Senator Sam Mezec (VoNC) Interview.

Senator Sam Mezec

Further to our PREVIOUS POST  earlier today where we published the resignation letter (of now former) Children's and Housing Minister Senator Sam Mezec. Ahead of tomorrow's Vote of No Confidence (VoNC) against Chief Minister, Senator John Le Fondre, we were granted an in-depth interview with Senator Sam Mezec (below).

We wanted to ask; "if the VoNC is successful, then what happens?" "How likely is it to happen?" "Are we heading for an Ian Gorst, by proxy, Government should Chief Minister Le Fondre lose the vote?" "Are the numbers there to dethrone him?"

We discussed the "government within a Government" as mentioned by Deputy Inna Gardiner on State Radio this morning but first brought to our attention back in 2010 by (possibly illegally) suspended Chief Police Officer GRAHAM POWER QPM. where Civil Servants, and Law Offices, are running the show, usurping the democratic process with complete impunity. Will the new Chief Minister (if there is one) tackle this huge problem of a government within a government?

Further explored is the idea that Chief Executive Officer Charlie Parker might be trying to cure the island of "The Jersey Way" and like all others before him (who have tackled the issue) is becoming a victim of it as a result? We need only think of Stuart Syvret, Lenny Harper, Graham Power, Shona and Trevor Pitman to name but a few.

Much more is discussed in this very informative interview such as the "choice" we have should John Le Fondre lose the vote. So far we have three options (sic) on the table for Chief Minister. They are:

Option 1 A right-wing Conservative, and staunch supporter of "The Jersey Way." (John Le Fondre)

Option 2 A  right-wing Conservative, and staunch supporter of "The Jersey Way." (Kristina Moore)

Option 3 A  right-wing Conservative, and staunch supporter of "The Jersey Way." Lyndon Farnham (if as rumoured he will be throwing his hat in the ring)

Could we have a fourth option of a left-wing socialist throwing their hat in the ring...........................................? Watch the video and find out.........................

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.

Children's Minister Senator Sam Mezec discusses Memorial for Abuse Survivors.

Children's Minister Senator Sam Mezec

In November 2011 we published a Blog Posting entitled "STATE SPONSORED PAEDOPHILIA. It was a statement released by the former (possibly illegally) suspended Jersey Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM. The statement was released in response to a damming report published by the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Sub Panel headed up by former Deputy Trevor Pitman.

The Report was damming on the local State Media for its inaccurate and bias reporting regarding the financial management of Operation Rectangle (Child Abuse police Investigation). It  (the report) has been described as "the most defining report of its era" and a shortened version can be viewed HERE with the full report posted HERE.

The former Chief Police Officer's statement in response to the report included the words:

"The attempts to divert this debate into discussions concerning the trivia of expense claims, is a scandal of which all involved should be thoroughly ashamed."

Former SIO Lenny Harper

What he was referring to is the local media's role in reporting how much Senior Investigating Officer, (SIO) Lenny Harper, spent on a Prawn Cocktail in a London Restaurant and diverted the attention away from the public of the horrendous abuse that had been able to go on for decades and covered up by those in authority. The local media was never held to account for its disgraceful propaganda and the Scrutiny Sub Panel's report and recommendations sits on a shelf gathering dust (like most Scrutiny Reports).

Now, almost a decade later, we see history (the media) repeating itself in relation to the proposed memorial (as recommended by the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry) for the Survivors of abuse. The media are attempting: "to divert this debate into discussions concerning the trivia of expense" giving at any opportunity to report how much the memorial is going to cost, and of course a great number of people have followed the media's lead/agenda and are experts on how better the money could be spent elsewhere. A lot of these online self proclaimed money experts seem to only have a view on the money but not on the abuse that was perpetrated, and covered up, for decades.

With that in mind we have decided to publish the interview with the Children's Minister in two parts. This is so those who aren't interested in a solution to bring Abuse Survivors together and find some kind of consensus regarding the memorial they can watch part one (below) and talk about the (media led) money.

For those who are interested in attempting to unite the survivors rather than keeping them divided by "taking a side," either for or against the memorial, then part two of the interview should interest you. Again we have seen, online, so many experts on what's best for Abuse Survivors or not. From our perspective we don't see Survivors as a "one size fit all" we see them as individuals with their own personal experiences. Taking a side does not help their cause, it keeps them divided, and therefore the old "divide a conquer" wins yet again.

Team Voice has been campaigning for Abuse Survivors for more than a decade now, we have published around 600 Blog Postings almost exclusively fighting their corner, exposing the lies and corruption of those in authority. We were instrumental in formulating the Terms of Reference for the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (IJCI). We have given evidence to numerous Scrutiny Panels both written and oral. We were asked to submit evidence to the IJCI which we did and appeared as a witness in support of Survivors. We were asked by Survivors to sit with them while they gave evidence anonymously at the IJCI public hearings which we happily did. Our support is for ALL Survivors and that means not taking a side when they are in disagreement with each other. Perhaps those who are "taking sides" might want to reflect and ask just how much good they are really doing? 

We are conscious that there are some well meaning supporters who are taking sides, and genuinely supporting the Survivors they have been in contact with, but we are also aware that there are "false prophets" among them who want to keep Survivors divided for their own duplicitous agenda so beware.

The Children's Minister has a hell of a task on his hands and is in a unenviable position in attempting to implement the recommendation(s) of the IJCI by commissioning some kind of a (sympathetic) memorial and at the same time not causing any further trauma to those Survivors who are against it. What he is looking for is solutions and not political point scoring and personal attacks from "the usual suspects." We have witnessed some online commenters hijacking this very sensitive, and emotive, subject by those who don't share Senator Mezec's politics in order to sling mud at him. To our way of thinking this is not about politics, it's not about the Minister, it's about the Survivors, what can be done to bring them together and do what's right by them and the good people of Jersey? Those trying to score political points, along with the media, should be holding their heads in shame and certainly are not on the side of the Survivors.

We are pleased to announce that the Minister has agreed to sit around a table with survivors, both for and against the memorial, in order to see if some kind of a consensus/agreement can be met and we will look to make that happen in the very near future.

A big thank you to the Minister for sitting down in front of a camera, on a Sunday afternoon, in order to try and navigate the public through this very controversial, sensitive and emotive subject.

We hope those with an interest in finding a solution, and uniting the Survivors, will watch part two of the interview (below) and hopefully have some constructive feedback on a positive way forward which we are sure the Minister would take onboard. For those with an interest in part one don't bother watching part two.

William Bailhache carries out a Vendetta for his Brother?

Bailiff William Bailhache

Yesterday (Tues 8th October 2019) in a (not so) unprecedented POLITICAL speech by the outgoing Bailiff, William Bailhache, he  attacked the report of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry. He used the "Communications by the Presiding Officer and other announcements" tool to make this attack  knowing he wouldn't, or couldn't, be questioned on his statement like an elected member would. This was a total abuse of his office/position and further demonstrates the need for a separation of powers. The speech can, and should be listened to HERE.

A number (4 out of 49) politicians either objected to contents of the speech or asked that he would take questions on it to which he refused. The four principled politicians were Deputy Mike Higgins, Deputy Montfort Tadier, Constable Simon Crowcroft and Children's Minister senator Sam Mezec.

It is the opinion of VFC that the Bailiff's speech was a vendetta against the IJCI Chair, Francis Oldham QC, for calling his brother (former Bailiff Philip Bailhache) out in her 2017 report. Regular readers will be aware that in 2008 the then Bailiff Philip Bailhache gave the infamous (political) Liberation Day speech which included the words:

"All child abuse, wherever it happens, is scandalous, but it is the unjustified and remorseless denigration of Jersey and her people that is the real scandal"
He tried to tell the IJCI that his terminology was "an “unfortunate juxtaposition” of words." That people might interpret what he was saying was that the real criminals were the journalists challenging Jersey and her people and that is not what he meant.

Francis Oldham QC wrote in her 2017 report:

“We cannot accept that a politician and lawyer (Philip Bailhache) of his experience would inadvertently have made what he told the Inquiry was an “unfortunate juxtaposition” of words. We are sure that the way in which Jersey is perceived internationally matters greatly to him. His linking of Jersey’s reputation to the child abuse investigation was, we are satisfied, a grave political error,”

Then when you compare, and contrast, what William Bailhache said in his anti democratic political speech in the States Chamber yesterday one can see that it is almost identical to what Francis Oldham QC wrote about his brother in her 2017 report:

“I cannot accept that a lawyer of the Chairman’s experience would inadvertently have drafted such an unfortunate juxtaposition of words. I am sure that the way in which Jersey receives her panel’s report matters greatly to her. Her linkage of allegations of lack of fairness and transparency in decision taking, by the Bailiff to historic (sic) Child Abuse was a grave error.”

This, on the face of it, looks like a spiteful, petty, vendetta and an attack on Francis Oldham QC and does William Bailhache no favours at all. Abusing his position to make the speech in the first place also does him, and the office of Bailiff, no favours either and adds more weight to the argument that the dual role of the Bailiff should be abolished.

Readers/viewers really ought to watch the spectacle that was his SPEECH and his refusal to take any questions from States Members. Even those who support the dual role of the Bailiff must have difficulty in defending this. Indeed according to Children's Minister, Senator Sam Mezec, (below) some supporters do concede it is indefensible.

Senator Mezec drafted his own speech, in answer to the Bailiff's speech, but was refused permission to present it in the States by..........................The Bailiff! This just makes even more off a mockery of our so-called "democracy" where an unelected, unaccountable, Member of the parliament can make a political speech, refuse to answer any questions on it and then, not only has the power to, but prevents a democratically elected, and accountable Member of the States making a speech.

We asked the Children's Minister for an interview to discuss yesterday's shenanigans in the States which he agreed to for which we are grateful. What is clear in the interview is that the Bailiff has caused further damage, not only to the office of Bailiff/dual role, but to the reputation of the island as a whole and potentially damaged any hard earned trust the government might have been gaining from Survivors of abuse while attempting to implement the IJCI recommendations.

Among much more the Children's Minister tells us (interview below) that if this wasn't the Bailiff's last States Sitting before he retires then Senator Mezec, rather that drafting his own statement, he would have been drafting a vote of no confidence.

Stay tuned for the next part of this series where we have an exclusive interview with former Deputy Chief Officer, and Senior Investigating Officer, of the Police Investigation (Operation Rectangle) into the decades of Child Abuse Mr. Lenny Harper. Who himself was unequivocally VINDICATED by the Bailiff. We get Mr. Harper's reaction to this and much more.............

Independent Jersey Care Inquiry Two Year Review. (Part 2)

IJCI Panel

On the 25th September 2019 we published PART ONE of our series concerning the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry's (IJCI) second damming REPORT into the "care" of children in Jersey. In our previous posting we said:

"In the coming weeks we intend on publishing excerpts of the Report which we think will be of interest to our readers/viewers."

And:

"In part two of this series we will publish the interview with Chief Minister, Senator John Le Fondre, and Children's Minister, Senator Sam Mezec."

Below is that interview, and among other topics, we discuss the two paragraphs, from the IJCI second report and they are:

Attorney General Robert McRae

18  "There are two aspects of the new Children’s Commissioner legislation which cause us concern. First, it is essential that the Commissioner should have access to all documentation she requires in pursuit of any inquiry. Amendments to the legislation allowed legal advice given by the Law Officers Department to be withheld from the Commissioner, albeit with a provision that the Attorney General could make such advice available if he believed it to be in the public interest, having first applied a public interest test. Whilst we fully understand the importance of the convention that legal advice is not disclosed, we consider that, in setting the arrangement as it now stands, there is a real likelihood of suspicion being generated that critical matters are being covered up and that the “Jersey Way” is being perpetuated. We will come back to the “Jersey Way” later, but suffice to say, arrangements which could be seen to perpetuate this undermining belief should be avoided. To that end, we recommend that the presumption by the Law Officers Department should be framed to indicate that relevant legal advice will be made available to the Commissioner and withheld only where a public interest test is met for non-disclosure. This would symbolise a willingness to be open and transparent in most circumstances, since we believe that there should be few circumstances where it would not be appropriate to let the Commissioner have sight of legal advice, given the very direct impact such advice can have on the long-term outcome for a child." 

Former (possibly illegally suspended) Chief of Police Graham Power QPM

21 "Whilst we would hope that it never becomes necessary to remove a Children’s Commissioner from post, it is nonetheless vital that robust arrangements are in place should the need arise. This is important for the protection of the office but also for the protection of the Commissioner, so that she can undertake her duties without fear of repercussions. The current provision in legislation for ending the appointment of a commissioner is for the Chief Minister and the President of the Chairmen’s Committee to bring forward a proposal to that effect, which would be presented to a sitting of the States Assembly held in-camera. Whilst the Commissioner would have a right to make written representations to the Assembly, we consider it essential that she should be entitled to make representations in person during the in-camera session. We accept that on matters of this nature, regard must be given to protecting the privacy of the Commissioner, hence the need for proceedings to take place in a private session. We consider the Commissioner should also have the right to waive that facility in favour of an open public consideration. Our concern here is to ensure that circumstances, similar to those which pertained at the time of the removal from office of the former Chief Officer of Police, are not replicated. Jersey must demonstrate that it will deal with such a matter in ways which will evidence fairness and as much transparency as possible. We therefore recommend that in reviewing the law, consideration be given to achieving the objective of fully demonstrable fairness in any proceedings to remove a Children’s Commissioner from office."

Readers/viewers will note from the above two paragraphs that "The Jersey Way" remains prevalent which is mentioned further in the report and we will look to explore in more detail as part of this series. 

Regular readers/viewers will also know that following the (possibly illegal) suspension of the former Police Chief, the then Home Affairs Minister, Ian Le Marquand, possibly broke the law by publishing a redacted version of the prosecution case made against the former Chief Police Officer. Indeed he went on a media roadshow with it and conducted his own KANGAROO COURT with it. Graham Power subsequently wrote his interim DEFENCE CASE to the Wiltshire Constabulary's prosecution case which Ian Le Marquand refused to publish. It was then leaked to The BBC, who along with the rest of the Old Media, had been broadcasting/publishing parts of the prosecution case, but despite being leaked the defence case decided to BURY IT. It was subsequently leaked to the rest of the Island's Old Media who too decided to bury it. The prosecution case is published on the States of Jersey website and STILL the defence case is only published on THIS BLOG. To this day NONE of the local Old Media (to the best of our knowledge) have reported a single word of it. Equally as unjust the defence case does NOT sit alongside the prosecution case on the States website.

During the interview with the Chief Minister/Children's Minister (below) I reminded the Chief Minister that the last time WE SPOKE  (over a year ago) he said he would "look in to it" (the injustice of having the prosecution case on the State website and not the defence case) and would "get back to me." He hadn't/hasn't got back to me. He has once more assured me that he "will look into it."

As mentioned in the video interview; are we just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic? The way Jersey is constructed, and particularly the many hats worn by the (conflicted) Attorney General's Office, is the biggest problem? No matter what avenues one goes down they all seem to lead to the door of the AG. This too is discussed in the video interview. We/regular readers will know that not all  (if any) AG's have been as acquainted with the truth as one would HOPE. 

The fact that the AG's Office seek to withhold legal advice from the Children's commissioner is 
(or could be seen as) The Jersey Way. Similarly the secretive way the Children's Commissioner can be gotten rid of is (or can be seen as) The Jersey Way. Readers/viewers, after watching the interview, will have to make up their mind as to whether assurances/answers given by the Chief Minister, and Children's Minister, are enough to keep today's/tomorrow's children, and whistleblowers, safe?

As we did, in PART ONE of this series, we asked the Chief Minister and Children's Minister if all the positive parts of the damming REPORT were overshadowed by a (distraught) lady making (at the IJCI presentation) "a number of allegations against Children's Services/Social Workers and the "care" of children, by the State, in General. Claiming continued cover-ups, being stonewalled and her child(ren), along with herself being failed by a system that's trying to protect itself."

Deputy Mike Higgins

We are aware that due to the intervention of Deputy Mike Higgins that the lady's case is (finally) being looked at. This is a case that we might return to on the Blog but things do look to be going in a more positive direction than what they were.

On a slightly more positive note we (VFC/Bloggers/New Media) are pleased for the recognition, and SUPPORT, of the IJCI and we are also pleased to have that same support (mentioned in video interview) from the Chief Minister and Children's Minister who we thank for this interview.

Les Chenes "JUSTICE?"

Senator Sam Mezec (Children's Minister)

On Monday 1st July 2019 the government announced its REDRESS SCHEME for Survivors of the brutal regime suffered during their time at Les Chenes Secure Residential Unit and for those in a Jersey Foster Care Placement.

From the get-go parts (but not all) of the Old Media were (and still are) reporting the Redress Scheme as "Justice" for the Survivors. It would be interesting to learn how many Survivors the Old Media have spoken with who believe what they are(n't) getting is "justice." Certainly the ones I have spoken with see it as the only option available to them. Their abusers are NOT going to face charges so they (Survivors) have to make do (for the most part) with a couple of quid.

After the public announcement at St. Paul's Centre (Monday 1st July) VFC was granted an interview with Children's Minister Senator Sam Mezec. We took away the governments (and parts of the Old Media) agenda as passing this scheme off as "justice." Instead of declaring money (and an apology) is being offered to Survivors wouldn't it have been a better declaration to make that their abusers have been jailed AND the Survivors have been "adequately" compensated?

We asked the Children's Minister questions along those lines. "Why is this all about money and not justice?" "How can a price be put on a childhood/lifetime of misery and torment?" How on earth did the conflicted, and untrusted, Law Offices Department/Attorney General's Office get to be the Administrators of the Redress Scheme? The very people who have failed the Survivors for failing/refusing to prosecute (and allegedly protecting) their abusers. Staggeringly the Children's Minister told us that some Survivors asked for the option to have the Law Offices Department administer the scheme. The Minister, through the Lawyer representing many of the Survivors, says that partly for the simplicity of it and partly for the COST some survivors chose the Law Offices. Really? The Survivors voluntarily chose to make things as simple and cheap for the government without being pushed down that avenue? They weren't told that if we put the administration of the scheme out to tender then that could take a lot more time and your ordeal could drag on, unnecessarily, a lot longer? We asked, alongside the governments apology, shouldn't there be an apology from The Law Offices Department/Attorney General's Office? We know that the AG's Office has some (many) uncomfortable questions to ANSWER.

It is two years to the day that the Independent Jersey Care INQUIRY published its REPORT and RECOMMENDATIONS and one has to ask; "has attitudes towards Child Abuse, and Survivors, changed in any way?" "How is money perceived (by the government and parts of the Old Media) as "justice?" As mentioned above, and in the interview (below), those Survivors I have spoken with have ALL said this is/was never about money, it's always been about justice. It's the government (along with The Law Offices Department) who have made it about money, it is not the choice of all Survivors. Their choice would have been not to have been abused in the first place.

Chief Minister John Le Fondre Interview (Part 2 or 2).

Chief Minister John Le Fondre

Part two of our exclusive interview with the Chief Minister is a direct continuation of part one. In part two we ask such questions as "who is the opposition in the States now that the opposition has been recruited by the Establishment?" Was this a genuine move on the Chief Minister's behalf to finally have a more inclusive government or was it a cynical move in order to silence the opposition? Is Reform Jersey (Jersey's only political party) now the Establishment? Who, in the States Chamber, with any political experience, and who are not members of the Establishment Party, is left to scrutinise what the government is doing?

Regular readers will be aware from our INTERVIEW with Children's and Housing Minister, Senator Sam Mezec, that he (Senator Mezec) agreed to adopt the terminology suggested by The National Association of People Abused in Childhood (NAPAC) when referring to child abuse to use the term "non recent" rather than the derogatory and offensive term "historic." We are pleased to report that the Chief Minister has also agreed to adopt this terminology from NAPAC media GUIDELINES. We hope that others will follow suit and in particular the mainstream media who even refer to present day Child Abuse as "historic." This BLOG POSTING explains, from the perspective of Survivor/Abusee Tom Perry the word "historic" is used and who uses it.


We go on to ask the Chief Minister what can we expect from his government that is different from any other government we have had? Can there be any much needed change or is it just the same old with different faces? Only time will tell.

We would like to thank the Chief Minister for his support of Citizen's Media and in particular for the positive feedback of (and during) our interview/Blog. He believes we are a force for good in holding power and the mainstream media to account.

Part one of our interview can be viewed HERE.

Senator Sam Mezec Childrens' Minister (part 2 of 2)

Senator Sam Mezec

Following the fall-out of the latest DAMMING REPORT into Jersey's children's Services, the 8 commitment pledge to children (below) and the subsequent PRESS CONFERENCES.VFC was granted an interview with Jersey's first appointed Childrens' Minister, Senator Sam Mezec, where we published part 1 of the interview HERE.

Below is part two (a direct continuation of part 1) of this exclusive and in-depth interview where we discuss, among much more, "The Jersey Way" and how is it possible that six Health and Social Services employees were apparently suspended from duty as a result of evidence given to the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry. They were allegedly investigated and subsequently all six found to have no case to answer and returned to work? All six completely innocent and returned to work? Is this "The Jersey Way" in action?

We also discuss the word "historic" when used in the context of Child Abuse. Regular readers might recall back in January 2012 we published a Guest Posting from Survivor/Abusee TOM PERRY. Tom explained to us why the term "historic" is only ever used (predominantly by MSM) in the context of Child Abuse.

To quote Tom (from the Guest Posting above):

"Would Mrs Doreen Lawrence consider her son Stephen’s murder nineteen years ago ‘historic?’ For her, just like me and other abusees who have not had the benefit of having their cases heard in court, it is all too current. Yet the media do not use the ‘historic’ word to describe Stephen’s murder. Why not? Take a few other serious crimes such as aggravated burglary, grievous bodily harm, drug smuggling, or assault, and all are free of the dismissive adjective ‘historic.’ I have also never seen the crime of rape described as historic. So what is it about child abuse? 

For authorities, care homes, schools, young offenders institutes that knowingly and unknowingly employed pederasts to work with children and then concealed discovered crimes, the use of the adjective ‘historic’ helps dismiss, discount, and consign to history a scandal they wish no one had noticed and which the employer does not wish to address. The same authorities delight in this self-harming description being consistently applied to crime they wish would vanish, but which remain all too current for all Jersey’s abusees.

Its child abuse."

The MSM in Jersey still continue to use this offensive (to Survivors) word "historic" as do many others who want to minimise the offence and those who don't understand how harmful it can be to Survivors. We are (very) pleased to announce that the Childrens' Minister has agreed to consign that word to "history" and when referring to Child Abuse in the past context he has agreed to use the term "non recent" and will be instructing his staff to do likewise.

The term "non recent" is suggested by The National Association for People Abused in Childhood (NAPAC) as part of its MEDIA GUIDELINES. 

We hope that if the Minister, and the so-called, "Child Care experts" on the island use the term "non recent" it could be more difficult for the MSM to continue its offending. This would be a huge step forward and we thank the Minister for his commitment on this.

Also discussed is the pledge to children:

1. We will listen directly to children and young people and involve them in how we design, deliver and review our services
2. We will provide integrated support for families that need extra help caring for their children
3. We will provide all children in our care with access to a safe, loving, secure home environment
4. We will expand, join up and target our early help offer to ensure that children and young people get the support they need when they need it, to prevent risk and issues from escalating
5. We will recruit and retain a child-centred, stable, highly professional workforce
6. We will make it easier for data and insight across organisations to be shared so that, when assessing how best to meet their needs, we look at children’s and young people’s lives as a whole
7. We will ensure that sufficient funding is available to be effective and that any regulatory and legislative changes needed will be progressed swiftly
8. We will set and publish clear standards and we will be held publicly to account for achieving them.

Is it worth the paper it is written on or is it a determined commitment by the Minister to bring people onboard and show the children of today that they do have worth? 

All StatesMembers and key workers are being asked to sign this pledge and we are told we will be kept updated online (Twitter and States website) as to who has or hasn't signed it.

Part 1 of our interview can be viewed HERE.

Senator Sam Mezec Childrens' Minister (part 1 of 2)

Senator Sam Mezec

Following the publication of yet another damming REPORT into Jersey's Children's Services, which was commissioned by the Jersey Care Commission (JCC), and conducted by Ofsted. A Press Conference was held by the JCC, and the States of Jersey separately on the same day and reported by VFC HERE.  Following this Press Conference we requested and were granted an exclusive and in-depth interview with the island's first ever Children's Minister Senator Sam Mezec.

We were curious as to why he believes he is the best person for the job? With so many people supposedly being responsible for our children now, who does the buck stop with? How is he going to attract Social workers to our island? He tells us, among much more, that the "discriminatory housing rules" need to be looked at/changed in order to face this challenge.

This is part one, of a two part interview/Blog, where we hope the reader/viewer will gain a better understanding of the Minister's role and we thank the Minister for engaging with Citizens Media and answering some of the toughest questions he has been asked by any media.

Jersey Care Commission/Ofsted Report.

The Jersey Care Commission (JCC) was set up in the wake of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (IJCI) but quite what its remit is is a little of a mystery as yet. There is little information online and as it is still relatively young, it does not, as yet, have its own website. JCC invited Ofsted to inspect Jersey's Child Care system, which it has done, and produced another damming report. The report isn't online yet so we will publish a link when it becomes available.

This morning JCC held a Press conference presenting the report and to answer questions from the media and the public. VFC went down on the off-chance they may be allowed entry and film the Conference. We are pleased to say we were made to feel extremely welcome and the Commission members were very accommodating, appeared enthusiastic, open and transparent about their work. This in itself could hopefully be part of the cultural change so badly needed in Jersey where those who question authority have been marginalised and pushed to the sidelines. Bloggers and Social Media publishers are now being recognised as legitimate commentators? The JCC is independent of the States and pretty much of Jersey so may be it is just them who are so accommodating at Press Conferences? We did film the entire Press Conference and will look to publish the video to Youtube.

When more information, and the report, become available we shall publish it.

In the meantime below is a short video of VFC asking a few questions of the Commission's Chairman.







Directly after the JCC there was a Press Conference held by, among others, Children's Minister Senator Sam Mezec, and Chief Minister Senator John Le Fondre. They want all States Members to sign a pledge to children which consists of 8 commitments.

The Pledge to Jersey’s Children and Young People has eight specific commitments:

1. We will listen directly to children and young people and involve them in how we design, deliver and review our services
2. We will provide integrated support for families that need extra help caring for their children
3. We will provide all children in our care with access to a safe, loving, secure home environment
4. We will expand, join up and target our early help offer to ensure that children and young people get the support they need when they need it, to prevent risk and issues from escalating
5. We will recruit and retain a child-centred, stable, highly professional workforce
6. We will make it easier for data and insight across organisations to be shared so that, when assessing how best to meet their needs, we look at children’s and young people’s lives as a whole
7. We will ensure that sufficient funding is available to be effective and that any regulatory and legislative changes needed will be progressed swiftly
8. We will set and publish clear standards and we will be held publicly to account for achieving them.

VFC was also welcomed to film and ask questions at this conference, again, we filmed the entire Conference and will look to publish the full version on Youtube.

Below is a video of questions asked by VFC.

Interview with Reform Jersey's Senator-Elect Sam Mezec.

Senator-Elect Sam Mezec

Now that the dust has somewhat settled around the recent Jersey elections. VFC asked Senator-Elect Sam Mezec for his first, exclusive, in-depth, video recorded interview and kindly he agreed.

We wanted to ask Sam about his/Reform Jersey's campaign and how the negative,organised and funded smear campaign against his party had affected him and the party. What was the truth behind the nomination papers which saw two of Reform Jersey's Candidates being taken to court? What role did the "accredited" media play and what role did Social Media play during the election campaign and subsequently? Were the court cases accurately reported by the "accredited" media? The court cases deserve a Blog Posting of their very own and something we might return to.........If the MSM won't.

According to Senator-Elect Mezec at one stage the Solicitor General changed the whole case against them/their candidate overnight. Now where/when have we seen this happen before? Perhaps former Health Minister and whistleblower Stuart Syvret might have an idea? It sounds like the whole court business was a complete shambles but that's not how I recall the MSM reporting it. Indeed "shambles" is how it's described by Sam and something that could/should have been sorted out with a phone-call rather than the expense and intimidation of candidates.

We asked the question(s) that hasn't/haven't been asked by the MSM. Including; "is it really conceivable to believe that out of somewhere in the region of ninety six candidates only two (who just happen to be Reform Jersey candidates) of them made a mistake on the nomination papers? Did any other (establishment) candidate make any mistakes and get the phone-call from the parish to sort it out rather than a court summons?" I mean what are the chances/odds of that happening?

Further discussed in the interview below are subjects such as the Independent Election Observers who were overseeing our election process, fake news, MSM campaign against the threat (to the MSM) of Social Media, BBC bias and much more.............