Jersey's battle of the little big yawn - aka Option "C"s last stand...

Ever since 24 April 2013 the PRT - Post Referendum Trauma - has been evident among some States Members but there is remarkably little enthusiasm for the resulting "Option B victory" anywhere in the Island.

Even Senator Bailhache seems to have found more Godly pursuits to occupy his attention.

Whether the "Option A Team" will regroup to continue the campaign has yet to be seen but in the meantime Senator Lyndon Farnham is continuing to resist the "B" outcome.
Here with fellow supporter Deputy John Le Fondre he explains current thinking.

"Option B" is not yet a done deal....

The video below runs about 16.5 minutes.

Sir Philip's Senatorial election platform - so who can be surprised at the Referendum options...?

This was Sir Philip Bailhache's primary election plaform speech for the Senatorial election.

So hardly any surprise that he should have pursued his aims through the States, the Electoral Commission and now through the Referendum.

Presumably he will now head up an "Option B" team to  ensure that the public votes to keep the Constables in the States.

This blog is as always open to anybody with a view to present on this or other matters of public interest.

Electoral Commission Final...can't sleep? try this.

Senator Bailhache followed by Colin Storm and then Senator Bailhache again

32 minutes in total

 The whole presentation is included on the one video

---

Surely the proof - politics is boring.

Video recorded at the St. Helier Town Hall on Friday 11 January 2013

This is the final report and presentation of the Electoral Commission and it is now up to the general public to decide what to do with it....

Jersey political heroes - more dead than alive...?

Abraham Jones Le Cras – where are you now? Your Island needs you!

Like so many born outside Jersey, Abraham Le Cras believed in and campaigned for political and social reform in the Bailiwick over many years during the 19^th century.

He was probably a spin-off from the very wealthy merchant and naval family (such as Noah Le Cras) which had Jersey links but lived mostly in England in the 18^th century - but Abraham personally often struggled to scrape a living.

Abraham was born in Salisbury (Hants) during1798 and died in Jersey in 1869.

The short video above records an attempt to identify for certain his grave in Green Street cemetery this week.

It is somewhat ironic that he lies amongst the graves of many political campaigners and refugees from all over Europe that came to rest in Jersey during the reign of Victoria – but that is another tale that somebody should research and publish on…especially if the proposed new Police HQ is likely to bury any of the evidence…

That there is some uncertainty over his final resting place is typical of the official Jersey attitude towards reformers and we have just passed by 28 September – the anniversary of Jersey’s revolution in 1769 – yet again with no official acknowledgement of its importance.

We know that the official entry for 28 September was officially scribbled out of the official court records in 1769 and this simple act is typical of the controlling of the record and our memory of the history of the Island that continues to this day.

There is still an Island attitude that favours an “official” view of events whether this might be the Occupation or the image of the modern finance industry.

As in 1769 or during Abraham Le Cras’ lifetime, to speak out or to offer a different or challenging point of view is still likely to invite official condemnation or ridicule.

Thus many years after Le Cras had died it was just too painful for Jersey’s celebrated “historian“ (and man of God) the Reverend Balleine to put aside his own prejudices in order to assess Abraham for his volume on “Jersey Bibliographies”  wherein Le Cras was dismissed as an AGITATOR.

He was physically attacked on several occasions in the Streets of St Helier and is still dismissed today as a political crank by “the establishment” for his views that rubbished the status of “King John’s Charter” (still the foundation of Jersey’s Constitution according to the Senator Sir Philip Bailhache) or the powers of the States’ claim to be an independent “government”.

During his busy life, Abraham carried out the most extensive research into the history and constitution of Jersey and the other Channel Islands. How he gained access to many of the original documents is a mystery (bearing in mind that even the States was closed to the public). But some of his original writing survives in Le Societé and Public libraries along with examples of the several newspapers that he published from the appropriately named Hope Street in St Helier.

Now, there is a great deal posted about him and his career on the Internet – just Google Abraham Le Cras to enter a different world where the bravery of this man during a life-long campaign can be glimpsed.

Don’t expect such information to be offered in oven-ready, easy to swallow format here.

If YOU are interested to discover it is now possible to read on-line his 1839 book on “The Laws, Customs and Privileges and their Administration in the Island of Jersey”. This contains his 52 Articles Petition to the UK Parliament seeking REFORM and be amazed how so much of  this is bang-on relevant for Jersey TODAY.

It is even possible to purchase on-line a facsimile “print to order” copy of this book (he published others too) which is still a valuable source of relevant information about Jersey and its institutions. Then he wrote that the purpose of his 1839 petition and book was to expose;

“…the scandalous laws of Jersey and the wretched way in which they are administered in the fervent hope that it will provoke enquiry and be the means of causing such abuses as shall be proved to exist, to be forthwith reformed…”

The States of Jersey he decided  then "has become a useless body"so just what would he have made of today's shower?

So, don’t just sit there doing nothing in 2012 or wishing for somebody else to complain on YOUR behalf.

If you believe that Jersey government, the courts, legal system and their administration need REFORM it is still possible to petition the Privy Council, or the UK Parliament or have an input in the Jersey Electoral Commission or to lobby States’ Members or join a political or campaigning group….Abraham Le Cras would be amazed at the ease with which we can access information today and the failure of so many to put such a facility to good use.

Just because Abraham is now sleeping is no excuse for YOU to do nothing….

Happy Anniversary 28 September 1769! The struggle continues...

The Jersey Class War continued 1769 – 2012 or the Battle of Plemont.

“Whether the States should purchase  this land is outside this inquiry – that is a political not planning decision – Plemont Estates Ltd have made their planning application and paid the fee… this is the lawful and proper approach…it will be for the applicants to make  their case why permission should be granted…”

So said Planning Inspector Alan Langton from the UK at the opening of thee public Inquiry into the proposed housing development of 28 houses on the Plemont “headland” at St Ouen – on the site of a former hotel from the 1830s or the holiday camp “established in 1925.”

Then, near the end of the two day hearing (at La Societé Jersiaise building), Senator Sir Philip Bailhache announced that he had prepared and lodged this very day, a proposition for the Chief Minister, to purchase the land for the public.

It was a bit of a party pooper announcement…

In other words, the battle has a long way yet to run and no matter what this Inquiry decides, the final decision will be a political one and it is the general public who will pay the costs, one way or another. Somewhere between £8 to £14 Millions (plus lawyers’ fees) based on opening gambits…

Of course the value of the land may well depend on what use or development is approved – if anything at all.

Much of the two days was spent in trying to determine if the concept of “abandonment” applied to the much neglected existing buildings. Were they still a “tourist” facility or had that use been lost through neglect? Could the buildings be revived as a hotel or just restored as a holiday camp – after all, the current owners (the “very wealthy” 11K Hemming’s family) still run two holiday camps in the UK among many other tourism activities…

But, if the meaning of “abandonment” under Jersey planning law is ever agreed the owners of other empty buildings had better watch out…

Other common use words – such as “curtilege,” “green field,” or “brown field” – were also found to be ill-defined in Jersey planning and property law and the old legal humbug about the status of UK interpretations and/or UK case precedents was never far away…so much for 800 years of Jersey’s own, unique legal system.

In spite of the National Trust for Jersey’s employment of a very gobby, pin-striped, smooth-talking Advocate with an Irish accent to present its lengthy case against the development - these two days were more like the “Last of the Summer Wine” gone ecological than the stereotypical image of youthful protest that appears at Planning Inquiries elsewhere.

Sadly, the aged principal speaker for La Societé Jersiaise actually collapsed during the proceedings and had to be taken away in an ambulance.

 “The medium is the message” as the Canadian prof used to say…

Equally aged Sir Nigel Broomfield (there being no shortage of titles or honours at this gathering) even observed how well run this Inquiry was (by Mr. Langton) and how it displayed none of the “ill-will” as expressed in other places. He respected the right of the Hemmings family to dispose of their property as they liked etc but he wanted the land cleared and restored to nature.

He did not suggest this as a suitable site for his brainchild of Jersey’s New University though… presumably all those young students would be better contained in an old military fort in St Helier and not interfering with his coastal walks with his two spaniels.

Bob Le Sueur, a 90 plus Jerseyman (living on the coast at St Clement), in jest referred to himself as “a fully paid up Jersey bean card carrying OAP and elderly busy-body” which was generally accurate for most of the “antis” assembled here for this last stand - and he was quite clear that his views might be considered “irrelevant by some.”

Many a true word…

Of course, he didn’t really mean it because he does represent a widely held resentment against something – but it is just so difficult to determine what it is that needs to be protected and from whom?

The class prejudice of the Jersey nouveau-riche was everywhere apparent.

Those who might well have enjoyed a crazy night or dance at the campsite in its hey-day were now queuing to dis-own its very existence. For many, the only worse thing that could happen on this "headland" would be to construct “a housing estate” and there was no “proven demand for houses in this area” according to several speakers besides which the new occupiers would be building sheds and conservatories in a few years…oh heaven forbid!

The pin-striped lawyer had even suggested that “homeless people were camping” in the existing buildings!!! Oh quelle horreur and what a sudden concern for deprivation!!! There were no visibly homeless people speaking at this “public” inquiry of course.

In fact there was no voice here for the thousands of Jersey residents who live in appalling conditions…but they were unlikely to find a spokesman in this legal eagle or any others here to promote their needy cause. Everybody present here was adequately housed thank you very much…and whilst there were voices for puffins and bats, there were none for rats or cats either.

Nobody much liked the 18th century "hamlet" style of the proposed housing clusters either - not sufficiently similar to traditional Jersey farmhouses for these lobbyists. Wonder if they drive 18th century style cars and fly off to their Breton holiday homes in hot-air balloons...?

Dr Renouf waxed lyrical about Neanderthals who might have lived here 200,000 ago and how they had once looked across a wooded valley to Guernsey.  Now “the home of our ancestors” was probably a cave in the cliff face 14 metres above the high tide line he suggested  and the new houses might spoil the view from there…it was an odd, belated sort of planning objection on amenity grounds for people whose only presence now is the 13 teeth they left behind.  Nevertheless, Alan Langton lapped up the Doctor’s evidence and wished he could hear more…but time pressed.

Yours truly had tried to raise the question of the legality or propriety of the proceedings early on but Mr. Langton had soon declined my invitation to discuss that suggestion.

In fact of course, Mr. Langton was one of the two Planning Inspectors who conducted the substantial review of the Draft Island Plan adopted in 2011 – so he had already heard and considered many of the arguments about Plemont before.

His partiality or possible prejudice on this current occasion must be an obvious possibility – especially since he was supposedly appointed at short notice for this Inquiry after a preferred Inspector had dropped out.

Surely it would have been better to wait for another more visibly impartial person to come along…?

But it is not just the Inspector who might be flawed because the whole Planning Inquiry process has been subjected to much critical examination in many countries during recent years – and some of the test case judgments should not be ignored (try the Internet for a start re McGonnel v UK, Bryan v UK, Balmer-Schafroth v Switzerland  etc etc).

Although the current Jersey Planning Law seems to allow for Inquiries to be set up where public interest is great enough (and how might that be determined?) – the personal status of those who were objecting to this development was insubstantial. None were near-neighbors affected by the proposals so that none could claim any personal loss or grievance. They were all “assuming” some public role but why should the property rights of the owners be subjected to such an examination at all? Where is the “fair and impartial” hearing for the applicants and who is protecting the “peaceful enjoyment of their possessions” against such an assault on their integrity and motivations?

This is a capitalist society after all – where the pursuit of profit is not a sin. But the Convention on Human Rights is supposed to protect the wealthy developer just as much as the impoverished underdog. These protestors seemed only to have heard of international restraints with “environmental” aspirations and they were clearly not too concerned with other treaties that demanded homes and a decent standard of living “for all.” 

So where is the concern of these “ecological” protesters for the unmet housing needs of so many in Jersey? Do they ever ask for such a Planning Inquiry when developments are proposed in the St Helier ghetto? Did they organize a “Line in the Sand” protest against any urban development during the past decade in the town? The sudden concern for the inadequate St Ouen bus service was a joy to behold - but we all knew it was just another ploy to criticise the proposal with. There was little genuine concern to improve the whole Island transport system here...

The north-south, country-town divide was everywhere apparent.

Noticeably, there were several ex senior Planning Officers appearing here in somewhat different roles. John “Lesquende” Young now appearing as a St Brelade Deputy seemed to forsake the un-met housing demands of his own parish electorate and apparently wanted the buildings declared as “abandoned” too.

His fellow ex officer Peter Thorne batted for the developers and presumably had come to different personal and professional conclusions. It all depends on who pays your fee of course and that is another issue raised elsewhere (try the Internet) about Planning Inspectors and the ability to be truly “independent”. After all, they are employed by and have their terms of reference set by, the very same Ministerial Department that ultimately lays down the planning policies that makes or refuses planning consent.

Bearing in mind that Jersey Planning Law now requires the applicant to show that an application is justified – rather than the traditional onus being with the government (or Planners) to show that it is not – the whole development control process seems to be potentially flawed…but who cares…eh!

Since the discussion will now move on to the States chamber, the populations of the urban areas of St Helier, St Brelade, St Saviour and St Clement will have the opportunity to lobby and resist (or support) this latest Ministerial proposal, through their own elected representatives….

ELECTORAL COMMISSION - LAST PUBLIC HEARING

Storm in Bailhache’s absence

Today the final public meeting of the Electoral Commission was held in the Committee Room at the Town Hall.

In fact it wasn’t a complete Commission because Chairman Senator Philip Bailhache was absent and Deputy Baker only turned up at 11.20am for the hearings that started at 9.00am (although the screen in the lobby said 10.00am).

Left to their own devices the remaining four Commissioners seemed much more relaxed and Colin Storm, the former Guinness and Burger King Supremo was noticeably friendlier and tolerant as chair. He even invited yours truly as the token member of the public present at the outset if the sound was adequate – an issue raised during my own hearing some weeks ago - so the Commission is at least listening on some matters…and they presumably read the JEP too, as revealed during the hearings.

Seven witnesses appeared to give their oral evidence although several proceeded to read scripts that were written in haste at the last possible moment – and it showed.

Deputy Higgins was a rather disappointing self in his presentation and he always seems to be too busy with his aircraft hobby to concentrate on his more important duties public duties as a Deputy.

Shame, because he is a decent sort who means well, but when Colin Storm loaned him a pair of glasses to enable him to read his own script the credibility quotient hit a particularly low point on the scale.

The Deputy did commence though with a jibe at the recent JEP editorial which provoked Storm to clarify in strong terms that the Commission had not yet even considered any of the matters before it. He continued that he did not know why the JEP had written such a thing or whether it was done maliciously or benevolently but he resented that certain people had made that allegation which impugned the Commission’s honesty.

“I can assure you on my honour that we have not yet discussed these matters” Storm protested…

During Senator Farnham’s presentation yours truly passed a note to the Chair asking if the witness could speak up and true to his word Storm interrupted the Senator twice to raise the decibels a bit. So he was not only listening but prepared to act too…

Daniel Wimberley’s 11.00am session commenced with an initial heated discussion arising from a late night

e-mail exchange and his desire to be allowed to rebut an “expert opinion” commissioned and paid for by Advocate Mark Renouf and attached to his written submission “on the final day” allowed.

Colin Storm explained that this document would be examined along with others in the usual way…

Wimberley followed up with a request to see the “expert opinions” received by the Commission but Storm said that these were already published on the Commission’s web-site – which came as a surprise to both of us.

The former Deputy also raised the JEP question and Storm repeated that he did not know if the editorial was malicious or misguided etc but Wimberley persisted “Will you ask the JEP for a retraction?” Storm was unsure – he initially said it was a matter for the Chairman but then that he did not know – but thought it was unlikely that a retraction would be sought.

The exchange seemed to take the wind out of acting Chair Storm’s sails for a while and Dr Jonathan Renouf (the former Hautlieu student turned BBC TV documentary producer) then mostly asked the questions for a while on Wimberley’s “seven principles that the Commission should follow.”

As is traditional for the man from St Mary, his diatribe exceeded the time allowed and he was only silenced by Storm at 11.45am with thanks for all his written research and the promise that “we will read it all.”

Bob Hill next appeared and also explained his growing cynicism and how there was a perception “outside” that there was already a “done deal” by the Commission and that its constitution had been “loaded.” Storm assured him that they all had one vote only and Renouf affirmed “we are only lay members after the event.”

But, asked Bob, suppose there is a split vote between your 6 members? Would the Chairman have a casting vote? Storm responded that at worst there would be a deadlock but then added “This is not a charade; I would not be involved in a charade.”

The hearings eventually - and finally - ended at 12.50pm.

Other questions were asked by Commission members Constable Gallichan of St Mary and Professor Sallis.

Deputy Baker managed a few sentences including the comment that poor voting figures were a reflection of contentment.

Other witnesses were Raulin Amy a Jersey advocate working for a local practice.

Sylvia Lagadu, a candidate in the most recent Senatorial elections.

Constable Steve Pallett who had been turned from party politics and membership of the JDA through Honorary service in St Brelade…

Anyone for charades?

The importance of Friday 28 SEPTEMBER - JERSEY REFORM DAY

1769 AND ALL THAT….

…something we should ALL be doing on Friday 28 September this year.

REVOLUTION was in the air in the1760s.

All the Western Empires were creaking following the latest European war and old values were being tested. Religion, politics, scientific knowledge and the social order were all being subjected to examination and reform.

Even in little Jersey, there were brave people prepared to put their lives at risk in order to challenge the established order. Then, all economic, social, political and religious life in Jersey was dominated by the all - powerful Royal Court. This was a wholly corrupted body dominated by the Bailiff, and a dozen each of Jurats, Parish Constables and Rectors.

The same few privileged families controlled almost everything and the Island was divided up into hundreds of feudal fiefs which had to pay rentes to the seigniorial overlords. Most of the Island’s 22,000 or so population lived in precarious poverty.

Then, as now, the Crown Appointed Officers, reigned supreme. The office of Bailiff had degenerated into a hereditary sinecure of the UK based De Carteret family, who hardly ever even visited Jersey. In their place, over three centuries, substitute Lieutenant Bailiffs were appointed.

During much of the 18^th century, it was the Lempriere family and their cronies who dominated the Royal Court, the government and so much of Jersey economic and social life. It was against this group that the poorer people of Jersey rose up and rebelled on 28 September 1769 – but there is no memorial built to their memory. Their leader Thomas Gruchy lies in an unmarked Trinity grave.

Officially, these brave people did not exist. The record of their rebellion was even erased from the contemporary Royal court ledger.

 

Then as now, dissent against the “Crown Officers” was treated as some sort of treason or sedition. The oppressive government dismissed the dissenters as “some factions of jealous persons of a spirit of disrespect in some of the lower classes towards their superiors.”

The Lemprieres planned to hang as many as possible or to deport even more of the rebels, appealing to the King in London to send over troops with authority to suppress the troublemakers.

In fact, the London government did not give the Lemprieres the authority they sought and nobody was hanged or deported. Instead, the brave Island rebels drew up petitions expressing their many grievances and these were sent to London.

As was so often the case, the London government protected the inhabitants of Jersey against the worst oppressions of the local tyrants. It was the ancient responsibility of the London Parliament for the good government of Jersey – even though there were no elected representatives from Jersey in Parliament.

The immediate outcome was that some of the abusive powers were taken away from the Royal Court and more authority was confirmed for the States of Jersey.

It was the start of a more democratic government in Jersey although very short of what the dissenters actually wanted.

In addition, a “Code of Laws “ was agreed and published by authority of the Privy Council in 1771 which was an attempt at providing a clear statement of the laws that applied in Jersey.

The Code was totally inadequate (to this day, clear commentaries on the obscure laws of Jersey are still needed), but it was very significant in the 18^th century.

It did make clear that neither the Jersey Court nor the evolving States could pass new laws or amend existing ones, without prior Privy Council approval.

Following this mini- revolution, Philip Lempriere H.M. Attorney “resigned” and left the Island. A new H.M. Lieutenant-Governor was appointed following representations in London against the local oppressors.

The suggestion that Jersey people have enjoyed a democratic paradise since 1204 is just nonsense.

The true history of Jersey has not been recorded or written.

Islanders and the outside-world audience have been fed an official Pro-Royalist ( PR) diet of misinformation for centuries.

The Inquiry (under Lord Carswell’s chairmanship) into the Roles of The Crown Officers brought out the queues of apologists for an official version of history and preservation of the status quo.

A legion of lawyers, Jurats, Honorary Parish officers, politicians past and present (and even H.M. Dean) presented a parrot-like recitation of wonderment in support of seven centuries of supposedly enlightened government, administrative excellence and judicial brilliance.

Historically supported fact or evidence was noticeably absent from their written or oral contributions to the Inquiry Panel of five persons (unimaginatively composed of three lawyers, a Jersey lawyer’s wife and a nurse).

Most of all, it was the Crown Officers themselves, the Bailiffs, Deputy Bailiffs, Attorneys and Solicitors General who felt the greatest need to sing their own praises,  protect their own interests and resist any notions of reform or change.

Thus, the same 18th century style of Crown Officers’ resistance against reform continues to this day.

Former Deputy Bob Hill’s successful call for an examination of the Role of the Crown Officers was just a continuation of the same call for reform that inspired the events of 28 September 1769. It is the voice of the people against oppressive or undemocratic institutions.

For the modern Royalists, it was all hands to the pump trying to maintain the Crown Officers’ ship afloat. Even the Crown Officers from Guernsey were encouraged to give support in an effort to keep the progressive standards of the twenty-first century, at bay.

There seemed to be a desperate but concerted attempt to hang on to perverse powers that their Channel Islands ancestors enjoyed over past centuries.

Jersey’s 1769 mini-revolution pre-dated the American 1775 break with Britain. Yet, when the American colonists’ French allies mounted an expedition against Jersey’s “nest of pirates” on 6 January 1781, Charles Lempriere, the outrageous Lieutenant-Bailiff, was finally forced to resign from office. His slightly less unpleasant son was appointed in his place and H.M. Lieutenant-Governor Corbett (Charles Lempriere’s father-in-law) was court-martialled and dismissed, for failing to adequately defend the colonial outpost.

As always, such disciplinary decisions were made in London because the Island never had an adequate administration, or the powers, to deal with such matters.

It was the Channel Islands’ role as bases for smugglers, privateers and pirates that attracted so much critical attention in the 18^th century - as does the finance centre business today.

Inevitably, the Island based smuggling, privateering and “piracy” activities were defended as being beneficial to the British Imperial interest.

The business was a great training ground for navy recruits and many national and local heroes served on the vessels but they also incurred the wrath of others.

Invasions, such as that of 1781, were constantly threatened by foreign powers and so too were the calls on the British Government to curtail the abuses by imposing English Customs or other regulations.

Similar threats and pressures continue to this day from Britain the EU, the OECD, the IMF, the UN the USA and elsewhere.

Now, the Crown Officers continue to defend their own privileged and anachronistic positions within a system of government and administration which must surely be condemned before an international tribunal soon.

The Crown Officers also continue to defend the finance industry - the 21st century equivalent of the nefarious smuggling and privateering – and seek to give credence to the myth of 800 years of democratic government and benign administration under their own or ancestors’ authority.

During the 18^th century there were just six Jersey advocates (appointed by authority of the Bailiff of course). Now, there are over 250 (mostly within huge international partnerships) – yet, just a couple dared to express any dissenting views before Lord Carswell’s Inquiry on the Roles of the Crown Officers. Jersey lawyers are the central and essential professional core of the whole Island based finance business and predictably, the Crown Officers are recruited exclusively from among them.

The single most important finding of the “Lord Carswell” inquiry – that the Bailiff should not sit in the States – has inevitably been ignored.

As in 1769, this is just another manifestation of the great divide in Jersey between the general population and the non-elected elite who still retain such a stranglehold as lawyers and Crown Officers over Island life.

We in Jersey should remember the brave heroes of 28 September 1769 with pride every year celebrate their achievements and continue to demand further reforms.

Currently (summer of 2012), following the proposition of (former) Deputy Wimberley an Electoral Commission has been set up to consider the structure of the Jersey States Assembly and whether reforms are needed.

Unfortunately, this Commission has been hijacked by the former Bailiff Sir Philip Bailhache in his new role as an elected Senator of the States and the Commission is now loaded with politicians rather than the independent people that Deputy Wimberley had originally intended.

Every effort is being made by the old guard to ensure that virtually no reform takes place.

The media is manipulated as always to present a defence of the status quo and the Commission has already indicated that it will be pursuing a very narrow interpretation of its Terms of Reference.

Now, as in 1769, the people of Jersey cannot rely upon the government of the Island to address the many problems that are obvious in this community of just 100,000.

Unfairness and lack of equality runs throughout so many aspects of official political thinking which has scant regard for international obligations or standards.

Problems of poverty, poor housing, inadequate heath care and such like – which the protestors of 1769 were concerned with – remain unsolved or addressed.

The reforms of government itself and the lack of democratic representation - another major part of the 1769 grievances - also remain unresolved and it seems unlikely that the current Electoral Commission will support change for the better.

Peaceful protest on the streets, public debate, the free expression and exchange of ideas to challenge the political status quo - these are the wholly respectable and democratic rights of the people in a democratic society.

As in 1769, it is surely now necessary for the public to take the initiative for reform and remove the discussion away from the too cosy and restricted confines of the States Chamber and out of the clutches of complacent officials and their media mouthpieces.

ONLY TEN PERCENT HUMAN RIGHTS ELECTORAL CONCERN from COMMISSION

The 10% rule and Senator Bailhache…

You can generally tell when a lawyer is beginning to lose the case in court because he or she will suddenly grasp the get me out of here “human rights” argument.

Today we in the public seats at the Electoral Commission’s latest hearing observed Chairman ex Bailiff Sir Philip not just reaching out for the ejector seat button but he was desperately seeking any exit from the impending disaster.

The old ship of Jersey tradition is headed for the rocks and he knows it.

So when the common call from so many witnesses was to throw the Constables overboard he was almost at a loss to know what to do.

Even Constable Norman proposed it in his refreshingly frank presentation and Senator Bailhache was pricked to reveal that “we” (the Commission that is) had only just learned about the 10% rule and he challenged the Constable that his “Clothier style” reforms (with all members elected on a Parish basis in a general election on the same day, under the same terms and conditions) might lead to an “international human rights breach”.

The basis of his sudden concern was that constituencies of unequal voter size would be in breach of international rules which allow for a deviation of about 10% or so ONLY.

The ex Bailiff was not sure which rules these actually were or which International Convention they came from but he resorted to the same argument on several occasions, as the long day of hearings wore on.

Eleven rounds of half an hour each with a fresh contestant for each round is a heavy-weight contest by any standards, especially since so many body blows struck the anti-reform target. The ex Bailiff’s aged constitution is clearly getting a bit tired.

Sir Philip’s gloves were so obviously becoming too heavy and his legs too wobbly and it was all under the steady gaze of Emille Collin’s bronze bust too.

Some people swore that Emille’s lips actually formed into a smile when the demand for the chance to vote for all the candidates of choice on an “all island basis” was uttered by several witnesses…

Sir Philip however did not play the human rights tune when it was pointed out  again and again that the inequality of the current Parish vote for Constables is already hopelessly unfair (and so must equally be in breach of any 10% International obligation}.

With St Mary’s 1,500 voters at such variance with St Helier’s 25,000 - the existing breach should be obvious to anybody but the misty eyed adherents of Jersey tradition will never grasp the unfairness argument readily.

Perhaps the fear of some international condemnation by the UN or the Council of Europe will stimulate action even before this Commission reports?

Our ex Bailiff  with his all-Island Senatorial mandate cannot be so unaware of this simple fact and he should perhaps be bringing a proposition to the States ASAP to correct the international unlawfulness in accordance with his oath of office to “uphold the {human rights} laws and usages of the Island etc”?

Of course he will not do so but it is difficult to imagine how the Electoral Commission can ignore the 10% rule threat when it produces its report and reform suggestions.

For those who want to learn more about the 10% rule – the http://aceproject.org site of the ACE electoral knowledge network is full of very wordy but essential reading.

In essence, international standards on elections are laid down in such instruments as the UN Declaration on Human Rights, The UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Social, Cultural and Economic Rights (all ratified for Jersey), plus other Conventions such as those against Racism or the Rights of Women and various documents on non-discrimination in the matter of political rights (1962) or framework for periodic and genuine elections (1989).

Under these, the requirement that free elections must facilitate the full expression of the political will of the people is developed.

Not just as an add-on but as the VERY BASIS OF LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT.

One person, one vote is the basis of universal suffrage.

Each vote must carry equal weight – electoral districts must be established on an equitable basis to ensure that the results accurately reflect the will of ALL VOTERS.

The electoral districts must be determined on the basis of equality of actual populations or voter populations, as far as possible.

That is where the “10% rule” comes in and the boundaries of constituencies must be regularly reviewed to accommodate changes in population too and that review MUST be undertaken by an independent authority – i.e. not part of the government.

Generally, such reviews in most countries take place every few years.

The current (2012) UK arrangements are worth looking at.

The number of MPs in Parliament is being reduced from 650 to 600.

Each constituency will be within 5% (plus or minus) of a standard population quota – currently fixed at 76,641 (thus acceptable within the 5% variation range of 72,810 to 80,473) with a further general maximum land area of 13,000 square kms.

Redistribution of boundaries must be considered every 5 years.

Parliamentary terms are now for a fixed term of 5 years.

So this is the sort of standard that is being applied for the “mother of Parliament” but of course Jersey’s overall population has grown from about 60,000 to nearly 100,000 since 1960 and our electoral boundaries remain virtually unchanged.

Unfairness is just a fact of the Jersey electoral system as it has always been – but the “human rights” argument is hardly going to assist in its preservation.

 On the contrary, international obligations must ensure that the whole basis of having a block of 12 Constables (so unfairly returned into the States) is untenable.

The current arrangements for the choice of Deputies must be similarly defective under the 10% rule.

The writing is on the wall but am I being too optimistic for reform – can this Electoral Commission still, somehow report in favour of the status quo…?

Answers in Jerriaise please…

CM GORST - waving or drowning?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

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?