Boris Bailhache - Guest Posting.

Boris Bailhache

Political observers cannot help but have noticed that the national mainstream media have recently been (almost wall to wall) covering stories regarding the calls for the sacking/resignation of Boris Johnson. The calls are being made, seemingly, because he has gone "off message," is "ignoring collective responsibility" and "undermining the authority" of his Prime Minster Theresa May regarding Brexit.

Boris Johnson, it is firmly believed, is setting his stall for a leadership challenge against Theresa May by undermining her authority with his publicly made Brexit views and is making the PM into some kind of a laughing stock because she is unwilling, or unable, to reign her foreign Minister in.

But what about the Jersey situation with our Foreign Minister, Senator Philip (Boris) Bailhache, and leader Senator, Ian Abraham ,  (Theresa) Gorst? Senator Bailhache and his constant undermining of Ian Gorst, and the latter's attempts, not only to have a Committee of Inquiry (COI) into decades of Child Abuse, but to implement its recommendations. Not only has Boris Bailhache consistently attempted to derail the COI but is now attempting to derail senator Gorst and his attempts to implement the recommendation of splitting the dual role of the Bailiff. Senator Bailhache playing (as mentioned below) the old "tradition" card. Although he didn't play that card when he wiped out 500 years of tradition with the church. That obviously wasn't "traditional" enough to worry the public with.

While drafting this Blog Posting I was contacted by a reader and asked if I could/would publish a Guest Posting which, coincidentally, mirrored some of the points I was going to make so have incorporated it. Thankfully the reader HAS seen the similarities/comparisons between the Theresa May/Boris Johnson, Ian Gorst/Philip Bailhache sketch but can it be that not ONE of our esteemed professional local journalists have seen these similarities/comparisons? Do they not watch the national news?

Below the Guest Posting is senator Bailhache having yet another dig at Senator Gorst and yet another dig at the Care Inquiry. It came by way of an interview with ITV/CTV (who we credit for the recording).

Readers might recall that Sir Philip, with the help of ITV/CTV, managed to EXONERATE the then Jersey Dean Bob Key.

The Guest Poster has asked to remain anonymous.

Guest Post.

"They say that States Members start behaving strangely a few months before an election - some, who have otherwise been inconspicuous for the past 3 years have even been heard to speak, ask questions and even be critical of Government policy. When you are on a sinking ship, even the most loyal crew member will start eyeing up the life-rafts, knowing there may not be space for everyone.

This is standard practice, but what is going to be different about the May elections is that, for the first time in recent time, the fracture lines are starting to show - and in unusual places. Namely, there is infighting on the right. We saw the early signs of this in the fall-out over the innovation fund. Clearly, it was mismanaged. And whilst in times of success, various Ministers would line up to claim the positives as their own, or to take part in the traditional patting of each other's backs, this time, the knives came out.
The public wanted a scalp. The highly paid civil servants were shrewd enough to leave the scene (and the island) before the 'vraic hit the fields', and they would have been laughing all the way to the bank.

Senator Alan Maclean

Rightly or wrongly, Senator Ozouf was the one in the firing line for the failings of the fund and he had to go. The Chief Minister, on the other hand, strongly suggested that it was not his friend Philip who was to blame, so much as Senators Maclean and Farnham - the traditional right-wing of his council of Minister.

Skip forward a few months, and we see another prominent, canny politician who is fully aware that this Council of Minister's ship is heading firmly for the electoral rocks. The English-man Gorst and Phil'll Fix it have never been so unpopular. With the rise of Reform Jersey, and the decline of the neo-liberals, it is important that Senator Bailhache not only has a life raft (chauffeur-driven no doubt), but a ship of his own to captain when SS Vanity finally goes under. For that he needs a flag and a crew.

The 'flag' is tradition and the cause is the Bailiff. An uninspiring one, you might say and this is where the spin is needed. Remember the 2014 elections, which instead of being dominated by the real political issues and the Council of Ministers being held to account for their failings in Health, Housing, Social Security, electoral reform and Population control, the election was engineered to be little more than a side show about the Constables. Whilst younger people, unimpressed, showed their contempt for the political class by staying at home, the older voters took the bait - swallowing the hook, line and sinker too - believing that parish rates would go up if the constables were not in the States. The right (traditional and business class) were united in their efforts then, and saw off the unaligned independents, whilst the Social Democrats of Reform Jersey made no net gains, but maintained their seats.

This time it is very different. The rift between Gorst/Ozouf on the one hand, the 'progressive'-conservatives on one hand and the feudal-reactionaries on the other is palpable. Philip Bailhache, who never was one to toe the line (on the Child Abuse Inquiry, notably) has sensed the public mood and is making the separation of powers debate about something it is not. He knows it is a very simple matter - that Courts and Legislatures should be separate, and that Judges should stick to judging and politicians to politicking. So he needs a distraction and a bogey-man.

(1) POPULISM: This is a matter for the people. This is a constitutional matter, and - of course - constitutional matters should be put to the public (when it suits politicians). How dare arrogant politicians think they can make such a monumental decision without consulting you!

(2) BLAME THE IMMIGRANT. Gorst is an Englishman. He is just trying to make us like an overseas county of England. Look at the House of Commons, they are a complete shambles. We don't need an elected speaker like in England. Look at the mess they are in.

And the Jersey media go along with it.

In the recent Channel TV interview, (below) which was cloying in its deference to 'Sir' Philip, the story ran - Jersey could elect its own speaker like in the UK. But of course, it could have said 'like Barbados', 'like the Cayman Islands' or - how's about - 'like France.'

If there is an obvious parallel to be made with the UK it is the sharpening of knives from the likes of Boris Johnson and the would be pretenders for the lame-duck Theresa May's job.

Surely I am not the only one to see the comparison between Sir Philip Johnson and Boris Bailhache (with a little bit of Rees-Mogg thrown in for good measure)?"(END)

One Rule for One?

Following the debacle, and scandal, of the failed Jersey Innovation Fund (JIF) which could have cost the Jersey taxpayer millions of £'s. It has been reported that two out of the three independent reports into the failings of JIF will not be published. This is apparently because the remaining reports are of a disciplinary nature. (So what)?

The one report that has been published is reported to have exonerated Senator Philip Ozouf but leaves questions to be answered of Senators Alan Maclean and Lyndon Farnham. Questions the Chief Minister Senator Ian Gorst doesn't seem able to understand or ANSWER.

Back in 2010 the then Home Affairs Minister, Ian Le Marquand, set a very dangerous precedent by (possibly illegally) publishing the disgraced and discredited Wiltshire report, as explained in the below e-mail sent to BBC Radio Jersey from VFC.

This is after his (ILM's) predecessor, and now St. Helier Deputy, Andrew Lewis (possibly illegally) suspended the former Police Chief DURING a major Child Abuse Investigation amid contradictory statements of which he remains UNACCOUNTABLE.

The Wiltshire Report (Operation Haven 1) was the prosecution case against the former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM for a supposed disciplinary hearing..........That never happened!

Despite there never being an "outcome" (because he robbed the former Police Chief of a disciplinary hearing) Ian Le Marquand still went ahead and appeared to have breached the Wilts confidentiality clauses, by publishing a heavily redacted form of its report.

Former CO Wilts Constabulary Brian Moore.

Operation Haven (1) Confidentiality Clauses.

"Highly Confidential – Personal Information

An independent disciplinary investigation by Wiltshire Police

Following the suspension of Chief Officer Graham Power of the
States of Jersey Police on 12 November 2008.

Obligation to confidentiality

1. Paragraph 1.2 of the discipline code (for Chief Officers of the States of Jersey Police) requires that all parties involved in the operation of this code will maintain confidentiality while proceedings are being progressed. The outcome of any particular case arising under the code will not, as a general rule, be publicised, but it is accepted that following the outcome of a particular case, the Home Affairs Minister and/or the States Employment Board and /or the Chief Officer, might decide that public disclosure is appropriate.

2. This Report contains personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998, and Wiltshire Police would breach the first data protection principle if it were to disclose that information. Hence, the information is exempt under s.40(2) Freedom of Information Act 2000

3. This Report contains information that has been, and continues to be, held by Wiltshire Police for the purposes of an investigation which it has a duty to conduct and which ought not to be disclosed (under s.30 Freedom of Information Act 2000).

4. An obligation of confidence upon Wiltshire Police arises from the duty outlined at 1. Above, and disclosure of information would be likely to prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and Jersey. Information, therefore, ought not to be disclosed (under s.27 Freedom of Information Act 2000)."(END).

With all this in mind VFC sent the below e-mail to BBC Radio Jersey.

E-mail to BBC Radio Jersey.

"I heard on your radio programme this morning that the remaining reports into the Jersey Innovation Fund will NOT be published because they are of a disciplinary nature.

I'd like to cast your/the BBC's mind back to 2010 when the then Home Affairs Minister, Ian Le Marquand, (possibly illegally) published the prosecution side of a disciplinary report from the Wiltshire Constabulary (Operation Haven 1) against the former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM.

I reported here https://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2010/08/outcome-precedent-has-been-set.html that a precedent had been set and asked the question"Does this now mean that any states employee, even if un-convicted of any wrongdoing can face the prospect of the publication of a disciplinary report all over the “accredited” media? Or will it, once more turn out to be one rule for one????????????????????????????????"

You/BBC might want to challenge the Chief Minister's decision to bury the JIF reports on the basis of the precedent set by Ian Le Marquand back in 2010?"(END)

Of course the BBC could find itself in a bit of a sticky situation considering that it, alongside all other local mainstream media, published the prosecution case against the former Chief Police Officer. But despite being leaked the Chief Officer's interim defence case refused to publish a single WORD OF IT. Indeed, to this day, NONE of the local mainstream media have published a single word of it despite it now being a publicly available document (somewhere) on the Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry's WEBSITE. And despite ALL local Mainstream Media reporting on the prosecution case.

We await to see if the BBC (or any of the Mainstream Media) will challenge the Chief Minister on his decision to bury these Jersey Innovation Fund disciplinary reports in light of the precedent set by Ian Le Marquand. Or will it be a case of "One Rule for One?"

A Precedent has been SET. (For some?)

Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry Transcripts. (Andrew Lewis Part Three)

former Chief Police Officer

Graham Power QPM.

In November 2008 the then Home Affairs Minister, and current Chairman of Public Accounts Committee, Deputy Andrew Lewis, controversially (possibly illegally) suspended the Chief of Police while his force was investigating  (Operation Rectangle) decades of concealed Child Abuse in State run institutions and elsewhere in Jersey.

As part of our "transcript Blogs" we are currently looking at the transcripts of Deputy Andrew Lewis. These are the transcripts of those who have given evidence to the on-going Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry (COI).

In this, part three, publication we continue attempting to determine how credible Deputy Lewis' testimony to the Inquiry is......or isn't.

For those who have been following this story you will be aware that the law required Deputy Lewis bring a statement to the parliament after suspending the Chief Police Officer. He suspended the Chief Officer on the 12th November 2008. He brought the statement to the parliament on the 2nd December 2008 so plenty of time to get his story straight one would expect?

Clearly this wasn't the case and has been well documented since so no need to repeat it in this posting.

Today we look at why Deputy Andrew Lewis believes (or tried to convince the COI) thirty of our politicians voted against releasing the Hansard of the in-camera (secret) States Debate when delivering his statement regarding his suspension of Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM. 

Deputy Mike Higgins.

Deputy Mike Higgins, on 23rd May 2012, lodged a proposition asking the parliament to make public the Hansard of the 2nd of December 2008. The proposition was debated on 26th June 2012 and can be read HERE. Both the December 2nd 2008 debate and Deputy Higgins' proposition were held in-camera (secret)

Deputy Andrew Lewis looks to be attempting to convince the COI, and public, that the reason thirty politicians voted against Deputy Higgins' proposition to have the December 2008 Hansard released was because those thirty politicians weren't confused over what he meant when discussing a preliminary/interim report. Deputy Lewis, in the transcript below, seems to be of the impression that those thirty politicians knew he was talking about "The Warcup Letter" (that he never mentioned during the December 2nd 2008 debate) and not the Metropolitan Police preliminary/Interim report. (which he did mention on a number of occasions)

We produce this part of the transcript here.

Counsel to Inquiry Cathryn McGahey QC questioning Deputy Andrew Lewis:

Can I stop you there. Where in this States debate (2nd Dec 2008) had you already said that this was information from Mr Warcup?

That's the issue, ma'am, and you're correct, I have not mentioned Mr Warcup, but then why have members later on said "It is very clear that Mr Lewis is talking about Mr Warcup's letter"? Why are they saying that? That's a matter of record in Hansard.

How do you think that they deduced that you were talking about Mr Warcup, bearing in mind you did not refer to him once?

Well, you have to ask them, ma'am. 30 of them felt that. That was the vote after that debate (26 June 2012), so you would have to ask all of them..............

The full transcript of that Public Hearing can be read HERE. The excerpts published by VFC can be read HERE.

So Deputy Lewis has (under oath) told the Public Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry:

"but then why have members later on  said "It is very clear that Mr Lewis is talking about Mr Warcup's letter"? Why are they saying that? That's a matter of record in Hansard."

We searched the Hansard of 26th June 2012 debate using the quote used by Deputy Lewis; "It is very clear that Mr Lewis is talking about Mr Warcup's letter" That term DOES NOT exist in the Hansard search we did.

What we did do, also, is to read the Hansard of those who voted against Deputy Higgins' proposition to discover if (as Deputy Andrew Lewis seems to think) those who chose NOT to release the December 2008 Hansard voted against the proposition because there was no confusion and that those thirty politicians knew he (Deputy Andrew Lewis) was referring to "The Warcup Letter" that was NEVER mentioned in the November 2008 debate...........Yeah, I know!

Out of the thirty who voted to keep the December 2008 Hansard a secret, we counted only ten of them spoke.

We reproduce extracts of that Hansard below in order to demonstrate our point that if any of the thirty politicians thought "It is very clear that Mr Lewis is talking about Mr Warcup's letter" They did not say those words, and even if there were those that believed (despite Deputy Andrew Lewis never mentioning any "Warcup letter" in the December 2nd 2008 debate) the Deputy was referring to it then this was NOT the sole reason as to why they voted to keep that Hansard a secret.

Selected excerpts from Hansard from June 26th 2012 debate:

Bold emphasis added by VFC.

(Then)Deputy James Reed said:

“……….I do not know, necessarily, what the former Minister for Home Affairs at the time exactly what he was referring to but it is quite likely that the report that he was referring to was, indeed, the summary that Mr. Brian Napier acknowledges was contained in a letter sent by Mr. Warcup to Mr. Ogley on 10th November. So if that is the case, we are going to have extreme difficulty in determining whether the report that is referred to which, indeed, was a summary, presumably reflected the main points of the interim report and it was that which was relied upon, rightly or wrongly, by those at the time to determine the actions that they took.”

Didn't know what he (Andrew Lewis) was referring to. VFC.

Deputy Steve Luce said:

“I do not feel that I am going to be able to support this proposition. The proposer has given us a reasonable sized document to read and to new Members here who have not had the benefit of sitting in the last House, this is all new. We are trying to listen to the debate, read the document at the same time and then pass judgment that has been well made. I do not think I can do this justice in the period of time we are going to be here.”

Didn't have enough time to make a decision. VFC.

(then) connetable Phil Rondel said:

“No matter what is being said here by my colleagues today, I am having difficulty in saying that I could support this because I have not had all the evidence.”

Lack of evidence. VFC

                                      Deputy Rod Bryans said:

 "I feel that I understand what Deputy Higgins has brought to this Assembly. But I am very concerned and I support what the Deputy of St. Lawrence and the Deputy of St. John has said, it seems now that there are 2 germane documents that seem to be missing and that is the summary provided by Mr. Warcup and the actual interim report itself. Because if these 2 things marry-up and look very similar and the content is germane to the whole situation, then there is not, as the Connétable of St. John says, that to me seems, as he said, in the middle of all of that situation with it in full flow you would have to make your decisions as you go along and although I totally understand where Deputy Higgins is coming from, I think those 2 documents would now have to be discovered by certainly the new Members who have not been party to all of this and so I could not support this motion.”

Missing documents. VFC.

Senator Philip Ozouf said:

"I do understand the frustration of Members but I think that we are not in a position to be able to release information that was collected and expected to remain in camera, I think as a matter of principle. The Deputy believes that the former Minister has said something incorrect. I do not know. I am in the same position. I was in the debate. I simply do not know. The difficulty is that I do not think that we can publish a transcript because it reveals also other Members’ questions which they had a legitimate expectation that would remain secret."

It, for Senator Ozouf, was a matter of principle that secret debates should stay secret and he simply "didn't know" if Deputy Andrew Lewis said something "incorrect." (misled the parliament). VFC.

Deputy Richard Rondel said:

“What I am hoping is that people that were there do speak and advise us exactly that happened because it is very difficult to look at all this information in a short space of time and make a judgment.”

Hasn't had time to look at all the information. VFC.

Connetable Juliette Gallichan said:

“But if you simply read the transcript and understand the way that the Deputy of St. John expressed himself habitually and how you knew how his mannerisms, et cetera, were, he says: “I saw a preliminary report” as if I was given some information at the beginning. It is not, necessarily, I would put it to you “the interim report” and if we are hinging the entire possibility of changing the way we look at in camera debates and the release of transcripts on the interpretation of a couple of words, I think the Assembly does itself no justice at all and I really was expecting a more cataclysmic revelation from Deputy Higgins than what he has given, and from that point of view I really am at a loss as to how we justify the trade-off between our tradition and something that Members have come to rely on as being very important even though it is to be used extremely sparingly, i.e. the in camera debate. We have no way of knowing unless we talk to the former Deputy of St. John exactly what he meant by that ……..”

No way of knowing what Deputy Lewis "meant by that" and wanted to uphold the Jersey tradition of secrecy. VFC.

One must also keep in mind that Connetable Juliette Gallichan is the former Chairman of Privileges and Procedures Committee (PPC) who has questions to answer herself HERE and HERE. Why she was not called as a witness to the Child Abuse Inquiry is still a mystery.

(Then) Senator Ian Le Marquand said:

"The second approach is that where there is any debate of a matter that individuals who contribute to the debate must have the right to expect that what they have said in camera will remain in camera and remain confidential and that is a very important principle that should not be overturned, and the effect of this proposition is to do that. I have found this extremely difficult because I understand both those principles. I think the first principle is right. That is a reason why the statute requires these matters to be in camera and I think the second principle is probably right as well; Members should be able to trust that what was in camera remains in camera."

Although in the full Hansard Ian Le Marquand believes Deputy Lewis, it is not the sole reason for upholding the secret Jersey Way as he explains above.............It's about secrecy as well.

Ian Le Marquand has a number of questions to answer also. Not least from HERE.

(Then) Deputy Sean Power (or what ever his real name is) said:

“It is not specific in this text as to what he is referring to and he refers on the bottom of that page, which is the fourth page that we have, he refers to it again. He says: “I believe if this preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal.” So, again, he is referring to a report, which is a synopsis or some sort of briefing situation because I am quite sure………”

He goes on further to say:

“Again, we have this vagueness as to what he is actually referring to in using the words “preliminary report” and Senator Le Gresley has referred to that. Then on the bottom of page 4 he refers to the fact that: “I am purely acting on information contained this time in a report.” He does not even use the words “preliminary report” and we do not know what the source of that report is, we do not know where it came from, and we are not sure who prepared it.”

Self explanatory.VFC.

Senator Philip Bailhache.

“……and now we are asked to agree that the transcripts of an in camera debate be released so that the reputation of a former Member can be dragged in the dust. We are asked to do this on the flimsiest of evidence and without hearing what the former Member has to say about it. I agree with the Senators Le Gresley and Le Marquand and I am not at all persuaded that there was an attempt or an innocent misleading of the Assembly. Deputy Pitman says that the integrity of the Assembly is in question and he is right. Even if the former Police Chief was treated unfairly, and I simply do not know whether or not that was the case, I do not think that that is a justification for treating the former Deputy of St. John with unfairness. The short answer for me is that the former debate, or the debate held on 2nd December 2008, was held in camera in accordance with the mandates of the law and it should take a very, very strong reason, in my view, for that to be overturned. There may be reasons why such a transcript should be released but at the moment I cannot think of such reasons. Of course a Member should speak the truth, whether they are speaking in camera or in public; that goes without saying. Some Members have said that the transcripts clarify matters and therefore they should be put into the public domain. I must say that as a new Member I do not share that view at all. If you are a new Member you need a great deal more information than we have heard this afternoon in order to understand what is going on.”

Well as much as Senator Bailhache tried to pass himself off as a "new member." He neglected to mention that he actually chaired the December 2nd 2008 secret debate that is being discussed/voted on here.

Regular readers will know that when Deputy Andrew Lewis said in that debate;

"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 then Bailiff and now Senator Bailhache said:

The Bailiff: (Philip Bailhache)

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

So Senator Bailhache seems to know a bit more than he is letting on? Clearly one of his reasons for voting against Deputy Higgins' proposition was to maintain secrecy.

Twenty of those who voted against Deputy Higgins' proposition didn’t speak so we, the Committee of Inquiry, (or Andrew Lewis) have no way of knowing what they thought. So IF Andrew Lewis is saying (under oath) they believed he wasn’t misleading the House, or that they knew he was referring to the “Warcup letter” then how does he, or we, know this?

People who are economical with the truth in one topic are usually as economical in others. People who attempt to cover up one thing are usually prepared to cover up another.

The fact is that the evidence doesn't look to back up Andrew Lewis' testimony to the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry. This should be of considerable concern to the island's government and to the general public.

Andrew Lewis is a serving politicians and Chairman of Public Accounts Committee who's honesty, and integrity, should be beyond reproach.

Part one of this series can be viewed HERE.

Part two of this series can be viewed  HERE.

Stuart Syvret Court Case State Media Interview (uncut)

Former Jersey Senator, and Health Minister, Stuart Syvret, was once more appearing in Jersey's Royal Court today in a case brought by the Treasury Minister, Senator Philip Ozouf, who's claiming £68,000 supposed Court costs arising out of Mr. Syvret's various attempts to defend himself against the same system that has oppressed and failed so many VULNERABLE PEOPLE IN JERSEY.

Those who have followed the performance of Jersey's so-called  corrupt, politicised and non ARTICLE SIX HUMAN RIGHT COMPLIANT  courts and specifically followers of the "legal" actions consistently brought against Mr. Syvret and in one case "secretly" brought against him, will be aware that the oppressions by Jersey's establishment have left him penniless and without assets.  This does not deter the State from relentlessly pursuing him in court chasing vast amounts of money that they, and everybody else knows, he doesn't have.

It is quite clear, to any reasonable observer, (and the judiciary) that Mr. Syvret has no way of paying these supposed  "costs" arising from his attempts to defend himself against the State,  and the motives behind the pursuance of these monies, and the continuing court actions are highly questionable. Not least, the apparent, non article six Human Right compliant tribunal he was in front of this morning (mentioned in video below).

Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media) attended the Hearing, as did some local State Media (BBC and ITV/CTV). The latter interviewed Mr. Syvret which we filmed in its entirety and offer it to our readers/viewers unedited. Viewers will note that Mr. Syvret had a question of his own for ITV/CTV which has still not been adequately answered.

Regular readers of this Blog will be aware that the State Media published/broadcast a prosecution case (the Wiltshire Report) against (illegally?) suspended former Jersey Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM.

The "prosecution case" against the Police Chief, which was  broadcast and printed by Jersey State media, was commissioned by the disgraced Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, who ultimately dropped  the disciplinary case and in the words of Mr. Power "chickened out of a FAIR FIGHT."

Mr. Power had compiled a 94 page, 62,000 word, interim defence case against the failed and abandoned, politically motivated, disciplinary action. A copy of Mr Power's 94 page report was leaked (by Stuart Syvret) to the discredited, and disgraced BBC (on the 22nd of November 2011) which, despite reporting what was ultimately a failed and abandoned disciplinary case against the Police Chief, the BBC has BURIED MR. POWER'S STATEMENT.

A little known fact is that well over a year ago, Mr. Syvret furnished CTV/ITV, the ITN news franchise in the Channel Island's, with the same document he leaked to the BBC. ITV/CTV also reported on the "prosecution case" against Mr. Power, but just like the BBC has buried the interim defence case and Mr. Syvret, in the interview below, questions CTV/ITV as to when it will be reporting on the many public interest issues revealed in Mr Power's statement and indeed adding balance to the prosecution case it has reported on.

State Media Philip Ozouf and "Stolen" E-mails.

After the exclusive publication of "leaked" e-mails between Treasury Minister, Philip Ozouf, and former States of Jersey Chief Executive Officer, Bill Ogley (and others) published on Rico Sorda's BLOG. State Radio run with the story and "interviewed" The Treasury Minister live on radio yesterday morning.

Senator Ozouf was allowed to make some very serious allegations and was not asked to substantiate them by the "interviewer." The Senator claimed that the published e-mails were "stolen" thus implying that Rico Sorda is a thief. The Senator claimed "where we now have stolen e-mails appearing on Blog-Sites." But, if Rico Sorda is a thief, then by implication, so is the BBC because the BBC stated "the e-mails we were given, we didn't take them from the published website." How can it be that Mr. Sorda "stole" the e-mails and the BBC didn't?

How is it that State Radio allow a member of "The Establishment Party" to make unsubstantiated allegations against a Blogger (Jersey's only independent media) yet when an opposition politician makes allegations, not only is she told that she can't make these allegations but told that she has no evidence to back them up and gets her microphone cut off?

I e-mailed Matthew Price, and Senator Ozouf yesterday, and asked them to substantiate Senator Ozouf's very serious allegation of these e-mails being "stolen" and the old "conspiracy theories on Blogs sketch."

E-mail.

"Matthew.

This morning when you "interviewed" Treasury Minister Philip Ozouf regarding the "leaked" e-mails concerning the RBC/Post Office property (non) purchase. On a number of occasions the Treasury Minister said that the e-mails were "stolen." You never asked him to substantiate this very serious allegation and I would like to know why you never asked him to substantiate it?

As you mentioned, live on air, that the e-mail(s) were published on a local Blog run by Rico Sorda I was left with the impression (as other listeners must have been) that Rico Sorda might have stolen them and I would hope that you wouldn't want your listeners to have that impression?

The Treasury Minister, also on a number of occasions, said  "the conspiracy theories have started on the Blogs." Again you did not ask him to substantiate this claim which, I would argue, left listeners with the impression that there is no "fact(s) on the Blogs and only "conspiracy theories."

Could I ask that either you, or the Treasury Minister, substantiate the very serious allegation the e-mail(s) were stolen and substantiate the claim of conspiracy theories on Blogs?" (END)

As I am blacklisted by the BBC I will not be getting a reply from them but remain hopeful that the Treasury Minister will reply and substantiate his very serious allegation(s).

Readers might want to compare, and contrast, yesterday's so-called "interview" with the Treasury Minister with that of the "interview" with an apposition politician and ask is there one rule for one.........?

VFC thank, and credit TJW for these recordings.

Scrutiny, "Lime Grove" and the media.

Senator Sarah Ferguson Has just published her Scrutiny Panel’s Report into the purchasing (or not as it turned out) of “Lime Grove.” Naturally the “accredited” media have wasted little time in telling the public as much as they (“accredited” media) think the public should know.

As is so often the case, in particular the Jersey Evening Post, have published an article on this Report/Review, which does not give their readers a true, or accurate, picture of just how complex, wide ranging and beyond the remit of Scrutiny that this subject had become.

The Senator explains to us how she believes the JEP "journalist" didn't even read the full Scrutiny Report and how their readers have formed an opinion based on the JEP's own opinion with little regard to the facts.


Although Senator Ferguson gave the "AWARD WINNING" Channel Television a 25 minute interview, they chose only to broadcast a 30 second soundbite and was not entirely representative of the interview given.


We (Team Voice) are pleased to bring our viewers an in-depth interview with Senator Ferguson, where she tells us much the same as she told the "accredited" media, which never got to see the light of day.


In this part one, of a two part interview, we discuss how the Scrutiny Review was much more than "buying a building." We talk of gagging orders, contracts, the way the States treat their employees, natural justice and much more.


In part two (coming soon) we discuss the "accredited" media and Bloggers.

Modern day Politician or Fraudster?

Yesterday in the States, our elected "representatives", were asked to vote on the request from "Team Voice" to film the historic States Sitting this coming Thursday when it is the final sitting of our present Lieutenant Governor Sir Andrew Ridgeway.

The so called "accredited" media as in BBC Jersey and the "AWARD WINNING" Channel Television have both been granted permission to film by our States Members, but the vote for "Team Voice" to film was, as predicted, lost with 17 votes in favour and 22 against.

Although it was predicted the vote would be lost, who would have thought, that the Deputy Chief Minister, fellow Blogger, Twitterer, Facebook and Youtube user Senator Phillip Ozouf would have been one of those voting AGAINST?


To further demonstrate the knee jerk daft reactions concerning the majority of States members, more so Senator Ozouf. Had Team voice been allowed to film, all they could have done, was take a bit of film footage of the sitting and turned the camera off before the debate started, as far as we are aware. What's the worse that could have happened? But instead, by refusing us permission, the likes of Senator Ozouf get flushed out.


How can he be taken seriously? Why should we Believe a word he says? How can he claim to support "new media" and vote against new media switching a camera on alongside the "Accredited" media?


In the interest of balance Team Voice have asked Senator Ozouf for an interview, or comment.............He has declined.


Below is the Senator's own video recording from his own blogsite of how he supports "new media" which in the opinion of Team Voice exposes him as saying one thing while doing and voting another.