Sunday, March 4, 2012

THE GOLDENHANDSHAKE -CAPTAIN FRANK SCHETTINO OF HMS JERSEY



Former Chief Minister Frank Walker




Former Chief Executive Bill Ogley



What do I get for the 1/2 million I have just given you Bill? Well Frank, how about the removal of a Health Minister and the removal of a Chief of Police for starters and protecting some fellow civil servants?




Jerseys very own Captain Schettino's




What has been unfolding this past week is extraordinary even by Jerseys standards.



One only has to look at the actions of former Chief Minister Frank Walker and his Chief Executive Bill Ogley during the Investigation into decades long Child Abuse (Operation rectangle) to understand how serious this all is.



Should we be surprised that Bill Ogley received £546,337,50p pay off?



And how much for Pollard and manslaughter at the General Hospital?



Should we be surprised by the utterly pathetic excuses issued by Frank Walker?



The actions of Frank Walker and Bill Ogley must be looked at and become part of the TOR's for the forthcoming Committee of Enquiry (CoE)


The reason for this is very simple. They committed the ultimate sin during the live investigation. They acted in the very way that Abuse Survivors had described to the relevant agencies decades previously. This time their actions were completely outrageous. These two illegally suspended a Chief of Police. Just think about this. Just think about how completely out of control these people had become. Yes, they were only following orders but that doesn't mean that this act should be over looked. It was part of the bigger picture. Remember the Attorney General didn't start dropping cases until 2009. He could only do that once the Child Abuse Investigation had been discredited and the Police Chief suspended. Who would question his actions against that backdrop? In South America the army hold the power - in Jersey it's the Law Office. They do this with the implicit help of the local media. We are no different to many countries in South America. The populace are kept ignorant by drip fed garbage in the media. The media must be examined in the forthcoming CoE. The relationship between media and government is to close. The JEP is dictating everything in jersey. The JEP has played a huge role in allowing the culture of Abuse to go on with out challenging and addressing it. I have been told on numerous occasions about people approaching the JEP with stories of abuse yet nothing ever happened.


We have an ineffectual Parliament. That is not the fault of the few decent politicians but more to do with the Jersey mindset. They cannot separate their own personal opinions with straight hard evidence. Its all personality politics. This is even the case with the Child Abuse Investigation. They could not separate any personal problems they might have had with Power and Harper with the hard fact that decades of abuse went unchecked in Jersey. The groupthink set in. This is very dangerous situation to be in. Its the reason why you are not hearing about any of this in the local media.


The likes of Jimmy Perchard appearing in the JEP as some kind of whistleblower is comical. This is the man who it is alleged leaked information to David Rose and helped undermine the Child Abuse Investigation.


Chief Minister Gorst must come to the house with a fully robust terms of reference for the Committee of Enquiry. If not then amendments must be added. There is no doubt that Senator Bailhache and Senator Le Marquand will be trying to dilute the CoE into nothing. These two shouldn't have anything to do with the CoE as they are both heavily conflicted.


But what of Frank Walker. This man has an ego the size of the universe. He never ever got over the Paxman interview or the St Martin Parish Hall debacle.


Frank Walker says; In 2005 unpleasantness in the states was growing noticeably and there was also uncertainty about who would be the next Chief Minister. Mr O gley was the approached by one of the biggest county councils in the Uk and offered a considerably higher salary than he was getting in Jersey. Mr Walker said he was saddened to find out that circumstances had changed so much by 2008 that Mr Ogley, for whatever reason, left. He added that he did not know what had led to the departure, as he was no longer in the states.


Now, it could be this, and this is just my opinion. Bill Ogley, having spent a couple of years working in Jersey, had seen how things were done and was feeling uneasy about his position. He was worried about his position if Frank Walker moved on. Remember Frank Walker only just sneaked in during the 2005 Senatorial Election before becoming our first Captain Schettino (Chief Minister) in 2005. The Golden handshake was just to calm BO's worries.


It would be interesting to see the recorded minutes of the meeting when the amended contract was signed.

I have been informed that after the formation of ministerial government ogley let it slip that a handshake clause had been written into his contract. He stated that he would receive 21/2 years salary plus pension.

TLS is confirming that there was a contractual obligation to honour the contract if they were to let him go without formal dismissal. We also know that at the time that he was considering this he made several visits to a firm of lawyers who advise Ministers on HR issues. We can read between the lines of TLS's replies (shown below from hansard) there appears to be some admission that they feared that now honouring the package could lead to litigation and that some form of negotiation took place. Their dilemma might have been that they did not have enough evidence to dismiss him or if they did he might be able to make a legal appeal and they could be in danger of breaching their contract if they let him go and tried to withhold the package.


This all comes back to Frank Walker and Bill Ogley. A double team where one needed the other. This package goes along way to explaining why BO was so out of control regarding the Jersey Child Abuse Investigation and the suspension of the Chief of Police Graham Power. Why just have a CoE looking at what happened in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's et etc when we have seen it repeated in 2008. They acted out all the worries and concerns of the Abuse Survivors in 2008. You just can't make the madness up. This is how so out of control the situation had become. The undermining of Graham Power with Matt Tapp, the shambolic suspension of Graham Power, the removal of a Health Minister, the protecting of a fellow Civil Servant this was all going on during a live investigation repeating all the actions that went a long way to causing the situation in the first place. This is disgusting which ever way you look at it .


And what of our media? Their actions are just as bad if not worse. They could have put a stop to it by undertaking some investigative work but this didn't happen the question is WHY? They are happy that Ogley and gang trashed the Child Abuse Investigation but upset he got over £500,000 pay off. You just can't make it up can you.


Children will not be safe until all these issues have been investigated by independent people from outside of the Island who can't have their TOR's altered.


Here are the answers given by TLS in the States in 2011.



Rico Sorda



Team Voice


Tuesday 7th june 2011



2.4 Senator J.L. Perchard of the Chief Minister regarding severance packages for employees of the States of Jersey:

As Chairman of the States Employment Board what action, if any, will the Chief Minister be taking to limit the level of payment granted in a severance package to any employee of the States of Jersey who, for whatever reason, is leaving their position?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):

Earlier this year the States Employment Board consulted upon and implemented revised polices for voluntary severance and compulsory redundancy that are significantly less generous than those that existed in the past. These policies strike the right balance between good employment practice and value for money. In addition, the States Employment Board has responded to the proposition P.59/2011 brought by Deputy Le Hérissier in which the States Employment Board will be approving the appointments of all senior posts with a salary in excess of £100,000. At that point, the States Employment Board will be in a position to stipulate any particular contractual conditions.

[10:00]

2.4.1 Senator J.L. Perchard:

That is encouraging to hear indeed and I know many members of the public will be encouraged by that. Therefore, the Chief Minister should have no problem in releasing but will he release to Members draft copies of the contract of employment that he is proposing to offer to the yet unappointed new Chief Executive Officer of the States of Jersey?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I would have no difficulty in releasing the terms of reference of the appointment and, in terms of some of the contractual arrangements, those can be disclosed. Other matters of employment relations are traditionally and typically confidential and so it would not be necessarily a blanket release. I think it more appropriate that if people have concerns about those contracts, firstly, we need to ensure that there are robust procedures within the States Employment Board for those contracts and, secondly, the right for them to be reviewed in confidence by an appropriate body such as, perhaps, one of the scrutiny panels. But I do not think it would appropriate as a general principle for everyone’s contract of employment to be publicly available.

Senator J.L. Perchard:

Yes. I fully appreciate that and I am sure Members will agree that it would not be appropriate for everyone’s or anyone’s contract of employment to be publicly available. The point about my question was there is not at the moment an employee filling this position. I will ask again: will the Chief Minister release to Members and the wider public draft copies of the proposed contract of employment that he is going to offer to the yet-unappointed Chief Executive Officer of the States of Jersey?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I can certainly provide Members with a draft copy of the proposed contract; but the nature of contractual arrangements is that those may well change between the draft and the final situation, depending on negotiations entered into with the prospective employee.

2.4.2 Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:

I have tried to stray from my own question 18. The Minister for Treasury and Resources said in the media that details such as Senator Perchard is referring to would only be released in exceptional circumstances. Can the Chief Minister clarify that all recent sums are not in any way directly attributable to pension entitlements and, if not, will he take some firm action to confront growing public perception that these huge payments can only be what many call “hush money”?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I can confirm, firstly, that this is not any question of hush money. This is a negotiated settlement and, in one case certainly, is in full accordance with the contractual obligations which the States entered into. As far as other matters raised by the Deputy are concerned, it does not relate to pension matters. This is purely in respect of a normal payment at the end of contractual arrangements. As far as the concerns of the Deputy and other Members, and indeed the general public, I fully appreciate there is concern and I have had the concerns myself, as did members of the States Employment Board. I would be happy for these particular instances to be looked at in confidence by an independent body such as the Comptroller and Auditor General or some other persons, but I do not believe it is a matter which should be aired in public and, in particular in these cases, there are clauses of confidentiality in the contracts which would give rise to a further claim against the States should those details be publicised unnecessarily.

2.4.3 Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:

Does the Chief Minister agree that all contracts for public employees should be public as, after all, they are employed by the public?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Basically, no.

2.4.4 The Deputy of St. John:

Will the Minister, when he puts in place his new arrangements for our new C.E.O. (Chief Executive Officer) when he comes along, make it known that any settlement that might be put in place for early retirement or early moving on and a golden handshake that ... as we have seen recently published in the Evening Post the golden handshake of 2 senior officers, but we were not given details that have now come out in our latest book which is on our desks this morning on page 44. There was also a pension entitlement for 6 years’ work of £414,000 for one of the officers who has retired. Will he make sure that all that is known to Members, what is in that package when it comes to the House, or is he is going to send us this information, please, prior to employing anybody?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I have already said in my original answer that there are now revised policies and that any contract over £100,000, assuming that the States accept the P.59 response, will be reviewed and the details will be published in accordance with the amendment lodged by Deputy Le Hérissier.

2.4.5 Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Will the terms and conditions review that the Chief Minister referred to also be affecting the existing contracts of employment of existing chief officers?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Potentially, yes.

2.4.6 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:

Would the Chief Minister not acknowledge that - in line with business practice and, for example, with some of the States-owned utilities - it is the practice to publish full details of salaries of senior staff? Would he not wish to be in the vanguard and follow that solid business practice?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Yes. Indeed, in the States Annual Accounts we publish every year salary details of all staff of that nature. What I was asked earlier was full contractual details, which is considerably different from the base salary.

2.4.7 Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:

This follows on from Senator Ferguson’s question. We have had 2 alleged big golden handshakes for contracts that were drawn up at least over 5 years ago. Can the Minister please let us know - we do not need the names; we need the people who are waiting in the wings with these same similar or contracts; we could even say: “Let us start at £100,000” - if they walk away tomorrow, how many people would have a £100,000 golden handshake and will the Minister please supply the details? I do not want the names, just the amount. Also, will he endeavour to make sure that whoever drew up these contracts, if they are still around, is severely dealt with?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Firstly, I should point out to Members and the public that these are alleged golden handshakes and I am not commenting on the accuracy of that statement. In terms of any other payments of a similar nature, I did make inquiries following these 2 incidents to see whether there were any other situations where similar payments or any such payments might be made in the future. I am advised that there are no other cases where any person is likely or liable to receive any contractual or other payments such as might be implied by the Deputy’s question.

2.4.8 Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary:

The Chief Minister used the phrase: “negotiated settlement.” I would like to know when that negotiation took place. Was it early or was it right at the end of the time of work? Secondly, what was that negotiation based on? Was it based on the original contract?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I am straying into delicate territory here because a negotiated settlement is, by nature, confidential and, in disclosing any such details to the Deputy, I am in danger of breaching that confidentiality and exposing the States to liability. On that basis, I would prefer not to answer that question in public but I would be, as I said earlier, happy for this to be investigated confidentially.

Deputy M. Tadier:

Sir, a point of order. Could I ask for the States to go in camera so that the Chief Minister can tell us all in confidence and answer the question of the Deputy of St. Mary, please?

The Deputy Bailiff:

If I may suggest, Deputy, we will come to that at a later stage when we come to question 18, or thereabouts, will we not? I think that is a more convenient time to do it. Is there a final supplementary?

2.4.9 Senator J.L. Perchard:

Does the Chief Minister agree that the promise of high levels of severance package has created a perverse incentive for tired senior executives to willingly preside over failing departments, safe in the knowledge that their departure will be the subject of a purchase by the States of Jersey for hundreds of thousands of pounds?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Simple answer: no.



2.17 Deputy T.M. Pitman of The Chief Minister regarding ‘golden handshakes’ paid to two civil servants:

How ironic that this follows on talk of controlling public expenditure. Will the Chief Minister clarify the exact sums paid as golden handshakes to 2 civil servants; clarify who was paid which sum and explain why such large payments were considered justified?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):

As I have already stated in my written answer, I am not in a position to comment publicly on the nature of the terms of any individual settlements. Any settlements which have been entered into have taken proper account of each individual’s terms and conditions of employment. I will not comment publicly on the specific amounts other than to advise the Deputy and other Members that one of the figures quoted in the media is totally incorrect and the level of payment made to that individual was significantly less than that reported. I would be happy for these matters to be looked at in confidence by an independent body or a person such as the Comptroller and Auditor General, as I have already stated.

Deputy M. Tadier:

May I raise a point of order? The Minister has stated that he would not give the information publicly. I did ask before whether it would be possible to go into camera, even though I do not generally like to do that; but it is better to have information rather than not have it and if it needs to be done confidentially within the confines of the States I think that would preferable.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Do you wish to make the proposition that we go into camera?

Deputy M. Tadier:

I do, and if we could have the vote.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Before we come to that, Chief Minister, if we do go into camera will you be in a position to answer the questions in any more detail or not?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

If we go into camera I will be prepared to disclose the amounts of money paid to the 2 persons concerned. I do stress concern that past experience has shown that matters disclosed in camera do not always, regrettably, remain in camera and I do give Members warning that if disclosure is made out of an in camera position, it could give rise to a claim for damages which may or may not be successful.

The Deputy Bailiff:

Deputy Tadier, do you wish to maintain your proposition?

Deputy M. Tadier:

I maintain it and I am sure that all States Members are honourable and they would never ever consider disclosing such information.

The Deputy Bailiff:

The purpose of going into camera under Standing Order 81: “A Member of the States may propose, without notice, that the States conduct any part of the debate on a proposition or any other part of its business in camera for a specified purpose.” This is clearly not debate on any part of a proposition but it would have to fall under any other part of its business for a specified purpose and the purpose, it appears to me, will only be to receive the information which the Chief Minister has said he would be prepared to give. Thereafter we would then go out of camera and back into public session. So that is the proposition. Is it seconded? [Seconded] Chief Minister, you have already said what you have to say I think?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I have said what I wanted to say, other than maybe to advise Members that I believe a preferable route might be to have an inquiry which could be done in total confidence without running the risk of exposure, but it is up to Members to choose which way they believe in to go forward.

The Deputy Bailiff:

This is a very straightforward matter, I am sure we are not going to need a debate on it.

Deputy M. Tadier:

If no one wants to speak I would be asking for the appel; that is all.

Deputy T.M Pitman:

I want to object to going into camera because I think it is an absolute insult to the public of Jersey. This is public money and it is absolutely right that they should know what is going on when everyone else has got to tighten their belts. I think it is disgraceful.

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Just to confirm that I believe it is totally wrong. It will obviously leak; let us have no doubt about that. But on principle, it is a public issue; it should be discussed publicly.

The Deputy Bailiff:

It is a matter for Members, Members can vote on it. The appel has been called for.

Deputy M. Tadier:

Can I just add to that? Clearly I do not want to go in camera either. If the Chief Minister is willing to give that information publicly then that is the preferable course.

The Deputy Bailiff:

The Chief Minister has already explained why he is not prepared to do that. The proposition is made. I would invite Members to return to their seats, the vote is on whether to go into camera for the specified purpose of receiving information from the Chief Minister as to the 2 payments which are alleged to have been made. I ask the Greffier to open the voting.


2.17.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Bearing in mind all we have just heard, does the Chief Minister genuinely believe that figures - derived from taxpayers’ money, let us not forget - that equate to what someone on minimum wage will likely earn in a lifetime of work, can justifiably be swept under the carpet with the excuse of confidentiality? Does he really consider that is acceptable?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Sadly I do, because the alternative of unnecessary public disclosure would lead to the payment of an even greater sum which would be even more detrimental to the taxpayers of the Island. I have weighed-up very carefully and, in the interest of taxpayers, I believe that this is the preferable route to adopt.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I just have to find that statement absolutely mind-numbingly unbelievable and I would ask that the Minister really lay his cards on the table and at least tell us what was the justification for these sums. That much he can certainly tell us.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Firstly, I should say that these were 2 very different situations, although they are both significant amounts of money. In the one case it was a negotiated settlement and in the other case it was a contractual obligation. The terms of the contract had been in existence for a number of years and the States Employment Board merely honoured the terms of the contract.

2.17.2 Deputy M. Tadier:

Will the Minister comment on how the unwillingness or inability to release very important information which is in the public interest marries with statements in the Strategic Plan which says that we will work openly and inclusively with all sections of the community to embrace a progressive culture of openness, transparency and accountability to the public, and that we will try to establish as system of greater transparency, public participation and collaboration? How does that ideal and the lack of information we are getting, even as States Members, marry to that very laudable aspiration?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Simply because we have a legal and contractual obligation in the arrangements which were entered into with the parties concerned. There was a clause of confidentiality and the potential for a penalty for damages should that confidentiality not be maintained. That confidentiality enables a satisfactory settlement to be achieved at a potentially better figure than might otherwise have happened. So I am quite confident that, in achieving that and accepting the position of confidentiality, we were working in the public interest.

2.17.3 Deputy G.P. Southern:

The Minister has revealed that one of the figures suggested is incorrect. Will he state now whether that is the higher or the lower figure and will he state which of the higher or the lower figures was contractual and which negotiated?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I am surprised that the Deputy is not capable of solving problems for himself.

Deputy G.P. Southern:

Will the Minister answer the question please?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Frankly, if it needs answering, I think it should be obvious that the higher figure related to the contractual arrangement.

[11:30]

2.17.4 Deputy S. Pitman:

Yesterday it was reported in the J.E.P. (Jersey Evening Post) that the Minister for Treasury and Resources said that there would have to be exceptional circumstances if detailed information was to be released on contractual agreements. Could the Chief Minister tell the Assembly what constitutes exceptional circumstances?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

No, only to state that in my view the circumstances here are not exceptional. They are circumstances which are unusual, but not such as would be likely to be a satisfactory defence should the litigation arise.

2.17.5 The Deputy of St. John:

Will the Minister confirm that, given the higher figure that has been spoken about already and the £414,000 pension agreements that the person concerned can walk away with, it is close to £1 million of States’ money, one way or another, that is going to one particular former employee?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The pension obligations under the Public Employees Retirement Scheme are such that would apply to any employee. It is not a pot of money that the person can walk away with. It is a pot of money which is available to pay a contractually entered into pension at the appropriate time and is partly funded by the States and partly funded by the employee.

2.17.6 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I am going to ask a question I hope the Minister can tell me, because I am not asking about specific sums. I would like to know who was involved in the negotiation of these contracts. So, in other words, the contractual one; did the Ministers know who employed these individuals in their jobs, what their salaries were? Were they involved in the negotiations? You mentioned the States Employment Board. Was it the entire States Employment Board or was it particular Ministers? Please tell us who knew what, when and who was involved in the decision-making.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The written answer makes it quite clear that for the Chief Executive the position was taken by the States Employment Board. It was taken by the whole States Employment Board as a duly constituted meeting of the States Employment Board. As the written answer also says, the decision in respect of the other employee was taken under delegated powers by the former Chief Executive of the States.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Can I follow up on that? Just to confirm, it was a civil servant determined the salary of another civil servant?

The Deputy Bailiff:

Chief Minister, I understood the question to relate to the position when the contract was offered and not when it was terminated.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

Well, the contract terms in respect of the previous Chief Officer of Health would have been done under the delegated powers by the Chief Executive of the States at that time. The contract of the Chief Executive was entered into by the former subcommittee of the Policy and Resources Committee prior to the introduction of Ministerial Government.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Can I just clarify on that, did Ministers know ...

The Deputy Bailiff:

Not under the new rules, Deputy.

2.17.7 The Deputy of St. Mary:

The negotiated settlement, we are told by the Chief Minister, comes under confidentiality and that made the settlement cheaper. I would like the Chief Minister to explain why and I would also like to know about the negotiated settlement, what it was based on. I am still in the dark.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

A negotiated settlement requires negotiation and agreement on both sides and part of the terms and the ability to reduce any sum in a negotiated settlement is the desire by one party or both parties to maintain confidentiality. So it is, by its very nature, a negotiation. As to the other part of the question, I have forgotten what the ...

The Deputy of St. Mary:

What the settlement was based on, what are we negotiating about? I also wish to find out why confidentiality makes it cheaper; what is being hidden?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I have tried to explain that it can lead to a cheaper outcome if there is an agreement not to disclose, which may be of benefit, for example, should the employee wish to pursue further employment opportunities and not wish details of a private transaction to be publicly disclosed.

2.17.8 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Would the Chief Minister not acknowledge that the culture of secrecy has led us into this situation and that he is utterly dissatisfied with what happened in the Government’s name a few years ago and will ensure it never happens in this way again?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

One has to distinguish between a culture of secrecy and an obligation of confidentiality. In respect of what happened a few years ago; yes, I am anxious to ensure that does not recur and that is why the States Employment Board has changed its policies recently and is also discussing and implementing the proposals raised in respect of employees over £100,000.

2.17.9 Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:

Is the Chief Minister able to tell Members whether the terms of either of the contracts changed while the employee was in post which resulted in these massive pay-outs and if so, who made the decision to amend the contract?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

To the best of my knowledge, there was a significant change in all contracts when the employee became the States Employment Board back in 2005 and that would have applied to all employees of the States, including people at that time. There was an additional change to the contract of employment of the former chief executive at that time in 2005.

2.17.10 Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville:

If there are contracts are in existence - which I gather there probably still are an awful lot of them - that run contrary to the ideals of the Strategic Plan for an open and transparent Government, how is the Chief Minister going to marry these up or should there not be some renegotiation so that contracts now conform with the Strategic Plan?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

I do not believe that any contracts of employment are in opposition to the Strategic Plan. As I said earlier in answer to another question, I do not believe there are any other situations which would give rise to similar payments. Other than that, the contractual arrangements with employees are standard contractual arrangements that have been in place for many years, irrespective of Strategic Plans. They do not change when Strategic Plans change.

2.17.11 Senator J.L. Perchard:

What message would the Chief Minister like to give Members, and thereby the general public, to assure them that this golden parachute leading to huge severance packages no longer features in any of today’s contracts of employment? Would the Chief Minister outline briefly the new policies he referred to in the contracts of employment in this respect that can assure us that these golden parachutes no longer are included?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The message I would like to give to other Members and to the public is my appreciation of the concerns over the level of these payments and the reassurance that, so long as I am Chief Minister and the current States Employment Board is in post, such contractual arrangements would not occur with any current employee or future employee. I cannot bind future States Employment Boards, but I would hope that would happen. In respect of the arrangements to be made, I have already indicated in response to a previous question arrangements in respect of voluntary termination and severance pay and the arrangements whereby any contract over £100,000 would come to the States Employment Board were there any peculiar terms and conditions in the contract such as would give rise to what the Senator refers to as a golden parachute. So I am satisfied that situation will not recur in the past and is not contained in any existing contracts and I hope that Members and the public can appreciate that these are isolated incidents which I am sure we all regret having to pay; but we believe and I believe that the payments made, nonetheless, were the least that were capable of being paid in those particular situations.

2.17.12 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Deputy Hilton did ask my excellent follow up. Nevertheless, isolated incidents viewed against the £255,000 shared out between 6 other employees: does the Chief Minister think that it is any way appropriate to the people who leave very much under a cloud merit such payments, rather than being faced down and sacked. What does the Chief Minister say to this and does he think his position following his comments is in any way tenable?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

People who are deserving of being dismissed will be dismissed. It is very often quite difficult to determine satisfactorily the difference between actions warranting dismissal and actions warranting disciplinary measures or other measures short of dismissal. Employment relations will be a matter for each individual employee at that particular time. Termination in respect of severance or dismissal follow guidelines and set sums laid down by the States Employment Board and are not exceeded. Therefore, employees are well aware of those contractual arrangements which are no greater, or in fact in many cases less, than would apply in the public sector and are clearly published and understood by all concerned. I believe that the actions taken by the States Employment Board in recent months have been realistic, responsible and timely and I have every confidence that they will lead to far better procedures. I have no doubt that we are doing the right thing by doing that and I have no feelings of remorse or regret whatsoever.

The Deputy Bailiff:

We come to question 19, which Deputy Tadier will ask of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services.

Deputy M. Tadier:

Before I do that can I inquire, I conveyed a message asking whether it would be within Standing Orders to ask the Solicitor General in relation to something that the Chief Minister said. Is that an order


4. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Chief Minister

The Deputy Bailiff:

That brings question time for the Minister for Planning and Environment to a close. We come to questions without notice to the Chief Minister.

4.1 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

In answer to question 18 today, the Chief Minister said that there was a change in the contract of the former Chief Executive Officer in 2005. Could he tell us who negotiated this change and whether the change affected the final pay-out?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):

The change in contract was negotiated with the former Chief Executive and was approved by a meeting of the Human Resources Sub-Committee of the Policy and Resources Committee at some date in 2005. I do not have the date to hand. The contract variation did have the effect of increasing the amount of money which would be paid in the event of termination


4.13 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Would the Chief Minister not acknowledge, in relation to the infamous golden parachutes, that it was wrong for the Chief Executive to set the terms for another of the senior executives of the States and that, by so doing, it is like spreading a virus throughout the system?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The powers delegated to the Chief Executive by the States Employment Board are within certain parameters so that that Chief Executive does not have carte blanche to do exactly what is required. It has to be within certain standards and contracts of employment have been and are within those set standards.

4.14 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

In answer to an earlier question the Chief Minister said that the amended contract for the former Chief Executive Officer was negotiated by a Human Resources Sub-Committee. Could the Minister tell us if any politicians sat on this committee and who signed the final amended contract?

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The Human Resources Sub-Committee was a committee of Members of the States. They were all States Members on that sub-committee. The contract, I believe, was signed by the Chairman of the Human Resources Sub-Committee, which I think was Senator Walker but I cannot be certain at this stage. That may not be the case

53 comments:

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

As many of us have said in the past, none of this could have happened without a complicit media. The JEP are all hot and bothered about the pay off that Ogley got but not in the slightest bit concerned about the fortune Ian Le Marquand, and others, were able to squander "unsuccessfully" trying to pin something on Lenny Harper and Graham Power.

It's not a wonder Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media) are being so discriminated AGAINST

thejerseyway said...

Hi Rico.

I think I got these Questions on audio some wear. I shell have a look.

TJW.

Anonymous said...

London, Birmingham Glasgow Liverpool Leeds or Sheffield largest county councils in the UK

Perhaps a freedom of information request could highlight if and when any of the above approached and offered a higher salary to Mr. Ogley.

thejerseyway said...

Hi Rico.

Here we go. Audio of Old saviour of the Island Perchard asking The Chief Minister.

You & your reader's can listen HERE

This One has Questions to the Chief Minister. HERE

If you think of any other Question's Im shore I will have them, I can go back to April 2009.
I may not have every thing that has been said in the States but I do have a LOT.

TJW.

rico sorda said...

Thanks TJW

The audios are a great help and a brilliant archive.

rs

Anonymous said...

There are two things that hit home with me on reading this posting .  The first was the introduction of the term "groupthink." A good term for describing a collective mentality which is sometimes mistaken for a conspiracy. More often what we have is collective action by people who do not have to get together to agree what to think and do because they all think the same and oddly enough usually think that that is what others think as well and that is the right thing to think so they end up doing bad stuff because they think that it is the right thing to do.Not only is that a hard thing to write its a hard system to crack.
 
The other thing which struck home is the very valid point that the behaviour which we are seeing in ogley walker and others is the same type of behaviour which led to decades of the covering-up of abuse. I think that you have put it in a very direct way. No point in them claiming that they would "never do such a thing" when they were bang at similar things in the last few years which resulted in the police chief being suspended.
 
Then there is TLS & ILM whose names are on yet another expensive and bungled attempt to withhold the truth. They could have come clean.   They could have said that what went on was unacceptable and that they regretted what had been done and that they would devote their political careers to making sure that it did not happen again. They could have gone down in history as the jersey politicians who drew a line under the past and showed the way to a bright new and decent future for all islanders but they did what they had been doing for decades they covered up or tried to but did not recon on the persistence of some of the folk they were up against or the power of the internet.

The Jersey Bloggers deserve huge credit for their persistence in seeking and publishing the truth. They deserve huge credit for exposing the lame duck "Jersey Media." The Island of Jersey might soon be coming to its very own crossroads have the sands of time finally caught up with the Jewel In The Crown?

Believe me you are making a difference..

Anonymous said...

Rico can you explain what do you believe Mr. Walker meant when he said ''there was also uncertainty about who would be the next Chief Minister''

What difference would uncertainty on the next chief minister have made, in Mr. Ogley receiving a golden handshake? I do not understand the point Mr. Walker is trying to make.

Anonymous said...

I just want to thank the person who left the comment at 11:15 PM for saying what I think many of us feel is true. Without the Jersey bloggers, there would be little hope for accurate child abuse reporting or for related government transparency. I also want to thank TJW for providing a real record of what was said in the past, and a huge thanks to Rico for doing what paid reporters should have been doing all along.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Terry Le Sueur said.

"I will not comment publicly on the specific amounts other than to advise the Deputy and other Members that one of the figures quoted in the media is totally incorrect and the level of payment made to that individual was significantly less than that reported."

So we know he couldn't have been talking about Ogley because it was reported, back then, that he had received £500,000 and it has subsequently become apparent that he received slightly MORE.

That leaves Mike Pollard who, it was reported, received £300,000 so it will be interesting to see how much "significantly" less he received.

Zoompad said...

Rico,

I have just had a reply from Staffordshire Police Authority about the FOI request I had, concerning Matt Tapp's activities in Staffordshire and it is really interesting. Harriet Harman was there, now she is one of the people I wrote to, about the neferious activities of the secret family courts, she does not have a good track record as far as child protection is concerned. Another interesting thing I noticed is one of the titles of the topics covered by Matt Tapp, "Kidnap presentation on implementing the media blackout: theory and practice". Media blackouts appear to be Tapps speciality!!!

Matt Tapp in Staffordshire

Zoompad said...

The States of Jersey has also used the services of KPMG.
Bill Bailhache, Anne Pryke and KPMG

Anonymous said...

I was interested to read that Frank Walker had apparently attempted to justify the half million pound handshake to Ogley on the grounds that Ogley had been offered a better paid job by a local authority in the UK. Presumably the basis of this argument is that the handshake clause was necessary to persuade Ogley to stay in Jersey (why anyone would want to do that is a matter which we can explore another time.) It might just be worth considering at this time what Walkers reported comment might actually mean. UK Local Authorities are not private companies. They cannot "headhunt" their Chief Executives. They are all subject to strict guidelines on senior appointments which require that positions be advertised, shortlisted and appointments made on a basis which allows for no forgone conclusion. An appointment made in any other way could be viewed as corrupt practice. So against this background what did the alleged "offer" actually consist of? I can think of only two explanations. The first is that Ogley was "invited to apply" for a post. There is nothing corrupt on unusual in that. When a senior post is to become vacant it is usual for people who may be seen as potential candidates to be approached and asked if they are interested in making an application. It would not be unusual for a number of people to be approached in this manner. So was that the "offer" made to Ogley? Did the Jersey taxpayer really commit to spending half a million pounds on the basis that Bill Ogley had been asked if he would like to fill in a form? Some may think that this was not a good bargain. Or was the offer one made at a later stage in the selection process? Was it in fact a real "offer" which had been made after candidates had been shortlisted, interviewed, assessed and a decision made? That could have happened if Ogley was the successful candidate emerging from the selection process, and he been made a written offer of a job along with a large salary. If that was the case then Walkers claim that he had been offered a better paid position would be true. But if it was true then that interpretation carries with it baggage of its own. For it to be true it would also have to be true that while working as Chief Executive in Jersey, Ogley was also undergoing an application and selection process for a position in the UK. As part of that process he would have been required to set out his vision for that new post and make promises and commitments as to what he would deliver if he was appointed. The selection panel would have to decide that among all of the candidates he was the one they wanted to work with and they would have made him a written offer and an invitation to take up the post. If Walkers account is true then Ogley responded to this expression of trust by taking the letter to Walker and using it to extract a commitment of over half a million pounds. And Walker and his colleagues agreed. If this is what happened, and it is the only account which fits in with Walkers claim that a rival offer was made, then what does it say about the ethics and values of Ogley, and what does it say about the ethics of those who went along with it all, and defended it, and covered it up?

Anonymous said...

The complicit media VFC spoke of

Anonymous said...

Does Mr. Walker have authority to ammend the original contract agreed by States employment presumably 2003 when Mr. Ogley was first appointed.

Mr. Walker then decided with PAC sub panel to add a clause in 2005 with PAC sub panel?

Why?

Anonymous said...

"Another interesting thing I noticed is one of the titles of the topics covered by Matt Tapp, "Kidnap presentation on implementing the media blackout: theory and practice". Media blackouts appear to be Tapps speciality!!!"

This is the kind of comment, with its groundless, unthinking and ignorant insinuation which can only detract severely from the good and responsible work done by blogs like this.

The simple fact is that an agreement openly exists between the police and the media over the reporting of kidnaps. The police have the right to request that media organisations don't report an abduction while negotiations are under way, in case it makes the release of the hostage more difficult; in return, they accept the responsibility to update the media regularly and reveal the full story once the situation has been resolved. When lives are at risk, it's not always helpful to have things played out in the glare of publicity.

Police demanded a news blackout about Raoul Moat's personal life due to fears such coverage would provoke him to kill more people.

Northumbria police warned that Moat had threatened to kill a member of the public for every piece of inaccurate information published about him.

The news blackout was agreed because the police feared that Moat's threats, which were previously aimed at the police, had widened and the public might now be in danger.

The Kidnap Agreement should not be confused with the DA-Notice system (previously just D-Notice)which deals purely with matters of National Defence and Security:

http://www.dnotice.org.uk/


The media are not happy with any form of censorship and always insist that the police fully justify imposing a news-blackout under the Kidnap Agreement.

In this day and age, with Social Networks, the internet etc. implementing this Kidnap Agreement is complex and frought.

Presumably Mr. Tapp was part of a perfectly legitimate, some would say necessary, internal update for Staffordshire Police on the latest thinking and practice surrounding this agreement. And a good thing too. Get such a thing wrong and someone may die.

rico sorda said...

I should make this clear and I did when I first started looking at the role of Matt Tapp concerning Operation Rectangle is that I don't think he did anything wrong or illegal. He is a Media Consultant a gun for hire. You pay he delivers- simple as that. It is the actions of the ones who used him that raise grave concerns.

rs

Zoompad said...

I'm simply trying to find out why the Staffordshire Pindown child abuse investigation was dumbed down and discredited, and I am having to work blindfolded and with my arms tied behind my back, because not only do I have PTSD because of the abuse and reabuse I just cannot find anyone to help me find these answers!

I am not trying to besmirch anyone, but my life had been wrecked and I want to be able to heal, if Stafford Police would have treated my complaints properly instead of getting someone to falsify the statements made 40 years ago to try to cover up the abuse maybe I wouldn't have to be fishing around in the dark all the time!

Anonymous said...

"We have an ineffectual Parliament. That is not the fault of the few decent politicians but more to do with the Jersey mindset. They cannot separate their own personal opinions with straight hard evidence. Its all personality politics. This is even the case with the Child Abuse Investigation. They could not separate any personal problems they might have had with Power and Harper with the hard fact that decades of abuse went unchecked in Jersey. The groupthink set in. This is very dangerous situation to be in. Its the reason why you are not hearing about any of this in the local media."

Rico, I couldn't agree with you more. If only they had listened instead of stamping their feet then things might have been different.

"Groupthink" is what plagues Jersey politics and has done for many decades. Lets hope things change. You are correct about the Committee of Enquiry and the robust tor's

Anonymous said...

The Anon comment at 11:22am has simply hit the nail on the head.

Anonymous said...

Your blog now hosts the Jersey media's most important political discussions. The comments are often thoughtful and timely, adding to readers' understanding of Jersey's feudalistic power struggles in an age when the veneer of democracy must be burnished to bolster the finance industry.

Zoompad said...

I just watched that BBC Mick Gradwell interview, how disgraceful that the BBC can have that man on television news and not ask any questions about his role in the Haut de la Garenne cover up.

Anonymous said...

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:

The Human Resources Sub-Committee was a committee of Members of the States. They were all States Members on that sub-committee. The contract, I believe, was signed by the Chairman of the Human Resources Sub-Committee, which I think was Senator Walker but I cannot be certain at this stage. That may not be the case

Who was on this sub- committee?

Are there minutes of the meetings and the concerns raised by the chairman as to why the chief executive was getting his contract amended? It would be interesting to see how or why the committee went along with this. Remember, some would say that the old committee system was better than ministerial government. This ties in with the comment about Ogley being offered a better deal elsewhere. How many heads would have checked this and signed it off?

Anonymous said...

Funny how you pretend to work at Romerils on Facebook when they told us today that you left them years ago. They also mentioned that they do not endorse anything written on your blog. Wonder why?

rico sorda said...

"Funny how you pretend to work at Romerils on Facebook when they told us today that you left them years ago. They also mentioned that they do not endorse anything written on your blog. Wonder why?"

I have published this comment so readers can see that the intimerdation is still there. That the paedo protectors are so worried about me is a very good sign.

Im fully focused In my research and will not be put off. If you show these cowards fear then you have lost. I despise these cretins.

If you want to know anything about me then drop me a comment and meet me. No skulking about meet me face to face and ask me what you like and you will get an honest answer.

I won't be holding my breath

Please no comments on this as I don't want it to distract from the importance of my work.

rs

Anonymous said...

REVEALING controversial golden handshake payments to departing States employees would be ‘an unwarranted invasion of their privacy’, according to the Chief Minister’s department.

Despite having agreed that top civil servants’ annual salaries should be published in line with UK rules, the department have refused to reveal details of pay-outs, which have been rumoured to reach £500,000.

They have also refused to provide a breakdown by department, saying that it could lead to the identification of individuals.

A request by the JEP last month under the Code of Practice on Public Access to Official Information followed stories about golden handshake pay-outs to former States chief executive Bill Ogley, former Health department chief officer Mike Pollard and former Waterfront Enterprise Board managing director Steven Izatt, among others.

It has been claimed that Mr Ogley was paid £500,000 to leave his job and that Mr Pollard was paid £300,000 to leave his.

Read the full story in the Jersey Evening Post

Anonymous said...

Paid-off civil servant set up colleague’s deal
Wednesday 8th June 2011, 3:00PM BST.



Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur.
FORMER States chief executive Bill Ogley was responsible for a ‘significant’ golden handshake paid to a fellow senior civil servant, the Chief Minister said yesterday.

Mr Ogley – himself the recipient of a pay-off reportedly worth hundreds of thousands of pounds – negotiated the controversial settlement that led to the former chief officer of Health and Social Services, Mike Pollard, being paid off when he quit in 2009.

Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur yesterday admitted being ‘concerned’ about the pay-offs and said he would support a confidential, independent review into them.

He was not aware of any other cases where such pay-offs would be necessary, he added.

rico sorda said...

http://voiceforprotest.blogspot.com/2011/06/golden-handshakes.html

This is a posting I did on VFP. It covers the emails I sent to States Members concerning the Golden Handshakes when the story broke.

rs

Anonymous said...

How about this?

Ogley's contract is amended by Frank so that he get £500,000 if it needs to be ended by mutual agreement at a later date.

The money is only available and useful to Ogley if he doesn't make it to the end of the contract.

Le Sueur says he liked Ogley and got on with him.

Who was being hotly tipped to replace Le Sueur as Chief Minister until shortly before the elections began?

Ozouf

Perhaps, as is being alluded elsewhere, Ogley could not stand the thought of working with or for Ozouf. I think the whole job offer thing is a red herring.

rico sorda said...

My feeling on this is that they are trying to shaft Ozouf for the pay out. By doing this they deflect the real issue concerning the pay- out. Frank Walker should be dragged over the coals for this as his explanation so far is laughable.

I have noticed how the JEP have turned on Ozouf. They always leave articles on him open to comment.

The buck stops with Walker on this and no one else.

That is how I'm seeing it

rs

Anonymous said...

The question is, where is middle class Jersey on this? Where are the parents, the teacher's and the bankers? Surely they have an opinion on all of thie?

Or are they to in dept, and as such too scared to challenge the evil that passes as society in our Island?

I'll never forget what I have learned about what happened just after WW1, when private home ownership (debt) was used as a means to deflect (used as a buffer) the wrath of middle England od the injustices metered out by ruling class!

As Quintin Hogg ( tory spoksman of the time) stated ``a man motguaged up to the hilt is a pillar of social stability''. Sadly, then as now, it is money before all else! Yes even before the saftey and the care of children! Welcome to reality!!

Zoompad said...

"That the paedo protectors are so worried about me is a very good sign."

Yes it is, and what's more, the paedo protectors (or paedos, for what other anonymous cowards would relentlessly attack someone who is trying to make the world a safer place for children) ought to bear in mind that one day soon hopefully the proper police who really do earn their money by fighting crime will gather all the evidence of these crimes the bloggers have been writing about, and all the IP addresses will be there for them to see, and there won't be any more anonymity for wicked people.

Anonymous said...

Senator T.A. Le Sueur: "Simply because we have a legal and contractual obligation in the arrangements which were entered into with the parties concerned. There was a clause of confidentiality and the potential for a penalty for damages should that confidentiality not be maintained. That confidentiality enables a satisfactory settlement to be achieved at a potentially better figure than might otherwise have happened. So I am quite confident that, in achieving that and accepting the position of confidentiality, we were working in the public interest."

Who required confidentiality, on what business and for what reason? Was it to guarantee confidentiality on matters that could have brought down a number of important officials? Confidential sums may be part of it but also confidential terms, and the very reasons for so much controversial confidentiality. Those are more important to investigate than the amount of money. The penalty parts of the contract might be especially revealing.

Chelloise

Anonymous said...

Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur yesterday admitted being ‘concerned’ about the pay-offs and said he would support "a confidential, independent review into them."

Trancparent is what we need to hear, any review has to prove its integrity and impartiality.

or it will be just more window dressing in the little shop of horrors.

Anonymous said...

Chelloise @ 11.20on the subject of confidentiality,-- we are told by le sueur that such a clause was in place,if so surely ogely (laughing all the way to the bank)(frank) must have broken it by allowing the amount he was paid to be announced,

rico sorda said...

Well I heard Deputy Le Herriser give a brilliant closing speech in fighting for democracy shame the majority of the assembly are still under the spell of bailhache.

Quite staggering but we shouldn't be surprised. I went to the meeting at St Clement parish hall where Deputy Pinel refused to give a speech and was wandering if she gave one today to justify her decision to back Bailhache?

Did Deputy Baker give a speech today to justify his vote?

Just some thoughts

rs

Ian Evans said...

GORST THE STOOL PIGEON

thejerseyway said...

Hi Rico.

Just put up the audio from today's Questions with out Answers. You & your readers can Listen HERE

Anonymous said...

BBC 'buried Savile sex abuse claims to save its reputation’

rico sorda said...

I might have a new posting up tonight. Im working hard towards the committee of enquiry.

I want to be completed in my work concerning the suspension of Graham Power and related matters by the time the Committtee of Enquiry gets lodged. I hope it will be lodged later this month. All my attention will then be on the CoE tor's.

If all goes well I hope to stop blogging - that is my goal.

Im not really into the politics or how my Island is run because it makes me crazy just thinking about it. That is a fight for other people. The Child Abuse issues are my real concern and has been a horrific eye opener.

Yestday showed me that the same problems still exist in the States where the debate is won hands down but the vote is lost.

I am not feeling very confident about a Committee of Enquiry that is for sure

rs

Anonymous said...

The media cover-ups in Jersey now are atrocious.

Sick of propaganda and media cover-ups.

>>>>>It is said that the most powerful estate now is the 5th Estate (The internet)

Anonymous said...

Former Bailiff Sir Philip Bailhache is to head up a special panel looking at reforming Jersey's States.

In a two way fight he saw off Deputy Geoff Southern 35 votes to 5, with 4 abstentions.

The two other States members who'll sit on the panel are St Mary Constable Juliette Gallichan and St Helier Deputy James Baker


Is Jersey on the Crack Pipe?

I mean, seriously, is Jersey on the Crack Pipe?

Or, should I say, is your parliment on the Crack Pipe?

The boy baker? He doesn't even no what a Deputy is and he is one..........

GeeGee said...

A very bad two days for the real people of Jersey, and by that I do not mean the sycophantic, a**e licking lackeys whose only interest is in being seen on the cocktail circuit and being able to name drop.

I can honestly say I HATE this plave with a vengeance, and yes, I know all about the boats. I would be gone like a shot if this place were not bleeing the ordinary man in the street dry, which means I am unable to do so at the moment.

Rico - the Committee of Inquiry had sure as hell not be watered down in any way, shape or form. It will be an eye-opener to see what Verita recommended for the ToR and what the Council of Ministers finally come up with. It will really not be worth the paper it is written on if Bailhache has his way in scuppering this. Despite Mr Gorst's protestations to the contrary PB will do his damndest to weaken the Inquiry. Indeed, he is so very, very conflicted he should not be allowed anywhere near the recommendations.

This will prove what the CM is really made of. At the moment I feel he is to Bailhache what Le Sueur was to Ozouf - weak.

rico sorda said...

From: rico sorda
To: roy herissier
Sent: Wednesday, 7 March 2012, 16:03
Subject:

Hi Roy, I thought you were brilliant these past two days. You really gave it your best. I still can't stop from laughing at what we ended up with. This is the States at it's horrific shambolic best. We had something really good and ended up with a turd. This is what I love about the States and why I stay away from the place.

And then coco the clown turns up at 2 o'clock and puts the cherry on the cake, priceless.

What was Southern thinking?

The States of Jersey - Best show in town - complete and utter bonkers

Kind Regards

rs

Anonymous said...

RICO I think you need a holiday.

rico sorda said...

You're not wrong there. We all could do with a holiday but that is for when I'm not blogging now is the time for handwork and an up coming debate on the CoE and its terms of reference.

rs

Anonymous said...

rico sorda said...
You're not wrong there. We all could do with a holiday but that is for when I'm not blogging now is the time for handwork and an up coming debate on the CoE and its terms of reference.

rs
March 7, 2012 9:21 PM


Was that a Freudian slip Rico....you did mean 'time for hardwork ?'

rico sorda said...

lol

Yeah, but it gave me a chuckle.

What an amazing 2 days the States have just given us. Give that lot gold and they will turn it into fools gold before you know it.

Im working on the new posting. It will leave readers even more shocked at how ILM is still a minister but like I said we should be used to fools gold by now.

rs

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media) set the STANDARD

rico sorda said...

I will have a new posting up soon. During the course of my research I have come across something that is so staggering that its leaves the original illegal and shambolic suspension of Graham Power in its wake.

As you know I like my research so will not post until I have done a little more work.

In Jersey lightning strikes in the same place twice.

There are times when I say well it can't get any worse and then it does.

Just crazy more I look the more out of control this really is

rs

Anonymous said...

People of Jersey why are you so blind to whats going ? the government we have is a total disgrace, how did we let it get this bad?
Does everyone live in fear ? are we so scared to speak out? we are ruled buy crooks whose only motive is money, not the safety of children, we all know what went on at hdlg,and yet the so called Government or should i say house of clowns protects those who abused.
A chief minister given an OBE for what? protecting child abusers, that must go down in history as a total fast! how can anyone have any respect for someone like him, can't be all bad though we only have the head of education protected buy those above, so many of these guys should be on holiday at LA moye prison, but these people are aloud to carry on with there lives in there glass houses whilst the abused look for justice! oh what a wonderfull government we have.
Time to wake up Jersey and see whats going on around you, and then maybe the liars ,cheats and crooks who run this island will think twice.

Anonymous said...

captain schettino took a spanking new convertable jag out for a hack with fiona today probably worth a couple of months to bogley. sick

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Why did the cadaver dog alert to the scent of human death at HAUT DE LA GARENNE?

Anonymous said...

You have done this Island a very valuable service with your investigation. I truely hope that the rotten people concerned are seen to be what they are by the general public and therefore lose their seats in the chanmber. If possible i would like to see them prosecuted for their lies etc to the people of this Island. Trouble is who will prosecute them???