Constable Chris Taylor and the Truth/Lies/Facts/Confidence.

Constable Chris Taylor.

I was going to publish a Blog Posting on the subject of asking "How Tenable is the Position of St. John Constable Chris Taylor?" Regular readers will know that he (still) sits on the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and also sits on the Privileges and Procedures Committee. (PPC)

Recently the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (IJCI) found that former Home Affairs Minister and current PAC Chairman Deputy Andrew Lewis lied, not only to the Care Inquiry but to the States Assembly. Indeed the IJCI found that Deputy Lewis told a number of lies.

The alleged lie that is being most reported is the one he told the States Assembly after he had (possibly illegally) suspended the Chief of Police Graham Power QPM. Deputy Lewis told the in-camera (secret) States debate:

"I HAVE READ AN ALARMING REPORT FROM THE METROPOLITAN POLICE."

Of course we now know that he didn't read a report from the Metropolitan Police (or so he says) and the report that the MET did publish wasn't alarming either. Deputy Lewis looks to have suspended the former Chief Police Officer on a pack of lies and to this day nobody knows why he did suspended the Chief Police Officer.

After the IJCI published its REPORT PPC looked into the conduct of Deputy Lewis and found that he had breached the Code of Conduct for elected Members. Subsequently a Vote of Censure was lodged against the Deputy by PPC, of which Constable Taylor is a signatory.

After the Vote of Censure was lodged and it became apparent that Deputy Lewis (still) wasn't going to do the honourable thing and step down as Chairman of PAC. Two Members (Constable Simon Crowcroft and Deputy Judy Martin) resigned from the committee apparently having lost confidence in its Chairman. This left only one States Member (besides the Chairman) on the Panel and that is/was Constable Chris Taylor. He has been reported as saying he will resign if Deputy Lewis is censured by the States. But not before?

In preparation for the Blog I intended publishing ("How Tenable is the Position of St. John Constable Chris Taylor?") I contacted (e-mails below) the Constable in the hope he would agree to an interview so that I could publish the most fair, balanced, and accurate Blog possible but what transpired was utterly bizarre and merited a Blog of its own.

E-mails between VFC and Constable Taylor.

Wednesday 23 August.

"Constable. 

As it appears you still have confidence in your (PAC) Chairman. I am considering publishing a Blog questioning how tenable your own position is? 

Would you be willing or available for an interview on this subject?

Kind Regards. 

N.McMurray."

Didn’t get an acknowledgement/reply for 6 days so sent a polite reminder.

Tuesday 29 August. 12:41

"Constable.

Just a polite reminder that I am awaiting a reply to my previous e-mail and request for an interview?

Kind Regards.

N.McMurray."

Tuesday 29 August 12:58

"Dear Mr McMurray,

Thank you for your email but I do not partake in social media.

Yours sincerely,

Christopher Taylor"

Tuesday 29 August 13:21

"Constable.

Thank you for your reply and it is unfortunate that you do not partake in Social Media, in the 21st century, this is almost unheard of.

I want to publish a Blog questioning how tenable your position is by still having confidence in your PAC Chairman, Deputy Andrew Lewis, after you agree with the Care Inquiry report that he has told a number of lies, both to the States Assembly and the Care Inquiry and indeed the findings of PPC that he has breached the Code of Conduct for elected members. I will be asking exactly what does an elected member have to do in order for you to lose confidence in them?

A fair and balanced Blog article would hugely benefit with some input from yourself. If you don't feel comfortable being interviewed, perhaps you might consider an official comment that I could publish on the Blog as to why you haven't joined Constable Crowcroft and Deputy Judy Martin in resigning from PAC and why you still have confidence in the Chairman? Why you need to see if he survives a Vote of censure before you will act (or not) on what you already know?

Kind Regards.

N.McMurray."

Tuesday 29 August 2017 13:30

"Dear Mr McMurray,

Your statement second paragraph below is incorrect. It is precisely this type of misreporting that I do not wish to be involved in.

You say in your second paragraph “A fair and balanced article….” Well simply in cannot be either fair or balance if you start with a false statement.

Yours sincerely,

Christopher Taylor"

Tuesday 29 August 2017 13:42

"Constable.

You have made my point/argument for me. If you don't engage then false information can be published, this is exactly why I have contacted you in order to publish a fair and balanced article. If you don't tell your side of the story then the full facts can never get out.

If you could be specific as to what I have got wrong and tell me what you see to be more accurate then this will help a fair/balanced and accurate article being published. If you refuse to engage you can hardly blame me for publishing something that is not as factual as it might be. I am attempting to publish something factual and in order to do that I am seeking your input. I'm not sure what else I can do? Please tell me what is incorrect that I have written and I will seek to correct it before I publish it on my Blog?

Kind Regards.

N.McMurray"

Tuesday 29 August 2017 18:38

"Constable.

As things stand I find myself in a surreal, if not bizarre, situation. Firstly I have never credibly been accused of publishing anything that is not factual. Secondly I have never been accused of publishing something about somebody that is not factual and then have the person NOT tell me what the facts are.

I believe I have done everything in my power in order to get the facts, as you see them, and thus far you have not/will not supply me with those facts. Hopefully you WILL tell me where you believe I have been "incorrect" in order that a factual Blog will be published.

Naturally I will hold you responsible (to the readers) for any inaccuracies discussed (or not) in this e-mail chain. Indeed in order to demonstrate (to readers of the Blog) the lengths I have gone to in order to get a factual, fair, and balanced article together it might mean that I will have to publish this e-mail chain.

As mentioned in the first paragraph of this e-mail; this is an utterly bizarre situation and one that I have never had to deal with previously. If you believe I am going to publish something that is incorrect/not-factual about yourself, why wouldn't you want to make sure the facts are known beforehand?

I hope you will supply me with the facts as you see them and in the spirit of goodwill and an attempt to give you every opportunity to put right any "false facts" before they are published I'll hold back 24 hours before drafting/publishing the Blog Posting.

Kind Regards.

N.McMurray."

30 August 2017 08:27

"Dear Mr McMurray,

There are millions of “blogs” around the world, and from what I have seen many publish rubbish and untruths. I work between 70 and 80 hours a week as Connetable and States Member, doing my best to improve lives of Parishioners and Islanders. I do not have the time to go around correcting “blogs”. This is why I do not engage in social media.

I have told you that your statement is incorrect and it is your duty to ensure you publish the truth. If therefore you decide to publish, you will be doing so in the full knowledge that you are spreading lies.

I have said previously I do not partake in social media and so this subject is now closed.

Yours sincerely,

Christopher Taylor"

30August 2017 10:24 

"Constable.

I am fairly certain, although there are millions of Blogs around the world, that they are not contacting you in order to put out a fair, balanced and accurate article. Indeed I would go as far as to say that I am probably the only one that has. I am not asking you to correct my Blog. You have told me that I have e-mailed you something that is incorrect but bizarrely you won't tell me what it is and further, you refuse to correct it before it's published. 

I don't know what I have written that is incorrect, or a lie..........Only you do but you are keeping it a secret. As mentioned previously I have never in my life came across something so surreal or bizarre. 

You wrote: 

"I have told you that your statement is incorrect and it is your duty to ensure you publish the truth." I wholeheartedly agree with you that it is my duty to publish the truth. My problem is that the person (you) who seemingly knows the truth won't tell me it. Again I ask what am I supposed to do? I ask you for the truth and you won't tell it to me. What option have I got other than to publish the truth as I see it if the truth, as you see it, is being kept a secret? 

Unless you supply me with your truth it is you who will be allowing something to be published in the full knowledge that lies are being spread.

I hope you will do what you can to help the truth get published.

N.McMurray."(END) 

So as readers should be able to see I have done far more than I should be expected to do in order to publish a fair, balanced and accurate Blog Posting. Further if anybody has published/allowed to be published something "in the full knowledge that you are spreading lies" then the blame must be put at the door of Constable Taylor.

It is still a mystery as to what an elected Member has to do in order to lose the confidence of the Constable......................................And what the lies are that Constable Taylor has allowed to be spread...................?

PPC Lodges vote of Censure against Deputy Andrew Lewis.

Deputy Andrew Lewis

The Privileges and Procedures Committee (PPC) has lodged a PROPOSITION today asking the island's parliament to censure Deputy Andrew Lewis after he was found to have lied, by the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (IJCI), to the Inquiry itself and to the States Assembly. PPC has also found that the Deputy breached States Members code of conduct "by failing to maintain the integrity of the States." 

VFC e-mailed the PPC Panel Members (who sat on the case) this morning at 08:16 asking them for an interview regarding PPC's proposition. Little more than thirty minutes later Deputy Simon Bree replied to the e-mail and agreed to an interview. At the time of publication none of the other PPC Members have acknowledged the e-mail.

Deputy Bree makes it quite clear that he is NOT speaking for PPC (in the interview) but is speaking in a personal capacity which is something we would like to reiterate here.

The video/interview below, we hope, should speak for itself and inform readers of the decision making process, what happens next, and much more.

Deputy Scott Wickenden

Team Voice would like to thank Deputy Bree for agreeing to an interview (he is a supporter of our Blogsite) and answering the questions as best he could. Although I'm not sure if the question was answered as to whether Deputy Scott Wickenden or Constable Chris Taylor (PPC Members) agree with the Independent Care Inquiry that Deputy Lewis told lies. May be the question was answered and I didn't understand it? I've tried asking Deputy Wickenden (on Facebook) to confirm with a "yes" or "no" as to whether he agrees with the IJCI, concerning Andrew Lewis' lies, but as with the e-mail I sent this morning he has NOT answered, or acknowledged, the question.

I have also requested an official comment from Deputy Andrew Lewis with regard to the vote of censure lodged against him by PPC. I have also asked him for an interview (as I have on many occasions) but have not yet received a reply/acknowledgement. Deputy Lewis has recently intimated to VFC that an interview ISN'T out of the question and is considering the possibility.

We should also point out (despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary) that Deputy Lewis denies lying to the IJCI and the States.

Should it turn out that ANY of the PPC Members (who sat on the Andrew Lewis hearing) disagree with the IJCI findings in that Andrew Lewis lied to the States and the IJCI then a complaint against PPC for being as guilty as him will be getting submitted..................................

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.

Lenny Harper Discusses Child Abuse Report and local Mainstream Media.

Former DCO/SIO Lenny Harper

A day or so after the Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry published its damming report VFC interviewed former Deputy Chief Police Officer and Senior Investigating Officer of the police investigation (Operation Rectangle) into decades long concealed Child abuse in Jersey Lenny Harper.

Due to a number of other events having taken place subsequently, namely the former Chief Police Officer, Graham Power lodging a criminal complaint against the politician who (possibly illegally) suspended him in 2008 Deputy Andrew Lewis. Coupled with Privileges and Procedures Committee (PPC) announcing it was investigating Deputy Lewis' apparent breach of Members Code of Conduct (which it found he DID) and the embarrassing debacle that was the appearance of Senator Philip Bailhache and Deputy Lewis at the PPC Hearing and because of some technical issues we have been unable to publish the interview with Mr. Harper.................Until now.

Regular readers will be aware that Mr. Harper, after years of either being ignored, misquoted, and having Operation Rectangle trashed by the local mainstream media has taken the decision to no longer engage with them. A decision fully understood by, among many others, former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM. Mr. Harper does however remain committed to getting the truth out there for the Victims and Survivors which is why he engages with  national/outside media and of course Team Voice.

It should be said that we hope the relationship between Mr. Harper, and parts of the local mainstream media can, at some stage, be mended. This will take a strong commitment from the latter to demonstrate that the propaganda, misinformation, burying of vital public interest/news stories is a thing of the past. We believe that parts of the MSM have gone some way to demonstrate this but still have a long way to go. Other parts remain as bad as it ever was.

In our exclusive interview with Mr. Harper we discuss some of his thoughts on the Care Inquiry's report/findings. The (long overdue) vindication of the Victims/Survivors. The (long overdue) vindication of Operation Rectangle. Who has(n't) been held to account. The political interference (or not) with Rectangle and, of course, his decision not to engage with the local MSM and much more.

One of the more poignant points made by Mr. Harper, in the interview, was that the care inquiry "asked the question it didn't answer." The Inquiry's report is very legalistic and stops short of saying what really is being (or should be) said.

From Care Inquiry Report:

"It is clear that there was disquiet among Jersey’s politicians, up to and including the Chief Minister, Frank Walker, about the effect of the publicity being generated by Operation Rectangle. Nevertheless, we find that Frank Walker and the majority of politicians accepted the strong advice of the Attorney General and did not seek actively to interfere. We find that Ministers in general recognised that, however unpalatable the outcome of Operation Rectangle might prove to be, the Police investigation had to be permitted to run its course unhindered."

This (above) paragraph is one of the subjects mentioned by Mr. Harper (interview below). The Inquiry found that "the majority of politicians accepted the strong advice of the Attorney General and did not seek actively to interfere."(With Rectangle)

So what about the "minority" is the question that is on Mr. Harper's lips. If the "majority" didn't seek to interfere then that would/should mean that the "minority" DID seek to interfere?

Further; from the same paragraph:

"We find that Ministers in general recognised that, however unpalatable the outcome of Operation Rectangle might prove to be, the Police investigation had to be permitted to run its course unhindered."

The Inquiry found Ministers "in general" recognised "the Police investigation had to be permitted to run its course unhindered."

Not the Ministers "unanimously" and "unequivocally" recognised  "the Police investigation had to be permitted to run its course unhindered." They (possibly not all) "generally" "recognised" it but didn't "accept" it?

Andrew Lewis and Philip Bailhache at PPC Hearing. (part one)

Deputy Andrew Lewis

So yesterday (1st August 2017) saw the appearance of Deputy Andrew Lewis at the Privileges and Procedures Committee (PPC) Hearing. The Deputy was there, by all intents and purposes, to convince the Committee that he hadn't breached the Code of Conduct for elected States Members. The important aspect to note here is that PPC was not looking to discover whether he had told lies or not.

From PPC PRESS RELEASE: “What matters to the Committee is whether, during the course of his time as a States Member, throughout his dealings with the IJCI and his responses to the Assembly, Deputy Lewis’ actions complied with the Code. In other words, we will be determining whether his actions maintained and strengthened the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of the States and its members.”

At the start of yesterday's Hearing the Chairman read out a statement informing Deputy Lewis, and those in attendance, that PPC accepts the findings of the Care Inquiry (IJCI). The Chairman reiterated that the Committee was there to discover if he (Andrew Lewis) had breached the code of conduct for elected States Members. To most fair minded people this would suggest that PPC (since it agrees with the IJCI's findings) agrees that Deputy Lewis lied to the States and to the IJCI a number of times. This (lying under oath) would constitute a charge of perjury for the likes of you and I but Jersey's Attorney General has given, what we believe to be a "legal opinion" (not a "ruling" as reported in the local MSM) that Deputy Lewis can't be PROSECUTED FOR PERJURY. We believe this "legal opinion" should be challenged and that Deputy Lewis should be subject of an independent CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.

Senator Philip Bailhache

Deputy Lewis arrived at yesterday's Hearing with legal counsel and it would be a fair question to ask who is paying for it? But probably one of the biggest farcical moments (there were many) was when Senator Philip Bailhache sat alongside Deputy Lewis and it became apparent that the Senator was legally representing him, or was his "Mackenzie's friend."

The deference shown (by the Committee) was palpable, if not shameful and embarrassing. Senator Bailhache was given a free rein to quote from the English Dictionary as to what a "lie" is or isn't. This had nothing to do with the purpose of the Hearing (as explained above). Senator Bailhache spoke for around 35 minutes from a pre-prepared statement that for the large majority (in my opinion and others who were present) had nothing to do with PPC's TOR's. Any mere mortal would have been closed down and told to stick to the TOR's but not Senator Bailhache.

It was no surprise that Philip Bailhache turned up to defend Andrew Lewis and further seek to undermine the work of the Chief Minister and the IJCI. He has consistently attempted to undermine the Care Inquiry to include ATTEMPTING TO PREVENT it receiving much needed funds to complete its work.

He was (as the Bailiff of Jersey) presiding over the infamous in-camera states debate where Deputy Lewis told some of his alleged "lies." The Hansard of this debate was bravely leaked, by a whistleblower, with a conscience, to Bloggers and was published HERE. Part of that debate, where Andrew Lewis was stating he had seen the MET interim report the Bailiff (Philip Bailhache) intervened and said: "Minister, do not go down this road please."

Relevant extract:

The Deputy of St John (Andrew Lewis):

"The Senator's conspiracy theories continue to astound me. I was not part of the Council of Ministers until but a few weeks ago. I am not conspiring in any way at all. The Senator consistently conspires in his own mind to work out conspiracies. This is nothing about that. This is a matter of great interest to me as the Minister for Home Affairs, as a resident of Jersey, as a custodian of the public purse. I am bringing a Chief Officer to account. I am giving him every opportunity to defend himself. As far as the accusation you raise about the Metropolitan Police, when I saw the preliminary report I was astounded. So much so that my actions, I believe, are fully justified. If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal. So my successor will have an interesting time. The report that I was shown gave me no doubt at all."

The Bailiff (Philip Bailhache): 

"Minister, do not go down this road please."

Why did Philip Bailhache not want Andrew Lewis telling people he had seen the MET Interim Report? Was it his (unelected) place to tell a politician what (not) to say?

We must also be mindful that the IJCI questioned the honesty of senator Bailhache. Granted it didn't go as far as calling him a liar but a fair minded person could reach the reasonable conclusion that the inference was there where in its REPORT when addressing Philip Bailhache's notorious Liberation Day speech it wrote:

"Sir Philip said that perhaps his juxtaposition of words was unfortunate. He accepted that as a highly experienced lawyer he was accustomed to choosing words carefully. His purpose was to address the island as a whole and encourage Jersey people not to feel ashamed of their history. The apparent comparison between the importance of child abuse and Jersey’s reputation did not occur to him." 

"We have considered whether Sir Philip’s words indicated a belief on his part that the reputation of Jersey was of more importance than the child abuse investigation. We cannot accept that a politician and lawyer of his experience would inadvertently have made such an “unfortunate juxtaposition”. We are sure that the way in which Jersey is perceived internationally matters greatly to him. However, his linking of Jersey’s reputation to the child abuse investigation was, we are satisfied, a serious political error, rather than a considered attempt to influence the course of the Police investigation."

We also have the Senator's apparent views on "lying" from when he was on the ELECTION CAMPAIGN. Those views don't appear to ring "true" right now.

Was Senator Bailhache the right person for Andrew Lewis to have defending him at the PPC Hearing? If you were wondering if "The Jersey Way" had been changed because of the IJCI report we think this appearance (Lewis/Bailhache) should confirm it has gone nowhere.

We will publish part two of this posting exposing the farce that was the PPC Hearing yesterday. The inadequate, or non existent, questioning from the Committee and much more. We will publish this after the PPC has published its findings which are expected soon.