Three States Members have called for free publicity

THREE States Members have called for an official investigation into whether States police officers were paid by journalists for information during the Haut de la Garenne inquiry. Senator Ben Shenton, Deputy Sean Power and Senator Jim Perchard have written a joint letter to the Attorney General and the police chief calling for action in the wake of revelations and allegations about the News of the World.

It has been alleged that reporters from the Sunday tabloid not only routinely hacked the mobile answer phone messages of celebrities, politicians and the victims of crime and terrorism, but also paid corrupt police officers for information.

The three Island politicians say that they have been concerned since 2008 about the way the investigation was handled and have raised the matter in the States on several occasions. (JEP (1))

Deputy Sean Power, let us not forget came across a printed copy of a long e-mail from Senator Stuart Syvret to another States member. He glanced at it and must have been quite well aware that it was confidential, but it had obviously piqued his interest so much that he disregarded both the States members code of conduct and the Data Protection law. He scanned a copy by e-mail both to himself and to friend. At some point quite soon after this, he realised that he had perhaps acted unwisely and confessed all to the data protection registrar, who not surprisingly was not impressed.

Coincidentally, not long after that, the e-mail, purged of some named individuals, appeared on a blog site which was staunchly critical of Haut de La Garenne, and overstepped the boundaries of acceptable behaviour so much that it was closed down. He may not have directly been the cause of that leak, but once these matters get out by emails, they can easily go viral.

Despite attempts to keep Sean in the Council of Ministers, it appears the threat of a vote of no confidence by the deputy to whom the e-mail was addressed forced him into resigning as housing minister. He apologised to the States, but didn't apologise to the Deputy concerned for distributing her private property. The Data Protection registrar admonished him, but it didn't go further than that - the luck of the Irish held out.

So this is the record of one of the people asking for an investigation into possible leaks! And for someone who may be critical of Lenny Harper's hospitality budget, he might also care to explain his own expenditure of tax payers money of £1,038.53 for travel and entertainment? By way of comparison, the previous Housing Minister clocked up a mere £247.98.

Senator Ben Shenton, on the other hand, appeared to have his own unique way of following what a cynic might term best "News of the World" practice. Quite by accident, as he later said, he recorded a private conversation between himself and the planning Minister, Senator Freddie Cohen. He may well have mused over that when he was working, because it has been noted that he has an extremely poor record of attendance in the States, and, it appears, has adopted the schoolboy trick of being present for the register roll-call and then bunking off. If he is standing again, I hope he gives some assurances that he will improve his attendance, for which he gets over £40,000 a year.

He didn't tell the Planning Minister about this, and sat on the recording for about a year before deciding that he would make it public to a scrutiny panel hearing, which was the first that Senator Freddie Cohen knew about it, as he hadn't had the courtesy to mention this recording before then, or indeed seek his permission to present it to scrutiny. This was the subject of complaints to the Privileges and Procedures Committee. They admonished him for his actions, but it didn't go further than that. Nor did the Data Protection registrar do anything much. So this is the record of somebody asking for investigation into hacking of answerphone messages and underhand practices!

Senator Jim Perchard also has his own unique take on leaks. In a recorded conversation, David Rose, journalist at the Mail on Sunday, admitted that Senator Perchard leaked him a confidential police email that Senator Perchard had been privy too which related to the Haut de La Garenne investigation. As far as I am aware, he has not even been admonished in any way about that.

The Scrutiny Panel investigating the BDO Alto Financial report have noted another leak to the Mail on Sunday, but it is not clear who leaked this, although it has been suggested it was Mick Gradwell, who took over the investigation of historical child abuse enquiry (and who showed what a lack of police professionalism really looks like). What is certain is that it has verbatim quotations of paragraphs which match world for word with a conclusions section of the BDO Alto report, and which they say could not be the case because it wasn't complete. A friend of mine mischievously suggested that perhaps the conclusions were written first before the rest of the report! Of course, the action of Messrs Shenton Perchard and Power is a good way of distracting public gaze from Scrutiny enquiry into this issue.

However Senator Perchard has also had to resign as Health Minister for unbecoming behaviour. On two occasions, once overheard by a BBC reporter, and once in the States chamber, and overheard by other states members, he told Senator Stuart Syvret to slit his wrists and commit suicide using a form of language which certainly would not be termed Parliamentary although it might conceivably have fitted neatly into the mouth of that cranky old fictional bigot, Alf Garnet, from the TV series "Till Death Do Us Part". Obviously he is an ideal person to ask for an investigation into gutter journalism!

Of course, it is an election year this year, and the three politicians had their pictures nicely on the front page of the JEP. But are these really election issues, like GST, increases in means testing and user pays (otherwise known as Stealth taxes) and population control, States spending and a lack of control of Chief officers who seem to be able to set their own extremely generous redundancy packages? Shouldn't the spotlight be on States members own record of service, and how well they have aspired to high office?

Those are real issues, and the kind of grandstanding that is going on with these States members are distractions which garner a certain amount of free publicity but don't tell you anything about what those candidates stand for on the island and parish issues. The headline should read:

THREE States Members have called for a lot of free publicity in an Election year which will distract you from their own shortcomings.

Links
(1) http://www.thisisjersey.com/2011/07/26/call-for-investigation-into-police-links-with-newspaper

Mike Pollard on BBC Radio Jersey

I heard Mike Pollard on BBC Radio Jersey today. The presenter, Roger Bara, gave him an extremely easy ride over the cessation of the reciprocal health agreement between the UK and Jersey.

(1) UK Visitors, if they need special services involving a hospital stay apart from Outpatients will be treated first (without consideration of whether they can afford the treatment) which he rightly said was the moral position to take.

He did not say how they would be asked to pay the final bill, and what would happen if they had no suitable travel insurance, or indeed, if they died over here. Would there be an option to pay the huge sums involved by installments? What if they were on low wages, or unemployment benefit? I am sure this is being worked out, but it would have good to have more details, especially as it seems that procedures only began to be worked out after Jim Perchard failed to negotiate a continuation of the reciprocal agreement, which was late in the day.

Did no one think it likely he might not have success, especially given Dawn Primarolo's tendency to be intransigent over EU tax harmonisation applying to Jersey when she was Paymaster General? "Red Dawn" is not known for her ability to compromise, and her robust way of speaking (she once compared the House of Commons to Holloway Prison)!

(2) He said that insurance for Jersey people travelling to the UK was being sorted out, and comprehensive travel insurance packages would be available even for exceptional cases. He was not pressed on the JEP article just the day before which reported Daphne Minihane as noting that there simply was no travel insurance available for those over 79.

That is a shame because a search of insurance policies revealed that most go only up to age 79 (and no more than 90 days at a time), but I finally tracked down several which go to 99 years old. Giving details would have been more reassuring that just saying "ring this number for help" which is what he did.

http://www.financialmatters.org.uk/insurance-for-over-65/

Travel insurance over 70 UK companies

Although in the past it may have proved difficult for seniors to get holiday insurance over 65 (i.e. 70, 75, 80 and beyond!) for their travel or holiday plans. Nowadays however, there are many companies, brokers and websites offering travel cover, some with no upper age limit, some with age limits of 90-99 years old.

Direct Line will cover over their 70 birthday and provides solid medical cover on single trips.

Check out Marks and Sparks as they have no upper age limit for holiday insurance whatsoever.

Churchill offers holiday insurance over 70 years old. Churchill not only covers the over 70s but will cover seniors until they are 99 on holidays abroad.

American Express has been a provider of travel and holiday insurance for a number of years and offers comprehensive cover up to the age of 79.

With travel insurance from the Post OfficeT, you're guaranteed high quality holiday cover at great prices for the Over 75s.

Insure For Travel Insurance - For single trip insurance insure for all will cover any UK resident of any age!

Links:
http://www.financialmatters.org.uk/insurance-for-over-65/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/what-a-shame-red-dawn-was-false-dawn-1150392.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn_Primarolo

An Unreserved Apology With Reservations

"It is clearly of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to the House. If they knowingly fail to do this, then they should relinquish their positions." (John Major)

"Ministers of the Crown are expected to behave according to the highest standards of constitutional and personal conduct." (Questions of Procedures for Ministers)

It's made Jersey's Hansard! Yes, the unexpurgated version of what was said is given on the States Assembly website - please note I have replaced the words below with asterisks - and it is clear that Senator James Perchard - as he admitted - was lying to to the Assembly both when he denied the language just spoken and the occasion in the Town Hall.

The matter has been treated by both Senator Le Sueur and the Deputy Bailiff as "a private matter", which begs the question, if it is private, and not relevant to the Assembly, why bring in the code of conduct? There is an inconsistency here - on the one hand, we are told it is "private", i.e. beyond the scope of the States - and on the other, we are told that members should not use such language because it is within the scope of how members conduct themselves.

Despite popular cynicism as to the ability of politicians ever to tell the truth, not lying to Parliament has long
been regarded as being of the utmost importance. The very survival of politicians in office has often been made dependent on whether it can be shown that they have misled Parliament: 'John Profumo lost office not because of his sexual misbehaviour but because he lied to Parliament. When Mrs Thatcher narrowly survived the Westland affair the debate was on whether Parliament had been deceived'


Senator S. Syvret:
On a point of order.  I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but the Minister to my right, Senator Perchard, is shouting ... well, not shouting but saying in my ear: "You are full of f**ing sh*t.  Why do you not go and top yourself, you b*tard."  I really do not think that this conduct is acceptable.

Senator J.L. Perchard:
I absolutely refute that.  I am just fed up with this man making up allegations against people.  I just wish he would not.

Senator S. Syvret:
The Senator did engage in a drunken foul obnoxious outburst at the Town Hall the other night ...

Senator J.L. Perchard:
Oh, rubbish.

Senator S. Syvret:
... in front of witnesses and he is now persisting in his foul aggression against me.  If the Assembly is to maintain some semblance of good order, I really think somebody ought to have a word with Senator Perchard and perhaps help him get some therapy.

Senator J.L. Perchard:
This is out of order.  I really object to the Senator hijacking question time to pursue his personal vendetta against me.

The Deputy Bailiff:
One moment.  This was a private matter in any event.  I cannot rule on what was said and what was not because it is denied so we will leave the matter there.  But quite clearly Members should as a general principle be courteous to each other, should not insult each other or use abusive language to each other.  That is in Standing Orders so far as public utterances are concerned.  It is in the code of conduct as I understand it so far as ordinary private interaction between Members is concerned.  I urge all Members to abide by that.  [Approbation]  Now, Minister, I am sorry you were interrupted but perhaps you could carry on.

On another related point, Ben Quérée in his weekly comment on the States, argues that the fact that we have a Health Minister advising someone to commit suicide should not be an issue, just that he used bad language.

And if the big deal is that Senator Perchard is the Health Minister, and that it is particularly unacceptable for him to tell people to top themselves, well - you know, that's got some problems with it too. Does that mean that Freddie Cohen can tell people to go top themselves, because he's the Environment Minister and mental illness isn't in his remit? Can Deputy Phil Rondel say it? Can the Constable of St Peter say it? Can I? No. This is utterly ridiculous. If Senator Perchard makes a habit out of swearing at his colleagues in the States Chamber, then he's got to go. Fair enough.

But I'm not so sure that is quite as simple as he makes out. I know one States Member in the old days who resigned from the Presidency of the Education Committee, and it was pretty likely because he was having an affair with another member of the States (they later divorced their spouses and married).  The feeling was that part of the remit of the Education Committee was teaching children "good behavior", and having an affair rather contradicted that - being a member of another Committee did not provide such a contradiction. Much the same problem bedevilled John Major's "Back to Basics" campaign which was intended to bring moral values back to schools, but ended being derailed because the government proposing it was a public hotbed of slease and adulterous affairs.

In fiction, in "Yes Minister" - "Party Games" - Duncan, the Foreign Secretary - is ruled out of the Treasury because of suspected dodgy (but legally above board) company dealings, while Eric (the Treasurer) is ruled out of Home Affairs because of his liasons with a foreign lady from behind the Iron Curtain.

Now I am not condoning bad language from any member, but I think this shows that there is a case where the suggestions of suicide - such as those made by Senator Perchard - are particularly reprehensive - and thereby made worse - because of the office which he currently holds.

Returning to Senator Perchard. In today's JEP it is reported that he has now apologised; he has issued what he terms a " 'full and unreserved apology" to Stuart Syvret. Unfortunately, it is not as "unreserved" as that adjective used in normal speech would suggest. Clearly Senator Perchard has his own copy of the dictionary of weasel words used by politicians to sound good, in which "unreserved" means "with the following reservations":

In his statement, Senator Perchard (pictured) maintained that he was misquoted. 'Firstly, I wish to make it very clear to Members that I did not lie to the House during that sitting and that I absolutely reject the allegations about the precise words I used at the time,' he said.

Having read Hansard, as detailed above, it is also clear that "I did not lie" also has a strange rarefied meaning when used by the Senator. He would have been better saying he was being "economic with the truth" - at least while we all know that means he had lied, it would not be an outright contradiction. I don't think apologies that claim to be "unreserved" and say "I do not lie"-  and are thereby themselves lies - are acceptable behaviour and are anything other than rather pathetic attempts to save face and keep his job.

Links:

http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/documents/hansard/45455-4735-2432009.doc
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1748-121X.1996.tb00400.x
http://www.thisisjersey.com/2009/03/24/health-minister-apologises-for-swearing-in-house/
http://www.thisisjersey.com/2009/03/23/a-week-in-politics-36/

Masking the Truth?

http://www.thisisjersey.com/2009/03/11/states-in-shambles/

The unpleasant exchanges began during question time as Environment Minister Freddie Cohen was answering a question. Senator Syvret stood up and said: 'On a point of order, I am sorry to interrupt the minister. But the minister to my right, Senator Perchard, is saying in my ear "you are full of f*****g s**t, why don't you go and top yourself, you bastard".'Senator Perchard immediately responded by saying: 'I absolutely refute that. I am just fed up with this man making up allegations against people. I just wish he would not.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/jersey/content/articles/2009/03/11/states_11march_feature.shtml

Roger: Chris, those that were listening to question time may have heard some words we cannot repeat...
Chris: Well, it was the Father of the House, Senator Stuart Syvret who interrupted an answer to say the Health Minister had verbally abused him and said he should 'top himself'. We can't use the words the Senator said aloud in the States, but Senator Jimmy Perchard strongly refuted them and claimed it was part of a personal vendetta Senator Syvret was waging against him. The Deputy Bailiff, who was presiding over the meeting yesterday, said he couldn't rule on a private conversation but asked politicians to treat each other courteously and not use abusive language about or to each other.

From reading the report in the JEP and on the States website, one would be forgiven for thinking that Senator Perchard had denied any kind of bad language - "strongly refuted" was the term used. In fact, on Sunday 15th March, on Talkback, he admitted that he had used bad language - that he had been swearing at Stuart Syvret - only that the swearing he used was not that which Senator Syvret reported, and that was what he really meant by "refuted", which seems a very pathetic excuse. And he apologised for the swearing, saying that it was not statesmanlike, but was part of a private conversation.

I marvel at the way that argument keeps cropping up. When Frank Walker famously used the phrase "you're trying to shaft Jersey internationally", he mentioned that it was a private exchange, and he was not aware that it was being recorded. Somehow it is deemed fine to engage in all kinds of vulgarity, and insults, and stoop to any level, as long as it is "a private conversation". Personally, the idea of a politician who wears two faces - or should it be - has two voices - one for public consumption, and a nastier more unpleasant one for private use - does not strike me as particularly endearing, and not the kind of politician I would like to vote for. After all, if they have two different sides with respect to language, what else might they behave like "in private"?

Usually, it is the other way round, of course, and people who have been pretty nasty in public are praised for private virtues - such as Himmler for being "a family man" - which is used as an excuse for public brutalities. But I'd like my politicians to be all of a piece. If they are political thugs in private, I'd wonder how they behave behind closed doors in the Council of Ministers, or how they might behave if I contacted them as a member of the electorate on a personal but political matter such as housing or planning.

Linda Corby has alleged that the late John Le Sueur, as President of the Planning Committee (IDC as it was called) on one occasion asked for "favours" in order to grant planning permission. Once the "private conversation" is taken out of the equation, all kinds of mischief can go on, all excusable, it would seem.

But who is the real politician? The polite one at the hustings, or is that just a mask used to gain votes because voters might not like it if the mask slipped, and "private conversations" became public?

Bullies and Glass Houses

Senator Perchard has recently written a letter to the paper saying that "while some use the internet for gaining information, others use it for destruction of sensitive data, or for demeaning and abusing individuals or organisations. While some use the web as a communication platform, others use it for and derive pleasure from intruding in the internet privacy of individuals and seek enjoyment from cyber-bullying."

He then goes on to provide a psychological profile of the bullies:

It is widely claimed that adult bullies are unable to cope with their own lives and problems and that they are easily intimidated and have strong feelings of jealousy and inadequacy. They are thought to be desperate to receive attention, which they probably don't receive at home or in relationships. I have noticed that they continually seek to discredit those in authority, particularly those who are influential, knowledgeable, capable and successful.

Who can he mean? I think the next paragraph where he is far more specific makes it pretty clear:

It is true that occasionally they can appear plausible, by introducing a cocktail of fact and fiction, but I am convinced that cyber-bullies are always vindictive and manipulative liars. They often, in an attempt to justify their behaviour, threaten their target with referral to a higher authority, e.g. the law, the UK Ministry of Justice, even the European courts, imagining that such authorities would be interested in the detail behind their vindictive tirade of abuse and bullying.

This means he clearly has in mind local bloggers, and most probably Senator Stuart Syvret's blog, which recently won the acclaim of former Senator Frank Walker as "that vile blog".  As far as I know, no one else is taking any case to the UK Ministry of Justice. Then follows a bit more of his tirade. Is this against bullying in general, or is it his opinion on particular individuals? Why does he not cite the facts and the fiction, so we can all check up on the matter in hand? Blanket accusations without an evidential base could be seen as a form of deflecting all criticism by devaluing it, which is a pernicious use of the ad hominem argument.

Here is a matter of fact: the report in newspapers that the fragment discovered at Haut de la Garenne was a coconut was a fiction, the forensic reports never mention the word "coconut", as he would have seen if he had taken care to research the matter and read them. That was pure press hype, and took on the status of apparent "truth" by dint of repetition, as is commonplace, especially in the internet age.

Cyber-bullies, like all bullies, will eventually prey on those closest to them in order to resist entering into permanent and lasting friendships. This is because they are mentally disturbed people who are incapable of having meaningful relationships. It is symptomatic that they find solace and power alone in their virtual world in front of their computer screens.

He ends on a most peculiar note.

I have given very careful consideration to the content of this letter, as I know it will provoke a hostile reaction in my direction, from cyber-bullies and internet abusers, those who believe it is their right to publish on the internet defamatory and hostile untruths about others. I for one am prepared to stand up to these bullies. I shall not be intimidated by them.

Why is is odd? Because he says that he is prepared to stand up to these bullies, and will not be intimidated by them? In that case, why doesn't he say who they are? Shame and name - instead of hiding behind a smokescreen of language! This is a strategy he has used before, for example, in a States debate (reported in Hansard) when he said: "Just briefly, I feel bound to speak after the cynical Senator and I think we all know which one." Again - no names! He also notes - again pre-empting any critique - that his letter will no doubt cause a lot of abuse to descend on his head from these bullies.  In the absence of names, how can this be understood except as an attempt to avoid any criticism, even legitimate ones.  Just as bullies can hide behind anonymity, so can those making remarks about criticism hide behind presenting those who criticise them as anonymous.

On the subject of bullying, did he ever give an apology for his intemperate language against former Deputy Baudains in the Masterplan Debate? I know he did admit he was mistaken in terms of fact, but I can't ever recall a retraction of the tone of the language, which might conceivably be seen as hectoring, intimidatory, or even tactical verbal bullying.  It was another case of being unable to separate fact from fiction. Senator Perchard thought the Harcourt Court case in Nevada was a fiction, but unfortunately it was a fact.

As the Deputy was standing there making his proposition I could imagine him in bed last night.  In fact, I can imagine him [Members: Oh!] and Deputy Baudains, both in their own beds white-knuckled, biting their pillows, thinking: "How can I derail the process tomorrow?"  They must have stayed awake all night.  Shame that they did because it has failed miserably.

Reading that, I could not help recall what an article in the Birmingham post noted:

Any youngster watching the way politicians bray, heckle and jeer at each other in Parliament may also question their authority to tell them how to behave.

I'll end with this quotation on the subject of bullying in politics, and there is certainly some of this in the States of Jersey, of which Senator Perchard must take a portion of blame for past behaviour, especially during the debate cited:

The arena of political activity is one that can draw out the best and the worst in people. Generally speaking, politics attracts those who are most concerned with the acquisition and exercise of power. Where there has been no effective democratic constitution the abuse of political power has proved awesome... But even in countries with democratic institutions, with well considered checks and balances, opposition parties, regular elections, parliamentary conventions and so on, there can be, and sometimes is, a systematic abuse of power by individuals or by groups of the kind that can fairly be called bullying. Bullying in politics is most public, and therefore most evident, in parliament. In Australia we are continually reminded of the schoolyard. The intent is to embarrass, humiliate and expose one's political enemies as fools and incompetents. The targeted member rises to his feet, ignores the question, and launches into a spirited attack on the members opposite. The game's afoot. Bystanders now act according to cue. Cries of derision for supporters of the putative bully; expressions of solidarity from the friends of the struggling speaker; a few bystanders - independent members - become spectators watching to see how things develop. Whether the scene unfolds as a bully/victim scenario will depend upon the virulence and pointedness of the attack , the defensive skills of the speaker and the degree of support provided by the party. Often enough it is stalemate: no real harm done - but equally no good done either.

(Ken Rigby, New Perspectives on Bullying, 2002, p97)

Referendum Trivia

The "changing hour" brigade are trying to get into full flow with their hugely distracting referendum on whether the hour should change. "Just think", said Jim Perchard, on BBC Radio Jersey, "of how an extra hour of light means you could be outside, having a barbeque".

 

If the recently falling temperatures are set to continue - hardly surprising as we approach October - and watch for those gales - I'm not really sure there are going to be that many people sitting outside.

 

But when you come in, you can always stay up to 11.30 for the Channel News after the ITV News at 10.00 (UK Time).

 

Or maybe they'll bring back Jacques Durand for his news in French as that was the time he used to be on Channel TV. "Bon soir," he always used to say, and I'd reply "Bon nuit", and turn the TV off. Those were the days  - nostalgia warning - when Channel signed off with an extremely young looking Queen Elizabeth from 1957 on horseback and the Royal Anthem (even up to the 1980s). After which there would be a blank fuzzy white screen, and a high pitched whine.

 

And remember - an extra hour of darkness in the morning means an extra hour of ground frost, black ice, or snow before the sun can rise up and start to melt it. By which time, if the hour changes, everyone will have to be on the roads.

 

It will be ok for Jim, though, because his tractor will run in all weathers!

 

Jersey in Ireland: Questions for Election Candidates

http://www.independent.ie/business/aibs-jersey-chief-sacked-from-his-role-in-waterfront-enterprise-board-1429470.html

I missed this a few days ago, dated July 08 2008.

The Irish Independent reported that:

THE chairman of Allied Irish Banks (AIB) in the Channel Islands (CI) has been sacked from his position as chairman of Jersey's Waterfront Enterprise Board (WEB) over his role in a property project involving Harcourt Developments. Gerald Voisin, a former Jersey politician, was removed from his role on WEB after 22 members of the Jersey parliament voted that he should go because he failed to declare that he was chairman of the CI branch of AIB -- a subsidiary of AIB which is backing Harcourt as a preferred bidder in the development of a £330m financial services centre in St Helier called the Esplanade Quarter.

Regarding their reporting of the case, Terry le Sueur really does not come out of it very well.

All sorts of accusations were asserted during the three-hour debate last week in Jersey with some 22 politicians speaking out against his role on WEB. Mr Voisin released a statement to the media last week stating that he had no involvement with AIB in Dublin and its transactions with Harcourt and refused to step down but he was later asked to resign his position. Last week Senator Jim Perchard also stepped down stating that he did not want to "swim in murky waters". He said he thought that Mr Voisin's chairmanship in both companies was too much of a "cosy relationship". Support for Mr Voisin came from Treasury Minister Terry Le Sueur, among others, who said the timing of the proposition was wrong and would not be good governance.

It also mentions that the Harcourt development is going to be on-hold at least until the Irish hearing in October 2008, which if it takes eight weeks (it may not) would take us to December 2008! That is not counting how long the Nevada case may go on for either.

That means that it will be a new States (post-elections) that will be looking at the results of the "due diligence checks", which should be interesting. Candidates therefore should expect to be asked questions about the Waterfront (and its 1/2 million sunken road running costs).

Harcourt is embroiled in a court action in Dublin with three businessmen claiming that they have an ownership on property deals with the company in Jersey and London. The details of lawsuits against Harcourt in Dublin and one in Nevada have caused a political row in Jersey. Further due diligence checks are being carried out on the firm headed by Pat Doherty, before any development agreement will be signed. Harcourt is strongly defending the allegations against it and an eight- week hearing has been set aside to hear the case in October in the Commercial High Court.

Referendum on Triviality

Central European Time Referendum: Jersey is holding it's first ever referendum.

The States want to know whether islanders would like to adopt central European time. That means the island would be an hour ahead of the United Kingdom and Guernsey. The proposer Senator Jimmy Perchard believes in time they will also shift their clocks.

The States will still make the final decision following the referendum on 15th October - the same day as the Senatorial elections.

http://www5.channelonline.tv/news/templates/jerseynews2.aspx?articleid=15213&zoneid=1

This is the recent news on Channel TV tonight!

When one considers that Shona Pitman submitted a proposition to the Bailiff last year which asked for a referendum to be held to engage the public's view on whether or not the Chief Minister should be directly elected by his/her electorate, we can see that referendums can be held on the kind of matter than doesn't really matter (except to cause major confusion between Jersey and the UK and Guernsey, mess up radio signal clocks etc etc)

The Bailiff subsequently ruled the Shona's proposition out of order for the following reasons -

'the election by the public of the Chief Minister would in my view confuse a ministerial system of government with a presidential-type system. The Chief Minister must, in our current system of government, enjoy the confidence of the majority of elected members of the States. To have the Chief Minister elected by popular vote might involve the election of a person who did not enjoy that confidence. In such a state of affairs a paralysis of government could follow. I do not think that one can fairly invite the public to vote upon a question which would lead to a constitutionally unworkable system'.(E-mail - 8/1/07).

So much for the idea that the Bailiff does not intervene in the political process. This is clearly a political decision by the Bailiff, and a unilateral one at that! To say that the Bailiff is outside the political process, and is purely a "speaker" to bring order to the Chamber is therefore disingenuous.

Look at the implications too - we can have a chief minister who does not have the support of the majority of the electorate, but is still voted in by the States.

To paraphrase the Bailiff: To have the Chief Minister elected by the States in this manner does not give confidence in democracy in this Island. In such a state of affairs apathy and cynicism of voters who have been ignored could follow.

Accordingly, the proposition did not go to the States. Instead she tried for the following this year: to agree in principle that any candidate for the position of Senator, Connétable or Deputy should be required, at the time of his or her nomination for the position, to make a public declaration if he or she intends to stand for the post of Chief Minister after the election;

It didn't get through, of course.

POUR: 6 CONTRE: 37 OUT OF ISLAND: 1 EN DEFAUT: 1 NOT PRESENT: 8
Deputy Peter Nicholas Troy
Deputy Judith Ann Martin
Deputy Geoffrey Peter Southern
Deputy Patrick John Dennis Ryan
Deputy Shona Pitman
Deputy Ian Joseph Gorst

Now instead, thanks to Senator Jim Perchard, we have a referendum on trivialities, a kind of token referendum which shows that they can take place, and you - members of the public - are being asked, so don't say we don't consult you. Of course, when it comes to the really serious issues, forget it! They don't want to know!

The Youth Vote - What the AntiBrigade Said

Draft Public Elections (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law 200- P94/2007 - principles 26 September 2007

Draft Public Elections (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law 200-


If you are 16 or 17 years old, these are the people who voted against the age coming down last year.

Senator Leonard Norman
Senator Terence John Le Main
Senator Ben Edward Shenton
Senator James Leslie Perchard
Connétable Thomas John du Feu
Connétable John Le Sueur Gallichan
Connétable Geoffrey William Fisher
Connétable Peter Frederick Maurice Hanning
Deputy Jacqueline Jeannette Huet
Deputy Frederick John Hill, B.E.M.
Deputy Collin Hedley Egré
Deputy Guy William John de Faye
Deputy John Alexander Nicholas Le Fondré
Deputy Anne Enid Pryke
Deputy Kevin Charles Lewis

A few choice quotes from Hansard, which shows exactly how some States members regard young people! I've added my comments!

5.1.2 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:
I think I have to say that since this original Law was passed I have had a number of voters and constituency residents from a number of parts of the Island who have all approached me on this issue and said exactly the same thing, unambiguously and unequivocally, that they could not believe that the States had passed this Law to reduce the age to 16. They basically felt that States' members had, and the general quote was, "taken leave of their senses". I have to say that in light of all the responses that I have had I will not be voting in favour of the Appointed Day Act.


But when pressed by Paul le Claire, he would not give numbers at all! Which reminds me of the wonderful cope out - "people are saying..." usually used to justify the speaker's own lack of support. As minister responsible for putting in an order to allow developers to dig up other people's gardens without consent, and who was responsible for £1 million roadwork at Bel Royal and forgot to check with emergency services whether they could get past with his new design, he is a fine one to talk about "taking leave of one's senses".

5.1.5 Senator B.E. Shenton:
I will be brief. I spoke and voted against this originally, the concept of giving children the vote. A lot has been made of the fact that they were asked what they thought and a lot of them said yes. I carried out my own straw poll. I asked a number of 16 year-olds whether they thought they should be allowed to drive and they all said yes. I asked them also whether they thought they should be allowed in pubs and they all said yes. This sort of unscientific way of judging whether this is right or wrong is wrong and I will be voting against it.


By the same token, you could ask adults this kind of question, and thereby I am sure prove that they are unable to judge matters properly as well. Just ask: should income tax be abolished for incomes below £40,000? Or look at the poll against GST. It is in fact Senator Shenton who is being unscientific in his approach and not applying moral principles.

5.1.6 Senator J.L. Perchard:
It is uncanny how often I am agreeing with Senator Shenton these days. Sir, like Senator Shenton and Deputy de Faye, I am still unable to support the lowering of the voting age to 16. I think, and I will ask members to consider, when we deem somebody not old enough at 16 to buy cigarettes or alcohol or drive a car or, more importantly, be held criminally responsible for their actions, how then can we deem them sufficiently adult to vote? I think there is some confusion as to what age an adult is but I certainly will draw the line in the sand in a different place to the good Deputy of Grouville. I think if you are adult enough to buy cigarettes you are probably adult enough to vote and alcohol, et cetera, and I just cannot see that we could possibly seek to lower the age of voting, even at this late stage, Sir.


And yet young people can have sex and marry at 16. An omission to the logic chopping of Senator Perchard. And if old people are restricted from driving (or made to have a re-test every five years after a particular age), does this mean - by Perchard Logic - that they are to lose the vote as well?


5.1.7 Senator T.J. Le Main:
I have to agree completely with the last speaker. In fact, what I would like to say is last year I was invited to address 16 and 17 year-olds at Victoria College on this subject and a vote was taken and it was unanimously voted down. They did not want to vote at the age of 16.

Wow! And if the majority of the public wanted to bring back hanging, and a meeting voted unanimously for it, would the Senator agree with a proposition in the States.


5.1.17 Connétable P.F.M Hanning of St. Saviour:
Like the last speaker, I was not here for this vote and I find it rather difficult. I agree with a lot of what the last speaker has said. We all want to encourage youngsters to vote, to get involved with politics and to generally be interested in the society but I think we have a problem. We are saying: "Yes, you can do that but you are not old enough to make a basic decision about your own health, i.e. you can smoke. You are not old enough or responsible enough to make a basic decision which is to go out and have a drink. You are not responsible enough to do that" but we are saying: "You can vote." Therefore, the impression that this is giving is that this is less important than drinking or smoking. It is trivialising the whole thing.

Another one who seems to have forgotten marrying, sex and the age of consent. Shame!


5.1.18 Senator L. Norman:
Where I part company with Senator Syvret on this issue is that intelligence is not the criterion that should or can or will be used to decide whether someone is able to vote or not. The criteria I think are probably maturity and experience. Children of six, seven, eight, nine, even younger, have got intelligence but surely that is not going to be the criterion by which the right to vote is judged because if that were the case, if you had to take an I.Q. test before you could vote, many children of that age would pass that test but many people of our age, over the age of 18 - yes, we are all over the age of 18 - would not pass that test so would be debarred from voting. It is an absolute nonsense

Given the paucity of logic in this debate, I think it highly likely that a number of members would not be able to vote on the grounds of intelligence. What in heaven's name does Senator Norman mean by "maturity and experience" and how does it effect how people vote? Let me give a counter-example. In his comic one-man stage play, actor Toby Hadoke mentions that when he was acting the part of vicar in Coronation street, he got fan-mail from people asking him - as a vicar - if he was free to come and marry them that summer, and he comments - "And these people have the right to vote!" Are these people - and I'm sure there are some in Jersey over 18 - lacking intelligence (obviously) but somehow blessed with "maturity and experience"?

5.1.21 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:
I have not changed my mind; my original concerns remain. How much have those individuals made their own minds up and how much have they been influenced by their parents and their teachers? What pressure will be brought upon the youngsters to vote one way or another? How worldly wise are they? Wisdom, as we were told by Senator Norman, comes with age. I will not embarrass my Chairman; as a member of the sponsoring Committee I shall abstain from the vote, as opposed to voting against.

An extremely silly argument from the Deputy. Presumably when he goes electioneering, he wants to influence members of the public to vote for him. Does that necessarily mean that they cannot make up their own minds? Surely a false dichotomy. Moreover, people at 18 may still be at school, are they influenced by their teachers? Or if living at home (very likely even at 18), influenced by parents?

Regarding wisdom, there is much truth in the anonymous quote:

Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone

The Day of the Lukewarm Apology

I know what you have done; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. How I wish you were either one or the other! But because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I am going to spit you out of my mouth! (Rev 3:15-16)

The BBC has a report on the Wendy Kinnard affair, as does the JEP:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/jersey/7459001.stm

"Senator withdraws detention order.

Jersey's home affairs minister has withdrawn an order on detaining suspects that have not been charged. It was reported the order would give the police powers to indefinitely detain suspects without charge. Senator Wendy Kinnard said that was not the case, but has withdrawn it anyway after objections by States members. She insisted that the order made on 5 June was a "minor change" to the law on detention and police would not have powers to detain indefinitely. "

The JEP notes that she says:

"I apologise to Members and the public for the concern that has been caused by the misinterpretation of the effect of the order and the way in which it entered the public domain."

In other words, I don't really apologise at all. It is all the fault of the nasty lawyers and policemen who misinterpreted it (and who clearly stated that to the JEP), and whatever nameless individual failed to check it before it was released.

Why can't we ever have an honest apology? I made a mistake, and I realise now that the poor wording made misinterpretation highly probably, and I am sorry I didn't see that. The buck stops here.

But "I made a mistake" or even "I apologise to Members and the public for my mistake..." is not something that local politicians seem able to do easily.

Here is Senator Jim Perchard

I would like to apologise to Deputy Baudains and to the House for making statements which were unintentionally misleading during the debate on the Esplanade Quarter last week. I made those statements in good faith, as I thought the information I had was correct at the time I addressed the Assembly. Since it transpired that this information was out of date and therefore incorrect, I would like to apologise unreservedly.

Now look at what he had said:

"The claims are completely false. They are a reputable company and I urge the states to ignore the slight placed on them by Deputy Baudains. We have at WEB taken these rumours seriously and we have doubled-checked and got PwC to do checks"

It would be nice if he not only apologised for making statements about Harcourt, but also the manner in which he made them, and the slight (to use his own terms) by which he denigrated Deputy Baudains personally.

As G.K. Chesterton once said:

A stiff apology is a second insult. The injured party does not want to be compensated because he has been wronged; he wants to be healed because he has been hurt.

But all the apologising we get nowadays is half-hearted and lukewarm.

It reminds me of a sullen child, caught out by his parents or teachers, mouthing the words while he doesn't really mean them. It is really an excuse dressed up as an apology.

The website
http://www.mannersmith.com/resources/issue.cfm?id=8
has a good deal to say about apologies.

Consider it the next time a politician stands up and says - "I apologise..."

---

http://www.mannersmith.com/resources/issue.cfm?id=8

Fake Apologies

The Boomerang Apology ~ This apology is characterized by twisting words so that the apologizer ends up blaming the apologizee. These apologies sound something like "I am sorry you feel that way." I am not sure where this type of apology originated, but blaming the apologizee only serves to defeat the purpose of why you are apologizing in the first place.

The Apology Excuse ~ This apology is characterized by the apologizer stating a reason to justify the situation. These apologies sound something like "I am sorry, but..." In this scenario, the apologizer uses excuses to justify and rationalize a behavior they knew was wrong when they did it.

The Confusion Excuse ~ This apology is characterized by the apologizer attempting to make the apologizee second guess themselves and the situation. These apologies sound something like "I am sorry, you must have misheard me." With so many of us overloaded with information, we do start to second-guess ourselves, even when we are fairly sure we heard right the first time.

The "Not-It" Excuse ~ This apology is characterized by the apologizer blaming something (or someone) else for the situation. These apologies do not even attempt to use the words "I'm sorry," and sound something like "Well, you know, it is not my fault..." This type of apology is commonly heard when dealing with someone who was supposed to provide goods or services.

True Apologies

In order for an apology to be a true apology it must be sincere and the apologizer must feel at least a small amount of guilt for either the situation or the apologizee's feelings.

For further reading:

Accounts, Excuses, and Apologies: A Theory of Image Restoration Strategies (Suny Sieres in Speech Communication) (Paperback) by William L. Benoit (Author)

Curious Omissions on BBC Radio Jersey

Am I the only one, I wonder to have noted the discrepancy between the BBC radio Jersey news coverage of the Waterfront saga, and their web page news at

www.bbc.co.uk/jersey/news

The broadcast coverage has been extensive, but on the web news there has been little or nothing.

A few days ago, we had Jim Perchard's resignation from Web (Waterfront enterprise Board), citing a possible conflict of interest in the position of Gerald Voisin, the chairman of Web.

Now we have the censure motion by Geoff Southern, which is mind-boggling for the way in which it mentions the controversy:

"Senator Walker has already apologised to the House for giving it information regarding the project that he believed to be true, but which he subsequently discovered was not. "

It is almost as if they are leaning over backwards not to mention Harcourt Developers by name, or the fact that the information was to do with the denial of a lawsuit against Harcourt, and which was found to be true. Really, it tells the average reader less than nothing about the matter, and one has to wonder why. Read it (see below) and ask if the average reader in the UK could tell what all the fuss was about, or indeed anything of import.

Could it have something to do with the fact that the broadcast programmes are local in scope, but the web pages are part of the national BBC news coverage, and someone, for whatever reason, doesn't want details of the matter made too widely known?

I don't see necessarily some deep conspiracy, but more an editorial policy of fence-sitting, especially where Ministers in the States are concerned.

---

.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/jersey/7457320.stm

Chief minister faces censure vote

Jersey Chief Minister Frank Walker is facing censure for not providing the States with accurate information about plans for a new financial quarter.

The application for censure is being brought by Deputy Geoff Southern.

He believes States members were "seriously misled" during the debate on the development of the new Esplanade quarter in St Helier.

If Deputy Southern's application goes ahead, Senator Walker will face a censure vote in the House.

Esplanade quarter

In 2004, before becoming chief minister, Senator Walker narrowly defeated another vote of censure.

He had been accused of pressuring planning authorities to approve an infill site on a friend's land in Trinity.

Deputy Southern brought the latest application for censure because, he said, members were not given full and accurate information about the Esplanade quarter masterplan and in particular its economic impact.

He claims two "vital" documents were withheld from States members.

The esplanade development includes plans to submerge a dual-carriageway and build several thousand feet of office space and living accommodation.

It will link St Helier's waterside area with the rest of the town.

Senator Walker has already apologised to the House for giving it information regarding the project that he believed to be true, but which he subsequently discovered was not.

The Blame Game

In the "Yes Minister" episode "One of Us", Sir Humphrey Appleby fails to check up on the security of the head of MI5. He protests that he was a busy man at the time and couldn't look into everything, and mentions that admits that government security inquiries are primarily designed to kill press speculation.

I was reminded of this when hearing the "blame game" about the recent news on the pending lawsuit against Harcourt.

No, says Jim Perchard, we did not knowingly deceive the States. We enquired about this from Harcourt, and were told there was no lawsuit, and it was a disgruntled ex-business partner stirring up trouble.

That little word "knowingly" is the key to why there will not be resignations.

The lawsuit was was formally filed on 30 April 2008.

According to the JEP, Frank Walker, Philip Ozouf, and Terry le Sueur all were emailed with details.

Frank Walker asked three times before the debate if there was any substance in the existence of a lawsuit, and apparently received three denials from Harcourt, that in addition to assurance from them on the 22nd of May 2008. He never thought to check that out elsewhere. Like Sir Humphrey, he didn't need to because he believed in their integrity.

Philip Ozouf could not read attachments on his Blackberry, and had only been "cc" in the email; he prioritised emails that are sent directly to him - voters take note. Presumable he also took advice from Frank Walker's direct check with Harcourt. He never thought to check that out either. Clearly - rather like Sir Humphrey - he was a busy man at the time and couldn't look into everything.

Terry Le Sueur presumably depended on Frank Walker checking matters out. I think he does use emails, even though he looks as if he belongs to the Victorian ledger era, when the telegraph system was the cutting edge of technology. He never thought to check that out either.

Jim Perchard again took his lead from information received by Frank Walker and Harcourt. As the Web representative, he said that Web were mislead by Harcourt. He never thought to check that out himself either.

Now consider this hypothetical case. I want to do a business deal with Enron, but I have heard that the SEC (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission), was now pursuing a formal investigation and got assurances from Kenneth Lay, the chairman at Enron, who reassured me by by affirming that there was "absolutely no accounting issue, no trading issue, no reserve issue, no previously unknown problem issues". Would I take Lay's word for that, or check with the SEC?

In the JEP tonight it says "the JEP has obtained court papers from the Clark County District Court in Nevada which show that the case was formally filed on 30 April - more than a month before the States debate." If the JEP could check up, couldn't someone do that on behalf of the States - if the ministers were too busy, what about delegating it to the invisible Bill Ogley or another civil servant?

I think that it would be a matter of gross incompetence not to check up elsewhere. If there was no collusion, there must be incompetence. The simplest way of deflecting attention from this, of course, is the "blame game".

But the blame game itself raises issues which will not go away, especially in an election year. Should we be doing business with someone who gave categorical assurances to our Chief Minister that were categorically wrong? If they can deceive the States over this, even if their financial integrity is sound (and that is now a big "if"), should we be doing business with people whose moral integrity seems to be rather suspect.

The Pit of Foul Deceit

The school rhyme used by children goes

"Liar, liar, pants on fire
Hangin' on a telephone wire!"

It is a paraphrased version of the 1810 poem "The Liar" by William Blake

Deceiver, dissembler
Your trousers are alight
From what pole or gallows
Shall they dangle in the night?

In the United Kingdom Parliament, lying in the House is considered in many ways the worse crime, and if the liar can be proven to have deceived the House, then it is invariably a resignation matter.

In the United States, Hillary Clinton was caught out saying she had "misspoke" when she talked about she had to evade sniper fire when she was visiting Bosnia, and the television cameras showed the lie. No sniper fire, but only a little girl with a posie of flowers!

In Jersey, we too, have our own individual who "misspoke". Frank Walker, at the discussion on the Waterfront, categorically denied that the developers Harcourt had any legal problems pending in Las Vegas, and adopted the USA option of apologising, and carrying on in office. What we might call the Clinton Liar Damage Limitation Method!

Frank is carrying on in office despite deceiving the States. But one has to ask: what office? The Office of Chief Minister, a recent creation, has been brought into such disrepute by the Chief Minister himself deceiving the States, that he really should resign for the good of the States, and the good of the Office.

In the UK Parliament, that would be the honourable (and necessary) thing to do. In Jersey, however, he just gives an apology, says the result would have been the same anyway, and carries on as if nothing had happened! Has he no shame, no moral sense, so sense of honour whatsoever? It appears not.

The JEP noted that:

Chief Minister Frank Walker had to apologise for misleading the House yesterday after originally denying the existence of a multi-million-dollar lawsuit against developers Harcourt over Las Vegas's $800m Sullivan Square development. He said he had been misinformed, and that he had only been told about the lawsuit after the debate.

In that case, why did he (and Jim Perchard) deny it so vigorously during the debate? Only a fool would deny information that was being brought to light unless they had been briefed against it. Why did he apologise immediately after the debate? He certainly came up to speed fantastically quickly on the truth of the matter.

As William Blake put it so well, we might ask:

What infernal serpent
Has lent you his forked tongue?
From what pit of foul deceit
Are all these whoppers sprung?

The only silver lining is that he is leaving in October, probably to some well-paid sinecure either in the private sector or arranged by the States (like Pierre Horsfall, who ended up as Chairman of Jersey Finance).

Unfortunately Jim Perchard is around for another three years. Perhaps instead of lunatic schemes for a referendum as to whether we should move to European time (which still means the hour changing), we should have a referendum on whether Jim Perchard should resign from the States?

What red devil of mendacity
Grips your soul with such tenacity?
Will one you cruelly shower with lies
Put a pistol ball between your eyes?

---

References:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Liar_Liar_Pants_on_Fire

http://www.thisisjersey.com/2008/06/06/waterfront-developers-sued-for-millions/