Deputy Sam Mezec Unelected States Members Part 1 (The Dean)

Deputy Sam Mezec, Chairman of Jersey's only political party, REFORM JERSEY has been making the headlines, on State Media, and has been the subject of attacks from church lobbyists, for his comments on social media concerning the role of the Dean, and religion, in the Island's parliament.

VFC exclusively interviewed the party Chairman (below) and discussed, in-depth, his views on the controversial subject of religion and politics. Among the subjects discussed are, the Dean's pay, his political influence, church lobbyists, and we ask where have the teachings of Jesus gone? Is Jesus, who could be described as "a political agitator" or "anti establishment" now a part of the establishment?

In part two of the interview we discuss the role of the Island's twelve Constables, eleven of which, who have not faced an election................

"Exonerated."

Discredited, and disgraced, ITV Channel Television continues to mislead its viewer(s) with what looks to be a carefully orchestrated/rehearsed piece of media spin/opinion management led by Senator Philip Bailhache.

In the video below readers will hear Mark McQuillan, and Senator Bailhache, claim that the Dean of Jersey, Bob Key, has been "exonerated" by the un-finished, and un-published Steel Report.

The interview would have come about as a result of Senator Bailhache publishing, a misleading and inaccurate, Press Release which was shown for what it is on this Blog posted HERE. In that Blog Posting I published an extract from an e-mail I sent to ITV Channel Television pointing out how the Steel Report had NOT exonerated the Dean of Jersey nor had it exonerated the Island's clergy and asked if ITV/CTV was referring to another Report?

After having to be chased up ITV/CTV responded to my e-mail and a subsequent exchange took place between them and I where CTV/ITV explained it was indeed referring to the Steel Report and concluded that what was reported was "Entirely Accurate." Regular Readers will know that ITV/CTV (or CTV as it was then) has a very strange understanding of the phrase "Entirely Accurate" as has been demonstrated on this Blog HERE and HERE. Yet ITV/CTV has gone one step further this time and, for all intents and purposes, claims the English Dictionary to be wrong while ITV/CTV is "Entirely Accurate."

On Monday 25th Nov 2013 I wrote to CTV/ITV;

"On tonight's edition of your 6pm news programme Senator Philip Bailhache was interviewed by Mark McQuillan concerning the Dame Heather Steel Report. On a number of occasions Mr. McQuillan, and Senator Bailhache, stated that the Report had exonerated the Jersey Dean/Clergy.

Could I ask what Report Mr. McQuillan, and Senator Bailhache, were referring to? It clearly can't be the un-finished Dame Heather Report because that hasn't been published.

Is there another Report which has exonerated the Jersey Dean/Clergy? If so could you tell me where I could find a copy of it please? I'm not aware of any Report that has exonerated the Jersey Dean or Clergy."

After not receiving a reply, or acknowledgement of the e-mail, after a couple of days I sent a reminder e-mail and then got a response where on Wednesday 27th Nov 2013  ITV/CTV wrote;

"Thank you for your email.  I have taken the time to consider your query, reviewing the programme concerned and discussing the matter with the news editor and programme producer of the day.

Our interviewee Sir Philip Bailhache was indeed discussing the Steel report, which, as you correctly point out, has not been published.  However in a press release received by ITV Channel Television from the Bishop of Winchester, it states: "...based on Dame Heather’s findings to date ... I will not be taking disciplinary action against any member of the clergy in relation to the handling of the safeguarding complaint in question or the subsequent review process."

Sir Philip clearly used the word 'exonerate' as an interpretation of that statement. Mark McQuillan repeated the term in a question back to him which we do not believe is unreasonable or would have misled our viewers.  Our coverage of this story was entirely accurate and we have not make any misleading claims as part of the report or subsequent live interview.

I hope that clarifies the matter."

To which I replied on the same date;

"I'm sorry but I do not accept your interpretation of "not taking disciplinary action" as "exonerated" they are two completely different things. Viewers, in my opinion, were given the impression that the Dean, and clergy being "exonerated" would mean they are blameless which clearly isn't the case.

If you will not make clear, to your viewers, the difference between "exonerated" and "no disciplinary action" then I will take up my complaint with OFCOM or whoever it is that are supposed to regulate ITV. Could you send me the contact details of the relevant body who deals with complaints to ITV if you will not accept the difference between "exonerated" and "no disciplinary action"?"

To which ITV/CTV replied;

"I have given you my response to your original complaint.  If you wish to take your complaint further, Ofcom is indeed the correct regulatory body.  The contact details are:

Ofcom

Riverside House

2a Southwark Bridge Road

London

SE1 9HA

Tel 020 7981 3040

Ofcom's website is: www.ofcom.org.uk"

I then responded;

"I find it incredible that anybody with the slightest understanding of the English language (let alone a professional Journalist) could interpret "no disciplinary action" as "exonerated."

My complaint is that your viewers would have been misled by Mr. McQuillan/ITV and after reading the dictionary interpretation of "exonerated" 1 (esp. of an official body) absolve (someone) from blame for a fault or wrongdoing, esp. after due consideration of the case."  I would ask that you reconsider your response and agree with me that your viewers (according to the dictionary) would have been left with the impression that the Jersey Dean/clergy are blameless.

OFCOM will insist that I have attempted to resolve this matter locally before they will accept my complaint which is why I am once more asking that you reconsider your response (in light of the dictionary definition of "exonerated") and don't expect OFCOM to defend your interpretation of the English language which is contrary to the English dictionary?"

ITV/CTV were having none of it by responding;

"Thank you for your email.  We stand by the response I have already sent you, so I suggest that if you are not satisfied, you contact Ofcom for an independent adjudication."(END)

So there we have it, contrary to the English Language and Dictionary, ITV/CTV claim it has been "Entirely Accurate" in its reporting.

Moreover, despite being in possession of a document(s) which completely contradicts what Mark McQuillan and Senator Bailhache were peddling, ITV/CTV or Mr. McQuillan ("accredited" "journalist") didn't see fit to tell its viewer(s) of this contradiction. The Dean has apologised for his so-called "mistakes" when he wrote;

“I regret mistakes that I made in the safeguarding processes and I understand that, upon reflection, it would have been more helpful if I had co-operated more fully with the Korris Review. I now add my own apology to that of the Bishop of Winchester and Archbishop of Canterbury to the vulnerable person at the heart of this matter." From HERE

To any objectively minded person ITV/CTV's report (below), its subsequent refusal to acknowledge the English Language, and its total refusal to question Senator Bailhache's misleading and contradictory, Press Statement, one has to come to the conclusion this is nothing more than "OPINION MANAGEMENT"

We must also remember there is an alleged victim here (besides ITV/CTV viewer(s)) who is conveniently (for some) being air-brushed out of history. The lady who should be at the centre of this mis-managed shambles who claims she was abused by the churchwarden, then dragged through Jersey's so-called "JUSTICE SYSTEM" and kicked off the Island and left penniless, and destitute, in mainland England.

The victim, known as "HG" might very well feel she has been kicked in the teeth by ITV/CTV but hopefully will gain a little satisfaction in the knowledge that she is not alone when it comes to CTV kicking Abuse Victims/Survivors in the teeth CTV HAS FORM after accepting an award for cutting and pasting another, evidence lacking, REPORT.

So contrary to the media spin peddled by ITV/CTV and Senator Bailhache, there is no document, I am aware of, in the public domain that exonerates the Jersey Dean, or the Island's clergy, other than Philip Bailhache's Press Release. There are, however, at least two documents that say the Dean, and others, are far from exonerated and have serious questions to answer HERE and HERE. 

For those who have an interest in the facts behind the media spin concerning the whole sorry case of the way "HG" has been treated, and related matters, they can be read on the very informative, and researched, Blog of former Jersey politician and 30 year MET Police veteran Bob Hill B.E.M. HERE.

To quote George Orwell "Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printing: everything else is Public Relations."

Good work ITV/CTV you really have Philip Bailhache on the ropes with this grilling. 

Jersey Dean Who Exonerated him?

Senator Philip Bailhache has published a Press Release claiming that the Dame Heather Steel Report has exonerated the Dean of Jersey and the Jersey Clergy. Yet in the same Press Release he criticises Bishop Tim Dakin for not publishing the (unfinished) Steel Report.

This begs the question how does Philip Bailhache know the Steel Report exonerates (or otherwise) ANYBODY when it is unfinished and he's complaining it is unpublished? Nobody is supposed to have seen this Report yet Philip Bailhache claims to know what's in it?

Naturally parts of the local State Media have given Senator Bailhache the platform he was looking for in order to peddle his Press Release totally unchallenged and not least by ITV Channel Television where the Senator was interviewed on last night's 6pm "news" programme and was not asked the most obvious question(s) (surprise surprise) WHERE DOES THE STEEL REPORT SAY ANYBODY HAS BEEN "EXONERATED"/HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT IT SAYS IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT?

I e-mailed ITV Channel Television and asked them;

"On tonight's edition of your 6pm news programme Senator Philip Bailhache was interviewed by Mark McQuillan concerning the Dame Heather Steel Report. On a number of occasions Mr. McQuillan, and Senator Bailhache, stated that the Report had exonerated the Jersey Dean/Clergy.

Could I ask what Report Mr. McQuillan, and Senator Bailhache, were referring to? It clearly can't be the un-finished Dame Heather Report because that hasn't been published.

Is there another Report which has exonerated the Jersey Dean/Clergy? If so could you tell me where I could find a copy of it please? I'm not aware of any Report that has exonerated the Jersey Dean or Clergy."(END)

Below is Senator Bailhache's Press Release that makes no mention of the alleged Abuse Victim "HG", who he has, in a previous letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, labelled this Abuse Victim as the Abuser, the letter can be read HERE.

Senator Sir Philip Bailhache

PRESS RELEASE

24 November 2013

"I am delighted that the Dean and his clergy have been exonerated by the Steel report but appalled by the Bishop of Winchester’s expressed intention to suppress its publication on what appear to be very specious grounds. The Bishop agreed with the Bailiff and the Dean that he would pass copies of the report to them, and he should honour that promise.

He asserts that he has given an undertaking not to release the report after representations from an interested person. As it is clear that the report makes no criticism of the Dean or clergy in Jersey, the only people who might be concerned about criticism in the report are those in or near the entourage of the Bishop. The unidentified interested party is either the person who made the original report which wrongly impugned the Dean, or a member of the Bishop’s staff. As Ms Korris’s report was published without its even being shown to the Dean, there can be no justification for acceding to any representation from her. As to the Bishop’s staff, it would be outrageous for the Bishop to protect them at the expense of Jersey’s reputation for safeguarding, and a full explanation of why the Dean has been exonerated. The Dean and the clergy are entitled to the publication of the complete Steel report so that their reputations can be fully restored in the eyes of the public.

The Bishop asserts that “questions remain about safeguarding best practice …”. Dame Heather Steel was charged to investigate whether there was any failure to “act in accordance with the Diocesan Safeguarding Procedure”.  We are all entitled to know her conclusions on that issue were. The Bishop should act in accordance with paragraph 10 of the Terms of Reference that he issued, and deliver a copy of the final report to the Bailiff and Dean as soon as he has received it."(END)

How does Senator Bailhache know  "it is clear that the report makes no criticism of the Dean or clergy in Jersey?" How can he be "delighted that the Dean and his clergy have been exonerated by the Steel report?" when in the same Press Release he complains "Dame Heather Steel was charged to investigate whether there was any failure to “act in accordance with the Diocesan Safeguarding Procedure”.  We are all entitled to know her conclusions on that issue were." The Senator seems to know that everybody in Jersey has been exonerated, how-come he doesn't know the conclusion the safeguarding issue?

This Press Release, in my opinion, was a (not so) carefully orchestrated piece of spin to artificially restore the reputation of the Dean/Clergy and Jersey. Published with the full knowledge that the State Media will not question/challenge him or it......As seen on ITV Cannel Television last night.

If the Dean has been "exonerated" then why did he APOLOGISE and why wasn't that question asked of Philip Bailhache on State Media last night?

Yet possibly one of the most "laughable?" sentence's in the Press Release has got to be this: "As to the Bishop’s staff, it would be outrageous for the Bishop to protect them at the expense of Jersey’s reputation for safeguarding" JERSEY'S REPUTATION FOR SAFEGUARDING? IS HE FOR REAL? Yet he wasn't questioned on this either.

If only we had a mainstream media who realised that it's a journalist's job to challenge/scrutinise power rather than be a part of it. If only we had a mainstream media who spoke up for those who had no power/voice then ITV Channel Television might have had "HG" sat on their couch last night and not Philip Bailhache. If only we had a mainstream media who scared authority rather than could be relied upon to scare the powerless and voiceless....................If only.

THE JERSEY ESTABLISHMENT CLOSES RANKS (AGAIN.)

Following on from VFC's PREVIOUS POSTING  today there were two questions tabled in the States of Jersey (the island's Parliament) relating to the current position of the suspended (or not) Dean. 

Deputy Trevor Pitman asked;

"Will H.M. Attorney General inform the Assembly what procedures are followed in the event of a vacancy in the office of Dean of Jersey and who is responsible for making any appointment to the post?"

Deputy Roy Le Herissier asked;

Would H.M. Attorney General explain how the appointment and management of the day to day performance in regard to the Dean is divided as between the Crown and the Bishop of Winchester?"

Given the background to the current suspension of the Dean of Jersey by the Bishop of Winchester, done with the public support of the Archbishop of Canterbury no less, these questions would have provided any progressive modern government with a welcome opportunity to assert its positive credentials. It was a good chance for the Jersey Establishment to state its commitment in protecting the vulnerable, to assert the importance of following the correct procedures when issues arose, and to openly and publically state its intention to work with the Church of England in order to ensure that Jersey operated to the highest standards in cases where the interests of the vulnerable were concerned. Such commitments would of course have been in stark contrast to the recent policy of siding with the alleged abuser, and throwing the victim off the island when she had the nerve to protest about her treatment. Nevertheless, the Church is, or ought to be, renowned for its ability to repent and forgive so a bit of repentance might have been worth a go.

But that is not what we got.

In response to this challenge the Establishment reverted to type and did what it does almost better than anyone (with the possible exception of the better organised elements of the Sicilian Mafia.) It closed ranks and defied the world to do anything about it.

With a straight face, the political and legal establishment told the Assembly that contrary to what the Archbishop of Canterbury might think, the Dean of Jersey was not suspended. He was welcome, should he so wish, to take his seat alongside the great and the good in the States of Jersey, the St Helier Parish Rates Committee, and all of the other formidable features of his role. Listeners, to this morning's debate, may have got the impression that the Establishment would positively welcome him back to the top table in a direct challenge to any insubordinate Bishop who had dared to question their authority in the matter.

Members tried to establish just to whom the Dean was actually accountable. Apparently he was accountable to the Jersey Ecclesiastical Court which was presided over than none other than the Dean himself, although it was conceded that if the Dean was the subject of any complaint the chair would be taken by that renowned champion of victim’s rights, the Deputy Bailiff, William Bailhache who was Chairing this morning's States sitting, so no conflict of interest there then.

Members also attempted to discover just who actually selected and appointed the Dean. They were told that it was the Queen herself no less. However, given that most members were aware that Her Majesty does not as a rule place job adverts in the newspaper or conduct interviews of candidates, questions were asked as to who actually selected the candidate and advised the Queen on the appointment. The full Establishment, led by the Solicitor General himself, expressed total ignorance. They had, it appeared, absolutely no idea how the selection process operated. That is a little surprising given that a number present were active participants in the selection of the current Dean who we understand took part in a selection process which involved dinners and meetings with the “Great and the Good” intended to ensure that he was the “right sort” and would “fit in” with the pillars of the Jersey Establishment. Well he fitted in right enough. Arguably  putting the interests of a suspected abuser before those of the victim and attempting to bury the whole thing is about as “fitting in” as you can get at the top levels of the Island’s Government.

In today’s exercise in what passes hereabouts for “democratic accountability” the Island’s worthies will have impressed each other but we suspect, few others. No doubt they will have regarded what took place as a heavyweight analysis of the legal and other reasons why they had primacy over matters affecting the Dean, and an assertion of their political authority. We suspect however that to much of the real world it will have been seen as a bunch of Ruritanian pipsqueaks hanging onto the shrinking remnants of their status.

The test now lies with the Church of England. Will they put victims first and take on the dark forces of the Jersey Hierarchy or will they back off and let normal service resume? Time will tell but all of a sudden a good deal more than the Dean of Jersey and Church Procedure appears to be at stake.

Submitted by VFC reader(s).