Friday, 19 April 2013


Democracy and justice in Jersey working as well as ever...

I publish below the personal statement set to be read by Deputy Shona Pitman on behalf of us both within the States Sitting on Tuesday the 16th April 2013. It complies with Standing Orders in every way. Indeed it relates matters entirely linked to our personal case - highlighting as it does the appalling abuse of the 'justice' system that we have suffered. Even the names of those who have caused this travesty were deliberately omitted for the statement.
Of course, though all facts outlined relate to our personal case clearly the unchecked abuse and failings in what is passed off as 'justice' in Jersey obviously cast light on deeply disturbing matters that will impact on anyone else - particularly of 'peasant stock' -daring to stand up against the bullying, elitism and abuse of position on which Jersey's Establishment has been constructed and survived over all these decades. Inconvenient for some this may be, we accept. But it is wholly irrelevant.
Yet regardless of this full compliance Jersey's Bailiff Sir Michael Birt banned us from carrying out our right - enshrined in Standing orders - as elected representatives of the people.  He manages to interpret Standing Order 16 (2) in a way that is the equivilent of transforming black into white - or perhaps in this case case white into black.

It is a farce. It is embarrassing. It is yet another sickening abuse of democracy and justice. Of course, we know that the Jersey Evening Pravda and its lawyers are working desperately to suppress the truth of the complete and utter failure of the court case from which they seek to bebefit  from to comply with ECHR Article 6. Indeed, it is even easy to understand their desperartion if not their lack of morals in doing so: they had convenienetly been allowed a Jurat who was the 'mate' of a compmany director to sit on the case!

But should we not be able to expect more from the Pressident of the island's government than using his position to try and keep these facts from the public? How unfortunate it is that the person ultimately responsible for allowing the appalling abuse of an inpossibly conflicted Jurat (one John Le Breton) to preside over our case just happened to be the President of the States himself within his 'other' role as Chief Judge? Yes, the very same jersey Bailiff whose Office had indisputably failed so utterly!

Lord McNally, Justice Minister for the United Kingdom government: when will you finally wake up and smell the coffee. 'Justice' in this beautiful island of ours; just as with the Dual Role itself is a total affront to a modern democracy.
'This statement has been jointly written by both Deputy Trevor Pitman and I.   
In April of 2012, Members will recall we unsuccessfully took a defamation action against the Jersey Evening Post and the estate agents, Broadlands; this being for the publication of an advert which we believed portrayed us as standing for election primarily for financial gain. 
Individuals will have their own opinion as to the excuses put forward by the defendants as underlying an advert that depicted us smirking with the words ‘4 x the salary, darling!’ Not least because the reality was that our joint annual income had dropped by £5000, with us both now being States Members; nor indeed was 4 x a salary the mortgage lending rate at the time.
Nevertheless, the fact is that there are very serious Human Rights issues concerning our court hearing and the wider judicial system generally which have either been deliberately misrepresented or even wholly suppressed by the local mainstream media.  
We highlight this now within this forum, because they have severely affected not only us and our families and friends but; as the Judiciary is meant to be there to protect and serve the interests of all people, this statement is relevant to all Islanders.  The fact is that these concerns go to the very root of the right of all people to be given a fair and just trial in accordance with European Court of Human Rights Article 6.  
Sadly, in spite of the evidenced reality of the failings in the court process underlying our case the greatest concern of all is that those at the apex of the Jersey Justice system refuse to acknowledge these errors.  That this should be so even with such clear breaches regarding the requirement for a Jurat or juror to recuse him or herself due to a conflict of interest, arising from a relationship existing with a plaintiff or defendant must be seen as deeply worrying. Mistakes, of course, are made by all. Yet once highlighted genuine mistakes are then acknowledged and put right. 
That such a conflicting relationship i.e. a personal friendship exists between the individual who was the senior Jurat sitting on our case and the longest-standing Director of the Guiton Group, who own the JEP is indisputable.  Indeed, upon this coming to light after the trial had concluded - thanks to members of the public contacting both ourselves and our lawyers – this relationship has been confirmed: the Jurat even admitting socialising with the director including at each other’s homes.  
Yet the Jurat; the Bailiff and his Deputy all astonishingly still attempt to play this down.  The question that obviously has to be asked is why?  
After all, the wholly inappropriate nature of this Jurat ignoring the rules on recusal, to sit, is starkly demonstrated by the correct decision of the Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff - that they themselves were conflicted and thus could not sit on the case due to our purely political relationship.  This is, it is quite obvious, a relationship that is far less personal and intimate than that existing between the Jurat and the company director of the defendant’s newspaper.  Neither of us has ever socialised privately at either Crown Officers’ home or them at our own.  There is no personal relationship whatsoever. 
That the Jersey Evening Post has misled their readers by not reporting this reality should be of great concern to all who are committed to justice and transparency. The truth is that the JEP through their lawyers, and Broadlands are currently still attempting to seek in the region of £200,000 from us on the back of proceedings which they are well aware are wholly in conflict with ECHR Article 6. What, both we and our families and friends ask, does this say about the integrity of these organisations and the justice system?  
Since our case it is interesting to note that we have seen a move by the Home Affairs Minister, that should there be a perceived conflict with local Jurats sitting on a case, Guernsey Jurats will be able to be seconded to the Island to preside over consideration of evidence and fact in a case.  This is to many aware of the situation a recognition that the current situation cannot be satisfactory in all instances.  
Yet the Bailiff, Deputy Bailiff and Chief Minister upon appeals to them, apparently do not view our case as an instance where such modernisation would need to be employed.  Is it any wonder we consequently ask that  a growing number of people - upon becoming aware of our treatment - begin to wonder that there may be some more sinister, perhaps political motive behind all of this?  
It is also equally apparent to us that to save the Island money our Jurats, simply should not be permitted to sit on specific bodies such as boards of media groups; as although they may recuse themselves on a case they may still be a friend of a colleague on such a body.  As the late Lord Denning and others have stressed the Judiciary simply must be seen to be unbiased, transparent and highly professional because it is called upon to make decisions that can change, the course of person’s life.  There must be no perception of even potential bias.  
The public must be in no doubt that justice in our Island is beyond reproach and guaranteed for all; and is not dependant upon the depth of a person’s wallet or holding a position of influence. Since our highlighting of these concerns via both local Citizens’ Media justice campaigners and international media the fact that so many people are now approaching us and colleagues with justice issues demonstrates that the total confidence that should exist in the Island to this regard does not. As previously announced a portfolio of these separate cases is currently being collated for eventual presentation to the Lieutenant-Governor.  
Yet unfortunately there is also a second very serious concern highlighted by what has come to light since the hearing of our own case. Sadly it relates to the very same Jurat and raises serious questions about the whole validity of his tenure; and in particular his capability to make sound judgements that any and all members of the public could have confidence in. It also raises serious questions as to the adequacy of both the appointment and monitoring processes relating to Jurats in Jersey. 
The Jurat (now retired) was previously employed as a Vice-Principle at Victoria College. As revealed in the Sharp Report 1999, a document still suppressed by the Education, Sport & Culture Department this individual refused to look at evidence against his then friend and colleague, the convicted paedophile, Andrew Jervis-Dykes. Jervis-Dykes was eventually sentenced to 4 years for the sexual abuse of College pupils. 
As reported by Stephen Sharp not only did the Jurat allowed to sit on our case refuse, as Vice-Principle to look at evidence against Jervis-Dykes, he subsequently even wrote to the Board of Governors supporting the Jervis-Dykes.  Amongst other comments he described the paedophile as having served the College with ‘outstanding competence and conscientiousness’.  Further still, that unless the Police pressed charges the matter could be seen as arising from an ‘unsubstantiated allegation’; and that if Jervis-Dykes had to resign he should be allowed to work out his notice still teaching and then ‘resign with some dignity’! 
We were deeply shocked to discover that in spite of all of this, having opted to take early retirement when the Jervis-Dykes case finally became public this individual was shortly afterward put forward to become a Jurat.  Proposed for this role by people including none other than a former President of the Education Committee; a former States Member who was actually on the Victoria College Board of Governors when the Jervis-Dykes abuse scandal took place.  
Although this was unknown to us until after our court case when we managed to get hold of a copy of the Sharp Report the clear and very serious failings apparent in this Jurat’s judgement highlighted by Stephen Sharp were clearly known to many within the hierarchy of Jersey’s Law Office and justice system: including both the present and previous Bailiff (who was actually on the Victoria College Board of Governors himself). The responsibility for monitoring an individual’s appropriateness for the role of Jurat lies with the Bailiff and the Superior Number – the other Jurats – yet no one at any time acted on these concerns. Why?
How, we ask Members, can we have any confidence that a Jurat - who had already demonstrated this deeply suspect judgement and attitude to evidence against a paedophile would or could then put aside the clear and serious conflict of interest of his personal relationship with the director of a company owning the Jersey Evening Post who were defendants in our case?  We cannot.  Jurats are, of course, not trained or classed as ‘expert’ in the same way as a Judge. They are lay people and thus subject to the same prejudicial concerns as members of a jury. 
It is quite clear that rather than maintaining silence on the failings within the process of our court case, the authorities should have long moved for a mistrial.  It is simply not right or good enough that these serious failings are met with a response of ‘if you don’t like it, simply appeal.’  Not only did the above all come to light after the court case’s conclusion the reality is that we, like the majority of Islanders, do not have the tens of thousands of pounds needed to appeal.  Nor, indeed, should people be left in this position as a direct consequence of what are clear failings by an individual Jurat for not recusing himself as required; and equally by the Bailiff’s Office for not having ensured all was as required for an ECHR compliant trial. 
To this regard, we would also express our sincere gratitude to the political colleagues past and present who have been brave enough to write to the UK Justice Minister expressing their support for us in raising these concerns. A further fact that the Jersey Evening Post have conveniently kept from their readers in misrepresenting the realities of a case they know is deeply flawed yet seek to benefit from.  
That the UK Justice Minister has thus far failed to intervene in the interests of ensuring justice and good governance in our Crown Dependency is deeply disturbing to many. Indeed, it is surely absurd and indicative of a relationship in need of overhaul that the Minister instead offers to refer the failings to the Island’s Bailiff – the very Office whose failings have allowed this to happen in the first place.  
Justice we repeat should be guaranteed for all irrespective of political leanings.  It cannot be allowed within any true and self-respecting democracy to become a tool of suppressing dissenting voices.  Failure to rectify the wrongs that have been allowed to happen in our case against the JEP and Broadlands can be seen only as evidence that this is the unfortunate and unpalatable reality of the court system in Jersey today. 
We shall thus continue our fight until we get the justice that is so rightly ours and that of all Islanders.'

Saturday, 13 April 2013


Committee of Inquiry members named as Option B & the Jersey Evening Pravda keep spinning the lies...

In the week that finally saw the first two names for the hard-won Committee of Inquiry into decades of Establishment-concealed child abuse announced the crucial importance of all of these people being 100% independent of Jersey's self-proclaimed elite could not have been more strongly reiterated.
For if the Committee of Inquiry is to finally get to the bottom of what went on at Haut de la Garenne and other institutions (States and otherwise) they will need to have a commitment to truth burned into the forefront of their approach at all times. Of course, this fact would likely go without saying in most jurisdictions. But sadly Jersey is not 'most' jurisdictions. It shall we put it: different.
Both different in that it is fundamentally one of the most special places you could ever hope to find. But 'different' too in that we unfortunately have a clique of people at the apex of power desperate to hold on to power here for whom truth appears to come a very long way down their list of priorities.

People who regularly try to rubbish true proponents of political equality,transparency and accountability - yet are quite happy to throw such words around themselves like so much confetti at a wedding. So long as it helps them get what benefits THEM.
Option B for Bullsh*t...
Anyone doubting this fact really need look no further than those at the forefront of the campaign for Option B in the forthcoming (hijacked) Jersey referendum. Already the pages of the local Pravda (more on this later) have been swamped with letters whose lack of honesty (it surely can't be just ignorance, can it?) should tell you that buying a  secondhand car from the authors might just be one hell of a risk.
Why do I say this? Well, it is quite simple. The cold, hard truth of the matter is that Option B - if it were to become law - would create voter inequality that would make Jersey the laughing stock of Europe. Indeed, this would not just be because of a degree of resultant inequality that would cause riots on the streets of any normal democracy; it would be because no other country in Europe would actually even consider risking putting forward such non-ECHR compliant, neo-feudal claptrap as a government-backed initiative in the first place.
Thatcher may be dead but the self-interest mentality lingers on...
Yet here in Jersey, of course, we see people such as former occasional visitor to the States Chamber, Ben 10 Shenton; Clothier saboteur Pierre Horsfall and even young Thatcherite wannabees like James Rondel all spouting the demonstrable garbage that Option B will create a 'fairer' system! Really boys?
Then why is it, let me ask, that not a single one of you B faction brigade can ever manage to explain exactly 'how'? Why they are so quiet on this issue and keen to adopt the standard far-right diversionary attack of branding people who differ 'wreckers' is because they know they are talking the aforesaid utter tosh.
Option B is the choice for people who say that they want efficiency, stability and equality. But actually want an entrenched two-tier society that will continue to let those with the deepest pockets and the lowest ethics carry on riding the elitist gravy train a few years longer. Ride the gravy train even in the knowledge it will ultimately - certainly within the next 20 years -lead the majority into the economic and social Abyss. Please make sure you look at what they DON'T tell you.
To this regard a few weeks ago the A Team were using a catchy little slogan that played on this truth with a tongue-in-cheek 'No Plan B'. May I politely suggest that a more honest slogan would be:
'Vote B and you'll B stuffed - Forever!'

Which brings us neatly on to that bastion of Establishment Party lies...the Jersey Evening Pravda
Now the fact that the local Pravda  is already up to its old tricks in support of the B campaign (lovely big photo of 'thumbs up for inequality' Shenton) should come as a surprise to nobody who follows local politics. This newspaper has been actively working to undermine democracy and spinning Establishment propaganda since at least the end of the Second World War. Doubt my word then just go and sit in the reference library for a few hours.
Indeed, the JEP's consistency in this strategy has been remarkable and has never once faltered: whether this required such diverse ploys as refusing to let the Jersey Democratic Movement publish its election manifesto; portraying heroes of the Occupation such as the legendary Norman Le Brocq as rouble-grasping, anti-Jersey 'wreckers' or just about anything else.
Psst! Need a couple of Lefties portrayed as fraudsters even when all they really did (like some Establishment candiates!) was help a few elderly and/or disabled people register for a postal vote? Yup - Pravda are the boys for the job!

Want a child abuse investigation trashed and years of buggery, bullying and unheeded cries for help from children painted as secondary to what PC Plod had for dinner - once again, we're your guys! Want a dodgy copper leaking information during a live child abuse investigation to a hack Daily Mail journalist instead painted as a 'whistle-blower' - give us a call!
No wonder more and more people are deserting the MSM for Citizens' Media...
Of course, often this most vile of 'newspapers' takes a more subtle approach.

Ever so accidental pictures of favoured Establishment candidates such as Sir Philip Bailhache given much greater prominence, likewise with quotes/text than other candidates. Respected US journalists (shockingly monitored whilst a visitor to our island and then banned upon revealing what she was researching) stuck on the pages of Pravda when her visa is returned... ever so accidentally next to a big feature on illegal immigrants!
The truth is the Jersey Evening Pravda is both terrified of TRUTH and contemptuous of it in my opinion and, indeed, in that of so many others. Okay so we know they are desperate to bury this... But just consider our case against them and Broadlands for the horrible, cowardly lie that my wife (Deputy Shona Pitman) and I had increased our salary by 4 times with my entering politics.
Bad enough as this despicable lie was in itself given our income had decreased and, of course, a belated, desperate attempt to spin this as a reference to a mortgage muliplier ignored the ever so inconvenient little fact that that 4 x wasn't even the current rate.But if you have been reading their recent appallingly written stories from the likes of Richard Heath and Andy Sibcy (what happened to you guys?) relating to facts of the case and material sent to the UK Justice Ministry then you'll oddly NOT have been made aware of the following very interesting FACTS.

Never mind Article 6 and Human Rights - we're the Jersey Establishment!
Firstly. the editors and owners of the Pravda are desperate that you don't know the cold, hard FACT that this newspaper is seeking to gain financially from a court case that was NOT ECHR compliant. This being because our esteemed Bailiff's Office - whether through negligence or, it has to be asked, something more sinister,failed to ensure that Jurat John Le Breton who is an evidenced personal friend of a defendant company director did not obey the rules on conflict of interest and recuse himself.
Whatever could have been Le Breton's motive for not doing what was required, I ask?

The Jersey Evening Pravda - aided and abetted appallingly by BBC Jersey in this instance - claim they CAN'T report this for risk of getting into 'Big Trub'. Slightly odd then you might think how journalists in both the UK and beyond have reported what is cold, hard FACT? Obviously the Establishment tom-tom drums have been beating frantically to try and keep the Bailiff's Office's failures quiet at all costs.
Then secondly, the reality that Jurat John Le Breton is highlighted within the Establishment suppressed Sharp Report as refusing to look at EVIDENCE against his friend and Victoria College teaching colleague, predatory paedophile Andrew Jervis-Dykes. Not just this but then writing in support of this vile individual. And yet was then actually put forward and supported by Establishment grandees including a former Education Committee President to become a Jurat!
The role of a Jurat? Looking at and deciding on... EVIDENCE!
And then we have the little fact of the Jersey Evening Pravda trying to con their readers that it is only Shona and I who have written to the UK Justice Minister expressing their deep concern at this abuse of justice. Of course the truth is that a dozen prominent Islanders wrote in support of our challenging of this sickening farce. All but three current or past States Members.
Funny how the Jersey Evening Pravda don't tell their readers that?
Opting out of ECHR obligations on the excuse that Jersey 'is small' just isn't an option...
But Lord above, would YOU not be concerned if you found an individual like John Le Breton awarded the job by the Bailiff's Office of deciding on evidenced fact in your case?! Deciding on evidence that could impact your whole life? Yes, I repeat: no wonder the Jersey Evening Pravda want to keep this little scandal quiet. Conflicted to the hilt AND a proven record of being happy to look the other way on evidence!

Yet what possibly makes this even worse? The aforesaid fact that despite this appalling reality the Pravda and their lawyers still appear quite happy to try and gain financially on the back of court proceedings that as a conseqquence wouldn't stand up in a Third World country like Zimbabwe.
Or maybe its all a whole lot more sinister still?

Maybe Le Breton's being allowed to get away with sitting on our case against the JEP/Broadlands even when it is beyond question that he was impossibly conflicted wasn't just down to him? Maybe what is happening now isn't just a consequence of cynical opportunism? Maybe it was yet another manifestation of 'the Jersey Way'?

Maybe it was all part of a deliberate strategy?
After all, the Establishment can always use the get out/excuse 'well, if you are unhappy you can appeal!' Knowing that most ordinary people simply can't afford another £30,000 + nor should have to due to failings entirely down to the Bailiff's own Office probably don't even enter into their considerations.

Or maybe that too is all part of 'the Jersey Way' plan...
But to return to where I began with the selection of the Committee of Inquiry members to examine decades of States concealed child abuse: all i can say is thank God that this selection is in the hands of a decent man like States Greffier, Michael de la Haye!

If we can follow in this vein all the way through and keep the Establishment 'wreckers' at arms length maybe the inquiry will eventually be able to succeed. We must certainly do all we can to ensure this happens. More than enough children and adults have suffered already.
Keep the Faith. Yes, they can destroy us - but ultimately the Truth will always win in the end...

Truth - especially the BALD TRUTH - to paraphrase Corporal Jones - the Jersey Establishment and their mouthpieces just don't like it up 'em!

Thursday, 4 April 2013


The main piece below is a requested 'anonymous' guest posting that I am happy to make available via the Bald Truth Jersey. In flagging up the realities of Option A it certainly sets one to thinking...

How much of the truths argued below will actually be confronted by the champions of increased inequality and non-ECHR compliance - Option B; or the retain the failed status quo brigade pushing Option C?

And why ever can it be that the recently re-emerged into the political twilight former Senator  Ben Shenton and his Establishment Protection Squad (EPS) AKA the Constables are running so scared of debating the true merits and drawbacks of all the Options A, B & C with one of the true giants of the modern political era, former Senator Ted Vibert?

Yet first of all for those who haven't been able to read it in the local Pravda I also publish below Mr. Vibert's recent press release itself. For the record I should also point out that while I am aware Mr. Vibert has indeed written personally to the aforesaid ex-Senator Shenton on the matter; sadly, it seems that as yet he has not even received the courtesy of a reply...

*For once I can confidently say that any and all spelling mistakes; typos etc are nothing whatsoever to do with me! Honest...

Press release 



Former Senator Mr. Ted Vibert has issued a challenge to former Senator Mr. Ben Shenton to publicly debate with him issues involved in the referendum on the make- up of the States.

Mr. Vibert is publicly campaigning, together with the A team, for Option A, which would reduce the number of States members from 51 to 42 and would create six equal size constituencies which would elect 7 deputies per constituency.  Constables would be able to stand in these elections as a deputy and, if elected, hold both positions.

Senator Shenton is a spokesman for Option B which also reduces the numbers to 42 but retains the parish constables as at present.  Option C retains the status quo- 12 Constables 10 Senators and 29 Deputies

In a letter to Mr. Shenton, Mr. Vibert proposes that they debate the motion: “That the Parishes will better off if their Constable is not in the States” . There would be an independent chairman and each speaker would have 15 minutes to make their case.  Their seconder would have 7 minutes and the matter would then be thrown open to the audience who could speak for 2 minute each for a 30 minute4 period.  Each speaker would have a five minute closing speech after which the audience will be invited to vote.

Said Mr. Vibert: “This was the successful formula used by the Jersey Debating Club that was so popular in the late fifties and follows the rules of most debating societies in Britain.

“I hope that Mr. Shenton will take up the challenge as it will help to ensure that the public are fully informed about this most vital issue, probably the most important public issue to come up since the war”

“If Mr. Shenton accepts the challenge I hope that we could hold this at the T own Hall in the weeks before the referendum. I will be asking Jersey Radio if they would broadcast the event live as they have done for election meetings.”  

For further information contact|;  Ted Vibert   625591   07797846764  or email

A guest posting from a concerned veteran of 1948 and  an observer of many a political battle since. Can any one of us really afford to let this referendum pass us by?
Just what is at stake on April 24th...
'On April 24th you will be able to take part in a unique event by voting in a referendum where you can tell your government how you want it to be organised and structured.
Governments affect people’s lives in every way.
It decides how much tax you pay, how that money will be spent, whether or not you can smoke in a public place, how much your petrol will cost, how the hospital is run, how you are educated, how much our nurses should be paid, how late you can drink in a pub, what kind of films can be shown, how many houses can be built and so on.
The States registers you when you are born and records when you die.    In short, your government has a massive impact on your lives from the cradle to the grave.
No generation in Jersey has ever had the chance to decide the make- up of our Parliament.
That is why April 24th is a crucial moment in Jersey’s history and islanders must seize it. 
Failure to do so – for instance, by not voting in the referendum  or supporting options that rely on emotion rather than fact,- will mean that we will lose this golden chance of getting the Government we so desperately need to face the modern challenges of the international  world in which Jersey now finds itself. 
The current make-up of the States was recommended to us by a UK Home Office Commission which came to Jersey in 1948 at the request of the States to examine our system of Government which consisted of  the parish Rectors, Jurats, Constables and Deputies..
This system had evolved, from the 15th century when the island’s warden, the Bailiff, was the sole government on behalf of the British Crown.  

Successive Bailiffs, in turn, called on the parish Constables to advise him.  Over centuries  Jurats were added to the mix, then the Rectors and finally some Deputies..    Eventually, this coalesced into the States of Jersey.
This was our Government. at the end of the War when Jersey was struggling to regain its economic and social life and it was obvious  to most islanders that this form of Government was not fit purpose for the changing world of the 50’s and 60’s.  Hence, the UK Commission of 1948 which ultimately recommended the make- up of  States that governs us today , There  have only been a few minor adjustments to that make-up since.
But what was fine 65 years ago can no longer be acceptable today.
Back then agriculture was our main export and tourism was only just beginning to develop.  There were few cars on the island and a limited bus service.  Few people had telephones.  Country people only came to town occasionally.  Most country people spoke Jersey French as  a first language and the population was  only  53,000   The.States sat for one morning a fortnight.
By1999 there were real concerns about that make-up of the States and a panel of distinguished UK judges, academics and  six distinguished local people( the Clothier Panel) was set-up to examine our system of government. They  held a large number of public meetings and heard hundreds of submissions.
They decided that the present system was not fit for purpose and recommended the removal of the Constables and Senators and replacing them with 42-46 members.
When it came before the Sates to decide on that change, the proposition was defeated because the Senators and the Constables, representing 24 votes  and aided by country deputies, did not want to lose their positions of power.  This led one politician to comment on the result that “I’m afraid that turkeys don’t vote for Christmas”.
So Jersey  continued to be governed by a 1948 system and which had been  judged to be “unfit for purpose” in 2000, a system which was acceptable 65 years  ago and was designed for an agricultural society of 53,000.
Two years ago, so much concern was being expressed by the population about the way in which we are governed, that the States set up an Electoral Commission to examine the question. Unfortunately, what had started out as an exemplary piece of work led by former Deputy Daniel Wimberley was alllowed to become hijacked by former Bailiff, Senator Sir.Philip Bailhache.
Nevertheless, their final report still came to a similar conclusion to that of the Clothier Panel with respect to the numbers and the Senators and they based their findings on four fundamental principles for creating a democratic government that are accepted internationally..  These are:
·        All electors should have the same number of votes.
 In Jersey every constituency has a large variety of electorates. The Constable of St. Mary has  1,340 eligible voters in her district whilst the Constable of St. Helier faces 26,890 yet, when in the States, they both have the same power
·        Constituencies should as far as possible be of equal size
Senators have an island-wide constituency containing  77.560  electors whereas the average size constituency for the 27 Deputies is 2,691.   In the 2011 election a Senator received over 18,000 votes and the average Deputy vote was 550 yet once in the States that Senator has no greater power than the Deputy.
·        A candidate should generally require a significant number of votes in order to be elected to the Assembly.
In the 2011 election there was no election for 8 Constable positions and 3 deputy positions.  In St. Ouen there has been no election for Constable for over 100 years
·        The electoral system should be simple, fair and easy to understand.
Jersey’s system is complicated and many islanders say they still do not understand it.
  Contrary to what opponents of Option A are saying, this option does not remove the Constables from the States. 
If  Option A is carried there will be an election for the 42 deputies in the six constituencies, and if a  Constable wishes to be in the States to represent his parish  he can stand as a deputy
 April 24th is a special day for islanders who wish to see real change take place in the way we are governed.  This is a unique opportunity and will probably never be repeated in your life-time.  Don’t miss the chance to vote for Option A.'