Sunday, January 8, 2017

DEPUTY ANDREW 'POWERGATE' LEWIS REFORM P133/2016 PART 3


DEPUTY  MEZEC REFORM JERSEY AND THE GREAT REFORMIST DEPUTY ANDREW 'POWERGATE' LEWIS




DEPUTY ANDREW 'POWERGATE LEWIS' AND HIS P133/2016


OPTION B BACK ON THE TABLE WITH A SLIGHT TWIST 


THE RE-INVENTION OF DEPUTY LEWIS CONTINUES.


REFORM JERSEY LIKE WHAT THEY SEE - IN FACT -THEY ARE FULLY SUPPORTING HIM ON IT.


DEPUTY MEZEC HAS DONE A BLOG ON IT.




Deputy Mezec has been getting a little bit touchy over the last week or so concerning P133/2016 and my view that Reform Jersey have jumped into bed with Deputy Lewis. I have been called a liar for expressing a view that differs from that of the  Deputies. I don't like Option B. Never have never will. I don't believe the States of Jersey can operate with 44 members. Its bad enough with 49. I don't like how the Constables are so protected. Super Constituencies for the minions but parish boundaries for the Constables. This, apparently, has to be accepted in the hope that sometime in the future someone can remove the limpets from the rock.  This Option B cements their power even further. I don't believe that operating in Super Constituencies will have the Establishment running for the pants draw followed by a wave of progressives getting elected. Especially in St Helier.  I think it's abhorrent how Reform Jersey have turned their back on the history of the Electoral Commission and its hijacking.. Shocking. Democracy Terrorists. 


First they were for and independent commission - then they were in favour of option A now they are going with 'Powergate Lewis' and his beautifully crafted option B that needed a couple of lemons to give it a little Je Ne Sais Quoi as Syvret would say "You couldn't make this up."


These are my views. You might like them - you might not.  

Im not a liar. I just call it how I see it. Sometimes with a little tongue in cheek for good measure.

Reform Jersey - under Chairman 'Mao'zec have jumped headfirst into Option B and the despicable Deputy Lewis because they couldn't bring any Reform Proposals themselves because they knew they would lose. Great. Come join Reform Jersey where we can't lodge any Reform but have to wait for one of the chief architects of discrediting Operation Rectangle by suspending a Police Chief to have our say. Great. Deputy Tadier, who more than anyone, knows what RJ have gotten into has turned into Lord Lucan and done one. Great. They have assisted Deputy Lewis on some points but maintain they are not supporting the proposer just what he is proposing. Can't wait for this debate. I think it will get rejected but strange things can happen.

Anyone who is not sure on Deputy 'Powergate' Lewis here are some essential blogs on the subject. 







APOLOGY TO MIKE DUN

It has been brought  to my notice that Deputy Sam Mezec has  abused the facility of my Rico Sorda Blog (see previous posting and comments re P.133) to post defamatory and untrue comments about Mike Dun and the “NO” campaign that he personally organized for the Referendum of 15 October 2014. 

I have now had the opportunity to study the documentary background to Mike Dun’s involvement  and am satisfied that he initiated and organized the official “NO” campaign (against Constables having an automatic seat in the States).

I have noted that;

 Mike Dun contacted Greffier Michael De La Haye initially on 27 August 2014 and agreed that there should be “two clearly identifiable campaign groups for Yes and No”.

The Greffier had been delegated by the PPC Committee to organize certain aspects of the Referendum and the election for Constables, Senators and Deputies on the same date (15 October).

There was no government financial support available to either the “YES” or “NO campaign except that a space for a 1,000 words statement would be included for both campaigns in the official gov.je booklet and this was to be circulated to all households.

Mike Dun wrote and designed the 1,000 words statement along with other leaflets, posters and “NO” badges.
He received virtually no financial support and personally paid any expenses arising.
A delegated supporter recorded a “NO” video for the vote.je web site and Mike Dun was assisted by a few others only on occasion.

Because of potential  financial or other conflicts arising Mike Dun agreed with the Greffier, at the outset,  on behalf of the “NO campaign”  that ; “There are and will be no States Members in the team if that helps as this is not a tool for electioneering purposes.”

The “YES” campaign was launched in the JEP on 12 September 2014.

The “NO” campaign was launched in public in the Royal Square as reported, with a photo, in the JEP on 20 September. The report explained that the “NO” group had been set up by Mike Dun.

There was a clear separation of the Referendum campaign from the elections for Constables, Senators and Deputies and there was no place at the election hustings, except in the audiences, for the “YES” or “NO” speakers.
Candidates for election did not form part of the official Referendum campaigns but were inevitably asked questions  (as election candidates)  at their hustings and by the media but Deputy Mezec was never a part of the “NO” campaign.

Mike is a really good bloke.. He wanted it cleared up and I don't have a problem with that. If they want to carry on about the above then I suggest they take it somewhere private and not my comments section. 

I don't really have anything good to say about P133/2016 and hope it gets defeated. 


Rico Sorda

Part Time Investigative Journalist 



59 comments:

Anonymous said...

That picture made me laugh immediately.
Well put Rico.

Anonymous said...

Its sad to see Rico and Sam falling out. Even though it might be good healthy & harmless banter. Lets hope it doesn't come to dangerous harmful foolishness at the next years elections. The good and like minded should be sticking together.
For change.

Anonymous said...

You can tell a lot about a person by the company he keeps. Lewis and Mezec who would have thought? Good honest blog Rico but wait the wrath of Maozec for daring to question him.

rico sorda said...

Sam is fighting his corner and i'm fighting mine. How it should be. Im not falling out with anyone. I will support Sam on issues I agree with. Always will. On this issue I totally disagree.

rs

Anonymous said...

Rico, are you seriously suggesting RJ should vote against this proposition because of who is lodging it? That sounds very childish. If they believe that it's a good proposition and that it is consistent with their manifesto then they have to support it. Disagree on the merits of the proposition by all means but implying that RJ have some sort of pact with Lewis is just pathetic.

rico sorda said...

They could have lodged something themselves. They are Reform Jersey.

Anonymous said...

That's not an answer. They didn't lodge something themselves. As things stand today are you saying they should vote against p113 because of who has lodged it?

Anonymous said...

Chairman Maozec is calling bloggers liars and conspiracy theorists on his blog. Lewis is obviously a big influence on him.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

What - 7:42 - is "change"?

And why is "change" - that unattached - value-free-verb - somehow always supposed to be a "positive" in politics? An unalloyed "good-thing"?

It isn't.

Anyone vacuously arguing for mere "change" - as opposed to actual, defined alterations, explicably designed to achieve clear outcomes - is a charlatan; an unambiguous villain straight out of the very worst traditions of politics.

Entirely predictably - we see Reform Jersey - the organisation of Geoff Southern - and Advocate Stephen Baker former employee Sam Mezec - proving to be just such an organisation.

So let’s turn to P.133 - and address the question touched upon at 7:51 - should Reform Jersey vote against P.133? Yes. And - in fact - should that decision be informed by the unique circumstances of it being brought as a part of an oligarchy attempt to rehabilitate a child-abuse concealing criminal? In part, yes.

But there’s nothing - simply nothing - mysterious or complex about the brute politics of why P.133 should be opposed - out-of-hand. And - to be blunt - in spite of their disagreement over this - the profound error is shared by Reform Jersey and Mike Dunn, both of who never saw or accepted the following plain fact of “politics” in Jersey:

Why should P.133 be opposed? Quite simply this: major changes to the electoral system - especially those which abolish the most democratic and accountable seats in the legislature - that of Senator - should be non-negotiable, non-starters - at all - UNTIL AND UNLESS the seat of Constable - the corrupt foundation of the feudal Jersey mafia is removed FIRST.

The status-quo was always - always - preferable over any “change” which left the position of Constable in the States.

Anyone but a complete political cretin can see that if changes are introduced - but which leave the position of Constable in place - then its “game-over”. The Constables and that feudal mafia have cemented their position - compounded their fake “majority” - and will never - ever - be removed.

The brute politics of the situation are as plain as that: a vote for P:133 is a vote to permanently keep the Constables in the States for ever more.

And if Reform Jersey weren’t a charlatan organisation the realpolitik they would have engaged in would have been a non-negotiable removal of the Constables.

As it is, Reform Jersey failed to even bring an amendment to the effect of removing the Constables.

Beneath contempt.

Stuart Syvret.

Anonymous said...

Couldn't agree more with Stuart Syvret. NAILED IT!

Anonymous said...

Stuart. I totally disagree with you. A vote against B will leave the constables where they are. There are no other options on the table and there are unlikely to be any for a very long time. If option B succeeds now then it will make the removal of constables far more likely to happen in the future. The difference between the democratically elected 32 Senators and the Constables will be far more obvious to the public and the momentum behind removing them will grow. Constables will never be removed without a referendum and that referendum is far more likely to be won under B. Reform Jersey are the only hope for reform at the moment and I think Sam's approach is far more likely lead to real beneficial change than anything you have to offer. This is about p133 and it's merits and nothing else. Al this shit about siding with Lewis etc is just childish crap.

rico sorda said...

"Reform Jersey are the only hope for reform at the moment"

Don't think Andrew Lewis would agree with that.

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:51 & 8:53 uses words - pathetic and childish crap.
Sam are you writing these posts?

Anonymous said...

sam is well known for commenting under pseudonyms on various sites, so it wouldnt suprise me at all if he was trolling here again. please takes peoples advice sam. grow up and stop picking fights with people.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 9.09pm

"If option B succeeds now then it will make the removal of constables far more likely to happen in the future."

Likely? Likely?

No it won't. That's just reckless gambling. It's completely irresponsible. Who in their right mind would make a fundamental constitutional change on the basis that they are "likely" - but not guaranteed - to obtain some favourable outcome later?

It's like giving a guy £200,000 to make a film that is "likely" to bring commercial benefits to the island.

It's like giving a software company £700,000 because they are "likely" to generate jobs.

Excuse my French, but it's absolutely f****** nuts.

Stuart Syvret has got it absolutely bang right. Reform Jersey should be amending the f*** out of this proposition, left, right and centre. Jesus wept!

Anonymous said...

There has been considerable argument in the blogs about this, and I'd like to highlight a few issues for discussion.
According to Rico Sorda and Neil McMurray (VFC) there is considerable annoyance over Mezec and Reform working with Andrew Lewis. Some will know this is over issues related to the removal of Graham Power and Lennie Harper from SoJP after the HdlG investigation. I won't be commenting on that, not least because it happened in 2008, and like it or not Andrew Lewis is an elected deputy. As with any job, you cannot refuse to work with somebody you don't like - please sir, I'm not working with Jane because she was mean about Susan!

If anybody does want more info it's all in the blogs (mainly the comments), but some interesting things have emerged.I wanted to highlight. The bloggers have long been supporters of the 'progressives' and have accused many of us of exaggerating the unpleasant abuse that we get for questioning Mezec. Now they are being critical of him, they are starting to find out just how nasty he can be. It is one thing attacking others like me (I'd never vote for him and he knows it) but insulting some of your main supporters is a whole new level of crazy. These include very polite queries like this from Jill Gracia: "I too have asked the question on several forums and directly to Sam as to what the positions of Monty and Geoff are in all this. Thus far - silence which I take it means it does not bode well. Time to come out of the woodwork one of you and give us an answer."

Mezec as told Rico he is "talking out of his backside" and called Mike Dun (amongst many others) a liar.
Mike (Tom Gruchy) wrote "9,000 people voted NO to Constables having an automatic seat in the States in the Referendum part of the last election. I ran that campaign virtually single handed and from my own pocket. Reform Jersey had boycotted the referendum at the outset and nobody else wanted to oppose the Establishment's YES campaign - so I volunteered to do it.
The 9,000 was achieved in a very low turnout of the electorate as usual where the Establishment had unlimited (and undeclared) money and resources to devote to supporting retention of the Constables in the States. Not only were 11 of the 12 Constables returned without facing contested elections in their parishes but the Establishment gained overwhelming support for their own Senators and Deputies throughout the Island too.
Presumably the same supporters of Establishment candidates largely voted YES for the Constables too and the " if only " argument applies just as much to the Constables as it does to removing the Establishment from inevitable control of the Jersey government.

Anonymous said...


There, I've even resorted to using capslock to make my point.
What do you not get about this simple statement?
Any reform proposition which is lodged that does not include the Constables will lose. There are 49 States Members and we need at least 25 to agree to get the Constables out, and we barely have 10. It is a settled matter for the duration of this assembly. I don't like that fact, but it is a fact and I prefer to live in the real world rather than the dreamland you seem to live in.

If a reform of the composition of the States is to be achieved for the next election, it has to keep the Constables, otherwise it will lose and we stick with the same as we have now and has failed to deliver change for decades.
I'm voting for a fairer system, a simpler system and a more proportionate system. You're standing up for a system which gives us 30% voter turn out rates, block votes for the

Anonymous said...

Rewriting History? I think we know that wasn't Mike. Of course 
Mike has fallen from grace since his heretical (and excellent) post about Reform on his blog...
I realise people here will see different points in this exchange, but did Mezec need to stoop THAT low in his attacks?
Personally, I don't think the Yes/No campaigns made much difference - Jersey is a long way from giving up its Constables in the States.
I'm also baffled that Mezec stated he has been working over 2 years on such a proposition on PPC, but is supporting this 'back of a fag packet' job from Andrew Lewis, and even supplied the figures! Why? And how has this happened when AL would have known
it was a PPC priority?
That brings me to me last point - am I the only one who sees this comment as sinister? " if P.133 is adopted, we'll get to an Option A type system in a matter of years." It's my way or no way, no matter what I have to do to achieve it.

Anonymous said...

Rico, the above comments were written by Maureen Morgan on Facebook. Hope you don't mind me posting.

Anonymous said...

The best thing Sam and RJ can do now is totally distance themselves from the childish bloggers and let them carry on crying about getting into bed with whoever and all that childish crap. Like it or not Sam is the only one talking any sense here and he is the one in the States who can actually make a difference. Thank god he is being mature and intelligent. The rest of you really need to grow up.

Anonymous said...

if mezec's behavior over the last few days is anything to go by, can you imagine what a government would be like if he actually had any power ? Can you imagine what would happen to those people who disagreed with his ruling party. I used to think that his appeals to comrades and other communist nonsense were just for amusing effect. Now I'm genuinely fearful about his motives. Anyone for the gulag ? He's proved himself an intolerant little dictator and I for one will never support him again.

Anonymous said...

Distance himself from his supporters you mean.
Well if he wants to play Tonto with Andrew Lewis as the Lone Ranger then let him ride off into the Sunset then.

Anonymous said...

@10:34 "Sam is the only one talking any sense here ....."

Really? And if that statement is true, a corollary to that statement is that you @10:34 ARE Sam .....*or* you are NOT talking any sense.

QED.

Anonymous said...

Distance himself from his supporters you mean.
Well if he wants to play Tonto with Andrew Lewis as the Lone Ranger then let him ride off into the Sunset then.

Anonymous said...

@10:34
grow an intellect, then you too can be "mature and intelligent"

Anonymous said...

After the way young Sam has conducted himself, if I was an RJ member, I'd be calling for a leadership challenge. How can somebody so unable to engage with differing opinions have the credibility to lead others ?

Tom Gruchy said...

Stuart Syvret is a strange fellow. I don't recall receiving any support from him at all when I led the "NO" campaign against Constables being automatically in the States for the 15 October 2014 Referendum.
I wonder if he was among the 9,000 plus who voted "NO"?
I should have thought too that after all these years he would know how to spell my name as Mike Dun...

Anonymous said...

He might have been in prison at the time Mike, a result of his preferred method of progressive politics.

Anonymous said...

I agree with comment at 1.20pm. Time for Monty to stand up and take over. Sam has proved himself immature, intolerant and unfit to lead. He should face a no confidence vote for his appalling treatment of others. Members of RJ are no strangers to proposing no-confidence votes, so hopefully they won't be slow coming forward this time.

Anonymous said...

I've washed my hands of Reform Jersey after this P133 crock of **** and Sam's association with Lewis. Even if P133 gets trashed which I hope it does, Sam's treatment of others online has been abhorrent and unforgivable.

Anonymous said...

Sam is supporting a proposition to Reform our system of government. This is consistent with his manifesto promises at the last election. He has explained his position very well on his blog.

Those of you who are trying to make this about Sam supporting Lewis have an agenda which has nothing to do with states reform.

Sam quite rightly is calling you out for this childish behaviour. If you feel offended by that then go and pat a dog or something.

If the photo-shopped image on this blog is the most intelligent thing you can come up with then I suggest you all take a very long hard look at yourselves. What are you actually contributing to the debate? When p133 comes up for debate Sam will be campaigning hard to achieve real change for his constituents (like he campaigned hard during the last referendum) and you lot will still be crying about who called who a liar, creating childish photoshops and making up secret alliances.

rico sorda said...

Sam @3:13pm

I just call it how it I see it.

You should have stepped back and had a good look at P133/2016 before jumping in with both feet.

Anonymous said...

From your previous blog Rico.

"hope you don't mind me leaving this comment here Rico but Sam Mezec is slagging you off on his blog calling you a liar. I wrote a comment to his blog which he won't publish because he knows the man he is supporting is a liar but wants others to think it's you who is the liar."

"You have called Rico a liar. Do you see Andrew Lewis as a liar? If so why haven't you called him one? If you don't believe Lewis is a liar then say that. There is more than enough evidence to show who is the liar and who has brought those lies to light. Is Andrew Lewis a liar - in your opinion - or isn't he?"

So come on Sam Let's hear it if you don't think he is a liar then say so.

Anonymous said...

It gets worse.

Mark Baker and Sandra Bisson are claiming they have letters of apology from the States of Jersey after Sam abused them last year online.

They intend making them public at the next elections for his constituents to see.
Has he not learnt anything yet?

Anonymous said...

In all fairness Sandra Bisson is a shit stirrer, this is the same woman who turned up at the debate on refugees in a headscarf to incite racism and then tried to turn it around and say how scared she felt, and surprise surprise but who else was at that, none other than Mark "20 years experience in belief" Baker.

I would not be surprised if she reeled Mezec in, plying him with sly attacks till he finally relented then she sits back rubbing her fingers in glee....another notch on the broomstick. That said Mezec should learn not to throw his toys out and expect this behaviour from people like that.

Anonymous said...

Sam Mezec is still attacking Mark Baker online and you reckon he is being plied, and so was Rico plying him as well?
To coin one of his phrases what a load of childish crap.

rico sorda said...

I have shared this here from Facebook. Mark Forskitt raises some good points.

Mark Forskitt If this goes through there will be no possibility of an Island wide mandate for chief Minister. The biggest difficulty with the senatorial electionrun the way we do is it gives the majority multiple representatives andothers non. Could be resolved with an AV/STV system, but instead we propose replicating is across all constituencies. It reduces treh number of representatives which means the relative significance of constables in the States goes up.

It should marginally reduce the number of uncontested elections for the States members, probably to just some constables. It looks like it somewhat redresses the imballance betwen St Helier representation and the rest of the island, which is probably why St Helier deputies are the ones most vocally behind the move.

If it were me I woud try to make three amendments to turn this questionable proposition into something a bit more presentable.

1/ AV/STV voting for the public elections

2/ Weight the votesin the assembly by the number of electors voting for that representative. Those elected uncontested are weighted by the number of nominators required to stand (currently 10)

3/ Constables debarred from being ministers or assistant ministers.

Anonymous said...

Same Mezec's thinking is dangerous.
I had an exchange with him last month about a conviction I have for Cannabis possession from 2006.
I was caught bang to rights with a small amount for personal use and I was fined £400.00 in the Magistrates Court and lost my job.
Then I had to disclose this on job applications until the conviction was spent in 2011.
Anyway Deputy Sam Mezec said that my conviction was there for life and it would always be brought up. This turned out to be a load of crap. I spoke to the Probation service after our exchange to clarify the position and they said Deputy Sam Mezec was in the wrong and that the Rehabilitation Law was there to allow people to move on with life and not be haunted about spent convictions like he stated.
So watch what Deputy Sam Mezec says online about legal matters because he's not as knowledgeable as you think.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Advocate Philip Sinel BLOGGER.

Is the party over? said...

@11:05 "Sam Mezec ....... not as knowledgeable as you think."
What has become more clear (and is of far more concern)
is that Sam Mezec is not as knowledgeable as HE thinks.

Sam's loss of basic courtesy and respect for other people's opinions is a mistake which will cost him dear. I hope he makes amends, and real soon.

Anonymous said...

Rico I'm only just reading this chain, but the comments have been going on for a while I see.

You say toward the start of the comments "I will support Sam on issues I agree with." but hang on a second isn't this just exactly what Sam is doing with P133. Sam has clearly stated elsewhere that he is only supporting Lewis's proposition because this is the right thing to do and represents a step in the right direction. I happen to agree with him on that but I have also pushed him on Voice for Children site several times to bring an amendment to remove the constables as well. Such amendment would be doomed to failure IMHO but it is still the right thing to do and raises awareness again of this issue with the unthinking masses.

I also happen to agree with Sam that the changes proposed will make it easier for more progressive candidates to be be successful and help to slowly bring around change. I do not accept Stuarts view that this gives the Constables an immovable position in the States. Quite the contrary I think they will after the next election at least be sitting a little uncomfortably and start to feel the winds of change.

What really concerns me is lack of comment from Geoff and Monty on this subject. Where the hell are they???

Anonymous said...

"You say toward the start of the comments "I will support Sam on issues I agree with." but hang on a second isn't this just exactly what Sam is doing with P133. Sam has clearly stated elsewhere that he is only supporting Lewis's proposition because this is the right thing to do"

Rico how is your position different?

Anonymous said...

It is unlikely that supporting Lewis's proposition is the right thing to do.
Most commentators judge P133 to be either dangerous or kicking real reform into the long grass for the next two decades.

"Rico how is your position different?" says 12:09

well it's different from Mezec's position in that Rico is not bending over for Lewis and his chums.

Anonymous said...

P.S. Have you seen Ozouf's amendment to P133 ? !!!!

Anonymous said...

"Well it's different from Mezec's position in that Rico is not bending over for Lewis and his chums."

Well Rico's full comment was "Sam is fighting his corner and I'm fighting mine. How it should be. Im not falling out with anyone. I will support Sam on issues I agree with. Always will. On this issue I totally disagree."

So I read that as Rico doesn't want to fall out with Sam and he will support Sam on issues he agrees with. In this case Sam has said hes not changing his view on Lewis, or more precisely not supporting Lewis, but supporting P133. I still don't see how that's any different to Rico's statement. And rather than you addressing this point on behalf of Rico I would appreciate Rico commenting himself.


Anonymous said...

Ozouf wants to cement the Fascist State. Reduce the Assembly to just 38 members! 6 x Senators. 12 x Constables. And just 20 x Deputies in six [5?] fcuked up Super-Constituencies!

Well done Reform Jersey. You have opened the door to the devil and the aforesaid Fascist States if this goes through. St. Helier's representation hugely undermined.

Anon 13 January 2017 at 13:21
http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2017/01/advocate-philip-sinel-interview-part-two.html?showComment=1484313693607#c4044708739115262059

Anonymous said...

What a start to 2017.
Who would have predicted we'd be discussing Sam Mezec's bonding with Andrew Lewis in one of the most moronic propositions of the century.

Anonymous said...

Totally beggered !

www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyPropositions/2016/P.133-2016Amd.pdf

TROJAN HORSE said...

I do not want to do away with the senators because i can vote against any one standing for senator by not voting for them.
I would not be able to vote against bailhache or ozouf because i would not be in their district but as it is now they are in ever bodies district.

rico sorda said...

Ozouf has lodged the amendment knowing it will get rejected so he can then vote against the main proposition..

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Interview with Leah McGrath Goodman who tells us "LEGACIES WILL BE CEMENTED."

Anonymous said...

Pretty rich to hear Stuart Syvret attacking Mezec over the Constables. This was the politician who toured the parishes to destroy Clothier. Mind it was back in the day when more than his mirror listened to him. Hypocrite.

Anonymous said...

Stuart who?
Lets not lose site of P133 because if this is passed in 2 weeks time its lights out.

Anonymous said...

Your photo might be considered a bit naughty. Those who don't know any better might think it is real. At first I even had to do a double-take, thinking it a bit weird that young Mezec's shoulders suddenly seemed to have gotten broader! Must be working out I thought before twigging. Funny though.

Anonymous said...

Pretty rich to hear Stuart Syvret still talk about taking Jersey to the ECHR on Twitter.
Hopefully he will get the ball rolling sometime this Century.

Anonymous said...

It gets even better.
E-mail thief Dooley Power is heading the pressure group at today's Royal Square Demo according to Radio 103, and they interviewed him about its reasons.
So it has nothing to do with Reform Jersey who have missed the boat again.

Anonymous said...

@9:59pm
"Pretty rich to hear Stuart Syvret still talk about taking Jersey to the ECHR on Twitter"

No, that's not true is it? 

The Ex Health Minister's tweet refers to a blog written in September 2010

http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/the-7-00-a-m-affidavit/

ECHR would be good but it is impossible to get past the loop of being endlessly referred back to Jersey's corrupt courts.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Senator Philip Ozouf Resignation(?) SPEECH.

Daniel said...

Two points:

First, Anonymous at 12.19 on Jan 9th, wrote: "if Mezec's behavior over the last few days is anything to go by, can you imagine what a government would be like if he actually had any power ? Can you imagine what would happen to those people who disagreed with his ruling party. I used to think that his appeals to comrades and other communist nonsense were just for amusing effect. Now I'm genuinely fearful about his motives. Anyone for the gulag ? He's proved himself an intolerant little dictator and I for one will never support him again."

Troll alert!! Just using this affair to slog Mezec with nonsense like "dictator," "communist" and "gulag." And yes I do not condone him slagging off other people as he is accused of doing if that is what he is doing (I haven't yet looked over his blog).

Point 2

Anon, I think it was, wrote: "Rico's full comment was "Sam is fighting his corner and I'm fighting mine. How it should be. I'm not falling out with anyone. I will support Sam on issues I agree with. Always will. On this issue I totally disagree."

So I read that as Rico doesn't want to fall out with Sam and he will support Sam on issues he agrees with. In this case Sam has said he's not changing his view on Lewis, or more precisely not supporting Lewis, but supporting P133"

Well said and very important. I had to do this all the time in the States. It is a collection of individuals. There is no (overt) Party system. When/if there was an issue which clearly was an establishment party issue you could see this pretty easily. But many issues are not like that and these you have to take on the merits.

To do anything else does not make sense. And others did the same for/to me.

e.g. the debate which set up the Electoral Commission. Many (enough) voted with their conscience to reject the COM block vote and open the door to the Commission. (NB The fact that the Electoral Commission was taken over by Bailhache senior following the States election does not alter the argument.)

I won a complete rejection of a clause in one Strategic Plan which would have allowed the burning of ANYTHING at Bellozanne until TTS had an income stream (a new environmental tax was promised by the COM for the next budget) which ensured that they would not need to. Our argument was that this burning of hazardous waste must stop, and stop now, and unconditionally, never mind any possible future tax which might never be agreed and could not be assumed to happen.

Again "we" - the progressive forces - won with the help of enough people not totally wedded to the COM position.

Luckily enough States members are not robotic, and some decisions are (still) taken which make sense.