Pages

Saturday, 15 June 2013

A FEW INTERESTING QUESTIONS ON THE MANY FACES OF JERSEY 'JUSTICE'

Oh no - and not a single one on jurats happy to look the other way on evidence against friends and colleagues committing child abuse!

Having not made use of my allocation of written questions over the past two States Sittings; at readers' requests I now list below each of the up-coming questions - both written and oral - that I have lodged for the States Sitting of June 18th. Whilst also obviously not wishing to preempt the fun in any shape or form I nevertheless also give a brief bit of background to a few of the most 'interesting' ones for those who may be unaware...

Written question to Minister for Home Affairs
 
'Can members of the public be arrested by the police for alleged planning infractions and, if so, can such individuals also be legally required by the Police to report to the police station on a daily basis whilst these allegations are investigated?'

Comment

Now this really is a most fascinating question given the Jersey Establishment's increasingly rapid slide toward States indifference to regular abuses of citizen's Human Rights. Human Rights, let us not forget, that would be held as sacrosanct even in many a so-called 'Developing country'.

But in brief do you think it is right that a law-abiding member of the public can be 'arrested' by order of a member of the Planning Department and bundled into a police car - all in full view of a horrified business client? A client who not surprisingly withdrew his offer of a lucrative contract as a consequence! Me neither but perhaps we are just out of step with 'The Jersey Way'? Do you think sanctions for such a person should be more strict than would apply to an alleeged mugger? Hopefully not.
 
Written question to the Attorney General
 
'Would the Attorney General advise whether individuals who are aggrieved by the fact that Option B of the Electoral Commission (which gives greater representation to residents of smaller parishes at the expense of St. Helier) would have any recourse against the States of Jersey via the European Court of Human Rights if this Option is implemented?'

Comment

Now the man behind the despicable strategy to ensure the people of St. Helier can never have a fair and equal say in the running of the States, Senator Bailhache, (not to mention his minions Senators Gorst, Ozouf and the Constables) reckon all in relation to this Master Plan to sabotage democracy by 2014 is beyond challenge from we annoying 'little people'. Are the Far-Right 'right'? Well, I know they are not. But let's see if the Attorney General plays along...

Written question to the Attorney General

'Since police investigations began in 2007 in relation to 'historic' abuse can the Minister advise if there have been any cases investigated by the States of Jersey Police where abuse was alleged by both another perpetrator of abuse and corroborated by a victim yet no prosecution was then brought and, if so, what was the reason for this?'

Comment

Now this really IS a fascinating question! A former Deputy once observed that one should always ensure you ask questions to which you already knew the answer. Rightly or wrongly to this regard it certainly is funny how certain very telling documentation often gets delivered into the hands of a politician not afraid of the Establishment bully boys. But let's not say too much for now other than this.

The law should apply equally to all, shouldn't it?. But of course the fact is that in Establishment Jersey it does not: it depends upon who you are. Any doubters to this need only ook back to the politically motivated prosecution in 2009 of Deputies Shona Pitman and Geoff Southern for the unknown offence (in every other democracy in the WORLD!) of helping the old and disabled amongst their constituents to register a request for a postal vote.

All, of course, whilst the then Attorney General simultaneously did NOT charge those non-JDA candidates who did the same. And in the same St. Helier No. 2 district! Jusstice - its wonderful isn't it!Yet the matters underlying this question are obviously even more serious. Can it really be acceptable that whilst one abuser gets many years in prison another one - fully evidenced - does not even get taken to court? Of course it isn't - and next week sees the beginning of this sickening abuse of those who control Jersey 'justice' finally being exposed.

No wonder they want to try and shaft me with a non-ECHR compliant trial!

Written question to the Minister for Housing

'Would the Minister advise whether, in the case of the owner of a self-catering property who has re-registered the premises as a lodging house yet retained one unit out of ten as a (third party) manager's flat, all of the tenants are still classed as private tenants in law?'

Comment

Nothing that really needs to be said about this question: indeed, its actually not even in the same league as the others. But having been contacted by an elderly member of the public having problems with a dispute with a Fagin-like businessman it is still a question well worth getting an official answer to. 

And by my thus doing so, of course, saving the said constituent from being forced to cross the palms of some slimy lawyer with enough silver to secure twenty minutes 'work' that could instead fund the OAP having a nice and well deserved little holiday in the sun somewhere!

Oral question to the Chief Minister

'Following his meeting with the businessmen who raised concern at seeing the Assistant Minister with responsibility for External Affairs reading confidential documents in full view of the public on a flight, does the Chief Minister support the Assistant Minister's views expressed on 14th May 2013 that the allegations were 'inaccurate' and gave a 'fictitious' and 'malicious' account and, if not, will he now be asking his Assistant Minister to resign?'

Comment

Now if you don't know the background to this question and you live in Jersey you really must have been residing in a cave without access to the wonderful Gigabyte Jersey! But should that be you...

Basically Senator Philip Bailhache was caught bang-to-rights by a local busiessman foolishly and with his trademark arrogance reading confidential documents in full view of the public on a flight from Gatwick. These documents being to do with the appallingly typical Jersey Way treatment of abuse victim 'HG' in the Dean suspension case.

Most of us would have simply held our hands up and apologised. But not the never-wrong Senator Bailhache. I was instead accused of presenting a document that only 'purported' to be an e-mail from a member of the public. The contents were called  'malicious' and 'fictitious'. Yes, businessman and yours truly were in effect basically liars. Cheers, Senator.

But then one small problem arose: far from being put off by the bluster and the bullying the businessman demanded to meet the Chief Minister. And he even brought along... another businessman who could verify his version of events! Wow! Whoever will Chief Minister Gorst now chose to believe...

Oral question to the Attorney General

'What powers, if any, does a Court have to ensure that full indemnities awarded to members of the public at the conclusion of a court case are enforced and the injured party is not left thousands of pounds out of pocket?'

Comment

Now here, last but not least, is another gem. Wouldn't you think that if you won a court case and the judge (no les than the current Bailiff!) awarded you full indemnities you would actually get that money back? Wouldn't you think the Court could actually order a lawyer who was refusing to comply to hand it over? Me too. But then this is I repeat, Establishment Jersey.

After all you might also think that our Police are obliged to accept a member of the community filing a complaint for investigation about alleged criminal activity? They are meant to. But once again in reality it all comes down to who you are and who you are complaining about. Ayway, the fact of the matter is that this particular question I am asking is just the tip of the ice-berg in a case that, though dating back some years, is likely to be making headline news very soon.

Keep the Faith & Happy States listening.

With even my old friend and serial fence-sitter Deputy Roy Le Herissier demanding an inquiry into Bailhache-Gate could be a Question Time to even keep young Pravda Lucy away from her cookery books...
 
 
 
 
 


89 comments:

  1. Some excellent questions. The game could be up for King Philip if even Roy Le Herissier is calling for an inquiry? Haven't heard a dickie bird from this once good politician since he accepted a job on the dark side. Perhaps the siren call allure of being an assistant bag holder for a minister is wearing off? Let us hope so.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am intrigued by both the written question about abusers not being prosecuted and the oral about indemnities.

    Stuart Syvret and the better blogs have always talked about such cases but without them being taken forward to the States.

    Hopefully you can get some answers because this sounds deply worrying. Good luck

    ReplyDelete
  3. It would appear eyes are on Jersey again. Last week another hard hitting lady journalist going on national TV asking six trust companies for an interview and all declining the offer.

    Jersey also has an Irish reporting speaking on channel 4 news with Deputy Tadier and Phillip Ozouf still in the same week we have Gorst summoned to 10 Downing street and today we have another expose by Rico Sorda and the Express story about Bergerac being filmed with vulnerable kids still in the property.

    The knives are out for Jersey big time. Well done Frank Walker et al, you have screwed Jersey completely with your incompetent handling and cover up tactics. You should return the OBE for services to Jersey and resign or be kicked off any shadow boards representing islanders interests.

    ReplyDelete
  4. How long did Claude Donnelly get put in prison for?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Donnelly case? An interesting one indeed, Anonymous.

      15 years as I recall. A sentence never seen anywhere else in Jersey for a similar offence - ever?

      And in stark comparision just consider the paltry 4 years handed out to former friend and colleague of Jurat John Le Breton: the evil, predatory paedophile Andrew Jervis-Dykes of Victoria College infamy.

      No wonder outside media interest is growing in the 'historic' abuse scandal as evidenced by today's Sunday Express story.

      Delete
    2. Just heard that Stuart Hall got just 15 months. My word but Jersey must have wanted to hang a lot of attention on this Donnelly chap.

      Now I don't condone the actions of any offenders in any way. But 15 years! Could the Law Office have been trying to distract people from further investigation in to the case for some reason?

      Delete
  5. I am not sure why you rely on these questions on a Tuesday because they either never answer them, have a counter answer or fob you off with waffle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous

      I don't 'rely' on these or any questions - because as you rightly say all too often good, valid questions are met with contempt, evasion or just plain stupidity on the part of those meant and obliged to answer them.

      But the very fact that someone within the public - such as yourself - is noticing this is valuable in itself. With a couple of honourable exceptions those holding 'senior' political positions are not fit to do so.

      Because, as pointed out above, they are either too intellectually challenged or else just view any form of political accountability with contempt.

      It is equally important that the more a few of us highlight these failings the less room there is for them to hide.

      The alternative is to give up and that is what these people would like.

      Delete
    2. I'm beginning to hear the odd hiss of the pressure cooker.

      Don't let them turn down the heat.

      Delete
  6. Deputy Pitman.

    I simply wish to comment that it is good to see a politician putting up for wider public scrutiny his or her questions to be put to the States. So many of those canvassing for our votes at election time are then never heard of again once elected.

    Though I am quite probably not as far to the political left as those involved I still have to observe that it appears to be the leftists who generally at least try to follow up with what they championed at election time. You are also without doubt the prime example of this.

    I repeat I do not agree with everything you say but you are due real respect for consistently seeking to deliver what you stood for. With so many of our politicians seemingly quite happy to sit mutely and press the for button in support of everything our council of ministers puts forward I only wish a few more could follow your lead.

    Best wishes to you and your good Lady.

    JP

    ReplyDelete
  7. Not surprisingly I agree with your every word. But thanks all the same.

    As has been observed by Voiceforchildren it is the so-called 'Silent Assassins' who sit in the States, get rewarded for being noddy dogs with an Assistant Minister's 'job' and then never speak, lodge a proposition, ask a question,(probably never help a constituent?) and just press those POUR buttons when told to by the COM who do the real damage.

    Give me an 'opponent' with a different political philosophy and/or strongly held opinions any time! Those you can disagree with but still respect.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hey, good news readers!

    Thanks to a little chum of mine - let's just call him, say Jonny Drinksalot - I am soon going to be able to ask lots of difficult and revealing questions on secret court cases and how OUR money is taken without our consent and given to completely dispicable, cowardly thugs!

    This is great news for democracy because because if I was to mention any of this at present I would likely be arrested and have the office turned over. Can't wait for the Bald Truth to out!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Why are you, seemingly, the only politician asking questions like these? are the rest of the House so utterly useless that you're the only one capable of chasing up issues like these? Sad, isn't it?!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't be too harsh, Anonymous. I would suggest about 45 fit the category. Though to be completely fair a good number of those would probably have to improve 100% just to reach the standard of 'useless'.

      Delete
  10. I hope you can find out exactly how much of my, of our tax-payers money has been given to at least one thorougly horrible little yob to allow this disgusting secret court process to happen?

    If any of the complainants have a genuine case and needed the assistance then maybe it is all fair enough. But giving truly revolting little scumbags thousands of pounds of other peoples cash when they are actually criminals themselves is anything but.

    We all know who one of these people is and he should be in La Moye for his sickening lies and attempts to smear people not pretending to be some kind of victim.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Meant to add. With matters concluded two useful things happen.

    One - questions can be asked and figures demanded in the States. Fact.

    Two - the usefulness of the said petty agitator and attacker of innocent people to the Establisshment ends. His ID is known by all and pretty soon even the local BBC will be embarrassed into stopping using his embittered rants in fake names such as James Le Gallais, Sue Young and the like.

    Result - no matter how many new fake avatars our little Stella-fuelled thug invents what this means is his days of liberty to abuse others is drawing quickly to a close.

    ReplyDelete
  12. A well-earnt plug for Voiceforchildren here. Please check out an excellent interview with Leah McGrath-Goodman which took place in one of Jersey's champagne lounges. Indeed, within THE Champagne Lounge at the Grand Hotel. Excellent!

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Bailhache Gate"
    http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2013/06/excuse-me-sir-ive-just-one-more-question.html

    Who wouldn't trust a lawyer ?
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJo9JbZ3z-o
    "If people are not truthful they suffer the consequences... If a Minister lied to another Minister, so far as I am concerned, that would be pretty well the end of a Ministerial career..."

    The Shyster exposes himself but will try to brazen it out - again.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dear Jon. The individual you mention was named in the Sunday papers only this past weekend. Just as he has previously been named in UK newspapers. No libel action followed. Do try and keep up.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Interesting take on Bailhache-gate from Tony's Musings.

    Now I don't often agree with Tony's views - this being simply for the reason that he generally gives the impression of a writer who will stand on his head to excuse the Establishment trying to convince what is clearly black is actually white.

    Still, in this instance it seems he has written a generally fair piece that also concludes the questions in need of answering, and, indeed, the apologies needing to be made are all Bailhache's.

    But when we have both Gorst and Bailhache on Tuesday trying to wriggle out of doing the right and necessary thing i.e. Bailhache resigning his post - just remember the lies being spouted; summed up neatly in this response not to me but to Deputy Southern...

    'I have already said that the document (i.e the genuine e-mail I presented to the Assembly) is FICTITIOUS and MALICIOUS'...

    To paraphrase the businessman at the heart of this: there is only one person who is malicious and fictitious in this and it isn't him or yours truly. It is the individual who our Chief Minister thinks is worthy to go strutting around the world as our 'Foreign Minister'.

    He needs to go. Whether by his own choice or being pushed does not matter.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I can feel it coming in the air tonight....OH LORD!!!

    ReplyDelete
  17. This is a very worrying issue and one which we in Jersey need to start taking seriously. Thank you, Ian, for your unstinting work in bringing such issues to us.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I was bemused by Tony's Musing paragraph:

    "I really doubt if Senator Bailhache would resign, but if the allegations made by the businessman, and witnessed by his business partner, were accurate, it would be his own reply which was malicious and fictitious, and he should certainly apologise for casting aspersions on their honestly. There should also be an inquiry as to how he had in his possession documents which evidently would be highly privileged in who could see them. "

    Tony appears to think that Phil Bailhache need only apologise, as his response was malicious and fictitious and casted aspersions on their honesty.

    Senator Sir Phil Bailhache aimed his gunning response at Deputy Pitman, effectively saying the Deputy had made up the story of the two businessmen on the same flight as the Senator and therefore the claims were 'fictitious' and 'malicious'. I would assume that when someone of Senator Sir Philip Bailhache credentials makes such a statement, States members would have been left with the clear impression that Deputy Pitman was aiming to get Senator Sir Philip Bailhache in trouble, I mean, how would anyone believe that Senator Sir Assistant Chief Minister ex-Bailiff Philip Bailhache would lie.

    However, we know that is not the case, the claims were not made up by Deputy Pitman, so he is definitely owed a public apology from Bailhache, which should be covered by CTV and on the front page of the JEP.

    The next question is did the businessmen really see everything they claimed to have seen, well we now know, that CM Gorst knows the claims are true. The claims are real, they are not ‘fictitous’ for ‘malicious’ reasons.

    Phil Bailhache’s responded to the claims, to effectively deny he was reading anything other than the Korris Report and state, the claims “were” 'fictitious' and 'malicious'.
    He said the above whilst knowing he was reading the said documents and therefore no matter what you call it, he lied, for whatever reason (maybe should not have had some documents), and in doing so, he intentionally labelled Deputy Pitman as liar.

    Bailhache is on record about honesty and trust, as far as I can understand, he has not been honest, has lied with malicious intent towards Deputy Pitman and therefore must surely lose any trust he may have had from members of the States.

    Somehow, he will try to wriggle out of it. He needs the names of the businessman, so he can label them as some vindictive, malicious, madly deranged individuals with a personal grudge against him. All we need is an iPhone camera evidence of those documents – surely!

    ReplyDelete
  19. This is the problem, Trevor. Over the years there have been many clear cases of civil servants and politicians misleading the house ( by not answering questions ) or just plain lying.

    If they get away with it once what disincentive have they or any person in authority to behave correctly. None at all.

    If proof is needed remember Steven Izatt was blamed by ex Chief Minister for giving terribly wrong information about Harcourt therefore the CM mislead the house. If this had been the truth Izatt would have been sacked , he was not. He left a long time later with a bucket full of money. So who really was to blame it stinks.

    How about the Chief Executive scandal, I am not the second man contained in emails, It was not me, said Ogley, of the suspension of the police chief, when in fact it was him, and Ogley openly lied even taking out an injunction against the Jersey Post. Was he sacked for dishonesty, No he retired a long time later with over £500 thousand as a golden goodbye.

    Is that enough proof ?

    Are we about to see senator Bailhache lying about what two people witnessed, supported by CM Gorst. In which case a decent Government based on the facts would ask for their resignations forthwith and mean it..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did Ogley really take out an injunction against the JEP? Really? Really?

      That would explain why the JEP went for him with all guns blazing, and why JEP journalist slang for a million quid is now "two Bill Ogleys"

      Jeez, I bet that didn't play out too well in the island's lodges.

      Delete
  20. Trevor - having listened to Gorst this morning and the lily-livered reponses he gave to the question on Bailhachegate, I can only say PLEASE will you bring forward the vote of no confidence in this man.

    Personally I would never again cast a vote for anybody who did not vote for his removal after this performance.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Over the years there have been many clear cases of civil servants and politicians misleading the house ( by not answering questions ) or just plain lying."

    The only difference this time, is that Bailhache has made a public statement about honesty and trust, and therefore if he's not been honest, he should resign in attempt to save some dignity.

    -----------------
    I only heard the last 15mins of the States meeting, did I hear right, that Bailhache is going to come back with a statement to remove any doubt of his honesty - but surely, as it wasn't a purported email, it was a real email, the businessmen are real, not some 'fictitious' figures you made up, the very least, he owes you and apology.

    If I had the social standing such as Sir Philip Balihache, and had lied but needed to save face, I would have ensured I obtained the names of the two businessmen, before trying to play a game to force you/them to disclose their names publicly, I would gather as much dirt on them as possible, if there wasn't any I'd make some up as I went along (some would say fiction) and as the names were released, I would immediately let go with my verbal attack against them, I would make it appear to be a spontaneous action (ie: I could not make this up beforehand as I didn't even know who they were).

    ReplyDelete
  22. The quote Gorst gave this morning must be his best yet.

    Words to the effect of: I believe the Businessmen, Deputy Pitman, and (wait for it), Sir Philip Bailhache!?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Trevor,

    I have just read on the States website the answer to your written question about Option B and the ECHR.

    I think we can judge the reliability of that answer based on the Attorney General referencing something called the "Vienna Commission" when it is actually the Venice Commission. Glad to see we're dealing with someone that does his research...

    Couldn't make it up!

    Sam

    ReplyDelete
  24. I didn't hear all of the States today. I did hear Bailhache say he was going to make a personal statement and you brilliantly said "OK, I'll make one as well". Great testicular fortitude Trev, good on ya!

    What happened then? I got called away, when I came back BBC Jersey Politics twitter said "No statement yet from Senator Bailhache"

    Did he bottle it, or has wiser counsel prevailed?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hold my hands up time. I have always thought that Frank Walker and Terry Le Sueur were diabolical Chief Ministers. But hearing Ian Gorst today! What can one say? This man is both an idiot and a wimp. Nay a total coward. Can he ever take a decision without bottling it? Everyone knows that Bailhache has been caught with his ministerial pants down yet Gorst just won't face up to him and deal with it. Who do these two prats think they are kidding? Why would two businessmen make something like this up? What would they have to gain? More importantly still, how could they make this stuff up? Answers are 1, They would not, nobody would. 2,Nothing but they would have everything to lose if the Jersey Way brigade get hold of them. 3, They couldn't. Bailhache's story just does not stack up. He told you he only had the Korris report which does not have names in it. He then said that if you had spoken to him in private (Jersey Way tactics) he could have told you why there was info in what the businessmen said they saw that was not in the Korris report that he had just told people was what he had. The two just do not and cannot be made to stack up. Face it Gorst. Your assistant minister is the one misleading the House with fictitious nonsense and trying to muddy the reputation of one of only a handful of good, decent, honest politcians we have had in 20 years (that's you Trevor). This is all a total farce and Gorst and Bailhache are making a mockery of our government. When o when will a few more people stand up alongside you and say enough is enough we aren't taking this crap anymore?

    ReplyDelete
  26. well done Trev !!

    ReplyDelete
  27. These two idiots are treating people like Deputy Pitman with utter contempt, they must be made to answer legitimate questions truthfully when asked. other members should unite and demand answers if answers are not forth coming they should take some action this could take the form of members retiring to the members room for a length of time as a protest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I still feel that a letter to the Queen asking for Jersey parliament to be disbanded would be the biggest shocker for these criminals, and would catch the attention of the world media.

      Delete
  28. I guess if I had an iPhone video backing up my claim, I would wait for Bailhache to make that statement before making it publicly available!.

    ReplyDelete
  29. So our Assistant Chief Minister was now apparantly not working in his capacity of Minister or Senator, he was working in his capacity of a 'Lay member of the Church'??

    Is anyone else concerned how a 'Lay member of the Church' could have police witness statements, text message/email logs and personal letters from a Church Warden in his posession?

    Who from our States Police handed this confidential information over to a 'Lay member of the Church'

    Why would a 'Lay member of the Church' need this information?

    Did they know they were breaking data protection laws, surely no law abiding 'Lay member of the Church' would not realise what they had been given was illegal (maybe he should have consulted a decent lawer)?

    Where and who was he visiting with this information, a member of the Church Of England to share it with maybe?

    Did he pay for his own flight or did the tax payer?

    Answers on a postcard......

    Regards

    The Concerned Businessman

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The States Hansard for 20th March show that PB was in the States that afternoon for the Independent Planning Appeals debate. He left before the number 18 bus debate. See http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyHansard/2013/2013.03.20%20States%20-%20Edited%20Transcript.pdf

      He therefore either left Jersey on the evening of the 20th and returned on the 21st (witnessed by the businessmen) or he did just a day trip on the 21st. As a private lay member of the church, of course.

      Who booked the flight? Who paid for the flight? Was it done through a central booking system? Was it paid for on a private credit card? Was it claimed for on expenses?

      Delete
  30. Trevor.

    What has happened to the statement P Bailhache (the back bencher), promised(?) to release yesterday?

    And no doubt you have your response ready?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your guess as good as mine. Perhaps the fact that I immediately said I too would put one out scuppered PB's ploy to have the final word on ths; thus leaving his 'fictitious' version of events in the public mind?

      I can tell you that whatever he does I will follow it up with the truth. I am heartily sick of the contempt he and Gorst display toward any challenge to their behaviour. No wonder Jersey is becoming a subject of raised eyebrows again.

      Delete
  31. I have just got around to listening to 14/05/13 exchange,

    I offer the following comments:

    Not working as a Minister, just a lay-person, whereas when he wrote a letter to the Archbishop in support of the Jersey Dean he signed it off using Senator, so was that on behalf of all of Jersey?

    From Senator Bailhache's initial response, I guess he could (until the trump question) have claimed he never read the documents, but had them in his hands as he looked for the document he recalls reading or he could have claimed he forgot he had read them.

    However, when asked “Regardless of documents or whether they are fictitious or not can he assure us that he did not by any means identify the people involved on an aircraft either by speaking or by any other means”, he answered in a manner that makes the above possibilities impossible to ever be believed.

    “– I cannot envisage any circumstances whereby any member of the public could have obtained from me the confidential information that is contained in the document that Deputy Southern and perhaps others may have.”


    ------------------ 19/06/13 exchange

    CM Gorst claims he believes the businessman’s account (Bailhache says is ‘fictitious’ and ‘malicious’) and he believes Senator Bailhache, because Senator Bailhache said he only “recalls”, CM Gorst has therefore ignored the other response that Senator Bailhache gave on 14/05/13 when he made it clear there was no way they could have obtained the confidential information from him.

    I must say that is absolutely appalling from CM Gorst, he has obviously been given legal guidance on how to respond which is why he relied upon the “recall”, that is normally the legal way out of telling lies, but there is no way anyone can claim to believe both parties accounts.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Bailhache is toast and Gorst is a liar.

    Taken from standing orders schedule 2 code of conduct

    "5 Maintaining the integrity of the States

    Elected members should at all times conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of the States of Jersey and shall endeavour, in the course of their public and private conduct, not to act in a manner which would bring the States, or its Members generally, into disrepute."

    Note that it includes PRIVATE life Gorst, so forget the excuse that he wasn't on the plane as assistant minister, it doesn't matter and does not absolve his obligation to abide by the rule quoted above.

    Also note that Standing Order 157 allows PPC to investigate irrespective of a complaint being received. Gorst would have us believe a complaint is required, not so Gorst please get your facts right.

    Funnily enough their is case history of PPS starting an investigation without a complaint, they used this rule against Syvret when it suited and nobody had complained to them about his conduct.

    Double standards and ignorance of the law Gorst, I suggest you shape up or ship out you're fast becoming a laughing stock over this.

    Bailhache is going down over this, you have a choice Gorst as to whether he takes you down with him.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Replies
    1. I thought it was more like 'Utterly Gutter-ly'

      Delete
    2. Bailhache is TOAST
      I can't believe it's not bonafide !

      Delete
    3. It's all your fault Ian. It should be brown bread - no wonder Bellyache got constipated and is still trying to 'void' his keenly anticipated statement.

      Please someone fetch a spanner.

      Delete
  34. Given a number of people have asked me about this I will try and include a brief update on the answers to the above questions - or at least the most important ones - in a new post at the weekend. Tthanks.

    ReplyDelete
  35. ''I guess if I had an iPhone video backing up my claim, I would wait for Bailhache to make that statement before making it publicly available!.''

    Will watch this space.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep, me too. I'd get multiple copies of that iPhone video too, copied off the phone and stored in multiple secure locations. Dropbox would be a good location

      Delete
  36. Was it just the Dean's witness statement that was allegedly seen?

    If HG had given a statement under caution, under the PACE rules, then she would have had to consent to its release to any parties other than the police and the prosecution.

    Your earlier blogs just say "Police Witness Statements". Whose statements?

    ReplyDelete
  37. So wheres the promised Bailhache statement then !!. Has he gone on sick leave ??

    ReplyDelete
  38. 1) The central complaint, is that Senator Bailhache was reading some confidential documents on an air flight and a member of the public was able to read confidential names etc..

    2) When asked, does he refute reading the claimed papers in a public place – I have already said the document is ‘malicious’ and ‘fictitious’ and I do not propose to make any further comment on its contents.

    3) Senator Bailhache did not claim he never had the said documents in his possession on the air flight, nor has he said he did not read them on the flight, but has stated he can only recall reading the Korris Report.

    4) However, in response to a very good question, Senator Bailhache leaves the public with no doubt, that as far as he is concerned there was no possibility of anyone obtaining the claimed confidential information, from him. Therefore he could not have even had the documents in his hand as that could have allowed someone (without Bailhache realising) even to just glimpse at and note confidential information, as he said “– I cannot envisage any circumstances”.

    5) With no possibility of seeing the said documents, there is no other explanation available, regardless to the fact that he only recalled reading the Korris Report, whether he read that document or not, is not contained in the compliant, so not really relevant.

    6) Therefore, his insistence that the document received via Deputy Pitman, is ‘fictitious’ and ‘malicious’ can only mean, he is absolutely sure he did not even have those documents and that the businessmen who claim to have seen them, have made up a fictitious story for malicious purposes.

    7) Senator Bailhache, sets the tone of his response by initially casting doubt on the authenticity of the copy of an email, in doing so, he was insinuating that it may not be a copy of an email from member of the public, although I did not understand why having a name attached to the email, made it any more significant if as he has claimed the contents are ‘fictitious’ and ‘malicious’. Quite frankly it would not matter which member of the public complained, just whether the main fact was accurate.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Trevor could you ask some follow up questions in regards to This?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Once again Jersey is made famous, we now have the very first human being without a backbone and this most surely must go into the Guinness Book of Records. P.B for so many years had the power to stop questions, switch off microphones and by all accounts rule the roost. But welcome to the land of reality, here you are put to the test and yes held to account, and if our so called Chief Minister has not got the guts to sack 'Sir' ? Philip then he should step aside and allow someone with the strength of character to do just that.

    ReplyDelete
  41. James Le Gallais and Sue Young20 June 2013 at 20:19:00 BST

    Has anyone got the link to that very sick if hilariously inept threatening Jon Haworth phone call?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear James & Sue

      Sorry I don't think I have got that particular gem of drunken, malicious bullying. Must admit though that in my opinion it is a prime example of how sentencing in Jersey has become a farce.

      Delete
    2. Jane Care (nee Drummond)20 June 2013 at 21:32:00 BST

      Thankee kindly for this link Ian. I'm glad James and Sue asked about this. I have wanted to hear it for ages. Certainly suggests a person madder than a barrel of frogs.

      Delete
    3. This link from Ian Evans is hysterical. What revolting behaviour from this Haworth man. Why was he not sent to jail? If a child had answered this evil call they would have been terriffied.

      I don't know if you are aware of it but the ill-educated lunatic rant is identical in style and grammar to just about all of the anonymous comments on that sick and bullying wreckers site. Coincidence?Funny how Stuart Syvret gets taken to court but not sick in the head yobbos.

      Delete
  42. Where is PBs much trumpeted personal statement on Bailhachegate? My bet is he has been told not to be such an idiot. He is already in a hole up to his neck. Everyone knows he has been caught out lying. Just who the bigger plum is him or Gorst is up for debate. But both ripe for plucking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bollocks!
      I spoke to a contact in the States today and you are making this up, PB is not up to his neck.
      Still we are pushing your creditors to take you to the cleaners now, because your scum and deserve nothing less!

      Delete
    2. Let this through as a one-off for a laugh...

      Oh dear Jonnie! I wonder how the Data Protection Commissioner actually feels about your bragging about you two being close mates?

      And why do you say 'we' all of the time - everyone knows you have no friends apart from the ones you invent for Facebook,Twitter accounts and flooding the Pravda and wreckers drivel with your hung up hate?

      Get help - you so desperately need it.

      Delete
    3. Give us a clue anon.Is this Jon or Glenn writing ? but please carry on it is soooooo.. entertaining.

      Delete
    4. Nevermind the bollocks heres the Sex Pistols21 June 2013 at 20:41:00 BST

      Just how this anonymous can write that he knows I am making this up is hilarious. For starters this nerd does not even know me or who I know. Thing is Trevor I am just saying what everyone I chat to is saying. PB has been exposed as a liar and Ian Gorst's actions have only made this worse. They both need to do the decent thing and resign.

      Delete
    5. Ha ha ha!
      Call you me what you like sweetie, you are finacially fucked and the deputies you mock are laughing behind ya back.

      But who cares, you were always nothing but a joke to everybody around you in the States. The bully gets his just desserts and you know Sir Philip is not going to be taken down with any of these lies you've cooked up. That is a fact.

      Delete
    6. Apologies to serious readers but just had to let this through too. last one I promise.

      But please read this and then go and listen to the death threat phone call included on the link a fw posts above.

      'Ha, ha, ha - your time will come!'

      Really it is all very sad. ('Call you me what you like!!!') But this is the reality of the Jersey Way. Luckily some of us can't be bullied.

      Delete
  43. Sorry I had to remove that comment. Not being draconian I just though upon reflection that, though I too have been told about the leaflet pulling stunt in 2011, all of this is far better left for 2014. Sorry again NMTHBHTSP.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Trevor.

    P Bailhache has gone very quiet after his threat of a statement regarding Baihachegate.

    Especially after your quick and brave response to his threat....

    He threats. You promise!?

    ReplyDelete
  45. If I were Bailhache, and I had effectively lied, by totally forgetting I was reading some documents that a member of the public said I was reading and in saving face I could not remember, I would be ensure that the air hostess that also witnessed the said documents was contacted for a friendly chat, and pose the question, 'can you be absolutely clear as to what documents you think you saw', if she says she cannot remember - one knockout. I would also now be trying to establish whether anyone witnessed me possibly being videoed by someone with a small camera or smartphone. This is a tough one, get it wrong and I'd be history, take the chance there isn't one, and blag it, more commonly known as 'making it up as I go along' and risk being history.

    ReplyDelete
  46. By the look of standing order 16, my guess is that proper notice of the personal statement was not given to the bailiff

    http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/States%20Assembly/Standing%20Orders%20of%20the%20States%20of%20Jersey.pdf

    Makes it up as he goes along.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Listened to you on the internet asking Gorst some heartfelt questions.

    How in the name of Riley did Jersey ever end up with such an insipid weak Chief Minister.

    When you summed up at the end, laying out what Bailhache said, and giving the ball back to Gorst to take action, your words painted a clear picture to the whole island.

    Pitman 9 Gorst 1 Bailhache dead duck, and as a swan song, to cowardly to actually be in his seat. How can any thinking person respect this man as a politician especially after the sham ref.


    Well done Deputy.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I missed the verbal exchange on State Radio but surely PB's Personal Statement refers to the ability to make such a statement at the beginning of the States Assembly Item J after Questions without notice.So it would be at a subsequent sitting . What I don't know is whether or not such a statement has to have 'full content' approval from 'the chair'or even if they need to be tabled except on the day.
    What do 'Standing Orders' say on this Trevor? Ta!

    ReplyDelete
  49. I'm sure the home affairs minster is Bowrons puppet ,The police moral is at al all time low it was better when Harper was here ,no one will listen to us Bowron comes into work looks at his shares then struts up and down town then goes home ,it's all about him he's causing big damage ,wished someone would do something

    ReplyDelete
  50. Standing Order 16 (i.e. rule 16) of the States Assembly is interesting. A member can only make a personal statement if they notify the Bailiff by 5pm the previous day. The Bailiff can allow an urgent personal statement without notice if it is "important" enough.

    So, maybe it is because the correct notice procedure was not followed? Or maybe the Bailiff did not deem an urgent statement important enough? (chuckle) Or maybe he changed his mind? Whichever possibility is true, none of them look great, do they?

    http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/States%20Assembly/Standing%20Orders%20of%20the%20States%20of%20Jersey.pdf

    Trev - be alert for a statement being lodged with the correct notice period in time for the next sitting.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I know he is a sad individual, but I guess he knows that himself, but surely he just comes on here to try and redirect attention from the main purpose. I think it best, not to give him any 'airtime' whatsoever, keep the thread focused on sensible discussion, not someone on some sort of mind***k.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, you are right of course. However, it is well worth every once in a while highlighting this sad, embittered bully of decent people (mainly women as we know).

      Maybe one designated post looking at the background to its criminal record sometime. Or with what is in the pipeline for it an 'end of a petty criminal coward's liberty' special?

      Anyway, new post on proper politcal issues up tomorrow.

      Delete
  52. Nobody has ever explained to me how it can be that a person who has been proven to be happy to disregard evidence against an evil paedophile can still be put forward to become a jurat here? Even more so, then be allowed to sit as one for more than a decade? Before anyone asks I have taken the trouble to read the Sharp report and what it reveals about jurat Le Breton is truly disturbing.

    ReplyDelete
  53. You know had it been Stuart Syvret caught on the plane he would no doubt have been disemboweled and hung from Gouray Castle.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Proper political issues are 2 deputies being declared bankrupt.
    Your petty minded news on your petty minded blog and petty minded life means fuck all to the residents of Jersey apart from seeing you being fucked.
    Big Kiss to ya Mummy X

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obviously it was Stella O'Clock for Jon 'James H. Le Gallais' last night!Now even trying to intimidate 82 year old cancer suffers. Ah, the Jersey Establishment must be so proud? little to add apart from imagine a child one day waking up to discover this is 'dad'...

      Delete
    2. I do hope the Data Commissioner is aware that her 'protected' is doing this .(and that I/we are paying for that protection without being able to know how much as well).

      Delete