Author Topic: erstwhile Bailiff wants tougher sanctions on States members  (Read 9790 times)

Offline Mark Forskitt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
    • A View from the West

I nearly choked on my slice of teabread watching the trailer clip of an interview with the ex-Bailiff.  The unelected former Bailiff, who had no code of conduct of Bailiffs to adhere to, is calling for tougher sanctions on elected States members who break their code of conduct. Regardless of the interests or wishes of the electorate or the constituents of the member, the former Bailiff wants to make it easier to suspend them from the States. 

Now I realise it’s a rather quaint notion, but my elected representatives are my representatives.  They are not the Bailiff’s appointed advisors.  It is my decision, along with my co-constituents, to suspend or indeed to laud the actions of my representatives.  It is certainly not for the unelected Bailiff to decree that I should have my representation in the house curtailed.  If a member is to be suspended or otherwise barred from the house, then that should be done by a recall mechanism of the voters of that members constituency, and not enacted until a replacement is elected to step in immediately.  I'll make an exception for the grim reaper though.

Offline Chevalier Blanc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1850
Re: erstwhile Bailiff wants tougher sanctions on States members
« Reply #1 on: July 07, 2009, 11:10:47 PM »
I will have to agree with all you have stated, i believe in the history of our island but i do not like unelected persons to be able to suspend a member of the States.

Offline Dylan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1672
  • HELP!
Re: erstwhile Bailiff wants tougher sanctions on States members
« Reply #2 on: July 07, 2009, 11:29:51 PM »
I nearly choked on my slice of teabread watching the trailer clip of an interview with the ex-Bailiff.  The unelected former Bailiff, who had no code of conduct of Bailiffs to adhere to, is calling for tougher sanctions on elected States members who break their code of conduct. Regardless of the interests or wishes of the electorate or the constituents of the member, the former Bailiff wants to make it easier to suspend them from the States. 

Now I realise it’s a rather quaint notion, but my elected representatives are my representatives.  They are not the Bailiff’s appointed advisors.  It is my decision, along with my co-constituents, to suspend or indeed to laud the actions of my representatives.  It is certainly not for the unelected Bailiff to decree that I should have my representation in the house curtailed.  If a member is to be suspended or otherwise barred from the house, then that should be done by a recall mechanism of the voters of that members constituency, and not enacted until a replacement is elected to step in immediately.  I'll make an exception for the grim reaper though.


Pray, what IS teabread?
!dereggub si draobyek ym kniht I

Offline stoofa

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
Re: erstwhile Bailiff wants tougher sanctions on States members
« Reply #3 on: July 07, 2009, 11:35:40 PM »
While I agree in principal, what practical mechanism does, or can exist, for the electorate directly removing a states member while in office?

As much as I like the ideal that the electorate alone would have the power to remove a states member from office, i'm less keen on the idea that a states member can do whatever they like for their period of office once voted in without any fear of consequences prior to the next election. There has to be a mechanism for taking action against members if they are acting in a manner which is seriously against the public interest.

I'm not commenting on what would constitute such behaviour at this point, or where that power should rest. Doubtlessly there are as many opinions on where that particular line in the sand would be drawn as there are posters.


Offline Mark Forskitt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
    • A View from the West
Re: erstwhile Bailiff wants tougher sanctions on States members
« Reply #4 on: July 07, 2009, 11:46:15 PM »
While I agree in principal, what practical mechanism does, or can exist, for the electorate directly removing a states member while in office?

As much as I like the ideal that the electorate alone would have the power to remove a states member from office, i'm less keen on the idea that a states member can do whatever they like for their period of office once voted in without any fear of consequences prior to the next election. There has to be a mechanism for taking action against members if they are acting in a manner which is seriously against the public interest.

I'm not commenting on what would constitute such behaviour at this point, or where that power should rest. Doubtlessly there are as many opinions on where that particular line in the sand would be drawn as there are posters.



I am sure there must be other mechanisms too, but this is one example of how it can be done in parts of the US http://www.ehow.com/how_2096902_recall-governor.html

rogueelement

  • Guest
Re: erstwhile Bailiff wants tougher sanctions on States members
« Reply #5 on: July 08, 2009, 12:06:46 AM »
It is not just parts of the US
A President can be impeached ,removed from office , binned  removed,a la Nixon, anyone remember Watergate?

If we do not have a law to remove the criminal element from our States , it is about time we did!
I am sick of hearing about Parliamentary Priviledge, If you Fvuck up then off you go. They are mostly useless tosspots at any rate and I would be glad to be rid of the self serving ,can I say bastards?

Offline Dylan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1672
  • HELP!
Re: erstwhile Bailiff wants tougher sanctions on States members
« Reply #6 on: July 08, 2009, 12:11:05 AM »
It is not just parts of the US
A President can be impeached ,removed from office , binned  removed,a la Nixon, anyone remember Watergate?

If we do not have a law to remove the criminal element from our States , it is about time we did!
I am sick of hearing about Parliamentary Priviledge, If you Fvuck up then off you go. They are mostly useless tosspots at any rate and I would be glad to be rid of the self serving ,can I say bastards?

Don't we have the ability to subpoena in the chancery?
!dereggub si draobyek ym kniht I

Offline Mark Forskitt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
    • A View from the West
Re: erstwhile Bailiff wants tougher sanctions on States members
« Reply #7 on: July 08, 2009, 01:13:37 AM »
Pray, what IS teabread?

Gordon, I don't know of a definition. Recipes vary widely, but all are generally a lighter version of fruitcake or sweetened loaf (or buns) for taking with tea. I have a standard dried fruit recipe I use, but for a version based on fresh fruit just coming in season now try http://allrecipes.co.uk/recipe/2715/blackcurrant-teabread.aspx. Spelling is almost as variable as the recipies: teabread, tea-bread and tea bread are all in common usage.

Mark, baker of things somewhere between a fruitcake and a gingerbread man.

Offline Pomme de terre

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 914
Re: erstwhile Bailiff wants tougher sanctions on States members
« Reply #8 on: July 08, 2009, 02:49:14 AM »
Good to see you pre-empting the spelling arguments, Dr F!

ole razzy

  • Guest
Re: erstwhile Bailiff wants tougher sanctions on States members
« Reply #9 on: July 08, 2009, 03:07:35 AM »
Good post Sheriff Forskitt. I could not agree more. What's your view on the soon to be sworn in next Bailiff Michael Birt? Do ya reckon he's cut from the same cloth as PB?
« Last Edit: July 08, 2009, 04:35:57 AM by ole razzy »

Offline moot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1149
  • Gender: Male
Re: erstwhile Bailiff wants tougher sanctions on States members
« Reply #10 on: July 08, 2009, 03:15:56 AM »
The only place for a Bayleaf is in a stew ;D ::)

Saw the interview on CTV tonight. What a pompous prat !

Offline stoofa

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
Re: erstwhile Bailiff wants tougher sanctions on States members
« Reply #11 on: July 08, 2009, 04:02:55 AM »
Quote
I am sure there must be other mechanisms too, but this is one example of how it can be done in parts of the US http://www.ehow.com/how_2096902_recall-governor.html

Sounds good, but I fear in Jersey this would result in (a) the requirements being so onerous as that it would never be invoked by the electorate in practice, or (b) the opposite, with various bun-fighting states members and their friends using it to perpetually try to remove everyone else from office.

So long as the terms where it can be invoked are clear (and it is used fairly), the Baliff having power to suspend states members seems the most sensible option in many ways.


Anyhows, I now have an odd desire to bake some teabread. Could be dangerous.

Offline Mark Forskitt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
    • A View from the West
Re: erstwhile Bailiff wants tougher sanctions on States members
« Reply #12 on: July 08, 2009, 01:37:46 PM »
Good post Sheriff Forskitt. I could not agree more. What's your view on the soon to be sworn in next Bailiff Michael Birt? Do ya reckon he's cut from the same cloth as PB?
I've never had any dealings with Mr Birt.  I am very reliably informed that in their younger years the Birt and Bailhache children consorted regularly, and the families employed the same child care professional.  I don't expect any great changes.

Offline Durendal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 682
Re: erstwhile Bailiff wants tougher sanctions on States members
« Reply #13 on: July 08, 2009, 02:15:15 PM »
I nearly choked on my slice of teabread watching the trailer clip of an interview with the ex-Bailiff.  The unelected former Bailiff, who had no code of conduct of Bailiffs to adhere to, is calling for tougher sanctions on elected States members who break their code of conduct. Regardless of the interests or wishes of the electorate or the constituents of the member, the former Bailiff wants to make it easier to suspend them from the States. 

Now I realise it’s a rather quaint notion, but my elected representatives are my representatives.  They are not the Bailiff’s appointed advisors.  It is my decision, along with my co-constituents, to suspend or indeed to laud the actions of my representatives.  It is certainly not for the unelected Bailiff to decree that I should have my representation in the house curtailed.  If a member is to be suspended or otherwise barred from the house, then that should be done by a recall mechanism of the voters of that members constituency, and not enacted until a replacement is elected to step in immediately.  I'll make an exception for the grim reaper though.


Absolute tosh the Bailiff remains answerable to the Privy Council via the Home Secretary.

Surely you remember the Deputy Bailiff Vernon Tomes being removed because he did not produce judgments in a timely fashion?


Offline rico sorda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1450
  • locked & loaded lets rock rsx
Re: erstwhile Bailiff wants tougher sanctions on States members
« Reply #14 on: July 08, 2009, 02:22:43 PM »
Absolute tosh the Bailiff remains answerable to the Privy Council via the Home Secretary.

Surely you remember the Deputy Bailiff Vernon Tomes being removed because he did not produce judgments in a timely fashion?



yeah and that really works..

Vernon Tomes must have really fecked up or was made to make way for someone else...... my opininon is the old bailiff was and still is a pompus git

rs
one ban away from oblivion rsx