NO CHARITY FOR THE JERSEY THIRD SECTOR

SILKWORTH LODGE CHARITY at Scrutiny

Scrutiny has been rumbling along for the past few weeks looking at the Health and Housing White Papers and the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP).

The same Ministers and their teams of officers have been appearing more often than a number 18 bus as witnesses to explain their proposed policies.

Tomorrow (Wednesday 1 August) Sen Ozouf will be in the hot seat again to justify his MTFP before the Corporate Services Panel (3pm) and he will be followed by CM Gorst (4.30pm).

Same old PR stuff again I expect. Everything is wonderful. Times are tough but Jersey is still the leading Finance Centre in the world and our economy is as sound as a bell…

Yesterday however there was an extraordinary and different account from witnesses before the Health, Social Security and Housing Panel. The Panel consisted of just Deputies Hilton and Reed (with an adviser who mumbles his name). The witnesses were Frank Laine and Jason Wyse from the Silkworth Lodge Charity Group and they delivered a startling and shocking criticism of Health Department policies and behaviour.

Constable Murphy of Grouville sat in the public seats as an observer and Trustee of the Charity.

To say that the whole room was shocked by their account is no exaggeration.

Silkworth has been delivering an essential re-habillitation service in Jersey for alcoholics and drug users for decades.

Such is their level of expertise at Silkworth that many clients are referred to them from outside Jersey. In fact Guernsey sends more than any other agency and UK regulators say that Silkworth would be in the top three of similar establishments if it was on the mainland.

Silkworth in Jersey claims never to turn anybody away who needs help but its 12 bed spaces are costed-out at up to £2,000 each per week – although six are offered locally at £600 - and this unique service is an essential facility in this Island where alcohol and drug abuse is such a seriously destructive problem.

The “Priory” in England charges £5,000 they explained, so Silkworth is providing a top-notch service at a very reasonable cost.

Thousands of people have benefited from the work at Silkworth over the years – not just those directly treated because as the witnesses explained, the tentacles of destruction affect so many relatives and friends of those who receive treatment.

Yet the Health Department has pulled the financial bung. The Service Level Agreement appears to have been arbitrarily cancelled and no more clients have been referred to Silkworth this year by the Health Department or its agencies.

As the witnesses explained, Silkworth had actually been paid the final payment of £200,000 of public money but no more clients have been sent and as they said - any other charity would be afraid to declare this in public because it would be damaging to the relationship with government.

That was the most frightening thing because the witnesses were not just complaining about the failure of the Health Department to communicate or negotiate with them – they were also expressing disgust that the whole Jersey charitable sector was in danger of being sucked into government control. A large part of the third sector is in a state of anxiety about what is going in, with threats of withdrawal of SLAs or contracts between government and charitable providers.

And they spoke too about “Roseneath”, the Charitable home closed down before last Xmas after Health had pulled out the financial rug.

The witnesses had attempted to secure Roseneath after the failure to join with Silkworth but in spite of negotiations and meetings with Health Department officers had only just this week, read in the local media, that Health had trumped them and secured it for itself.

The irony is of course that the Health White Paper declares that it – the Health Department - will provide alcohol and drug treatment in Jersey as part of the whole new package of care in the community etc.

But who, asked the witnesses, is actually going to provide this treatment, if Silkworth does not?

We hope to return with a video report on this matter shortly….

HAPPY BIRTHDAY PRIVY COUNCIL....

Really it is my birthday too in a double sense because 30 July was also the date of my Petition to the Privy Council last year objecting to aspects of the absurd Jersey government proposals on Population, Jobs and Housing controls...

Of course nobody reveals what is happening in the corridors of power betwixt St Helier and Westminster but CM Gorst did let slip this week that the delay in implementation is related to the petition...

so cause for celebration on several counts and so I publish the petition here again approaching its first anniversary...don't send me a card or buy expensive presents please, just read and enjoy xxx

The Clerk of the Council                                                                               

Privy Council Office

2 Carlton Gardens

London SW1Y 5AA                                                                             30 July 2011 Jersey

Dear Madam,

PETITION

The States of Jersey Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law and the Names and Address Register (Jersey) Law

I the undersigned resident of the Island of Jersey hereby petitions the Committee of the Privy Council for the Affairs of Jersey and Guernsey not to recommend to Her Majesty in Council that Royal Assent be granted to the Laws entitled the States of Jersey Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law 201- and the Names and Address Register (Jersey) Law 201-, without due consideration of the reasons stated in this petition.

The Reasons for this Petition.

The Assembly of the States of Jersey has recently voted to replace existing legislation including the Housing (Jersey) Law 1949 and the Regulations of Undertaking and Development (Jersey) Law 1973 with the above named Laws.

It has been argued in the States that the new Laws will provide less complicated control over access to housing and  employment besides providing access to better information with regard to making decisions relating to migration and populations policy in Jersey.

However, the petitioner considers that the proposed Laws are intended to perpetuate existing policies that are already discriminatory and divisive and to impose yet further unreasonable limitations on the rights and freedoms of many residents or potential residents, in Jersey.

Furthermore, that the powers sought under these new laws are neither necessary nor desirable in a modern, affluent and democratic society but are rather designed to be oppressive, to create disharmony within this community and infringe universally  and internationally agreed and accepted standards.

Furthermore, since it was repeatedly argued by the proposers of these laws in the States, that they were only the beginning, and that further measures might follow, your petitioner believes very strongly that these should have been fully declared and discussed at the outset.

Also, that this legislation should, in fact, be considered to be a disguised immigration and population controlling device because such measures cannot be enacted openly within constitutional constraints existing between the peoples of the  Island and  those of the United Kingdom and other territories.

Your petitioner has been a campaigner on “human rights” issues in Jersey over many decades and notes with concern that there is still no anti-discrimination legislation in place in this Island (although it has been frequently promised locally and at Westminster) and, furthermore, there are many important international conventions and such-like that have not even been ratified for this Island.

Whilst the proposers of these Laws were required to give a statement of compatibility so far as the European Convention of Human Rights is concerned, the details of the legal advice supporting this statement were not made available (either to States Members or the public). Virtually no other discussion took place of the human rights implications of these Laws among Jersey’s tiny legal profession (which is mostly otherwise engaged in finance industry matters). As a result, neither States Members nor the electorate were enabled to discover or understand what the human rights implications of these proposals might have been.

As has been demonstrated in recent UK court cases regarding (for example), the Chagos Islanders and those of Sark, the liability for the upholding of human rights standards in such places as Jersey is not just a matter for the Islands own governments and administrations. That liability now clearly runs through UK institutions such as the Privy Council Committee for the Affairs of Jersey and Guernsey and possibly beyond.

Such liabilities can therefore be raised and challenged in UK courts.

Not only does this, by itself, raise profound constitutional issues so far as the residents of Jersey and other places are concerned but it must also be considered that the UK government has ratified many international conventions and treaties which have not been ratified for Jersey. Thus the implications for those seeking redress against a grievance arising under the proposed Laws are much wider than just those protected under the European Convention of Human Rights.

There may also be specific implications so far as the European Union is concerned - since the discriminatory measures enacted under these Laws apply to citizens of the Union who might otherwise have full rights of settlement and abode in British territories elsewhere. EU citizens, in this context might be from the UK, as well as any of the other nations within this organisation and there are different – possibly discriminatory – standards that apply to citizens of other Crown Dependencies, Overseas British Territories or from foreign countries.

The complexities that might arise from the application of these Laws have not been adequately discussed in Jersey and are too numerous to describe in this submission. However, it is evident that many existing residents of Jersey might be subject to retrospective decision making and that existing and future residents might be liable to have important licences or permits revoked or changed. Such decisions might also be taken in accordance with policies that are not clearly defined under these Laws but rely on some vague “aspiration” to control population numbers or immigration.

In this context it must be emphasised that Jersey’s government has operated since 1945 with a central policy based upon economic and population growth. Thus, although existing laws such at the Housing (J) Law 1949 and the Regulations and Undertakings  (J) Laws have included powers to restrict the ownership and occupation of housing accommodation or employment opportunities – the population has been deliberately increased from about 50,000 to the current 92,000 (winter) residents. It is currently proposed to increase the population to 100,000 residents – yet the Laws proposed are deliberately designed to restrict the occupation of proper housing accommodation or to deny employment for many in equity with others.

Thus, the proposed Laws perpetuate discrimination as a deliberate part of the economic and social policies of the Island and there is no plan to ever adequately house the entire population (whether that might be 92,000 or 100,000) or to ensure that all residents enjoy equal employment rights or opportunities.

The application of Island Planning (building) policies, Taxation and Social Security benefits policies need also to be considered in this context because they are also designed to favour certain groups over others on the basis of age, periods of residence, employment or wealth (for example) and add-to, rather than inhibit discriminatory behaviour towards many residents of Jersey, both by government bodies and private organisations or individuals. They are inevitably to be applied in conjunction with other discriminatory laws and policies and with those now currently proposed.

Underlying the whole package of new laws and policies is the centralised data collection and identity card system that will be applied to all residents of Jersey. This raises particular concerns about privacy, confidentiality and use since the information may be freely collected and viewed between different departments, including the Police initially and perhaps all government departments, eventually. It may also be transmitted out of the Island.

Since the Jersey Identity card was only originally agreed in conjunction with the UK card system that has now been abandoned on cost and human rights grounds, the reasons in favour in this Island have not been adequately promoted or examined. This is all the more of concern since the smallness of the Jersey population and the overlapping of so many institutions will ensure that abuse through access to the central  data banks is inevitable.

Your petitioner believes that these proposed laws have not been adequately considered by the States of Jersey or the public of the Island and that their application will be harmful to the interests of the people of Jersey as well of British people and others generally.

Yours faithfully

MICHAEL DUN               

Deputy Bob Duhamel and OZO's latest cunning plan...

Click on video - Bob is there but is hiding....

M*T*F*P* Scrutiny Review Hearing No1

Today – 23 July – it was Deputy Bob Duhamel who opened the batting for the good guys v the Council of Ministers and Senator Ozouf’s latest brainwave, namely the “Mid-Term Financial Plan.”

OZO has cunningly arranged for this to be sprung upon the “nation” during the summer hols so that even the Environment Scrutiny Panel had only had a few hours to study the vast document.

Rest assured that the paying Jersey public will have virtually zero chance to discuss it or learn to love it or hate it before the States Assembly endorse it in October or November.

With all the current and recent “public consultations” going on with electoral, social security, housing, health, Taser issues etc – nobody but a glutton could possibly have any appetite to swallow this latest offering. And, of course OZO and his team know that very well.

As always, yours truly was the only member of the public to sit through today’s 90 minutes of concealed despair from Bob Duhamel – hung out to dry for following the CSP aims and achieving the demanded savings of 19% so it seems. Now his Planning Department just does not have the funds or resources to carry out even the minimal tasks set down in the recently agreed Island Plan!

Well and truly shafted – all in the name of USER PAYS – because as Bob explained Jersey Planning and Building Control fees are probably already the highest on the planet and they are about to be increased considerably yet again.

Never mind that Building Control fees are already down 50% on last year's and if they do not pick up there will have to be further savings or yet more price hikes.

Other Departments and their Ministers will now trudge through the same Scrutiny rooms to appear before other Panels. Tomorrow it will be Sen Le Marquand explaining why the Fire and Ambulance service will want proof of an Insurance Policy before turning out for an emergency and why the Prison is being emptied through “repatriation” to save costs.

Later in the day it will be TTS – and they are sure to be asked about their composting and scrap yard costs because Bob flagged those up today as examples of funding that will be agreed and then diverted to other uses (just a matter of £3 millions so nothing serious!).

On Thursday the Minister for Education will be looked at and perhaps he will have a cunning plan to make all schooling USER PAYS too and maybe nobody will even notice?

Raw Major Peirson project Jersey 1781-2012

A hot contender for the proposed Jersey memorial to Major Francis Peirson can be found displayed amongst all the Olympix stuff in London right now.

Presumably after all the fun and games are over the scrap merchants will be let loose to return these former "green field sites" ( in Roman times at least) to nature - just like the Plemont headland, and this little beauty will be seeking a new home?

Where better than Jersey's very own Canary  Waterfront Wharf  or how about the roundabout  in front of Lime Grove Police Station aka Ozo's Folly?

Followers of Jersey history will remember that the gallant Yorkshire-man Peirson was killed in a skirmish in the Royal square on 6 January 1781 fighting a band of French merceneries who were in turn supporting the Rebel Americans in their War of Independnce against the old Colonial British bad - guys.

Overlooking the battle on that very day was the statue of King (alias Duke of Normandy) George II just as he is today watching over the battle for Jersey Independence - now of course led by Senator Sir Philip Bailhache and his crew.

Back in history Captain Philip Bailhache commanded a couple of "Jersey privateers" to make war - officially - against the French and her allies  - but was more likely a smuggler or  loyalist spy.

His known little craft were the "Greyhound", a 30 tons cutter armed with just 2 x two pounder cannons with six swivels in the hands of twenty men. (in 1781) and the "Resolution" lugger of about the same size (probably about 40 feet long) and  similar crew in 1782 - when the now famous "Battle of Jersey" was already becoming a mere memory.

Such little vessels would often lurk around Chausey or the reefs off Jersey waiting for some lucrative catch to sail near-by and would be comparable with the Somali pirates of today.

Of course, their crews were either foolhardy, brave or maybe just desperate to make a living in a harsh economic world and there were hundreds of such vessels operating out of the Channel Islands.

Extraordinarily, there is no public space memorial to any of their commanders or crewmen who were often feted as heroes in their own life-times. What a contrast with the Corsaire City of St Malo just across the water which is proud to remember their own men such as Captains Surcouf or Duguay Trouin!

According to some sources the golden statue of King George was in fact secondhand booty too - donated by a Jersey merchant at the time to settle a debt but Jersey purists insist that it was commissioned through a London scupltor of the time.

Readers will also know that this blog is not very keen on the glorification of war or  death in battle or the whole campaign to remember the Battle of Jersey, Copley's painting and yet another proposed memorial to Francis Peirson.

Already having bronze busts, portraits, poems and a pub named after him seems enough for this man especially since his death for a colonialist cause is hardly appropriate  to celebrate today.

On the other hand we had Prince Charles ashore this week recounting his "familiy" link with the Kings and Queens of Britain over the past 800 years or so. But of course he did not remind us that King Henry the Eighth is reckoned to have had 70,000 of his subjects - besides a few wives - cruelly and  personally ordered to be executed during his reign - nor that he ordered Channel Islanders to send representatives to sit in his Parliament for Jersey and Guernsey.

There are just so many aspects of history that are overlooked when it suits the hour....

Maybe we could offer to fund the Prince and his 21st century pursuits if he revived the Duke of Normandy tiltle especially for us now as part of the Independence drive? - Now there's a new name for some tree lined avenue or other...

On the other hand, this a-sexual, raw London statue might well serve Jersey  as a memorial to all the millions of  anonymous people who have given their lives for governmental lost causes and wars over the centuries. Perhaps we should put in a bid?

All government, even at its best, is but a necessary evil

Electoral Commission

Submission from Michael Dun                                                  10 July 2012

Having sat in on part of yesterday’s hearing I am provoked to prepare this for the Commission’s consideration.

The people of Jersey need more elected representation – not less.

Parish representation.

In simple terms I would propose that the Constables’ Committee be expanded in its functions and processes to form a sort of lower level of government, with twelve Constables elected by Parishioners, all on the same day and for terms as at present or four years if necessary for consistency (the same as for members of a reformed States).

The Constables should be paid by their own Parishes at rates fixed by Parishioners and have much wider responsibilities and powers to control Parish matters such as public transport strategies and regulation, roads, street lighting, licensing matters for pubs and entertainments, honorary policing etc.

The Parish Halls should also be encouraged to develop as centres of activity and information or advice on all matters of Island life for residents and visitors.

The Committee of Constables should meet at least every month, around the Parishes in rotation, their meetings should be open to the public of the whole Island with published agenda and receive propositions for discussion etc from the general public or Parish Assemblies and serve as a conduit for written and oral communications between the Parishes and the (reformed) States Assembly.

A reformed States Assembly.

“An upper level of government” – would consist of  elected Parish Deputies and Senators – all elected for the same term (say four years) on the same day as a “general election.”

Every Parish should elect at least one Deputy but additional seats should be created (probably about four in total) for the more densely populated constituencies of the Island.

The States Assembly would be responsible primarily for all Island - “National” – matters and International issues or relationships.  So far as practicable, all “parochial” administration would be dealt with through the Parish system and under the Constables’ authority.

Senators – no more than twelve in number - would continue to be elected on an “all Island basis” for the same (four years) term as Deputies. They would receive the same salaries and terms of employment as Deputies and would be required to represent all Islanders without discrimination.

Constables would have a seat and voice in the States Assembly but no vote. Their attendance in the States would be at the Constables’ own discretion but they could be required to express a Parish Assembly viewpoint when mandated by Parishioners.

A “Chief of Constables” could be mandated by the Constables’ Committee, as a conduit to present or receive policy decisions arising between the States Assembly and the Committee.

Constables could be “co-opted” onto States’ panels or committees as consultants or advisers but would have no vote.

The election of the twelve Constables’ should take place on the same day as the States’ general election.

A Constable could not also be a Senator or Deputy.

Other necessary changes.

These reforms are proposed on the basis that other major restructuring of the Jersey government system takes place soon.

This would require, for example, the removal of all the Crown Officers from the States, the creation of a Department of Justice for Jersey and that the States’ Greffier’s Department shall provide the “Speaker” for the States Assembly.

Furthermore, that better arrangements should be initiated for the States and the public of Jersey to consult with UK Government departments directly, that Jersey’s governmental information provision to the public should be improved and that a fully funded “Ombudsman” service, with wide terms of reference be introduced to replace the wholly ineffective “Complaints Board” system of administrative review.

I shall be pleased to amplify these suggestions if required by the Commission.

During Senator Ozouf’s oral presentation he touched upon the current vagueness about the status of the “States” as the government of Jersey. This was a matter that attracted some attention during the “Lord Carswell” examination of the role of the Crown Officers and there is a need to carry out much wider reforms than the current terms of reference seem to demand.

The government of Jersey also takes place in other locations, forums and institutions beyond the boundary of the Bailiwick.

This need also should require a comprehensive re-appraisal in accordance with international (human rights) standards of Jersey’s system of elections and democratic representation.

The method of selection of the Chief Minister (and the status of that appointment) also needs to be reviewed and reformed.

Taking part in the conduct of public affairs is a basic human right established under the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (both ratified for Jersey) and the (ECHR) European Convention on Human Rights (incorporated locally as the Human Rights (J) Law in 2006).

Elections alone (even fair ones), do not constitute a democracy.

The international standards on elections include the rights:

To take part in government

To vote and to be elected

To equal access to public service …without discrimination of any kind such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, natural or social origin, property, birth or other status.

The electorate must also have the ability to remove a government when necessary.

Other rights are crucial to the enjoyment of a meaningful electoral process – especially during elections – such as freedom of expression, of information, of assembly, of association and of movement as well as freedom from intimidation.

In a small community, with only one Island newspaper, and no local restraints over standards of broadcasters or journalists, there are special difficulties in achieving fairness in many of these matters.

Each vote should also have the same weight and electoral districts must be organised on an equitable basis.

As the most recent Deputies’ election revealed, there are also uncertainties about contesting the results of an election and this procedure demands clarification, at least.

That prisoners in Jersey (unlike Guernsey) are denied the right to vote appears to be in breach of Article 3 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR following the decision in Hirst v UK.

This could have further implications so far as any Referendum is concerned with the results of this Commission’s findings but it is the UK as High Contracting Party, not the Jersey “government” (whatever this might be), that must ultimately reform Jersey practice, in line with the

European Court

’s decision and the requirements of the Convention on many diverse matters.

This constitutional oddity raises its own cause for concern that needs to be addressed since the population of Jersey has no vote in the choice of the High Contracting Party aka UK Parliament or its institutions.

Similarly, it is estimated that 20,000 people with Jersey “housing qualifications”actually live outside of the Island yet they appear to have no right to vote in Island elections. Why not? In the absence of a “Jersey nationality” status it may be difficult to otherwise demonstrate a close association with Jersey but “foreign nationals” can vote here and in the elections of other places.

There is also a legitimate call for “Foreign Nationals” to be able to stand for election in Jersey subject to several years’ residence – so why should the 20,000 with such strong links be denied the Jersey vote and how might this substantial denial affect the legitimacy of the whole election process?

The lack of political parties in Jersey is not merely a curiosity because they are a fundamental part of the democratic process in most places. Without them it is recognised that the task of “changing government” is doubly difficult so that in order to comply with Protocol 1 requirements (for example) there has to be a more deliberate effort to encourage political participation by diverse classes of people. Adequate terms of remuneration and the provision of pensions with proper working facilities for all members of the “government” are essential.

Equally so is a framework of protective legislation against private or public employers (for example) who might hinder employees’ participation in political, social reforming activities or in forming or promoting Trades Unions.

The Sark example demonstrates that the use of Parliamentary powers is not just a theoretical threat since ECHR and UK High Court judgments (following McGonnel  and Barclay Brothers) have been “imposed” upon that Island to ensure compliance with electoral standards in accordance with Article 3 of Protocol 1.

Similarly, following the ECHR case of Matthews v UK, the people of the Dependency of Gibraltar now participate in EU elections as voters in a UK South West constituency, in order to comply with the same ECHR Protocol requirements.

It is significant that the

European Court

accepted that the EU Parliament has now evolved into a “government” over the years in which the people of Gibraltar must have the right to take part etc. The Court acknowledged the increased role in law-making of the EU Parliamentary process and its direct impact on the people of Gibraltar.

It becomes ever more difficult in Jersey to argue that the UK and EU Parliaments do not act as governments or legislatures for the Island whereas so many decisions are made (on everyday matters such as health treatment, travel, passports or taxation) outside the Bailiwick, in London, Brussels or elsewhere.

Why are residents of Jersey not represented in those parts of “government”?

This seems to be yet another question that this Commission should be considering.

 “A” revised 11 July 2012

TAX AVOIDANCE, CORRUPTION and CRISIS CONFERENCE

Organised by AABA (the Association for Accountancy and Business Affairs, TJN (Tax Justice Network) the Centre for Global Accounting at Essex Business School the Conference took place on 5 and 6 July 2012 at the University of Essex and attracted an audience and speakers from all over the world.
Professor Prem Sikka of Essex Universioty welcomed those present and introduced the first session.

The following interviews are with just some of the many participants at the Conference and are subject to the vagaries of weather, lighting, background noise and so on - but will hopefully serve to confirm just how much concern there is across the world about these most important international issues.

For more information consult;
http://.aabaglobal.org/


Richard Murphy introduction:

Uddhab Prassad Pyakurel (Nepal)

A Norwegian TU view

Daniel MacKenzie (UK)

Ofer Sitbon & Moran Harari (Israel)

Alan Deneault (Canada)

RECIPE to reform Jersey's States ...Firstly take 6 Crown Officers and discard...

Playing the role of Bailiff in a Bailiwick must be among the ultimate ambitions of any Jersey political prima donna. Sir Philip Bailhache claimed  before Lord Carswell that there had been 87 Bailiffs over the years  so there has been no shortage of volunteers for the job but he was the first ex-Bailiff to try to become Chief Minister.

That he was thwarted by Senator Gorst in achieving that ambition at the last hurdle does not seem to have hindered his political ambitions however, since like Putin formerly in Moscow, he rules from the shadows. Sir Philip already now roams the world speaking to the great and powerful as Jersey's "Foreign Secretary".

Quaintly,  in his role as Chairman of the Electoral Commission he is a known advocate of a return to feudal values with a States Assembly built around twelve harmless Parochial Constables and wholly subservient to the Crown Officers.

This was the battle that Thomas Gruchy and his supporters won on 28 September 1769 when they overthrew the old system of government dominated by these officers and the Bailiff in particular.

Bailhache is trying to return Jersey government to eighteenth century standards of non-democracy and he wants a drastically reduced number of elected States Members who all agree with the official line. The Constables are of course the traditional basis of such an unchallenging assembly.

Yet Sir Philip at the same time is known to favour "Independence" for Jersey so that the Bailiff et al would be able to wear their ermine trimmed cloaks immune from challenge by the plebs here or any unpleasant governments elsewhere. Of course the finance industry wants to be able to fiddle away without restraint but it is a dream based upon long dead realities.

Independence would require that yet more elected members will be needed to meet all the international challenges that would arise. Far from reducing the number (or calibre) of States Members that will be needed this move must demand a huge increase in government duties and the staff that administer them.

Even without independence, this Island already needs more rather than fewer States Members to properly address all the domestic, national or international issues that arise in a changing world. Of course, by ignoring such international responsibilities as human rights truly demand - the Island will find itself slipping further behind the rest of the world both morally, economically and politically. Isolation is the most likely result which hardly sounds like the base for an international looking finance industry...

The removal of the Crown Officers - Lt Governor, Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff, Dean, Attorney and Solicitor Generals - from the States has already been examined by the lawyer dominated "Lord Carswell" Inquiry and of course will not happen for as long as the likes of Sir Philip strut the corridors of pwer.

Nevertheless, for what it is worth I publish here my Part Two (of three) submissions to Lord Carswell for those that are tired of trying to find savings among the elected States Members or to turn the  fundamentally flawed Assembly into something fit for the 21st century....

...Alas the gremlins won't let me publish my Part Two submission so if you want to read that you must try to find the Lord Carswell file on the States gov. internet system - and the best of luck to you.

My own version of Part Two has been somehow taken over by Adobe and appears in a jumbled form when pasted on this blog - if anybody knows how to overcome that problem I shall be pleased to learn how...perhaps the eighteeenth century was not so bad after all...