Jersey's Dean--- Let Sleeping Dogs Lie.

Sir Michael Birt has just retired after twenty years service to the Island serving as Attorney General, Deputy Bailiff and for the past five and half years as Bailiff. As is customary he was asked of the highs and lows during his term of office. When speaking of the lows he cited the difficulties encountered by the Dean and the way in which he had been suspended, the split from Winchester and failure of Bishop Dakin to publish the Steel Report.

I always found Sir Michael to be fair and courteous and respect his views above however I can think of lows that would come far higher on my list. Given that the Dean was party to much of his own misfortunes of which he has admitted and apologised for he can hardly be seen as an innocent bystander. The Bishop of Winchester has publicly stated that no disciplinary action is being taken against the Dean or his colleague but has not said that the Dean has been exonerated of any wrongdoings as reported by some of the media. The Bishop has also stated that the Steel Report highlighted a number of significant concerns about safeguarding in Jersey. As the Dean is the Head of the Island's clergy is he not responsible for the concerns?

When it comes to suspensions I can think of dozens of ordinary States employees who have been suspended yet when I sought support for them to be represented by a friend at disciplinary meetings, I failed through lack of support. Among those suspended were equally illustrious employees such as the former police chief who was left on suspension for over 18 months until his retirement day whereby he was effectively dismissed by stealth. There was also the senior gynaecologist who was left suspended for far longer whereby he was deskilled. However unlike the Dean their plight was not worthy of support from the perceived great and the good. When propositions seeking support for enquiries into the suspension of the police chief and gynaecologist they were vigorously opposed, where is the consistency, where is the fair play? 

The failure of the Council of Ministers led by the Chief Minister to support the proposition to establish a committee of inquiry into Jersey’s historic child abuse must come high up on everyone's the list of lows. The disturbing reports coming from the Inquiry is not only justifying the decision to establish the Committee of Inquiry but says very little for those who opposed or were silent when it came to supporting the proposition.

Sir Michael also commented on the split form the Diocese of Winchester. The split was down to Dean and the Bishop of Winchester being unable to work together. Where was the peace and conciliation and how could Canterbury consider the vanity of two of its senior members to be greater than 500 years of tradition? 

Regarding the issue of the publication of the Steel Report, whilst I can understand concerns being raised about the delay the more serious concerns should be why was the conflicted Dame Steele appointed in the first place? Also why did the Terms of Reference not include the arrest at the Dean’s behest, of the lady at the heart of complaint and her eventual deportation and being left destitute at Southampton airport on a cold October evening? One may also ask why Dame Heather did not interview the lady concerned or give me the transcript as promised of my meeting with her in which she was uncomplimentary to HG.

It should also be noted that the Bishop had been advised to carry out an Impact Assessment to consider the likely impact of the Report on HG. He has assembled a small group of suitably qualified professionals to carry out an assessment and would be providing them with a copy of the report and other relevant information once he had received Counsel’s advice. He was asking them to advise him how the Steel Report can be published in such a way as to minimise the impact on ‘HG’ and the risk of harm to her. If the Report is likely to harm HG how Christian is it to press for its publication?

Radio Jersey has reported that following its enquiry with the Bishop's PR company a spokesman said "We don't yet have a date for publication, as the Steel Report is currently continuing to be reviewed by legal and safeguarding experts."   That answer could have been given months ago and in months to come.

The Sir Michael Birt's call for the report has been supported by some Jersey Synod members however there has been no call for any support for those affected by the Dean and Bishop's actions where promises have not been kept and continued speculation of the date of the Report's publication is causing distress.  Those who have followed the sorry saga will be aware of a catalogue of errors that have occurred from the time when HG first made contact with the Dean in July 2008 to this very day. For the reasons given above to publish the discredited Steel Report would be another.

It is said that publication of the Report will bring closure for Dean and Church, that is wishful thinking. Enough hurt has been caused and needless money has been spent on ego trips which have achieved nothing. Now is the time for closure and to let sleeping dogs lie.

These 2 related links will be of interest to readers. I am grateful to BBC Radio Jersey for this link which can be opened by clicking HERE

Following the Dean's reinstatement I published a blog which can be opened by clicking HERE 

Jersey's Elections (4)--- The Party's Over

The party’s over and it’s now time to call it a day for 7 States Members in what was called Jersey’s first General Election but in name only, because until there is only one category of States Member elected in equal sized constituencies there will never be a General Election in Jersey.

The Referendum result was as expected although possibly the size of the victory wasn't. As most of the elected members have expressed their support for reform it will be difficult to see how any reform can be implemented unless there is only one category of States Member elected in equal sized constituencies.

The closeness in the result of the only Connetable’s election (6 votes) is the very reason why Connetable’s are overwhelmingly in support for their right to retain their automatic right to a seat in the States. By chance I spoke to two St Mary voters yesterday and asked why they were wearing “Vote Yes” badges and Deputy Le Bailly rosettes. They said they were opposing their Connetable because she was spending too much time on States work. Their response was surely a contradiction because one of the reasons given for paying States Members was because it was recognized that States work was a full time job. 

One of the reasons given for Connetable Jackson’s demise at the previous election was because of his time spent on States work. It would seem that “Yes” voters want their cake and eat it.

Whilst there were many personal victories and congratulation to all the victors, I hope they will press for a review of yesterday’s election because the real victor was apathy and endorsed the “Apathy Ahoy” title I gave to my first Jersey Election’s blog.

The actual % turn out is not available at present but I doubt if the overall turnout was over 45 % with some turn outs being under 30%.

Why did so many people decide not to vote? Was it because they are so disenchanted with the quality of the candidates, the obstacles placed in front of them such as voter registration, queueing to vote in the open as experienced by voters in Trinity yesterday, or the confusion caused by an electoral system which has three categories of States Members, 12 of whom are being paid to be part time members of the States and 17 elected unopposed.

Yesterday was another bad day for the ladies with two new faces but one out, and for candidates with an independent or questioning approach. In my first blog I drew attention to 3 candidates who were deserving support for their ability and seeking an Island mandate to enhance their chances of ministerial positions. I am pleased that 2 of the 3 namely Andrew Green and Zoe Cameron were successful but am really disappointed that the third candidate, John Young did not receive the support he deserved.

Three years ago former Planning Chief Officer John Young was elected for the first time. He chaired a Scrutiny Panel, regularly lodged questions and lodged twice as many propositions than the 12 Connetables put together. He also made some valuable contributions during States debates.  Possibly one of the reasons for his demise was his honesty by openly supporting the No Vote. He may have lost the election but his integrity remains intact. 

The same can be said of Sarah Ferguson who has been a formidable Scrutiny Chairman whose panels did keep a close eye on public spending and raised issues such as the grant to the bogus film company and the budget shambles. She could be likened to the Chief Minister of Scrutiny and her defeat will be another loss to the Island.

During last Friday’s "Election Call" on Radio Jersey I was asked whether there could be any upsets. I thought that Ministers Anne Pryke at Health and Rob Duhamel at Planning could be vulnerable. Ann just scrapped in by beating Hugh Raymond by 16 votes but Rob just lost out by 26 votes to Peter McLinton, one of the 4 successful media candidates.

We must also say goodbye to "Crusty" Gerard Baudans who used to sit next to me in the States and also to Nick Le Cornu who because of his “tweet” about a colleague was going to find re-election difficult.

One of the disappointing results was not that someone lost but was actually elected, that person is the former Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis. He was the man behind the controversial and unlawful suspension of the former police Chief Graham Power. Andrew Lewis is back but his role in the States will need to be closely scrutinised. He must surely be called as a witness before the Committee of Inquiry so that it can be established which of the two statements he gave to the States and to the Wiltshire Police is truthful.

Given that Senator Gorst topped the poll it will be seen as an endorsement of his position as Chief Minister. Therefore whilst it would be good if his position for Chief Minister was challenged, it will be difficult for any one to defeat him. He has lost the Ministers of Home Affairs, Planning, Education and Social Security, therefore he should be looking to a reshuffle of existing Ministers like Bailhache, Ozouf and Maclean who have an Island mandate, and give Ministerial posts to Farnham, Routier, Cameron and Green. 

It would be an insult to the likes of John Young and Sean Power who have lost their seats, if Deputies, some of whom were elected unopposed, are appointed to Ministerial positions.

In conclusion thanks must be given to the States Greffier Michael de la Haye and his staff for the publication of the Election Manifesto booklet and for the Vote. je website along with the video recordings of the Hustings. 

Readers who wish to see read the results from yesterday’s election will be able to do so by clicking on to the Vote.Je website HERE.

Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (4) Questionable tactics??

Those who have read the Voice for Children’s latest Blog (if not please click HERE) will know that we have been banned from using the facilities in the Media Room which has been set up at Seaton Place in relation to the Committee of Inquiry into abuse in Jersey.  

Fortunately as I did not attend the Hearing on Thursday 14th August I did not suffer the ignominy of being ejected from the Media Room which was experienced by Neil McMurray of the Voice for Children Blog therefore I am not as upset as he understandably is. 

Late on Thursday afternoon 14th August I received a communication from the COI Chairman Frances Oldham QC informing me that her Panel had reconsidered the applications received for media accreditation. She then listed the 6 applications which were to receive media accreditation and the 2 applicants which were rejected.

The 6 were; BBC National, Jersey Evening Post, ITV Channel TV, Channel 103, BBC Jersey and Bailiwick Express. Media Accreditation was not granted to Neil Mc Murray of the Voice for Children Blog and Bob Hill of the Jersey Blog Spot.

The “spurious” reasons given for accreditation was the perceived need for the 6 successful applicants to have access to electronic facilities in the Media Room so as to be able to file stories promptly. On busy days there has been considerable pressure on space. 

If space is so precious that there is only sufficient room for the Panel to grant 6 media accreditations then it must follow that should the UK or world media wish to access the room they will be out of luck because of the lack of space. They like Neil and I will not be able to access any other electronic facilities at Seaton Place because Frances Oldham has made that clear in her communication to me. However the Panel's decision does not restrict the number of journalist/reporters/camera people that the 6 accredited media may wish to have in the Media Room.

I do not believe that Frances Oldham has been informed of all the circumstances because she would not have made a decision which is not only irrational but discriminatory. That evening I wrote apprising her of the facts and asked that we could appeal against her decision. I received a response from a member of the Inquiry Team telling me of the difficulties in making contact with Ms Oldham and her Panel but I was not given a date to meet Frances Oldham.

This morning because of further information coming to hand I again emailed Frances Oldham informing her of it and that she should investigate my concerns before we meet, hopefully before the COI reconvenes next week.

As a matter of courtesy and because I am waiting to meet Frances Oldham I will not share the information which questions the integrity of members of the Inquiry Media Team until I have met Frances Oldham or have been informed that she does not want to meet Neil and me.

The decision taken about accreditation is disappointing and petty which should not have arisen in the first place and can only harm the COI’s impartiality and credibility at a time when it badly needs to establish the trust and confidence of the survivors/victims and potential witnesses. 

I have devoted countless hours, not only as a States Member and since leaving the States to ensure there is a COI and encouraging witnesses to come forward. 

I hope I can continue to give the COI my support therefore it is essential that the matter is dealt with more urgency than at present and before a mountain is made out of a mole hill by those who have opposed the establishment of the COI because it could not be trusted to act in an impartial manner and without fear or favour.