Tuesday, 16 July 2013

Jersey's Dean---Another Meaningless Apology??


On 17th June I published a Blog titled Jersey’ Dean –Meaningless apologies. In that Blog I made reference to public apologies given to HG. In my view they were clearly meaningless because they were not given personally, there was no intention of doing so and when carefully looking into the wording of the apology it was unclear as to what the apology was for, if indeed there was one.

Yesterday in the States Chamber Senator Philip Bailhache a knight of the realm, former Bailiff, Chief Judge, former Attorney and Solicitor General and would be Foreign Minister made a Personal Statement. Interestingly he made it as a backbencher whereby according to the rules he could not be questioned on the contents/accuracy of his statement. This might not have been the case had he done so in his capacity as Assistant Chief Minister.

For readers who may not be acquainted with the background I will cover the relevant points and state that Senator Bailhache, as is his right, has been offering assistance to the Island’s Dean who is the subject of a complaint over his handling of an abuse complaint from a lady known as HG.

It was claimed by two business men that Senator Bailhache whilst on a flight between Jersey and London was reading documents appertaining to the case which revealed the names of the victim and the accused. Most of us have read documents or other material whilst on flights so what has made a mountain out of a mole hole?

It is evident that the business men contacted Deputy Trevor Pitman and expressed concerns about Senator Bailhache reading what they thought was sensitive documents which could be read by them and possibly other members of the public. It is unclear what research was carried out by Deputy Pitman before asking questions in the States but it would be helpful to know whether Senator Bailhache was travelling on States business and in what capacity. Was he travelling as a backbencher or as an Assistant Minister, as one can see above, there is a difference but none of us is the wiser?

The exchanges that ensued could be akin to a playground spat whereby the bully whilst denying any wrongdoing called his accusers nasty names and impugned their integrity. The bully and the accusers were then questioned by the Head master who believed that everyone was telling the truth. However to his credit Deputy Pitman stuck to his guns and pursued the matter to a stage where Senator Bailhache has been boxed into a corner and has now made a skilfully drafted statement which includes an apology. However it is open to interpretation and appears to be very much a damage limitation exercise.

Senator Bailhache is strongly denying not telling the truth however it does appear that he has been very economical with it. He claims that had he been made aware of what was being alleged a misunderstanding could have been avoided? To those who have been following the matter it seems to have been a simple one. It was claimed that he was reading sensitive documents on a plane which he had not only denied reading but in rebuttal used language which he now accepts was stronger than was necessary or appropriate. He would like to make it clear that he did not impute dishonesty or malice to Deputy Pitman or his constituents. There are some people who may not be convinced with that claim.

I believe that most people when being accused of something ensure they know exactly what they are being accused of before shooting from the hip and casting aspersions on the accusers. However this does not seem to be the case with Senator Bailhache who appears to be of the belief that his actions are above reproach.

The matter could and should have been resolved the first time the matter was raised in the States on 30th April. The reason why it was not is not down to Deputy Pitman but rests squarely on the shoulders Senator Bailhache and Chief Minister Gorst who failed to investigate the matter in a thorough and expedient manner.

What the Personal statement reveals is that Senator Bailhache has problems with his memory; he is not sure what he reads and even today could be mistaken in what he thinks he was reading. Given that he is aspiring to be the Island’s first Foreign Minister it does not bode well for Jersey.

The Statement is published in full below and it will be for readers to draw their own conclusions.
**************************************************************

PERSONAL STATEMENT TO BE MADE BY SENATOR SIR PHILIP BAILHACHE


ON MONDAY 15th JULY 2013

On 18th June Deputy Trevor Pitman claimed that I was not telling the truth to the Assembly in relation to a complaint by one of his constituents and this is my first opportunity to respond to that claim. That claim is strongly denied.
I should like to begin by stating that I have at no time been approached by Deputy Pitman seeking an explanation as to what happened on a London flight; the only exchanges that have taken place have happened on the floor of this Chamber in response to questions. If I had been made aware of exactly what was being alleged, a misunderstanding could have been avoided. It was not until Deputy Pitman made available to the Chief Minister a copy of the email from his constituent shortly before questions were put on 14th May, and the Chief Minister passed that copy to me, that I was able to understand the precise nature of the allegations.

When questions were put to the Chief Minister on 30th April I had assumed that the flight in question was a flight that I made to London on the evening of 20th March not long after the suspension of the Dean’s Commission had taken place. On that flight to London I have a clear recollection of reading the Korris report, as stated by the Chief Minister to the Assembly on 30th April. It was only on 14th May that it became clear to me for the first time that the flight referred to by Deputy Pitman’s constituent was on the afternoon of 21st March when I was returning to Jersey from London. On that flight I do not believe that I would have been reading documents relating to this matter because I had read them in London, but I may be mistaken.

In answering questions on 14th May I said that the content of the email from Deputy Pitman’s constituent “taken in the round [gave] a fictitious and malicious account of my reading habits on aeroplanes”. Having had time to reflect, I am sorry that I used language that was stronger than was necessary or appropriate. I withdraw the phrase “fictitious and malicious” and would like to make it clear that I do not impute dishonesty or malice to Deputy Pitman’s constituent or, for the avoidance of any doubt, to the Deputy himself. Having said that, the recollection of Deputy Pitman’s constituent is, at least in part, mistaken. That is perhaps not surprising because the constituent has stated in his email that he was sitting in a seat on the opposite aisle and reading papers in someone else’s possession from that position cannot be easy. That email alleged that the constituent had seen me reading “various police statements…” and it was later clarified to the Chief Minister that this meant “police witness statements”. That recollection is mistaken because I did not have in my possession on the aeroplane any copies of such police statements. I do not believe that it would have been possible for the other information referred to in the email to have been seen on that occasion, but in that respect I may be mistaken. If it was possible for any third party to have identified EY or HG from the papers in my possession, I would obviously regret that very much.

I should like to clarify two other points. First, I have never had in my possession any papers that I was not entitled to have in my possession, nor that involved a breach of the Data Protection Law or any other statute. Specifically, I have never seen any police statements relating to the investigation into allegations made by HG against EY. Secondly, my interest in these issues is not one that relates to my duties as an Assistant Minister. My interest stems from my position as an elected representative of Grouville Church on the Deanery Synod, and my strong feelings about the manner in which the Dean has been treated. Any backbench member has a perfect right to interest himself in matters of this kind.

78 comments:

  1. A response to a claim against himself but I don't see that statement as being an apology to anyone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bailhache indicates that he is not really sure what he was reading, viz:
      "...... but in that respect I may be mistaken. If it was possible for any third party to have identified EY or HG from the papers in my possession, I would obviously regret that very much."

      and he is not sure if it is an apology

      LOL

      Bailhache is an apology.

      Delete
    2. The statement tells us more about Senator Bailhache rather than what the statement was about. It is evident that to avoid admitting what he was reading the material he is claiming loss of memory.

      The Korris Report does not identify EY or HG so Senator Bailhache must have been reading other related documents. If he was why couldn't he say so?

      Delete
    3. "The Korris Report does not identify EY or HG so Senator Bailhache must have been reading other related documents. If he was why couldn't he say so?"

      This point needs to be amplified, very loudly.

      The businessmen know the identity of EY and HG. There is surely only one way they obtained that information, isn't there?

      Delete
  2. Replies
    1. Thanks Voice,

      I don't know what the issue is about, but I can understand his concerns about Jersey justice.

      Delete
  3. 14th May Bailhache said "I would like to be helpful to the Assembly but as the Chief Minister stated on 30th April the only
    relevant document that I CAN RECALL reading on a flight is the independent review of a safeguarding complaint for the Diocese of Winchester published in March which is available to all on the internet."

    When pressed further he said "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 now have."

    And then this week he says "IF IT WAS POSSIBLE for any third party to have identified EY or HG from the papers in my possession, I would obviously regret that very much."

    Remember, this chap has been a lawyer and judge for most of his life, he knows better than us the importance of what he says, the accuracy of it and his duty to be honest when questioned in the assembly. That is why you see phrases such as "I can recall", "I cannot envisage" and "If it was possible".

    For me, the above three quotes prove 100% he misled the assembly, he denied having a document with the names in it on two occassions. If those statement are true then it CANNOT be possible for some one to read the names over his shoulder!

    Stick him in front of Judge Judy and he would be toast within minutes, the story is so full of holes it is laughable. Nice try with the clever language Bailhache but it's not enough, you lied, they proved you lied and now you're back peddling is not good enough, go and go now you're an embarrassment to the position you hold.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Strong stuff, if Senator Bailhache thought his statement would put an end to the speculation then he is mistaken. Although it was carefully drafted it contains many holes with many questions that need answers.

      The matter should be taken up by the Privileges and Procedures Committee. Its Chairman resigned yesterday; hopefully the new Chairman along with a new Committee which does not include Senator Bailhache will address the matter.

      Delete
  4. The original email said:

    "I am writing to you just to welcome your thoughts on a specific matter that arose yesterday afternoon on a flight back from Gatwick."

    FLIGHT BACK from Gatwick was the phrase used. How this can be misunderstood as a flight TO Gatwick is an amazing piece of conjuring. Senator Bailhache should join the magic circle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But he hadn't seen the email when he said that?

      Delete
    2. Thanks Tony, I thought Senator Bailhache was already in the magic circle.

      Delete
  5. I cross cut&paste from Deputy Pitman's blog, from one of the businessmen:-

    'He comments that he was handed the email to read to which he had supposedly read enough of to accuse me of being ficticious and malicious, however and I quote the very second line in my email that he read'

    'I am writing to you just to welcome your thoughts on a specific matter that arose yesterday afternoon on a flight BACK from Gatwick'

    ----------------------------------------------------------

    So it gets worse for Bailhache, how can Jersey trust such a person, when he cannot even read "flight BACK from Gatwick", so he totally mislead himself and everyone else when he stated 'taken in the round [gave] a fictitious and malicious account of my reading habits on aeroplanes” after reading that email.

    So not only does he forget, but he also fails to read, or so he would have us believe, because had he not ignored that line, then his rant would have been even worse!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think Senator Bailhache has done himself any favours by publishing his statement. He tried to bully his way out of a situation but has failed.

      Delete
  6. A comment by the witness to 'Bailhachegate' left on
    http://thebaldtruthjersey.blogspot.com/2013/07/press-release-challenge-to-judicial.html
    16 July 2013 19:31:00 BST
    I don't know if Bailhache has killed it off, I am more than sure that Trevor will not be letting go that easily!!

    As far the the personal statement goes... well it was all quite predictible that he would come up with some fluff as to why he originally lied!

    I am however happy that he has withdrawn the 'ficticious and malicious' phrase and that he does not impute dishonesty or mailice to myself or Trevor, but then he didn't really have much choice in saying this did he?!

    He comments that he was handed the email to read to which he had supposedly read enough of to accuse me of being ficticious and malicious, however and I quote the very second line in my email that he read

    'I am writing to you just to welcome your thoughts on a specific matter that arose yesterday afternoon on a flight BACK from Gatwick'

    Strangley when answering to the email which he accused as being ficticius and malicious he now states that with something as important as this he failed to take note of the very second line?? that we were talking about his flight BACK from Gatwick?


    So now in his personal statement he is claiming he thought we were talking about his flight TO gatwick where he was only reading the Korris report (which of course we don't know because noone had seen this)!

    I must admit when listening to the personal statement where he claims my recollection is in part mistaken with referring to the police witness statements this has put doubt in my own mind as to whether they were infact police witness statements as it was now quite a while ago and unforunately I do not have a photographic memory, I am more than sure they were such witness statements, what else could he have had that were printed on States Of Jersey Police letterhead with all the other papers in relation to this case?

    So this leaves the letter from the accused, also the A4 sheets of printed text messages from the victim and the summary's of emails sent between the accused and the victim, this is how I got to see the victims name from the printed email header!

    He has not in his statement denied having this information has he?? so the question still stands then, why did a 'lay member of the church' have such confidential information in his possesion, surely only the states of jersey police or a Chief Minister at most would have access to such information?

    Answers on a postcard :)

    The Concerned Businessman

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your Comment. If you are one of the businessmen I would welcome the opportunity of meeting you and your colleague. Please contact me on bobps91@yahoo.co.uk

      You state that you have not read the Korris Report, it is a public document and I published it in my Blog titled The Dean—And a Voice in the Wilderness which I published on Wednesday 3rd April.

      It might be helpful to access that Blog where the Korris report can be found way down where I am by coincidence commenting on Senator Bailhache’s letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

      Delete
    2. No I am not he, but I have passed your message on.

      You could also give Trevor Pitman a call.

      Delete
    3. Hi Bob

      It wasn't me that posted my comments from Trevor's blog here but I was about to until I had seen it had already been posted, I have been reading your blog.

      Thanks for the offer of meeting us but I am not really sure that it would gain anything. As I have stated to the CM in our meeting all that needs to be said from us has been said, the information we gave Trevor and the CM was accurate and the responses from PB are a complete waste of space.

      As far as we are concerened we are leaving it upto the states members to decide/realise what the right thing is that should be done.

      Clearly left in the hands of the chuckle brothers it seems nothing is going to be done, far to much 'to me, to you, to me, to you' going on! :)

      However I still am keeping the faith that Trevor will pursue it in best way that he always does!

      Regards

      The Concerned Businessman

      Delete
    4. Thanks for clarifying the matter, however I would be grateful if you could contact me as there are a couple of questions I would like to ask you in confidence.

      Delete
    5. Hi Bob

      I would be happy to answer any questions you have if you would like to send them via Trevor.

      Regards

      The Concerned Businessman

      Delete
    6. I asked Trevor 2 weeks ago, I will remind him again.

      Delete
    7. If you can ask Trevor to pass a phone number onto me I will happily phone you to answer any questions if you wish.

      Delete
    8. I am in the telephone book.

      Delete
    9. Hello Bob and 'businessman'.

      Very good blog, Bob. A fair assessment - damage limitation is the term I would use with regard to the statement.

      I did actually send an e-mail to my contact a few days ago but perhaps it has gone astray - I have been having IT problems so not necessarliy something dodgy!

      Reading this I will pass on a phone number once done with the States tomorrow. Yes, I will be continuing with pressing this.

      Maybe one of the reasons the PPC Chairman suddenly jumped ship - he knew from me it was coming his way!

      Keep up the good work

      Trevor

      Delete
    10. Thanks Trevor, I look forward to meeting you and the businessmen.

      Delete
  7. Bailhache-Gate is sounding more like an old sketch from the two old men of the Muppets!

    Its not real
    Its ficticious
    Its malicious
    I don't read such papers on air flights
    No one could have obtained confidential names from me
    I will not be drawn on this any further

    ermm.....................

    Its not ficticious
    Its not malicious
    I might have read documents relating to this matter
    A third party may have been able to read confidential names
    I read the email quickly and missed the flight date

    However, I am absolutely certain without any doubt whatsoever, (fingers crossed), that I did not have any Police Statements as I only had documents that I was entitled too.

    --------------

    I guess Bailhache would have to say that, because surely that would be a very serious matter, if he had gained access, I mean it could almost drive someone to initially want to deny anything close to that ever taking place!

    Bailhache effectively tried to undermine another deputy, by his own admission from misreading facts, is vague on whether he might have read other documents, but we are asked to believe him on other things.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It looks as though some people still believe they can fool all the people all the time.

      Delete
  8. Replies
    1. Good Blog Rico, if it was a boxing match the referee would stop it to prevent further punishment.

      Delete
  9. Bob.

    I suppose an interesting question would be "who paid for Senator Bailhache's flight to London?" If he wasn't on official States business then he would have paid for it himself. On the other hand if it was paid for by the States/taxpayer then that leaves him and senator Gorst in a bit of a quandary doesn't it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yes this is a question I have already raised, is there not anyone this information can be found out?

      Delete
  10. It is a good point which I made reference to in my Blog. However in what ever capacity Members travel they should always act with tact and decorum. They are also expected to be truthful at all times.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Can States' Members' expenses be inspected, like the expenses of UK MPs?

    If not, why not?

    How many duck houses have we paid for? How many moats have we paid to clean?

    Follow the money...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It would not be difficult to find out whether the trip was a ministerial or private one. If it was a ministerial trip a record along with its cost would be recorded at the Chief Minister's Dept.

      I did raise that point in my Blog, hopefully that is a matter that Deputy Pitman will address.

      Delete
  12. What do you think of TOR for Dame Heather's investigation now they have finally been published?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At first glance predicable which appears not to address HG'S arrest and removal from the Island.

      I may well publish a Blog on the TOR.

      Delete
  13. Two parts of the statement.
    1 If it was possible for any third party to have identified EY or HG from the papers in my possession, I would obviously regret that very much.

    2 I have never had in my possession any papers that I was not entitled to have in my possession....

    From 1 it seems clear that he had in his possession papers that identified EY or HG.
    From 2 it is clear that he was entitled to have these papers. This could mean that he was given such papers as a favour or it could mean that he had a right to see these. Either way these were papers that he was not debarred from seeing: they were not covered by a law such as the Official Secrets Act.

    I think that the questions to get clarified are; what papers did he have that gave the identities of the individuals and on what basis did he have these?
    Presumably the Dean would know the names of the people and might have written them down for the Senator. He might have done so to assist the Senator in his mission. It would be surprising if the Dean had permission to release these names whilst investigations are ongoing.
    If not the Dean then one wonders who did give the identities to the Senator and on what authority?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with your 2 points. As Senator Bailhache is assisting the Dean I don’t have a problem with the Dean providing him with what ever documents are needed to assist him. The problem seems to be about him allegedly reading them in public, deny doing so and then questioning the integrity of his accusers.

      It is now apparent that the Senator has got himself into a hole and has now placed a two way bet to get out of it. On one side he says he can’t recall reading them, but on the other side he may be mistaken.

      It is apparent that on 14th May he was going to concede to reading the Korris Report which is the public domain, however just before going into the Chamber he was handed a document which required a reassessment of the situation. It may be helpful to read the Hansard report.

      Unfortunately in full the report exceeds the number of words permitted in one Comment so I will separate the report into two halves this is the first part.

      3.8. Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Chief Minister regarding his access to the report associated with the suspension of the Dean’s Commission case:

      Further to concerns raised by a member of the public travelling on the same flight as the Assistant Chief Minister with responsibility for external relations, that he was able to identify details of both the victim and alleged abuser in the suspension of the Dean’s Commission case, does the Chief Minister stand by his statement that the only document being read was the Korris Report which does not contain names?

      Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):
      Sir, I would like to ask my Assistant Minister to act as rapporteur to answer this question.

      Senator P.M. Bailhache (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur):

      I would like to be helpful to the Assembly but as the Chief Minister stated on 30th April the only relevant document that I can recall reading on a flight is the independent review of a safeguarding complaint for the Diocese of Winchester published in March which is available to all on the internet.

      3.8.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:
      A supplementary. I have to say I find the answer very hard to take, but perhaps the Assistant Minister could explain to us in his view how a member of the public sitting just opposite him could read the name, and I could read it out but I will not, of the alleged abuser and indeed makes that quite clear in his email, which I am happy to give to any Member of this Assembly, to verify that he did see these documents, what he describes as police documents. How does the Assistant Minister marry that up? Is the member of the public lying?

      Senator P.M. Bailhache:
      As the Chief Minister was entering the building this morning he was handed by Deputy Shona Pitman a document that purports to be a copy of an email sent by an unidentified person to Deputy Trevor Pitman. I think it is a pity that Deputy Pitman was not willing to show me that document beforehand, because I could have explained to him privately how and why the allegations are inaccurate. The document does contain some information that is not in the public domain. Taken in the round, it gives a fictitious and malicious account of my reading habits on aeroplanes and I am not going to be drawn further on this subject.

      3.8.2 Deputy G.P. Southern:
      I am very disappointed to hear that the Minister is not going to be drawn further on this subject, when I have got a question to ask him and his light is on. Can I quote from the document he is referring to that says, in the words of this complainant: “Obviously, certain facts and names are kept strictly confidential from these types of cases but now I, for one, can name the woman in question and others that have involvement, because of this lack of discretion of information being reviewed in a public place.” Does he refute that altogether, or only partially?

      Senator P.M. Bailhache:
      I have already said that the document is fictitious and malicious and I do not propose to make any further comment on its contents.

      Delete
    2. This is the second part of the Hansard Report. As one can see at the end of the session Senator Bailhache stated that he had nothing to add. He has now had second thoughts and has published a personal statement which still leave many questions unanswered.

      3.8.3 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:
      I wonder if the Assistant Chief Minister could just clarify for the Assembly, regardless of documents and whether they are fictitious or not, can he assure us that he did not identify the people involved on that aircraft, either by speaking or by any other means?

      Senator P.M. Bailhache:
      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 now have.

      The Bailiff:
      Very well. Do you wish a final question, Deputy Trevor Pitman?

      3.8.4 Deputy T.M. Pitman:
      Absolutely, and I have to say I find that slur on a member of the public, and the only reason I retracted his name is because he is scared of the consequences, but perhaps I can persuade him to meet the Chief Minister and then perhaps can I ask will the Assistant Minister do the right thing and resign? It is disgraceful to put that a member of the public who is concerned, has expressed very clear concerns and the Assistant Minister could have read this on the internet, redacted. I would like him to apologise to that member of the public because I think it is disgraceful and it shows the arrogance with which some of our Members in this establishment ...

      The Bailiff:
      Deputy, you cannot impute improper motives for another Member of the Assembly.

      Deputy T.M. Pitman:
      This is a member of the public who has acted in good faith, concerned at what he could read, and now he is being called a liar. No wonder he is afraid.

      The Bailiff:
      The Assistant Chief Minister simply stated that he was not reading this document.

      Deputy G.P. Southern:
      Sir, are we, as per the Ministers’ Code of Conduct, not supposed to treat all members of the Jersey community with respect and to accuse somebody in public of ...

      The Bailiff:
      The question is what was the Assistant Chief Minister reading and he said what he was reading and did not disclose the name. That is, as I understand, the simple position. If some other member of the public thinks otherwise then that is for that other member of the public, but the Assistant Chief Minister has given this Assembly his assurance. Do you wish to answer the supplemental question?

      Senator P.M. Bailhache:
      I have nothing to add, Sir.

      Delete
    3. I have something to add, "Sir".

      RESIGN.......

      You are an arrogant waste of taxpayer's money and ill gotten votes
      The camera never lies (2011 hustings):

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJo9JbZ3z-o

      Delete
    4. Thanks for the Comment and link, which for convenience can be viewed by clicking CLICK HERE

      Delete
  14. Mr. Hill,

    I would hate to interrupt your work as a campaigner for openness and justice but I was wondering if you would consider being nominated to a position on Jersey's Police Authority when it is finalised ?

    It would be interesting if you were rejected in favour of less qualified candidates.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I campaigned for a Police Authority for many years and am disappointed that it will only have responsibility for the States but not the Honorary Police.

      I have not considered applying for membership but will be giving the matter some consideration.

      Delete
  15. I want to be ambassador and go to foreign lands,
    visit Peking and Mombasa, Sri Lanka and Japan.
    I'll make lots of promises but you can have no fear
    'cos I'll forget what I've forgotten
    and will have forgotten what I forget
    but what's forgotten won't be rotten
    and be sure only good things I'll forget

    So, he wants to be ambassador ... repeat ad nauseam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well done with ode.

      Although Senator Bailhache has aperations for the position I have a feeling his plane trip will not have helped his cause.

      Delete
  16. I guess that had Deputy Pitman spoken with PB privately (ie: no-one around as a witness), he would have told him, its all a mistake, I was reading the Korris report, nothing to be concerned about.

    However, Deputy Pitman has shown why it is sometimes better to bring a matter to the States, where lying, sorry, forgetfulness, can be explorered with more rigour.

    Forgetfulness and of course, ignoring the actual flight that the email was referring to, which I guess is called misleading members.

    Ceratinly not External Affairs Minister material, best take up painting or something where memory issues would not cause a polictical problem.

    Imagine, if PB was in a war cabinet, he receives an email, within the second paragraph, the writer states we will "NOT" be starting a war, PB then starts a war, only to later say, he missed the word 'NOT' and perhaps even later, he would forget he started it and try and blame everybody else.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Far too much goes wrong because of the kind of "private conversations" PB thrives on. He expects others to go along with doing things in the least transparent way possible. That's what works best for him.

      Delete
    2. I think Deputy Pitman was right to bring the matter into the public domain. The old boy network has done so much harm and has been instrumental for far too many cover ups.

      Senator Bailhache has considered the matter to be a storm in a tea cup. If it is, it is entirely of his making. The matter could have been easily dealt with had he accepted that he should have been more circumspect.

      He is no longer the Bailiff but as a States Member is now answerable and accountable for his actions.

      Delete
    3. I get the feeling that this is a nasty shock to him!

      Delete
  17. The JEP is referred to by those in the know as "The Filthy Rag". Perhaps because it has been used to wipe gleaming clean all the unspeakable filth that important people have soiled themselves with for decades.

    What should BBC Jersey be renamed as ?
    To help with this it is worth listening to the last good programme they put out:

    http://thejerseyway.blogspot.com/2012/11/bbc-radio-jersey-interviews-blogers.html

    For Jersey this was "cutting edge" stuff but one commenter on this TJW story was
    "I listened to the whole show and thought it was desperate in places. The BBC have given this view point an airing but that's the last we will hear of it from them."
    BBC Jersey has indeed reverted to non-reporting, and sidelining unauthorised information and opinion in this little crypro-feudalist enclave.

    The bloggers, the men off the street, did really well as live radio must have been way out of their normal experience and comfort zone.
    For me the highlight of the show was the (third) Interview of BBC Radio Jersey's Boss Jon Gripton. The "men off the street" made him look like a frightened Youth Training Scheme student.

    Gripton's pained assertion that they had used Ex Police Chief Power's affidavit "in their journalism" was beyond laughable.
    Along with his ridiculous and platitudinous claim that he "would not reveal his sources" when his "sources" openly and repeatedly say that he has the affidavit because they GAVE IT TO HIM ! Journalism on a plate - The man is not fit for purpose and must resign.

    Rico Sorda had previously said: "Even the media shouldn't be afraid of scrutiny though, you know, you know you know get all defensive and that's because you know you've had Graham Powers 62,000 word statement for a year and a half or whatever, a year and we haven't seen anything of that maybe John Mr Gripton will explain that later. ..."

    Mr Gripton did everything but explain. He stuttered and he stammered. He can't even cover up in professionally plausible manner. No wonder he has never risked a repeat, but what I don't understand is how he is still in post.

    Jon Gripton is clearly not a journalist or fit to manage journalists. IMO he should be sacked so he can find his natural vocation as a mushroom farmer. He has been keeping us in the dark and feeding us with bullsh*t for years.
    The fact that he has not been sacked suggests that is really what he is paid for. Shame on the BBC !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have made some strong comments under the cover of anonymous and whilst I agree with some of them, there are some that I do not such as Jon Gripton should resign. If you think so have you written to the BBC with the evidence to support your call for resignation?

      Also if interviewers are to be sacked because of alleged bad interviews, there will be a drastic shortage at the BBC, Channel TV, the JEP and Radio 103.

      Like you I get frustrated when interviewers have not done their homework and let interviewees off the hook by accepting their answers which are clearly inaccurate or evaded. The main stream media (MSM) has had an easy ride for far too long but since the arrival of the Blogs the MSM has not only been found wanting but is now having to address the matter.

      You are correct to illustrate the BBC’s handling of the Graham Power Affidavit, that is now 2/3 years ago but lessons do seem to have been learnt because the BBC via Radio Jersey has given a far better and balanced coverage of the Dean’s suspension. It could be because there are around half a dozen Blogs which have reported on the matter; they have published a considerable amount of information which I am pleased to say most of which has been accurate, readers have been better informed and can now see the flaws the MSM has reported without challenge or competition.

      The Comments section of the Blogs is important and whilst I don’t always agree with some of the contents, they are welcome because it gives readers an opportunity to offer an opinion.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for publishing and also for commenting Bob.

      I would love to say everything under my own name but I unfortunately can't do so in 21st century Jersey.

      Just to clarify. Anyone can have a bad day and carry out a poor interview. I have no problem with that and was not suggesting Jon Gripton be sacked for being a poor interviewer.

      Jon Gripton was not the interviewer. He was being INTERVIEWED by the BBC's Matthew Price.

      Matthew Price was on best behaviour and did much better and fairer interviewing than usual. However one assumes that Matthew Price had neither the inclination nor the moral fortitude to give his boss a hard time. Listen to the piece and them imaging the state Jon Gripless would have been in had he been "Paxmaned" -or even just asked to justify his answers !

      I was suggesting Gripton be sacked because he is responsible for the ongoing journalistic and "4th estate" failings at BBC Jersey.
      (4th estate failings risk invalidating the even the tainted democracy we have)

      This is important locally but more widely because Gripton and his clique unchecked against mounting evidence risks the credibility of the entire BBC global operation. quiet retirement will not wipe the BBC slate sufficiently clean.

      The Graham Power Affidavit remains highly relevant and reportable to this day, in spite of the 2or3 years of dust the BBC has allowed it to collect.
      We must assume Savilesque complicity, and presume, in Gripton's words that they are still using it in their 'journalism'.

      In George Orwell 's words :-
      "Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations."

      Delete
    3. One must also take into account (post Savile) how Mr. Gripton does, or doesn't, deal with COMPLAINTS

      Delete
  18. "The document does contain some information that is not in the public domain. Taken in the round, it gives a fictitious and malicious account of my reading habits on aeroplanes and I am not going to be drawn further on this subject."

    Bailhache initially dispels any notion that he would read documents relating to this matter (ie: confidentail), on an aeroplane (not date specific, just fact he would not read such documents). However his recent statement undermines that, as he states: “On that flight I do not believe that I would have been reading documents relating to this matter because I had read them in London, but I may be mistaken.”

    So he must have had them with him (ie: not in a suitcase in the hold) and now can’t be sure whether he may have read the documents, therefore the businessman’s account of his reading habits are not fictitious, regardless of which flight he was on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Senator may be able to pull the wool over some of his ardent supporters, but his answers simply do not stack up. From the information to hand it is apparent that he was reading documents which are not in the public domain.

      I may be able to confirm that matter if the business man and Deputy Trevor Pitman contacted me.

      Delete
  19. A 'personal statement' from George Orwell to 'Sir' Philip.

    "The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns, as it were, instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the comment and also to the reader who at 1352 above submitted another Orwell quotation, both of which are quite appropriate.

      Delete
    2. Yesterday morning there was a talk at the Jersey Archives on the history of Westmount which was Jersey’s Gallow’s Hill. An attendee has kindly forwarded an extract from the Speaker’s notes which is of particular relevance to the Dean’s current difficulties.

      Although the incident occurred some 458 years ago there is an amazing coincidence where the names of the personalities are the same. It is also evident that although the incident was years ago lessons have not been learnt.

      Scan of Court de Cattel

      The earliest evidence found of a hanging at this site is recorded in Le Quesne's Constitutional History of Jersey, when Richard Averty, a Proctor of Dean Poulet, was hanged at Gallow's Hill in 1555, after being found guilty of infanticide for the murder of the baby of his servant, Marie Bellee. The scan from the Cour de Cattel, dated 27th June 1555, records that his sentence was that he was to be "dragged to the gallows and hanged till he was dead, his body to be left on the gibbet till it should rot away". The Dean endeavoured to save his Cleric by arguing that he should have been tried at the Bishop's Court over which the Dean presided, but the Jurats overruled, arguing that the crime was so heinous that they could not allow Averty to pass outside the Royal Jurisdiction.

      Delete
    3. Ah, From the days when the Jurats had B.... - I mean moral fortitude
      and took seriously their oath to protect ....... widows, orphans etc. etc.

      The entire Le Breton family (and others) must be so proud ....
      Not! ..... or in that well known Egyptian river that flows through our fair isle.

      What is the world coming to when a gentleman cannot do as will with the vulnerable offspring of the lowly?

      No Mr.Hill, the Dean et al HAVE learned lessons !
      It is all stitched up tighter than a ......

      Delete
    4. Yes, I see the coincidence with the Dean's current troubles but feel hanging is a bit drastic (joke!)!

      Delete
    5. Yes, lessons have been learned
      It is all stitched up tighter than ..... Canons Law (Jersey) 2012

      The local brotherhood judges itself (except for the law offices who were made immune)
      So the natural order of things is restored on this Island.

      Sir Philip has already explained how HG was fairly and compassionately treated. (Bob could provide the link if PB has forgotten)
      Surely none of you good people would question Sir Philip's word or judgement

      Widows, orphans and vulnerable adults are there as the playthings of the great and the good and they really should have better manners than to complain about it. This isn't 1555 you know, we have written better laws so some important people have the protection they need.

      Delete
    6. I agree that the Canon Law 2012 has been approved, but is it "trumped" by Winchester if that is not already the case, I am pretty sure it will be following the Visitation.

      Although Senator Bailhache may claim HG was treated fairly and compassionately I strongly disagree and Korris has recommended that the matter be investigated. However it is uncertain whether Dame Heather’s TOR includes investigating the matter.

      I agree that the Canon Law 2012 has been approved, but is it "trumped" by Winchester if that is not already the case, I am pretty sure it will be following the Visitation.

      Although Senator Bailhache may claim HG was treated fairly and compassionately I strongly disagree and Korris has recommended that the matter be investigated. However it is uncertain whether Dame Heather’s TOR includes investigating the matter.

      Readers may like to read the letter CLICK HERE

      For my Blog on the Court Hearing <A HREF="
      http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.com/2013/05/jerseys-dean-did-punishment-fit-crime.html>CLICK HERE</A>

      Delete
    7. I am having problems with my hyperlinks.
      The Bailhache letter can be found on the Voice for Children Blog
      click here

      The Court Hearing Blog can be found here CLICK HERE

      Delete
    8. Bob.

      The letter to Archbishop from Philip Bailhache Click HERE

      The court hearing Blog click HERE

      Delete
  20. I am intrigued how an elected member can swop in and out of accountability on the basis of them Arbitrarily selecting whether they were operating as a backbench politician or in this instance as assistant minister.

    On the above basis it would appear that even a Chief Minister could swop hats, if it was convenient to do so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did raise the matter in my blog above. The purpose of the plane trip should have been identified before questions were asked. Had Senator Bailhache been travelling as a Minister the statement he made would have been made accordingly and he would have been sunjected to a question and answer session.

      You are right to raise the matter because it does appear that Ministers including Assistant Minutes can swop hats when they chose.

      Delete
  21. Excuse me for butting in, as I do not understand the full situation, but isn't Philip Bailhache subject to discipline from the church for his behaviour if he is a churchwarden?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know if Senator Bailhache is now a Church Warden, but he is not the person concerned with HG's complaint.

      Delete
  22. Bob.

    A snapshot of Jersey Administration and JUSTICE

    ReplyDelete
  23. In my comment(s) after 20 July 2013 15:50 and ref Jon Gripton's public funded PR machine
    & George Orwell's : "Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations."

    I myself violated the wisdom of George Orwell by failing to state the obvious:

    Jon Gripton should be sacked for failing to uphold the BBC's legal Charter. This is very serious in itself, even if you ignore the rest of the local savilesque-grotesque.

    This chronic and ongoing failure IMO gives any Islander who wishes to just cause to withhold their TV license fee until these failures are properly addressed - could get interesting, would they scurry away or would they risk making "BBC Charter-Martyrs"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you feel so strongly about Jon Gripton's failings, it is open to you to direct them to the BBC.

      Delete
    2. Thanks Bob, I shall do that again

      But first I need to pop out to answer a call of nature in a force nine

      may have to spray it again ;-)

      Delete
  24. Bob.

    An updated, more in-depth, look at the alleged corruption in Jersey's LEGAL/JUSTICE SYSTEM.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Word is that the Vogon Poetry Competition is still accepting submissions.

    For further information and competition rules please visit
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogon

    ===========================


    ODE TO A LIAR:

    It's fictitious, It's malicious
    I don't read such stuff on planes

    Is it fictitious? ....... Is it malicious? ......
    I can't remember ..... What's my name ?

    I remember contrived cant so admit it I shan't
    It don't even make sense so I'll end this rant

    ..... And I won't be drawn any further on this matter.

    ----------------------------


    ODE TO JERSEY:

    A proper apology and several resignations

    A functioning media; Bellyache is the mystery man of mistakes that the JEP fakes


    ============================


    Yes, definitely the third worst poetry (& excuse) in the Universe
    And like the best Vogon Poetry it gets worse with every reading so feel free to copy and tweet it everywhere to say "how much you like it" because I'm in a good Vogon mood.

    ...... anyway the airlock is bust and then it needs a health and safety inspection :-(

    ReplyDelete
  26. With regard to the 1555 hanging at Westmount, to put it in a relevant historical context, that was during the reign of "Bloody Mary" who was into executing Protestant church men, and generally asserting Royal authority over the church.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Given that Burning at the Stake was a favoured form of execution in those days, being dragged and then being hanged seems to have been the best option.

      Delete