Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
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.
Did Senator Philip Ozouf give the Tory party £1000 of his own money or yours at a Tory Party fund raising event dinner  ?

When the Jersey Government have one of their own being investigated by the police for possibly “ using their States given expense card for personal spending there is another and interesting big spend that so far has possibly not be exposed or checked by the States committee (PPC)  that is supposed to uphold standards expected of the great and good that have been elected and trusted with access to the public purse.

Maybe the police are investigating.

If a states committee decides to sponsor  a charity, a rugby team or in fact anything it will be a committee or ministerial democratic decision using public money.

Should a politician decide to make a donation to any political party or preferred charity, there should be no problem if that comes from the pocket of the politician and not the taxpayer who may have different political preferences.
So who paid the one thousand pounds for Senator Ozouf to attend a fund raiser for the Conservative Party ?

The table plan shows:

Seats with senior Tories came at a cost: “premier” tickets were charged at £1,000 compared with £450 for an ordinary ticket.
*Peter de Putron, an offshore financier who is brother-in-law of financial services minister Andrea Leadsom, was seated with health secretary Jeremy Hunt and Jersey’s
Treasury minister, Philip Ozouf.
[ Spelling correction by myself ]

This certainly should have been picked up by Jersey’s media who are supposed to ask questions on behalf of the residents of Jersey and how their tax pound is spent.

General Discussion / JEC and Housing
« Last post by Fritz on October 11, 2017, 12:47:12 AM »
I,ve just read somewhere that the JEC is 68% States owned.
Does that mean that their housing stock is also States, (Andium Homes), owned?
There is a whole estate at the top of Queens Rd consisting of many houses and flats.
Do 68% of these now fall under Andium,s control?
If so. How is the 68% defined. Is it a percentage of the actual number of properties or a percentage of each individual property?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10