Wednesday, 7 October 2015

PRESS RELEASE ON BEHALF OF DEPUTY TADIER – 7th October 2015



Deputy Tadier has said that there are no hard feelings after the Bailiff, William Bailhache, misunderstood a comment made during a States Debate in which Deputy Tadier was presenting a Reform Jersey amendment seeking to reverse some of the cuts to benefits being put forward by the Social Security Minister, Deputy Susie Pinel.

‘In my speech, I stated that we all look to different inspirational figures for our moral and political guidance (be they philosophers, economists or reigious figures). I named two such figures – the American moral and political philosopher John Rawles and Jesus Christ, both of whom talked about the need for social justice and looking after the poor, the sick and vulnerable.’

‘I used the example of the well known motto “What would Jesus do? (WWJD)” or “what would Rawles do?”, before stating, rhetorically (and ironically), “Of course, Jesus would be at the Tory Conference or an IoD dinner.” Before I could finish my train of argument – “Or would he?” I was interrupted by the Bailiff, who said my comment was offensive and asked me to withdraw the comment. I did not as the comment was not offensive, but standard political discourse - as he would have found out had I been allowed to continue. This was a contravention of my parliamentary privilege and it is an important principle that elected members be able to express themselves freely without fear or prejudice.’

Talking about the Bailiff’s intervention, Deputy Tadier said, ‘The Bailiff is not the Pope, and like all of us, he is fallable. He simply got the wrong end of the stick on this occasion. Had he followed Standing Orders to the letter (see below 109 /3 and 4)) he would have asked me to clarify my comments rather than asking me to retract them, and he would have understood the point I was making. Thankfully, after the hour’s recess, the Bailiff had obviously thought better of it and I was able to contiune where I had left off.’

‘I am grateful for the solidarity shown by States Members, particularly the Chief Minister, who came to my defense, saying he did not think the comments were offensive, simply a political illustration and maybe a direct challenge to the Chief Minister’s policies as a Christian.’

‘The whole thing was quite Kafkaesque. I bare no ill feeling to the Bailiff. I was just slightly frustrated at being impeded in doing my job, in this case, of robustly fighting the Government’s austerity measures.’

Others have made comment that this is not the first time that the Bailiff has overstepped the mark into the political, and it is likely that this latest episode will add to growing calls for the States to be chaired by someone other than a senior member of the Judiciary.

-ENDS-


Appendix
109 Presiding officer's power to direct withdrawal of offensive etc words81
(1) If the presiding officer believes that the member of the States speaking has used offensive, objectionable, unparliamentary or disorderly words, the presiding officer shall direct the member speaking to sit down.

(2) If a member of the States, believing that the member speaking has used offensive, objectionable, unparliamentary or disorderly words, has, on a point of order, drawn the attention of the presiding officer to them, the presiding officer shall direct the member speaking to sit down.

(3) The presiding officer may ask the member who was speaking to explain
the sense in which he or she used the words.

(4) The presiding officer shall then determine whether or not the words are
offensive, objectionable, unparliamentary or disorderly.

(5) If the presiding officer determines that the words are offensive,
objectionable, unparliamentary or disorderly, he or she –
(a) shall direct the member to withdraw the words; and
(b) may direct the member to apologise.

(6) The member must withdraw the words and, if so directed, apologise.

19 comments:

  1. I listened to excerpts of this incident via the "ever-reliable" source that is the BBC news in Jersey, so couldn't claim to be familiar with every salient point. But I'm not sure one has to be. It was only necessary to hear that familiar 'sotto voce' as always used by Philip & William Bailhache when delivering their frequent, functionally psychopathic threats & intimidations against anyone who intrudes reality into the feudal fantasy of Bailhachelandia in order to recognise immediately what was happening. Barely contained, palpable, boiling rage & fear at the merest sign of any challenge to the pre-enlightenment culture of deference and obedience upon which such empty, inadequates as themselves depend, just as the silly little man in the Wizzard of Ozz depended upon a lot of ultimately empty fakery - and a curtain.

    It's always worth reminding ourselves at the remarkable fact that virtually all of the disasters shaking Jersey - the multitude & compound acts of state-endorsed corruption, concealments of crime, human-rights abuses, assaults on democracy and the now unavoidable re-configuration of constitutional oversight by London of the Crown Dependencies - is down to the plain madness - the power-crazed decadence and sociopathic personal inadequacy - of Philip and William Bailhache.

    There are many people within the high and influential circles of the "court of the Jersey oligarchy" who should regret the fear and cowardice they and their fellow courtiers, barons & vassals exhibited over the last 20 years in failing to move against the Bailhache brothers. A little courage - a little foresight - dare one even suggest, some ethics - and a few senior figures in Jersey's legal circles could have mustered the necessary expression of no-confidence and had it quietly delivered to the relevant doorway of the Privy Council. With that - the deed would have been done. So much of the madness of the last twenty years - certainly the last ten - would have been entirely avoided. And the "show" would have been quietly able to carry on in the customary unruffled, low-profile tradition.

    Some of Jersey's power-brokers - and some of the FACAWS - have long know that. We saw a first manifestation of it today - in the remarkable - unprecedented - historic - "rebellion" by the States chamber against the authority of a Bailiff. Make no mistake, for head of the elected establishment, Ian Gorst in this case, to take the side of a back-bencher in a defiant stand-off against the the anti-democratic interferences and oppressions of a Bailiff, was as clear a sign the Office has run its course as you could expect.

    And it was an even clearer sign that some parts, at least, of the Jersey Establishment have lost patience with a manifestly personally inadequate office-holder in the form of William Bailhache.

    Alas - too little - too late.

    An Establishment complaisantly let it's cosy "system" be taken over, and run by maniacs. There are unavoidable consequences.

    Stuart Syvret

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ha yes, the low almost a whisper voice Bailhache spoke with. You couldn’t miss it. It reminded me of that guy in Silence of Lambs before he’s about to stab someone and eat their liver.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This should make the UK daily papers with a heading something like " The Queens appointed speaker in the Jersey parliament tried to impose his will on a politician and causes mass walkout " The Queen was not available for comment but the Jersey Government were not amused at the antics of a non elected plant trying to stifle political debate.

    ReplyDelete
  4. A transcript and audio recording can be accessed here:

    http://upyourego.com/2015/10/transcript-montfort-tadier-v-the-bailiff/

    ReplyDelete
  5. And to think that un-elected judicial cock William Bailhache gets paid £309,000 a year to crow ("sotto voce") on his guilded perch. Deputy Tadier obviously touched a raw nerve in Bailhache's unbalanced psyche when he used the "J" word in his rhetoric!

    ReplyDelete
  6. The last exchange was classic, reminiscent of the Senator Stuart Syvret days "in the house".

    One wonders when the herd in the panic of self-preservation will eventually turn (as they turned on Senator Syvret); and Deputy Tadier will no longer continue to get the support of other States members...

    Just loved it when Deputy Tadier turned the tables on the un-elected Billy Bailhache:

    Bailiff William Bailhache: "I give you one last opportunity to withdraw."

    Deputy Montford Tadier: "I would like to give you an opportunity to withdraw and let the Greff take the chair. I think you have overstepped the mark on this one."

    Nice one our Tads! (-:

    ReplyDelete
  7. In relation to Deputy Tadier's statement "he was in the temple driving out the money lenders", for those not familiar with Matthew 21:12-13 wishing to get a deeper understanding of Deputy Tadier's rhetoric may wish to read the following:

    12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

    13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Obviously, Matthew 21:12-13 touched a very, very raw nerve with William Bailhache to cause such immediate offence...

    The office of Bailiff is paid £309,000 a year you say, surely not?

    Prime Minister David Cameron only gets paid £149,440 a year!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Deputy Tadier only pressed his face up against the glass!

    This constitutional storm in a tea cup doesn't change anything; it is of course business as usual for H.M.'s offshore tax haven, UK government, City of London Corporation and the local oligarchy and its apparatus.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This is what is so wrong with Jersey Politics.
    Massive changes in the States effecting everyone in and out of the tax bracket this week, and a trivial situation like this takes precedence over everything else in the news today.
    Good stuff for the Establishment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In trying to understand the comment at 15:39 I realised that the many huge problems Jersey faces economically, fiscally and socially can't be fully understood outside the context of the Bailiffs and the Bailhache Brothers in particular. Those two men between them are essentially responsible for the failure of the Jersey polity to embrace the inevitable and very necessary democratic, intellectual, policy plurality, fact-based and open discourse that this community needed to adapt to and embrace over the last 30 years. In fact its very probable that large amounts of off-shore finance industry business which Jersey would otherwise have attracted has departed or avoided these shores for more discreet off-shore centres not embroiled in obvious breakdowns in the rule of law and dangerously controversial politicised, banana-republic judicial corruptions. Of course Jersey would still have problems, but those problems would be much less without the endless nutty controversies driven by Bailhache brothers.

      When we observe the tragic eccentricities and inadequacies of anti-rational inadequates like William Bailhache so pitifully on display at the helm of the Jersey polity, we are seeing the manifestation of the failure of our systems of governance to lead our community effectively and responsibly. That's the real cause of the severity of our problems.

      Delete
  11. This will have been devastating for William Bailhache. It was a typically eccentric intervention of the kind that could only be made by a man not at peace with the 20th century let alone the 21st. A hooligan act of bullying by a frightened neo-Victorian. He will have realised within seconds of Deputy Tadier's initial defiance he had made a disastrous blunder. But having embarked upon it, he had to continue. He had gambled his authority and that of Bailiff, albeit in an act of folly, so had to try and bluster it through.

    He failed so badly it does, indeed, amount to an historic moment in the history of the States. Don't underestimate the moment. Its significance to the Office of Bailiff. Or to William Bailhache himself, to who this was a crushing personal humiliation and rejection. He will have spent the hour of adjournment in a state of trembling rage, fear, clenching back the tears and spittle-flecks of anger. The Sates assembly, the most conservative chamber anywhere in Europe, finally awoke to the dangerous thug he is, nervously perceived his no-longer disguisable mental health issues, and chose to side with a left-wing minority member.

    What was supposed to happen was for Deputy Tadier to be excluded for 1 hour, whilst the States assembly carried on with its business. Instead, the assembly voted to adjourn for an hour, in solidarity with the Deputy, and in what was in effect and reality a vote of no-confidence in William Bailhache.

    William Bailhache must now resign. He has humiliated and discredited himself.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Resignation?

    He won't resign.

    Resignation is the first step on the long walk to prison

    "Prison?" you say

    Yes:
    http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/jersey-child-abuse-inquiry-and-william.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes indeed. Crimes. William Bailhache and Philip Bailhache. Many criminal acts. Many crimes. There. On the public record. In plain sight. Many serious crimes, and many victims of those crimes. We see it, your Majesty. Your subjects see it. None of the crimes are going away. None of this is going away. None of the crimes are going to be flushed away by the bleach of a public inquiry. Until the Bailhache brothers are in prison, this goes on. And the Crown system remains on the evidence as protecting powerful criminals. The crimes will carry on, sitting in plain site. The rule of law waits. Justice waits, Your Majesty.

      Delete
  13. It as always going to happen, the only question was when.

    Old Feudal Arrogance meets well travelled more modern up to date politicians.

    It is little known but should the States decide to write to the queen having have lost confidence in the services of Bill Bailhache in his roll of speaker the queen would not over rule a Government majority request and have him removed. About time Maj.

    Lets see if they are capable and if they have the backbone as W. Bailhaches performance was utterly disgraceful and would have caused outrage on all sides at Westminster and a media storm ?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well said Montfort. Funny how our Bailiff's big brother can offend and insult who he likes in flouting Standing Orders again and again - even tell demonstrable lies and the Crimson Horse blanket says not a word?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is this comment really from the much missed Big Trev? If so where are you? You are badly needed. Please come back. And can you bring the Bald Truth back as well please?

      Delete

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