Speeches from Deputy Sam Mezec and Senator Philip Ozouf. Jersey Equality March (2)

Following on from our PREVIOUS POST and the resounding success of the March For Equality organised by REFORM JERSEY We offer (below) the speeches, given by Treasury Minister, and only openly gay politician, Senator Philip Ozouf, and Reform Jersey's Chairman, proposer of Equal Marriage, Deputy Sam Mezec.

It was encouraging to see two States Members from across the political divide able to share the same platform for the good of a common cause and the good of the Island as a whole and hope this inclusiveness can be built on in all areas of our States Chamber.

Congratulations to Reform Jersey for organising this event, to all who took part in making it such a success, and sending such a positive message to our government that the Islanders do care about equality and are willing to take to the streets to prove it.

Will there be a rally the same time next year (or sooner) to celebrate the first same sex marriage?

Jersey Equality March (1)

In continuation of our PREVIOUS POSTING as planned the March for Equality went ahead today and was a resounding success. Approximately 700 people turned out to show their dissatisfaction to our government's decision not to grant same sex couples equal rights (previous posting).

Below we offer our readers a quick glimpse of today's March and hope we have captured the positive mood of the event.

Congratulations to REFORM JERSEY for organising such a successful event in such short a time. An event which saw party divisions come together for a day to show support for our gay, Lesbian, and Transgender community.

This is the kind of inclusion we need in order for our government to move forward and into the 21st Century. Politicians from across the Political Divide willing to work with each-other for the common good of the Island and those they represent.

We plan on publishing a number of speeches, from the March/Parade in part two of this event. Speeches from across the political divide.

Equality Parade.

Following the VOTE to exclude Gay and Lesbian couples from Equality in Jersey. The Island's only political Party REFORM JERSEY has organised a Rally from The Royal Square to Liberation Square this coming Saturday at 12pm.

A FACEBOOK GROUP set up to publicise this event has attracted in excess of 700 (and climbing) people saying they will be attending. This will send out a strong message to our government saying that it got it wrong...................Again and the so-called "politically apathetic" Jersey Residents are not as apathetic as the State Media would have us believe.

VFC interviewed two members of Reform Jersey, Deputies Montfort Tadier, and Nick Le Cornu, to explain how the Rally came about, who will be attending, and what the Rally will achieve (if anything).

If you are Gay/Lesbian/Transgender/disabled/female and are sick and tired of the government regarding you as a second-class citizen please show your support to this Rally. Equally if you are a member of the public who feels the government discriminates against you and does not represent you then please show this Rally your support.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Solicitor General needs to learn how to answer questions.

Part 1 of this series can be viewed HERE.

Part 2 of this series can be viewed HERE.

Deputy Susan Pinel (Women in Politics 2)

Further to our PREVIOUS POSTING where it became apparent that St Clement Deputy Susan Pinel had not submitted a single proposition/amendment to proposition/written, or oral question to the States Assembly since being elected in 2011. Yet was a serial guest (in an election year) on BBC State Radio and chosen, as a guest, to be a voice for women in politics.

Last Monday the unelected, unaccountable, Speaker of the House and Deputy Bailiff (Chief Judge) William Bailhache attempted to silence dissent by cutting questions down to four minutes rather than the agreed ten minutes (per question). 

The Parliament met purposely a day early in order to accommodate question time where there were only nine oral questions submitted, none (as usual) submitted by Deputy Pinel. 

If each question had of reached its maximum allotted time it would have taken ninety minutes, which is thirty minutes short of the allocated time for Oral Questions, yet William Bailhache wanted to curtail this to 36 minutes. Could this have anything to do with Diane Abbott being in the Public Gallery and some uncomfortable truths getting exposed?

Thankfully Deputy Montfort Tadier, member of Jersey's latest Political Party REFORM JERSEY objected to this disgraceful attempt on silencing questions by the unelected unaccountable Deputy Bailiff and proposed that the full amount of allotted time, provided for by Standing Orders, be allowed. This was put to a vote (Hansard below) where Deputy Tadier's proposal was narrowly accepted twenty one in favour and twenty against.

One of those twenty politicians who wanted question time curtailed to less than 50% was the very same politician who has not submitted a single Written, or Oral, question of her own since her election in 2011 Deputy of St Clement Susan Pinel.

OFFICIAL REPORT

MONDAY, 30th JUNE 2014

 

[14:31]

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer.

COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER

1.2 Welcome to His Excellency The Lieutenant Governor

The Deputy Bailiff:

Well, first, as usual, I am very pleased to welcome His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor on behalf of you all.  [Approbation]

1.2 Welcome to Distinguished Visitor – Right Honourable Diana Abbott, Member of Parliament for Hackney North and Stoke Newington

The Deputy Bailiff:

I am also very pleased to acknowledge in the public gallery the Right Honourable Diana Abbott, Member of Parliament for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, very welcome to watch our proceedings for as long as she can bear it. [Laughter]  [Approbation]  Members will be aware that we have a very long Order Paper.  A couple of propositions have been withdrawn or delayed, but I thought I would share some statistics with you in advance of our sitting.  We have this afternoon plus 6 days, so that is 39 hours from tomorrow, and there are 48 propositions now to be debated.  Four of them are amendments to the proposer’s proposition, so if the proposition is proposed as amended we are left with 44.  If the average time for debate of a proposition is an hour, we will be 5 hours short.  A more practical approach might be to accept that there are some controversial debates, and Members will forgive me for saying that there appears there are several potentials for that.  If we had 3 such debates, taking the best part of a day each, that would take some 19.5 hours from our bank of 39.  It would leave 20 hours for 41 propositions.  Assume for a moment, if you will bear with me, that 12 of those are straightforward and take a quarter of an hour each, that would be 3 hours from the bank and you are left with 17 hours and 29 propositions, roughly 35 minutes each.  I would suggest that obviously will not be enough.  It would suggest also, therefore, that the longer debates may have to be curtailed.  Now, there is no point today in asking why we are in this position.  The fact is that we are and the questions and the debates will need to be managed if we are going to get anywhere near finishing the business bearing in mind that the Order Paper for the next sitting looks as bad for length, if not worse, than the present one.  I think there are these consequences.  The first is this.  If possible, we should try to get through questions and one or more propositions this afternoon.  I do not, therefore, expect to allow more than 4 minutes per question.  Standing Orders say that the purpose of Question Time is to get factual answers.  Ministers should in particular please curtail their answers to giving factual responses to the questions as concisely as possible.  Questioners should focus on what information they want to extract, not on what message they want to deliver.  Secondly, Standing Orders on the content of speeches will, I hope, be strictly enforced for relevance and repetition.  Repetitive speeches are not necessary and we do not have time for irrelevant ones.  I expect to approach the debates by being reasonably accommodating with repetitive material during the first 4 speeches on each side of the debate.  Thereafter, Members can expect to be pulled up by the Chair unless they have something new to say.  I choose 4 because some lawyers have been heard to say that judges need to be told something at least 4 times [Laughter] before you can be sure that they have understood the point. Although that is quite wrong [Laughter], I will adopt that principle this week.  Thirdly, Members should ask themselves before they get up whether they have anything valuable to contribute to the debate.  Sometimes we have heard Members start with a conversational statement like: “I am not sure what I think about this proposition.”  Well, if I may say so, if you not sure, stay seated.  Almost certainly one of your colleagues will not suffer from the same self-doubt and by the time he or she has finished that speech you may be closer to knowing what you think.  Finally, almost certainly, I will cause irritation, annoyance and disquiet to Members over the course of the next 3 days while I am presiding.  Sometimes I am bound to make a wrong call or a harsh call.  I would like to apologise for that in advance and I ask Members to agree to keep their eyes fixed firmly on the wider picture in the management of this very long order of business, both for this sitting and the next one.  [Approbation]

QUESTIONS

2. Written Questions

Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:

May I ask a point of procedure and possibly a point of order?  While I appreciate your direction and I also agree we need to act expediently, it seems to me, though, slightly unfair that Question Time should be penalised because at the last sitting we agreed to meet a day early to get through Question Time.  We did not agree to move Public Business to a day early. Also, given the fact that certain Members are not here who might have been wishing to partake in even some of the less important debates, I think it should be put to a vote so that the proposition should be we carry on to questions until they are finished.

[14:45]

I imagine we will still have time left over anyway, and then if there is time at the end of that we proceed with Public Business as suggested.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Well, I have given an indication of the way I propose to do it, but ultimately I am in the hands of the Assembly.  If you wish to make that proposition you can make it.  Is it seconded?  [Seconded]  I take it Members do not wish a debate on it.  Those Members in favour of adopting that ... the appel is called for.  The proposition from Deputy Tadier is that we allow, if necessary, the full amount of time provided for by Standing Orders on Question Time.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I do not understand the voting.  What are we voting on?

The Deputy Bailiff:

The proposition from Deputy Tadier is that ... you missed the earlier section.  Senator Ozouf, for your benefit I shall say that I had given an indication that I was proposing to allow 4 minutes per question in order that we could get on to the substantive propositions in good time this afternoon.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

Sorry, I was here and I did listen to it.  I just did not understand the question.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Oh, I see.  The proposal from Deputy Tadier is that we allow up to the full amount of time provided for by Standing Orders for questions.

POUR: 21		CONTRE: 20		ABSTAIN: 0
Senator A.J.H. Maclean		Senator P.F. Routier
Senator B.I. Le Marquand		Senator P.F.C. Ozouf
Connétable of St. Clement		Senator A. Breckon
Connétable of St. Lawrence		Senator F.du H. Le Gresley
Connétable of St. John		Senator I.J. Gorst
Connétable of St. Brelade		Senator P.M. Bailhache
Connétable of St. Martin		Connétable of Trinity
Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)		Connétable of St. Mary
Deputy J.A. Martin (H)		Connétable of St. Ouen
Deputy G.P. Southern (H)		Connétable of Grouville
Deputy of St. Ouen		Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S)
Deputy J.A. Hilton (H)		Deputy of Grouville
Deputy M. Tadier (B)		Deputy of Trinity
Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)		Deputy S.S.P.A. Power (B)
Deputy A.K.F. Green (H)		Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)
Deputy G.C.L. Baudains (C)		Deputy E.J. Noel (L)
Deputy of  St. John		Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)
Deputy of St. Martin		Deputy S.J. Pinel (C)
Deputy R.J. Rondel (H)		Deputy of St. Mary
Deputy N.B. Le Cornu (H)		Deputy R.G. Bryans (H)
Deputy S.Y. Mézec (H)

Women in Politics and State Radio.

St. Clement Deputy Susan Pinel is a guest on State Radio this morning discussing the topic of "Women in Politics." The Deputy is clearly a favourite of BBC State Radio because this is, at least, the third time this (election) year she has been invited on as a guest.

She has been a guest on "The Sunday Paper Review" (approx. one hour)  a lunchtime guest discussing her painting restoration business (approx. one hour) and today on the alleged "politics" Hour. Three hours of air-time, from the BBC, in an election year is pretty good going I'm sure readers would agree?

Of course the BBC wouldn't just keep inviting her on its shows if she wasn't such a major player in Jersey politics and has really made her mark in the political arena. The BBC wouldn't be asking her on (again) as a guest to discuss women in politics unless the Deputy was a great ambassador for that cause would it?

No because the BBC is more professional, and ethical, than that. If Deputy Pinel had been one of those politicians who turns up to States Meetings once every two weeks, doesn't utter a word (unless it's an election year) religiously votes the way she has been told to by the Establishment, doesn't submit written/oral questions, propositions/amendments then the BBC would be exposing her as an Establishment lap-dog and everything that's wrong about women in politics wouldn't it?

I mean Senator Sarah Ferguson isn't worthy of an invite by the BBC to discuss women in politics because Senator Ferguson is merely  the women's Representative for Jersey in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. According to the States website is a member of Privileges and Procedures Committee (PPC), the Public Accounts Committee  (PAC), Chairmen's Committee, Corporate Services Panel and Lime Grove House:Failure to Complete Transaction. Senator Ferguson doesn't rock any boats like Deputy Pinel by exposing Treasury Minster's "antics" in the Lime Grove Fiasco and such like!

Deputy Pinel is the obvious choice for the BBC to invite on (three times in an election year) to be the voice of women in politics because of her huge contribution in forming the direction the Island is going in since she was elected in 2011.

With that in mind we list the MASSIVE contribution Deputy Pinel has made to Island Politics (below) and why she is the obvious choice to be the voice of women in politics and serial guest on State Radio. (in an election year).

Written questions submitted to the Island's Parliament since election;





























Oral questions submitted to the Island's Parliament since election;

























Propositions submitted to the Island's Parliament since election;


























Amendments to propositions  submitted to the Island's Parliament since election;

























I might have missed some questions/propositions/amendments and if this is the case please send them in and I will try and fit them onto the list.

The more cynical reader might want to believe that the BBC keep inviting the Deputy on because she's a good little girl who does what she's told, by the Establishment, so gets favourable press in order to aid her re-election. To those cynics I say "nay" the Deputy's record (above) speaks for itself and so DOES the BBC's who gives everybody a fair chance to SAY THEIR PIECE.

Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry and The "Health" Department.

On the day YET ANOTHER DAMMING REPORT was published concerning Jersey's "Health" Department and how the island's children are STILL being failed despite the old "lessons have been learnt" sketch.

The independent Committee Of Inquiry held its second preliminary public hearing to hear, among others, argument from the disgraced "Health" Service as to why it should not comply with the Inquiry's protocols and hand over vital evidence/documents.

The Health and Social Service Department have failed to comply with a summons from the Inquiry Team arguing Data Protection issues.  Chairperson Frances Oldham QC ruled against the disgraced Health Minister and ordered the Department to hand over the documents within seven days.

The full transcript of today's hearing will be published on the Inquiry's WEBSITE (hopefully) later tonight. In the meantime, from its website, we reproduce below its latest update after today's hearing.

16 June 2014

​

The Independent Jersey Care Inquiry will begin public hearings on Tuesday 22 July. The announcement was made by Frances Oldham QC, the Inquiry's Chair, at a preliminary hearing in St Helier.

The Inquiry is still waiting for documents from the States of Jersey relating to the Redress Scheme, set up to compensate victims of abuse in the care system.

A summons requesting these documents has not been complied with and will be the subject of a further preliminary hearing on Wednesday 2 July.

Mrs Oldham said: "Despite expressions of support from the States, these documents have not been forthcoming. The summons that was served is designed to prevent delays so that the Inquiry can get on with its work."

When oral hearings begin, it's expected the first witnesses will be experts on the care system in Jersey, and will provide evidence on its context and background.

Mrs Oldham has promised a "robust and fearless" investigation of the way the service was run

 on the island, including the abuse of children over many decades.

The Panel, including Prof Sandy Cameron and Alyson Leslie, aim to establish what happened and. They will make recommendations to ensure children are better protected in the future.

The transcript from today's preliminary hearing will be available on the website shortly.

The Inquiry's Legal Team is still taking witness statements. Anyone with experience or information that might be relevant is invited to get in touch.

Jersey/ UK:      0800 735 0100

International:  +44 (0) 1534 828 798

Email: info@jerseycareinquiry.org

Post:  PO Box 551, St Helier, Jersey JE4 8XN

Advocate Philip Sinel Interview (Part 2)

Part two of our exclusive and in-depth interview with Advocate Sinel begins with the subject of his representation of the cops who were the subject of a criminal, and disciplinary, investigation in relation to the covert/unlawful bugging of Curtis Warren gang member car in Europe.

Team Voice reported extensively on this case, and after the cops were cleared, and indeed recommended for commendations, it became apparent that the Law Offices were left with questions to answer and nobody seems to be asking them. We exclusively published the written judgement of the disciplinary hearing in which the cops were cleared HERE. Contained in that posting are a number of links which details the "malicious prosecution" against the cops and the entire embarrassing debacle brought against them by the Establishment. When asked (interview below) how UK Barristers/Lawyers view the Jersey shenanigans Advocate Sinel replies "with Horror, amusement and disbelief."

The lack of a critical mainstream press, according to Advocate Sinel, is part of the problem we have in Jersey, although he acknowledges the Blogs (Jersey's only independent media) "do what they can" to counter the State Media and we thank him for his acknowledgement. We also hope the State Media will take Advocate Sinel's observations onboard and realise by not being critical of the Establishment it could be damaging Jersey's reputation/economy rather than protecting it.

Much more is discussed in the interview, to include who holds the real power in Jersey, how Jersey's constitution is backward of Sark's, the pattern developing of those who become victims of "The Jersey Way" after speaking out. Singapore gets a mention as does the rumours of Advocate Sinel's death..................

Advocate Sinel's submission to the Carswell Review can be viewed HERE. His recent Press Release can be viewed HERE and part 1 of this interview can be viewed HERE. 

Advocate Philip Sinel Interview (Part 1)

Further to Advocate Philip Sinel's recent PRESS RELEASE we have a two part in-depth interview (below), with Mr. Sinel, where he discusses the Press Release in more detail.

Advocate Sinel discusses the controversy surrounding his decision to give evidence in an American court, regarding the Bank of Cantrade scandal and subsequent complaint made by (now) Commissioner Julian Clyde Smith for doing so.

The coincidences of those who speak out against The Jersey Establishment/Jersey Way seem to become "accident prone" or find themselves "in the wrong place at the wrong time."

Asked why Advocate Sinel believes those in his profession who are, shall we say, "unhappy" with the Jersey Judicial system are not speaking out publicly he replies "they do not wish to join me in the dock." "They know what's going to happen if they start poking their heads above the parapet."

Has Advocate Sinel, like former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM, former DCO Lenny Harper, former Health Minster, Stuart Syvret, the Pitman's and a long list of others who have been critical of "The Jersey Way" become, like them, "accident prone" where he finds himself the subject of numerous professional complaints/prosecutions? Or is it time for Whitehall/London to fulfil its constitutional obligation and restore good governance and the Rule of Law in Jersey?

Press Release from Advocate Philip Sinel.

Local prominent Lawyer, Advocate Philip Sinel, who's damming submission to the Carswell Review featured as our PREVIOUS POSTING has today published a Press Release which we reproduce below.

The Press Release comes as a consequence of the prosecution against Advocate Sinel being dropped today for lack of evidence.

PRESS RELEASE 6 JUNE 2014

8 YEARS AGO I INTERVENED IN ORDER TO INTERRUPT A PHYSICAL ATTACK WITH A BLUNT INSTRUMENT ON MY ELDEST CHILD BY A FORMER MARTIAL ARTIST WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN DIAGNOSED BY A HOSPITAL PSYCHIATRIST AS HAVING AN EXPLOSIVE PERSONALITY DISORDER. 

I DID WHAT ANY RESPONSIBLE PARENT WOULD DO, THE ASSAILANT REQUIRED NO MEDICAL TREATMENT, NO COMPLAINT WAS MADE FOR 7 YEARS UNTIL AFTER A CLAIM FOR MONEY WAS MADE DURING OTHER PROCEEDINGS. 

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S ACTION IN PUTTING MYSELF AND MY CHILDREN THROUGH THE STRESSES AND STRAINS INHERENT IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION CAN EASILY BE INTERPRETED AS A DELIBERATE ACT OF INTIMIDATION DESIGNED TO DETER MYSELF AND OTHERS FROM SPEAKING OUT ABOUT THE NEED FOR JUDICIAL REFORM AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S POINT OF VIEW IT WOULD HAVE BEEN FORTUITOUS HAD MY REPUTATION BEEN TARNISHED BEFORE I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE FORTHCOMING PUBLIC ENQUIRY, AN ENQUIRY WHICH DEALS NOT ONLY WITH THE ABUSE OF VULNERABLE PERSONS IN OUR SOCIETY BUT ALSO WITH THE MANNER IN WHICH THOSE AND OTHER CRIMES HAVE BEEN COVERED UP.

OVER THE YEARS THERE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS ATTACKS ON MY REPUTATION AND LIVELIHOOD, ALL BROUGHT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE TAX PAYER.  MY ESTIMATE OF THE COST TO THE TAX PAYER IS WELL OVER £1 MILLION.

THE FREQUENCY AND NATURE OF THOSE ATTACKS HAS INCREASED AFTER I OBTAINED AN ACQUITTAL OF TWO SENIOR POLICEMEN AT THE BEGINNING OF LAST YEAR.  THE CHARGES AGAINST THEM, LIKE THOSE AGAINST MYSELF, APPEARED TO BE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED AND DESIGNED TO INTIMIDATE AND DETER.(END)

VFC, as readers would expect, has exclusively interviewed Advocate Sinel and will publish the in-depth interview over the weekend/Monday.