Tuesday 26 February 2013

Soft touch Jersey and the Improbable Knights


In my Blogs on the Curtis Warren Affair it became evident that a considerable sum of money was wasted on pointless investigations, suspensions and disciplinary hearings yet no one is accountable nor does it seem that anyone cares about it.

However it appears that the Police and the Home Affairs Minister are not the only ones to turn a blind eye to wanton waste because it seems that the Economic and Development Department (EDD) is also partial to a bit of wanton waste and can be seen as a “soft touch” when it comes to handing out £200,000 of tax payer’s money.

The matter would have remained under wraps had it not been for a keen eyed member of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) who then decided to scrutinise an application for £2million to finance a film. It should have been the Economic Development Scrutiny Panel’s responsibility to have scrutinised the application but somehow it flew under that Panel’s radar.

The PAC has recently held a Public Hearing to question the EDD’s Chief Officer and the transcript can now be found on its website but for reader’s benefit it can be downloaded here.

As one will see that in October 2010 a small group of people headed by an anonymous Jersey resident made an application to the EDD for support to finance a film which allegedly is to be partly filmed in Jersey. The original application was for £2m which is a considerable sum in any one’s language. It appears that figure was just a softener and rather than disappoint the applicants and with money coming out of EDD’s ears it eventually settled for doling out £200k on the spurious grounds that it might be on to a winner.

Unfortunately the chances of seeing any return on its bet oops sorry investment are as good as Arsenal winning this year’s Premiership. The film is supposed to be called Knights of the Impossingworth's. In 2005 a film company with the same name, Canbedone Productions produced a film called Knights of Impossingworth Park.

How successful was that film? There is no mention of it in the Ministerial Decision but it contains so many gaps and unanswered questions so why would that fact be of any interest? It is unclear as to whether the Ministerial Decision was included in EDD’s bundle, but if it was a pity that no questions asked about the ambiguities in the Chief Officer’s evidence and what is contained in the Ministerial Decision?

In the transcript one will see that a group of well intentioned States Members assisted by two members of the public interviewed the Chief Officer, however there did not appear to be anyone on the Panel with a film background, why? They never the less did ask some searching questions which received unsatisfactory answers. There does not appear to be any evidence to support the Chief Officer’s claims. Also when will the documents he said he would produce be forwarded to the PAC and does that Committee intend to hold further Hearings? It certainly should because there are a number of other pertinent questions that should also be asked of EDD’s Minister who signed the Ministerial Decision.

Questions like,

How was money allowed to go into a UK company? It is Jersey tax payer’s money after all. All receipts should be for money spent on the Island. To date it appears that no receipts have yet been produced, why has this been allowed to happen? At the very least questions should been asked by the EDD staff when the first sets of receipts were due, that was many months ago.

There is a mention of a Jersey Resident, who is he? Surely he should have some questions to answer.

Is there a 'script,' if so, has anyone read it? How much of the film is really to be shot in Jersey and if some is what are the scenes because it now appears that filming will take anywhere other than in Jersey.

If there is a script is it based on a book? Who wrote it and who owns the rights, does the book actually exist?

If Jersey is seeking to diverse its economy, how would Jersey be able to expand into the film industry by working with the Production Team?

There is a sum of £167k for rights, what does this mean?

Who is Noel Castley-Wright?

What track record does Kevin Cavelle have?

Should monies given not have been in the name of the Film 'Knights of the Impossingworth'? Is this not good housekeeping so that the Production Company is able to show receipts in a tidy way.

Why were the cheques in the name of the Production Company? This means money could be spent on anything to do with any other projects.

We know that legal advice was sought but what advice was obtained from anyone involved in the film industry? What due diligence was really applied and who checked any replies received?

The only relevant information that made sense in the Hearing’s transcript was that Tesco would not come in with funding until the film was bonded, quite right! They do finance movies that is correct but only when the film is bonded and ready to shoot!

Of course Tesco runs its company in a business like manner and is answerable to its shareholders. If only our civil servants and Ministers took a take a leaf out of Tesco’s book, just think of the savings Jersey could make.

Unfortunately we do not do business like Tesco and what odds would any one give that heads will roll if the Knights of Impossingworth don’t exist or get off the ground?


Friday 6th September 2013.

Since I published the above Blog there has been continued readership, as such I thought it would be helpful to update readers.

Below are are number of websites which are self explanatory. What is evident is that it is questionable whether anyone will be taken to task for what the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) claimed to be a "catalogue of errors."

A 5 strong Treasury Team, led by a chief internal auditor will review the entire affair, however what will it find that the PAC did not? One questions why there should be another Review when it is clear that the Knights are by name but not by nature and if any horses ever existed, they have certainly bolted.

For further information please click onto the sites below.

PAC Report

Minister's Response

States Employment Board Report

JEP Editorial 




44 comments:

  1. Bob, is the name of the company that EDD gave £200k to called Canbedone Productions Ltd?

    If so, a quick google search says it all about this company.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes it is and I too went into Google to see what is known about the production company as did some members of the PAC, not sure if EDD did.

      Delete
  2. Further to my comment on
    http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.com/2013/02/bloggers-and-banned.html

    highlighting the JEP-censoring of my comment at
    www.thisisjersey.com/news/2013/02/22/copyright-row-over-states-aided-film/
    and highlighting the significantly sudden closure of the comments section on that thread; a further comment was left on Ex-Health Minister Syvret's blog:

    "
    On the same JEP comments section they refused to publish my comment.....


    "Cambourne Production's Ltd has 3 directors and 2 shareholders.

    Find out who they are and their connection to EDD and you will soon understand how we were conned out of £200k AGAIN!"


    Anything controversial there?

    [Monday, 25 February 2013 07:48:00 GMT]"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It may be the word “con” that may have been of concern, but from the evidence to date its does look like a "dodgy" deal. I suppose we shall soon be told, “That lessons have been learnt,” “we should draw a line in the sand” and “we should move on.”

      I hope that it won’t be the case and that PAC will not move on until it has all the answers.

      Delete
    2. Do you believe the word "con" warrants censorship?

      Delete
    3. I don't know the reason why your comment was ignored, but if it was censored because you used the word "con" then I don't agree, that is why I have accepted your comment.

      Delete
    4. I see a couple of new comments while I was writing this; I am 26 Feb2013 08:28 This is my response to BH @ 09:34.
      10:54 may be the other or a new commentor

      ====================
      Yup, any excuse, the JEP is an excuse of a newspaper.

      The JEP might have a point if the commentor had used a more precise word like "defrauded" rather than the vaguer word "conned", which can have the much weaker meaning of "tricked" or even "extracted without the use of full disclosure".

      Where the JEP ran for cover you seem to be prepared to run the gauntlet of the potential posy of legal 'guns for hire'.
      Quaking in your boots ? - I think not.

      If that one word had been the problem the JEP does actually have the ability to edit comments before publishing (it has even occasionally edited them to completely flip their meaning !)
      So the moderators could simply have replaced "how we were conned out of £200k" with something like [how we were relieved of £200k]
      and where a censor or an edit is made they should denote so.

      But no, they hid the inconvenient information and very hurriedly shut down the thread because they are in the business of cynical opinion management and regularly show themselves complicit in establishment cover up.

      I think that we can expect more of this JEP-non-reporting & No-comment threads & Emergency-shut-down threads. That is OK because it mealy hastens the rate at which the JEP and its site become irrelevant where real information and real debate can be found on quality sites from yours to the inimitable Ian "diamond in the rough" Evens' site http://therightofreply.blogspot.com
      Ian is clearly a very intelligent man but I would rather take Prof. Stephen Hawking's assessment on climate change as he probably has better understanding and better access to the top scientists of the world (consider dropping it Ian? climate change will lead to war, escalating into nuclear war as we fight over the scraps ?)

      Delete
    5. I might not have been the word but you mentioning
      "Cambourne Production's Ltd has 3 directors and 2 shareholders that might have been the reason. (did you mean Canbedone Publications?)

      I don't normally read the JEP Bog and comments but because of your interest I have just read the comments and was quite surprised at what has been published when one considers it did not accept yours.

      Delete
    6. "did you mean Canbedone Publications?"

      Yes i did Bob, and spelt it correctly when i posted it on the JEP thread.

      Thank you to the previous poster who summed up the JEP ill founded reason for not allowing it.

      And when a comment like this does not get published (especially as Bob was "surprised at what has been published"), it just makes me wonder all the more. Hiding something or coincidence?

      I appreciate that the JEP can not keep all threads open as it would be a moderators nightmare, but the comment was made a day or two after the article was posted.

      Delete
  3. youbeendone productions Ltd ????

    ReplyDelete
  4. "The Man Who Never Was" would be a good film to remake; it could star Alan Maclean!

    An excellent post, Bob, and a succinct summary of Scrutiny. Who is on the EDD Scrutiny which missed it? I see Tracy Valois and Sarah Ferguson are on PAC which seems to have some teeth when it comes to looking into matters.

    Do you remember a former EDD Minister who blew a lot of money - not quite as much - on getting a very expensive lady over for the Battle of Flowers, and who also had to offer the States members tickets for the VIP seats because they were empty? I'll give you one guess as to his name!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for the compliment.

    I was thinking something on the lines of “The King’s New Clothes” but that might be taking the mike out of somebody.

    I agree with Sarah and Tracy having some teeth, they also have Gerard Baudains and young Philip Rondel who is learning quickly but what happens if there is no evidence of due diligence would they bring a vote of confidence, and if they did what support would they receive?

    I don't think I need even half a guess to identify the former EDD Minister. He has been in the lime light of late.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dear Bob, fantastic blog, I remember when The Crooked Mile was produced a number of years ago, the word 'Crooked' was not allowed to be used as the name of a limited company! it happened eventually! says it all eh!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you.

      Some one must have learnt from you because there are knights in the applicant's name.

      Delete
  7. I love the picture! very fitting!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you,

      I was looking for a knight on a "cock horse" which I thought may be more appropriate, but could not find one.

      Delete
  8. Bob, don't you mean young Richard Rondel or was that a freudian slip?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well spotted Hawkeye, yes it should be young Richard.

      Delete
  9. Anyway, all joking aside, it is ridiculous that this grant was given with no thought for what it was being used for! who is being brought to account? we must not let this go quietly, we must keep on blogging until we get answers..... Bob can you suggest a Politician that can keep on asking the questions re: above and lets hope as with the Curtis Warren case, still on-going that we don't get 'outrageous questions being said', by non other than Mr Le Marquand! Jersey has missed a trick the above is a movie script! you don't have to make any of it up!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am sure that the Public Accounts Committee will come back seeking answers to questions such as I have posed above.

      I know that some States Members do read the Blogs and hopefully questions will be asked during Question Time. If the Bailiff allows a question to be asked it cannot be outrageous and to claim it to be is questioning the Bailiff'd judgement.

      Delete
  10. I can't stop laughing at the picture above, it's comical! well done Bob! keep up the great work, you're blog is one of the most informative and truthful, better than any newspaper!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, the advantage Blogs have over other media is that it allows for inter action between Bloggers and readers as is becoming evident with my Blog and I thank all those submit comments.

      Delete
  11. Some of the comments have hinted at the possibility of curruption. I do not think we have enough evidence to make that allegation but at the same time we do not have the evidence to rule it out either. And therein lies an issue. One of the main purposes of due process and Scrutiny is maintain a system of accountability and transparency which ensures that allegations of improper conduct do not even make it to the table. On that last point we ought all to be able to agree that "the system" has failed us yet again. So who ran the process on this occasion and who will hold them to account? And will we get enough information to satisfy us that nothing improper occurred or will the Jersey rumour-mill be allowed to dictate the agenda yet again? Time for someone to "come clean" and remove all doubt. I think that is called "Good Governance" Can we have some please?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, we appear to have another failure in our system but is it a failure or par for the course? Our system seems to be top heavy with chiefs but none with any accountability.

      I do hope that PAC does look further into the matter and if the grant have been been abused, it is recoverable.

      Delete
  12. Bob, you mentioned the Bailiff and to be honest he has no right to be in the Chamber, he is not elected and has no reason to be there! Good Governance is all Jersey is asking for, why is this so hard for those with power to do this? Even the Constables are not elected correctly to be in the States, this needs serious addressing....so back to the point, I look forward to seeing all our blog questions addressed, so over to those who know the answers!

    ReplyDelete
  13. It has been reported that PPC is considering a Referendum re the Bailiff's role, but I won't be holding my breath.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This must change! unless we get the unelected Bailiff and Constables 'out' of Elected seats they do not belong too, we will never have a democratic Island, never! this is a fact. If Constables want to be in politics, they should go for election in the same way as our Jersey politicians do, it's that simple! Oh and Sir Birt, I hope you read this blog, if you want to sit and ask questions to Politicians, go out and get voted! you have no right to be there! no right! Do the right thing and leave now!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We are moving off the subject of this Blog, but perhaps what is going on in Sark with the separation of roles may influence change in Jersey and Guernsey.

      Delete
  15. It is inevitable that Jersey will have to look at its very undemocratic system, better to sort it out before it gets sorted out for Jersey! Jersey is going through great change and it's everyday people who are changing it! keep up the great blog!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks,

      I believe that changes will be forthcoming because like King Canute one cannot stop the tide. The tide for change is getting ever nearer.

      Delete
  16. So at last Cavelle has made a statement in the JEP, a bit like the cart before the horse! Let's see what he does, he may come up with the goods, if he wants to get it made for Cannes! he needs to get his skates on, has anyone in Jersey actually read the script?, is it family? horror? what is the genre? any ideas, anyone!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I have asked in my Blog has any one seen anything that really supported the grant of money. Perhaps the PAC are taking steps to obtain further info.

      Delete
  17. What is worrying is Cavelle wrote the script is producing the script and is also Directing the script, hmmm,,,,,,, he has never written a script, nor Directed a script, producing is a different beast!! is the script any good, has anyone read it, as the above person has written....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes as mentioned above, surely some one has seen the script otherwise why was the funding granted?

      Delete
  18. But it is not mentioned in the 60 page document? My concern is that Cavelle, wrote it, produced it and is to Direct it, if it's the sort of budget Cavelle says it is, then no financier will touch it, if the same person is doing all three, unless you are Clint Eastwood! fact! I know the film business very well. Oh, and Cavelle has never Directed or written a screenplay before! so it's fine to have 127 pages of a screenplay but is it any good? It's his first script..... I would love to see a copy of the script! Do you think King has been given it? A question for King, have you read the script? The film feels as if it will have a lot of special effects, if Cavelle is a First Time Director this is already sending red signals in my ears!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Thank you for your informed comments and clearly there are a number of questions that need to be asked. I don't have the answers are they certainly are not in the 60 page transcript. That is what is so amazing when one considers that £200k has been given for amounts to a nod and a wink.

    Perhaps some States Member might lodge a question to enquire further into the payment.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I do agree, the 60 page document does not cover the most important issues at all. It's actually quite astounding..... simple has anyone read the script? for all they know it's not a good advert for Jersey! if they have not read the script, how do they know, also special effects are costly and a first time Director will not get the funding that is a fact!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Replies
    1. Pleased to see that this Blog is still being read.

      Delete
  22. Hi - weirdly, in our hire car in Jersey was an 8 page revised shooting schedule for 'Knights of Impossingworth' with the tide times and when the units move and who was in the scenes and how after 4 weeks of filming in Jersey they were going to England and then flying to China. Have no idea why I have kept it - but thought I would google it and found this thread.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Thanks for your interest, you have not mentioned the date of your document, but Mr Cavele has recently been in the Island auditioning young Islanders but there has not been news of filming getting underway. The Knights have been dropped and replaced by Crystal Island.

    Is it possible to let readers know of the date of the document.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Bob - thank you so much for replying - I am so sorry that I missed the date off. I can see what I said made no sense really - but I was surprised even to find anything about the film on the internet. It was a revised schedule dated 28th January 2012 for shooting to take place on Monday 30th April 2012 with high tide at 14.00. It lasts 23 days and ends 26th May 2012. The characters names are so ridiculous and the schedule is so amateur I though t it was perhaps a class drama project for a school. I thought that they might be learning about filming. An example of the characters names are - Canbedone, Darkindeed, Woebegone and Infamy. It has things like "Day 21 filmed at the Fort during the day - Canbedone is alone"
      The casting agency 'Star search casting' are looking for an Asian girl to be in the film with the advert expiring in 3518 days. Don't think any of this helps anyone - but thought I would share

      Delete