Reform Jersey Support Vote of No Confidence.

The leader of Jersey's only political party (Reform Jersey) Senator Sam Mezec has resigned his positions as Minister for Children and for Housing in the lead up to the vote of no confidence against Chief Minister Senator John Le Fondre which is due to be debated in the island's parliament tomorrow (Tues 10th November 2020)

Fellow party member, Deputy Montfort Tadier, has also resigned his position as Assistant Minister for Economic Development.

Reform Jersey, which has five elected States Members, will all be supporting the Vote of No Confidence against the Chief Minister. Those five votes could prove to be pivotal.

Below is the Press Release published by Reform Jersey and below that is the resignation letter, sent to Chief Minister John Le Fondre, by Senator Sam Mezec.

Press Release – Embargoed until 6am on Monday 9^th November 

Reform Jersey to support ‘Vote of No Confidence’ in the Chief Minister

Following recent events surrounding the Chief Executive Officer of the Government of Jersey taking on a non-executive directorship for a UK-based real estate company, and the failure of the Chief Minister to show adequate leadership, Reform Jersey’s elected States Members will be supporting the Vote of No Confidence on Tuesday.

Senator Sam Mézec and Deputy Montfort Tadier have formally resigned their roles as Minister for Children and Housing, and Assistant Minister for Economic Development, respectively.

Party Leader Senator Sam Mézec said “Reform Jersey members have played a constructive role since the last election, both in and out of government, to implement our manifesto pledges, and we are proud of our record. We have spoken out in recent months about our concerns that the government has been failing on its commitment to ‘Reduce Income Inequality’ and that there is an undemocratic culture in parts of the civil service which sees elected members obstructed when trying to carry out their policies.”

“Last week, I, alongside other ministers, made clear our view that the CEO should not also hold a non-executive directorship with a private sector company. A week has gone by, and this decision has been treated with contempt. If the Council of Ministers was in charge of the island, this decision would have been implemented by now, but it has not. The Chief Minister exercised poor judgement in allowing this in the first place, and by allowing the States Employment Board to give retrospective permission for this appointment, he has tied our hands and left us in an untenable position.”

Deputy Montfort Tadier said “We do not take this decision lightly, but it has come to the point where we can no longer support this Chief Minister with a clear conscience. He has been weak or absent on key policies such as the landlords register, electoral reform, and reducing income inequality. This latest development is the final straw.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resignation letter of Senator Sam Mezec.

Senator Sam Mézec

States Assembly Morier House St Helier
JE1 1DD

8th November 2020

Dear Chief Minister,

I write to you with regret, in accordance with Article 22 of the States of Jersey Law 2005, to resign my position as Minister for Children and Housing.

I confirm that I have the support of my Reform Jersey colleagues in doing this, and that it is our intention to support the Vote of No Confidence motion being debated by the Assembly on Tuesday.

As you know, I have felt for some time that our government has fallen short on the commitments we made in the Common Strategic Policy to ‘Reduce Income Inequality’. After two years of nominally including this in our work programme, I believe there is no evidence at all that this has been achieved. Where I have pushed for our policies to go further to achieve this aim, I have met constant resistance both politically and administratively.

Reforming our social housing rents policy was a cornerstone of the manifesto I was elected by the public on, but I have felt obstructed by officers who I ought to be able to rely on to implement my policy decisions. I have received more support from bodies outside of government than inside and have constantly had to manoeuvre through the civil service to have my policy positions accepted. When fighting for an Andium Homes rent freeze over the last few months, I discovered officers had pursued a funding arrangement for this which I had explicitly ruled out. This should not be the case in a democracy.

I was extremely disappointed earlier this year when the Environment Minister was let down by yourself and other government colleagues in the States Assembly when, after a year of hard work, he brought forward regulations to introduce a landlord licencing scheme to improve housing standards for renters and to protect their health and safety. Before the debate, your support was sought, and you declined to tell us that you would not support us, leaving us to discover this during the debate itself. Because of this, I can have no confidence that I will not be treated the same way if I attempt to see through my ambitions to establish rent stabilisation measures, which are evidenced throughout Europe to improve affordability of private rental housing, but which will inevitably concern investors. A government should always be on the side of the people, not investors.

On top of this, a refusal to back moves to increase the Minimum Wage and achieve progressive tax reform (amongst other missed opportunities) shows that the government’s commitment to ‘Reduce Income Inequality’ is in tatters.

But now the Assembly is asked to decide whether we have confidence in you as Chief Minister, after recent events surrounding the Chief Executive Officer taking on a non-executive directorship for a UK company.

Last weekend, the government made clear our view that the CEO should not hold a private sector NED for a UK company. We are now a week later, and there are no signs that this view will be respected. Statements which have been published have said nothing of value and have clearly angered the public.

I believe that the fault for this lies with you. You exercised bad judgement in verbally approving the request from the CEO to take on another role (in contrast with the Deputy Chief Minister’s position on this) and then in allowing the SEB to provide retrospective permission, before properly consulting with the government. This is a mistake which could cost the public.

I find myself asking the question “who runs Jersey, the elected government or the civil service?” That question should not even be fathomable in a democratic society.

I am deeply disappointed that I have to relinquish my role as minister in order to make this stand, but my conscience will not allow me to do otherwise. To not do so would be to act as if nothing is wrong.

I am proud of all that I have achieved as Minister for Children and Housing. I believe I have exceeded the expectations of those who believed I was not capable of working outside of political opposition, and I believe both of my portfolios are in a substantially better position than when I inherited them. The team I have worked most closely with (in CYPES, IHE , SPPP and the MSU) have been outstanding public servants who have given their hearts and souls to ‘Putting Children First’ and I know they will continue to do so. I am also grateful for the support Andium has given me, and I regret how badly they are often let down by undemocratic government processes.

Where some may have lost faith in me, believing I had “gone to the other side” or watered down my principles in order to hold office, I hope that my actions will show that, for me, the public of Jersey always have and always will come first.

Press Release from Deputy Montfort Tadier. (Secret Court Cases)

Deputy Montfort Tadier.

PRESS RELEASE

Deputy Montfort Tadier, Chairman of the Jersey Human Rights Group, has said he has concerns that Jersey's Courts may be breaching Human Rights Laws because there will be no mechanism for the public to attend or view the live proceedings of the courts which would otherwise be in open session.

'Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights, which is reflected in Jersey Law, states that everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing in the determination of his/her civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him/her.'

'There is also a public interest that the default position is that court proceedings are held in public. The Courts, like the Parliament, should be open institutions.'

'It is not satisfactory, even at a time of pandemic, that court hearings which would otherwise be public, now be inaccessible. Technology easily allows Court proceedings to be livestreamed, in the same way that States Assembly and scrutiny panel meetings are broadcast.'

'I have sent a request to Ministers to establish livestreaming of the Courts where hearings would normally be in public.'

-ENDS-

September 28th 2019 Reform Day Anniversary.

Tom Gruchy

Today saw the 250th Anniversary of Jersey Reform Day which was (finally) acknowledged and celebrated in the Royal Square, the Royal Court and the States Chamber. This was the day that Tom Gruchy and hundreds of Islanders, in 1769, stormed the corrupt Royal Court (while it was in session) and demanded democratic changes. There were local bands playing, including Badlabecques who sang/sing in the native tongue of Jerrias, speeches, and tours of the Courts and States Chambers.

The day was (finally) recognised because of a  successful proposition brought to the States (Island's Parliament) by former Deputy TREVOR PITMAN back in 2012. For more history of the day (September 28th 1769) please look HERE where local historian, and Human Rights Campaigner Mike Dun alias "TOM GRUCHY" talks us through some of the events leading up to the riot.

Today's tour of the Royal Court and States Chambers building started with a presentation from PPC Chairman and St. Helier Deputy Russell Labey (video below) where he showed the audience a short film explaining the history of the day. He further gave (well deserved) credit to Mike Dun for the years of work/research he has accrued on the subject.

It was an informative day out, and those involved in making it happen should be congratulated. From what I can gather it was Russell Labey, Assistant Economic Development Minister Montfort Tadier, the Bailiff's Office (yeah I know), and the States Greffe. It should be said that this type of event (opening up the States Chambers and Royal Court) should be done more often. The tour I went on was very well attended and the Establishment, from what I can gather, is not entirely hostile to the idea!

Just a short Blog for today as we believe most is described in the below video. We hope readers/viewers watch the video that marks this momentous day in Jersey's history. (Even though Tom Gruchy is probably spinning in his grave.)

Tom Gruchy Speaks. Jersey Reform Day 1769-2019

Tom Gruchy

This Saturday 28th September 2019 marks the 250th Anniversary of the day a man called Tom Gruchy and a few hundred islanders overthrew the corrupt Royal Court in what has since been labelled (by the Establishment and Old Media) "The Corn Riots."

Two years ago VFC interviewed local Blogger, historian, and Human Rights Campaigner Mike Dun HERE. We discussed the events leading up to the day 28th September 1769 and it's consequences for modern day political life in Jersey and much more. Mike Dun's own BLOGSITE is a dedication to Tom Gruchy.

In 2012 former Deputy Trevor Pitman brought a proposition to the States, which was passed, and as we wrote back in 2017 (above link): "Unfortunately the government has not honoured its commitment to celebrate this historic event and appears to have buried this uncomfortable part of Jersey's history. (sound FAMILIAR)?"

As this is the 250th Anniversary of the storming of the corrupt Royal Court, the government has been forced (7 years after former Deputy Trevor Pitman's proposition was passed) to publicly recognise the day. According to the CROWD FUND set up by Assistant Economic Development Minister, Deputy Montfort Tadier:

"Live music and historical talks will be taking place in Royal Square between 11:30am -4pm on Saturday 28th September, but we need your help to make it a success."

It seems there isn't a spare £500 laying around to put this event on. At time of publication of this Blog Posting only £10 (from two donations) had been accrued. It is clear the Establishment don't want the Jersey public to know the true history of September 28 1769 and we argue that there shouldn't even be a crowd funding page. Indeed it was the corrupt Bailiffs' Office (of the time) who were responsible for the events of that date and we believe (as mentioned in the interview below) that the Bailiff's Office could, or should, be funding the events of this coming Saturday. We know that won't be happening so if anyone feels they are able to donate a few quid then please do.

We encourage readers to watch the interview in its entirety as it is extremely informative and a history lesson that you won't be getting in schools (as agreed in Deputy Pitman's proposition) and won't be reading/hearing about in the local Old Media. It's a version of history those in power (Crown Offices'/Old Media) would rather keep quiet.

Len Norman (with others) and "The Jersey Way."

Constable Len Norman

At the last States Sitting Deputy Mike Higgins submitted the following Oral Question to Home Affairs Minister Constable Len Norman.

“Will the Minister explain to members what actions, if any, the States of Jersey Police are taking to encourage the victims of sexual abuse to come forward and place their trust in the Police; and will he provide his assessment of how effective any such measures have been in ensuring the public are convinced that the Police investigate all allegations without fear or favour?”

The question, from Deputy Higgins, came about, seemingly, because an alleged Survivor of child grooming and similar alleged sexual offences felt she had no other alternative than to waive her anonymity and take to Social Media in an attempt put pressure on those responsible (States of Jersey Police/Law Offices department) for bringing her alleged abuser to "justice." From the information available it appears that the alleged Survivor had gone through all the correct channels in reporting the alleged crime only to be met with alleged protection of the alleged perpetrator by those who are supposed to be upholding the law without fear or favour.

At this point we should mention that the number 1 priority of this government is: "We will put children first." The government's priority comes in the wake of a damming (not as damming as it could/should have been) REPORT from the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (IJCI) after decades of Child Abuse was exposed by Former Deputy Chief Police Officer Lenny Harper under the leadership of former (possibly illegally suspended) Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM. Subsequently exposed by the IJCI itself.

In the wake of the IJCI report The Powers That Be have been busy ticking as many boxes as it can attempting to convince the public that things have changed, children are safer, and the protection of the system over the protection of children is an attitude of a bygone era.

Deputy Mike Higgins

Well judging by the "answer" (below video) to Deputy Higgins's question (above), nothing can be further from the truth.

One would have thought/expected the Home Affairs Minister, Constable Len Norman, to ask Deputy Higgins: "just exactly what have you read on the internet?" He might have said: "If you (Deputy Higgins) have any evidence of any shortcomings concerning the police force then I need to see that in order to have it investigated, and if needs be, hold my officers to account." The Home Affairs Minister could have said: "I need to hear first hand the alleged Survivors side of events because I have heard the police's side of the story." The Home Affairs Minister asked NONE of those questions and rabidly defended the cops/system without question (The Jersey Way).

Just as telling (of "The Jersey Way") was the silence of all other States Members during this question save from Deputy Montfort Tadier and Deputy Kevin Pamplin (videos below). If there appears to be any kind of Child Abuse cover-up, or allegations of, then surely, post-Operation Rectangle, post-IJCI States Members would be holding the Home Affairs Ministers feet to the coals? There would have been a barrage of questions from across the political divide to demonstrate that States Members are not going to allow history to repeat itself and sit silent while a potential whistleblower (Deputy Higgins) is labelled (by the Home Affairs Minister) a "conspiracy theorist." Alas the silence was deafening.

Deputy Montfort Tadier

Deputy Montfort Tadier was the only States Member to stand Deputy Higgins's (and alleged Survivors) corner. The Deputy has been an avid campaigner for Abuse Survivors since he was first elected in 2008 and was instrumental in ensuring there was a public Inquiry and indeed formulating its Terms of Reference alongside current/former politicians/Survivors and Bloggers. The Home Affairs Minister's "answer" to Deputy Tadier's question was yet another demonstration of "The Jersey Way." The Deputy asked the Home Affairs Minister to "work constructively" with Deputy Higgins in order to restore (some much needed) faith, and trust, in the government. The Home Affairs Minister seemingly refused to do this, refused to acknowledge the concerns of Deputy Higgins (and alleged Survivor(s)) and indeed the concerns of those of us who don't want to see "history repeating itself" where whistleblowers are marginalised and the State is rabidly defended without question. (The Jersey Way.)

Deputy Kevin Pamplin

But possibly the most bizarre, if not frightening question, came from Deputy Kevin Pamplin. Deputy Pamplin is a member (although he should now be considering his position) of the "Care of Children Review Panel."  Its "mission statement" includes: "Following the recommendations put forward by the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry, thorough Scrutiny will be essential in ensuring that what is put in place is both fit for purpose and helps to improve the care and well-being of children in Jersey."

The last few words of that sentence being possibly the most poignant; "to improve the care and well-being of children in Jersey." So why is it that his one question, to the HA Minister, was about his concerns for "the care and well-being" of the Police Officers accused of wrong doing? Why aren't his concerns with the alleged Survivor and potential Survivors? How is that "caring for children?" How can that question not be seen as "The Jersey Way?" It has to be said that this did come as quite a surprise to me because from what I have watched of the Scrutiny Panel Hearings Deputy Pamplin has seemed to be on top of his game (for Jersey standards) and asked some searching questions of those brought before the Panel. Unfortunately his concern for the police, and not the (or any) alleged Survivor(s) with his question to the Home Affairs Minister (below video) does deem his position on the Scrutiny Panel untenable.

I've spent the last couple of weeks pondering whether or not to publish this Blog. My fear is that if Survivors see the exchange in the States, the attitude of the Minister, the concern for the well-being of the cops, and the silence of the vast majority of States Members then it might put them off coming forward to report abuse (alleged or otherwise). I had to ask myself is there confidence in our so-called "justice" system as Constable Norman seems to think there is? Is there confidence in our government to do the right thing and could any Survivor take their concerns to the Old Media should all other avenues fail?

The latest SOCIAL SURVEY suggests not with only 50% of islanders having confidence in the so-called "justice" system, only 33% have trust in the Old Media, and 28% having trust in the government. The Jersey Evening Post was the only outlet of the Old Media to report on the exchange and question the cops. It (JEP) reported that the cops DID send a file to the Law Offices Department who decided not to prosecute the case in question. So credit to the JEP for being the only Old Media to report on this which also helped me make my decision to publish a Blog on it. I have been made aware of at least one alleged Survivor who has, thus far, decided not to come forward because of his/her distrust in the system. While wrestling with whether or not to publish this Blog I had/have to think of the impact it could have on Survivors and would it stop them coming forward as it has (thus far) with the Survivor I have been made aware of? After the JEP reported it, it is of huge public interest, and do I think Survivors should trust the authorities? The answer, Im afraid to say, is "no" I don't think the authorities can be trusted to do the right thing. as Home Affairs Minister clearly demonstrated the number 1 priority is to "protect the system" and Survivors have the right to know the facts. If I was to hide these facts from Survivors then I would be as bad as the Establishment and parts of the Old Media.

I have e-mailed the Home Affairs Minister asking him a number of (perfectly valid) questions and asked him for an interview alongside Deputy Higgins in order that the most reliable, and factual, evidence can be published on the Blog. Deputy Higgins agreed to this joint interview but the Home Affairs Minister refused. I will look to publish the e-mail exchange in the comments section.

It is with a heavy heart I have concluded that nothing has changed despite Operation Rectangle, the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry, and its report. "The Jersey Way" of protecting the system, marginalising Whistleblowers and ignoring Survivors is stronger now than it ever has been.

Survivors can take some solace in knowing there are at least two States Members (Tadier/Higgins) who are willing to be a voice for them, put their heads above the parapet, and attempt to hold power to account.

The first video is an edited version to demonstrate the Home Affairs Minister's rabid defence of the cops and to label the Questioner/Whistleblower a conspiracy theorist for attempting to hold power to account. The full (un-edited) version is at the bottom of the posting.

The second video is of Deputy Tadier's support for Deputy Higgins and Survivors and NOT "The Jersey Way."

The third video is of Deputy Pamplin's concern for the well-being of the cops and NOT any alleged Survivor.

Deputy Montfort Tadier Suspension.

Deputy Montfort Tadier

Deputy Montfort Tadier was suspended (Fri 29th March 2009) from his duty as Assistant Minister for culture. The decision to immediately suspend the Deputy was made by Chief Minister John Le Fondre following an email exchange between a few States Members (including the Chief Minister) where there was a discussion about the prescribing of medicinal cannabis (or not) for patients with chronic pain.

Deputy Tadier, it would appear, was calling for the dismissal of a pain consultant who, it seems, has refused to prescribe the pain reliving drug despite the the Island's parliament voting overwhelmingly to allow cannabis to be prescribed. The pain consultant was copied into the e-mail. The e-mail itself (from Deputy Tadier) was a reply to an ongoing thread and was not a stand-alone e-mail calling for the pain consultants dismissal. (As some media outlets would have you believe)

So firstly this is not some surreptitious Machiavellian conspiracy to get rid of a States employee on Deputy Tadier's behalf, it was an open, honest and transparent call for the employee to go. The employee could have responded to the e-mail fighting his corner. We've not seen evidence that this has happened. 

For those who keep an eye on Jersey politics; the calling of the pain consultants dismissal/removal is nothing new. Deputy Tadier has made his position clear in a number of States debates including HERE.

The old media (formerly known as "mainstream" media) has been doing what it always does and "reported" (or not) on this story but to the best of our knowledge "questioned" nothing. That's where the "New" Media (formerly known as "Social" Media) continues to carry the slack and actually question the government line rather than just report (repeat) it.

We ask: Has the Chief Minister overplayed the severity of the incident by suggesting there could be a claim for constructive dismissal?

As far as we understand it; JACS states that constructive dismissal occurs when an employee considers it necessary to leave their job against their will because of the employers conduct.

We ask: Surely Deputy Tadier isn't the employer? The employer is the States Employment Board? Could a case of constructive dismissal really have any merit?

Since the "offending e-mail" had nothing to do with the Ministry Deputy Tadier has responsibility for (culture), nor did it relate to a member of his department, then one must assume he was acting as an independent States Member.

We ask: Is the Chief Minister over-looking these facts in order to justify the severity of his (what looks to be) over the top, (and possibly wrong) sanction? How can an independent Member of the States be bound by the Ministerial Code of Conduct?

We hope to follow up on this developing story very soon and also hope to have as many answers as questions.

Ian Gorst's Guide to the Galaxy.

Chief Minister Ian Gorst.

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

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

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

Deputy Montfort Tadier.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Senator Ozouf Being Thrown Under a Bus?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deputy Montfort Tadier.

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

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

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

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

Advocate Philip Sinel Interview.

Advocate Philip Sinel

With the recent revelation that the Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry announcing that it won't be publishing its report until the first quarter of 2017, and with the departure of the Lieutenant Governor VFC was keen to capture the thoughts and opinions of local prominent Lawyer, and constitutional expert, Advocate Philip Sinel who we have interviewed once before on similar matters which can be viewed HERE and HERE. Of particular interest and relates to this posting also is the submission Mr. Sinel made to the Carswell Review which we published HERE.

In our in-depth, and exclusive, interview (below) Advocate Sinel explains why he believes Jersey's constitutional arrangements are a barrier to the Child Abuse Inquiry's report to effect any change on the past and present regime run by "an oligarchy that will support itself and intimidate those who disagree with it." (Usually through its "Justice" System.) He goes on to tell us that he believes the Child Abuse inquiry's work has been and is "being undermined by the Attorney General's Office, the States of Jersey Police and the Data Protection Commission."

Lieutenant Governor

Unlike parts of the State Media Advocate Sinel is not fawning over the Office and departure of the Lieutenant Governor and we think it would be fair to say he (like many others) has very little confidence in the LG due to his dealings (or not) with him. Mr. Sinel tells us (interview below) that he has had to go over the head of the LG and contact HM Private Secretary Sir Christopher Geidt  who appears to be as unwilling to deal with "the Jersey problem" as the Queen's representative on the Island.

This is a compelling, insightful, and somewhat alarming interview from the perspective of a prominent Lawyer who has first hand experience of how the constitution and "justice" system operates in Jersey. Much more is discussed in the interview than has been highlighted here which makes for compulsive viewing.

Part two coming soon...................

William Bailhache, Montfort Tadier and Ronnie Pickering.

Online observers cannot have escaped the legend that has become Ronnie Pickering. For those who have not, as yet, been exposed to the latest internet sensation THIS LINK should help, or search Youtube for "Ronnie Pickering."

We are pleased to announce that Ronnie Pickering (or his name) has reached the shores of Jersey and was the subject of a heated debate between Jersey's disgraced Bailiff (unelected speaker of the House) William Bailhache and DEPUTY MONTFORT TADIER in the Island's Parliament this week. There is disagreement as to whether Mr. Pickering attended/would have attended the recent Tory Conference.

We were able to capture the exchange on audio/video and share it here (below) with our readers.

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.

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.

Deputy Montfort Tadier Speech P.20/2015

Following the success of Chief Minister Ian Gorst's proposition P.20/2015 where he was able to persuade the House to approve extra funding for the ongoing Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry, and we were able to report, in an exclusive, in-depth INTERVIEW with the Chief Minister, a positive message for the island in that our parliament has done the right thing. Although not all were in favour of the proposition, to include former Bailiff , and now Senator Philip Bailhache, who, by his own admission, was conflicted but still SPOKE AGAINST THE PROPOSITION regardless.

Deputy Montfort Tadier, as regular readers will be aware, has been a staunch supporter, and campaigner for the Victims/Survivors of abuse and was instrumental in formulating  the Inquiry's Terms of Reference. The Deputy, in his speech below, not only kicked Senator Bailhache's speech into touch but along with Chief Minister Gorst, and all those who voted/spoke in favour of the proposition, helped put Jersey on the map for the right reasons.

Jersey Child Abuse Rally 7th Anniversary.

As PREVIOUSLY REPORTED today saw the seventh Anniversary of the first Jersey Child Abuse Rally and it was marked in the Royal Square by around 50-60 people which included Victims/Survivors, Politicians, (past and present) whistle blowers and supporters.

Below are a couple of videos with the speeches given by, in part 1, Deputy Montfort Tadier and former Senator Francis Le Gresley. In part 2 former Deputy Bob Hill and former Health Minister Stuart Syvret.

Support for Jersey Child Abuse Victims/Survivors (7th Anniversary)

Deputy Montfort Tadier, long time campaigner for, and supporter of, Victims/Survivors of Child Abuse has issued a Press Release (below) calling for islanders to show their support for Victims/Survivors of Jersey Child Abuse this coming Sunday at 11am in the Royal Square.

Readers will know that there are political shenanigans afoot attempting to shut down the ongoing Child Abuse public Inquiry by certain members of our government, and elsewhere, by people who have some very uncomfortable questions to answer very soon if the Inquiry is given the extra funds it needs to carry on its work.

The world (and Victims/Survivors) need(s) to know that the good people of Jersey do not support a cover up and want to put the past right as best it can so we can once more hold our heads up high and be proud of our island knowing that we have done everything in or power to support the Victims and Survivors and to get to the truth.

Please show your support by sharing this Blog Posting/Press Release over social media and please turn up to the Royal Square Sunday 8 March at 11am?

Press Release of Deputy Montfort Tadier.

"Islanders are invited to congregate to in the Royal Square this Sunday morning at 11am to mark the 7^th Anniversary of the Time4Change rally which was held on 8^th March 2008 to remember the victims and survivors of Jersey child abuse, past and present.

‘Much has happened since that date, and with the help of campaigners, bloggers and former States Members, we were able to secure a Committee of Inquiry to look independently into these serious matters; to shine a light into one of the darkest chapters in Jersey’s recent history, and to seek to bring redress, justice and healing.’ Said Deputy Tadier, a long-time campaigner for Justice for abuse survivors.

‘I am very concerned at recent developments to sabotage the Committee of Inquiry, made by some elements that have never wanted the Inquiry to happen – individuals who themselves have questions to answer under the Committee’s Terms of Reference.

‘The Committee is just about to look at some of its key terms of reference, including [No 13. to] Establish the process by which files were submitted by the States of Jersey Police to the prosecuting authorities for consideration, and establish – 

 Whether those responsible for deciding on which cases to prosecute took a professional approach; 

 Whether the process was free from political or other interference at any level. ‘

‘It is quite understandable that some people may not want this to happen and will try anything to obstruct the Committee from being able to do its job.’

‘For my part, I will resolutely oppose any suggestion that the Committee not be allowed to do its job.

‘The meeting brief memorial this Sunday, will allow the focus to be put back where it belongs. On the victims and survivors of abuse.’

Anyone wishing to attend is invite to bring a daffodil as a sign of respect. And to observe a minute silence."(END)