Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
A Better Jersey / Re: The coming election
« Last post by Jerry Gosselin on December 14, 2017, 08:26:53 PM »
Andy Jehan is now able to spout his political views on Bailiwick Express as a 'Columnist'  ::) Well I suppose it beats reviewing the papers on Gidoni. What incredibly fortunate timing for the Establishment's Citizen No.1, eh?

Yes, I think we can now safely see he's standing next May...
Religion / Re: The Religious Debate.......
« Last post by HG on December 12, 2017, 05:35:23 PM »
Best Christmas Present would be instant ending of the Church's undeserved power. I mean, they spent approximately a million pounds publicly destroying a lone vulnerable adult while she had no voice or defence, and they thought that publicly discrediting her on conflicted whitewash reports to protect the dignitaries involved was safeguarding. Their actions are a statement of their worth.
Bye Welby-Damned, take your Godless clique with you and let the door hit your butt on the way out. I will suffer what you did to me until I die, and death will be a relief. Why do the church still claim to be about Christianity after all that?
Religion / Re: The Religious Debate.......
« Last post by boatyboy on December 12, 2017, 02:32:51 PM »
All people should have the right to follow any religion that suits them, but state sponsored religion calling itself a charity, that has commercial interests with a portfolio of property and commercial interests of £7.9 Billion should be separated completely from Government.

The Church of England was started by Henry the Vlll because the Vatican would not allow him to divorce. He became the boss sorry head. He decided that all people in England would share in the cost of maintaing the Church of England regardless of your own religion. This is why on Jersey the rates parishioners pay can be used to maintain CoE churches. This is why the Dean ( unelected ) has a seat in the States of Jersey. This is why the taxpayer pays him £25,000 pounds per year while also paying for his manor house and all utility accounts situated at David Place St Helier. The Mormons, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Budist's etc, all fund their own religious faiths. So should the Church of England. Why should atheists and other groups of faith followers have to financial support the CoE. Why is a Church allowed political unelected in the Government ? Times have changed and so should the place of the church of England in todays Government and society.

The Express,

Quotes are selective there is more in the article:

The NSS recommends “gradual dismantling, rather than securing a single clean break,” of the Church of England.

The decision will likely infuriate Royalists and Anglican believers.

Anglican Christianity is closely intertwined with the British political system.

Twenty-six Church of England bishops have reserved seats in the House of Lords with the right to debate and vote on changes to the law.

But, only Britain and Iran have religious leaders in their legislatures by right.

The report concludes: “The voices of religious privilege are loud and their vested interests are strong.

As well as being head of state, the reigning monarch is head of the church and is the supreme governor of the Church of England and defender of the faith.

The report acknowledges Prince Charles’s reported wish to remain the defender of faith, rather than “the faith”.

Tracy Vallois-St Saviour No 2 / Re: Tracy Vallois to stand for who exactly
« Last post by Fritz on December 12, 2017, 01:58:40 AM »
Anyone who has time to faff about editing social media platforms obviously isn,t spending enough time doing the job that their employer,(General Public), is paying them to do.
If they attempt to silence their employers,using whatever method, they should be sacked immediately.
Tracy Vallois-St Saviour No 2 / Re: Tracy Vallois to stand for who exactly
« Last post by Jerry Gosselin on December 11, 2017, 11:14:45 PM »
I have just discovered that Deputy Tracey Vallois has placed a 'Protected Tweets' lock on her Twitter account within the last few months. This means that she can restrict who can see her comments to just the great and the good of Jersey (no doubt including all her fellow States Members and prominent Establishment lapdog journalists). I found this explanation on the web about protected tweets status:

When you protect your Tweets and make your Twitter account private, only your current followers will be able to see your Tweets. Accounts with protected Tweets require each user to request to follow. You are able to manually approve and select who is able to see your Tweets.

If she was not a States Member then next to nobody would care, least of all me. Indeed, I can't recall ever having visited her @TAVallois Twitter page until I conducted this investigation this week. However, I recently noticed a conversation on Twitter where one person seemed to be responding to something that Vallois had said, but when I tried to find what it was she had said, her comments simply weren't there. I can only presume that the person with whom she was conversing was one of her personally vetted followers - hence they could see and reply to her but I couldn't.

Am I the only one who believes that politicians who want to personally pick and choose which members of the community they converse with should just get out of public life? It is totally incompatible with our democratic principles that those who are happy to get paid large sums of money to represent us should be using devious tactics like this on social media to prevent all but a small minority of the general public from knowing what their views are on any particular political issue. It also strikes me as a bit vain that Vallois feels the need to personally vet and approve those with whom she converses.

Of course she is not the only States Member to do this - Senator Philip Bailhache started protecting his tweets earlier this year, no doubt to keep his Twitter page nice and free of the shed loads of critical comments he must regularly receive. That is even more unacceptable because he is a Minister with an all-island mandate but you almost expect it from someone as high up in the Jersey Establishment as him. On the other hand, you don't really expect it from someone who chose to resign in protest from an executive position and who occasionally asks searching questions of current Ministers from the back benches.

Politicians need to be held to account, particularly Ministers or those suspected of having high ambitions of becoming Ministers in the future. The higher the political office a person reaches, the more important it is, particularly for journalists, to follow what they are saying on social media. President Trump's Twitter account is the best example of this. I am sure a good many of his followers find his comments vile but they have no choice but to follow him for professional reasons. However, that shouldn't be taken as giving the green light for our own representatives to think that they can follow his foul example of blocking the Twitter accounts of those who openly oppose him.

We should not let them get away scot-free with restricting political discourse like this.
A Better Jersey / Re: The coming election
« Last post by Jerry Gosselin on December 08, 2017, 09:32:38 PM »
That FOI response reported by Bailiwick Express has now been published by the States. The link to the PDF document is here:

It shows overseas travel taken by States Members since January 2016 (but not the costs). Some interesting things I noticed:

* Murray Norton and Russell Labey did not visit Canada together, as I believed I may have previously stated. Labey's visit was in May 2016 (described as 'Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Canadian Parliamentary Seminar') and Norton went there in April of this year (described as 'Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Fundamentals Course').

* Scott Wickenden cadged 3 CPA junkets to the UK in a period of just 3 months, in addition to 5 other trips as an Assistant Minister (including Estonia and that trip with Crowcroft to the very swanky-looking Mallorca holiday resort that I mentioned back in the Spring)

*Serial junketeer Montfort Tadier once again used his knowledge of the French language to cadge yet another foreign holiday to the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie Annual Conference, this time held in Bosnia-Herzegovina (October 2017). Within weeks he was in Bangladesh (November 2017) with Pinel and Kevin Lewis for the English-language (CPA) version. It would be interesting to know exactly how many French conferences he has attended since first entering the States (and also how many CPA conferences). In total it must surely stretch well into double figures by now.

*Talking of Labeys taking junkets, Stuart Syvret's ex, Deputy Carolyn Labey has bagged an astonishing 10 trips since January 2016. 3 of them were under the heading of 'Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians', which is basically a separate junket club for female politicians and 6 other trips were thanks to her Overseas Aid role (which she'll certainly want to hold onto after the next election!).

To put this into greater context, backbencher Deputy Carolyn Labey clocked up more trips (10) than any of the following members of the government: Assistant Minister Wickenden (8 trips), Minister Luce (7), Assistant Minister Pallett (5), Minister Maclean (5), Minister Pinel (4), Minister Green (3), Minister Pryke (3), Minister Noel (2), Minister Moore (2), Assistant Minister Mezbourian (2) and Assistant Minister Refaut (1). :o This is not a comprehensive analysis so I may well have missed any other members of the executive who didn't take any foreign travel at all (if there are any). Minister Farnham and Assistant Minister Norton each took the same amount of trips (10) as Deputy Labey.

I am therefore awarding Deputy Carolyn Labey the prestigious Philip Ozouf Award 2017 for the greatest effort in junketeering. Well done old dear! 
A Better Jersey / Re: The coming election
« Last post by Jerry Gosselin on December 07, 2017, 08:10:14 PM »
At last week's conference the call was for quotas. That is controversial enough in the UK but at least in a proper party political system it is up to each party to decide whether or not to have internal rules that require a certain number of parliamentary candidates to be women. In theory, the elector could still decide to vote for another party which had a male candidate rather than for a female one who only got selected because of her gender. Anyone outside the traditional party system is also free to stand as an independent in the UK if they wish.

However, it is hard to see how any attempt to replicate quotas into the Jersey electoral system could possibly work, given that by tradition, candidates who go on to form the executive are always elected as 'independents' (although everyone knows that they largely cease to be independent as soon as they join the government). How would the public feel if there was a law stipulating that a certain proportion of candidates standing for election as Senator, Deputy or Constable had to be female? If that legal quota could not be reached, would the election have to be postponed? What about elections for Constable, which are traditionally uncontested and where the majority of office holders are always male? What if every candidate in an election for the States was free to put their names forward and the electorate just voted for who they wanted (as now) but a proportion of female candidates would be elected even if they failed to get enough votes to win a seat on merit? How would you feel if a male candidate that you had voted for polled enough votes to win a seat but a statutory quota meant that a lower-placed female candidate took the seat that would otherwise have been his? What happens if no female candidates put their names forward despite all this cajoling by the political high and mighty?

I cannot possibly see any of these scenarios being acceptable to the public, which means that unless government candidates like Gorst decided to form their own political party (e.g. 'The Jersey Business & Establishment Party') and then imposed a certain number of women as party election candidates, women will just have to continue to compete on an equal basis as men. In fact, in elections where a token woman is standing against a group of male candidates, the woman usually gets a boost in the number of her votes compared to the male candidates as many voters will deliberately reserve one of their choices for a female even if they know she isn't really good enough to make an impact in the States. You only have to look back to the 2014 election and the questionable decision to elect political unknown Zoe Cameron as a Senator - and the ultimate consequences of that decision - to see that the electorate can often be swayed to vote irrationally for certain female candidates when commonsense would suggest doing otherwise.
A Better Jersey / Re: The coming election
« Last post by Fritz on December 07, 2017, 01:39:22 AM »
Isn,t Gorst,s call for, "More Women in Politics", against latest PC rules?
Should he not have been demanding more, "Gender Neutral Beings", too?
"Undecided Species", should also been given equal support. >:( >:(
A Better Jersey / Re: The coming election
« Last post by Jerry Gosselin on December 06, 2017, 08:43:40 PM »
Only a week after Gorst attended and spoke at a conference calling for more women in politics, I duly note that 2 longstanding female TV journalists at BBC Jersey have suddenly left their jobs.  :o I don't know where Clare Burton is going but Emma Chambers is moving to the Bailiwick Express after almost 12 years at the Gorst-friendly Beeb:

Now this is just a theory at the moment but I presume BBC employees looking to stand for election to public office would not be able to just take a few weeks holiday leave to contest a public election and then return to work if they lose, as most States of Jersey employees (including Christian May) are able to do. Therefore moving to the Express would presumably allow Ms Chambers the freedom to stand for election but still maintain her employment if she fails to win a seat (and maybe even continue working in some capacity for the Express if she is elected).

We know the Jersey government favours media personalities as candidates because their high public profiles mean that they are more trusted by the public and therefore more likely to be elected. Once in office, they can also use their PR talents to improve the public image of an unpopular government. In 2014 it was Norton and Mac who were pre-selected and then parachuted straight into executive roles despite having no previous political experience (which has become all too obvious). We also know the government is likely to favour women for its secret shortlist of replacement ministers and ass. ministers.

So come next May will it be a case of vote, vote, vote for 'independent' ::) Emma Chambers (or maybe 'independent' Clare Burton)??

You heard it here first!
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10