In my previous Blogs on Senator Bailhache in part 1 to view(click here) I reported how Bailiff and now Senator Bailhache was able to jump
the law drafting queue thus ensuring that the “Loi 1960 au sujet du College
Victoria.” was amended to cater for an independent governing board, where he
was to be it’s first Chairman.
In part 2 to view (click here) I reported how Senator
Bailhache although conflicted denied the right to lodge amendments to the
proposition on the re-organisation of the Island ’s
Secondary Education. The debate was acrimonious; the proposition was defeated
and led to the resignation of the Education President Connetable Iris le Feuvre
who was succeeded by Deputy Evelyn Pullin.
Deputy Pullin had considerable experience in education
having previously been head teacher at Vauxhall
Manor Girls School
near the Kennington Oval in London
and later head at the Girls College .
I had got to know Evelyn on my return to Jersey and
offered to help in her election for Deputy, she accepted and I ran her
campaign. Interestingly she told me that a young student living nearby would
like to get involved. He joined me, proved to be a quick learner and a very
useful and enthusiastic member. That student is the now Senator Ozouf. Deputy
Pullin was elected and defeated a couple of young aspiring candidates who are
now States Members, (Senator Alan Breckon and
Deputy Rob Duhamel.)
Deputy Pullin had two main issues to address; attempting to
solve the problems following the Secondary Education Debate and the Victoria
College ’s independence issue. In
fairness to Deputy Pullen I don’t think she was politically astute for the task.
A watchdog group had been formed and known as Equal Opportunities in Education
(EOE), its Chairman was the late Christopher Lakeman. The Group had been quite
vociferous prior and after the Secondary School debate and also raised a
number of questions in relation Victoria College’s legal status, the lease of
its premises, its financing and its affect on the Girls’ College. There was
also the issue of the non payment of fees by its sixth form students.
I had written to the
Solicitor General Stephanie Nicolle re the payment of Rates and she was of the
view that as Victoria College
was independent it was liable. This would have further financial implications because
the College would have to raise the revenue to meet its obligations which I
doubt if any consideration was given to the matter prior to amending the
College Loi.
In October 1995 I lodged a proposition requesting the
Education Committee to prepare legislation – (a) (i) to repeal the Loi
(1994)(Amendement No. 3) sur le Collège Victoria ;
(ii) to provide for the Board of Governors of Victoria
College to be constituted on the same basis as the four non fee paying secondary schools,
Hautlieu and the Jersey College
for Girls;
(b) request the Policy and Resources Committee to cause the
necessary evaluations to be undertaken to determine whether the preparation of
the necessary legislation might be added to the 1995/96 States Law Drafting
Programme.
Initially my proposition was supported by the Education
Committee but it intimated that it wished to make a minor amendment in relation
to Her Majesty having Right of Attendance. This was an issue which did not
trouble me. To allow for drafting I agreed to delay the date set aside for the
debate. However further requests for deferment were requested to allow for
consultation between the Governors and the Committee.
I reluctantly agreed and eventually a date for debate was set or30th
January 1996. What I was unaware of was that the Education Committee and the Governors were drafting
a “Memorandum of Understanding.” This was akin to Neville Chamberlain’s letter
of appeasement and it was patently obvious that Deputy Pullin and her Committee
had allowed itself to be swayed by the Governing Body. However the Memorandum
provided a cop out for many States Members who were Old Victorians or had
offspring’s attending the College.
Prior to the debate the Board of Governors circulated a three page document stating its good a working relationship with the Education Committee and how it had invited the Education President and Vice President, (Deputies Pullin and Norman to represent the Committee on the Board. The letter made it pretty clear that although it valued its new found independence it still expected the States to continue providing the funds.
Over half a page was devoted to the Head teacher’s membership of the Headmaster’s Conference (HMC ) in which it was claimed that if the States approved my proposition the
Headmaster would be asked to resign from the HMC . This was a red herring because
the reason for amending the College Loi was because it was claimed that the current
Headmaster’s application to the HMC had been rejected.
The last page is published below and as one can see the signatories which included the Bailiff and his Deputy Francis Hamon (although their titles are omitted) were urging the Members to reject the proposition of the Deputy of St Martin, which was me. At the foot of the page one can see that neither Deputy Pullin nor Norman was asked to sign the letter. If they were supposed to be Board Members one may ask why they were not asked?
I reluctantly agreed and eventually a date for debate was set or
Prior to the debate the Board of Governors circulated a three page document stating its good a working relationship with the Education Committee and how it had invited the Education President and Vice President, (Deputies Pullin and Norman to represent the Committee on the Board. The letter made it pretty clear that although it valued its new found independence it still expected the States to continue providing the funds.
Over half a page was devoted to the Head teacher’s membership of the Headmaster’s Conference (
The last page is published below and as one can see the signatories which included the Bailiff and his Deputy Francis Hamon (although their titles are omitted) were urging the Members to reject the proposition of the Deputy of St Martin, which was me. At the foot of the page one can see that neither Deputy Pullin nor Norman was asked to sign the letter. If they were supposed to be Board Members one may ask why they were not asked?
The report record that concerns relating to Jervis-Dykes were known to the headmaster and senior staff but conveniently omit to say whether those concerns were known to the Board of Governors. It will be for readers to determine whether the Board was aware but by the time the report was published Bailiff Bailhache was no longer Chairman.
Jervis-Dykes was accused and sentenced for 6 counts of indecent assault and one count of possession of an indecent photograph of a child. The headmaster resigned as a result of the issue. Stephen Sharp was quite scathing about the College’s handling of the complaint and stated the handling of the complaint was “more consistent with protecting a member of staff and the college’s reputation in the short-time than safeguarding the best interests of the pupil.”
That statement does not surprise me as I was the recipient of considerable verbal and written abuse from people with
I find it difficult to accept that concerns about Jervis-Dykes did not reach the ears of the Governing Body or Education Committee, but one wonders where the buck stopped. Deputy Pullin’s tenure as President was short lived, as mentioned above, I don’t think she was politically astute and in trying to please everyone, pleased no-one.Below is another Al Thomas cartoon which was published in the JEP which sadly was appropriate.
My proposition was debated on
Deputy Pullin resigned and was succeeded by Deputy and now Connetable
Under
It will be interesting to read what historians will make of Senator Bailhache’s short excursion into
What is evident is that Senator Bailhache was able to able to influence a number of people who acquiesced apparently without questioning his motives or the fact that he was abusing his Office.
Bob, from memory I recall the last part of Steven Sharps report. It went something like this. The management and administration of Victoria College is the responsibility of the board of governors.
ReplyDeleteYes your memory is sound but the report is silent as to what the Governors knew.
DeleteIsn't Philip Bailhahce going to be a Minister for Foreign Affairs, he needs to sort out his Affairs at 'home' first as far as I am concerned.
ReplyDeleteYes the ordination is tomorrow.
DeleteIt went ahead almost as planned. Tadier and Baudains stood too, to ensure there were speeches and questions. Mysteriously, the live internet audio feed failed for PB's speech and questions, but came back online for the other two.
DeleteThe sooner people realize Bailhache is Jersey's problem and not its solution the sooner the island can move forward and hold its head high. Why is it every time pedophilia is mentioned or covered up the name Bailhache always turns up?
ReplyDeleteA good question and don't forget he was on a " walk about" when the vote was taken to establish a Committee of Inquiry re the Historic Child Abuse.
DeleteNo wait a minute here, are you saying that Pullin and Norman were not asked to sign the letter, is this legal? why were they not allowed to sign it? this is extremely important point, Philip can't stand as Foreign Affairs if this issue is not sorted out now, it will only follow him......and if there is any doubt that Philip was in charge during the Child abuse time, this also needs to be addressed and now! not later now!
ReplyDeleteIt was evident that the Education Members was to give the Governing Body some legitimacy, but in reality the members were there to be seen but not heard.
DeleteChris Lakeman Iris Le Feuvre Stephanie Nicolle reads like a ruddy rap sheet or a wanted poster.
ReplyDeleteIt was an interesting time with many hidden agendas.
DeleteI see Philip's signature at the top of the letter, he has a responsibility to explain himself. During the child abuse cases at Victoria College he was at the helm! he must explain himself and now. We can't have a Foreign Minister with the above history staring us in the face and not act! it's now or never.
ReplyDeleteIf you read the Sharp Report it is evident that Sir Philip jumped ship otherwise he would have walked the plank.
DeleteWhen is Bailhache ever going to get arrested as he should be?
ReplyDeleteMr Teflon, methinks.
DeleteTrying looking at Hubris Syndrome. I think this is what Philip has.
ReplyDeleteJacques,
DeleteYou could be right again.
If "Bailhache was as easy to spell and pronounce as "hubris" it would be an ideal synonym. he is the personification of hubris, and yes- Teflon coated! For now.
ReplyDeleteHe has miscalculated the intelligence, determination and sheer numbers of the people who know they are being lied to.
Note: Deputy E.M Pullin and Deputy I J Norman the representatives of the Education Committee on the board of Governors, have not been asked to sign this letter.? Memorandum of misunderstanding.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the good working relationship was not so good after all how do the Education President and vice president, represent anything if invited, then excluded as Governors on the board of Governors in all but name only.
(What is the reason they never signed and specifically noted they were not even asked to sign?)
How could all Governors have pledged themselves to work in co-operation with the education committee for the good of the School,( Given two did not sign) It would be a sad blow for Victoria College if the independence of its board of Governors were to be removed of its board of Governors only a year or so after the States had voted to confer it. (The two that did not sign were effectively removed weren't they what a blow for independence of the board of Governors.?)
The Memorandum of Understanding was a charade. The Board held the Committee in contempt which made the President’s position untenable. Al Thomas’ cartoon was so appropriate
DeleteBob.
ReplyDeleteCost Of Failed, Taxpayer Funded, Super Injunction remains A SECRET
I listened to session live, as usual the only questions being asked were from the usual suspects, the rest just sat back and wished they were elsewhere.
DeleteWhat did you think about the non-answers given to those few who did ask questions?
DeleteNot a lot but Ministers get away with it due to the inertia of the majority of States Members.
DeleteThere should always be a reason why questions are asked and generally the questioner will or should have researched the matter so that he/she is aware of the sort of answer to expect. All too often satisfactory answers are not given but apart from having a second attempt there is very little a member can do even when it is evident that the Minister is deliberately misleading the Chamber.
Question time should be an opportunity for ALL members to make Ministers accountable but unfortunately too many members choose to say nothing or sit in the coffee room until the Question Time period is concluded.
It is not difficult to check on which Members ask questions, some never ever do. It is down to the electorate ask their representatives why questions are not being asked.
If you are local do you know how often your representative participates in Question Time?
Its the same people all the time asking questions Why do the rest receive a wage as they sit quietly in the States chamber making no attempt at contributing to the good governance of this Island with the occasional self promotion when needed.?
ReplyDeleteHow do they justify to themselves and those who voted them in when they remain silent on the majority of issues.
It appears once certain members get elected the only use they serve is their voting power service to the establishment.
Most don't want to rock the boat.
DeleteBob.
ReplyDeleteDeputy Trevor Pitman speaks on JERSEY JUSTICE
An important speech by Trevor!
DeleteI heard it live and it was a brave speech, probably made a few people squirm but regretfully will have generally fallen on deaf ears.
DeleteI wonder how Members were in the Coffee Room at the time.
This bears repeating; from the 2nd page of comments (#215) at
ReplyDeletehttp://stuartsyvret.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/the-crown-and-newspeak-justice-part-1.html?commentPage=2
2 October 2013 15:02
"A civilised Jersey conservative" said...
Mr Syvret, the magnitude of what you have done may well be lost on most of your readers. It isn't lost on the legal profession nor intelligent observers further afield. You have, as you correctly observed, 'faced down' the Jersey courts. People never, and I mean 'never', 'face down' a court. At least, not if the society is respectable and the person not a tyrant with an army at his back. Or, of course, in the case of an ordinary person like yourself, no court confident of its respectability would be 'faced down'. Our society is not respectable. And alas our courts even less so. As some 'higher external power' has finally had the good sense to recognise, it would seem. There can be no other explanation for you not being in prison. I am, incidentally, glad that you are not, and relieved, and deeply saddened at the same time. I've savoured a certain schadenfreude when discussing the situation with other lawyers & saying 'I told you so' when reminding them of the innumerable times I said 'no good would ever come of the folly of the actions against you, and it could only end in lasting damage to the island'. So it has come to pass. It saddens me that so many colleagues have been too fearful & foolish to have moved to stop this madness (and that is not an inappropriate word)when our Crown Officers embarked on the lunacy several years ago.
Will you be a candidate in the next elections?
Can someone remind me please, why did Stuart Syvret go into prison? what did he do wrong? I am at a loss as to what he is supposed to have done......The Establishment should be ashamed of themselves....
ReplyDeleteFrom memory I believe it was for failing to comply with a Court Order which is often a device to bring people to heel when the State has no legal power to instigate for the original concern.
DeleteWas it enough for Stuart to go to prison, another waste of tax payers money! would the same have happened to Stuart if he was in the UK?
ReplyDeleteno, it only happens in Jersey! HG
ReplyDeletehttp://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2013/10/data-protection-jersey-captured-by.html
ReplyDeleteLatest posting
rs
Stuart Syvret, the former Jersey Health Minister and Ex-Political Prisoner speaks on journalism being made illegal in the British dependency of Jersey by the hijack of the Jersey Data Protection Law:
ReplyDeletewww.youtube.com/watch?v=KvwJGXGt79I&feature=youtu.be
Perhaps CTV could cut and paste this and pick up another of those 'Royal Society' television award thingies?
Does anyone remember their last one ????? PMSL
Does "CTV" stand for Coverup-TV ? -it seems so.