A Reflection on 2013

During 2013 I published 33 blogs and in common with other Bloggers have seen an increased readership. Whilst a large proportion of my posting have been in relation to the Dean's handling of HG's complaint I have covered other topics. I shall devote this blog looking back on some of them and will also take the opportunity of updating readers.

In January drug dealer Curtis Warren was still very much in the news and so he remained throughout the year as the Authorities were determined to make his life as difficult as possible. I have no time for drug dealers but it appears that every possible step was taken to ensure that Curtis Warren remained behind bars for as long as the Authorities could justifiably do so.

There was an ongoing battle to either get some of his ill gotten gains or to keep him locked up. He was due to be released this month but was ordered to pay back almost £200m or face a further period behind bars. Following the Court's ruling a statement from Jersey's Law Officers' Department read; 

"The Royal Court of Jersey has today ordered that £198m be confiscated from Curtis Warren. It is believed to be one of the largest ever confiscation orders made in the British Isles and Europe.

"The confiscation proceedings are the result of several years of extensive investigation into the criminal career and financial affairs of one of Europe's most notorious organised criminals." 

I did not attend any of the Hearings but from reports I have read it was reported that during the Hearing it was alleged that Warren was laundering £10m to £15m a week from smuggling drugs. It was also revealed that from his cell at Jersey's La Moye prison while awaiting trial between 2007 and 2009, Warren was alleged to have used several illicit mobile phones to contact a network of associates in an attempt to continue his drug trafficking empire. Some 35,000 calls across 41 countries between March 2008 and October 2009 involving Warren's mobile phones were analysed during the investigation.

If the above occurred one wonders who knew about it, why was it permitted, how many people have been arrested and if none, why not? When one also considers the controversy over the way evidence was obtained to convict Warren where no drugs came into police hands nor the drug supplier arrested, it ‘s not surprising that he has lodged another appeal. He might well be asking who guards the guardians or who watches the watchman?

Interestingly one the judges involved with one of the earlier appeal Hearings was certain Dame Heather Steel.

In February I published a blog about a film company called Canbedone Productions who having originally asked for £2m settled for £200k to film in Jersey. The Blog has received a considerable number of visits throughout the year and I am sure that readers will be looking with interest as to whether the promised filming actually gets under way later this month.

I am much saddened every time I pass St Martin’s School’s former playing field which is very much a building site because of the construction of the new school.The new parish Deputy, Steve Luce was a leading light in support of building the school on its field rather than on its existing site. I had hoped Deputy Rob Duhamel would have remembered that he is also Minister for Environment as well as Planning and would have saved the field but it was not to be. It is therefore amusing to read that Steve Luce lodged a proposition claiming that he has no confidence in Deputy Duhamel. It is said that one has no friends in politics.

I posted a Blog reporting on the lot of many of the Island’s immigrants who have little protection in respect of the deposits they are required to leave with land lords. The promised legislation still has not been lodged but I am informed that it should be lodged in the near future.

The States continued to make a pig’s ear of Reform and as long as it remains in Member’s hands, apart from the odd tweaking nothing substantial will be forthcoming. The one regret I have is that I voted in favour of Ministerial Government way back in 2001. I believed that reform in line with Clothier would immediately follow but it certainly has not been the case.

It was my proposition that established the Carswell Review into the role of the unelected Members of States. These include the Bailiff, the Deputy, the Attorney and Solicitor Generals, the Dean and the Lt. Governor. One of the recommendations to come from the Review was that the Bailiff’s dual role should end.

Connetable Crowcroft has lodged a proposition requesting the States to agree that the Bailiff should cease to act as President of the States and the States should elect their own President either from within or from without the ranks of their members.  I have always been relaxed in relation as to who presides at States Sittings but my main concern is that who ever it is, that person should be accountable and there should be a right of appeal against decisions made by that person in relation to the lodging of propositions and questions from States Members.

I devoted three blogs in which the former Bailiff was able to able to act in a partial and conflicted manner and yet not be accountable to anyone.

The debate on the Bailiff is due on 4th February and it seems ironic that a Connetable is lodging a proposition to remove the Bailiff from the States in line with the Clothier recommendation yet the Connetables are totally ignoring Clothier's recommendation to remove them selves from the States.  

In March it will be 3 years since the States agreed to establish a Committee of Inquiry into Jersey’s Historic Child Abuse. I published a couple of Blogs relating to that topic but it this Blog on Jimmy Savile published in 2012 which is still receiving a large number of visits. I am looking forward to the Committee actually getting under-way.

As mentioned above I have devoted a considerable amount of time to the Dean’s handling of HG’s complaint. As is so often the case it is not what was done at the time but what was not done that leads to problems. This could be said in the Dean’s case where sadly his handling of the complaint has caused a tremendous amount of distress not only to him and his wife but to HG which was also life changing.

Much time and expense has been given to investigating the matter and it is already evident that there will be no winners. The two Reports are due to be published some time in the near future but I doubt whether either will really put an end to the affair and will probably pose more questions than answers, but Bloggers will ensure that questions are asked.

Finally may I wish all readers a safe and healthy 2014 and ask that if you are minded to make a New Year's resolution you might consider one I made at the millennium and still keep. When ever possible use the stairs rather than the lift. Its good for your heart and spirit, try it even for a month and see if it makes a difference, I am sure it will.  

Soft touch Jersey and the Improbable Knights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions like,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who is Noel Castley-Wright?

What track record does Kevin Cavelle have?

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

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

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

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

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

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


Friday 6th September 2013.

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

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

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

For further information please click onto the sites below.

PAC Report

Minister's Response

States Employment Board Report

JEP Editorial