Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
General Discussion / Re: Rumour is Murray Norton to Stand
« Last post by boatyboy on Yesterday at 05:07:41 PM »

It may be your money that civil servants and politicians are spending on trips abroad and to the UK  [ some obviously necessary  ] to represent the islands interest.

This being the case, why should all expenses not be listed, why the big secret ?

The  States book of rules at this time state all trips on behalf of the island come under States business and do not need to be declared. I would argue that although this may be the case but a transparent and open Government with nothing to hide would include travel costs against each and every politician. Remember a politician is married to a partner living in London, and claimed to be working out of the Westminster Jersey office traveling almost each and every week to the island paid for by us.

Another simple example shown below, food costs at a reception was a mere £30 but what of the flight, hotel etc ? Was Senator Paul Routier accompanied by civil servants
What was the real financial cost to the Jersey tax payer. We are all tax payers with GST.

23/10/2017    Reception - The Gherkin - London    £30    Chief Ministers Department    Chief Minister - Gov of Gibralter - London    Assistant Minister senator Paul Routier(representing Chief Minster)

Back to the long-running Murray Norton saga.

Last week an FOI response revealed that during 2017 alone he received gifts and hospitality to the value of £512. Most notably, it included an invite to Guernsey's Awards for Achievement at Beau Sejour ("Gala, accomodation + flights") valued at an estimated £307. Even by the standards of serial hospitality blaggers Farnham and Bailhache, this amount stands out for its individual high cost (although Farnham got a £500 ticket to watch Take That).

As the revelations contained nothing that could cause embarrassment to Reform Jersey's 3 members, the BBC were able to report the details online:

Obvious question: why is Guernsey paying hundreds of pounds to invite a Jersey Assistant Minister to a Guernsey awards ceremony? Do we have to return the favour in some way to one of their government puppets? My next thought was whether he was compering the event and getting paid for it but this register supposedly lists only gifts and hospitality, which I take not to include any paid work that members of the government privately undertake. I also did a google search and I can't find any evidence that Norton compered the event. So it appears he was on official Jersey government business this time - not working. Yet we know that compering this type of event is Murray's bread and butter, so being able to wine and dine with the organisers will do his chances of being offered a paid compering role in the future absolutely no harm whatsoever.  ::) If he does turn up as a paid compere at this event some time in future, either while he remains as a member of Jersey's government or perhaps after he has been kicked out of the States (hopefully this May), I am unaware that he would have breached any anti-corruption laws or guidelines .... because there doesn't appear to be any that would cover this!  >:(

The link to this FOI response is here:

Another potentially significant piece of news, election-wise, is that on 16th October, Murray took up a part-time job as Sales Manager for Liberty Wharf Apartments located at Liberty Wharf, Esplanade. Why take up extra paid work so close to an election? Is he planning to step down like Routier? Or is he going to stand again but is getting a bit worried about the public reaction he might receive in May, hence the sudden urge to start hedging his bets? Well I really shouldn't get my hopes up like this!

He has immediately started replying to all comments posted by guests to that establishment on Trip Advisor, called himself "Director of Sales" (although he declared himself to be only an employee, not a Director, on his Statement of Interests). Luckily for Murray, most of the reviews since he took over the job have been positive, which is a relief for him because he is known to be a particularly sensitive soul who will block people who post anything about him on social media that he doesn't approve of. What happens when the inevitable rotten review gets posted on Trip Advisor - is there a way to get negative comments wiped? I'm sure he's been asking himself the very same question!

A Better Jersey / Re: The coming election
« Last post by Jerry Gosselin on February 16, 2018, 07:14:43 AM »
It's terribly sad and disheartening to note how island politics has changed immeasurably for the worst since Routier was first elected in 1993. I remember it well as I was an elector in his district and met him and some of the other candidates.

I knew even then that he would end up on the Establishment side but he came across as a bit harmless and I never foresaw that he would be the man who would be responsible for the gross deception that was hiding behind the Income Support Law. People reading this won't understand what sort of deception I mean (and doubtless they don't care) but there was (and still is) highly controversial political intent hidden deep within some apparently minor and uncontroversial articles of that Law. The whole point of it is that the general hoi polloi never get to know what the real hidden meaning of these articles is (and doubtless don't care). They were so uncontroversial that Minister Routier barely said anything about them by way of explanation when he proposed the Law to the States in 2006 and, naturally, a compliant Chamber never queried any of it and just said "pour" to everything.

A decade later I discovered some of the real, underlying meaning of that deeply-hidden content. It gives future Assemblies the power to make subordinate legislation that directly conflicts with the express words of the 2006 statute. So the 2006 Assembly read the terms of what was proposed, saw nothing controversial with it and voted to make it law. They presented an apparently uncontroversial law to the Privy Council who duly gave it Royal Assent in 2007. Now it turns out that one of those uncontroversial articles gives the States the power, as I said,  to make subordinate legislation (thus not requiring Royal Assent) that can directly conflict with the express words included in the 2006 Law - and without even having to actually amend what the 2006 Law says. It is a very clever deception and means that certain elements of laws that are highly controversial and which might not be welcomed by the Privy Council can simply be left out of the main body of the law that is sent to London. It then gets Royal Assent and then some time later, using the clauses with hidden content, the States can then rubber-stamp the more controversial aspects in the form of Regulations, away from prying London eyes. Even more concerning is the fact that nearly identically-worded clauses are also included in many other major Jersey Laws. So you think that a certain law assures you certain particular rights because such and such a term is clearly stated in the body of the principal legislation which can normally only be amended with the approval of the Privy Council, but in reality a Minister could just rely on these ambiguously-worded clauses with hidden content to lodge Regulations which directly conflict with the parent law - and get away with it!

Either Mr Routier was informed by the Law Officers of these hidden powers in the Law back in 2006 and kept quiet about it, or, just as worrying I think, he possibly didn't even know about them himself and maybe wasn't even made aware of them by the Law Officers. None of us will live to find out, as I believe States legal advice is exempt under the FOI Law for 100 years. The former option suggests that he, as an elected official, perhaps knew a bit more about the hidden powers in the Law than he mentioned in the Assembly. The latter suggests the Law Officers didn't fully make him aware of all the hidden powers that they had carefully sewn into the fabric of the articles. Either way, it says nothing encouraging at all about the standard of legislating and governing in this island whose present leaders want full independence from the UK to write whatever laws they want without Privy Council interference.

And there was me back in 1993 thinking that this amiable chap couldn't do much harm...  ::) 
A Better Jersey / Re: The coming election
« Last post by boatyboy on February 16, 2018, 02:10:52 AM »
In a moral and decent island, ex civil servants and ex  politicians would not be allowed to sit on Quango's or employment boards.

How can these people be called independent when they have being employed by the Government, and as an ex civil servant still receiving money by way of a pension and then paid again by the Government on a board or quango. An ex politician may have close ties with serving Government ministers or deputies etc.



« Last post by Jerry Gosselin on February 15, 2018, 07:45:37 PM »
Routier is quoted by ITV News Channel TV as saying he has decided to "take up other challenges":


A Better Jersey / Re: The coming election
« Last post by Jerry Gosselin on February 15, 2018, 01:49:18 AM »
I don't want to spoil the rejoicing but he's bound to turn up in another Quango or similar job after the election. It just occurred to me that if the 3rd Gorst administration ends the Bailiff's dual role, some government insider will be nominated by Gorst as the new Speaker of the States. If the job can be given to a non-States Member then might it possibly be Routier?

I hope this is not the reason that he's agreed to step down today. Judging by the equivalent role in the House of Commons, whoever gets it will be on expenses and perks galore - one of the cushiest jobs in politics. They will certainly have a much more attractive pay package than a normal States Member. Please God let me be wrong on this one!  :-\

Even worse thought:

Philip Ozouf: Speaker of the States!  :o
A Better Jersey / Re: The coming election
« Last post by boatyboy on February 15, 2018, 01:23:24 AM »

Yep that is a cause for a small celebration rather like the contribution Paul Routier has made to the quality of lives of islanders over the last 20 years the word being small.

If you wish to look it up on Hansard, feel free, regarding questions of cost and the secret trial Routier at his best. Not so secret of course after John Hemmings spilt the beans in the UK Parliament naming all of Emma Martins proxy witnesses including a couple of petty convicted criminals.

Asked how much the  secret trial cost the taxpayer by  " scared of no one pitbull" ex Deputy Trevor Pitman in the Assembly, Routier stood there for twenty minutes telling amused states members it was a secret.

Yes the trial maybe said Deputy Pitman but it has to be paid for so how much has it cost the taxpayers so far ? The trial is secret burbled Routier again and again by the Senator and assistant minister doing exactly as he is told as usual by his handlers ……………………….   as the states members smiled in cheep amusement.


« Last post by Jerry Gosselin on February 15, 2018, 12:36:05 AM »
A rather miserable, cold winter's day suddenly just got a lot brighter for thousands of islanders who have been waiting to hear this news for years ...


Go celebrate people!  :)

A Better Jersey / Re: BREXIT and JERSEY ?
« Last post by boatyboy on February 14, 2018, 10:46:07 PM »

The chart is worth having a look at thanks for posting it.

It reinforces completely the post by Ednoth, Newport, United Kingdom above.

You are correct Jerry “ Since the Second World War, the Tory share of the vote has never dropped below 35% “

This is completely a different situation regarding the EU.
This is completely a different  situation where the largest number of people ever recorded  came out to vote in the UK referendum. This is about not a only a political party but a way of life and love of ones country and future.

Seven people sat in the village hall as a democratic elected ( village ) committee they took a vote 4 were for the proposal 3 were against. 
What to do next ?

Re-table the proposition for a month’s time to change the outcome  or accept that the system used is democratic and go forward - no ifs or buts. It is called democracy.
Going back to the chart and the discussion,  the point being that in the last election in 2015 Labour got 30.4% of the total vote and Tories got 36.9 winning 331 seats over labours 232.

If  T.May and her cabinet mess up Brexit,  then unlike Jersey the media and many of the seventeen million referendum voters will look for revenge at the next election.
Even a mere 20% Tory swing will see the economically incompetent  Labour party in power.
I agree that the Conservatives may recover after a long time, but the point is they will be dismissed from meaningful power.

The UK with a Labour left wing marxist Government how would that help little Jersey and its finance industry - never popular with the Corbin crowd.

A Better Jersey / Re: BREXIT and JERSEY ?
« Last post by boatyboy on February 14, 2018, 03:47:19 PM »

The Tory vote will always thrive - in the millions, thousands enough to win an election, I am not at all sure and your statement is light weight and meaningless ?

You missed the point completely Jerry,  if half of disillusioned tory voters, decided to vote labour or for any other party,
then the tory party would clearly be removed from office. People have a way of punishing those that lied or proved to be weak leaders damaging the country and quality of life for its people.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10