Monthly Archives: February 2009

A MOST ENTERTAINING DIVERSION:

Fear, Inadequacy

And Some Really Rather Impressive Self-Analysis.

Jimmy Perchard’s Letter to The Rag.

During these grim times, I’m conscious of the fact that we need to have some light entertainment on occasions; it can’t all be serious and heavy stuff.

And today, an opportunity for a good laugh presents itself in the form of a letter from Jimmy Perchard – Jersey’s Health Minister

You know? The one who’s entirely happy to keep employed senior managers responsible for the unlawful killing of patients? The Minister who is quite content to keep amongst his employees, people who were responsible for multiple failures to protect vulnerable children? People who then concealed that abuse? Indeed – people who then lied about that abuse; dishonestly sacked a whistle-blower – and who are now – plainly – nothing more than a homogenous claque of expensive senior civil servants who possess no greater consideration than self-protection?

Yes – that Jimmy Perchard.

You know – I often use the expression you just couldn’t make it up.

I’m going to write an open letter to Jimmy, which – naturally – I’ll post here.

Once I’ve written it – I’ll be inviting you – dear readers – to compare and contrast the facts in my letter – with the inadequate, jelly-like quiverings as written by Jimmy – which I reproduce below.

But – to be going on with, here is a brief e-mail I sent Jimmy today, after I’d been able to stop laughing.

Have a read of this – and Jimmy’s letter below.

Then look forward to my reply.

Stuart.

E-Mail From Stuart Syvret to Jimmy Perchard.
______________________________________________
From: Stuart Syvret
Sent: 28 February 2009 14:14
To: James Perchard
Cc: All States Members (including ex officio members)
Subject:Bullies, Mental Derangement and Personal Inadequacy.

Jimmy

Thanks for sending your letter to the JEP, published today.

It would have made me roar with laughter at the best of times – but after the events of last week – it’s just hysterical. Really, I’ve had tears of laughter rolling down my cheeks.

You’re quite right about one thing – It’ll be attracting a hostile reaction in your direction – something you plainly feel concerned about – just as do all obnoxious bullies when someone stands up to them.

You see, so startlingly accurate was the description of yourself issued in your letter, that I’m going to write you a detailed open letter in response; why, I might even congratulate you on such marvellous self-diagnosis.

Naturally, I’ll be copying in all States members.

And – sadly – I’ll have to place it on my blog as well. You see – after decades – generations in fact – of mere plebs like me being bullied and oppressed by The Rag on behalf of people like you – we know the JEP just wouldn’t give a fair opportunity to reply.

But – that’s the marvellous thing about Citizen Media – it has finally taken control of the news agenda away from oligarchy members like you and the Jersey Evening Post. A fact which is – plainly – why people like you hate Citizen Media so much.

Once I’ve published it – I’m very happy to allow you an opportunity to respond on my blog. Though – in all reasonableness – you’ll have to do it openly this time – rather than cowering behind anonymous comments as you usually do.

As I said – I will write a detailed response and publish it as an open letter. It will be factual.

And you know – as well as I do – just what is going to be in it.

Oh yes.

You might wish to begin writing your resignation letter now, in advance of publication?

Regards

Stuart

Bullies in cyberspace

Letter in The Rag 28.02.09
From Senator Jim Perchard.

WE live in an internet age. Communicating to people around the world is a matter of a few clicks of the mouse.

However, if you look at this internet age from a different point of view, you will realise that it has in fact bred some illegal and unethical practices.

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.

Cyber-bullying and internet abuse is a growing and serious concern. The remoteness, even anonymity, provided by the internet encourages many users to behave with a boldness they would not otherwise display in any face-to-face encounters.

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.

Even though many of them will understand when they have behaved wrongly, they still wish to appear as though they are morally superior. Strangely, they insist that others have attacked them and that they are the victims. It seems to me that they seek to lead and manipulate an unsuspecting group of their virtual friends to bandwagon, or gang up on, a target and try to gain attention for themselves by any means possible, usually through humiliating their target.

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.

It seems that they are unable to internalise their own behaviours and become angry and unreasonable if someone attempts to point out how they were wrong or how their behaviour was unacceptable.

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.

We as a society are learning about cyber-bullying at great personal and emotional cost to the many victims and their families. I hope that it will not be long before we establish acceptable boundaries in respect of the rights to freedom of expression, balanced against the rights to security and privacy of the individual.

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.

Jimmy Perchard

Le Perchoir,
Rue de la Vignette,
St Martin.

CALM BEFORE THE STORM.

“I wouldn’t shut your eyes just yet

I wouldn’t turn the lights down yet

Because there are things you got to see here

There’re things you’ve got to believe with me.”

The quote above is from the song ‘En Diablo En El Ojo’ by Tindersticks – a marvellously lugubrious English group who, through singer Stuart Staples and his baritone delivery of accounts from the front line of drunken misery and ennui, deliver a grown-up commentary on real life.

Actually, that song is one of their more up-beat numbers – even though it does deal with the subject of unknown horrors.

I quote it – because as I work quietly and determinedly on my main task – preparing for the London Courts – those words keep running through my mind.

And those preparations are my main task.

Which is why I’m just doing this very brief post to let you know that I haven’t been terminated, gagged or arrested yet – though that could happen tomorrow – by all accounts of what was said in court today. I can’t say more than that at present, because of reporting restrictions.

No – if I appear to have gone quite on the blogging front – it’s because I’m instead immersed in what is the most important task I’ve undertaken in my life.

As I remarked in the previous posting – we only get one shot at this.

Win in London – and we, as a community, take the first, faltering steps towards the functioning administration of justice and effective checks and balances.

Lose in London – and its business as usual for the Jersey oligarchy.

That’s how important it is.

Which is why I have to put everything into it – everything – if you understand my meaning?

I cannot elaborate any further on these issues until we get to Court.

In the mean-time – bear in mind those words:

“I wouldn’t shut your eyes just yet

I wouldn’t turn the lights down yet”

Stuart.

LONDON CALLING?

The Beginning of the Decisive Battle Approaches.

Court, London, 17th March.

Read Some Key Evidence.

Around June, 2007 – even before I really understood the true depth and seriousness of the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster – I would speak privately with whistle-blowers and a few, younger survivors. And I would tell them that exposing the failures, and making the Jersey authorities face up to the truth would almost certainly be a very – very – difficult task.

And when making that observation, I was the Minister for Health & Social Services – a position which, one might imagine, would make one ideally placed to address departmental incompetence, malfeasance and inadequacy.

But even then – faced with the comparative simplicity of the Les Chennes and Greenfields abusive and illegal solitary confinement regimes, I knew that challenging the system would – in effect – be perceived as a declaration of war on the entrenched senior management of my own department.

And so shamefully weak are the island’s traditional politicians – and so stagnant and corrupt are the upper-reaches of Jersey’s civil service – that in any such war the odds would be stacked against the cause of truth and accountability.

Having witnessed the Jersey civil service “at work”, so to speak, for 17 years I knew – even then – even before I uttered those first, public words on the gross failures of Jersey’s child “protection” system when answering a question in the island’s parliament in July ’07 – yes, I knew then that there was but one means of victory.

And whilst I came to this conclusion in the context of the child protection battle – I knew that, metaphorically speaking, we faced some kind of Armageddon – a final battle between the forces of – on the one hand, corrupt, decadent, unethical self-interest – and on the other, honest and accountable public administration, the rule of law and the proper administration of justice. For whilst the child protection war was the most important – similar battles have to be fought in respect of virtually every other facet of public administration in Jersey – mired as it is in anti-intellectualism and the sense of invulnerability which comes of decades of absolute and unchallengeable power.

Decades of gross failure in child protection; no one accountable. Corporate manslaughter; no one accountable. Half-a-million tonnes of toxic incinerator ash dumped dangerously and illegally into St Helier’s Waterfront land-reclamation sites; no one accountable. Economic incompetence; no one accountable. £49 million of tax-payers money blown on capital development “overspends”; no one accountable.

And so it goes on.

For all of the diversity – for all of the seriousness – for all the multi-dimensional aspects to the battle for good public administration in Jersey – there was only ever going to be one shot – one possibility – of defeating our incompetent and corrupt oligarchy.

As I was saying to my constituents back in early ’07 – and as I have said ever more strongly to growing numbers of people since – there is only one way this war will be won.

And that is through London intervention.

It really is as simple as that.

We have to use the London courts and British justice to make the UK government intervene in order to put right that which is clearly a failed and stagnant public administration in Jersey.

Ultimately – the Crown, via the entity of Her Majesty’s government – is responsible for good governance and the proper administration of justice in the ‘Crown Dependencies’ – the Channel Islands and the Isle of Mann.

Though traditionally reluctant to intervene, the UK government can – and has – and does – take action when the islands’ authorities are plainly acting in ways beyond all reasonable tolerance.

But – it almost always requires court intervention to make the government act.

Therefore – to speak plainly – we succeed in gaining the court’s agreement to judicially review Jack straw’s failure to properly discharge his responsibilities – we win the war.

We fail to gain a favourable outcome in court – we lose the war.

It is as simple as that.

Child abuse; corporate manslaughter; corruption; failed justice; ludicrous conflicts of interest across the board – all will finally be challenged and changed if we win in court in London.

If we lose – it will be business as usually for the Jersey oligarchy – to the great and profound detriment of the broad population of island.

In co-operation with Lib-Dem MP John Hemming and Justice for Families Ltd, we are actioning the UK Justice Secretary, Jack Straw. On the 17th March, I will be representing Justice for Families Ltd in court in London for what will be an initial Directions Hearing. The UK government’s lawyers are resisting the action.

Provided we convince the court that we have a just case, that at least merits a full trial of the maters at dispute – we will return to court at a later date – when much of the entire, wretched saga will have its guts pulled out for public examination.

Ultimately – win or lose – that will be as much as I can do.

If the UK government succeed in resisting the action – effectively winning the war on behalf of the Jersey oligarchy – then nothing else will avail.

Now – of course, all I’ve written above – and the actions I’m taking – will be spoken of by the Jersey establishment – and it’s “Friends at Court at Whitehall” – as merely some kind of over-blown and melodramatic hyperbole – being engaged in by some kind of anarchist trouble-maker.

So – to understand the truth of just how badly things have gone wrong in Jersey – let us take a look at some hard evidence from the narrative of a recent sad and wretched episode.

Regular readers of this blog will be familiar with the tragedy of the avoidable death of a patient in Jersey’s General Hospital. A locum was tried for – and acquitted of – manslaughter. But, in truth, it should have been Jersey Health & Social Services in the dock – on a charge of corporate manslaughter.

And so disgusting and brazen an example manipulation and cover-up was the attempt to use the locum, and a Jersey consultant, as scapegoats that even the Jersey Evening Post – my favourite journal – just couldn’t stomach the disgraceful spectacle.

Using a combination of evidence presented in court – and evidence from my whistle-blowers – the JEP and I exposed not only the fact that the hospital management had had at least two expressions of concern regarding the locum’s surgical competencies on record before the tragic incident – we also exposed most of the senior Health & Social Services Management team as a grouping of quite shameless liars.

But – as disastrous as this one failing was – perhaps you might find similar examples of attempted cover-ups in hospitals elsewhere?

What compounds the situation in Jersey many times over is the complete failure of all and every supposed check and balance which should have been brought to bear by other agencies.

In the UK, as is well-documented, failing – and fatal – hospitals do get exposed from time to time. Other agencies – such as the regulatory authorities, the police, the CPS the courts, central government etc. will intervene when necessary to do so.

Yet in Jersey, we have the entirely avoidable death of a patient – an unlawful killing due to management failures – and where are the Jersey equivalent of those agencies which should intervene to protect the public interest?

All – every single last one of them – on the side of the culture of concealment.

So for the benefit of anyone who doubts that fact – and anyone who questions the need for London intervention – read the evidence I reproduce below.

Let me call the items exhibit 1, exhibit 2 and exhibit 3.

Exhibit 1:

This is an exact reproduction of an e-mail exchange involving Richard Lane – the H & SS Medical Director, Richard Jouault, the H & SS “performance” manager – and one Michala Clifford – the Human Resources director of H & SS.

And just so you appreciate the full magnitude of what it is you’re reading – let me explain.

The e-mail correspondence involves three of the most culpable senior employees; those who, each in their own way, should have performed differently – essentially, to a basic and reasonable standard of competency and ethics.

Their failure to do so generated the chain of events which led to the unlawful killing of Elizabeth Rourke.

Indeed – Richard Lane in particular was acting as the internal Case Manager for the fatal incident – even though he was a key actor in the death himself.

He was the Consultant anaesthetist responsible for the patient during the last 5 hours of her life.

The death of Elizabeth Rourke occurred on the 17th October, 2006.

You will note that the e-mail correspondence which forms exhibit 1 spans a day from the 20th March, 2007 to the 21st March 2007.

To spell it out – this was written nearly six months AFTER the patient’s death.

Every decent professional I’ve shown this to – be they clinicians, NHS managers, lawyers or journalists – have taken one look and unambiguously concluded that what this e-mail correspondence represents is an attempt to manufacture – post-event – a fake ‘audit-trail’ – designed to deflect culpability away from the senior managers involved, and onto the locum in the first instance, and onto Dr. John Day as a reserve scapegoat.

Although Minister at the time, I was not kept correctly briefed and informed – as required by the procedures.

A fact stated quite plainly in Michala Clifford’s e-mail to the ‘two Richards’.

It is also stated plainly just how a “timeline” was being worked on – “to cross-reference how and when we have complied”

Remember – this is nearly 6 months after the unlawful killing of the patient.

Note how this very expensive, senior States HR manager – a person directly responsible for certain management errors which exposed the patient to the risk – says – quite brazenly:

“We’re mostly OK (it’s quite tricky given the level of detail in the procedure). I’ll forward you copies when I’ve finished.”

“We’re mostly OK”?

A person is dead – and these managers are concerned about themselves being “mostly OK”?

Six months later.

She then goes onto say:

“The bits where we have slipped a little (we can justify but need a couple of file notes) are:….”

“Where we have slipped a little”?

But – not to worry!

“(we can justify but need a couple of file notes)”!

You see – no mater that a person has lost their lives needlessly – the manufacture – post-event – of a couple of retrospective “file notes” – and, everything in the garden will be rosy!

There are, of course, a few other minor details these managers need to sort – in order to cover their rears.

For example:

“technically we should be providing the Minister with a written report at the end of each exclusion period!”

Exclamation mark! Ooh – silly us; never mind – a bit of fiddling in the files – and it will all be smoothed over.

Then we come to that oh so annoying lawyer, David Caddin – who is being so unreasonably “pedantic” in attempting to stop the wholly unjustified smearing and destruction of his client, Mr. Day.

And then let us note how Michala Clifford confirms Richard Lane as the “Case Manager”. To be clear – here is an extremely expensive States of Jersey Human Resources manager – acting in apparent ignorance of the fact that Richard Lane was Medical Director (‘MD’) DID MOST CERTAINLY NOT make it “appropriate” for him to Case Manage an SUI in which he himself was a key actor.

But should any further evidence be required of just what planet these people are on – consider Michala Clifford’s signing-off:

“RJ – hope your plane spotting is going well!!!

Dr. Lane – hope you’re feeling better X

Thanks

Michala”.

Richard Jouault – “Performance Manager” – we mustn’t let the mere death of a patient interfere with his plane-spotting, now – can we!

And poor Dr. Lane was feeling a little unwell. Never mind – a kissy-kissy X from Michala will make him feel better.

A person has needlessly lost their lives – and here we have – displayed in all its jaw-dropping mendacity, immorality and inappropriateness – the antics of three of the senior managers in attempting to conceal their shared culpability.

Nearly six months later.

Here is the full exchange:

“From: Richard Jouault
Sent: 21 March 2007 11.42
To: Michala Clifford; Richard Lane
Subject: RE: Mr. Day

Status: Confidential

Thanks Michala
I have left a message with Sam Smith requesting permission to disclose to NCAS. As said, we keep Minister and deputy Minister informed of this case at each fortnightly meeting. I will suggest at the meeting this Friday that a ministerial decision will be required regarding next steps.
Regards
Richard.

Richard Jouault
Director of Corporate Planning
& Performance Management.

—-Original Message—-
From: Michala Clifford
Sent: 20th March 2007 19.01
To: Richard Lane; Richard Jouault
Subject: Mr. Day
Sensitivity: Confidential

Hi Richards

I’ve been working on a timeline to cross-reference how and when we have complied with the Docs Disciplinary Procedure as requested by Advocate Davies.

We’re mostly OK (it’s quite tricky given the level of detail in the procedure). I’ll forward you copies when I’ve finished.

The bits where we have slipped a little (we can justify but need a couple of file notes) are:

Keeping the Minister updated in a formal manner. I know MP will be doing this regularly but technically we should be providing the Minister with a written report and the end of each exclusion period! I’ll get MP to provide me with a file note to explain how and when he updates SS. Going forward could this be added as a quick agenda item at the Ministerial meeting once a month so that we can prove we’ve complied? Seems a bit OTT but David Caddin is being so pedantic Advocate Davies thinks we should make every effort to comply.

Once we reach 6 months of exclusion we are required to report to the Minister a situation report detailing reasons for continued exclusion, actual and anticipated final costs and anticipated timescale so I’ll definitely make sure we do this.

Also we are obliged by this stage in the exclusion period to ‘formally’ refer the case to NCAS. Although we’ve registered the case and entered into correspondence we haven’t formal referred it and asked NCAS to investigate. Dr. Lane – in the update letter you’re about to send to NCAS could you point out that our disciplinary procedures states that we should be making a formal referral but we are minded to wait until the police have pronounced. Could they confirm in writing that this would be appropriate. What do you think?

Also I’ve had to allocate roles as per the procedure. Dr. Lane you’re the Case Manager (as MD this is appropriate). The guidelines state you must consider all the issues around pay, exclusion from premises, keeping in contact, cpd etc which you’ve been doing.

RJ as the ‘Designated Board Member’ you are the person who oversees and maintains momentum of the process. Your responsibilities include:

• Receiving reports and reviewing the continued exclusion form wok of the practitioner;

• Considering any representation from the practitioner about their exclusion;

• Considering any representations about the investigation.

So you’re doing all this too.

I’ll try and catch you both tomorrow morning.

RJ – hope your plane spotting is going well!!!

Dr. Lane – hope you’re feeling better X

Thanks

Michala”.

Exhibit 2.

I won’t, yet, produce all of the evidence concerning the efforts made be me and others to stop this disgraceful farrago, but as I’ve explained on previous occasions – I tried many times to get the police, the lawyers, the judiciary and the prosecutors to recognise and accept that – effectively – what was taking place was an attempted perversion of the course of justice.

But – just to give you a flavour of my correspondence, I reproduce as Exhibit 2 a self-explanatory e-mail thread involving me, the Attorney General, William Bailhache, the Solicitor General, Tim Le Cocq and the acting Chief of Police David Warcup.

Diplomacy is not – alas – one of my strong points at the best of times.

But under circumstances during which I had tried and failed – over a 12 month period – to get the Jersey authorities to recognise and accept that Health & Social Services – as an organisation – had killed a person – and the senior management were attempting to pervert the course of justice in an attempt to hide their culpability – what slight inclination I may have had to be diplomatic was long-since exhausted.

Here is the e-mail thread – beginning with the most recent:

“From: Stuart Syvret
Sent: 12 February 2009 14:24
To: Timothy Le Cocq (Solicitor General); William Bailhache
Cc: David Warcup
Subject: RE: The Death of Mrs Elizabeth Rourke
Importance: High

Solicitor General & Attorney General

I would be grateful if you would answer the following questions.

1: It is asserted that the decision to prosecute Dr. Moyano was the correct decision, as opposed to prosecuting Health & Social Services for corporate manslaughter. You make this assertion on the basis of legal advice and opinions – as though such opinions are never wrong.

Dr. Moyano was – rightly – acquitted of the criminal offence; though what her professional organisation may make of the issue is another question.

It was very clear – both from the trial – and from common knowledge amongst staff – that a number of fundamental management errors occurred which – needlessly – exposed the patient to risk.

Elizabeth Rourke is – as a consequence – dead.

Her death was – plainly – an act of unlawful killing.

Could you then explain to me that, given Dr. Moyano’s acquittal – and your opinions that H & SS should NOT be prosecuted – just who, then, IS responsible for the unlawful killing of Elizabeth Rourke?

For my part, I was the Minister responsible for the organisation at the time of the unlawful killing of Mrs. Rourke – and, in light of information which has accumulated to me during the last 12 months – I know – for a stone fact – that the organisation I was responsible for – killed Elizabeth Rourke. I – again – confess that fact – for what is probably around the tenth time now.

No doubt I’d have to confess to some heinous offence – such as helping an infirm person apply for a postal vote – before either of you ordered your police force around to slap me in irons?

2: Could you identify who was the leading council from the UK who advised the extraordinary decision to not prosecute H & SS?

3: Did they make a full and detailed study of all of the evidence?

4: Did they, in fact, actually consider the specific option of prosecuting H & SS?

5: Will you make their assessment available for professional peer-review?

6: The Attorney General and the Solicitor General are the de facto directors of public prosecutions in Jersey. Could you explain to me what appeal mechanism lays open to victims of crimes, in general terms, in respect of either of you deciding not to prosecute apparent offences?

7: Could you identify to me the specific legislation which describes and confers the powers to prosecute to the Attorney General and Solicitor General?

8: Could you confirm to me that the process of mounting private prosecutions in Jersey is, broadly, the same as that which prevails in the United Kingdom?

9:If – in your opinion – the process of mounting private prosecutions is not the same as that which prevails under English common law – could you explain why, and in what way, it differs?

You make reference to my “tendentious” e-mail of the 6th February.

You seem to find an expectation that a simple e-mail be acknowledged within four days to be some form of monstrous and unreasonable burden.

Tell me, just how much are you paid by taxpayers per annum?

I have not had a holiday for over two years. I frequently work 7 day weeks. I have zero resources – and thus have to undertake all of my work myself.

You are paid a very substantial amount of tax-payers money – and in addition, you are supplied with a department full of expensive personnel and resources.

If you really cannot acknowledge an e-mail – about a matter as serious as the avoidable death – the unlawful killing of a person – within 4 days – then I suggest you return to private practice where, we must assume, such lackadaisical attitudes prevail.

I look forward to your answers to the above questions.

Thank you for your assistance.

Senator Stuart Syvret
States of Jersey.

_____________________________________________
From: Timothy Le Cocq (Solicitor General)
Sent: 12 February 2009 12:55
To: Stuart Syvret
Cc: Timothy Le Cocq (Solicitor General)
Subject: Re: The Death of Mrs Elizabeth Rourke

Dear Senator Syvret,
I refer to your email of the 2nd February addressed originally to the Attorney General and to Mr Warcup and forwarded to me by you in the Attorney General’s absence on leave.
Your email concerns, of course, issues surrounding the recent trial of Dr Moyano. In your email you observe that you would normally write only to the Police concerning this matter. I agree that it is initially for the Police to consider any complaint and determine whether there are any issues raised in your email which are appropriate for further investigation.
I have had no involvement in the prosecution decisions relating to the case of Dr Moyano and, even if I had, it would not be appropriate for me to discuss those decisions with you.
From my inquiries, however, I can inform you that when the file was submitted to us in 2007, the possibility of a prosecution of other people (including prosecution for an offence of corporate manslaughter) was fully considered. Advice was obtained from experienced leading counsel based in the UK. On the basis of that advice given by leading counsel on the law and evidence, and our own consideration of those factors, no proceedings were brought for corporate manslaughter. I am aware of nothing which came out during the course of the trial of Dr Moyano which would now alter that assessment.
I do not think that I should comment further on these matters at this time given that your original communication was addressed to the Attorney General and he is returning to the office shortly. Doubtless he will review your email and may respond if he has anything to add and thinks it appropriate to do so.
You would not, I am sure, expect me to respond to your email of 6th February given its tendentious content. I merely observe that your assertions relating to my attitude appear to be based on nothing more than the fact that I did not respond to your email of the 2nd February within 4 days. I find this surprising and disappointing, particularly given that you were aware that the Attorney General was and is absent and for two of those days I was, as were you, in the States.
Yours sincerely

Timothy Le Cocq Q.C.
H.M. Solicitor General

Law Officers’ Department
Morier House
St. Helier
Jersey JE1 1DD”

So there we have evidenced and explained – in addition to the ethically bankrupt intransigence of the H & SS senior managers – an example of smug and complacent indifference on the part of what passes for a prosecution service in Jersey.

A service itself conflicted due to its incompetence in not prosecuting H & SS in the first place.

Exhibit 3.

But – were all that not yet sufficient evidence of a breakdown in good governance and the proper rule of law in Jersey – I recently received a letter from the Police Force – written in response to my e-mails above.

Dated the 10th February – this is what it said:

“I acknowledge receipt of your e-mail dated 2nd February 2009 regarding the above subject.

As you know the criminal trial is now concluded. The content of your e-mail and your request for the States of Jersey Police to conduct further criminal enquiries has been considered.

At this stage we do not intend to instigate any further enquiries into this case.

Yours sincerely

Chris Beechey
Acting Chief Inspector.”

I cannot – in truth – exhibit any surprise at this response from Officer Beechey.

For he was the very same Police Officer I spoke to in early 2008 – and to whom I explained the truth of what had taken place – and that it should be Health & Social Services in the dock.

He was completely disinterested.

So – a person has lost their life – and no one has been held accountable for it.

And the Jersey civil service, the Jersey prosecution service – and the States of Jersey Police are all singularly indifferent to that fact.

“Good governance and the proper administration of justice”?

It most certainly isn’t to be found in Jersey.

So now, perhaps you may understand why I am – and have been throughout – of the view that only intervention from London can save this community from these clowns, shysters and nincompoops.

In the material above – you see displayed plainly and nakedly all of the very stagnation and non-existence of effective checks and balances that characterise the public administration of Jersey.

As I said – it is, metaphorically, Armageddon.

Succeed in court in London – and we win.

Fail in court in London – and we lose.

It is – sadly – as simple as that.

Stuart.

GOVERNMENT BY THE RICH FOR THE RICH;

DO YOU WANT YOUR PARLIAMENT

TO BE A RICH MAN’S CLUB?

An Open Letter to Senator Ozouf.

I thought I would share with you what is, essentially, a parochial matter concerning Jersey domestic politics.

Should some of your elected representatives be more equal than others?

I don’t think so.

But the Jersey oligarchy wants to attack the concept of equal pay for elected members.

You see, when I was first elected at the end of 1990, only token payment was available for politicians.

“And what’s wrong with that?” I hear you say.

What’s wrong with that is the result was a legislature which was simply a rich man’s club; plebs need not apply.

Indeed – some great Jersey politicians, like the late Norman Le Brocq, had to, essentially, gather alms from his constituents so that he could work on their behalf – whilst supporting his family.

Read my open letter – re-produced below – to Senator Ozouf.

Whilst – understandably in many ways – one’s first instinct is to want to kick politicians – before doing so, just think – ‘what are the motivations of those who would return politics back to the age of the landed gentry?’

One thing we can be certain of – it is most unlikely to coincide with the interests of the average member of the public.

Stuart.

From: Stuart Syvret
Sent: 10 February 2009 23:20
To: Philip Ozouf
Cc: All States Members (including ex officio members)
Subject: Politicians Pay: An Open Letter to Senator Philip Ozouf

Senator Ozouf

I read with interest your comments as reported on page 5 of tonight’s Jersey Evening Post, concerning States members’ pay.

You and Deputy Gorst – both very financially secure individuals – stoutly assert that States members’ pay should be frozen.

But you, in particular, are reported as going much further; effectively, reiterating views you have expressed previously.

You – apparently – want a “radical overhaul of the whole system of members’ pay”.

Essentially, that means people of your political persuasions getting paid more – and those who stoutly work day and night for their needy constituents, getting paid less.

I would be most interested to receive a copy of your submission to the board which is reviewing States members’ pay.

It should make fascinating reading.

I trust you will share it with the public?

Along with some other relevant facts?

For example – you assert that “one salary for all States members is wrong – as some do more than others.”

You would, perhaps, therefore be willing to elaborate to everyone just how many private member propositions you have tabled in you near-ten year existence as a States member?

Because – as you would, no doubt, be the first to acknowledge – bringing forward propositions, legislation or amendments – as a Minister – or Committee President as used to be the case – is vastly easier than developing and tabling private member proposals – because one has an army of very expensive civil servants to do the necessary work for you – unlike a back-bencher.

So, I’m certain you understand the relevance to the debate of comparing your track-record of personal, hands-on, work with that of a good number of back-benchers?

You confidently assert – as you have on many, many other occasions – that some members – people like you, presumably – deserve greater levels of remuneration – because, supposedly, people like you “do more” than other members.

Though I have to say – blowing a fortune of tax-payers’ money on the flying-banana – and breaking financial procedures to fund the appearance of a “glamour model” at a family event such as the Battle of Flowers – hardly appear to meet a value-for-money test.

Nor – it has to be said – does being responsible for, as voted nationally, the very worst new building in Britain – the Waterfront Hotel; an excrescence that every thinking person told you would be a revolting carbuncle – yet you never faltered in your support for it.

You now see, surely, the obvious methodological difficulty with your approach?

Even if – as you allege – you ‘do more work than others’ – there has to be a mechanism to differentiate between ‘quantity’ – and ‘quality’? For example, Ministers may well be able to appear in the media three times a week – on the basis of some vacuous guff churned out at tax-payers expense by spin-doctors – and “appear” to be doing more “work”. But – some low-profile back-bencher may be putting heart and soul into working for disadvantaged constituents – yet rarely appear in the media.

And on the basis of such examples as those two – I for one am in no doubt whatsoever as to which member is producing work of the greater “quality” – which, surely, must be the real test.

But setting aside the manifest inadequacies of your own performance, and instead looking to basic principles.

You, and some others, have always been of the view that a greater salary should be available for Ministers – or whoever happens to be ‘pleasing’ to the establishment.

Perhaps – such a view could be justified in the United Kingdom – where Ministers are drawn from the ranks of the governing party – where obedience and servility to the leadership is understood by voters to be a part of the package – from the very outset?

However – in the Jersey context – a non-party-political environment – only the truly politically illiterate could endorse higher pay for Ministers – in the absence of party-politics.

Jersey – at least so far as its establishment is concerned – is a non-party-political environment. Therefore – the power – the accountability – for what elected members do – and how they perform – forms a vastly more important relationship to the electorate than one would find in, say, the UK.

If your views were to succeed as policy – we would simply be handing to whoever was Chief Minister a mechanism by which he or she could bribe back-benchers into passivity and obedience – using tax-payers money as a lure – on condition they “played their cards right” and “didn’t rock the boat”.

If, supposedly, “independent” back-benchers – those who we rely upon for scrutiny – and where appropriate, opposition – can have the carrot of an extra £20,000, £30,000 or £40,000 per annum dangled before their noses – then, effective challenge and debate is destroyed.

Such a state of affairs would be antithetical to the public good.

But – if your views – as in all probability – find favour with the review body – and your establishment colleagues – then, in all justice, we must surely go back to considering States members pay on a means-tested basis – just as it used to be?

However – we would have to be far more rigorous than we were back then – wouldn’t we?

As you will, no doubt, recollect – the means test was very, very easily avoided through the mechanism of members arranging their financial affairs – such as investment wealth-streams, employments, directorships or consultancies – in such a way as to ensure the wealth-stream of the member didn’t accrue as personal taxable income. You must remember, surely? The very same device is used to avoid full Social Security payments.

So we would need a tougher system – in order to avoid that which used to happen – namely multi-millionaire States members – like you – as discussed during question-time in the States some years ago – dodging the means test using the above-described avoidance mechanisms – just as you used to do.

But – I’m sure – with sufficient determination, such a system could be made to work.

For example – if one was truly wedded to the concept of differential rates of pay for members – no matter how perverse such a concept – a more robust means-test would take into account such factors as existing wealth, inheritance, properties owned, businesses from which one derived an income, etc. Although we would have to be tough about this – in order to make sure that members’ business interests included the ‘”effective” economic ownership”‘ of assets – just as is the definition used in the Isle of Man. This would bring into account such mechanisms as Trusts, proxy-ownerships etc.

Incidentally, I did try to get the IoM definition used in States of Jersey procedure – but the Bailiff obstructed it.

So – if differentiated rates of pay for States members is – as you would have it – the path to go down – then means-testing would seem to be a logical approach.

In those circumstances, all of your vast, personal fortune would need to be declared; for example, the many inheritances which have fallen into your lap – such as Augres Garage, the old tobacco shop in a prime King Street location, the massive country farmhouse and adjoining buildings, the many fields, the other properties – etc – etc.

But – somehow – I doubt that any such quid pro quo would happen, would it?

For – in truth – all you and your establishment colleagues wish for is a return to the bad old days – as they were when I was elected – when only token remuneration was available – thus ensuring that the Jersey parliament was a virtually exclusive rich men’s club.

No plebs required.

Personally – I believe in fully representative democracy – which, of necessity, requires a level playing-field.

I hope – however futile it may be – that your elitist, self-interested views are placed where they belong – in the dustbin of history.

Yours sincerely,

Senator Stuart Syvret
States of Jersey.

DECLINE AND FALL

OF THE JERSEY OLIGARCHY.

The Transition Gathers Momentum;

Decadence and Anarchy

Begin to Yield to Civilisation.

Though I have been spending days ploughing through legal books, web-sites and case-law – I thought I should make a brief appearance on the blog.

All kinds of anarchy, decadence – and, frankly, stupidity – increasingly grasp the Jersey oligarchy.

Tragically, the decline of a once good health service remains un-arrested by Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur – who has neither the back-bone nor ability to hold a mouse to account – let alone his manifestly lightweight Health Minister – nor all of the senior civil servants he is surrounded by.

Pollard and Co. remain unsuspended – even though their incompetences have killed people.

Senator Le Sueur remains too weak to instruct Bill Ogley to furnish me with key evidence concerning the illegal solitary confinement regime as used against vulnerable children in Jersey – evidence including the Political efforts made by Ogley and Pollard – and other senior civil servants – to engage in political action against a democratically elected Minister.

The Education department seems incapable and unwilling to furnish me with a 1971 report into child “care” in Jersey.

And I’m still waiting for a response to a request I made to the Jersey coroner’s department for the inquest reports into the death of a child in foster care in 1978.

The inadequacy of “The Jersey Way” becomes ever more obvious by the day.

But let’s be positive; the rise and rise of citizen media is truly shaking things up in Jersey – unlike any other occurrence in 800 years.

Blogs, YouTube, FaceBook – all kinds of web-sites have – suddenly – snatched power away from our entrenched oligarchy.

But – of course – it’s up to the people of this community to seize the opportunity.

Why not make a start by checking-out Voice for Children – who’s blog is now added to my links list (I know – my site’s a mess and needs sorting out, but it’s a step in the right direction.)

I strongly recommend the two-part YouTube interview with Dr. Gil Blackwood – recently retired Consultant from Jersey’s Health service.

It makes fascinating viewing.

I also (and this is starting to become a disturbing habit) recommend you purchase a copy of The Rag tomorrow.

Sadly – another slew of evidence of the breakdown in the management of Jersey Health & Social Services.

The time is coming when decent people will act against these clowns.

Stuart.

DISGRACEFUL CONDUCT IN THE HOUSE!

I’M RAISING A “MATTER OF PRIVILEGE”

AGAINST THE BAILIFF

AND THE CHAIR OF PPC.

Jersey Parliament’s ‘Speaker’ and the Chair

of its Privileges and Procedures Committee

Mislead the Assembly.

Right – pay attention.

This is so ontologically taxing, and straining of the bounds of semiotics, as to require very close attention.

Readers will recollect that I described in my last posting the Kafkaesque occurrence of the Chair of the Privileges and Procedures Committee – phoning me at around 5.00pm Monday – in order to inform me that some kind of disciplinary process was to be mounted against me as a “Matter of Privilege” in the States assembly on the Tuesday morning.

This was – apparently – to inflict a suitable punishment upon me for telling the public the truth as to how the Chief Executive of the States – Bill Ogley – had destroyed the contemporaneous notes taken during the illegal suspension action against the Chief of Jersey’s Police Force, Graham Power.

This evidence was destroyed by Ogley before Graham Power had had the chance to view and sign-off the typed minutes as a correct and accurate record.

These facts emerged during a secret debate – but, as they were a matter of profound public importance, I revealed what had been said during the debate on this blog.

So – out of the blue – this telephone call happens – giving me all of 17 hours notice – that for informing the public of this disgraceful scandal, I was to be sanctioned in some way – almost certainly with some kind of suspension.

However – as was as obvious as a fake election pledge – it would have also suited the oligarchy immensely to have me excluded from the chamber during the questioning of Jimmy Perchard.

And, as I correctly surmised – the oligarchy has been mulling this over for a couple of weeks – before giving me the shortest period of notice they thought they could get away with.

And what will be astonishing to the average reader – but, to me, merely old experience – was the genesis of the action against me.

And – so you can see clearly just – “How Jersey Politics Works” – I’ve included the full transcript of the Tuesday morning discussion below this post. It isn’t long.

But it is very revealing.

Let me explain events.

On the Monday evening, the Chair of PPC, Connétable Juliette Gallichan of St. Mary, told me that “she” was going to raise a “Matter of Privilege” against me – and that “she” had informed the Bailiff of “her” wish to do so – as is required by standing orders.

I asked her what this was in connection with, and – eventually – got her to state it was concerning the information from the secret debate I revealed on my blog. So I thanked her for at least having the courtesy to inform me of “her” intentions.

I wrote the subsequent blog post – which, word has it, placed a somewhat different complexion on the notion of proceeding with the suspension vote against me that very Tuesday morning.

So, when the relevant point was reached on the order paper – the Bailiff informed the assembly that “he” had received notice “from” the Chair of PPC that “she” wished to raise this issue against me – so he invited her to speak.

She then spoke – saying that:

“Sir, I wrote to you last week to give notice as required under Standing Order 8 that I wished to raise a matter that my Committee considers affects the privileges of the States.”

A minor and a major observation:

This was the first I knew of it being a matter that the PPC had discussed – as opposed to it being merely her autonomous wish.

But of far greater significance – she said “she” had written to the Bailiff “last week” – in order to give “him” notice of this matter.

So there we have a key confession – namely that she had been thinking of this issue “last week” – by way of contrast to the mere 17 hours notice I was given.

So – then Connétable Gallichan delivered the predictable pompous and sanctimonious guff in support of her request that the matter be officially referred to her Committee. This instead of taking it there and then, as originally intended.

I responded – to say what a ridiculous and absurd waste of time the whole exercise was.

Not least because whatever intimidatory, anti-democratic oppressions they sought to inflict on me – I would remain unapologetic for what I did – and would do exactly the same again if I considered it to be in the public interest.

There then occurred an interesting intervention from Deputy Le Claire – in which he correctly pointed out the pointlessness of the absurd grandstanding of the Chair of PPC – when they had it within their power to go ahead and consider the matter in any event – without seeking the authority of the House.

The Bailiff then made one of his customarily politically biased interventions by asserting to Deputy Le Claire that:

“Standing Orders requires the Committee or any member who thinks that a matter of privilege is in question to refer the matter to the Bailiff and the Chairman has done that and then to raise it on the floor of the Assembly. The Chairman has done that and the Chairman could proceed this morning…”

But then – one of the funniest interventions I’ve ever seen in the assembly occurred.

Recently elected Deputy Mike Higgins – a member of PPC – stood and said:

“Just as a point of information for the States, this matter was actually referred to PPC at its previous meeting – by the Bailiff himself – who brought up the question of privilege, so in the interests of transparency that should actually be revealed.”

Oh dear.

Oligarchy cover blown – in one devastating sentence.

Contrary to the assertions of both the Chair of PPC – and of the Bailiff – the putative action against me had been raised by him – not her.

The Bailiff had referred the matter to PPC!

Essentially – yet another biased, political attack against me by the leader of the oligarchy – but one he was attempting to mount covertly – whilst hiding behind the Privileges and Procedures Committee.

The expression on the Bailiff’s face – the barely controlled puce rage and quivering lips were a wonder to behold – indeed – I nearly laughed out loud during the 10 seconds of deafening silence which followed Deputy Higgins’ intervention as the Bailiff struggled for a means of escape.

He eventually spouted some diversionary cobblers about the Greffier having invited him to attend PPC to discuss the matter.

But – fundamentally – the point remains – the Chair of PPC told me – told the States assembly – and told the public – that the matter was raised by her and her Committee.

That “she” had written to the Bailiff.

And the Bailiff agreed with this spurious and misleading assertion – by also stating that the Chair “had written to him” – to give the impression it was an initiative of hers – not his.

And – whilst this was unfolding – completely failing to reveal that it was he who had raised the matter.

And also failing to reveal that he is personally conflicted in any matter concerning me, the child protection controversy and the suspension of the Police Chief – as I attempted to point out – not least because of his infamous Liberation Day speech – only to get a load of sophistry in response in which he attempted to blame the Greffier for his involvement.

Like I said – oh dear.

The foul plot revealed.

The cover blown by that pesky Deputy Higgins.

Plainly – the oligarchy are undergoing some kind of massive culture shock at the experience of having greater numbers of honest members in the assembly.

So – now what do I do?

Here we have the Chair of PPC – the Committee responsible for States procedures and order – brazenly misleading the States assembly in an anti-democratic plot to intimidate and silence an irritating back-bencher.

And the Speaker of the Assembly – the Bailiff – likewise being a component in the exact same machinations – and again misleading the assembly by omission.

In the normal run of things – these are the two people one would raise complaints with.

But as both of them have behaved in an utterly reprehensible manner – who does one complain to concerning their actions?

Jack Straw, perhaps?

A pointless exercise – so I guess we’ll just have to add the episode – for evidential purposes – to our legal action against Jack Straw in the London courts.

The Speaker – and the Chair of Privileges – conspiring to oppress an irritating back-bencher – and, in the doing, misleading the assembly and the public.

You couldn’t make it up. Hell, you don’t need to – transcript below.

It may be very funny – in a pathetic kind of way – but I’m just not paid anything like enough for doing this job.

Stuart.

The “Matter of Privilege” Raised Against Senator Stuart Syvret;

Transcript of 3rd February, 2009.

Bailiff

I have no matters under E or F but I have been notified that the Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee wishes to raise a matter of privilege, Madam Chairman?

Connétable Juliette Gallichan, Chairman PPC

Sir, I wrote to you last week to give notice as required under Standing Order 8 that I wished to raise a matter that my Committee considers affects the privileges of the States. Following the in camera debate during the last Sitting on the proposition of the Connétable of St Helier, Senator Syvret published information about the content of the in camera debate on his internet blog site. It would clearly be inappropriate for me to refer to what he wrote except to say that he made it very clear that he was aware that he was knowingly publishing this material even though the debate had been held in camera (as required by the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974) and that he might be sanctioned for that action.

If you agree that this matter affects the privileges of the States, Standing Order 60 allows me to propose any matter relating to it without notice. I do not believe that it would be appropriate to hold any substantive debate on this matter today but I would like to propose that the issue is formally referred to PPC to allow my Committee to investigate it, to allow Senator Syvret to address us if he wishes to do so and to consider what action, if any, is appropriate.

I appreciate that the information in question has also been published in the Jersey Evening Post and it is therefore possible that one or more other anonymous Members may have revealed this information to a journalist. If that Member or those Members were to reveal who they are, I would also propose that that issue be referred formally to the PPC.

Bailiff

I invite him to speak, Senator Syvret?

Senator Syvret

Thank you Sir. I have really no idea why this matter should be referred formally to PPC. They plainly have the power required to autonomously investigate any matter they consider to fall within this kind of remit. So this exercise is largely symbolic. It will also be a waste of the Committee’s time and the staff’s resources because I have absolutely no regrets whatsoever about publishing the information I did. It was a profoundly important piece of public disclosure information and the public required that it be known. I am not going to withdraw anything I said; I am not going to apologise for anything I have done; so, really, the Committee or the Assembly may as well just decide what they want to do because that is the position.

Bailiff

Deputy Le Claire?

Deputy Le Claire

Sir, just to say that I do find it bizarre that in a grandstanding way this is being requested to be referred to PPC when it is completely within their power to investigate which matters they choose to. And if they need to seek clarification on whether the matters of privileges affected the States Sir, they could write to you they could meet with you as I have done in the past to discuss those issues and there is no need to prejudice any outcome by grandstanding this issue or other issues in the future by requesting formal referrals.

Bailiff

Well Deputy, if I may say so, I think that the PPC is proceeding entirely in accordance with Standing Orders. Standing Orders requires the Committee or any member who thinks that a matter of privilege is in question to refer the matter to the Bailiff and the Chairman has done that and then to raise it on the floor of the Assembly. The Chairman has done that and the Chairman could proceed this morning to raise a substantive proposition but she has told members she wishes to give Senator Syvret the opportunity to say anything to the Committee which he might, on reflection, wish to do and that seems to be an entirely proper way to proceed.

Deputy Higgins?

Deputy Higgins

Thank you Sir. Just as a point of information for the States, this matter was actually referred to PPC at its previous meeting – by the Bailiff himself – who brought up the question of privilege so in the interests of transparency that should actually be revealed.

Deputy Duhamel

Sir could I raise the Default on Deputy Tadier please?

Bailiff

Yes, it is proposed that the Default on Deputy Tadier be raised. Those in favour, those against? Any other member wish to speak?

Senator Syvret

Sir, if I may make a further point in relation to what Deputy Higgins has just said, I mean I was going to say this at some point at any event that it is clear you have played a role in this action, you are personally conflicted in this. You have made your views abundantly clear, for example at the Liberation Day speech, exactly what you thought of the Child Abuse Investigation. All of which has a bearing, of course, on the suspension of the Chief Constable of the States of Jersey Police Force. So you personally have a clearly biased position in this and you are conflicted. So it seems to me wholly inappropriate you can Chair any such matter.

Bailiff

Well I don’t wish to enter into the debate Senator, I am sitting in the Chair but I will say in response to Deputy Higgin’s intervention that I was invited by the Greffier in the light of the matter which had been raised to give advice to the PPC and I attended on the PPC for that purpose. Now madam Chairman do you wish to respond to any of the points made? I am sorry I saw the – the Deputy of St John?

[Irrelevant intervention by Deputy of St. John excised.]

Bailiff

Can we come to that in just a moment, we are in the middle of a debate, Deputy.

Deputy of St John

Right OK!

Bailiff

Anything you wish to say in response Madam Chairman?

Chairman of PPC

Thank you Sir, merely Sir the concept of parliamentary privilege is an extremely important one. I fundamentally believe that the privileges of the States must be defended Sir just as I believe that all members of the Assembly are equally bound by the Standing Orders and should be treated without partiality. Sir, I attended the traditional welcome for new members which was given earlier this year as part of the induction programme and it was given this year by the Deputy Bailiff. He was at great pains to inform the new members that they would be entering a parliament not a debating club, not a county council. I seem to recall Sir that you yourself have given that advice before. There is a great difference Sir and I believe that we must strive to uphold our standards and to defend the privileges of the States and I would remind members that this proposition is merely calling for the matter to be investigated formally. I make the proposition Sir and I ask for the appel.

Bailiff

Very well I invite any member within the precinct who wishes to vote to return to his or her seat and I ask the Greffier to open the voting which is for or against the proposition of the Chairman of the PPC.

Members who wish to vote have done so, and I will ask the Greffier to close the voting and I can announce that the proposition has been carried 38 were cast in favour, 5 votes against and there was one abstention.

Can we have the five against and the one abstention?

Bailiff

Yes, Greffier?

Greffier

Those members voting against, Senator Syvret, Deputies Le Herissier, Le Claire, Tadier and Macon and Deputy de Sousa abstained.

Senator Syvret

Might I ask through the chair if the PPC when they consider this matter will do so in open session?

Bailiff

Madam Chairman?

Chairman

Sir, the PPC will pursue this matter strictly in accordance with the guidelines and Standing Orders Sir.

Senator Syvret

Could the Chairman answer the question – will it be dealt with in open session or not?

Bailiff

The Chairman has said that the Committee will follow the appropriate procedure, perhaps she wants to think about it Senator!

Senator Syvret

The appropriate procedure is either to have it in secret, as is usually the case, or it can be the Chairman’s decision …..

[Bailiff interrupts.]

Bailiff

No, I am sorry Senator, the PPC is entirely entitled to proceed in accordance with Standing Orders as it thinks fit and the Chairman has said that is what she is going to do. Now we come to question time.

[Discussion ends.]

WILL I BE QUESTIONING JIMMY PERCHARD?

CONCERNING THE UNLAWFUL KILLING OF ELIZABETH ROURKE?

Almost certainly not.

Guess what?

No you couldn’t guess it – because that would involve being able to conceive of such lunacy. And – as we all know – you just couldn’t make it up.

Jimmy Perchard – Health & Social Services Minister is messing himself.

You see – tomorrow is his first time at taking questions without notice.

And if that wasn’t bad enough – he will be delivering a statement concerning the avoidable death of Elizabeth Rourke – and all the lies and concealments engaged in by his senior managers.

A statement written for him by –?

Yep – Mike Pollard.

And Ministers are subject to questions on statements.

So – in addition to facing questions without notice – during a time when the toxic and dangerous boil of H & SS management has erupted into public view – he also has to give – and be questioned on – the statement concerning the tragedy.

Now – let me ask you a question?

Which States member do you think Jimmy and the rest of the oligarchy are most terrified of?

Especially in connection with this subject?

Yes – it’s me.

So – guess what?

I received a telephone call at around 5.00pm today from Juliette Gallichan – the Chair of the Privileges & Procedures Committee – to inform me – “as a matter of courtesy” – that she would be raising a Matter of Privilege against me – an arcane and obscure parliamentary catch-all phrase – which, so far as I can tell, simply furnishes a majority of elected members with the tools to oppress a minority of elected members – thus usurping the voting public.

This action is going to be taken against me – early in tomorrow’s meeting – with a view to getting me suspended from the States – so that I won’t be in the chamber to question Jimmy when that part of the agenda comes around.

“Clever”, no?

It is in such acts of stupidity we can see why Jersey has gone to hell on a handcart.

What – you may ask – is the awful and momentous “offence” I have committed to incur this action against me?

Well – in addition to being generally disrespectful towards most of our politicians, which is exactly what most of my constituents want me to be – I revealed in a blog posting some remarks which were made during a secret States debate.

This – apparently – being an appalling offence.

So – just in case they vote to have me assassinated or something – let me just remind you what it was I revealed.

I made public the fact that the Chief executive Officer of the States of Jersey – Bill Ogley – head civil servant – had destroyed the contemporaneous, hand-written notes taken during the unlawful suspension action against Graham Power – the Chief Constable of the States of Jersey Police Force.

This fact was revealed in the debate by Simon Crowcroft – but more significantly – it was accepted – to his great credit – by the present Home Affairs Minister that the destruction of evidence had taken place – and that he was “horrified” when he learnt of that occurrence.

In virtually all respectable legislatures – these debates would not be secret – but as it was – I felt the public had a right to know just what their £300,000 top civil servant does for their tax payments – especially when it concerns the mounting of an illegal political coup de etat against the Chief of the Police Force.

Therefore – Jersey’s wonderful legislature, have become terribly cross about the fact that I told you the truth concerning the farrago of oppression against our Police Chief – which means – in “The Jersey Way” mode – this becomes a means of having me thrown out of the States – so I can’t question Jimmy Perchard – about the fact that his organisation unlawfully killed a person.

And that his senior management repeatedly lied about it.

The States of Jersey?

Don’t you just love them?

Stuart.