Monday, February 13, 2017







Last week in a man was fined £1,000 in the Jersey Magistrate Court for grossly offensive Facebook comments. Dale Minikin basically said something along the lines of - the one way to solve the refugee crisis was 'shoot them.Job done.' 

Where does the line get drawn? Who decides when that line has been crossed? The Jersey Telecomunications 2015 Law was used to prosecute Mr Minikin. Where does the fine go? Not to the Syrian Refugees I bet. More like the State Coffers. Why wasn't Mr Minikin given a warning? Parish Hall enquiry?. Also, does Mr Minikin not have a Human Right to express his views no matter what? I might not agree or like what he says but surely he must be allowed to say it. What about his Advocate? Did he not advise him on any Human Rights issues or was it just get in there son and plead guilty. Lot simpler for everyone then home for tea... Mr Minikin might have been just wanting to express a view and didn't put it across very well. I know it was posted on the 'The Real Rock' Facebook page which sounds more like something to do with WWF than anything else but he still ended up charged and fined. Where does "Offensive" begin and end. 

What about the vile comments that appeared online when the young lady so tragically drowned last year. Don't remember anyone ending up in the Cash Cow Magistrate Court over that or anything else for that matter. 

Where does it begin and end? 

Tensions are starting to run high in Jersey. We live on a very small Island. It's only 9x5. It's already at bursting point. Ageing population. Schools, Hospital the whole infrastructure is beginning to crumble. A totally out of touch Council of Ministers. How many of you would like to put that lot up against the wall. How many have actually said something similar to that online or worse online? Are we just a complaint away from a trip down the Old Jersey Cash Cow  Magistrates Court Think about it. Everybody feels for the refugees. I do. But do I want a load turning up in Jersey "NO I DON'T." That is how I feel. I'm not a racist nor a homophobe nor does it mean that I don't care about people. I care about our Island. People must be allowed to express the opposite view to the open door policy. 

Immigration is a very serious issue for a number of reasons not least because of the decades of failed policies by the Establishment. 

I'm happy that our Overseas Aid committee does an excellent job offering help where it's needed. We do our bit. I believe 5 million went to the Syrian Refugee Crises. 

People like Mark Baker and Mark Proudfoot have been expressing their views online. I actually agree with a lot of what they say and disagree on other aspects. That is my choice. If I don't like what they write then I don't have to read it. If I don't like what is written on a certain Facebook Group then I don't have to join it and read it. We all have our choices. You don't have to read my blog. That is your choice. I just call it how I see it. Jersey is at a crossroads. People are angry and wanting to express certain views. My view is that the Island is at breaking point and we can't have continued inward migration at this current rate. Close the door and have a good think about what happens next. 

On the flip side  life is fickle. If the French Nuclear Reactor at Flamanville had blown we would all have become refugees. Looking for boats. Paying high prices for a safe passage heading West across the Atlantic to Trump Land..  Life can change in a second. How much would we be willing to pay for safe passage? All refugees overnight. Maybe Mr Proudfoot would take some on his boat. If you ask nicely.  Jersey abandoned. Radiation falling from the sky like assassins bullets looking for an easy target. Beaches deserted. Town like a barren wasteland (some say heading that way without radiation) People in St Ouen with 3 heads instead of 2. And still those muppets in Cyril Le Marquand house pump out their propaganda "Don't worry, everything is ok, we are open for business". BBC Jersey running on an endless loop of asking everyone to send in their radiation photos and Channel ITV resorting back to sticking their hand up puffins backside. Even after all that when you think there is no hope left you hear a distant rumble of an engine heading your way. Though one is near death you can't believe what you are seeing - it's only the Terry Le Main Campaign Bus hurtling down district Number 2 with the great man on loudhailer issuing the immortal words "Vote for Terry. Jersey Born -Jersey Bred. If you breathe in Radiation you end up dead" followed by the old Jersey saying "And if you don't like me there's a boat in the morning"..

If only Terry - if only

Life is fickle.

It can change in an instant.

Freedom of Speech must be protected 

Rico Sorda 

Part Time Investigative Jornalist


Anonymous said...

You've missed the point.

His comments were not about a solution to the refugee crisis.

His comments were about three specific refugees who were in Jersey and were going to be at a specified location at a specified time.

The comments weren't just offensive, they were clearly inciting hatred to people who stood a risk of suffering harm as a result.

It is not a freedom of speech issue to curtail people from inciting harm to innocent members of the public.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Rico, you wrote this: -

"If the French Nuclear Reactor at Flamanville had blown we would all have become refugees. Looking for boats. Paying high prices for a safe passage heading West across the Atlantic to Trump Land.. Life can change in a second. How much would we be willing to pay for safe passage? All refugees overnight."


And - here goes - I-told-you-so - about that risk, as well.

I attempted to make them aware of nuclear risks.

The island hasn't even attempted to secure any form of adequate "insurance" from the French (or other) government in the event of a nuclear disaster.

The Jersey polity - which you rightly suggest is hopeless, chaotic, incompetent, out-of-touch, politically - and legally - illiterate, oppressive - and labouring under the delusion that they can always change what is the inescapable and immutable reality of modernity - simply by passing obviously illegal and oppressive "laws" which attempt to "outlaw" free-speech - and appointing a few "Ourchaps" to the relevant committees & "courts" - were about as "willing" to take a considered, sensible, scrutinising approach to the island's nuclear safety - as they were "willing" to seriously scrutinise Jersey's dark and stark child-protection failings.

Basically - not-at-all.

Amazing - truly amazing - as this is - the quality of the Jersey legislature does actually get worse - though seemingly an impossible depth, yes, it does - get worse - at every election.

We think "it can't get any worse than this."

But it always does.

The incompetence and manifest inadequacy of the Jersey legislature is simply stunning.

Just amazing.


It's no longer "merely" a clear-and-present threat to the reputation and very standing of the Crown and the Monarchy; Jersey's out-of-control, incompetent & anarchic oligarchy of gangster-spivs make a legal challenge to the "privileges" of the City of London commune & the modern relevance of Magna Carta - an avalanching reality.

This is a "failed" polity.

An erupting and metastasising cancer on the face of the British state. A toxic, gangster, feudatory - that will come to be seen as committing its atrocities "in-plain-sight" - every bit as functionally psychopathic and as brazenly as their protectee Jimmy Savile.

And the Crown and HM Government are responsible.


Even their fake "public-inquiry" into Jersey's state-concealed child-abuse couldn't avoid displaying much of the stark - overt - evidence. (Even though the "report" will - mark-my-words - will - avoid and ignore the stark legal realities.)

Cancers, generally, do not "fade-away" with the passage of time. Rather they grow - and become, inevitably - potentially - more lethal - left unattended.

That is the strategic mistake made by Jersey's mafia and their FACAW protectors in London.


They grow and grow.

And doubling-down with the corruption - at every turn of "events" - was mathematically doomed to ultimate failure.

Stuart Syvret.

Anonymous said...

What is strange is that Reform Jersey voted against this legislation yet 2 of their members online have shown full support for the sentence of Jersey Dale and Mr Mezec has gone on to say that others within the same Face Book Group should be prosecuted.
Another reason to find this Party puzzling because only last Summer they were all for freedom of speech.

Anonymous said...

Is this a case of one rule for one person and a different rule for another? I think it was the Constable of St. John who said the whistleblower who leaked the Andrew Lewis lies of the in camera debate should be dragged down to the Royal square strung up and flogged. That's inciting violence and hate speech but it's ok because it was a politician who said it.

Anonymous said...

Freedom of speech does not mean you can threaten actual harm though so no conflict with being for the former and not being for hate speech.

Phil said...

Well said Stuart nice to see the gloves are off : ). When actual killers are in the doc (Blair) then we can work down the pile of nasty people. What happened to sticks and stone may brake my bones but........
Phil Skinner

Anonymous said...

"People in St Ouen with 3 heads instead of 2" I guess you are trying to test the fine line of what constitutes offensive?

Agree with Stuart Syvret on the nuclear comments re Flamanville. It is now commonly understood that offshore wind is cheaper than installed nuclear. The price of new nuclear facilites are escalating very rapidly too.

St Ouennais.

Fiona Cullinan said...

Just read your blog Rico. And I have to agree with you. Well balanced view. Freedom of speech and democracy is for all. I don't believe for one minute that Mr Minikin actually meant what he wrote and I am flabbergasted at the speed of which he was taken to court. People have the right to voice their opinions otherwise why did all those people die in the Great War and WW2.

Anonymous said...

An excellent well balanced article Rico and credit to you for publishing your beliefs on immigration because there will be people who will call you a racist or bigot or anti refugees and the like. In today's internet age it takes guts to speak your mind and being a long time reader of your blog I can say you have never been short on guts or telling it the way it is. I don't agree with everything you have written but do agree with the vast majority of it and I won't be calling you a liar or an idiot like some states member might just because I don't agree with everything you have written. A well balanced thought provoking article.

Tom Gruchy said...

I would remind you Rico that you recently published an apology for comments that you allowed to be posted on this blog.
Presumably you would agree that the comments should not have appeared.
My view is that causing "offence" is a very dangerous game to play especially when it is based upon falsehoods and where named people are the subject of the offensive material.
You have been a target for offensive comments in the past and I know that you have been offended - but I do not know what good might have come from the experience.
Poking fun is one thing but setting out to cause offence does not seem to be necessary or productive.
I would hope that you might err on the side of publishing factual, researched reports - in the better traditions of journalism - even though this might take more time than just throwing mud.

Don't shoot the messenger said...

Sam Mézec There are elements of the article that have some validity, but the whole things follows an false premise that the comments were about refugees in general, rather than a specific group of people.

Rico could have figured that out if he'd researched before hitting his keyboard, but he's recently made it a habit to not be that focused on the truth in his blogs.

Sam Mézec Rico is not the sharpest of bloggers, no proper research again.

Sam Mézec Here's some irony for you.
Anti-racists being portrayed as violent, by a guy who (until a few moments ago) ran a Facebook group with fellow admins who called for refugee camps to be napalm bombed.

Anonymous said...

I'm grateful for the commentator at 8:01am reminding us of the words of Connetable Chris Taylor of St John, the head of the honorary police and parish hall prosecution system in his parish, who thought it appropriate to say in the island's parliament:

"The second issue is that I understand part of this, or some of, or most of the in camera debate has been leaked. In other words, a Member of this Assembly or previous Assemblies, I do not know who it was, leaked this information. That undermines the integrity of every single one of us, and that individual should be hounded down and strung up in the Royal Square and made sure that he never enters this room again."

Page 87 here

The Jersey way in all its glory. Strung up for photocopying some words in the public interest.

rico sorda said...

I'm really pleased I wrote this posting. It has shown me that most haven't bothered reading what I have actually said. I'm asking how and why Jersey Dale ended up in court. Where is the the line drawn? What is acceptable and what isn't…

I have nothing but the utmost respect for all those who went went over and helped the refugees in The Jungle of Calais. They did something. Didn't just moan on a keyboard about what is right or what isn't but did something. They campaigned and made a difference. That is what I and others did when the Jersey Authorities tried to bury the Jersey Child Abuse Investigation. We got of our backsides and did something..

Personally I don't really care what Jersey Dale said. It doesn't affect me or my life.. I'm not going to pretend that I'm hurt or disgusted by it because I'm not. What I care about is Jersey and how it's being run. How our infrastructure is creaking at the seams. How we are just coming out of Winter with a possible water shortage but lets just keep building the population. Its all very well to show some shock and horror when really deep down must of don't give a toss as to what Jersey Dale..

rico sorda said...

Keep trying Jon. You do brighten my up slightly lol

TonyTheProf said...

Looking at “in camera” debates, I came across this by Senator Sir Philip Bailhache in the States Assembly in 2016:

“The second point that I wanted to make again has been touched on by the Constable of St. Martin, and I entirely agree with him that the consequence of this debate should be that in camera debates have had their day. I hope that the Privileges and Procedures Committee will examine the laws which require that a debate should be held in camera in certain instances and to see whether that situation can be avoided. An in camera debate in a legislative Assembly such as ours should be a contradiction in terms, other than in the very rare circumstances where national 88 security is in question. This Assembly is no longer a Government of the Island; it is a legislative Assembly where matters should be debated in public. I hope that the P.P.C. will give some consideration to this.”

I wondered if PPC have taken this on board?

Anonymous said...

Says it all really...

Anonymous said...

This is your life.

Anonymous said...

This guy explains OFFENSIVE.