Friday, 5 June 2015

Jersey International Finance Centre and Democracy.

As a result of the PRESS RELEASE issued by Deputy Montfort Tadier concerning the building (or not) of Jersey's International Finance Centre at the waterfront. Team Voice has exclusively interviewed the Deputy, in depth, where he explains, from his perspective, that there is much more at stake here than a building going up (or not).

The very structure of Democracy, according to the Deputy, is under threat where it appears that the Ministers of our island are taking on the role of CEOs of quangos and representing their interests rather than the people of Jersey who elected them. Scrutiny looks to be redundant (or "an irritant") rather than a check, and balance, which adds value to the decision making process. Policy is now being described, by the current Treasury Minister, as "a mistake."

In December 2014 Scrutiny decided to look at the viability, and much more, of the International Finance Centre building and its Terms of Reference can be viewed HERE. Deputy Tadier explains the apparent shenanigans that have been played by the Treasury Minister, and others, in order to basically do away with this scrutiny function and secured a pre-let of 16,500 square feet (not the 200,000 square feet agreed in The States) of a building before the Scrutiny Report can be finalised/published and so that the building can begin.

This Sunday (7th June 2015) there is a planned public protest to be held at the waterfront (2:30pm) by those opposed to the start of building until the Scrutiny Panel has completed its Report and submitted it to The States.

But as explained earlier, and in the interview, (below) this is about much more than a building, it is about Democracy and preventing it being eroded further. You might not have a view on the building but if you cherish the little amount of Democracy we have on this island we encourage readers to support this protest and be a part of it on Sunday.


  1. Following the Sunday demonstration - on Monday 8 June at 2.30pm - the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel will continue with its Review of the International Finance Centre, and J Development Company will be the witness in the hot seat.
    This hearing is scheduled to be in Le Capelain Room of the States/R Court building but only has about a dozen seats for the general public. So I have asked for a larger venue to be provided and advertised pdq.
    As many people as possible who attend the Sunday demonstration should try to attend the Scrutiny hearing on Monday although you can only listen - not speak and you must not wear a hat within the confines of the States/R Court building....

  2. WTF?
    Paddy is secretly working for Dandara like when he was secretly in with Harcourt.
    They pay for his little trips to IOM etc and if he can pull this off he's in for a nice brown envelope.
    So you go ahead and support the rogue who wrecked the messiah and humiliated the cartoon victims because he don't care about democracy, he only wants a slice of the cake.

    1. Then I hope JDC keep It then.

  3. they are starting work on the 16th of june all this is far to late.

    1. If they intend starting work on the 16th of June wouldn't it make sense to hold the demonstration on that day to link arms and prevent the work going ahead?

    2. OK, I have got my tunnelling and tree climbing gear and my yurt. When and where am I wanted?

    3. Make sure you're wearing an NBC suit. The site is an illegal toxic-waste dump filled with 100,000s tonnes of toxic incinerator ash riddled with dioxins, furans, PCBs and toxic heavy-metals like cadmium, arsenic, zinc, mercury, lead, nickel, etc.

    4. Sounds like Jersey.
      No worries, what I smoke prepares me for anything!

  4. Where is Ozouf hiding in London has no one asked him to clarify his original statement?

    1. He's not in London but Africa.
      Be enjoying a BBQ about this time.

    2. More likely a BBC, surely?

  5. RBS Bath St opposite Minos restaurant has been sold to developer Spencer Bourne to convert into flats. I would consider that to be quite modern office space so why knock down for flats? RBS could have been a potential tenant for Esplanade but are not so must be downsizing their business here so if no one could be found for Bath St offices who is going to take Esplanade space?

  6. Great work VFC.

    This is an important posting but perhaps it should have gone on team voice site "Voice For Jersey" leaving the equally (or more) important

    at the 'top' on the "Voice For Children" campaign blog.

    That posting giving the lie to some important non-prosecution of paedophiles?

  7. The UK government may find it interesting that paid seats are filled on these Jersey quango’s by ex politicians and civil servants. Is that not confliction in the most arrogant way ? Some holding more than one seat and making decisions that elected Government should be making.

    The Corporate Scrutiny panel chaired By Deputy Le Fondre, are treading very carefully with this one, but as announced trying to remain objective, crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s. A very wise formula.

    It is fair to say that the public, partly because of this scandal have a low opinion of Jersey’s Government who appear hell bent on just charging ahead with this development, without proper up to date figures. Why would they do that, where is the common sense ?

    There will be an island wide uproar if scrutiny’s report on the profitability of the Financial Quarter is found to be negative, in other words a liability and the profits are not there as promised, the complete opposite of the many statements by Government ministers ?

    Deputy Tadier is just so on the case, and plain right, the responsibility to safeguard the publics’ assets lies with Treasury Minister Alan Maclean. He is not fulfilling that responsibility but backing a quango with ministers all happily joined in collective responsibility and supporting him like lemmings.

    Should it all be proved unviable, no doubt the CoM should also share collective responsibility and resign.


  8. We are told that UBS have signed a legally binding contract re the office space at the proposed finance centre, and why not they have nothing to loose and all to gain, and, others may well jump onto the band wagon within days, even I being a real JERSEY BOY with no brain can see, that should the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel decide that the project is not viable and that opinion wins the day these guys who have signed up on these legally binding contracts are in for a lot of compensation, the arrogance of managing director Lee Henry and his mob is totally unjustified of course they are pushing to build despite public opinion against the project and before the report is published, to save their face, this has backfired on them despite the report not yet being published and strong negative response against the project they still rushed to get a company to sign up, and now say they will start building very soon, these people are out of control and must be stopped, I wonder if I too signed up how much money by way of compensation I would come out with, I must pop and see my friend Honest Nev.

  9. This is an important posting. It shows to the outside world how riddled with graft and baksheesh politics in Jersey is. But I agree with the comment above who says this posting would have been more appropriate on the Team Voice 'Voice For Jersey' page.

    We need to keep the debate under the previous post going. I read there the interesting following comment.

    'Jersey campaigners should not underestimate the significance of the event of Operation Whistle, nor fail to understand the magnitude of the implications. Your PTB (and no doubt their equivalents in London) face a seismic 'problem' in 'The Jersey Situation' one which transcends even the UK-wide child-abuse investigation.

    In the case of Jersey, from the November 2008 illegal suspension of your Police Chief Graham Power, you have the whole range of Jersey's public governance system actively participating, at the very highest levels, in the unlawful sabotage and obstruction of a major child-abuse investigation.

    And worse yet, the relevant parts of the Whitehall machinery, parts of the UK government, were active participants in that illegal action.

    This is not something dating back to the 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s. This is a cover-up of child-abuse, to the dramatic degree of the actual sabotage of an extant investigation and the high-jacking of a Police Force no-less by abuse-concealing criminals, in the year 2008, and endorsed and shielded by UK authorities at the very highest level.

    It's a state-encouraged collapse in the very rule of law, one which transcends Jersey.'

    That commenter is more right than they know. Or perhaps they do know?

    Operation Whistle vindicates Operation Rectangle.

    And Operation Rectangle was illegally sabotaged.

    And opponents of, and witnesses to that illegal sabotage were then suppressed, oppressed, harassed, intimidated, abused and coerced.

    Think about that.

    Think about the gravity of that.

    Think about its unprecedented nature in modern British history.

    This is the beginning of a governance and constitutional earthquake which is at the top of the Richter Scale.

    It's cataclysmic. How far do the shock-waves reach? No-one's noticed so far but let me leave you with a clue.

    'UK Supreme Court'.

    You're a smart lot. You can figure it out.

    1. Does that mean the Jersey cover-ups won't get exposed & the system here cleaned up until the fight reaches the UK Supreme Court?

  10. None of this has even been a privy council case, so it can't reach the supreme court.
    I read all of this all the time, and yet none of it comes to the privy council.
    Barbados is always on the privy council list, but Jersey rarely is and never to do with any of these matters.
    Right, who is going to call me a troll, and where is the guy/girl who usually frantically and incorrectly attacks my posts?
    Freedom of speech?

    1. I rather think that's largely the point the previous commentator was hinting at.

      Cases arising in Jersey do not reach the UK Supreme Court, rather a sub-division, known the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

      But if Jersey's antecedent courts, including the court of first instance, are intrinsically politicised and corrupt then controversial cases in question will never be fairly and appropriately 'grounded', for example fully evidenced with the correct disclosures and focused on the correct legal argument and precedent, by the time they reach the Judicial Committee. Thus a litigant has virtually no chance winning an appeal at final court of appeal level. How could they have, if all the preceding groundwork and proceedings have been effectively 'rigged' beforehand? Remember, courts of appeal, and certainly not final courts of appeal, do not 're-hear' cases. It is not a case of an appellant 'hanging on' until they get to an unbiased court and there will be able to run their fair and just case. That is not how it works. In a sense, antecedent courts act in many ways as sandbaggers, making certain they've put in place all of the 'protective works' which may be needed by the higher court to shield the lower courts from appeal and criticism.

      The bottom line is that no high chain of appellate courts can compensate for courts of first instance that do not meet the requirements of Article 6. A viable final court of appeal does not make an ultra vires antecedent court system lawful simply through its existence. Justice either 'works' at first court level. Or justice does not work.

      Jersey's antecedent courts do not work, and are plainly political and corrupt. I suspect what the commentator was alluding to is that in order to reach the UK Supreme Court (as opposed to the Judicial Committee) it is necessary for the chain of litigation to have its origins in the UK courts, as opposed to Jersey's. And, in such an hypothetical case concerning the breakdown in the rule of law in Jersey, if reaching UK Supreme Court level, the litigant will have enjoyed the lawful right of unbiased courts of first instance earlier in the ligation, so fundamental weakness and fatal flaws in the respondent's case will not have been dodged around, massage, and elided by political and conflicted lower courts.

      I must say as an interested observer, I think it inevitable in one way or another that the situation does reach UK Supreme Court level sooner or later. Jersey has shown itself to be both unwilling and incapable of voluntarily abandoning its obviously unlawful feudal system of power (an instance that comes to mind, isn't there some secret report into a controversial safeguarding case but which is written by a judicial friend of Philip Bailhache, from memory he may have even had a hand in choosing them?) The only means observable which may avert ultimate arrival at the Supreme Court would be the intervention of all the theoretically liable respondent sub-divisions of the UK government so as to fix the Jersey situation beforehand. And there's been no sign of that occurring which I've spotted. So I'm inclined to agree with the commentator who said 'UK Supreme Court. I think that's where the final showdown happens, though we're obviously some years away yet.

    2. Cogent comment 20:13, all of which I'd agree with.

      But not specifically why I wrote 'UK Supreme Court'.

      Think of everything that's unfolded in Jersey, the facts that have emerged in the public inquiry, the existence of Operation Whistle, think of all of those and associated matters, events in the UK, and how far-reaching it all is.

      Two words.

      Jonathan Sumption.

    3. Thanks for clarifying.

    4. I believe that I might be the "guy/girl" referred to at 19:04 prior to the above series of quality comments.

      To VFC's great credit you are given "Freedom of speech", so why the whinge?. The implication is that you object to robust replies (the freedom of others)
      Try posting a link to this or any of the other quality blogs into the JEPaedo site and you will immediately find what "Freedom of speech" is worth to the 'accredited media'
      The fact you are here, taking you valuable time making comments vindicates these news blogs as the islands only real news and debate sites.
      The gist of your comments boil down to what exactly? ........this is all tosh? ........nothing to see here? ....everything is 'A-ok'?

      Without a record of all your comments it is difficult to judge where you are coming from and what your motivations are. I am not calling you a Troll, but 'troll' MIGHT be one of the nicer things you could be called.

      So here is your opportunity to explain yourself, your motivations and your comment.

      The gist I get is "nothing to see here", "everything is fine in Jersey or the Privy Council would have looked at it"

      Is Jersey's history of child abuse OK?
      Is Jersey's cover up of child abuse OK?
      Is Jersey's lack of a functioning democracy or a functioning legal system OK?

      Please feel free to reference constructive comments you have made on any (or all) of these subjects in the past.
      Why is it "frantic" and "incorrect" to respond robustly to your posts?
      There are worse creatures than mere "trolls" that haunt this island, don't you think?

    5. sorry bully, control freak, but I am an abuse survivor, and you are someone who simply shoots their mouth off.
      You have a habit of trolling my comments, presumably because you don't like my opinions.
      Not exactly freedom of speech when voice allows your bad attitude and bullying of commentators when you don't like what they say.
      What exactly is 'nothing to see' in my comment about the fact that very few privy council cases about Jersey are recorded.
      And are you crazy, regarding abuse and cover up being OK?
      The fact that I am a survivor and am very angry about the whole cover up and corruption makes your comments disgusting, and also just the fact you are trying to crush my views makes your whole whinge and rant invalid.
      Also voice allowing you to call me a troll is pretty disgusting.

    6. RE;

      “Not exactly freedom of speech when voice allows your bad attitude and bullying of commentators when you don't like what they say.”


      “Also voice allowing you to call me a troll is pretty disgusting.”

      I don’t see any bullying, rather robust debate, and diverse views which is encouraged in order to have a balanced thread.

      “You” are not being called a Troll as you are posting anonymously. Your contributions are valued particularly if you are an Abuse Survivor.

    7. Thank you VFC.

      Commenter @08:35 please do NOT take this as an accusation that you are the infamous troll featured in the above link. If you are bothered by even the possibility of readers thinking you might be, then the quick fix is to entrust your identity to VFC or another trusted team voice member. Perhaps you may even have information which is useful to them.
      Contact can be made because their email addresses are readily available or you can use a verifiable 'NFP' comment on their blog.

      I won't bore you with examples of the plethora of issues that survivors of childhood abuse can develop. Suffice to say that few emerge entirely undamaged or un-skewed, or even stronger for the experience. The outcome depends on the nature of the abuse, the person, circumstances and even good old fashioned 'luck'.

      In my experience abuse survivors can be quite antagonistic and touchy. Indeed I am myself.

      Another issue is that whilst some children end up in "care" due to bad luck, some are there because they are seen as 'dificult'. We now understand that this is often due to undiagnosed issues such as ADHD, Aspergers or HFA etc

      Some of these issues would leave a commenter oblivious to how their comments are misinterpreted by others and cause them to misinterpret the motivation behind the particular "facts" that the commenter wished to highlight.

      You will note that my suggestions INCLUDING ".......nothing to see here?...."

      You will be familiar with the syntax of a question .......traditionally ending with the use of a "?"

      Please do not be insulted or patronised, this is not my intention.
      There is no need and the police can be far rougher than I would normally be in their search for the [non corrupt] truth.

      Now ........... beyond claiming to be an abuse survivor your response did nothing to explain why you chose to highlight those facts. It could be interpreted as an attack on both VFC and me -BTW don't worry we can take it.

      Your facts and observation again "None of this has even been a privy council case, so it can't reach the supreme court. I read all of this all the time, and yet none of it comes to the privy council. Barbados is always on the privy council list, but Jersey rarely is and never to do with any of these matters. ..."

      Why make that comment in isolation. Is that Privy council situation acceptable? .....What is the way forward?
      Being an abuse survivor you must have given these things considerable thought. Please share those thoughts and give us the benefit of them.

      As I said before is your opportunity to explain yourself

      As VFC says we particularly want the thoughts of survivors

      The floor is yours ........

  11. For those who haven't heard it yet, Hedley's "Office Town" is spot on .........
    - or the cleaned up version for the sensitive

  12. Well, 'Operation Whistle' tries now to pick up the pieces of the unlawfully sabotaged 'Operation Rectangle'. Dear me what a mess. What a terrible, terrible mess.

    A very major sabotage of a very major child-abuse investigation. And as recent as November 2008. And now the authorities have to crawl shamefaced back to the concealed abuse and, deeply problematically, back to the Watergate-type cover-up. Mark my words, this episode in Jersey will quite feasibly be the most controversial segment of 21st century events examined by the Goddard Review. And to anyone who says the Home Secretary has said events in Jersey won't be examined specifically by Goddard, I suggest you wake up and smell the coffee. In the course of the child-abuse revelations across the nation, the Home Secretary has made a number of decisions which were then overwhelmed by unforeseen issues and events, causing their revision.

    Operation Whistle, which is an unspoken but plain and obvious statement of acknowledgment by the authorities that the sabotage of the 2008 investigation was wrong, changes everything. All bets are off.

    That 'Watergate' dimension is the issue. The cover-up. Obviously, governance and even constitutional factors sit in plain sight. Even if the Oldham Review possessed vires, it still is not equipped or capable of delving into those issues. In fact, with the high public agencies responsible for the 2008 cover-up still in place in Jersey, the island doesn't have a lawful environment in which the Oldham Review could competently conduct even the constrained investigations stipulated in its limited and defective terms of reference.

    The dominoes are tumbling and this particular row leads to the desk of the 2008 Secretary of State for Justice, the now disgraced Jack Straw.

    Oh, the civil and criminal legal issues which flow from all this! It's a nightmare. Not least the inchoate roles played by UK agencies in events in Jersey.

    None of it's going away. What a terrible mess.

    Dear oh dear. How did British governance get itself into this state of affairs?

    1. Spot on @15:09

      The financial cost of wicked people seeking to protect the guilty is utterly eye watering, and just mounts up with each of the wriggles and writhes as they try to avoid the consequences.

      Add to this the human cost of the abuse itself, the dashed hopes and bullying of victims when they came forward and the abuse investigation had to be trashed and the personal cost to professionals and campaigners who tried to help, like Simon Belwood, Stuart Syvret, Graham Power and Lenny Harper.

      Stuart Syvret being the first to be ousted from his ministerial position on the pretext that he was "bullying" the people responsible for child welfare and protection

      BBC-Savile, Krichefski-TV and the JEPaedo all still stick a knife in him at every opportunity. They think islanders are stupid.

  13. A full four days for the COI this week. Could be interesting.

  14. If people have evidence of cover ups then get off your backsides and get down the COI and prove it.
    Do something right for a change.

  15. If 2000 people demonstrated against the development and 98,000 did not, it is not fair to assume that the 98,000 are happy about it, and therefore democracy has spoken?