Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Great Day: Still plenty of work for Team Voice


Scares the Sh*t out of Me. "None of the Above" At Election Time


This is just a quick Blog about the Committee of Enquiry Debate.


Today was a great day for the Abuse Survivors.


 It was a step forward for the States. There is still much work to be done.


With the Success of Deputy Tadiers Amendment I was very confident Deputy Hills would follow but that's not how our Assembly works. And so I  carry on with my work. Team Voice will not be letting up until this has reached a conclusion


What I got from the Debate and from some members is that they want a Committee of Enquiry but are still scared about what could come out . Why would they not accept the points below? Strange very Strange 


There are some certain constables who will not shift no matter what


And what exact role does Deputy Noel have in the States? Is he capable of free thought?


Below is the list of the the ones who voted against 3 parts of Deputy Hills 6 part Amendment 


WHY DID THEY VOTE AGAINST THESE PARTS? 


IT MAKES NO SENSE 


Rico Sorda



(P.19/2011) – AMENDMENT


PAGE 2 –



“1. How have the Island’s children’s homes been run in recent decades?


2. What procedures were in place to recruit staff and how was the performance of staff monitored? Should other steps have been taken to monitor performance?


3. What measures were taken to address inappropriate behaviour from staff when it was discovered, and if those measures were insufficient, what other measures should have been taken?


4. How did those in authority at political and officer level deal with problems that were brought to their attention?


5. What processes were in place to assess the performance of the homes and what action was taken as a result of any problems that were identified?


6. Were there any mechanisms in operation to allow children to report their concerns in safety and what action was taken if and when concerns were voiced?”



So the people who voted against PART 1 


POUR: 24    CONTRE: 25    ILL: 3    EN DEFAUT: 1



Here are the Contre


Senators 


Le Suer, Routier, Ozouf, Shenton, Cohen, Perchard, Maclean, Le Marquand,



Constables


Vibert,  Mr J Gallichan, Murphy,  Jackson, Yates, Butcher, Hanning, Norman


Deputies


Duhamel, Fox, Reed, Le Fondre, Noel, Pryke, Gorst, Jeune , Dupre



2. What procedures were in place to recruit staff and how was the performance of staff monitored? Should other steps have been taken to monitor performance?


POUR: 24    CONTRE: 25    ILL: 3    EN DEFAUT: 1

Contre


Senators 


Le Suer, Routier, Ozouf, Shenton, Cohen,  Maclean, Le Marquand,


Constables


Vibert,  Mr John Gallichan, Murphy,  Jackson, Yates, Butcher, Hanning, Norman, Refault



Deputies


Duhamel, Fox, Reed, Le Fondre, Noel, Pryke, Gorst, Jeune , Dupre



5. What processes were in place to assess the performance of the homes and what action was taken as a result of any problems that were identified?


POUR: 23    CONTRE: 26    ILL: 3    EN DEFAUT: 1

Senators

Le Suer, Routier, Ozouf, Shenton, Cohen, Perchard,  Maclean, Le Marquand,


Constables 


Vibert,John Gallichan, Murphy, Jackson, Yates, Butcher, Hanning, Norman, Refault 


Deputies


Duhamel, Fox, Reed, Le Fondre, Pryke, Gorst, Jeune, Dupre,Noel,


43 comments:

Anonymous said...

having missed the entire debate,what happened to 3,4,6 ?
These are amendments ? So what was the original?
Please tell me that the main intention of an enquiry is to look at the way it was conducted.

Anonymous said...

This should be taken as an opportunity to do the right thing.

If it is going to be done at least do it right.

Why leave out questions as per Deputy Hills proposal? Leaving these questions out would be to produce a whitewash not deserving of the expense or time invested as has been shown to be done time and time again.

Then again, they know that dont they.

Anonymous said...

keep up the good work, Rico
We need to keep these politicians on there toes.

Anonymous said...

why did they have a vote on the amendments before they had voted on having a COI?

I am very confused

Anonymous said...

2. What procedures were in place to recruit staff and how was the performance of staff monitored? Should other steps have been taken to monitor performance?


Why would anyone vote against this?

Anonymous said...

Shenton did not surprise me voted for COI. Seen to be doing the right thing in the eyes of the public.

Voting Contre to Deputy Hills innocuous ammendments.

Would be great to see credited media asking for an explanation of Jerseys ministers for possible reasons why they would vote against these expected ammendments.

rico sorda said...

The Amendments to a proposition always get voted on first. Deputy Hill could have taken his amendment on block but could have run the chance of loosing the vote. By taking each one separate he gave the house the chance of accepting some. This as they say is "putting some meat on the bones". The com will now come back to the house and a final terms of reference will be agreed.

The actions of the COM have been nothing short of disgraceful. This is also why they are desperate for Stuart Syvrets court case to be struck out. His dismissal as Heath Minister is another can of worms and indeed crosses over into the COI.

rico sorda said...

"keep up the good work, Rico
We need to keep these politicians on there toes."

Thank you. Team Voice has always worked hard at keeping the issues from being "Swept under the Carpet", So much hard work has gone into this. We new we needed political support and cant thank the good decent politicians enough. The likes of Deputy Hill, Pitman, Wimberly and Tadier have been dogged in their quest for the answers. They have been proved right.

What now for Senator Le Marquand?

This is leaving his political reputation in tatters. He had two paths before him when he got elected he chose the wrong one.

Just let him dare put his name forward for Chief Minister

Senator Le Gresley was superb during this debate. I cant thank him enough for the way he conducted himself and the quality of his speeches.

rs

rico sorda said...

This is the full voting for the 6 parts of Deputy Hills Amendment
Part 1

Historical Child Abuse: request to Council of Ministers (P.19/2011) – amendment - Question 1 02 March 2011

Proposition:

Historical Child Abuse: request to Council of Ministers (P.19/2011) – amendment.



POUR: 24 CONTRE: 25 ILL: 3 EN DEFAUT: 1


Senator Terence Augustine Le Sueur

CONTRE


Senator Paul Francis Routier

CONTRE


Senator Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf

CONTRE


Senator Terence John Le Main

ILL


Senator Ben Edward Shenton

CONTRE


Senator Frederick Ellyer Cohen

CONTRE


Senator James Leslie Perchard

CONTRE


Senator Alan Breckon

POUR


Senator Sarah Craig Ferguson

POUR


Senator Alan John Henry Maclean

CONTRE


Senator Bryan Ian Le Marquand

CONTRE


Senator Francis du Heaume Le Gresley, M.B.E.

POUR


Connétable Kenneth Priaulx Vibert

CONTRE


Connétable Alan Simon Crowcroft

POUR


Connétable John Le Sueur Gallichan

CONTRE


Connétable Daniel Joseph Murphy

CONTRE


Connétable Michael Keith Jackson

CONTRE


Connétable Silvanus Arthur Yates

CONTRE


Connétable Graeme Frank Butcher

CONTRE


Connétable Peter Frederick Maurice Hanning

CONTRE


Connétable Leonard Norman

CONTRE


Connétable John Martin Refault

POUR


Connétable Deidre Wendy Mezbourian

POUR


Connétable Juliette Gallichan

POUR


Deputy Robert Charles Duhamel

CONTRE


Deputy Frederick John Hill, B.E.M.

POUR


Deputy Roy George Le Hérissier

POUR


Deputy John Benjamin Fox

CONTRE


Deputy Judith Ann Martin

EN DEFAUT


Deputy Geoffrey Peter Southern

POUR


Deputy James Gordon Reed

CONTRE


Deputy Carolyn Fiona Labey

POUR


Deputy Collin Hedley Egré

ILL


Deputy Jacqueline Ann Hilton

POUR


Deputy Paul Vincent Francis Le Claire

POUR


Deputy John Alexander Nicholas Le Fondré

CONTRE


Deputy Anne Enid Pryke

CONTRE


Deputy Sean Power

POUR


Deputy Shona Pitman

POUR


Deputy Kevin Charles Lewis

POUR


Deputy Ian Joseph Gorst

CONTRE


Deputy Philip John Rondel

POUR


Deputy Montfort Tadier

POUR


Deputy Angela Elizabeth Jeune

CONTRE


Deputy Daniel John Arabin Wimberley

POUR


Deputy Trevor Mark Pitman

POUR


Deputy Anne Teresa Dupre

CONTRE


Deputy Edward James Noel

CONTRE


Deputy Tracey Anne Vallois

POUR


Deputy Michael Roderick Higgins

POUR


Deputy Andrew Kenneth Francis Green M.B.E.

POUR


Deputy Deborah Jane De Sousa

ILL


Deputy Jeremy Martin Maçon

POUR

rico sorda said...

Part 2


Historical Child Abuse: request to Council of Ministers (P.19/2011) – amendment Question 2 02 March 2011

Proposition:

Historical Child Abuse: request to Council of Ministers (P.19/2011) – amendment.



POUR: 24 CONTRE: 25 ILL: 3 EN DEFAUT: 1


Senator Terence Augustine Le Sueur

CONTRE


Senator Paul Francis Routier

CONTRE


Senator Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf

CONTRE


Senator Terence John Le Main

ILL


Senator Ben Edward Shenton

CONTRE


Senator Frederick Ellyer Cohen

CONTRE


Senator James Leslie Perchard

POUR


Senator Alan Breckon

POUR


Senator Sarah Craig Ferguson

POUR


Senator Alan John Henry Maclean

CONTRE


Senator Bryan Ian Le Marquand

CONTRE


Senator Francis du Heaume Le Gresley, M.B.E.

POUR


Connétable Kenneth Priaulx Vibert

CONTRE


Connétable Alan Simon Crowcroft

POUR


Connétable John Le Sueur Gallichan

CONTRE


Connétable Daniel Joseph Murphy

CONTRE


Connétable Michael Keith Jackson

CONTRE


Connétable Silvanus Arthur Yates

CONTRE


Connétable Graeme Frank Butcher

CONTRE


Connétable Peter Frederick Maurice Hanning

CONTRE


Connétable Leonard Norman

CONTRE


Connétable John Martin Refault

CONTRE


Connétable Deidre Wendy Mezbourian

POUR


Connétable Juliette Gallichan

POUR


Deputy Robert Charles Duhamel

CONTRE


Deputy Frederick John Hill, B.E.M.

POUR


Deputy Roy George Le Hérissier

POUR


Deputy John Benjamin Fox

CONTRE


Deputy Judith Ann Martin

EN DEFAUT


Deputy Geoffrey Peter Southern

POUR


Deputy James Gordon Reed

CONTRE


Deputy Carolyn Fiona Labey

POUR


Deputy Collin Hedley Egré

ILL


Deputy Jacqueline Ann Hilton

POUR


Deputy Paul Vincent Francis Le Claire

POUR


Deputy John Alexander Nicholas Le Fondré

CONTRE


Deputy Anne Enid Pryke

CONTRE


Deputy Sean Power

POUR


Deputy Shona Pitman

POUR


Deputy Kevin Charles Lewis

POUR


Deputy Ian Joseph Gorst

CONTRE


Deputy Philip John Rondel

POUR


Deputy Montfort Tadier

POUR


Deputy Angela Elizabeth Jeune

CONTRE


Deputy Daniel John Arabin Wimberley

POUR


Deputy Trevor Mark Pitman

POUR


Deputy Anne Teresa Dupre

CONTRE


Deputy Edward James Noel

CONTRE


Deputy Tracey Anne Vallois

POUR


Deputy Michael Roderick Higgins

POUR


Deputy Andrew Kenneth Francis Green M.B.E.

POUR


Deputy Deborah Jane De Sousa

ILL


Deputy Jeremy Martin Maçon

POUR

rico sorda said...

Part 3

Historical Child Abuse: request to Council of Ministers (P.19/2011) – amendment Question 3 02 March 2011

Proposition:

Historical Child Abuse: request to Council of Ministers (P.19/2011) – amendment.



POUR: 25 CONTRE: 24 ILL: 3 EN DEFAUT: 1


Senator Terence Augustine Le Sueur

CONTRE


Senator Paul Francis Routier

CONTRE


Senator Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf

CONTRE


Senator Terence John Le Main

ILL


Senator Ben Edward Shenton

POUR


Senator Frederick Ellyer Cohen

CONTRE


Senator James Leslie Perchard

POUR


Senator Alan Breckon

POUR


Senator Sarah Craig Ferguson

POUR


Senator Alan John Henry Maclean

CONTRE


Senator Bryan Ian Le Marquand

CONTRE


Senator Francis du Heaume Le Gresley, M.B.E.

POUR


Connétable Kenneth Priaulx Vibert

CONTRE


Connétable Alan Simon Crowcroft

POUR


Connétable John Le Sueur Gallichan

CONTRE


Connétable Daniel Joseph Murphy

CONTRE


Connétable Michael Keith Jackson

CONTRE


Connétable Silvanus Arthur Yates

CONTRE


Connétable Graeme Frank Butcher

CONTRE


Connétable Peter Frederick Maurice Hanning

CONTRE


Connétable Leonard Norman

CONTRE


Connétable John Martin Refault

CONTRE


Connétable Deidre Wendy Mezbourian

POUR


Connétable Juliette Gallichan

POUR


Deputy Robert Charles Duhamel

CONTRE


Deputy Frederick John Hill, B.E.M.

POUR


Deputy Roy George Le Hérissier

POUR


Deputy John Benjamin Fox

CONTRE


Deputy Judith Ann Martin

EN DEFAUT


Deputy Geoffrey Peter Southern

POUR


Deputy James Gordon Reed

CONTRE


Deputy Carolyn Fiona Labey

POUR


Deputy Collin Hedley Egré

ILL


Deputy Jacqueline Ann Hilton

POUR


Deputy Paul Vincent Francis Le Claire

POUR


Deputy John Alexander Nicholas Le Fondré

CONTRE


Deputy Anne Enid Pryke

CONTRE


Deputy Sean Power

POUR


Deputy Shona Pitman

POUR


Deputy Kevin Charles Lewis

POUR


Deputy Ian Joseph Gorst

CONTRE


Deputy Philip John Rondel

POUR


Deputy Montfort Tadier

POUR


Deputy Angela Elizabeth Jeune

CONTRE


Deputy Daniel John Arabin Wimberley

POUR


Deputy Trevor Mark Pitman

POUR


Deputy Anne Teresa Dupre

CONTRE


Deputy Edward James Noel

CONTRE


Deputy Tracey Anne Vallois

POUR


Deputy Michael Roderick Higgins

POUR


Deputy Andrew Kenneth Francis Green M.B.E.

POUR


Deputy Deborah Jane De Sousa

ILL


Deputy Jeremy Martin Maçon

POUR

rico sorda said...

Part 4



Historical Child Abuse: request to Council of Ministers (P.19/2011) – amendment Question 4 02 March 2011

Proposition:

Historical Child Abuse: request to Council of Ministers (P.19/2011) – amendment.



POUR: 27 CONTRE: 22 ILL: 3 EN DEFAUT: 1


Senator Terence Augustine Le Sueur

CONTRE


Senator Paul Francis Routier

CONTRE


Senator Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf

CONTRE


Senator Terence John Le Main

ILL


Senator Ben Edward Shenton

POUR


Senator Frederick Ellyer Cohen

CONTRE


Senator James Leslie Perchard

POUR


Senator Alan Breckon

POUR


Senator Sarah Craig Ferguson

POUR


Senator Alan John Henry Maclean

CONTRE


Senator Bryan Ian Le Marquand

CONTRE


Senator Francis du Heaume Le Gresley, M.B.E.

POUR


Connétable Kenneth Priaulx Vibert

CONTRE


Connétable Alan Simon Crowcroft

POUR


Connétable John Le Sueur Gallichan

CONTRE


Connétable Daniel Joseph Murphy

CONTRE


Connétable Michael Keith Jackson

CONTRE


Connétable Silvanus Arthur Yates

CONTRE


Connétable Graeme Frank Butcher

CONTRE


Connétable Peter Frederick Maurice Hanning

CONTRE


Connétable Leonard Norman

CONTRE


Connétable John Martin Refault

CONTRE


Connétable Deidre Wendy Mezbourian

POUR


Connétable Juliette Gallichan

POUR


Deputy Robert Charles Duhamel

CONTRE


Deputy Frederick John Hill, B.E.M.

POUR


Deputy Roy George Le Hérissier

POUR


Deputy John Benjamin Fox

CONTRE


Deputy Judith Ann Martin

EN DEFAUT


Deputy Geoffrey Peter Southern

POUR


Deputy James Gordon Reed

CONTRE


Deputy Carolyn Fiona Labey

POUR


Deputy Collin Hedley Egré

ILL


Deputy Jacqueline Ann Hilton

POUR


Deputy Paul Vincent Francis Le Claire

POUR


Deputy John Alexander Nicholas Le Fondré

POUR


Deputy Anne Enid Pryke

CONTRE


Deputy Sean Power

POUR


Deputy Shona Pitman

POUR


Deputy Kevin Charles Lewis

POUR


Deputy Ian Joseph Gorst

CONTRE


Deputy Philip John Rondel

POUR


Deputy Montfort Tadier

POUR


Deputy Angela Elizabeth Jeune

CONTRE


Deputy Daniel John Arabin Wimberley

POUR


Deputy Trevor Mark Pitman

POUR


Deputy Anne Teresa Dupre

POUR


Deputy Edward James Noel

CONTRE


Deputy Tracey Anne Vallois

POUR


Deputy Michael Roderick Higgins

POUR


Deputy Andrew Kenneth Francis Green M.B.E.

POUR


Deputy Deborah Jane De Sousa

ILL


Deputy Jeremy Martin Maçon

POUR

rico sorda said...

Part 5



Historical Child Abuse: request to Council of Ministers (P.19/2011) – amendment Question 5 02 March 2011

Proposition:

Historical Child Abuse: request to Council of Ministers (P.19/2011) – amendment.



POUR: 23 CONTRE: 26 ILL: 3 EN DEFAUT: 1


Senator Terence Augustine Le Sueur

CONTRE


Senator Paul Francis Routier

CONTRE


Senator Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf

CONTRE


Senator Terence John Le Main

ILL


Senator Ben Edward Shenton

CONTRE


Senator Frederick Ellyer Cohen

CONTRE


Senator James Leslie Perchard

CONTRE


Senator Alan Breckon

POUR


Senator Sarah Craig Ferguson

POUR


Senator Alan John Henry Maclean

CONTRE


Senator Bryan Ian Le Marquand

CONTRE


Senator Francis du Heaume Le Gresley, M.B.E.

POUR


Connétable Kenneth Priaulx Vibert

CONTRE


Connétable Alan Simon Crowcroft

POUR


Connétable John Le Sueur Gallichan

CONTRE


Connétable Daniel Joseph Murphy

CONTRE


Connétable Michael Keith Jackson

CONTRE


Connétable Silvanus Arthur Yates

CONTRE


Connétable Graeme Frank Butcher

CONTRE


Connétable Peter Frederick Maurice Hanning

CONTRE


Connétable Leonard Norman

CONTRE


Connétable John Martin Refault

CONTRE


Connétable Deidre Wendy Mezbourian

POUR


Connétable Juliette Gallichan

POUR


Deputy Robert Charles Duhamel

CONTRE


Deputy Frederick John Hill, B.E.M.

POUR


Deputy Roy George Le Hérissier

POUR


Deputy John Benjamin Fox

CONTRE


Deputy Judith Ann Martin

EN DEFAUT


Deputy Geoffrey Peter Southern

POUR


Deputy James Gordon Reed

CONTRE


Deputy Carolyn Fiona Labey

POUR


Deputy Collin Hedley Egré

ILL


Deputy Jacqueline Ann Hilton

POUR


Deputy Paul Vincent Francis Le Claire

POUR


Deputy John Alexander Nicholas Le Fondré

CONTRE


Deputy Anne Enid Pryke

CONTRE


Deputy Sean Power

POUR


Deputy Shona Pitman

POUR


Deputy Kevin Charles Lewis

POUR


Deputy Ian Joseph Gorst

CONTRE


Deputy Philip John Rondel

POUR


Deputy Montfort Tadier

POUR


Deputy Angela Elizabeth Jeune

CONTRE


Deputy Daniel John Arabin Wimberley

POUR


Deputy Trevor Mark Pitman

POUR


Deputy Anne Teresa Dupre

CONTRE


Deputy Edward James Noel

CONTRE


Deputy Tracey Anne Vallois

POUR


Deputy Michael Roderick Higgins

POUR


Deputy Andrew Kenneth Francis Green M.B.E.

POUR


Deputy Deborah Jane De Sousa

ILL


Deputy Jeremy Martin Maçon

POUR

rico sorda said...

Part 6

Historical Child Abuse: request to Council of Ministers (P.19/2011) – amendment Question 6 02 March 2011

Proposition:

Historical Child Abuse: request to Council of Ministers (P.19/2011) – amendment.



POUR: 31 CONTRE: 18 ILL: 3 EN DEFAUT: 1


Senator Terence Augustine Le Sueur

CONTRE


Senator Paul Francis Routier

CONTRE


Senator Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf

CONTRE


Senator Terence John Le Main

ILL


Senator Ben Edward Shenton

POUR


Senator Frederick Ellyer Cohen

POUR


Senator James Leslie Perchard

POUR


Senator Alan Breckon

POUR


Senator Sarah Craig Ferguson

POUR


Senator Alan John Henry Maclean

CONTRE


Senator Bryan Ian Le Marquand

CONTRE


Senator Francis du Heaume Le Gresley, M.B.E.

POUR


Connétable Kenneth Priaulx Vibert

CONTRE


Connétable Alan Simon Crowcroft

POUR


Connétable John Le Sueur Gallichan

CONTRE


Connétable Daniel Joseph Murphy

CONTRE


Connétable Michael Keith Jackson

CONTRE


Connétable Silvanus Arthur Yates

CONTRE


Connétable Graeme Frank Butcher

CONTRE


Connétable Peter Frederick Maurice Hanning

CONTRE


Connétable Leonard Norman

POUR


Connétable John Martin Refault

CONTRE


Connétable Deidre Wendy Mezbourian

POUR


Connétable Juliette Gallichan

POUR


Deputy Robert Charles Duhamel

CONTRE


Deputy Frederick John Hill, B.E.M.

POUR


Deputy Roy George Le Hérissier

POUR


Deputy John Benjamin Fox

CONTRE


Deputy Judith Ann Martin

EN DEFAUT


Deputy Geoffrey Peter Southern

POUR


Deputy James Gordon Reed

POUR


Deputy Carolyn Fiona Labey

POUR


Deputy Collin Hedley Egré

ILL


Deputy Jacqueline Ann Hilton

POUR


Deputy Paul Vincent Francis Le Claire

POUR


Deputy John Alexander Nicholas Le Fondré

POUR


Deputy Anne Enid Pryke

CONTRE


Deputy Sean Power

POUR


Deputy Shona Pitman

POUR


Deputy Kevin Charles Lewis

POUR


Deputy Ian Joseph Gorst

POUR


Deputy Philip John Rondel

POUR


Deputy Montfort Tadier

POUR


Deputy Angela Elizabeth Jeune

CONTRE


Deputy Daniel John Arabin Wimberley

POUR


Deputy Trevor Mark Pitman

POUR


Deputy Anne Teresa Dupre

POUR


Deputy Edward James Noel

CONTRE


Deputy Tracey Anne Vallois

POUR


Deputy Michael Roderick Higgins

POUR


Deputy Andrew Kenneth Francis Green M.B.E.

POUR


Deputy Deborah Jane De Sousa

ILL


Deputy Jeremy Martin Maçon

POUR

rico sorda said...

This is the voting on Deputy Tadiers Amendment ref the Law Office

Historical Child Abuse: request to Council of Ministers (P.19/2011) – amendment preamble 02 March 2011

Proposition:

Historical Child Abuse: request to Council of Ministers (P.19/2011) – amendment.



POUR: 27 CONTRE: 22 ILL: 3 EN DEFAUT: 1


Senator Terence Augustine Le Sueur

CONTRE


Senator Paul Francis Routier

POUR


Senator Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf

CONTRE


Senator Terence John Le Main

ILL


Senator Ben Edward Shenton

POUR


Senator Frederick Ellyer Cohen

CONTRE


Senator James Leslie Perchard

POUR


Senator Alan Breckon

POUR


Senator Sarah Craig Ferguson

POUR


Senator Alan John Henry Maclean

CONTRE


Senator Bryan Ian Le Marquand

CONTRE


Senator Francis du Heaume Le Gresley, M.B.E.

POUR


Connétable Kenneth Priaulx Vibert

POUR


Connétable Alan Simon Crowcroft

POUR


Connétable John Le Sueur Gallichan

CONTRE


Connétable Daniel Joseph Murphy

CONTRE


Connétable Michael Keith Jackson

CONTRE


Connétable Silvanus Arthur Yates

CONTRE


Connétable Graeme Frank Butcher

CONTRE


Connétable Peter Frederick Maurice Hanning

CONTRE


Connétable Leonard Norman

CONTRE


Connétable John Martin Refault

CONTRE


Connétable Deidre Wendy Mezbourian

POUR


Connétable Juliette Gallichan

POUR


Deputy Robert Charles Duhamel

CONTRE


Deputy Frederick John Hill, B.E.M.

POUR


Deputy Roy George Le Hérissier

POUR


Deputy John Benjamin Fox

CONTRE


Deputy Judith Ann Martin

EN DEFAUT


Deputy Geoffrey Peter Southern

POUR


Deputy James Gordon Reed

CONTRE


Deputy Carolyn Fiona Labey

POUR


Deputy Collin Hedley Egré

ILL


Deputy Jacqueline Ann Hilton

POUR


Deputy Paul Vincent Francis Le Claire

POUR


Deputy John Alexander Nicholas Le Fondré

CONTRE


Deputy Anne Enid Pryke

CONTRE


Deputy Sean Power

POUR


Deputy Shona Pitman

POUR


Deputy Kevin Charles Lewis

POUR


Deputy Ian Joseph Gorst

CONTRE


Deputy Philip John Rondel

POUR


Deputy Montfort Tadier

POUR


Deputy Angela Elizabeth Jeune

CONTRE


Deputy Daniel John Arabin Wimberley

POUR


Deputy Trevor Mark Pitman

POUR


Deputy Anne Teresa Dupre

CONTRE


Deputy Edward James Noel

CONTRE


Deputy Tracey Anne Vallois

POUR


Deputy Michael Roderick Higgins

POUR


Deputy Andrew Kenneth Francis Green M.B.E.

POUR


Deputy Deborah Jane De Sousa

ILL


Deputy Jeremy Martin Maçon

POUR

rico sorda said...

So why did Deputy Rob Duhamel vote against every aspect of this debate along with Deputy Noel, Deputy Jeune and a couple of constables?

With so many different aspects they couldn't support one single bit?

rs

thejerseyway said...

Hi Rico.

just put the Audio up of Deputy Jeune Speach.

You just couldn't make it up.

Have a Listen Here

Anonymous said...

Deputy Tadier's amendment read as follows:

"Was a consistent and impartial approach taken when deciding on
which cases to prosecute; and was the process free from political
influence or interference at any level?”

This seems like a perfectly sensible amendment to bring, if any inquiry was to be meaningful. He must have also done a good job in his speech, looking at some of the unusual characters who supported this. The biggest surprise for me is that Constable Mezbourian voted against this. Very strange. Maybe as an ex-honorary she feels loyal to the AG and the Bailiff (even if they might have been responsible for cover-ups)

Anonymous said...

'Senator Le Gresley was superb during this debate. I cant thank him enough for the way he conducted himself and the quality of his speeches.'

Absolutely, in fact I told my wife that the way he spoke put at least half the members (some long standing ones at that) to shame.

Ian Evans said...

THE 11 WHO WANT TO CONCEAL CHILD ABUSE

Anonymous said...

Rico,

To those following the abuse disaster closely, Deputy Tadier's Amendment could almost be read as, "Was there ever any part of the process of bringing justice to abuse victims which was NOT tainted by corruption and improper political influence?"

If the upcoming investigation is honest and thorough, we all know how the brothers Phil and Bill will come out of it. But, that is an inquiry outcome many extremely wealthy and powerful people will go to any length to prevent. I want to be hopeful, but it does not seem possible to me that a truly open inquiry into their roles would ever be allowed without a near revolution in Jersey.

If this inquiry should, miraculously, uncover years of previously hidden evidence, it will be due to the extraordinary determination of Jersey's bloggers, Stuart Syvret, the survivors themselves and a handful of loyal supporters.

Elle

rico sorda said...

Hi Elle

I think you are right. The next battle will be when the COM bring it back to the house with the TOR and the Amendments can be lodged. I hope they do this with full involvement of the JCLA.

We will not let up until the COI is underway with solid TOR'S

The next big one on the horizon is SS on the 14th at the Royal Court

rs

Anonymous said...

Rico

The big question may be whether or not it is even possible for the abuse survivors and other citizens of Jersey to enforce, through their current elected representatives, true adherence to any terms of reference. The original terms of reference for Napier were obviously not acceptable to the powers that be, so they were made to just disappear. I recall no remedy at all for Deputy Hill's complaint of not even being informed of the fundamental changes to his own proposition. That he was lied to about the little removal "error" of his TOR that mattered most, seems awfully obvious.

There have been no shortage of official excuses for similar failures to honor the public trust. Some inquiries and reports have been mysteriously redacted into utter meaninglessness, and others read like whitewashed fairy tales made to order. All that has been demonstrated is that powerful people believe certain truths are far too inconvenient to ever be exposed.

If anything, it is this crude and obvious cover-up which causes people outside Jersey to believe the truth must be so dangerously sinister the government could not survive its disclosure.

What would make a cynic believe there could now be an honest and thorough inquiry with full public disclosure of the findings? Of that possibility, I have seen no evidence, thus far. I hope I am wrong about that because examination of the whole abuse saga could lead to a complete overhaul of the Jersey Way, almost certainly calling into question the role of the mainstream media, the lack of checks and balances and especially the role of the Bailache brothers.

I hold with Stuart Syvret's pessimism about this particular inquiry at this time, but I am optimistic about the long term outcome of his own legal challenges. Meanwhile, it seems the powerful enemies of justice keep adding to his cache of Strasbourg ammunition, so if this turns into another cover-up of the cover-up, it may even help prove his point!

Elle

Anonymous said...

Not just TOR. Critical to get the chair right too. Ideally someone with knowledge of how care system here works, understands our legal system and has an acedemic background to assess and lead written report. Plus of course impartial. Not to much ask is it? Bet we will end up with some lame UK specialist who hasnt a clue.

rico sorda said...

Anonymous

I totally agree and hopefully lessons have been learnt since Napier.

rs

Anonymous said...

Rob Duhamel

Anonymous said...

A lame UK specialist to join the "easy money team, with no come backs (so far)" of the likes of Chapman & Napier QCs!

Lets hope not.

thejerseyway said...

Hi Rico.

Just put up some Audio from the COI Debate.

You & your reader's can Listen Here

Anonymous said...

For the sake of accuracy, here are Standing Orders relating to COI -

146 Committee of inquiry: appointment
(1) The States may appoint a committee of inquiry to inquire into a definite matter of public importance and report on it to the States.
(2) The States may appoint persons who are not members of the States to be members of a committee of inquiry.
(3) A committee of inquiry shall consist of at least one but not more than 5 persons.
(4) If a committee of inquiry consists of one person, that person shall be the chairman and the quorum.
(5) Otherwise, the States may direct –
(a) which of the persons appointed to the committee shall be its chairman;
(b) which of the persons appointed to the committee shall preside in the absence of the chairman; and
(c) the number of persons who shall form a quorum of the committee.
(6) A person appointed to a committee of inquiry shall, before the inquiry commences, take the following oath before the Bailiff –
“You swear and promise before God that you will well and faithfully discharge your duties as a member of the committee of inquiry to inquire into […….]”.
(7) A member of a committee of inquiry may resign, with immediate effect, by giving written notice to the Bailiff.
(8) The presiding officer shall inform the States of the resignation at their next meeting.
(9) A committee of inquiry shall disband upon submitting to the States its final report upon its inquiry.
147 Committee of inquiry: proceedings
(1) A committee of inquiry may regulate its own procedure for the conduct and management of its proceedings including, but not limited to, venue and adjournments.
(2) Proceedings before a committee of inquiry shall be held in public unless the committee, in the interests of justice or the public interest, decides that all or any part of the proceedings shall be in private.
(3) Where proceedings are held in private only persons who, in the opinion of the committee of inquiry, are necessary to the conduct of those proceedings may remain.
(4) Where proceedings are held in public the committee of inquiry may exclude any person or class of persons from those proceedings if it is satisfied that it is desirable to do so for the preservation of order, for the proper conduct of the proceedings or for the protection of the person, property or reputation of any witness in, or any person referred to in, the proceedings.
148 Committee of inquiry: right of Attorney General to appear
The Attorney General or any person acting on the Attorney General’s behalf may at any time appear before a committee of inquiry on any matter which, to the Attorney General, appears to be relevant to the inquiry.
149 Committee of inquiry: legal representation
A committee of inquiry may, if it considers it desirable, give leave to any person appearing before it to be represented by an advocate or solicitor.
150 Committee of inquiry: remuneration and expenses
The Minister for Treasury and Resources may give directions as to –
(a) the remuneration (if any) of a member of a committee of inquiry;
(b) the expenses that a committee of inquiry may incur; and
(c) how such remuneration and expenses are to be funded.
151 Duties of Greffier in relation to committees and panels
(1) The Greffier shall make an officer available to assist the PPC and keep minutes of its proceedings.
(2) The Greffier shall make an officer available to assist the PAC and keep minutes of its proceedings.
(3) The Greffier shall make officers available to assist scrutiny panels as required.
(4) The Greffier shall make an officer available to assist the chairmen’s committee and keep minutes of its proceedings.
(5) The Greffier may make an officer available to a committee of inquiry to perform such duties connected with the inquiry as the chairman of that committee may direct.
(6) The Greffier may appoint a person, who may be an advocate or solicitor, to assist a committee of inquiry.

Anonymous said...

"So why did Deputy Rob Duhamel vote against every aspect of this debate along with Deputy Noel, Deputy Jeune and a couple of constables?"

Because they have the right to if they so wish maybe? Reading your views you obviously do not believe in democracies. If people want to vote against this expensive pointless inquiry (because thats what it will turn out to be) then thats up to them.

Is this just an extension to you glaring at Sean Power all day in the Assembly this week and turning up at the hustings and jeering?

We watch you all the time.

rico sorda said...

Hi Troll

So, who are you today then. MATT, BIG DEAN, REAL TRUTHSEEKER, KAY, KATE, SARA, DEBORAH BAUDAINS, MORSE, MIKE GOWER, JASON ROBERTS, JTM, DEBUMBLBEE, GARY CABO, TERRY LE SEWER etc etc etc

"We watch you all the time"

WTF is that all about are you stalking me.

"Is this just an extension to you glaring at Sean Power all day in the Assembly this week and turning up at the hustings and jeering?"

Why would I want to glare at Sean Power? I was in fore the final hour lol

I give you 10/10 for helping Sean shaft his own Ministerial Position thou

Now please leave me alone and and stop watching me in the shower and on the loo

cheers

rs

Anonymous said...

[We watch you all the time.]

No only do you watch, but find this blog such a good read....

Anonymous said...

None of the above. Your really are paranoid aren't you. I watched you in the assembly this week and you watched Sean Power with dagger eyes. I know you but you sure as heck don't know me.

rico sorda said...

The reason I have posted the last two comments is to show people the complete and utter freak that are stalking me.

"I know you but you sure as heck don't know me."

Sure I don't

rs

Anonymous said...

You're doing something right Rico keep it up and thanks for posting the dribble you get sent. THEY ARE IN A PANIC.

Anonymous said...

Rico, your cyber stalker is a bunch of lunatic.

Anonymous said...

Rico have you been to the police about this?

It is extremely sinister in a stalkerish kind of way. For that person to not only be watching you that closely but to also be goading about it on your blog.

thejerseyway said...

Hi Rico.

Me again,I have just put up some more Audio from the Debate of Deputy Hill's Amendment, between Senator le Marquand & senator Le Gresley.

I hope I am doing something toward's the truth coming out. They don't know when I'm recording.

You can listen to what got said Here

Anonymous said...

I see you have another one of those who has no comment of any significance, must be an abuse supporter!

Ian Evans said...

A LITTLE DOSE OF PERJURY

Anonymous said...

Don't you mean Terry Le Sueur?

Anonymous said...

Hi Rico regarding "we watch you all the time" definitely report this to the Police why let some sick abuser loving creep get away with this sort of nonsense your work is brilliant keep going, keep well.

rico sorda said...

Hi Anonymous

Anyone who reads this Blog will realise that I do my research. Now that is on all matters. I will say no more..

rs