Press release
A group of Jersey residents are planning to set up a Jersey branch of Lib Dems Abroad. A new States is in place. We recognise that Jersey needs policies that face up to the scale of the economic, environmental and social challenges facing the island. To help to draw up these policies, Lib Dems Abroad in Jersey can look at the work of the UK Liberal Democrat party and can consider how far they apply in a local context. We feel that their strong emphasis on local community issues alongside an outward looking international agenda fits well with the best of Jersey traditions.
While we endorse open debate and fairly placed criticism we do not collectively associate with the views of any particular Lib Dem MP or spokesperson on matters affecting Jersey.. However a grouping of people, proud of traditional Jersey values, who wish to see them continue to flourish in the best interests of all Jersey people, not just in finance, can help to promote positive new policies here.
An initial meeting has been planned for 5.30 pm on Wednesday, December 7th at Hautlieu School to form a committee and receive ideas from everyone interested in the proposal. Later there will be a vote on a constitution for the Jersey branch, using a draft provided by Lib. Dems Abroad.
We are supported by two candidates in the recent Senatorial elections, Rose Colley and Mark Forskitt, both of whom have served as Lib Dem councillors in the UK in the past.
We hope to involve both young and not so young. Maureen Lakeman, studying the International Bacclaureate at Hautlieu, has already attended two Lib Dem conferences in UK. Ed Le Quesne was a member of the SDP and then joined the Lib Dems when it first formed and through the Amos Group of Christians Together in Jersey has long taken a close interest in local affairs.
If you can’t attend the initial meeting, please register your interest by e-mailing one of us. It is not necessary to be a member of the Lib Dems to attend.
Maureen Lakeman Maureenlakeman@hotmail.com 07797 920606
Ed Le Quesne edleq@jerseymail.co.uk 730131
November 2011
____________________________________________________________
( Leave a comment )
Monday, December 5, 2011
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Syvret petiton
Ian Evans is seeking support for a petition to the UK Parliament about Stuart Syvret's imprisonment. I think he is bang to rights, but I know some of my readers are more sympathetic to him, so here is the link:- http://therightofreply.blogspot.com/2011/11/john-hemming-mp-succeeded-where-i.html
Thursday, October 20, 2011
roll on 2014
There we go then: some big disappointments, e.g. the excellent Mark Forskitt ending up amongst the back-markers and Sir Phil topping the poll, but generally completely unsurprising stuff, e.g. the excellent Mark Forskitt ending up amongst the back-markers and Sir Phil topping the poll.
The only real shock results for me were the losses of Deputies Bob Hill and Debbie de Sousa. Both principled and hard-working politicians who pulled their weight. Their successors have a lot to live up to and owe it to the whole island to prove that they were worth displacing the other two for.
Lyndon Farnham didn't seem as good a politician as he is a businessman last time around, but I would rather have him than Cohen.
With the Cameron government due to remain in power on the mainland for some years to come, we can probably get by a little longer with the current regime. By 2014, we may, of course, have seen a major reorganisation of the States, one way or another, and if we get that wrong, then the status quo could become even more deeply entrenched. However, I shall just have to hope that a lot more of the people who just grumble that politicians are all the same bother to come and help us elect some better ones next time.
The only real shock results for me were the losses of Deputies Bob Hill and Debbie de Sousa. Both principled and hard-working politicians who pulled their weight. Their successors have a lot to live up to and owe it to the whole island to prove that they were worth displacing the other two for.
Lyndon Farnham didn't seem as good a politician as he is a businessman last time around, but I would rather have him than Cohen.
With the Cameron government due to remain in power on the mainland for some years to come, we can probably get by a little longer with the current regime. By 2014, we may, of course, have seen a major reorganisation of the States, one way or another, and if we get that wrong, then the status quo could become even more deeply entrenched. However, I shall just have to hope that a lot more of the people who just grumble that politicians are all the same bother to come and help us elect some better ones next time.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Senatorial Voting??
As this was originally an explicitly partisan blog, I really ought to take a few sides in the coming elections. We don't really do elections in a very big way out here in Trinity, but at least there are the Senatorials. And they are a rather challenging choice this time around.
If you are content with the current States, and want more of the same, your choice is easy: Bailhache, Cohen, Gorst and Farnham. All competent to play their parts in effectively continuing to deliver the same old failing right-wing agenda.
However, politics is about moral values, as well as competence. If you are reading this, you probably are not particularly keen on right-wing moral values. Thus, while you may prefer the above to the utterly clueless people who occasionally stumble into elections, you may join me in wishing for some capable people with a centre or even left-wing value system. Now let us try and find four of those on the ballot paper.
Rose Colley? Rather ambiguous, as political lawyers often are. Her background suggests a social conscience, and she seems to say the right things. On the other hand, her proposers were as establishment as you can get. Was she using them, or is she really one of them, and making a misleading election pitch. Given the alternatives, I think I shall take a chance on the former being true, and vote for her, but I am not without doubts.
Linda Corby? I know her personally, and she is an entertaining raconteuse who has led a colourful life, as she tells it. She will bring passion and commitment, and will not be pressured into shutting up when there are whistles to be blown. I fear she would be out of her depth on policy, though. If you are sure there will be another right-wing landslide, then she is at least cut out for being a fierce backbench watchdog, and you may want to vote for her to take that role. I want an alternative government, though, not more snipers, so I don't think she is for me.
Mark Forskitt? YES! Political experience in a bigger jurisdiction, a firm grasp of both local and global issues, and rather better credentials than Syvret to take a stand on the child care problem, despite a balanced view of priorities that push this one some way down his list.
Sylvia Lagadu? Sylvia Lagadu?
Francis le Gresley? YES! He may be a lacklustre public speaker, but he is a doer and an organiser who has pulled his weight in his brief term as a Senator.
Darius Pearce? Colourful character and creative, original thinker. Sooner or later he will think of something I can approve, probably later. This time's idea is an abdication of responsibility and misses the point of representative democracy, however, so I shall not vote for him.
David Richardson? Clever and serious, but doesn't really communicate any clear strategic view. He certainly is not bottom of my list, but nor has he earned a place in my top four yet.
Stuart Syvret? My readers' favourite, and, in bygone years, the recipient of a few of my own votes. Still intelligent, articulate and an exceptionally talented public speaker. However, he is now conspicuously broken by his struggles,and his common sense, judgement and integrity have all crumbled to ashes. Vexatious litigation and poison-pen blogging are poor qualifications for high office, to my mind. Deserves twelfth place, but will probably come higher. Hopefully not in the top four, though.
Chris Whitworth? When I saw that he had declared, I thought that was another of my votes settled. Then, I saw the tongue-in-cheek tone of his campaign. Chris is a another clever and serious candidate, with a fine track record of serious work at the grass roots of Jersey politics. He is a bit uncharismatic, though, and lost badly for that in a previous campaign. This time he has overcompensated in his efforts to be seen as a colourful character and made himself look a lot sillier than those who know him think him to be. As I do know him, and have confidence in his ability, I should vote for him. On the other hand, he has campaigned badly, and a vote for him is probably wasted. So, there is a case for tactically voting for Linda Corby after all. She is rather unlikely to get in, either, but there is at least a remote chance of a shock result, which a few more votes would help towards, while poor Chris is now a lost cause in this election.
If you are content with the current States, and want more of the same, your choice is easy: Bailhache, Cohen, Gorst and Farnham. All competent to play their parts in effectively continuing to deliver the same old failing right-wing agenda.
However, politics is about moral values, as well as competence. If you are reading this, you probably are not particularly keen on right-wing moral values. Thus, while you may prefer the above to the utterly clueless people who occasionally stumble into elections, you may join me in wishing for some capable people with a centre or even left-wing value system. Now let us try and find four of those on the ballot paper.
Rose Colley? Rather ambiguous, as political lawyers often are. Her background suggests a social conscience, and she seems to say the right things. On the other hand, her proposers were as establishment as you can get. Was she using them, or is she really one of them, and making a misleading election pitch. Given the alternatives, I think I shall take a chance on the former being true, and vote for her, but I am not without doubts.
Linda Corby? I know her personally, and she is an entertaining raconteuse who has led a colourful life, as she tells it. She will bring passion and commitment, and will not be pressured into shutting up when there are whistles to be blown. I fear she would be out of her depth on policy, though. If you are sure there will be another right-wing landslide, then she is at least cut out for being a fierce backbench watchdog, and you may want to vote for her to take that role. I want an alternative government, though, not more snipers, so I don't think she is for me.
Mark Forskitt? YES! Political experience in a bigger jurisdiction, a firm grasp of both local and global issues, and rather better credentials than Syvret to take a stand on the child care problem, despite a balanced view of priorities that push this one some way down his list.
Sylvia Lagadu? Sylvia Lagadu?
Francis le Gresley? YES! He may be a lacklustre public speaker, but he is a doer and an organiser who has pulled his weight in his brief term as a Senator.
Darius Pearce? Colourful character and creative, original thinker. Sooner or later he will think of something I can approve, probably later. This time's idea is an abdication of responsibility and misses the point of representative democracy, however, so I shall not vote for him.
David Richardson? Clever and serious, but doesn't really communicate any clear strategic view. He certainly is not bottom of my list, but nor has he earned a place in my top four yet.
Stuart Syvret? My readers' favourite, and, in bygone years, the recipient of a few of my own votes. Still intelligent, articulate and an exceptionally talented public speaker. However, he is now conspicuously broken by his struggles,and his common sense, judgement and integrity have all crumbled to ashes. Vexatious litigation and poison-pen blogging are poor qualifications for high office, to my mind. Deserves twelfth place, but will probably come higher. Hopefully not in the top four, though.
Chris Whitworth? When I saw that he had declared, I thought that was another of my votes settled. Then, I saw the tongue-in-cheek tone of his campaign. Chris is a another clever and serious candidate, with a fine track record of serious work at the grass roots of Jersey politics. He is a bit uncharismatic, though, and lost badly for that in a previous campaign. This time he has overcompensated in his efforts to be seen as a colourful character and made himself look a lot sillier than those who know him think him to be. As I do know him, and have confidence in his ability, I should vote for him. On the other hand, he has campaigned badly, and a vote for him is probably wasted. So, there is a case for tactically voting for Linda Corby after all. She is rather unlikely to get in, either, but there is at least a remote chance of a shock result, which a few more votes would help towards, while poor Chris is now a lost cause in this election.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Mark Forskitt For Senator
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Big Trev's Back Online
Deputy Trevor Pitman, formerly the main author of this blog, now has his own blog page. See The Bald Truth in the links box on the left.
By the way, Dave Rotherham, the other main writer of JDACMB is now using his own blog page, Ugh, it's him! for all new material, too. Link in same box.
By the way, Dave Rotherham, the other main writer of JDACMB is now using his own blog page, Ugh, it's him! for all new material, too. Link in same box.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Notice
Emille’s Funeral will be held on Wednesday at 10.45 am at the Crematorium followed by a meeting at the Old Magistrates Court (back of Town Hall) from 1145am.Family, friends and former colleagues are welcome to attend.
By voiceforchildren
By voiceforchildren
Monday, January 17, 2011
Interesting Meeting Next Week
The famous or infamous, according to your perspective, economist Richard Murphy will be in Jersey for a public meeting on the topic “Jersey – Let finance work for you” at Hautlieu on 24th January at 7pm. He is looking forward to debating with his critics, as well as meeting his supporters, so it should be a lively and interesting meeting, wherever your own standpoint is.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Facing It!
Facing what? that this blog is to all practical intents and purposes defunct, that's what.
None of the numerous people whom I invited to keep or start contributing, when we hived this off from the JDA have submitted anything since, and I already have a personal blog I sporadically use anyway for my own articles.
I am not going to delete this one, and, with 2011 being an election year, I might start getting some submissions yet. However, I cannot see where any new material would come from at present, so I am leaving it up merely as an archive of the live stuff there was in the past.
Thank you for having been readers, and for commenting, if you did.
goodbye
David Rotherham
None of the numerous people whom I invited to keep or start contributing, when we hived this off from the JDA have submitted anything since, and I already have a personal blog I sporadically use anyway for my own articles.
I am not going to delete this one, and, with 2011 being an election year, I might start getting some submissions yet. However, I cannot see where any new material would come from at present, so I am leaving it up merely as an archive of the live stuff there was in the past.
Thank you for having been readers, and for commenting, if you did.
goodbye
David Rotherham
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
JRA Apology
Thank you to those who came to The Peirson tonight. We owe you all our apology for not considering that Deputy Power might be taken too ill to even cancel, and so not checking he was still coming 24 hours previously. We hope you enjoyed your social drink sufficiently to be a reasonable compensation for our failure to deliver the promised event.
David Rotherham
David Rotherham
Sunday, November 21, 2010
2 Meetings
The Jersey Rights Association will have its AGM at the Peirson 7.30pm, Tuesday 23rd Nov, guests welcome, followed by a public talk by Deputy Sean Power on Housing Issues at 8.30. All welcome.
The Jersey Human Rights Group will hold its AGM at 5.30 on Mon 29th Nov. Meet in Royal Square beforehand for escorted access to States Building.
The Jersey Human Rights Group will hold its AGM at 5.30 on Mon 29th Nov. Meet in Royal Square beforehand for escorted access to States Building.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Disclaimer
Word has reached me that personal opinions expressed by myself in my own name are being attributed by some to former colleagues in a party that none of us are in any more.
No postings on here, nor letters to the JEP, signed by myself alone have been anything other than my own individual work, not discussed with, let alone approved by any other person.
It is an injustice to blame anyone else for opinions of mine, when I have no idea whether they share or disagree with my view, and they may not have even seen my pieces. Conversely, I am nobody else's puppet or mouthpiece.
David Rotherham
No postings on here, nor letters to the JEP, signed by myself alone have been anything other than my own individual work, not discussed with, let alone approved by any other person.
It is an injustice to blame anyone else for opinions of mine, when I have no idea whether they share or disagree with my view, and they may not have even seen my pieces. Conversely, I am nobody else's puppet or mouthpiece.
David Rotherham
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Just an "Accident" of Timing, of Course.
Autumn: As work gets quieter for me and schoolwork ties up more of my family's time, I can soon spare some time for all these consultations we keep getting offered. And what do you know - I am too late for all the juicy ones I would have liked to have contributed to - Island Plan, Taxes, Crown Officers. I wonder; is Summer actually the best time for most people to examine these things, and my own life out of sync, or has there been a little sleight of hand to reduce the number of people inconveniencing the government with their opinions?
Any thoughts, anybody?
David Rotherham
Any thoughts, anybody?
David Rotherham
Friday, August 27, 2010
Anyone for a Bring-A-Policy Party?
When I was a much younger man, I sometimes went to the kind of party where lots of young adults arrived bringing various kinds of alcohol, which went on the table for each to help themselves to whatever selection they fancied, from whatever had been brought.
The other day, suffering a less physical kind of hangover from too much time in a very different sort of party, I was musing on the contrast between the two meanings of the word. It suddenly occurred to me that the model of the Bring-A-Bottle drinks party could actually be viably applied to creating some kind of political coalition of independents in a culture of no conventional parties.
My idea was that politicians and potential candidates of broadly similar views pool their manifesto ideas. But, instead of a conventional party process of whittling down the differences to come up with a single party line for all to follow, each area of policy would have a series of numbered alternative manifesto proposals or positions, being all the items any of the participants submitted on that topic. Then, when all items were submitted and collated, each participant would select their own favourite item numbers, be they their own work or another's. The scheme collator could then paste the chosen items into a standard format with the candidate's personal details and colours.
The result would be a display of obvious unity and mutual assistance, and yet, importantly, nobody would be having to compromise any principles, nor sacrifice any independence, to toe a party line.
The next step will be to sound out possible invitees: Too few takers would mean too little substance to be worth the bother. But, what do our readers think? Would you be happier voting for somebody who has collaborated with others in developing their strongest possible manifesto, or somebody who has done all their own work, for better or worse? Comments, please.
David Rotherham
The other day, suffering a less physical kind of hangover from too much time in a very different sort of party, I was musing on the contrast between the two meanings of the word. It suddenly occurred to me that the model of the Bring-A-Bottle drinks party could actually be viably applied to creating some kind of political coalition of independents in a culture of no conventional parties.
My idea was that politicians and potential candidates of broadly similar views pool their manifesto ideas. But, instead of a conventional party process of whittling down the differences to come up with a single party line for all to follow, each area of policy would have a series of numbered alternative manifesto proposals or positions, being all the items any of the participants submitted on that topic. Then, when all items were submitted and collated, each participant would select their own favourite item numbers, be they their own work or another's. The scheme collator could then paste the chosen items into a standard format with the candidate's personal details and colours.
The result would be a display of obvious unity and mutual assistance, and yet, importantly, nobody would be having to compromise any principles, nor sacrifice any independence, to toe a party line.
The next step will be to sound out possible invitees: Too few takers would mean too little substance to be worth the bother. But, what do our readers think? Would you be happier voting for somebody who has collaborated with others in developing their strongest possible manifesto, or somebody who has done all their own work, for better or worse? Comments, please.
David Rotherham
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Nothing More To Say
As promised, we have now published our definitive statement on our departure. This press release, from 10pm, 15th August, is as much as we wish to say on the subject. Now we shall move on.
"In the light of the press release of Friday 13th August from the JDA Honorary President we believe it to be necessary to clarify the following:
Due to a growing difference of opinion between leading JDA members regarding issues of strategy and political direction all JDA Council Members and the party’s membership were contacted on the 11th August to advise them that JDA Deputy Chairman, David Rotherham, Deputies Trevor and Shona Pitman and Deputy Debbie De Sousa were resigning from the JDA as of this date.
Though this was a difficult and painful decision to make given the number of years of blood, sweat and tears that we have given to developing the JDA, we took this decision in the hope of preventing irreconcilable differences developing into, or being spun as an acrimonious public quarrel. To this regard we intended putting out only the briefest of statements to the media.
All four of us believe passionately that to ultimately bring about the change our island so desperately needs, we have to engage a wider cross-section of Jersey’s ordinary working people in line with our centre-left political principles; as opposed to allowing ourselves to be wrongly portrayed as representing the interests of only a certain section of society.
Unfortunately, even in the light of the Honorary President’s surprising press release we perceive this narrow base to be the current direction of the JDA pursued by a minority Council. This is simply not the political ideology that we signed up to when we joined, and is not what we have worked so hard for. It is also certainly not true of the diverse constituent base that Deputies S. Pitman, T. Pitman and De Sousa all work with on a day-to-day basis.
Nevertheless, though existing on a number of levels it is fair to say that these internal differences have been brought to a head by two key events. The first of these was the split decision to support the JDA standing a sitting States Member, Deputy Geoff Southern, in the recent Senatorial by-election; a decision driven through even though it was clearly apparent to a number of us that this would be a politically muddy campaign where a skewed and split vote was inevitable.
The second has been the recent press release and media interviews given by Deputy Southern regarding the union alternatives to the Council of Ministers proposals on taxation and cut backs. Whilst it must be reiterated here that we are all wholly committed to recognition of modern Trade Unions as an essential check and balance to ensure industrial best practice, the fact is that neither the proposals nor our stated collective support for them was discussed with or agreed with us or any other JDA Council Member beforehand. This we find wholly unacceptable.
Viewed in the current wider political perspective we have thus come to the conclusion that for the immediate future the best way forward to achieving positive change is via way of a political coalition with other similarly minded States Members; and, indeed, like-wise motivated individuals outside of the States - a coalition where all members are willing to sign up to, and work together to achieve a small number of clearly defined principles. Having already been involved in such initiatives this is what we will now be striving to do.
A constituted ‘party’ on the other hand, as put forward in the JDA Honorary President’s press release with people of both left and right political leanings brought and held together only by a desire for reform we simply do not believe can work and is something we will not be involved in. We nevertheless wish all our former colleagues in the JDA the best of luck in their endeavours for the future. Whilst we can no longer agree on the path forward we fully recognise that they too want only the best for the working people who are the backbone of Jersey’s success; and who, indeed, make Jersey the special place that it is.
We shall not be making any further comment.
David Rotherham (Deputy Chairman) Deputy Shona Pitman
Deputy Trevor Pitman Deputy Debbie De Sousa"
"In the light of the press release of Friday 13th August from the JDA Honorary President we believe it to be necessary to clarify the following:
Due to a growing difference of opinion between leading JDA members regarding issues of strategy and political direction all JDA Council Members and the party’s membership were contacted on the 11th August to advise them that JDA Deputy Chairman, David Rotherham, Deputies Trevor and Shona Pitman and Deputy Debbie De Sousa were resigning from the JDA as of this date.
Though this was a difficult and painful decision to make given the number of years of blood, sweat and tears that we have given to developing the JDA, we took this decision in the hope of preventing irreconcilable differences developing into, or being spun as an acrimonious public quarrel. To this regard we intended putting out only the briefest of statements to the media.
All four of us believe passionately that to ultimately bring about the change our island so desperately needs, we have to engage a wider cross-section of Jersey’s ordinary working people in line with our centre-left political principles; as opposed to allowing ourselves to be wrongly portrayed as representing the interests of only a certain section of society.
Unfortunately, even in the light of the Honorary President’s surprising press release we perceive this narrow base to be the current direction of the JDA pursued by a minority Council. This is simply not the political ideology that we signed up to when we joined, and is not what we have worked so hard for. It is also certainly not true of the diverse constituent base that Deputies S. Pitman, T. Pitman and De Sousa all work with on a day-to-day basis.
Nevertheless, though existing on a number of levels it is fair to say that these internal differences have been brought to a head by two key events. The first of these was the split decision to support the JDA standing a sitting States Member, Deputy Geoff Southern, in the recent Senatorial by-election; a decision driven through even though it was clearly apparent to a number of us that this would be a politically muddy campaign where a skewed and split vote was inevitable.
The second has been the recent press release and media interviews given by Deputy Southern regarding the union alternatives to the Council of Ministers proposals on taxation and cut backs. Whilst it must be reiterated here that we are all wholly committed to recognition of modern Trade Unions as an essential check and balance to ensure industrial best practice, the fact is that neither the proposals nor our stated collective support for them was discussed with or agreed with us or any other JDA Council Member beforehand. This we find wholly unacceptable.
Viewed in the current wider political perspective we have thus come to the conclusion that for the immediate future the best way forward to achieving positive change is via way of a political coalition with other similarly minded States Members; and, indeed, like-wise motivated individuals outside of the States - a coalition where all members are willing to sign up to, and work together to achieve a small number of clearly defined principles. Having already been involved in such initiatives this is what we will now be striving to do.
A constituted ‘party’ on the other hand, as put forward in the JDA Honorary President’s press release with people of both left and right political leanings brought and held together only by a desire for reform we simply do not believe can work and is something we will not be involved in. We nevertheless wish all our former colleagues in the JDA the best of luck in their endeavours for the future. Whilst we can no longer agree on the path forward we fully recognise that they too want only the best for the working people who are the backbone of Jersey’s success; and who, indeed, make Jersey the special place that it is.
We shall not be making any further comment.
David Rotherham (Deputy Chairman) Deputy Shona Pitman
Deputy Trevor Pitman Deputy Debbie De Sousa"
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
New Package, Same Goods
As hinted at recently, the main author of this blog left the JDA today, and I am taking the blog with me. So, I have contrived something else to fit the initials JDACMB and renamed it. Without the JDA link, we can accept copy from anybody, if it is suitable. Breaking down the email to avoid spambots, I have an account at the ".co.uk" domain of "yahoo" in the name of "cdrotherham", that you can send submissions to.
The comment policy will continue to be that, you may disagree with us, but you may not be grossly offensive.
We hope that you will continue to read.
David Rotherham
The comment policy will continue to be that, you may disagree with us, but you may not be grossly offensive.
We hope that you will continue to read.
David Rotherham
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Reader Feedback Needed Urgently
As Ted and Geoff prepare their new team for their 2011 campaign, so some of the longer serving JDA Council Members will be standing down from it very shortly. Including most of the contributors to this blog.
So, we could go two ways, depending on public demand:
The default, if we don't get significant demand for the other option, will be to rebrand this blog, keeping these authors, and launch a new JDA Council blog, with a new URL, for the new Council.
The alternative is that the current authors simply walk away from this one, and our current readers go look for us elsewhere on the web. So this URL remains the JDA Council's.
Tell us now, if you care which we do.
So, we could go two ways, depending on public demand:
The default, if we don't get significant demand for the other option, will be to rebrand this blog, keeping these authors, and launch a new JDA Council blog, with a new URL, for the new Council.
The alternative is that the current authors simply walk away from this one, and our current readers go look for us elsewhere on the web. So this URL remains the JDA Council's.
Tell us now, if you care which we do.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
NAPIER – WHEN WILL WE GET IT AND WILL WE GET IT ALL?
Outlined below is a written question (with answer) I asked at the last States sitting with regard to the ridiculously overdue ‘Napier Report’. The question is a straight-forward one and needs comparatively little explanation. I post it now only in the light of the latest saga encountered in trying to finally get the author’s long-overdue findings into the public arena.
As some readers will have heard by now this latest delay is being put down to the sending of official letters to a number of key players in the suspension of the former Chief Police Officer. These letters are known in the trade as ‘Scott letters’. When utilised they are meant to provide a last chance for any individual about to be criticised, and possibly even face disciplinary proceedings, as a result of aspects of their conduct to attempt to explain or justify this.
At least that is how it works in the UK. The process is not meant to be a means of manipulating the findings of a report in order that potentially embarrassing elements of those findings might then be watered down or be kept out of the public arena. Will this same above board process be carried out here in Jersey? Just consider the answer to my question below for a moment:
“it (the report) will be published in full.”
Even long overdue, a clearer promise one could surely not get, and I hope that it ultimately proves to be adhered to. However, whilst not only have politicians subsequently been unable to get an answer to the question of when exactly did the Chief Minister and the senior civil servant at his department receive a copy of the report, I also have it from a pretty reliable source that attempts will be made to keep certain key details likely to lead to disciplinary measures confidential.
And this simply can’t be right.
One good thing about having focussed so much on what was obviously a deeply flawed process surrounding the suspension of the Chief Police Officer as I did has been that – and in stark contrast to the Home Affairs |Minister’s temper tantrum in the States last month I can’t help but point out – I knew that I for one would not be eating the Minister’s much-vaunted ‘humble pie’. The process and its handling has, after all, been a total shambles. This is I’m afraid cold, hard fact no matter how much he might try to deny it.
Not least in the simultaneous use of material meant specifically for a full disciplinary procedure whilst all disciplinary measures were in fact unceremoniously dropped. Indeed, if one is to go by the inconsistent statements from the Home Affairs Minister between Scrutiny hearings and the States Assembly itself suggest most likely were never genuinely to be pursued at all?
Now, while I believe that all must be accountable for their actions if things don’t go as they should, criticism of the Chief Police Officer’s failings have been played out in full view of the public – some might say to overkill by certain sections of the media – yet this has been done, as I say, without the proper full and fair disciplinary process that both the individual at the centre of it all and we, the taxpaying public, should have been able to expect to be certain no stone was left unturned.
Could it really consequently be right if some of the equally significant failings – I can say no more than that right now – of some of those deeply involved in the very same process are allowed to be hidden away by means of a quickly cobbled together excuse of ‘confidentiality’; likewise the outcome of any resultant disciplinary action?
The answer has to be 100% that it is not. Neither will the presentation to politicians and the public of a report ‘redacted’ until it is only 30% of the original text; 10% of the overall material - thus removing the bulk substance of the issues at hand. Will such a ploy be attempted? With the Chief Minister apparently now back from a break it is high time he laid any such concerns to rest. Maybe he will even let us know if the now retired former Chief Police Officer got the offer of the Scott letter process…
Written Question to the Chief Minister 22nd July 2010
'Will the Chief Minister clarify the full reasons as to why the report into the issues surrounding the suspension process of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police - promised to the Assembly to be completed in six weeks - has instead not been completed prior to the announcement that all disciplinary measures were to be dropped; further still, when will this report be completed and made available in full to all States Members?'
Answer
The original timescale for the completion of the independent review into the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police was six weeks as stated in the Deputy’s question. Unfortunately, due to difficulties in arranging convenient dates for interviews and travel disruptions caused by the Icelandic volcanic ash cloud, it was not possible to complete the interview process with one of the key witnesses during the Mr Napier’s first visit to Jersey. A second visit had to be arranged to that suited both people.
All of the interviews were completed by 9th June 2010 and I am awaiting the final report. Unfortunately, due to other work commitments, Mr Napier was unable to complete his final report immediately after the interview process was complete.
I have been advised by Mr Napier, that he is currently writing his final report which should be completed by the end of July. Once the report has been issued and all parties concerned have had the opportunity to consider any findings, it will be published in full.
As some readers will have heard by now this latest delay is being put down to the sending of official letters to a number of key players in the suspension of the former Chief Police Officer. These letters are known in the trade as ‘Scott letters’. When utilised they are meant to provide a last chance for any individual about to be criticised, and possibly even face disciplinary proceedings, as a result of aspects of their conduct to attempt to explain or justify this.
At least that is how it works in the UK. The process is not meant to be a means of manipulating the findings of a report in order that potentially embarrassing elements of those findings might then be watered down or be kept out of the public arena. Will this same above board process be carried out here in Jersey? Just consider the answer to my question below for a moment:
“it (the report) will be published in full.”
Even long overdue, a clearer promise one could surely not get, and I hope that it ultimately proves to be adhered to. However, whilst not only have politicians subsequently been unable to get an answer to the question of when exactly did the Chief Minister and the senior civil servant at his department receive a copy of the report, I also have it from a pretty reliable source that attempts will be made to keep certain key details likely to lead to disciplinary measures confidential.
And this simply can’t be right.
One good thing about having focussed so much on what was obviously a deeply flawed process surrounding the suspension of the Chief Police Officer as I did has been that – and in stark contrast to the Home Affairs |Minister’s temper tantrum in the States last month I can’t help but point out – I knew that I for one would not be eating the Minister’s much-vaunted ‘humble pie’. The process and its handling has, after all, been a total shambles. This is I’m afraid cold, hard fact no matter how much he might try to deny it.
Not least in the simultaneous use of material meant specifically for a full disciplinary procedure whilst all disciplinary measures were in fact unceremoniously dropped. Indeed, if one is to go by the inconsistent statements from the Home Affairs Minister between Scrutiny hearings and the States Assembly itself suggest most likely were never genuinely to be pursued at all?
Now, while I believe that all must be accountable for their actions if things don’t go as they should, criticism of the Chief Police Officer’s failings have been played out in full view of the public – some might say to overkill by certain sections of the media – yet this has been done, as I say, without the proper full and fair disciplinary process that both the individual at the centre of it all and we, the taxpaying public, should have been able to expect to be certain no stone was left unturned.
Could it really consequently be right if some of the equally significant failings – I can say no more than that right now – of some of those deeply involved in the very same process are allowed to be hidden away by means of a quickly cobbled together excuse of ‘confidentiality’; likewise the outcome of any resultant disciplinary action?
The answer has to be 100% that it is not. Neither will the presentation to politicians and the public of a report ‘redacted’ until it is only 30% of the original text; 10% of the overall material - thus removing the bulk substance of the issues at hand. Will such a ploy be attempted? With the Chief Minister apparently now back from a break it is high time he laid any such concerns to rest. Maybe he will even let us know if the now retired former Chief Police Officer got the offer of the Scott letter process…
Written Question to the Chief Minister 22nd July 2010
'Will the Chief Minister clarify the full reasons as to why the report into the issues surrounding the suspension process of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police - promised to the Assembly to be completed in six weeks - has instead not been completed prior to the announcement that all disciplinary measures were to be dropped; further still, when will this report be completed and made available in full to all States Members?'
Answer
The original timescale for the completion of the independent review into the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police was six weeks as stated in the Deputy’s question. Unfortunately, due to difficulties in arranging convenient dates for interviews and travel disruptions caused by the Icelandic volcanic ash cloud, it was not possible to complete the interview process with one of the key witnesses during the Mr Napier’s first visit to Jersey. A second visit had to be arranged to that suited both people.
All of the interviews were completed by 9th June 2010 and I am awaiting the final report. Unfortunately, due to other work commitments, Mr Napier was unable to complete his final report immediately after the interview process was complete.
I have been advised by Mr Napier, that he is currently writing his final report which should be completed by the end of July. Once the report has been issued and all parties concerned have had the opportunity to consider any findings, it will be published in full.
Friday, July 9, 2010
The Wiltshire Report. And Yet Another Abuse of Process
Here are two self-explanatory open emails to Senators le Sueur and le Marquand, from Trevor and Shona Pitman. Even to the bitter end, any substantial fault there may or may not have been on Chief Constable Power's part continues to be overshadowed by ongoing abuses of process by the Home Affairs and Chief Minister's Departments.
"Dear Terry/Ian
Please could you tell us all, why the Wiltshire Report has been sent to the media (embargoed) before Members of Government. Please tell us why this happens so often - the COM are always telling us that 'it won't happen again', but it always does. It shows nothing but disrespect and contempt for your colleagues. Also, could you tell us if this is the full report.
Once again, a hugely important piece of information and States Members (or non-exec Members) are left out. Can we have some answers.
shona"
"Ian & Terry
Just to follow this up from Deputy Shona Pitman. Please could you tell us why you feel it acceptable or necessary that the Media should be given this document (much redacted of course) to go over for three days longer than States Members? That it is embargoed for reporting is irrelevant.
With several hundred pages wouldn't it be far better for all involved if the rest of us States Members were given time to digest this and come up with appropriately informed, searching questions for the presentation? Perhaps not, eh...
Could you also tell us all why I only found out about this issuing of the document through a media contact?
Could you also tell us why, even as a States Member, upon inquiry I was initially fobbed off that nobody knew if the media were getting copies - when it was quite clear from my earlier inquiries that ten lovely shiny new copies hot off the press had winged their way to the Chief Ministers Department this Friday afternoon?
Why I was eventually told by the Deputy CEO that it was simply all down to a problem with the printing, and you were hoping to send everything out but couldn't because of the rush with the Business Plan.
But then told I still couldn't - as a States Member - have one even if I drove down that minute and saved the taxpayer the postage? Where was the inconvenience - I could have picked mine up along with Channel, BBC, 103 and the JEP!
Finally, as per Shona's e-mail, please tell all of us, right, left, centre and greens amongst us - what kind of 'government' deems it correct or conducive to the development of 'inclusive' government to send out such a hugely important document to journalists before other elected members of that government?
Actually, don't bother answering the last one - I will do that for you. It is the kind of government that time and time again treats non-executive members with utter contempt; a COM so arrogant and bloated with self importance that it just doesn't care about acting in this fashion; it is the sort of COM for which the first priority is always to spin the angle they want the public to buy.
Out of interest will States Members also be issued with the full details of the complaint the IPCC instructed the MET to investigate reference alleged evidence and witnesses that the authors of the report would not incorporate? Having no axe to grind for anyone but purely being interested in fairness and transparency as I am I am certain you will make sure that this is done...
Just for the record, Ian made mention of people eating 'humble pie' in the States this week. Though I wasn't referred to as one of them, fact is that as I have focussed all my questions on the truly appalling handling of this incredibly flawed suspension process from start to finish - I have already been proven right a 100 times over. This latest shambles really puts the icing on the cake.
I now just can't wait to hear first-hand about the senior civil servant who wasn't involved in any way in receiving illegal police reports on the backgrounds of States Members...
[Trevor]"
"Dear Terry/Ian
Please could you tell us all, why the Wiltshire Report has been sent to the media (embargoed) before Members of Government. Please tell us why this happens so often - the COM are always telling us that 'it won't happen again', but it always does. It shows nothing but disrespect and contempt for your colleagues. Also, could you tell us if this is the full report.
Once again, a hugely important piece of information and States Members (or non-exec Members) are left out. Can we have some answers.
shona"
"Ian & Terry
Just to follow this up from Deputy Shona Pitman. Please could you tell us why you feel it acceptable or necessary that the Media should be given this document (much redacted of course) to go over for three days longer than States Members? That it is embargoed for reporting is irrelevant.
With several hundred pages wouldn't it be far better for all involved if the rest of us States Members were given time to digest this and come up with appropriately informed, searching questions for the presentation? Perhaps not, eh...
Could you also tell us all why I only found out about this issuing of the document through a media contact?
Could you also tell us why, even as a States Member, upon inquiry I was initially fobbed off that nobody knew if the media were getting copies - when it was quite clear from my earlier inquiries that ten lovely shiny new copies hot off the press had winged their way to the Chief Ministers Department this Friday afternoon?
Why I was eventually told by the Deputy CEO that it was simply all down to a problem with the printing, and you were hoping to send everything out but couldn't because of the rush with the Business Plan.
But then told I still couldn't - as a States Member - have one even if I drove down that minute and saved the taxpayer the postage? Where was the inconvenience - I could have picked mine up along with Channel, BBC, 103 and the JEP!
Finally, as per Shona's e-mail, please tell all of us, right, left, centre and greens amongst us - what kind of 'government' deems it correct or conducive to the development of 'inclusive' government to send out such a hugely important document to journalists before other elected members of that government?
Actually, don't bother answering the last one - I will do that for you. It is the kind of government that time and time again treats non-executive members with utter contempt; a COM so arrogant and bloated with self importance that it just doesn't care about acting in this fashion; it is the sort of COM for which the first priority is always to spin the angle they want the public to buy.
Out of interest will States Members also be issued with the full details of the complaint the IPCC instructed the MET to investigate reference alleged evidence and witnesses that the authors of the report would not incorporate? Having no axe to grind for anyone but purely being interested in fairness and transparency as I am I am certain you will make sure that this is done...
Just for the record, Ian made mention of people eating 'humble pie' in the States this week. Though I wasn't referred to as one of them, fact is that as I have focussed all my questions on the truly appalling handling of this incredibly flawed suspension process from start to finish - I have already been proven right a 100 times over. This latest shambles really puts the icing on the cake.
I now just can't wait to hear first-hand about the senior civil servant who wasn't involved in any way in receiving illegal police reports on the backgrounds of States Members...
[Trevor]"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)