite embarrassing display, the justice system in this Island is so appalling that when the Bailiff fails appallingly, you can only go and take those failings to the Bailiff.  It is a bit like déjà vu when I remember back years ago when Senator Syvret was forced out of the States for 6 months, in 1996 I think it was.  Who could he ultimately appeal to about that?  Probably the same man who many would say was instrumental in him being removed from that Assembly.  This cannot be trusted to the Chief Minister’s Department because the Chief Minister just does not appear to have the will, the determination and the courage to do the job.  He is too weak.  That might upset some people, but I have to speak the truth, that is what we are meant to do here, are we not?  Where is the judicial accountability now?  There is none whatsoever.  We have a U.K. Minister for Justice who is meant to intervene when he should but he does nothing, and you cannot go through an appeal system.  We heard a really brilliant example of how the Jersey justice system is dysfunctional when we had to hear the desperation ... if you do not get what you think you should have, you can go to the Privy Council or then to Strasbourg, like those poor victims up there today.  It is a bit late by then because you cannot challenge failings properly.  People have had their lives ruined by then.  Is the Chief Minister going to put that right?  No, because he is one of those who I believe strongly is absolutely frightened to death of the aura of the Bailiff and all that it suggests.  The Bailiff has only got that deference from people because of the dual role.  We talk about in this report from the Chief Minister that you have got to have that independence between Judiciary and politics. 

[11:30]

Does he not ever look at the individual and what that represents sitting in that chair every session, the hypocrisy and absolute comical farce of what he is saying?  I cannot remember who said it, it might have been Deputy Tadier, it might have been Deputy S. Pitman, but you would have a Minister still being controlled on issues of justice by an unelected judge.  There is no place for this in the 21st century.  I am sorry the Deputy of Grouville cannot see the problem with it; just about any other right-thinking person can see the problem with it: it is a person wearing 2 hats at one time, it is an unelected judge being involved where he has absolutely no right.  It might have been okay in the 17th century when we were all meant to tug our forelock to our betters, but it is not okay now.  Well, I could not tug my forelock, but there we go; I may doff my cap.  I cannot afford a cap, but there we go.  It makes me so frustrated to say we will happily sit here and discuss ourselves for weeks on end, we will discuss dog mess for hours or days, and justice ... hardly anyone speaks.  Let us spell out the facts again: there are only about 5 of us in here who ever stand up for justice, and we are made out to be some kind of radicals, we are out to destroy known civilisation.  No, for those of us who talk about justice, it is because we care about our Island.  The rest, and I am sorry, that is 95 per cent of the States Assembly, fall into 2 categories: people who just keep their head down, they are too scared; to protect the status quo they will say nothing.  Or, it has to be said, people who perhaps do not care about justice at all, which is even worse.  Some of those people who we were debating earlier said to me yesterday: “For too many people, it is only when an injustice happens to them that they realise what is going on in this Island.”  That is because in the mainstream media they do not report on the true facts.  Again, they have got a huge responsibility, they have more power than we have but they do not talk about the real issues: “Let us just keep attacking the 4 or 5 loony lefties who keep going on about child abuse and the dual role.”  If I am to support this, Chief Minister, what are you going to do about all that?  What are you going to do about all these issues?  As we heard, the Chief Minister cannot go against the word of the Bailiff, so how is this being under his sway, how is his control going to differ?  I was at that meeting the Deputy referred to; he acknowledged there were huge areas that needed to be changed, but would he do them?  We have Jurats elected by lawyers; that is crazy, it does not even happen in Guernsey, and some people are always mocking Guernsey for what they do.  How can you have lawyers choosing people they are then going to be pitching to win their case to later?  It is absolutely bonkers.  The Jurat Law; what stops you being a Jurat?  If you have received assistance from the 1948 Poor Law, it does not matter if you are Jimmy Savile, you are in, you are a pillar of society.  That is what it comes down to, in essence: no convictions against Mr. Savile so he probably would have been welcomed as a pillar of the community.  Sorry if some of this is uncomfortable, but it is true.  I have got so many cases now on justice, I admit - and I will use this to apologise to some people I have not even been able to get back to, because I am being overwhelmed and I know Deputy Higgins has got a huge number - they are diverse and they are shocking.  What is being done about it?  What have successive Chief Ministers done about the injustice in this Island?  Nothing, absolutely nothing.  Justice in Jersey is made up as we go ... a phenomenon which some people may not be aware of: judge-made law.  It is a great example of what happens in Jersey: rulings, decisions given by judges that have absolutely no visible link to the laws that were passed by Assemblies such as ours.  Who challenges it?  Is the Chief Minister going to challenge it?  No, because he is not strong enough, and I put my trust in him, and this is not a personal thing either.  I put my trust in him when he was making his pitch to be Chief Minister and on the key issues, justice, like for the abuse victims, he has really done nothing.  He expressed his satisfaction, his contentment with the case against former Senator Syvret.  I do not agree with a lot of what Mr. Syvret has done, but I will stand with him on justice issues.  Regularly, there is a gentleman who sits up there who can show you his many consistent statements made to the police about, as a child, being pinned down and having blood trickling down his legs after he had been abused.  The person who he alleges, and more than a dozen others allege is an abuser, is still employed by the States of Jersey, has still got access to children.  How is the Chief Minister and his legal team, who are meant to be doing redress, treating that man?  Well, he is accused of never being at Haut de la Garenne.  It is only other people who were at Haut de la Garenne who would remember him there.  Has he had sympathy?  Has he had compassion?  No.  I will tell you what has happened to him: he has been threatened by the legal team that if he did not drop his allegations, he would be prosecuted and could end up in prison.  Justice in Jersey?  Utter farce.  Yet we are satisfied for the secret court case against Mr. Syvret.  Of course, one of those people given such huge financial assistance is the very man that so many people have accused.  That same case -if we are talking justice, Chief Minister - why is it that there is a letter in existence pitching for individuals to come in and put the case together and decide how they would get Mr. Syvret?  Five people invited; one of them refused.  Proxies; are those what they were?  I happened to believe that some of them, certainly a couple, have got cases for what has been done to them.  They may have cases to answer on the accusations against them.  The best way to have done that would be before a court.  As I have said before, then Mr. Syvret could have been taken to account if what he said was completely wrong and those people could have earned justice.  But no, what do we do?  Justice in Jersey, Chief Minister, we have secret court cases.  I do hope he is going to do the decent thing and resign when we get the true figures about how much this has all cost, because the question is already in for next session.  He wants to control justice.  Why is it that data protection and this access ... and it is all very well for him to chuckle over there, perhaps it is how he usually takes  justice.  Why is it that data protection ... this assistance is not available to all?  One of the individuals who was given money - Members might not know - is the scourge of innocent people in this Island.  He has been intercepted by the police threatening ex-partners; does not get charged.  He sends out posters to decent, ordinary people about threats to women; does not get charged.  He puts hate sites up on the internet which emails stolen from one of our own Members end up on.  Does not get charged.  When I went and made a complaint about him, the senior police officer went and looked and he was shocked at the amount of complaints against this individual, so he could see it was just not me.  Put the case to the Attorney General’s office; no case to answer.  Perhaps that explains, for all his faults, why Mr. Syvret went down the route he did, because it all comes back down to this image, hardly anyone wants to risk challenging Jersey’s fluffy image as a shining beacon of democracy, as I think former Senator Perchard said.  The way you improve your image is by confronting the things that are wrong, and that is what me, and those few other Members who stand up and talk about justice, do.  Of course, we get pilloried by the Jersey Evening Post, pilloried by other Members, former judges.  There is a wonderful little clip if Members get bored: go and look at YouTube and they will see a wonderful little clip of a former chief judge in Jersey and he is giving a talk to, I assume, the Law Society or a collection of lawyers, and he laughs and he gets a huge, great ripple of applause: “When I was a judge and the law was silent, I did what everyone did, I made it up because that is what everyone else did”; is that justice?  People laugh.  A chief judge, or a former chief judge ... I must not get into trouble, I must go down the magistrate route of today, confusing individuals.  It is funny, just on the news today the former assistant magistrate is out of prison already, laughing all the way to the bank, while those people we have sent away with their tails between their legs are going home.  One of them is on to income support as a result, she was telling me.  This makes me furious, these tick-box propositions that come back pretending to do something when the proof of the pudding is that this Chief Minister never stands up for justice ever, even when it is wrong.  He is controlled by the law office, in my view.  He does not have the courage to challenge things that are wrong. Why am I not going to support this?  It is not because I do not support Senator Farnham’s original idea, I do, though I ask the question, how many in this Assembly could do that job, 4 or 5, because most - and I mean that as no offence to any particular Member - have not got the courage and the conviction to stand up, as I do, so often.  But this is just a fob, it is a fudge.  It is another one of the Chief Minister’s cop-outs.  Why did we have a Minister for External Relations when we have not even got a Minister for Children?  Far more important.  Why have we not got a Minister for Justice?  Far more important than giving someone a title to do a job that, let us be honest, Senator Ozouf has been doing a pretty good job before we even had this Assistant External Affairs Minister.  I say to Members, do not support this, force the Chief Minister to come back with something that is fit for the 21st century.  Make him come back with something which will provide justice for all.  I think it was Deputy Le Fondré who today said when would justice purely relate to how much money people have got?  Well, that happens all the time in Jersey.  Many of us in St. Helier see constituents.  If they cannot afford to pay for lawyers and they get legal aid, they really may as well give up, because you will get a lawyer who is generally completely not interested or they are so young and inexperienced, it will probably do more harm to your case.  If you are in the middle, you are even worse.  Some people would say the Jersey system is bent.  I do not say it is bent, because if you imply that, then you think it could be put back into shape.  The Jersey justice system needs a full Turks and Caicos style intervention by the U.K.  We need the U.K. Minister for Justice to fulfil his mandate.  We need the Lieutenant Governor to fulfil the powers that he has got - and I like this Lieutenant Governor, I have had some lengthy conversations with him - but if he does not step in when he should, then what are we paying a great deal of money for?  We need a Minister for Justice, but I think it should be appointed from the U.K. because it is entrenched here, it is so entwined, political power with judicial power, that it cannot be done safely otherwise.  Now I think I will sit down and let our former Chief Judge attack me, as he does so often.