JDA LAUNCHES JUSTICE FUND

The JDA today announces the launch of a “Fund for Justice”.

We have received many calls and letters from supporters and others who are shocked by the punitive and disproportionate level of the penalties imposed by the Royal Court on the two JDA deputies, Shona Pitman and Geoff Southern for breaching the notorious Article 39A of the Elections Law, .

This law, which exists nowhere else in the world, prevents those who need help to apply for a postal vote from receiving such help from a candidate for election. We believe it is an attack on the democratic process, and a breach of the human rights to protection from discrimination and to participate fully in free and fair elections.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of those who have offered to help at this critical point in the development of our democracy and I invite those who wish to make a contribution towards meeting the £12,000 court fines and £10,000 legal costs.

Donations should be sent to JDA Treasurer, 8 Winchester Street, St Helier. Cheques should be made payable to “JDA Fund for Justice”.

Further information: Christine Papworth: 07797 788603

Christine Papworth, JDA chairperson

Conscience is the best moral compass

The Law is supposed to be our guide and rule in all that we do. Two fundamental maxims are "Be you ever so high, the Law is above you." and "Ignorance of the Law is no defence."
In practice, though, it is not a lot of use for determining most of our behaviour. Which all too easily leads to a reckless disregard of it, even when it does provide a clear and pertinent guide to what should, or more often should not be done.

It does not help to keep the Rule of Law in good repute, when the first maxim above is widely seen to be interpreted by the authorities as "Be you high enough, the Law will ignore you." Even so, statute common and customary laws are full of conflicts and contradictions. These are sometimes resolved at a high level by judgements on points of law. It is interesting to note, however, that until the definitive judgements, learned lawyers and, sometimes, even more learned judges insist that the true meaning of the law was otherwise. If they cannot get it right, until they see the judgement in front of them, what hope has the ordinary lay person?

Of course, and very relevant to a Jersey context, some people need to earn their livings by taking great care to go through all the motions of obeying the letter of the law, without regard to its purpose or spirit. Once one travels in a direction not indicated by one’s moral compass, the Law is all that remains to distinguish the shrewd from the crooked. But, in quotidien life it is not practical to seek expert legal opinion for one’s every deed. Thus, one must rely on conscience to be one’s guide.

Most of the time, and for most people, law and conscience coincide anyway. Even professional thieves usually know that they are doing wrong to steal, they just don’t let that stop them. On the other hand, there are many more occasions when even quite reasonable actions fall outside the letter of the law. It takes an evil mixture of shamelessness and arrogance to drive at 5mph over the speed limit through a busy town centre, with a mobile phone wedged against one’s ear. In contrast, to drive at 25mph over the limit on a straight and empty country road, giving it one’s full attention, is not going to matter to anybody except a bored policeman with a radar gun. It is still just as illegal, though, and likely to be more heavily punished. If one is not caught though, one is hardly going to be stricken with remorse.

Once in a while, a law comes to be passed that is far more of an outrage than whatever it is intended to curtail. This is a tough dilemma for those who would be both righteous and law-abiding. If the penalty is sufficiently deterrent, then one will feel compelled to comply with the law, and absolve one’s conscience by holding the law responsible for one’s behaviour. If the penalty is bearable, however, taking a chance on being caught doing the right thing is not so much a temptation as a moral obligation.

A curious concept that has been bandied about, locally and recently, is that the disrespect for the Law implicit in its breach is a further aggravation in itself. This idea has been applied to giving unauthorised assistance to pensioners with difficult paperwork, a triviality attracting five-figure fines. The weakness of this idea can be illustrated by simply imagining its general application: Parking on a yellow line - £50, Disrespecting the Traffic Law - £5,000; Shoplifting a chocolate bar - £75, Disrespecting the Theft Law - £10,000; Robbery with violence - 3 years, Disrespecting the Theft Law - Life without parole in solitary confinement. No, this one is just silly. The penalty for a breach of the law should sufficient to deter the breach, but it also must be proportionate to the offence itself, and to inflate it because the offence is an offence is an absurd injustice.

All anyone can realistically do is to live their lives as well as they can, and just hope not to trip over the Law anywhere. However much one may wish to be law-abiding, the complexity and nebulosity of the law makes it a vain pursuit in the long run.

David Rotherham

Justice seen to be done (choose own punctuation:- "!"/ "?")

21st May
I’m sure that JDA supporters are shocked at the harshness of the fines imposed on Geoff and Shona in their court case, and disgusted with the coverage the JEP gave to Rod (bad loser) Bryans enabling him to express extreme views, in addition to their unsympathetic editorial.

Their fines could not have been heavier if they had engaged in the bribery, fraud and interference with the ballot that some have inaccurately accused them of. Even if you take the view that as they broke the law and needed to be punished, these fines are outrageous for hard-working deputies who have no means other than their States Members’ pay. Moreover, any unbiased person who attended the hearing could not fail to be shocked by the evidence that was presented about the course of the debate that led to the introduction of this law. Many States members were of the opinion that helping someone to complete an application form constituted interference with the ballot, and others seemed to think that this law would bring them into line with the UK when in fact no such law exists in any other Commonwealth country. Even if this was not a deliberate device to nobble Shona and Geoff, it does seem that the IQs and comprehension skills of some States Members fall short of what one would wish.

Meanwhile, I’m sure that Shona and Geoff would like to thank all those who have sent messages of support at this difficult time.

Athena

Sympathy and Hope

Tuesday, 19th May

It was heartening to see that at the recent AGM, members were sympathetic to Geoff and Shona, who are facing sentencing for breaking the electoral law tomorrow. They appreciate that they were giving much needed help to people to encourage or enable them to vote. And yet the JEP still snipe at them when the question of States Members behaviour is mentioned to the point where it is hard to see that they will receive a fair trial. Current behaviour by MPs in the UK should put this into perspective. Geoff and Shona have not acted to feather their own nests, and have not been guilty of deceit any more than they are guilty of self-serving. Some may say that they have unfairly tried to gain votes, but is it wrong for them to help obtain a vote for the very people who would have most to gain from having them as States Members: the over-worked, the housebound and the vulnerable? Wasn’t the law introduced to discourage such people from voting so the establishment candidates could triumph? So please give kind thoughts to Geoff and Shona who will face the ordeal of the Royal Court tomorrow and hope that the powers that be will be lenient.

Athena

The Wrong Way to Fill a Black Hole

I see today that there is to be another taxation Black Hole. Let us hope that in filling it Terry will look to those who are most able to pay in order to fill it. I fear he won’t because of the sacred cow of not raising the 20% tax rate and the fear that the wealthy, being mobile, will leave. Has he not noticed that the most mobile in our society, who are leaving because they simply can’t afford to live here, are those young professionals – from trainee accountants to nurses – not yet on the housing ladder, that we desperately need. Low and middle earners are suffering from 20 means 20 on top of the burden of GST on essentials, and I know several who are planning to leave. Of course the zero/ten policy could be re-examined, but that seems also to have sacred cow status.

This brings me to the plan to freeze public servants’ pay. It always seems to be a popular measure because of the conception of public servants as highly paid fat cats pushing bits of paper around. The reality is that the bulk of them are teachers, doctors nurses, paramedics etc. who are increasingly in short supply. You may be told that there is no shortage of teachers, but whereas this may true in the primary sector, it is becoming increasingly difficult to recruit specialist secondary teachers. Posts are sometimes filled with applicants that are not ideal. This recruitment difficulty is exacerbated by the fact that pensions for new appointees are worse than in the UK, and conditions of working, especially in terms of lunch duties are worse than in the UK. It seems to me that Terry is being opportunistic in suggesting the pay freeze, and has not really thought through the consequences. There is no real need for the measure at the present time, as 2% has been allowed in departmental budgets. He is exploiting fears of unemployment and the fact that many in the finance sector are suffering pay freezes. Does this mean that when those in the finance sector are receiving whopping rises those in the public sector will too. You can bet your bottom dollar that they won’t. In times of inflation, public sector workers are expected to suffer lower than inflation pay rises in order to take the heat out of the economy. It seems only fair that now the economy needs thawing out, their income levels should be maintained in real terms. Perhaps there is a case for giving flat rate increases, as the lowest paid actually put all their income back into the economy ; the argument Terry uses for opposing this is that the lowest paid in the public sector are better off than those in the private sector. Is it reasonable to justify his actions by those of bad employers who pay starvation wages?

Athena

Not Yes-man enough for the Job?

Congratulations to Geoff for putting up such a good showing when standing for Health Minister. Many thought he gave a much better speech than Anne Pryke, but of course the Chief Minister’s choice prevailed. Once again Terry has not dared to have someone who is not a ‘yes’ person amongst his ministers. Interestingly the JEP Comment, while conceding that as a champion of the underdog Geoff would be suitable for the post, said that as a leading figure in the ‘opposition’ he did not seek consensus. But without opposition where is the need for consensus? At the moment we seem to have dictatorship rather than a drawing together of ideas. To quote William Blake ‘without contraries is no progression’.
Athena

An Undesirable Consequence of Zero-Ten

Deputy Geoff Southern has always been willing to stand up for public sector workers, where others see them as scapegoats and soft targets. So, it came as no surprise to me that he was arguing a case against freezing their pay in these troubled times this week.

On the other hand, I do not feel that it was quite as sharp a line of reasoning as I have come to expect from him. Indeed, restricting their spending power does keep that money out of the economy. However, that money has to be withdrawn from the economy by taxation in the first place, to be available to pay salaries with. At least as much, and probably more of the tax will be taken from local taxpayers as will be locally spent by the civil servants who are paid with it.

Before Zero-Ten, of course, we looked to raise as much tax as possible from overseas. In those days, States wages were an effective trickle-down mechanism for bringing that bounty into the local economy. However, the Zero-Ten proposal quite explicitly stated an intention that local residents should become the principal source of tax revenue, and set about slashing the take from those who use Jersey from afar without being genuinely part of our economy and community.

Geoff's ideas could become right again, if we could dismantle Zero-Ten. The catch being now, that it would be difficult to abandon it at this stage, without frightening away more business than we got back into the net. It does need to go in the medium term, but it will have to be whittled away in a subtle series of stealth taxes. Before that, though, we need to find another generation of political leaders as shrewd as those in the 60s, who saw that tax capture would bring us far more prosperity than just skimming what went round inside the island. The present Ministers don't seem to get that they are on an unsound path at present.

Dave Rotherham

Respect Young People

Amongst reports of escalating juvenile crime and disorderly behaviour, it is important to remember that the majority of our young people, even when congregating in large groups, are decent, polite and honest. Recently I walked past such a group, smiled and said ‘Hi’ and as I walked away heard them express amazement that a woman of mature years had treated them like human beings. The young people I know claim that they are constantly treated with a lack of respect.

I remember well how my son was treated as a teenager. He was well-behaved and reasonably law abiding, but suffered from being treated as a criminal by the police. Three cases spring to mind. Firstly he and his friends were told to move on when they stopped by a park bench with a friend who was suffering from an asthma attack. They were threatened with arrest if they stayed to help him. Secondly, he was threatened with arrest for urinating in a public place when merely taking a short cut through an alley that allegedly smelled of urine. Thirdly, he was breathalysed when acting as the designated driver for a group of friends, and when the test was negative, the policeman sneered nastily ‘Well I am surprised!’

The police may be faced with a difficult job, but they need to remember that this generation of teenagers will be tomorrow’s responsible citizens; my son is now a professional man with a life-long aversion to police officers.

Athena

Biased Press, Again.

27th April
How can the JEP justify printing a letter today, saying that if 2 members of the House of Lords are suspended for misconduct why aren’t Geoff and Shona also being suspended? The obvious reply is that a) they unlike members of the House of Lords have been democratically elected and b) they would argue that what they are being charged with is not ‘misconduct’ but a challenge to a law that is incompatible with human rights. But in any case, if the JEP refuses to print supportive letters (and it does) how can it be allowed to print unsupportive ones and allow columnists to make inaccurate and denigratory comments when the case is sub-judice. The JEP may publish apologies and corrections but the damage is done. The longer it takes for this case to finally be resolved, and it has dragged on for what, to a layman, seems an unacceptable long time, the more it seems that it will be impossible for them to receive a fair trial.

Athena

Tax Avoidance - Only for the Rich

TAX AVOIDANCE – ONLY FOR THE RICH

But of course Jersey has so many ways in which the rich can avoid tax. Yes, I know it’s legal, but is it moral? Gordon Brown wants to plug some loopholes. Should we? And in response to Clive Tomes’ letter of last night, I don’t consider claiming allowances to be avoidance – no Mr Tomes, that is called redistribution of wealth – something you doubtless don’t favour. In Jersey, the simplest way to avoid tax is to have a ‘roll up fund’. Simple, that is if you have tens of thousands to invest. In the UK you can have an ISA, and avoid paying tax on the interest of up to £10 000. Isn’t it time we did more to encourage saving amongst the less well off, instead of favouring the wealthier?

Athena

The UK Budget - Showing the Way on Progressive Taxation

THE UK BUDGET – SHOWING THE WAY ON PROGRESSIVE TAXATION

At last Gordon Brown has shown the way by increasing progressive taxation in his latest budget. Those earning over £150 000 will pay 50% income tax, and lose some of their allowances. Can we expect a queue of potential tax exiles? And if so, don’t you think they may be happy to pay a mere 25% of their pay in tax in Jersey. Surely the attraction of a sunny island within reach of their loved ones and London hairdressers will be sufficient inducement to prevent them going further afield, or from sitting under a rain cloud in the Isle of Man in order to receive a lower rate?

Athena

The Non-debate

22nd April
THE NON-DEBATE
I didn’t post anything yesterday because I wanted to check the names of those who did not even want to debate the events surrounding Stuart Syvret’s arrest. I find it extraordinary that any States member does not want to know why the police should behave in such a heavy handed way, disregarding all the rules that protect our human rights. There seems to be no pretence at democracy. Interestingly a vote to even debate a proposition should fall largely along ‘party’ lines, with the honourable exception of Freddie Cohen; Simon Crowcroft was the only Constable in favour. It is interesting to see that Kevin Lewis (ex-JDA member) now virtually always votes with the Establishment – has his Assistant Ministership gone to his head, taking him away from his principles – if he ever had any. So meanwhile, do we all live in fear of a police force rampaging out of control, or can we rest easy knowing that it is only Stuart that will be at the receiving end of police excesses? What do you think?

Athena

Tame the goose, not kill it!

20th April
Ironic, isn’t it, that some people will not vote for JDA candidates on the grounds that they are against the finance industry. Of course no candidate has adopted this position, as they know full well (in spite of accusations to the contrary) that the levels of welfare and public services that they seek to deliver have to be funded somehow. But change has been imposed from the outside, as we’ve suspected it would be and our aim of a well regulated and ethical finance industry may become a reality.

Lord Bach today has told Jersey that it must continue to tighten its regulation of the Finance Industry and improve transparency. Governments, and especially the US government, are no longer going to tolerate seeing the money earned in their countries, and needed for their welfare programmes, being leeched away. It is a shame that the meeting on tax havens, that took place before the G20 summit, was so poorly reported in the JEP. Harry McRandle left early, and chose to report little more than a list of who was there and a brief sound bite from each of the main speakers.

The assumption is that those who did attend must, of course, be enemies of Jersey – apart from Sarah Ferguson who patronisingly dismissed the meeting on Talkback as being like a student debate – though even when pressed she was unable to explain why. Was this because for the first time since her student days she was surrounded by intelligent and articulate young people?

The JEP failed to report what for me was the most striking message of the evening. This was that people in developing countries cannot be lifted out of poverty, in spite of the best efforts of the charities which Jersey people contribute to with such generosity, if offshore centres have mechanisms whereby the money earned in these countries can be siphoned off with minimal tax paid. The Christian Aid speaker claimed that a government’s ability to collect tax is intrinsically linked to democracy. Horrific to think that excesses like those of Mugabe may only be possible because of the existence of tax havens. And yet the press did not take the debate much beyond the level of ‘Oh look at that hypocritical protester, taking money out of a hole in the wall! See we need banks after all!’ As if anyone said that we didn’t.

Hopefully the finance industry will still flourish if it cleans up its act – but meanwhile, perhaps we should push forward with the JDA policy to have a well balanced economy.

Robert Kisch writes a letter in tonight’s JEP suggesting that the UK government is blaming the economic crisis on tax havens, which I do not believe is the case. He hopes that a change of government in the UK will give us a get–out-of-jail-free card. I think he’s missing the point here. It’s not about the politics of envy (though I certainly envy those that are earning several times more than me and paying a much smaller proportion of their income in tax – a situation that severely challenges my naïve view that life should be fair!) He finishes with that tired old cliché: that we mustn’t kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. But if that goose is making a racket that disturbs all the neighbours, and stealing the food of the subsistence farmers on the other side of the fence, and pecking at all the geese that lay honest edible eggs and only lets us have a small piece of gold from each clutch of eggs – well perhaps that goose needs to be brought under control!

Athena

"Athena" introduces herself, and casts a critical eye on Senator Shenton

The time has come for me to stop shouting at the radio, and I haven’t got a cat to kick, so at the invitation of the JDA I am starting a blog which I hope will be a regular feature of the JDA website. I have named my blog after the goddess of wisdom, because I am a female and have attained the age where I might be granted a short space of wisdom before descending into senility. I make every effort to be well-informed, and will attempt to avoid the ranting and invective that Stuart Syvret is prone to. Though I am a JDA member and am largely in sympathy with its policies, the views expressed will be entirely my own. I look forward to readers’ responses.

19th April
So Ben Shenton is to boycott Tuesday’s emergency States sitting, called to raise the issues surrounding the arrest of Stuart Syvret last week. He apparently is unconcerned with the outrageous affront to the rule of law, caused by the police searching the property of a member of the public (and a States Member to boot) and removing goods, without a warrant. Neither is he concerned with the strong-arm and intimidatory tactics, at best a waste of police time, used by the police to take Senator Syvret in for questioning. Instead he chooses to accuse States Members who think they are ‘above the law’ of turning the States into ‘a circus’. Can he not see that it is not States Members, but rather the police, or whoever was behind their actions, who are behaving in a way that suggests they are ‘above the law’ and that places the democratic rights of all of us in jeopardy. As someone who presumably claims to support the democratic process, he should turn up to ensure that the truth is told. Could it be that he needs to spend a further day running his business, rather than give his full attention to the job that he is paid to do? He refers to the public being fed up with the ‘ill-informed minority’. Surely he must be in that category if he is not interested in probing the facts of this case. The politicians he refers to do not consider themselves to be ‘above the law’ (a phrase that is being repeated so often that it is destined to become ‘received ignorance’) but are primarily concerned that the law should be fair and should be applied fairly. (Interestingly, the police are not interested in questioning the witness that suggests a minister, who truly does think he is above the law, is taking back-handers .) There is a mounting body of evidence that the law is being manipulated to the advantage of those that represent the status quo.

Take the subject of the economy that Senator Shenton feels should be a priority. Will any measures taken put money in the hands of those who are likely to pump it straight back into the economy (ie the less well off, who do spend all their money and tend to spend it locally) or will they protect the rich, whose greed created the situation that we are in? And who is likely to promote fairer fiscal measures. Could it be the very members who are under attack? I hope the electorate is able to see through the spin and recognise which politicians are on their side.

Athena

Full text of letter from Geoff Southern to JEP

To letters editor, JEP

I have long thought that the introduction of ministerial government has done little to promote coherent joined-up thinking in our government, but the latest pronouncements from the Treasury Minister reveal that it is getting worse. Today we cannot even get consistency within one department. The right hand does not appear to know what the left hand is doing.

Senator Ozouf, no doubt sees himself as the saviour of the economy in these difficult times, when he announces that, thanks to prudent fiscal policies, shared with his predecessor, he can deliver £44 million to boost the economy in this financial year. He is reported to have said ‘There is a need to act quickly and decisively to support employment’ and ‘The sooner we can inject cash into the local economy, the more difference it will make’. He then singularly fails to apply this welcome initiative to the public sector.

Instead, he warns that there is no money for public sector workers pay, and that employees should prepare themselves for a pay freeze. ‘Nothing more than a pay freeze is going to be possible’, he says. However, the Council of Ministers have already offered 2% in the 2009 Business Plan, a figure that has already been stripped of the impact of GST on inflation. Now the Treasury minister proposes bringing it down to zero, taking £7.4 million out of the economy. The right hand giveth and the left hand taketh away.

In the meantime over at Economic Development, Senator McLean, his trusted friend, warns of redundancies in the public sector. ‘Job losses could not be ruled out,’ he told the Chamber of Commerce recently. Another brilliant idea. At a time when ‘we must act decisively to support employment’ he threatens to lay workers off. He can then spend some of the £44 m on redundancy payments, retraining packages, and Income Support, not to mention support for the mortgage payments of disposable civil servants.

For those at the lower end of the pay scales, such as the manual workers, and their private sector colleagues, the pay freeze formula offers only increased dependency on welfare. An additional £2 million is to be allocated to extending Income Support transitional protection for those in work on low pay, many of whom will be manual workers. Senators McLean and Ozouf deliver the opposite of what they promised at election time: A hand-out not a hand-up.
Furthermore, as both ministers must be aware, pay freezes do not work in the long term; they merely serve to delay the inevitable. They store up inflationary pressure in the economy. When the recession is over, perhaps in 2 or 3 years, then employees will raise their demands to compensate for the lean years, stoking inflation at the worst possible time.

Before this fiscal stimulus plan comes to the States in May, I suggest that ministers do some serious thinking and come up with a coherent plan to properly target help in recessionary times, rather than relying on instant, headline-grabbing soundbites.

Deputy Geoff Southern, La Rochelle, St Helier.

It is an Alliance!

After years of joining this committee and that one, I am starting to find synergies in the way the work by one joins up with the work by another.

For example, this week I have registered both the Jersey Democratic Alliance and La Moye School PTA with the Jersey Financial Services Commission as Non-Profit Organisations. A simple process. Yet, when the NPO registration scheme was first announced, they planned something appallingly onerous, without exemption for even the smallest and most casual groups. The Jersey Rights Association, another of the pies I have a finger in, were one of the strongest and most articulate of the host of angry critics, and we had the satisfaction of seeing a massive backing off. We did not do it alone, but we certainly pulled our weight, and now all the organisations, that I am in, have benefited.

Another recent synergy has been that, while the JDA's Deputies have been working to do something about Woolworth's and other future redundancies, the JRA have also vociferously campaigned in support of States action. Unfortunately, neither group seems to have quite tipped the balance yet, but it all adds to the pressure on the Council of Ministers to do the right thing in the end.

Concern, yet another group whom I am with, are preparing a renewed assault on the La Collette “insanerator” project. And there was the JDA's Trevor Pitman alongside Daniel Wimberley at the launch of the latter's rescission campaign. Once again, it all ties in nicely.

In fact, being in the JDA can double the effect for a lot of pressure group campaigners. More of you should try it. When Gary Matthews tried to harness all the groups working on little pieces of a liberal agenda in the 1996 Rainbow Alliance, most were too proud to join in, and it failed. Let us learn from that mistake.

David Rotherham

Welcome

Welcome to the new JDA Council blog. We believe in the internet as a great way to communicate with the public, but most of us find it hard to find enough time to write a regular blog.
So, we are going to abandon the clutch of stalled blogs we launched last year, and instead pool our efforts into this one. Between us all, we should find enough to say to keep it alive. And your comments will be welcome, to liven it up further, of course.

David Rotherham