So... What ramifications did Proposition P166 hold for the people of Jersey?
Deputy Bob Hill's proposition was very simple in what it was asking of the elected politicians of the States of Jersey. In Part A of the proposition all Deputy Hill was requiring from our politicians was that Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur bring a report or statement explaining the points laid out below:
(a) to request the Chief Minister to inform States members in a Report presented to the Assembly, or in a Statement to the Assembly, of the
action he has already taken and the action he intends to take in respect of the report dated 10th September 2010 into the suspension of the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police prepared for the hief Minister by Mr. Brian Napier QC (‘the Napier Report’) and, in particular to provide information in respect of the following matters –
And now these were the parts of P166/2010
(i) what action, if any, the Chief Minister has taken in respect of
the destruction by the Chief Executive to the Council of
Ministers of the original notes he took during the suspension
meeting and what guidelines, if any, the Chief Minister has
issued regarding the records of suspension meetings in the
(ii) whether he accepts the conclusion set out in paragraphs 45,
67, 72 and 107 of the Napier Report that action was taken on
a basis which was contrary to the advice of the Law Officers
and what action, if any, he has taken or proposes to take in
respect of that matter;
(iii) whether he accepts the conclusion set out in paragraphs 49–
53, 55, 58–66, 107 and 108 of the Napier Report that the
suspension process did not meet the requirements of the
Disciplinary Code for the Chief Officer, issued under
Article 9(1) of the Police Force (Jersey) Law 1974 as part of
the Chief Officer’s terms and conditions, and what action, if
any, he has taken regarding the apparent breach of the process
specified in the Code;
(iv) why there has been no formal presentation of the report to
members and no opportunity to discuss the findings with the
(v) what training, procedural and other corrective measures, if
any, he has taken in order to ensure that personnel issues, and
in particular disciplinary issues, are managed appropriately in
(vi) whether any disciplinary proceedings have been taken as a
result of the findings of the Napier Report and, if so, to update
members on the outcome of those proceedings;
(b) to request the Chief Minister to issue a formal apology to the retired
Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police in relation to the failure of
those involved, as identified in the Napier Report, to deal with the
Chief Officer’s suspension in accordance with the procedures set out
in the Disciplinary Code;
But our elected politicians couldn't even do that.
It was a classic debate; one that fully exposed the blinkered hostility certain states members and constables have towards open, transparent government and accountability. Only two members stood up in defence of the Chief Minister and that was the Chief Minister himself and the Home Affairs Minister, who publicly held a Kangaroo Court against the former suspended Chief of Police, Graham Power, in April of this year.
I would like to say well done to the Deputies and Senators who stood up and delivered brilliantly well researched speeches. The fact that these speeches had no bearing on the debate or votes is again a very bad indictment of our state of government. One of the main reasons for P166/2010 failing is the personal issues our government has with Graham Power and Lenny Harper. In their eyes these two people are the enemy of Jersey and their crime was exposing institutional child abuse. They blame Graham Power and Lenny Harper for bringing the International Media to Jersey, but show absolutely no condemnation of the perpetrators of such heinous crimes.
In November of the year 2010, can anyone honestly say where Jersey is heading? We seem to be losing our social and moral conscience by the day. My government believes it's OK to illegally suspend the Chief of Police, QPM, in the middle of an international child abuse scandal. They too believe it is totally fine that the Chief of Police is offered none of his rights as required under the States of Jersey Police Law 1974. They also believe it is OK for the Chief Executive to destroy the notes of the suspension meeting and consider this to be good practice. They also believe it is OK for the Chief of Police to have no right of response to the allegations made against him when his only crime was investigating child abuse.
Where does that leave us as a functioning democracy?
The 18 states members and constables pictured below voted against all 7 points of proposition P166. I can safely say, hand on heart, that these politicians and constables, and there are more to follow on the next couple of blogs, are a danger to me, the people of Jersey and most importantly to every child who is presently in the care of the States of Jersey.
I say this because they are allowing personality politics to get in the way of good governance... and we are screaming out for good governance. I will finish by saying part (v) was won and there were many members who voted in favour of that part but against the remaining 6. They will be named and shamed. Here is the code of ethics I believe a government should strive to abide by and are currently failing at every possible turn.
Selflessness : Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.
Integrity : Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties.
Objectivity : In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.
Accountability : Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.
Openness : Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.
Honesty : Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
Leadership : Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.
Now go back and read what p166/2010 was asking. Ask yourself what is this Government so afraid of.
These have none of the Above
Every one of these states members voted against all points of P166/2010. How many of the states members below are on the States Employment Board? yet, display these ethics? to me it makes no sense.
These States Members are a Danger to Children in Care, the reason for saying this is simple. Who now will be prepared to blow the whistle in Jersey if they see malpractice towards Children. Do these States members not recognise the magnitude of what they are doing..
If any of the States Members don't agree with what Im saying please feel free to contact me at email@example.com
I look forward to hearing why you voted the way you did. And, with your permission, im more than willing to put your argument across seeing as none of you put it across in the states.
Chef Minister Le Suer
Senator Le Main
Senator I le Marquand
The reason this list is not longer is that many members thought it was right to vote for part (v) of the proposition which for them was a safe part. They will be exposed next as they are as culpable as the ones below