Wednesday 3 April 2013

The Dean---- And a Voice in the Wilderness

There have been a number of developments since I published my last Blog, regretfully the Dean is now on the sick list suffering from stress and I am sure we wish him a speedy recovery.

The Terms of Reference have been published.

Senator Bailhache has written an open letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury expressing his ‘deep dismay’ over the suspension of the Dean saying the Bishop made a ‘mistake.’ The Letter can be accessed here

It is also alleged that Senator Bailhache was a little careless with his documents on a recent flight.

I have again written to the Chief Minister asking that he instigate an investigation into the circumstances leading to HG’s arrest and court appearances.

The Terms of Reference (TOR)

The Bishop of Winchester has published the Terms of Reference for an independently led inquiry - ‘Visitation’ - into safeguarding procedures in the Deanery of Jersey. The Visitation will commence with immediate effect and will consider the implementation of safeguarding in Jersey and across the Diocese, providing recommendations for enhancing policies and procedures.

The Visitation is being led by the former Bishop of Chelmsford the Right Reverend John Gladwin who led a recent Visitation to Chichester. He will be joined on the panel by the Venerable Norman Russell, Archdeacon of Berkshire and an independent senior lawyer.

It should be noted that the Visitation to Chichester was the first such appointment of Commissaries for over 100 years and was evidence of the deep concern held in the Church of England for the diocese and its failure properly to protect children in its care. Thus it is apparent that the same concerns are felt about the circumstances surrounding HG’s complaint in 2008.

The Chichester Visitation began on 21st December 2011, an Interim Report was published on 30th August 2012 but I am not aware of the existence of a Final Report so presumably the investigation which began 15 months ago is not concluded. It should be noted that John Gladwin has now begun his Jersey investigation which is intended to be fair and independent, but no target is set for its completion. Given the time taken with the Chichester Visitation, Jersey’s could take as long which is not good news for Dean Bob Key or his wife.

I shall be forwarding this Blog to Winchester and Canterbury with a request that the Dean and indeed the Island is given some indication of the time the investigation is intended to take. I have assisted a number of suspended people and am well aware of the stress and trauma they and their families suffered. As we know in Jersey, some lengthy suspensions have been used as device to dismiss by stealth or de-skill employees whereby they are unfit to return to work. I would not wish for the Dean or anyone else to suffer the same experience.

I shall also be asking for an update on HG’s health and assurance that she is being cared for. I believe the Church of England has a duty to safeguard her health and well being until she is able to stand on her own two feet.

The Visitation will also include an investigation into the findings of the recently published Independent Korris Review which raised concerns about how a safeguarding complaint in 2008 was handled. Given the allegations contained in the Review/Report one wonders when the Dean and the Vicar will be able to defend the allegations.

Full Terms of Reference are below and my comments are in red

In order to secure the good order of the Church for the mission of God in promoting the common good, And given the importance of safeguarding as an expression of the Gospel priority to care for the vulnerable, And with reference to the Korris Review,

The Bishop of Winchester hereby:

1. Appoints as his Commissary for Visitation of the Parishes of the Deanery of Jersey the Right Reverend John Gladwin.

From research via Yahoo it apparent that John Gladwin is a modern thinking and opened minded individual. His Interim Report into the Chichester Visitation can be accessed here.

2. Directs that during the period of the Visitation, all issues relating to or affecting Safeguarding within the Parishes of the Deanery of Jersey shall be dealt with solely as directed by the Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser and the Diocesan Safeguarding Panel, and by no other.

The Church of England of England is clearly reminding Jersey clergy that all safeguarding matters are solely within its remit and not as envisaged by the Dean.

3. Mandates that the Visitation shall be limited in its scope to:

a. clarifying and describing the legal, ecclesiastical and practical nature of the relationship between the Deanery of Jersey, the Diocese of Winchester and the wider Church of England, including the roles of the Bishop of Winchester, the Suffragan Bishops, the Archdeacons, Diocesan staff, the Dean and Vice-Deans of Jersey and the ecclesiastical courts of Jersey in relation to the appointments process, the safeguarding of children and vulnerable people, disciplinary provisions and the general oversight of the Deanery of Jersey.

I trust that the position of the Letters Patent is clarified so they are understood by everyone. I also hope that the matter of the Dean remaining an unelected Member of the States will be addressed. It seems anomalous that an employee can be suspended from one area of work but not from another.

b. examining progress made in implementation of and actions taken in accordance with the Diocesan Safeguarding provisions (Winchester Diocese Child Safeguarding Manual, 2003), the current House of Bishops’ Guidelines (Promoting a Safe Church, 2006, Protecting All God’s Children, 2010 and Responding Well, 2011) and the recommendations made by Jan Korris in her report dated March 2013;

It is apparent from the Korris Report that Jersey’s Safeguarding procedures leaves a lot be desired and there must be uniformity across the Island. That said it is evident via the Chichester Interim Report that there are similar shortcomings in the UK.

c. considering the results of the investigation set up in response to the Korris Review and making recommendations for the Deanery, Diocese and the wider Church of England in response to it;

As with TOR 3(a) I would welcome clarity as to what this term means. Are the Korris findings/recommendations being taken as read or will the allegations be re-visited? It should be recalled that some of the leading players, including HG and EY were not interviewed by Jan Korris.

d. making such further recommendations as may appear necessary and expedient.

This is often found in TOR.

4 Directs that the Visitation shall commence with immediate effect.

I hope the Visitation is conducted in a timely manner.

Senator Bailhache’s letter.

Senator Bailhache is a former Solicitor General, Attorney General, Deputy Bailiff, Bailiff, President of the States Assembly and Judge. He raised some interesting points and I believe he was right to question whether the investigation purports to be a disciplinary inquiry because the matter is unclear.

His concerns are two fold, first he believes that the withdrawal of the Bishop’s Commission seems to be disproportionate to the alleged failings of the Dean in that, in his opinion the alleged failings relate to procedural omissions and not misconduct.

The second is that the Senator is unclear whether the Bishop intends to respect the special historical relationship. I will deal with this matter first. I am sure that Winchester and Canterbury will have taken advice on the matter, are acting on that advice and John Gladwin will respect what ever protocols are in place.

Senator Bailhache is of the view that alleged failings of the Dean, in his opinion relate to procedural omissions and not misconduct.

On page 47/48 of the Korris Review/Report she states

“A number of potentially very serious matters came to light during the course of the Review that to have investigated further would have been beyond the original terms of reference. The matters listed below must be investigated as soon as possible in order to establish whether there has been inappropriate or unbecoming conduct on the part of those identified below, which may lead to the need for a disciplinary process to be conducted.”

1) Allowing a church warden to operate in contravention of the Safeguarding procedures and the training he had undertaken.

2) Failure to notify the Safeguarding Advisor on receipt of the complaint.

3) Failure to implement and act in accordance with Diocesan Safeguarding Procedure in the handling of the initial complaint interview.

4) Failure to record and make all documentation available for a review of a Safeguarding matter as required by the Safeguarding procedures.

5) Despite the request of the Bishop of Winchester, unwillingness to permit review of safeguarding practice and also discouraging others from participating.

There will also need to be an investigation into the deportation of H.G. on 11th October 2010 and why there is a complete lack of recording of this matter by Dean R.K. from the date of her arrest.

Senator Bailhache believes the matters above are merely procedural omissions and not misconduct, but clearly that view is not shared by the Bishop and Archbishop who have apologised to HG and I doubt whether they will be sidetracked from the Visitation by Senator Bailhache or anyone else.

Senator Bailhache has stated that it is pity that the Bishop made a mistake by not speaking to the Dean before removing his Commission. I don't know how the Dean learnt of his suspension/withdrawal of Commission but I hope it was not via the postman because the Senator may well have a point. I am unsure as to whether the Dean is subject to the States Employees' Suspension Policy which is now in place following States approval of my 2010 proposition. This now requires for would be suspended employees being informed in person along with written details of the reasons for suspension.

However it is for the Employer to decide whether to suspend an employee and given that Jan Korris acting on behalf of the CoE attempted to establish the circumstances behind the HG’s complaint but was apparently thwarted by the Dean it is not surprising that Bishop Dakin decided to withdraw the Dean's Commission. On page 37 of her report Jan Korris states “I believe R.K. (the Dean) has done himself a disservice, and his desire to prevent transparency and co-operation has not been of benefit to the clergy or to the relationship between Jersey and the Diocese of Winchester. They deserved better.”

Senator Bailhache has cited two examples of errors in the Reviewer’s report, one is about the email to the Dean being sent on his private rather than his Government address. I do not share the Senator’s view if one has more than one email address surely one has a duty to regularly check them all. Regarding the other alleged error about HG’s “deportation” from Jersey. Like Senator Bailhache I too have read the transcript and it has reinforced my belief that the issue must be the subject of an independent review. As one can see above that is also the view of the Reviewer, Jan Korris.

In my previous Blog I raised the Deportation issue because HG was bound over to leave Jersey, however having now read the Court Transcript I can understand why Jan Korris formed the view that HG was deported.

I have concerns about how Harassment Order was issued and implemented because the Transcript records that on 9th August HG received a police warning about her future actions but she denies knowing of its existence or receiving the warning. I was not privy to the police report or charge sheet but it is evident that HG was arrested sometime prior to the church service that was being conducted by the Dean and the former Bishop on Sunday 26th September 2010. HG was charged and detained overnight in a police cell. It is not known whether she received any legal aid but she was seen by a police medical officer and deemed fit to be questioned and charged. However she was not bailed, why?

HG appeared at the Magistrates Court the following morning and was seen by a Duty Advocate who presumably also had other clients to see. The Transcript shows that the Magistrate commenced the Hearing at 1210pm. He is on record as saying to the Duty Advocate “This is not a run of the mill situation, is it? “ To which he received a reply “No Sir.”

I ask what made the case “not a run of the mill situation” because the Transcript does not record the names of the people allegedly to be harassed. HG reserved her plea and was willing to comply with bail conditions, however as a result of police checks at her home address she was refused bail and remanded in custody at La Moye prison for 2 weeks. Why was she not bailed, she was of previous good behaviour and the Magistrate was aware of her medical condition. Remanding an innocent and vulnerable person for two weeks in prison was not conducive to her health and was certainly heavy handed.

HG appeared again at the Magistrates Court on Monday 11th October where concerns were raised about her fitness to plead however she was assisted by a delegated Advocate and a person with a mental health background. What is evident is that there must have been some behind the scene activity because the 2 original charges were dropped and replaced by a similar harassment charge to which HG pleaded “guilty” and agreed to leave the Island and be bound over not to return for 3 years.

Nowhere in the Transcript are the names of the alleged victims mentioned nor was any mitigation offered. In his letter Senator Bailhache says that HG admitted a course of harassment over 18 months which involved aggressive, obscene and abusive emails and telephone calls to the Dean and his wife. I do not know where he received that information because it does not appear in the Transcript.

Senator Bailhache states that both the Dean and his wife have been treated unfairly and great distress has been caused in Jersey both to the Anglican community and more widely. However he makes no mention about HG being treated unfairly for which both the Bishop of Winchester and Archbishop of Canterbury have apologised. He appears to be more concerned about Constitutional matters than natural justice. Unfortunately he does not seem to understand HG’s sense of grievance at being effectively fobbed of by the Church in both Jersey and Winchester.

HG sought justice but hers was a voice was in the wilderness where the interests of others were deemed more important than hers. From being the victim she became the villain, arrested, detained in a police cell, spent two weeks in prison and then bound over to leave the Island with a criminal record.

Senator Bailhache has claimed that the Magistrate acted with appropriate care and compassion throughout, he may well be right but binding HG to leave the Island for 3 years seems to have been more expedient than compassionate.

I have written twice to the Chief Minister asking that he instigate an enquiry/investigation into the circumstances of HG’s arrest, but am still waiting for a response. Surely the matter is too important to be swept under the carpet.


  1. "Senator Bailhache has claimed that the Magistrate acted with appropriate care and compassion throughout ..."

    Really ?
    I would tend to agree with your sentiment regarding the troubled justice seeker HG

    "Why was she not bailed, she was of previous good behaviour and the Magistrate was aware of her medical condition. Remanding an innocent and vulnerable person for two weeks in prison was not conducive to her health and was certainly heavy handed."

    Well I would hate to be a victim of Senator Bailhache's jersey-way-compassion.
    Either now or in any of his previous roles ... Solicitor General, Attorney General, Deputy Bailiff, Bailiff, President of the States Assembly and Judge.

    I smell a long trail of fairness and compassion.

    Beggars belief.

    1. Thanks,

      The problem is that HG was perceived to be born on the wrong side of the track. She was given "there's a boat out of the harbour in the morning" treatment.

  2. Great blog again Bob, your last sentence "Surely the matter is too important to be swept under the carpet."

    Sorry to be so cynical but I belive that the more importnat the matter the bigger the broom they use.

    Hopefully with campaigners such as yourself that will not be the case, but it remains a fear of mine.

    1. I am sorry to say that you are probably right and none of us should be holding our breath.

  3. ***** NOT FOR PUBLICATION *******

    Minor typo in your masterpiece :- repeated word "was" highlighted

    "HG sought justice but hers was a voice was in the wilderness ..."


    1. You are correct, I don't have a proof reader and the mistake was not corrected via the spell check.

  4. You have made some very good comments on the TOR - thank you for your clear sighted analysis. Sadly, the Transcript seems as clear as mud - I wonder is this may have been deliberate?!

    Much as it pains me to say this, some Churchgoers are doing the Church no favours with these appeals to the Archbishop as it smacks to me of arrogance. It gives the watching world the impression of a cover up.

    In my view, we need to stand back and let the process be completed. Wounds need cleaning out to heal properly. I cannot say if the Korris review is biased, so that strenghtens the case for a review.

    We are asked to be a united Church but personally, I can't and won't unite behind something that is wrong. You are right, sweeping this under the carpet would be wrong. I believe the safeguarding and constitutional position of Jersey's Anglican Church is a mess, crying out for review. Therefore, I think praying for reconcilliation before the completion of a review is wrong. I do however, wish for a speedy end to this for everyone's sake.

    1. I agree with most of your comments and the best route to follow is to push for a speedy Visitation.

  5. Excellent and well-balanced post.

  6. you should have started with the Report and looked at who Korris is and what her qualifications are before accepting the conclusions

    1. Please tell me who Jan Korris is, what her qualifications are and what parts of her report you think are incorrect.

      She was asked to conduct a review and has produced a report which poses many questions, that is why there will be an independent investigation.

  7. Well done Bob, nice job on this one :-)

  8. From my knowledge, Jan Korris has done what was required, anyone with any disputations should have put them forward at the opportune moment. Due diligence is a wonderful thing in hindsight!!!

    A very fair and neutrally balanced posting Uncle Bob....

    1. Thanks Ian, I await the response from Anonymous at 23:01 hours above.

    2. My guess is that it will be a very long wait :)

    3. Hi Ian,
      You have not got me wondering whether you are a pessimist or a realist.

    4. I am neither and both, but who cares? All that matters is the truth....And,

      "The truth is the truth, wherever it is spoken."

    5. Can’t disagree with that comment.

  9. It would appear that Bailhache's letter did not address the any of the main points that are referred to after:-

    "The matters listed below must be investigated as soon as possible in order to establish whether there has been inappropriate or unbecoming conduct on the part of those identified below, which may lead to the need for a disciplinary process to be conducted.”


    It would be terrible bad luck if R.K. had not been more helpful to the author of the report due to some dodgy legal advice, perhaps coming from a well-meaning law officer or perhaps even from Bailhache himself! If that is the case then I can understand why R.K. must be feeling very let down and stressed.

    1. Yes it is apparent that the main points you refer to were not included in the Senator’s letter which was pretty selective.

      I would have thought that the Dean would have taken advice along the way, but as Members are always reminded in the States Chamber, legal advice is just advice, another legal advisor may give alternate advice which may be equally persuasive.

      It is apparent that Senator Bailhache is giving an opinion which appears to be at odds with the advice received by the Bishops who understandably are acting on it.

  10. An exceptionally good post, Bob. You validly refer to the constitutional difficulty of having a job with two bosses; however, here is another way of looking at it. Many people are members of a professional body - doctors, accountants, lawyers etc - and are subject to disciplinary action and sanction by the relevant body, even though not employed by that body.

    It is possible for a doctor to be suspended by, or struck-off by the BMC, but not sacked from his or her job. Of course, their job becomes meaningless because they are not able to practise what they are paid to do.

    Senator Bailhache claims that the Church has no legal right to suspend the Dean, but is it not exactly the same situation as above.

    The Dean is now effectively akin to a surgeon who is banned from operating, but hasn't been dismissed by the hospital. He is still paid, can still attend meetings, but can't actually do the one thing that gives meaning to his job.


    1. Thank you and we are not miles apart with our understanding of the suspension position. However I am not privy to the terms of the withdrawal of Commission but they could be similar to doctors etc.

      Suspensions are supposed to be a neutral and are often implemented to allow for an investigation to be undertaken and this appears to so in the Dean’s case.

      However Senator Bailhache is claiming that because of the Letters Patent the suspension/withdrawal of Commission does not prevent the Dean from attending States Sittings. This was endorsed by the Deputy Bailiff at the State’s Sitting on 19th March.

      If that is the case and the Dean did attend States Sittings, could he partake in leading the prayer session if the terms of the Bishop’s suspension prevent him from performing his ecclesiastical duties?

      That is why I am hoping the issue of the Letters Patent will be addressed because it appears that the Dean has two masters.

    2. Bob.

      Ultimately the Dean does not have 2 bosses, he has one boss, and that is the Queen, the same person who ultimately is the boss of the Bailiff/Dep Bailiff/AG/SG and so on.

      So in one breath the Queen (via the Bailiff etc.) is saying that the Dean is NOT suspended and in another breath (as head of the CofE) she is saying that he IS suspended.

      The Queen's representative on the island is the LT Governor and he should start justifying his (very expensive, taxpayer funded) presence on the island and make some kind of a statement.

      But yet again we are seeing the old "recognised formula" aren't we? The State Media, Philip Bailhache and the Jersey branch of CofE have us all talking about constitutional issues, and the like, while the real issue here is, or should be, how HG was allegedly abused and treated by the Jersey authorities when trying to report that alleged abuse.

      Furthermore Philip Bailhache and those "good Christian" people who wrote a letter in support of the Dean are, IMO, doing more damage to the church and the island's reputation than they can imagine.

      Where is the support, from the "good Christian" folk for HG? Why have none of them campaigned for the alleged victim here? The automatic "Jersey Way" comes straight into play where HG, IMO, is abused all over again by being portrayed as the abuser by Senator Bailhache in his OPEN LETTER to the Archbishop of Canterbury. The review itself is attacked and discredited by Senator Bailhache and the "good Christian" folk.

      All this is post Haut de la Garenne/Savile atrocities which shows nothing has been learnt and it's business as usual in Jersey. Protect the "Great and good" while attacking and discrediting those who want to protect Abuse Victims/Survivors.

      The same question keeps springing to mind, "what would Jesus have done?" Would he be doing all he could to protect and defend the weak, and the vulnerable, or would he be campaigning for the Dean?

      Perhaps that's a question the "good Christian" folk might want to ask themselves?

    3. Thanks Voice, strong stuff and not much to argue about.

      You say, in your opinion, ultimately the Dean via the Letters Patent is accountable to the Queen, however much of her accountability is delegated down the line. I doubt whether Deans in the UK receive Letters Patent so presumably they would be directly responsible to Church of England via their Bishop.

      Tony the Prof in his Blog posted on 25th March described the current business as “messy” which seems to be an appropriate word to use. It seems to be that lines of accountability are intentionally left blurred so that the protagonist can spend their time discussing accountability issue rather than the real issue which is HG’s complaint.

      Given Senator Bailhache’s constitutional concerns it may be that he will submitting an open letter to the Lt Governor asking that he clarifies the matter.

  11. Dear Bob, is it true that Senator Sir Philip Bailhache was on a trip to London and was very open and showy with documents that gave the name of the Lady HG and the name of the Church Warden? He travelled Economy Class I believe. Did this really happen? it is very worrying.... and legally when he landed in the UK is he under UK Law?

    1. Having read Rico's Blog it appears that passengers had the opportunity of reading some of the documents Senator Bailhache was was working on whilst on board a plane.

      It is reported that the documents were confidential but I don't whether he has broken any data protection laws but that is something a States Member may wish to raise with the Privileges and Procedures Committee.

  12. Voiceforchildren.

    How about you publishing an open let to the L T Governor with the points you make?

    1. Because that would be towing the State Media line and addressing constitutional issues rather than showing support for the weak, vulnerable and alleged abused. My concerns lay with HG and her wellbeing and am contemplating sending an open letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury that people can cut and paste in support of HG rather than rallying around the Dean like the good "Jersey" Christian gang.

    2. If you do submit an open letter I will be pleased to publish it in my Blog.

      As mentioned in my Blog above, I have written to both Winchester and Canterbury and am waiting for a reply

  13. I am not the Anonymous that posted at 11.01 last night re Jan Korris but can tell you she is a qualified Social Worker and is registered with the British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy. I have also been told by someone who knows about these thing that the Report is academically sound.

  14. Thank you. Anonymous at 1101 last night has not yet taken up my invitation to say what parts of the report are incorrect.

    It is easy to pick holes in any report and not being in a position to see the 2000 plus documents Jan Korris had to read, plus not being able to interview all the players, her report does seem to be sound one and will form the background information for the Visitation.

  15. Replies
    1. Thanks Rico, an interesting read with email confirming the contents of your previous Blog. What happens next?

  16. You say, in your opinion, ultimately the Dean via the Letters Patent is accountable to the Queen, however much of her accountability is delegated down the line. I doubt whether Deans in the UK receive Letters Patent so presumably they would be directly responsible to Church of England via their Bishop.


    You might want to look at this paper from the Church Society in England concerning the processes of Crown Appointments for clergy, and their views on changes proposed in 2008.

    You'll note that there are separate categories for Bishops, Cathedral Deans and ordinary clergy where the Crown has the right of presentation. I think the CofE's experts might argue that Bob Key falls in with Cathedral Deans, as the parish church is regarded as a pro-cathedral.

  17. Thanks for the link which makes no mention of any special arrangement for the Jersey Dean's appointment and it could be that he falls into the Cathedral Deans category.

    As mentioned in my Blog above I am pretty certain that the Bishops will have sought advice before withdrawing the Dean's Commission and we will learn more when the Visitation Report is published.

  18. Dear Mr. Hill,

    After a bit of 'negotiation' via blog sites, notably

    we have had most of our comment published at

    This part however remains censored :


    To pick another statement [from Bailhache's letter] which is another bizarre interpretation of the truth:

    " is clear that the Magistrate acted with appropriate care and compassion throughout"

    Really ???
    Mr. Bailhache neglects to mention that in spite of HG being willing to comply with bail conditions, she was NOT bailed. Odd perhaps as she was of previous good behaviour and the Magistrate was aware of her medical condition. Remanding an innocent and vulnerable person for two weeks in prison was not conducive to her health and welbeing but was perhaps conducive to her "agreeing" to her "deportation".
    This "compassion" alleged by Bailhache extended to HG being bound over to leave the island - arriving in the UK with no money or emergency care provision, living on the streets for an unknown length of time.


    The above was carefully worded so as to be factually correct [to the best of my knowledge] given that it spans the 'remand' period.
    Was it the same Magistrate ?

    I enquire here (and across other sites) if there is anything in the above which makes the "Moderation" of this part justifiable.

  19. I can't see much wrong with your comment, I had not read the thisisjersey (JEP) Blog but have now done so and noted a variety of comments. I am even (mis)quoted.

    I want a speedy Visitation/Investigation because I know how much harm lengthy suspensions can inflict on employees, particularly if they are exonerated at the end of the investigation.

  20. Dear Bob,

    After 'years' of watching the shambles unfold that is 'Jersey Inc.', with countless corrupt situations, and endless CoE + further inquiries, reports etc. etc. and it all boils down to one simple fact and that is 'The entrenched secrecy this Island government has had over countless centuries, why? why is it that certain individuals seem convinced that by all accounts the TRUTH must be withheld?? when are 'they' going to learn all that secrecy is now history!! the internet has changed that for ever. But (and this is the real question) how is it that a mere handful of individuals have held the populace of this Island in strangulation mode for so many hundreds of years?. One can only guess at that question but for me I do believe it all boils down to the one word 'SELF' by that I mean 'SELFish' in other words never mind if kids are abused, never mind if the law is corrupt, never mind the innocent suffer, never mind your soul is damed forever because you did not speak out or stand up, your life is just fine and you are just happy with yourSELF. Sad but true...BUT you better just hope it is not your kids!! or are you so sure it is not your kids?

    1. To be fair Jersey is not the only place where there are "shambles."

      I have just been updating myself on what has become known as the "plebgate" affair where we have a UK Government Minister and police officers acting in an unprofessional manner in the first place and then lying over the matter.

      The investigation has cost in the region of £150k to date and still rising, over 700 statements taken and 4 people arrested. There is now a suggested that the Crown Prosecution Service may not instigate any charges. Probably because it may cause embarrassment higher up the line.

      The difference between Jersey and the UK is because we are a much smaller community we tend to know the leading players and as you say there is just a mere handful of individuals who have so much influence.

      You are correct to say that some people are selfish but they are only able to succeed because of the weakness displayed by the majority who would rather keep their heads down.Probably because they think that is the better or safer option.

  21. We should remember that Sir Philip Bailhache, whilst Bailiff, allowed a convicted paedophile to join the Honorary Police.

    That said, one wonders if he is suitably qualified to question the Church of England's attempts to uphold safe guarding principals.

  22. At the forthcoming hijacked referendum PLEASE use BOTH votes.

    e.g. A #1 ......... AND ........ C #2

    Voting C as 2nd choice is NOT a vote against A because your 2nd vote does not count unless your first choice is knocked out in the first count,

    Your 2nd choice vote ONLY counts if your first is knocked out ...... USE IT !

    Do you want B to win because you didn't use your backup vote?

    The current system (i.e. "C") is bad and undemocratic but least it is not "B", which is worse !!!!!!

    I will vote A & C and hope that our politicians do the right and fair thing and adapt the result into something that respects
    democratic principles like "A" but retains enough members for the much needed scrutiny function.
    Perhaps have 7 Deputies per district (totalling 48) or maybe keep the Senators.
    (keeping the island wide mandate is essential if the Chief Minister is going to get more powers)

    The hijacked electoral commission has given us hijacked choices.
    No change, or an elected dictatorship - a crass and immoral plan.

    If "B" wins on the 24th our feeble democracy dies. Jersey's equivalent of Germany's 1933 enabling act, giving us a semi-elected dictatorship.

    1. The above (11:57) was submitted to
      at 2:12 pm.

      True to form the JEP ......... Censored it

    2. Your Comments are not relevant to the Blog above but I have published it because it is topical and I am minded to publish a Blog before 24th April.

      I have now read the JEP website and the Comments appeared to be more about attacking Nick Le Cornu because he does support Option B than being really constructive.

  23. I have received a number of Comments from a person claiming to be HG. I do know HG’s name and would be happy to publish her Comments, however for my Blog’s credibility I would be grateful if HG would contact me at so that I can confirm the authenticity of the Comments.

  24. Please note that "HG" has confirmed her authenticity, I will be happy to publish her comments and will consider how best to do so.

    1. The best way is to just publish what she sent you Uncle Bob, after all, honesty is the only policy to live by :)

    2. Hi Ian,
      I agree re honesty, but surely if someone submits comments claiming to be HG one should ensure that person is genuine. I have done that and as mentioned above I have checked and am happy that HG is genuine.

      I will publish her comments in a Blog I hope to publish shortly.