Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Jersey Telecoms / Re: Jersey Telecomms ripping off customers ?
« Last post by shortport on Today at 02:19:56 AM »
I,am also an Airtel pay as you go customer and I don't know if its my imagination but my internet connections always seem much slower than anyone elses at work,even people who are with Airtel on contract.I'm sure its not my phone as its less than a year old.
Jersey Telecoms / Re: Airtel kills off PAYG in Jersey
« Last post by Jerry Gosselin on Yesterday at 07:52:41 AM »

By comparison, Airtel is still charging its PAYG customers only 7p per minute for calls to all Jersey mobiles and landlines, 7p for texts and only 4p per Mb (+ 1p session charge) for mobile data.

What a difference 6 months makes - and not a positive difference either. Airtel have very quietly introduced massive increases to their PAYG tariffs since my last text. To send a short text with as little as 1 word in it now costs Airtel customers 15p according to their website (but I have heard it is actually 16p so they may be adding 1p to each text for GST). That is a greater than 100% increase.

The cost for phoning another Jersey mobile has more than tripled to 25p per minute. It is actually the same per minute to make an international call now. I believe they are also charging you to listen to your voicemail messages (but not sure how much per minute), so it helps if people trying to call you hang up before the voicemail kicks in.

So this is what 10 years of competition in the mobile networks sector has finally led us to: 3 networks all charging similar hugely over-inflated tariffs just to contact your friend a few hundred yards down the road, when it would be just as cheap to contact someone on the other side of the world. The first 5 or 6 years was great, particularly for pensioners or people who just needed a cheap mobile for occasional use. Then one by one, they begun to realise that we are just a captive market to be milked for big profits as they wish. Now it is only the middle income families who sign up to the most expensive contracts that they want. The rest of us who can't afford these data hungry options can just go to hell.

The problem for Airtel is that whereas before their customers would go easy on the complaints about their sh*t customer service (because the call and text rates were so reasonable), those customers are not likely to be so forgiving in future about standing in a queue in the Airtel shop for half their lunch hour sweating profusely because of the Indian standards of air conditioning (i.e. none).

Rip off, rip off, rip off!  >:(

Well done Tosh above so as expected the transparent whiter than white FOI requests tells very little but who would have paid for Senator Ozouf and why ?:

 " Senator Ozouf’s attendance was paid for by a private individual - please see 'B' above. The cost of the dinner was £300 which was paid for by the individual."

A couple of comments, first the tickets prices were set at an level to fund the conservative party that was the major aim of the staged event. The organisers say the tickets were priced at £1,000 each.

Where did £300 come from ?

Further more, it is good news that the tax payer did not stump up for the fundraisers attendance " apparently " but why pay for a ticket on the airplane to get to a fund raiser ?

There again with the health minister Andrew Green signing of over nine million for unamed consultants and another seven million pounds on a crazy hospital costs for a  plan that is not even up to speed and published or showing a decent business structure, the states waste of money continues unabated.


Social Security / Re: Income Support, is it fair on the Tax Payer?
« Last post by Jerry Gosselin on October 14, 2017, 10:12:45 PM »
Is it just a coincidence or has Reg taken his revenge? A few weeks after I posted the comments above slamming Reg Langlois' totally fictional welfare expenditure figures on the Politics Jersey Facebook page (which no member of the Politics Jersey had sought to challenge) I found myself no longer able to clearly read all the comments posted.

Now I am constantly getting a message saying 'Not logged in Please login to continue' and the comments can only very faintly be read in the background. So now they are free to post unchallenged lies as much as they want on that group. As long as every member of the group agrees to enforce the Jersey Way, lies can be truth and truth can be lies.

Just imagine if Facebook ever gets a complete global monopoly on all political discussion forums in the future - anyone not agreeing to the rules of the club won't even be able to see what others are saying about them or about anything at all for that matter. You will have to be a law-abiding member of the club in order to have your say. I have often come across comments made by Jersey people on Facebook that reference another person in their conversations, e.g. someone they once worked with or went to school with. It seems that these third parties being discussed probably have no idea they're being talked about, particularly if, like Politics Jersey's new setup, a non-member can't get access to what is being said about them. That is not good at all.
Was this the credit card investigation?
General Discussion / Re: New hospital
« Last post by Fritz on October 13, 2017, 06:01:12 PM »
once again,"External Advisers", get the biggest slice of the Jersey pie. >:(
General Discussion / Re: New hospital
« Last post by gladiator on October 13, 2017, 04:25:25 AM »
New Hospital - £17m spent already and still no final decisions
Thursday 12 October 2017


Obtaining external advice was the largest cost by a significant margin at £9,052,420.65 as of August 2017. That advice spanned the areas of technical, legal, financial and procurement issues - it's not clear whether some of that money has been spent putting together plans for the proposed 'bond' which may form part of the hospital funding package.

Scandalous and the Jersey way!

Here is the full version of the FOI request regarding the future hospital costs and the response by the States of Jersey :


The P.110/2016 report said that the costs incurred prior to detailed proposals being lodged on the Future Hospital are expected to be £27million, involving "the full 2016 costs and approximately half of the 2017 costs”.

Please kindly confirm if this figure is indeed accurate as of September 2017 and provide a breakdown of how this has been spent.

The extract included in the question is within paragraph 6.3 of the report accompanying P.110/2016. The full paragraph is set out below:

6.3 It is proposed that the outcome of the detailed development and design work should be brought back to the States Assembly before the summer recess in 2017. The costs advised as requiring to be incurred prior to the detailed proposals being lodged are approximately £27 million, and involve the full 2016 costs and approximately half of the 2017 costs. The detail will be set out within the project brief and execution plan. These costs involve funding the development of the project brief for the new approach, undertaking the necessary further site assessment studies to inform project costing, completing the activity assessments and plans, developing the concept design, proposed procurement strategy and outline planning submission, tendering for a construction partner, completing the concept design and commencing the construction of relocation works, as well as producing the overall project execution plan.

The project has progressed broadly in accordance with the anticipated actions set out in the above paragraph, as detailed in the points below:

• The project brief and execution plan are complete
• Site assessment works for the preferred site are in train
• Activity assessments have concluded and inform the completed Outline Business Case
• The concept design to RIBA Stage 2 for the main hospital is complete
• The procurement strategy is complete
• An outline planning application has been submitted
• The tendering process for a construction partner is in train
• The various relocation works packages are in train.

As of 31 August 2017, costs totalling £17,392,250.97 have been incurred on the Future Hospital Project. These costs can be summarised as follows:

​Summary costs   £​
​Pre-feasibility and feasibility work   ​576,525.33
​Internal client costs   ​                     1,380,356.35
​External advisors                        ​9,052,420.65
​Stakeholder engagement   ​                132,430.36
​Property   ​                                        216,765.17
​Offsite preliminary works   ​              5,445,987.67
​Relocation works                            ​375,515.44
​Planning fees   ​                                 212,250.00

Total expenditure to 31/8/2017   ​17,392,250.97

The forecast costs to be incurred by the end of 2017 are within the currently allocated budget.

Just bonkers!

Philip Ozouf / d
« Last post by shortport on October 12, 2017, 01:36:21 AM »
Jersey’s media who are supposed to ask questions on behalf of the residents of Jersey and how their tax pound is spent.
nonsense,you should know by now that the purpose of all Jersey media is to tell everyone that finance is the best and only thing in the world
Maybe its been paid back?
I dont know.
 But I do know that it has been decided that there is not enough evidence to proceed with prosecution of the un-named person suspected of using public expenses illegally.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10