Tuesday, December 19, 2017

"Apple - the Symbol of Sin" in Jersey aka the Paradise Island

Apple has been the forbidden fruit - the "symbol of sin" ever since Adam & Eve emerged from the Garden of Eden.....
Yet the search for the modern-day £millions of the Apple Corporation  continues and on  the very same day ( 16 December 2017) that ATTAC France  came to Jersey looking for the modern Apple £millions in the Island (that some call the Garden of Eden aka Paradise)....

...yet another "major hoard" of ancient buried treasure was front-page news in the Jersey Evening Post.

So ATTAC were in Jersey looking for the Apple millions in this little Island but this has been the hiding place for thousands of years for "secret treasure" because other similar burials have been found over many years.

Already the local Jersey museum has been cleaning the huge bag of buried gold coins and jewellery discovered just five years ago and now reckoned to be worth many £millions.

But of course the question is who buried these treasures in the first place 2,000 years ago and who do they belong to now?

Obviously Jersey has been a hiding-place for "hidden treasure" for a very long time and the "Tax haven" business is very long established.
Perhaps these treasures are the true "pommes de terre" for which Jersey likes to be famous?
Maybe this ancient Breton gold was the profit from some historic apple cyder-making business 2,000 years ago - who knows - but maybe ATTAC must dig in the farmyards of Jersey rather than knocking on the doors of the Jersey lawyers and banks...

If ATTAC does find the Apple Corporation loot - or the buried treasure from thousands of other businesses and individuals here or around the word in the hundreds of other little "finance centres" - what will they do with it?

Who does it all really belong to and how might the wealth be more properly shared....?

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Guardians of the Jersey Constitution - big prize competition


Can you identify the Jersey Bailiffs above?
If so your name can be entered in the Referendum next year.
Please Note this competition is only open to persons whose families have been in Jersey since 1066.

Saturday, October 28, 2017

Submission of MIchael Dun to the Planning Inspector's examination of the Proposed new hospital scheme for Jersey in November 2017


The Jersey proposed New Hospital – Submission to the Planning Inquiry                                   Page 1

From Michael Dun                                                                                                                   September 2017.


This is my written submission by e-mail to planning@gov.je and should be considered in conjunction with the attached video links.

The video links are my recordings made of the inadequate so called public consultation process over the past 2 years – including my interviews with the Minister for Health and others on the “design team.”

These are prepared and submitted in accordance with the Jersey Government’s e-gov policy to encourage improved communications.



1) “Let’s just get on with it” sums up the current thinking behind the proposed new hospital. Although this is the most important and costly building project ever known in Jersey – the discussions have been so prolonged and contradictory that the general public and many in government are just “sick” of the whole thing.


2) The public is so reluctant to comment for this Planning Review that extra time has been allowed by the Minister to try to draw out public opinion.


3) The lack of independent professional comment by architects, designers and medical practitioners since 2012 has been deplorable. The general public has received little or no learned alternative guidance because of a professional “omerta.”


4) It is evident that a few individuals in government have exercised their own capricious and personal preferences behind the scenes to influence and change the budget, financing, timescale, location and design of this project throughout its progress.


5) The history of the official discussions is set out adequately in the Scrutiny Sub Panel Report from November 2016 (SR 7/2016) and I do not propose to repeat that.


6) The Scrutiny Report refers to the failure of this project to include for the “whole design programme for health and services” in Jersey.

This is a fundamental omission that must not be ignored.


7) The substantial reforms that are proposed in the provision of primary care and the needs of the aging population and suchlike have been much talked about but there are minimal plans only for their funding or implementation.

Without such plans being known, costed and agreed, the design proposal for the new hospital is virtually useless.


8) The extra patient costs to be imposed through consulting GPs, physiotherapists, dentists and many more  “primary care” providers  and engaging home care services is a deceitful part of the  whole covert “user pays” strategy.

The range of services to be, or not to be provided within the new hospital, is not explained.

Some existing services and staffing are already inadequate and underfunded.

Many people already try to use A & E facilities because they cannot afford to consult GPs or others for so called “primary care” but which should be provided within a hospital facility.


9) The majority of Jersey’s population does not own the accommodation they live in and are not empowered to make alteration to suit their disabilities or illnesses.

                                                                                                                                                               Page 2

10) Most accommodation is inadequate for “caring” purposes. It’s not just an “aging problem”.

11) 12,000 working adults (and their children) – about one fifth of the working population – do not have “housing qualifications” and must live in the worst accommodation  and so are the least enabled to care for themselves  when injured or ill. They tend to work in the most hazardous and low paid jobs and are already liable to the extra stresses of poverty and poor housing. This is a matter identified in the recent Report of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry.


12) “Function dictates form” is especially true for a hospital but the functions to be provided with this project have not been adequately quantified or determined.


13) There is no provision at all for so called “mental health” treatment.


14) The future uses of major parts of the existing structures are not resolved.  The Granite Block is to be kept supposedly because it is listed but its future purpose is not determined.

The future uses of Overdale and St Saviour’s Hospital are not defined.


15) Existing staff accommodation at Westaway Court is to be converted to form a remote and inadequate “out patients” department.


16) There is no certain plan for future provision of staff accommodation or staff recruitment although these two are integrally linked factors.


17) Since 2012 there has been endless discussion about the choice of the site but the alternative options have never been fully explored in public and the hospital needs of Islanders remain uncertain and undetermined.


18) The current choice of location seems to be motivated primarily by the fact that the hospital already occupies this town site and an absurd belief that most people who will use the hospital live within “walking distance.”


19) No Access Strategy has been prepared that I am aware of.

This is especially strange for such an important facility which caters primarily for people with disabilities and illnesses.


20) Access to and within the site is not clearly determined.

Parking provision is vague for patients, visitors, staff, emergency, delivery and maintenance vehicles.


21) The existing road patterns are seriously inadequate and will not be improved. 

Gloucester Street especially is a noisy main road which is busy day and night and is devoid of any desirable design characteristics. This development will ensure its preservation for many future decades.


22) It is difficult to predict future medical and technological changes so any new hospital design has to allow for this. To a large extent the current buildings need to be replaced because they do not accommodate change easily - but it is not just about technological advances.




                                                                                                                                                                     Page 3


23) Attempting to build this new hospital within the same cartilage as the existing whilst it remains in business will surely create totally predictable problems for the users of the facilities and the design and construction teams. The new hospital should evidently be built somewhere else.


24) The French Connection was much talked about 5 years ago and how Jersey patients could be treated in that country. But already, even before the outcome of BREXIT is known, French providers are refusing to submit tenders for the provision of treatments.


25) The most favoured Oxford hospital recently closed its trauma unit because of design defects revealed following the Grenfell fire. Thus, for many reasons “off Island” referrals are not to be relied upon for such a major long term provision.


26) The reliance upon inadequate transport links for “off island” treatment is wholly optimistic. The sea and air carriers do not provide a sufficiently reliable or affordable service and are susceptible to weather extremes.  They are often not user friendly, especially for disabled travellers.


27) The air-lines serving Jersey tend to be financially precarious using smaller aircraft which have inadequate access or toilet provision – if any.


28) It is sometimes necessary to close Victoria Avenue or nearby parks for emergency helicopter access.

Such emergency access should be included within a new hospital.


29) If a disaster of Grenfell proportions did occur in Jersey it is doubtful if adequate hospital facilities could be provided “on Island.” 

But, it is realistic to design for major outbreaks of illness or a serious accident and this proposal seems to be “downsizing” rather than enhancing space, capacity and skills.


30) The “WOW FACTOR.”

The Minister for the Environment has today declared that the whole Waterfront area lacks an architectural “wow factor” and is boring.

I do not disagree but I wonder how he has belatedly arrived at this conclusion but more particularly how the New Hospital might achieve the highest standards of design that it warrants.


31) There is certainly no evidence so far of any desire to produce an “Iconic” building.

Rather the whole process so far has been centred upon squeezing almost anything into a location which is totally unsuitable, already congested and without attempting to improve the amenities of the area.


32) The prevailing “let’s just get on with it” attitude is guaranteed to produce yet another massive development failure.



My video links can be accessed on a separate page.                                                            END 3 of 3



Jersey proposed New Hospital  -  Compilation August 2017

VIDEOS by Mike Dun 2016 and 2017.


1 - REVISED SCHEME (Current project )

Environmental Impact Assessment

2017 - 18 May   https://youtu.be/hx5cYluiXSU


2 - Interview with Minister (Current project)

2016 – 3 August   https://youtu.be/L4RpZP0qQcM


3 - Current Project – overview including computer animation (Current project)

2016 – 3 August   https://youtu.be/BZ211s_DSSQ


4 - Interview with Minister following States decision – Now 3 sites (Part 1)

2016 – 23 February    https://youtu.be/tun0p2JDLV8


5 - Interview with Minister following States decision – Now 3 sites (Part 2)

2016 – 23 February   https://youtu.be/0zib_CPs34w


6 - Demo in Royal Square and defeat of People’s Park project (Part 1)

2016 – 23 February   https://youtu.be/FiFqmsxw9hY


7 - Demo in Royal Square and defeat of People’s Park project (Part 2)

2016 – 23 February  https://youtu.be/yVGM6ZJs-lw


8 - Demo in the mud at People’s Park

2016 – 22 February   https://youtu.be/UZPoC-9l9s4


9 - Proposed hospital in People’s Park – “Why?” in two Parts (Part 1)

2016 – 8 February   https://youtu.be/Gm1OC_UG52c


10 - Proposed hospital in People’s Park – “Why?” in two parts (Part 2)

2016 – 8 February   https://youtu.be/TOMvxYc6OQc


11 - Proposed hospital in People’s Park – “Where?” in three parts (Part A)

2016 – 8 February   https://youtu.be/G1pEuEy9t9k


12 - Proposed hospital in People’s Park – “Where?” in three parts (Part B)

2016 – 8 February   https://youtu.be/DMfSBq43Th4


13 - Proposed hospital in People’s Park – “Where?” in three parts (Part C)

2016 – 8 February   https://youtu.be/gpcPkbVLfSY


14 - FOOTNOTE Why Architectural Competitions?  

A discussion recorded at the Association of Jersey Architects Design Awards

And UK Stirling Prize in Jersey

2015 – 15 September 2015   https://youtu.be/MdXvaPEkmsA

 NB the Planning Inspector declined to include the videos as part of my submission.

Nominations for Jersey Parish Constables in the 2014 election


Ref: PFOI-2017-1018

16 October 2017


It would be appreciated if you supply the names of all those who nominated or proposed Constables for the 2014 election in each of the 12 Parishes.



Parish Candidates for Connétable - October 2014 election Proposers:
St Brelade Stephen William Pallett Exempt under Article 23 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011.
St Clement Leonard Norman Maureen Olive Hamel, Alan J Le Breton, Trevor K Le Sueur, Terence John Le Main, Jean Beryl Chapman, Norma Jean McNeice, Robert Arthur Youngs, Allyn Costandine Reid, Lynne Christine Hind and David William Peacock.
Grouville John Edward Le Maistre Mark Labey; Sharon Eddie; David Morgan; Nicholas Parlett; John Le Gresley; Helen Isobel Chambers; Alfred Paisnel; Kay Viney; Christopher Renouf; Drew Livingston.
St Helier Alan Simon Crowcroft Clive Neil Stewart Barton MBE; Stewart Mourant; Magdalena Chmielewska; Pierre Francois Horsfall; Andre Domenico Ferrari; Stephanie Claire Nicolle; Iain MacFirbhisigh; Manuela Vieira; Eliot Lincoln; James Roy Spriggs.
St John Christopher Hugh Taylor Michael Robottom; Edith Ann Pulley; James Wade Godfrey; Gwen Batho; Jeanette Bailhache; James Maxwell Allan; Michael Coutanche; Mick Rondel; Rita Pinel; Emma Bennett.
St Lawrence Deidre Wendy Mezbourian Brian Philip Raffray; Caroline Lyette Evans; Margaret June Howard; Christine Eve Journeaux; Gerald John Le Brun; Susan Elizabeth Kerley; David Edward Le Cornu; Derek Philip Le Maistre; Alfred Stanley Pipon; Alan Paul Reed.
St Martin Michel Philip Sydney Le Troquer Raymond Leslie Le Cornu; John Gerard Poole; Trevor Francis Green; Norma Batchelor; Madelene Marie Le Corre; Judith Fiona Eden; Percival Charles Gicquel; Daniel Anthony Mahony; Alan Edward Mollet; Leslie Allo.
St Mary Juliette Gallichan
Anthony James Gilbert; Kiran Patel; Gordon Herve; Colin Archibald Storm; Anthony John Staples; David Vincent Langlois; Clare Duval; Emma Bennetts; Margaret Lily Baudains; Terence Graeme Gallichan.
  John Michael Le Bailly
Stephen Cole; John Clarence Huelin; Kenneth Raymond Le Marquand; Alan John Moullin; Cynthia Mary Cotillard; Alan Victor Le Breton; Robin Noel Pittman; Martin de Gruchy; Ivor Eldon Barette; Peter Le Rossignol.
St Ouen Michael John Paddock Edward John Syvret, Valerie Remon, Ronald John Vibert, Basil George Carre, Michelle Gail Cuthbert, Doreen Schofield-Fost, Laurence Armstrong, Neville William Bell Briggs, Jane Alison Reed, Brian David Padfield.
St Peter John Martin Refault David Edward Payn, Martin John Willing, Kathleen Isobel Dougan, Clifford Alfred Blanchet, Jean Margaret Vibert, Gordon Pollock, Christine Amanda Tostevin, James Osmund Simon, Neville Henry Renouf, David William Drage.
St Saviour Sadie Anthea Le Sueur-Rennard Steven Laffoley-Edwards; Barry de la Mare; Lisa Frances Cantrell; Lynda Le Gallais; Anne Teresa Garnier; Anthony Philip Stevens; Maureen Ann St. George; Jamie Roy Laffoley-Edwards; John Etienne; Robert Charles Duhamel.
Trinity Philip Bond Le Sueur Frederick John Benest; Philip Joesph Austin; Lewis John Rondel; William Peter Corson; Peter John Davis; Mary Elizabeth Dunford; Brian George Dorey Richardson; David Owen Reynolds; John Hedley Moulin; Andrea Howell.

St Brelade declined to provide info for the FOI list - so it had to be extracted from the Parish Web-Site
St Brelade  Constable Stephen William Pallett; Proposer Julian Alexander Bernstein ; Seconders - Derek Roy Hart, Edward Le Gros, Colin Bichard, Joy Rachel Hart, Maureen Morel-Orchard, John William Trafford, James Bevis, Michael Amy and Gordon Wright

NB The only contested election was at St Mary so there are 2 candidates for Constable and Juliette Gallichan was elected.

Wednesday, June 28, 2017

Fire Safety - not much of a priority at Scrutiny yet...

Somewhat slowly Jersey authority is beginning to wake up to the reality that the Kensington Tower Block fire might have serious implications for public safety in this Island.

That the Fire Service has already asked Andium Homes to produce cladding samples from their High Rise flats - in spite of Andium's smug assurances that they are safe - the problem is evidently more far-reaching so far as many other buildings in Jersey are concerned.
The much wider concern is also about staircases, sprinklers, materials, emergency services provision, building regulations and competence of designers and managers of all classes of buildings and so on and I have already asked for a Scrutiny Review to be set up ASAP with wide terms of reference.

Already in the UK schools are being examined and in this Island where  so many buildings - homes, offices, entertainment places - are "crammed" into St Helier the dangers are always present and there have over the years been some major local fire incidents.
 Hotels, lodging houses and "care homes" are particularly vulnerable places and it would tragic if Jersey tried to opt out of the current national and international investigation triggered by the Kensington disaster.

Unfortunately at yesterday's  Scrutiny Panel quarterly review of the Home Affairs Ministry ( 27 June 2017) there was little evidence of any great investigative enthusiasm - although the Kensington fire was raised and briefly discussed.

Sadly this Panel composed of just two Deputies - Mezec and Vallois - was more like a polite TV chat show than a challenging examination of a government and its policies. In fact, although scheduled to run from 2pm until 3.30pm  the Panel (chaired by Dep Mezec) ran out of questions so the hearing ended at 3.10pm.

Nevertheless the Fire Service representative  (I could not hear his name) did reveal that due to cost cutting the Fire Prevention service has already been virtually closed and there is still a 15 months backlog in processing fire certificates by Fire Protection staff in accordance with laws introduced in 2013.

This officer confirmed  that Andium have been asked to produce cladding samples and other classes of buildings were on his agenda but he revealed that extra specialist staff from the UK would need to be brought into Jersey to cope with the anticipated increased work.

The Panel seemed totally unprepared to ask searching questions on this or any other topic on their scripted agenda and mumbled something about trusting  the Minister of Housing because she is charged with upgrading the standards of housing accommodation in Jersey.
Some hopes I thought - but as always it was at times difficult to hear what was being said due to poor diction, acoustics and lack of a sound system.

Even the layout of the proceedings had reverted to the former defective one with the Panel having their backs to the outside wall whilst the witnesses (Minister Moore and team) had their back towards the public. Since the Minster speaks very quietly at the best of times it was often almost impossible to follow what she and her advisers had to contribute.

(The improved layout had been achieved only following complaints from yours truly in the past so a further memo will have to be sent to usual place. It is all very tedious.)

If a comprehensive Scrutiny Review is set up in Jersey  to look at the issues arising from the Kensington fire it will need to be somewhat better briefed and prepared than this rather dismal hearing.
The public will need to be fully involved too and there must be no attempt to brush failings under the carpet - in the Jersey Way - to "protect the Island's reputation".

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

CM Gorst speaking on the "Eradication of Poverty in Jersey" at the Caritas Lecture. 13 June 2017

Here follows CM Gorst's lecture in 3 parts on the Eradication of Poverty.

Other lectures have been recorded at this event and will be posted in due course - but unfortunately the lighting is not very good.

Part one above

Part two above

Part three above

Total play time about 26 minutes (10 plus 10 plus 6 Minutes.)

Monday, May 22, 2017

Electoral Reform 2017 - Written submission of Michael Dun to the Scrutiny Sub-Panel dated 20 May.

Here is my written submission to the Electoral Reform 2017 Sub-Panel.
The public is invited to attend the public hearings that are taking place in some Parishes and to make written submissions before 25 May.

Some members of the public are invited to appear before the Sub-Panel to explain their submissions further and I have asked to be invited.....

Electoral Reform 2017.

Response to Corporate Services Scrutiny Sub-Panel from Michael Dun.         20 May 2017

1 The public has belatedly been invited to comment on proposed complex Electoral changes that will be debated and voted on by the States Assembly in a few weeks.

There is inadequate time or information available.

2 The proposals  are supposed to address shortcomings in the existing system of “representation” but although States Members have been kicking such ideas around for 17 years it still remains unclear what the defects actually are or whether these or any other reforms might address them.

3 The public is invited to comment upon the proposals as published and not to deviate into other matters.

Such a constraint is unreasonable for many reasons – not least because the means of implementation of the various proposals are not yet determined and in any case the implications of impacts arising from the reforms are impossible to predict.

4 The proposers of the reforms claim that these reforms are just a step forward and that further – but undefined reform - must follow in due course.

5 Such degrees of uncertainty are not fit to be presented to the electorate to comment upon - nor for their “elected representatives” to vote on.

6 Although the reforms are presented in the name of “fairer representation” (for example), to address specific inequalities arising from numerical differences in the sizes of constituencies and their geographical distribution – the proposals will not eliminate these inequalities.

7 The “Venice Commission,” although often referred to in support of the proposals by some, is in fact optional and as a mere advisory “code” can and will be ignored as it suits.

8 Although there is one option to reduce the number of seats in the States to 44 – for reasons which are unclear – this option is tied to another proposal that removes the eight Senators.

So, the complex reforms are offered as a sort of Pick n’ Mix and thus defy logical discussion.

9 The role of Senators is supposedly to be justified for retention by others on the basis of an “all Island mandate” which – like so many terms and expressions being used – is meaningless.

10 No States Member or category of Members can be “mandated” by the electorate - either at the time of election or during the term of an Assembly.

11 Ironically, the Chair of the PPC Committee was “mandated” by the States Assembly to prepare the Propositions for the current proposals and to present them to the States, but does not personally support them.

He has already confirmed to this Sub-Panel that he believes that one class of States Member only is desirable.

12 Another expression widely used but totally meaningless is the “Parish System”.

By sprinkling this around liberally - like magic dust from Pater Pan - any discussion of the role of the Constables has been eliminated from these proposals.

13 It is the status of the twelve Constables in the States that is the single most unfair and distorting aspect of Jersey’s failing electoral system.

14 When such misleading terms as “Parish system” or “Jersey Way” are used it is impossible to know what these might mean since lifestyles are so variable in different parts and parishes of the Island where “local” or national origins are also significant.

Emotion usually supersedes facts when these terms are used.

15 The existing role of elected representatives and their relationships with the electorate differ substantially between small and large population parishes.

The proposals do not explain how this will be changed or improved.

16 It is the mistaken use of the perverse “representation” concept that lies at the root of the real and substantive problem.

17 These proposals are for the benefit of a very small bunch of people with political aspirations and not about “fairer representation” of the whole population at all.

The proposals are a democratic sham.

18 There is nothing proposed that is designed to facilitate access to self representation by members of the public in accordance with their own pursuit of democratic free expression of opinion.

19 The proposals are fixated upon the distribution of potential votes - not making access to participation as a candidate fairer or easier.

20 The proposals are designed by and for existing States Members.

21 Currently a registered person can vote for a Constable in one only of the twelve seats at a General Election.

This is unfair for several reasons but the proposals will not change that.

22 To be a candidate in any of eleven of the twelve parishes a candidate for Constable must be a resident of that specific Parish - except in St Helier. The proposals will not change that.

23 Residents of  rural “super-constituencies” will have some claim on representation from more than one Constable (if not an actual voting entitlement) whereas residents of St. Helier will have one only, very busy, Constable to engage with, who may not be a resident of that Parish.

24 Residents of St Helier, the most populated parish in Jersey, could, in theory, be represented wholly by persons who are not resident in that Parish.

25 Under these proposals, no Deputies or Senators need reside in the same “super-constituency” as a resident voter. Seeking personal “representation” will inevitably be made more difficult.

26 As my own very recent experiences have confirmed, it can be very difficult to locate a States Member to respond to calls for assistance as a “representative.”

27 I sent one e-mail to 32 States Members and received two replies only.

A different  e-mail sent to 30 Members received just four responses but in neither case did the nearly £50,000 p annum Members offer to do anything to assist.

28 Although States Members talk freely about “representing” the public, notably with their problems or views – in general they do not deliver a service.

29 More often than not, Members do not even respond to communications from the electorate.

The proposals do not plan to change that.

30 Currently, Deputies undertake most “representation” because they have a specific and defined “constituency “of manageable proportions and are more likely to encounter their “public.”

Senators are inevitably remote from the electorate and Constables often similarly so.

31 Some Deputies take on matters that do not arise in their own constituencies and thus attract the workload of other Members.

The proposed super-constituencies will make this lack of representation even more acute because “Super Deputies” will be more remote from their electorate.

32 Most existing Members are “conservative” by political nature and prefer not to rock the establishment boat or challenge the status quo. They are unlikely to represent individuals with different political viewpoints or with “unpopular” complaints.

The proposals are unlikely to change that.

33 The Ministerial system has made it even more generally difficult to engage with all the classes of Member since they claim conflicts of one sort or another.

The proposals do not seek to improve that.

34 The proposals promise nothing to improve the Ministerial structure and any reduction in the number of elected Members will make worse an already very deficient system.

35 The practical problems and costs of being a candidate will be made even more difficult by the proposals – especially with regard to “super constituencies. “

36 The management of general elections could prove to be especially problematic both for potential candidates and the organizing officials.

37 It is entirely the candidate’s choice whether to stand for any particular class of seat – Constable in ten of twelve Parishes excepted because of the residential qualification – the electorate having no influence on that decision.

The proposals will not change that.

38 These proposals are directed at a small percentage of the whole population only - those who vote - although the reforms if implemented will affect everybody.

39 The lack of expressed public interest in the proposals does not indicate understanding or agreement.

40 Only a small percentage of the Jersey population over the age of 16, do vote.

These proposals will have no predictable impact on that.

41 Many of the resident population do not register to vote – although the law requires them so to do.

These proposals will have no predictable impact on that.

42 There is no obligation on those who are actually registered to vote so to do.

These proposals will have no impact on that.

43 The Stats office says that 6,000 people arrive in or leave Jersey each year – these people are already inadequately monitored for electoral purposes and there is nothing in the proposals to address that.

44 The likely outcome of these proposals is that the preparation of voter lists and the supervision of elections will be made even more problematic and confusing.

45 The Stats office says that 20,000 people with Jersey housing qualifications do not live in the Island but It is not known how many of those are registered to vote or do so.

46 There is nothing in the proposals regarding the important absentee section of the potential electorate or whether they should be encouraged to vote or stand for election as candidates or how this might be achieved.

47 It has been widely discussed that a referendum should form a part of the process of implementation of these proposals if/when agreed by the States but no details are provided.

48 I want to record that I ran, virtually single-handed, the official “NO campaign” against Constables having an automatic seat in the States in October 2014, alongside the General Election.

I took on that task reluctantly because nobody else wanted to do it since I would not allow the “YES” campaign to proceed uncontested.

49 I had about two weeks only to organize this campaign with little help, spending just a few £hundreds of my own money. I was not sponsored and candidates for election were specifically excluded from my campaign.

50 The “YES” campaign had access to unlimited and undeclared funding and support.

Since eleven of the twelve Constables did not face an election they were able largely to support the “YES” campaign. The Constable of St Helier gave some support to the “NO” campaign.

51 The referendum campaigns were denied access to the all-island public meetings of the Senatorial hustings and could only speak from the floor if at all.

52 One shared Referendum public meeting took place at the Town Hall only.

53 In total 24,130 votes were cast in a very low referendum poll. 15,069 voted YES. 9,061 voted NO.

54 Any suggestion that this referendum result might be considered as the “final word” on the “Constables question” is ridiculous and distorts the discussion of these proposals.

55 It is relevant that this referendum was conducted in an unfair manner with the “YES” campaign having access to unlimited and undeclared resources.

56 This should not be taken as a model for any future referendum which must be organized with independent supervision to ensure fairness for all.

57 It must not be assumed that only YES and NO campaigns will have official recognition in any future referendum.                                                                                                                     END