Wednesday, 2 July 2014

Plemont 3------A Pyrrhic Victory???



I know a number of people who are members of the National Trust for Jersey (NTJ) and understandably they are delighted with yesterday’s result. Many are single minded and dedicated in safeguarding our heritage. I have no problem with that, but ask where were they when the applications were being considered to build on the St Martin’s School playing field or the monstrosity at La Coupe Bay in St Martin. I hope they will show the same commitment and diligence when the next contentious application comes along irrespective of who ever are making the application. 

I called my first Plemont blog “a contrived debate” because of the way in which the proposition was conveniently moved up the Agenda so that certain States Members could be present for the debate.

Yesterday’s debate was again a contrived event. The proposition was to request the Treasury Minister to identify the appropriate means of funding a grant however before the States had agreed to the request the Minister, Senator Ozouf had already identified a source even though in many people’s eyes the source, the Criminal Offenders Confiscation Fund, was not intended to finance the purchase of land, no matter how important the land was.

It could be said that the NTJ had further support in the Chamber via three unelected members, the Deputy Bailiff, the Solicitor General and the Dean who all played an interesting and supporting role.

In most democracies the Speaker is a servant of the Members in the Chamber, in Jersey this is not so. Our Speaker not only approves the wording of every proposition, amendment and question that is lodged but also dictates who speaks and what is said.

Yesterday it was evident that he wanted to hurry things along and was in no mood to allow any dissenting speaker to question the advice given by the Solicitor General even though there appeared to be no logic in his answers.

The Confiscation Fund allows for money to be spent “(i) in preventing, suppressing or otherwise dealing with criminal conduct,  (ii)  in dealing with the consequences of criminal conduct, or (iii)  without prejudice to the generality of clauses (i) and (ii), in facilitating the enforcement of any enactment dealing with criminal conduct;

Senator Ozouf had an amazing and some may say convenient memory lapse yesterday when he was unable to recall how much money was in the Fund when monies were being requested to build the new police station. Had he looked no further than the answer he gave to Senator Le Gresley in February 2011 he would have remembered that there was well over £8 million in the Fund and that money is still unspent?
Therefore one may ask why money from the Confiscation Fund was not allocated to build the police station in the first place.  I submit that the answer is simple, the Fund was never intended to build police stations and that is why the money was not allocated.

The debate kicked off with Senator Bailhache hardly needing to break into a sweat, he had the expected supportive packed gallery, the money had been found, there was no need to compulsory purchase the headland and there was a fixed price. This was get out of jail card which was used by so many members who were looking for a reason to change they voted last time.

Deputy Duhamel the Planning and Environment Minister spoke next, but he gave the appearance of a dead man walking or should it be talking? He late claim that an eleventh hour buyer had turned up, rightly cut no ice particularly as he had omitted mention that point in the Comments which he had lodged some few hours earlier.

Deputies Mike Higgins and Judy Martin were the true stars in the debate and made it abundantly clear that the device/mechanism that Senator Ozouf was adopting to obtain funding was ultra vires.  One may ask how was it possible for the Solicitor General to say that Senator Ozouf’s actions were in order, but then again one has to look no further than the part he played in the Curtis Warren trial.

Senator Ozouf may well claim that his actions were transparent and legal but in my book they say little about his ethics and integrity. Taking money out of one fund and putting it in another fund and then moving it to another fund looks very much like money laundering to me, but then again I am a simple soul who sees things in black and white and not in shady grey.

Immediately after Senator Ozouf had spoken, the Dean rose. As the custodian of what is supposed to be good, one would have hoped that the Dean might have spoken on the morality of the funding and perhaps have quoted from the scriptures and asked the Senator and others what shall it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul?

Sadly the Dean complimented Senator Ozouf on the way he had found the funding, so much for morality. He made no mention at all of the States failure to spend money from the fund to help those who have suffered as a consequence of crime and those criminals who need help in being rehabilitated. Interestingly today the States was debating a proposition to provide funding for disabled people, but the Dean had nothing to say.
Money was found to buy land, yet today the very people who were happy to spend it yesterday were today opposing money being spent on our disabled, where is the morality?

Yesterday was a land mark day for the NTJ and Members were constantly reminded that the headland would for the benefit of our children, their children and generations there after; however it will come at a price far greater than £3.5m and may be a Pyrrhic victory. 

Precedents have been created and money can be extracted from the Confiscated Fund and used for a purpose it was never intended for. Also if money can be found for land then money can be found for a whole host of more worthy causes?  The bench mark is now set at an all time low and we are in for an interesting time as Ministers attempt to justify withholding funds from the Island’s many disadvantaged.

For the benefit of Readers who might want to read Plemont 1 please click here

To read Plemont 2, please click here

34 comments:

  1. The padlock will already have been put back on the COCF, to be removed only when Sir P and his friends identify another worthy cause - at which time the Law Officers will again facilitate matters or, as some might say, oil the wheels or grease the device!

    In the meantime, the majority of Members will continue to wring their hands with regret that sufficient funds cannot be found for unimportant matters such as adequate mental health care, road resurfacing, main drains etc.

    After all, it's goverment's unhappy task to take tough decisions about spending priorities. Some must suffer for the benefit of the many ......... Oh, wait ......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trouble is that the many suffer for the few.

      Delete
  2. Bob Key showed his true colours again by talking on the morals of buying land but turning a blind eye to the unethical practices employed to get the land just like he turned a blind eye to the abuse (including his own) dished out to HG. He owed Philip Bellyache a big favour after Bellyache got his friend Heather Steele to further harm HG and turn the Dean into the victim. Bob Key should be ashamed of himself for sucking up to Bellyache and being a disgrace to his religion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some times silence is golden.

      I don't think what the Dean had to say really added to the debate because by the time he spoke it was clear which way the vote was going. However his words would have been of comfort to Senator Ozouf who is not known for his support for vulnerable or disadvantaged.

      Delete
  3. Incredible the States Of Jersey looking the other way to money laundering so Philip Bailhache can get his pet project approved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is OK because the SG says so.

      Delete
    2. Philip Ozouf and Robert Key are a disgrace. Having said that, I am reassured by a posting by Darius Pierce on his blog.

      http://jerseylibertarian.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/a-public-bailout.html

      In essence, Mr Pierce suggests that the grant to the National Trust of 3.5m puts this particular parcel of property beyond the reach of the Jersey government. I, like Mr Pierce, fully agree that Jersey's government is tending towards insolvency what with loans being sought to fund social housing, the hospital and sewerage facilities. Having said that perhaps hiving down the Island's assets such as social housing to quangos and refinancing them is the best way of protecting them from the civil service over the mid to long term?

      Delete
    3. Thank you for the link and I have read Blog, I liked the quote “More people would learn from their mistakes if they were not so busy denying them.”

      In my first Plemont Blog I did suggest that the Developer was selling because he was probably worn out fighting off dissenters. Darius offers another view and I would recommend that Readers log into his blog and read it.

      Delete
  4. Another excellent blog Bob. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bob Key once again brings the name of the church in to disrepute, what an ambassador for Christianity that man truly is!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Playing to a full gallery was an opportunity not to be missed.

      Delete
  6. It's Government, Jim, but not as we know it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But not one that appeals to many.

      Delete
    2. There's cling-ons on the right-wing bow alright :)

      Delete
    3. set HG off singing Star Trekking again?

      Delete
    4. The false prophet Rob Key from the planet Zog chants "we come in peace; shoot to kill, shoot to kill"

      For a bit of light comedy to complete with our own states chamber:

      www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCARADb9asE

      Delete
  7. Is this the last defiant act of Ozouf before he leaves politics?

    ReplyDelete
  8. it is a disgrace it is money laundering in any sense of the word .They cannot find money to help our venerable children .They should hang their heads in shame ,they claim the reason to buy was for our children<s future .Unless they get help now there will no future- today we read they a special ward is to set up to help these children . I suggest a bit late in the day the money could have been used for them rather than plemont

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. What I find disturbing is the lengths that Senator Ozouf and co went to “legitimise” the transfer of money.

      Had a backbencher brought a proposition suggesting such a move it would rightly have been kicked into touch?

      One may ask how many other questionable transfers have been made?

      Delete
    2. In the UK the tax man refers to such convoluted multiple transactions to achieve relatively simpler aim as "associated operations", and I believe has the ability to look through them and tax anyway. This is definitely a question of associated operations, and whilst each step could be argued to be lawful, taken as a whole it is not. Shame we the people don't have the same ability to look through this and take action!

      The Dean should also butt out of political debate and only comment on matters of religion for guidance only.

      JRCbean

      Delete
  9. So the Dean - The Church - spoke in this debate - and did so in favour of the plainly ultra vires scheme of his friends the Bailhache brothers & Phil Ozouf.

    This is same Dean - the same Church - that sat in stony, complicit silence when I - in December 2007 - attempted to make a Christmas speech as senior Senator on behalf of, and in recognition of, victims & survivors of child-abuse - and I was shouted-down and barracked, & Phil Bailhache - even though he was and is directly conflicted - joined with the mob and silenced me.

    On that occasion, the Dean sat in silence - not advancing one word of intervention - even the notion that I should be allowed to speak - he didn't even have to agree with me. But given we were confronting the neglect, abuse, battery and rape of children - you would imagine - would you not - that THE representative of THE Church of England in Jersey - might have had something - even a few words - to say - even simply in support of the subject being aired?

    Instead, he later attacked me & other campaigners from the pulpit in St. Helier Church.

    He then - far later - once it had become plain that Jersey had a child-abuse disaster on its hands - ran an oligarchy church service - in which he used he exact same word of Jesus towards children, that I had been prevented from using months early by the directly conflicted Bailiff and directly conflicted Jersey oligarchy.

    But - never mind all of that brutal and savage suffering of children - all of the abusers - all of those criminal cover-ups - the unquantifiable suffering of the little ones . the wrecked lives - the nakedly unlawful oppressions conducted against those who fought for them.

    The Church of England's Dean in Jersey -

    The Dean - The Very Reverend Robert Key - deems an unelected church intervention - in support of a few acres of grasses & bracken - clearly so much more important than the suffering of children.

    I could say a number of obvious things about The Very Rev Bob Key - but I will spare you the burden of deciding whether they're printable.

    I'll confine myself to this assessment; I'm not a Christian - but if I end being wrong - and everything we've been taught about Jesus is right, and Heaven exists - I have more chance of being admitted to the Kingdom of Heaven when I die than Bob Key and his ilk.

    If Jesus and his values are there - an apostate like me will be redeemed by Christ - because - however imperfectly - I tried to do what was right.

    In startling contrast with Jersey's Dean, Bob Key.

    A few acres of nice-to-do conservation? He's there - using his immense yet unaccountable influence.

    Battered, abused, neglected, damaged children - and a plainly stagnant system that permitted such things? The Dean, Bob Key - silence & complicity.

    History has already seen and cast this "man" for what he actually is.

    Stuart

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You may recall that I did lodge a proposition seeking a review of the role of the unelected members of the States via P5/2009. Unfortunately the Privileges and Procedures Committee (PPC) successfully lodged an amendment whereby the Dean and Governor’s roles were removed from the Review.

      It does seem anomalous that an unelected person is allowed to speak in our States. If the reason for allowing the Dean to be in the States is for him to be the States’ social conscious and speak on the morality of particular propositions then I am afraid the Dean is falling way short of that objective.

      Delete
  10. This was voted through 34 to 11.
    Why not just accept it?
    All your posts have a negative bitterness and its a weary outlook.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for reading my blogs, I am surprised that you keep reading them if you find them negative and weary, perhaps you could tell me why?

      Delete
  11. The Plemont decision should serve as a lesson to all wannabe political campaigners in Jersey and of the need for organisation through "a party". Make no mistake but that the NT for J is a political party with agenda, membership and States Members who speak for it...as always any "opposition" was totally out - manoeuvred by this organisation but it happens time after time. That so many people are so obsessed with "Green Zonism" in preference to providing the houses and other facilities that the whole community needs plays into the hands of the oligarchy. Just as soon as the patriotic calls to change nothing in the names of our grandchildren are wheeled out we know that the foot stompers will prevail. It is corny and hypocritical - but it works - nothing really changes and it becomes disloyal to disagree with the ambitions of the establishment and those truly served...

    ReplyDelete
  12. So, who says crime doesn't pay? the Island has assisted in the purchase of Plemont with the process of crime, thank you criminals it is obvious we could not have done this without your criminal activity, as the only spare monies we had to buy this land was in an account which has monies we have taken from you over the years, do you realise what an important part you have played in jersey history, maybe just maybe the area will be named after one of you, Warren Park, perhaps, or they may settle with a plaque inscribed, this park was returned to Public ownership due to a brilliant idea of an EX Senator of the States who encouraged fellow states members to use the proceeds of crime to purchase this plot of land.( does anyone have a name for the area?)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Jurassic????

    ReplyDelete
  14. Bob,
    The Dean must have been reading your Blog as he spoke today on humanity. Apparently he left the Chamber soon after complaining of a sore throat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Dean, Bob Key left the chamber complaining of a sore throat? That will have been the flames of hell - getting in their first licks; Satan did always like to toy with his prey.

      Stuart

      Delete
    2. er, he works for Satan, he is not his prey

      Delete
    3. The Church of England is certainly NOT the The Church of Christ.

      Delete
  15. Bob.

    A witch hunt........in the public interest? PART THREE.

    ReplyDelete