Thursday, December 27, 2018

How many Children's Commissioners does the world need ?

It surprised me that Jersey’s new Children’s Commissioner has made 20 trips outside the Island since her appointment in January 2018 “learning on the job and staying connected.”
I should have hoped that she might bring sufficient knowledge with her.
After all, there is a very full Independent Jersey Care Inquiry Report already published to guide her and she is “an ex police officer, teacher and director of children’s services from the UK” where more than enough  has been researched and written about child welfare and safeguarding in the past 50 years to satisfy any thirst for theoretical knowledge.
And it’s not as though she has to do the job in Jersey on her own because there is a Children’s Minister, a Director General for child welfare and Charlie Parker to support her besides which there is a virtual army of trained social workers, psychiatrists, medics, teachers and carers etc working out of several interlocking government departments with specific duties towards children besides a myriad of official groups and committees designed to catch any who fall through the wellbeing net.
Not to mention that all 49 elected States Members are supposed to have an individual responsibility for children in Jersey and they have been invited to sign up to the Chief Minister’s “Pledge to Jersey’s Children and Young People”…and of course there is a multitude too of voluntary and semi-voluntary supportive net-working organizations who are in position to observe - and if necessary influence - the healthy development of children from the moment they are born.
Besides which the welfare of children is now the “number one priority” in the Jersey Strategic Plan and the Island has even signed up at long last to the highest standards laid down in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which already have attracted a lifetime of wise application by reason of their acceptance by most countries across the world.
So what could possible go wrong now?
Sadly of course, the recent international record demonstrates that the welfare of children is in a very serious state of neglect across the world.
Even within the UK the mammoth Child Abuse Inquiry for England and Wales has only just managed to publish its first interim report.

If that Inquiry does ever complete its task this will be several years in the future.

The Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry established in 2016 is also rumbling on - whilst the N. Ireland Inquiry looking at the years 1922-1995 has now reported but it is not clear what might happen next.
And the particular role of the Church in N. Ireland is also a factor in other territories which many are reluctant to deal with.
In Jersey, the Independent Care Inquiry has reported (as referred to above) but already there is a plan to extend the terms of reference of the “compensation” scheme to include about 75 more people whose ill-treatment as children in the care of official agencies has been previously omitted.

Significantly, the initiative for this latest action arises from the work of a UK lawyer pressing for justice within the Island and not from Jersey lawyers or agencies of the Jersey government.
Now, so far as Jersey is concerned, shall that finally be the end of the matter?
Clearly not, after all, seemingly every week new cases are reported of the abuse of children in Jersey, with some cases appearing in the Courts whilst the AG has declared that he is not satisfied with the low rate of conviction of abusers and he has promoted law revisions.
Unfortunately, because the general public is largely excluded from official hearings in Jersey where children are concerned and public reporting is minimal, very little factual knowledge is made available.

Ignorance prevails along with the secrecy.
However, it is significant that the abuse of children takes place especially where conditions of poverty, limited education, social deprivation and neglect prevail.

From Pitcairn and many other Pacific Islands, the Falklands, St Helena, throughout the Caribbean, off shore Australia, the problem of child abuse is common-place and in some instances excused as “part of the culture.”
In the Isle of Man, the Knottsfield Children’s Home has been exposed as a place of abuse over several decades and is an interesting example to cite in the context of Jersey where UK style professional standards have supposedly been followed over many years.
Inevitably, those same standards have proved wholly ineffective in so many places in the UK but the failures of care do not by-pass cities or areas of industrial activity any more than finance centres….
….Except that Guernsey does not seem to have produced a comparable institutional child-abuse problem.
Why should this be?
Has Guernsey’s child-abuse scandal yet to be revealed or should the Children’s Commissioner and her multi-layered team be better employed seeking guidance in the other Bailiwick rather than Scandinavia or Scotland?
Has the much talked about CIs mutual co-operation more to offer then we realize?




Friday, December 7, 2018

Public solidarity with the strikers - But why?

Civil Servants "strike" Liberation Square, St Helier, Jersey  7 December 2018

There is no doubt that many States’ civil servants and public employees have been treated very badly.

That they have been left behind and neglected so far as wages and conditions of employment are concerned is evident.

On that basis they deserve general public support and they have been forced into a strike by a particularly uncaring management otherwise known as “our government.”

To rub salt into their wounds, the recently appointed CEO Charlie Parker has proudly announced that’s “It’s my way or the highway” and proposes to reduce the workforce by many hundreds as the continuation of a policy that has been in place for some years already.
BUT not all civil servants are angels.

Bullying and harassment has been a feature within many States departments for years and Charlie’s micromanaging “do as I say” ultimatum might seem to be ideally suited to that.

As I write this, Deputy Mike Higgins is speaking on the radio about the many senior managers in the civil service who have been devious, unduly authoritative, even lying in court and how some have been “defaming the public.” He claims to speak on the basis of personal knowledge
Only this week the Jersey Complaints Board has published its findings re Mr. B. Huda and the “unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory” treatment that he received at the hands of Health and Social Services staff.
His case is not unique.
Mr Barrette’s timber windows saga with “bullying Planning Officers” was deemed to be “oppressive and improperly discriminatory” too by a Complaints Board and he has received no compensation.
The Royal Court has also this week decided the amount of damages to be paid re “Family X” – one of the largest personal injury claims in British legal history - where the children were subjected to a catalogue of abuse in their home “years after it should have been obvious that they needed to be removed.”
Yet, this case needs to be considered in the context of the “Jersey Independent Care Inquiry” which reported 18 months ago on decades of abuse of hundreds children in care and the criminal, negligent, inadequate or otherwise defective behaviour of far too many adults employed, supposedly, in positions of trust to safeguard them.
When civil servants are being abusive or bullying in the workplace to each other that is bad enough and it has been researched and reported upon in the “HR Lounge Report” published (in secret initially) this year. This Report says that employees have been left “feeling like lepers about making allegations or complaints” and how “there is a culture of fear” and also of too much “gossiping.”
But what of the treatment of the general public who have to deal with these civil servants?

If bullying is so commonplace in schools, for example, how might bullied children or their parents expect to be treated if they complain?

Or, how might claimants at the Social Security department be enabled to ensure that they are treated fairly and with consistency and shall staff ever “blow the whistle” on their own colleagues whose behaviour towards the general public is not appropriate?
If civil servants are not prepared to blow the whistle to protect each other – what chance that they might take any action in support of a member of the public?
The establishment of a “whistle-blower hotline” has been proposed for the use of bullied or abused staff in their workplaces, but it does not seem to be intended to protect the public too or even to be accessible to them.
Of course, some staff are abused by the public but the proliferation of “our staff are entitled to respect” notices are themselves often intimidating and hardly likely to encourage a friendly dialogue when differences of opinion or lack of understanding feature.
I could list many instances of failings in the services provided by civil servants and the antagonisms that arise with the public. Some have reached the “official complaints” stage as already referred to and have been found to be valid.

Some complaints are not valid.
Civil servants often claim to provide an excellent service in difficult circumstances which may  be true – but it s not always so.

There is reluctance in the service to be supportive of the public. When things go wrong the public employees invariably defend “the system” and their colleagues.
This current “strike” by civil servants is seen as justified by many members of the general public.

But that support needs to be reciprocal.

Civil servants and other public employees must be encouraged to promote the rights and best interests of the public as well as their own.
Oppressive management or government is a common enemy and needs to be recognized for what it is.



Saturday, November 10, 2018

Andy Remus talk to Jersey Architects - 9 November 2018

This Andy Remus talk describes the work of his  ar design studio of architects in Winchester, Hampshire.

It appears below in 3 parts and totals about 57 minutes.
It is not edited but there is a break of a few minutes after part 2.

Part 1 - 30 minutes

Part 2 - 90 seconds

Part 3 - 25 minutes

Friday, November 9, 2018

Jersey Farming Conference 2018 - Ministers John Young and Lyndon Farnham

I am not sure that government has much relevance to Jersey farming.
It's a diminishing economic activity which occupies a very large part of Jersey land and of course government and admin is being reformed under the CEO Charlie Parker's grand plan.

But here are two Ministers in the current Jersey "government" speaking at the farming conference.

Senator Farnham "Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture" appears first;

Next its Deputy John Young - billed on the programme as "Minister for the Environment" but that changes daily it seems in accordance with Charlie's plan so he is more certainly "Minister for Planning" I think;

The video starts a bit confused because John Young spoke from the floor and not the rostrum provided....

See you all again next year - perhaps Charlie will talk then....

Saturday, October 27, 2018

Interview with Colin Powell and Roy Le Herissier - Jersey October 2018

This interview and discussion continues with the theme of previous postings and considers, among many things, whether Cyril Le Marquand deserves to be remembered with a public monument...
whether the Report of the Independent Care Inquiry is being adequately implemented...
why it is proving so difficult to reform the "Jersey Way"...
and whether Jersey can afford to preserve a "green countryside" or if the land is too valuable to use for farming...and more.

The video is about 33 minutes

Saturday, October 13, 2018

Who deserves to be remembered?

This is the time of year when Jersey's memorials - mostly to those who died in war - receive a deal of public attention.

But how is it decided which events or individuals should be "remembered" at all in public places?

As I keep posting here, the events of 28 September 1769 - Jersey Reform Day and all that - have no plaque, statue or street name although it is supposedly an "official" date in the Jersey calendar.
The Piratical Bailiff George de Carteret has a statue and pub in St Peter whilst war-time Bailiff Lord Coutanche warrants a small bronze bust that serves as a resting place for pigeons in the Royal Square and he can oversee the Peirson pub,  the statue of King George II and the "V" sign in the square..

But what of more recent heroes or people of "significance"?

Cyril Le Marquand "the founder of the Jersey finance sector" is currently remembered with a Soviet style inscription on the States office building opposite the Cenotaph. But this building is planned to be demolished soon. Shall Cyril have a replacement statue erected in his honour? Would he want one?

He was a "political leader" of course and founder of the Progressive Party after the Occupation and was elected with 10 others of that party to the States in 1948.

On the other hand Norman Le Brocq,  was also elected to the States and founded a political party of the left in opposition to Cyril's after the Occupation.
Norman  has no memorial on land that I know of and once  described the "finance sector as a "parasitic activity."
But does he deserve a memorial now?

Jersey cows have their own bronze memorial in St Helier and various other sculptures are scattered about the Island and Geraint Jennings has described the history of some of these in the past.

Most places have their military heroes mounted on horses cast in bronze and Jersey has produced plenty of warriors - but is the whole memorial thing just an historic dinosaur now in the 21st century?

I am not proposing to answer my own questions but attach this interview link with Cyril Le Marquand which is interesting in the context of Jersey politics and government today. Whether it or he or his views are relevant today are matters to be considered elsewhere.

Thursday, October 11, 2018

BUSKERS in Jersey

BUSKERS are usually anonymous but there have in the past been several well known street performers in Jersey.
They have often had a difficult relationship with the authorities and sometimes the public.

“Tommy” Bagwell the blind barrel organ player was granted a licence in 1907 by the Constable to play in the streets of St Helier.
Jersey born “Tommy” had been blinded whilst working on the quay so his work-mates had subscribed to provide the instrument and he became a popular sight and sound around the Town.

In fact he became something of an entertainer and raised funds for charitable events such as the “picnic for the blind” in 1909.

In 1917 he suffered serious injuries when a horse bolted in Mulcaster Street and collided with him and the organ and he spent some time in hospital. He died in 1936 aged 81.
He was not Jersey’s only blind organ player. There were complaints in 1888 of such a player who “perambulated” the streets of St. Helier accompanied by a little girl “eliciting alms from passers-by” and he had no permit.

This was probably Anthanese Marcourf (?) who was already “an old familiar face” in the “Court of Corrective Police” in 1884 and was well known in Guernsey too. He was usually charged with vagrancy and begging in the streets “without visible means of support.”

Typically he was fined 10 shillings or 2 days in prison.
Two Italian organ-grinders had been “found begging” in 1879 and had insulted people who refused to contribute. They duly appeared before the court to be fined the usual amount but presumably they would have been deported too.
In April 1857 it was reported that 3 barrel organs were playing such tunes as “Home Sweet Home” and “Cherry Ripe” to an appreciative crowd outside 21 Hue Street but the nature of the occasion was not clear.

Coincidentally or otherwise 3 barrel organs were offered for sale at auction the same year but there was a wedding reception in Hilgrove Street in 1862 and a barrel organ was stationed at the doorway “to crown the day at the home of the happy pair.”

However, it was not a Jersey person turning the handle but “a grinning Italian who owned the instrument of torture…”
Cesidio Volante was another Italian musician who arrived in the 1880s and was not deported although his career started with the usual difficulties. Thus he appeared before the Magistrate for playing “in the streets of St. Helier without the necessary permission” in February 1888.

It must have been a very fragile way to make a living because the Viscount had been ordered in 1883 to dispose of the property of Antonioni Qazy the “peripatetic organ grinder” who had died without next of kin and he was also instructed to pay for the burial.

But Cesidio, more usually known as Joseph, somehow survived and founded a Volante dynasty which thrives in Jersey. When he died aged 61 at his Castle Street home in 1923 after a long illness the JEP obituary described him as “the Italian organ grinder, a popular and well known figure in this town.”
It continued “there is an old saying that it’s the poor that help the poor” and how he lent the organ during the Great War “to swell various charities.”
His Italian born widow Ann re-married and died in 1968.
There were visits from German bands and other musicians and entertainers trying to make a living throughout the century so it was inevitable that the authorities would try to exercise more control. They also saw it as a tax raising opportunity.
By 1899 it was being proposed that every show man, acrobat, player, accordionist or street musician or other performer should pay 1 shilling per week for a licence. Thus a German band consisting of 9 musicians would have to pay 9 shillings. But the proposal, designed to contribute to the £800 p.a. granted by the States was viewed as “humiliating, mean and unworthy of a legislative assembly” by critics.

The Constable of St Helier was reported ;

“It is absurd that the owner of a performing bear or an organ-grinder must pay to the Bailiff and every member of a German Band who would play the National anthem in the streets…”

And so the discussion continues into the 21st century and there is not a barrel-organ to be seen or heard on the streets of Jersey today….

Tuesday, October 2, 2018

More Jersey Scrutiny 2018 - less plastics and other rubbish....

Following on from yesterday's Scrutiny hearings today it was the turn of
John Young the recycled Environment Minister and
Dominic Jones of JP (Jersey Potteries) Restaurants
to appear before the public Scrutiny Panel hearings.

I have recorded the first 5 minutes only of each hearing as posted below.

John Young says he will be more interesting in 6 months time and hopes to be invited back then.

Dominic Jones was very interesting already....

Environment Minister and Team above

Dominic Jones of JP Restaurants

Monday, October 1, 2018

Jersey Scrutiny 2018 - Here we go again....

The Infrastructure Minister Deputy Lewis and his Team appeared before a scrutiny panel today 1 October 2018.
Deputy  Raymond was part of the team but did not speak

The hearing was in two parts - firstly to discuss  Reducing the use of Plastics in Jersey and in part two a more general discussion of Infrastructure's work in hand and in the near future.

This is just a taste of the proceedings since my recording is limited to a max 5 minutes at the start of the hearings.
Scrutiny are still experimenting with "live streaming" of hearings but this should be available soon.
Podcasts and Transcripts of the full hearings should be available soon too....refer to the Scrutiny Website for information.

The Scrutiny Panel - Infrastructure, Housing and Environment - consists of Constables  Mike Jackson, John Le Maistre, Sadie Rennard ( who was absent) and Deputy Morel.

There were just a few members of the public present. Presumably the reduction of the use of plastics and the many other issues raised are of little general interest .

As always, the sound on my recording is not very good and some speakers simply refuse to talk into the mics provided.

Wednesday, September 5, 2018

Charlie Parker works a Jersey miracle....September 2018

At long last the "planning office" in Jersey has scrapped the dreadful and dangerous public access to its South Hill offices.

Now there is a newly created access through the old Public Services/Infrastructure building next door and it seems to be much better.

At least there are no stepped barriers in front of the entrance door.

The short video below shows the exterior improvements so far.
I have not yet looked to see how the facilities inside might comply with the anti- disability discrimination law standards now being introduced  - regarding a hearing loop at the reception desk or interview rooms and suchlike - but I understand that there are no public toilets at all.
So it is far from perfect and eventually the whole facility will move into Charlie's new central States' office block at La Motte - but this is how it is today....

The "Planning Minister" John Young I gather is now at Cyril Le Marquand House well removed from the general public

Tuesday, July 17, 2018

SCRUTINY is BACK - but where's Charlie, Richard and Kate ?

The new States term really got under way today 17 July 2018 with the first open to the public scrutiny hearing. But although there is a new smart table in Le Capelain Room - there were some empty places and Senator Moore and her new Scrutiny Panel members were not amused. The new supremo Charlie Parker, Treasury Chief Richard Bell and Kate Nutt, Chief of the External Affairs Department had all been invited but failed to show. CM Le Fondre thought that Charlie was interviewing yet more senior civil servants but although the Panel had some questions ready - they must wait for another day - except that there is a secret briefing planned for Friday and the CM suggested that Senator Moore might get some answers then. Hard luck on the public who cannot even be told where the new Central States Offices are to be sited. Is it a new or existing building? We could not be told....

So its a new table but still the same lack of respect being shown for the Scrutiny process and as the Q & A session progressed it became obvious that this is not the only problem. There is a galaxy of new boards, commissioners, accounting officers, chief officers, renamed departments and scrutiny panels not to mention ministers and assistant ministers all being released from their "silos" but hoping not to get in each others way - or conflict - as they call it in this business. In fact it was obvious in the public seats that this must be a formula for certain failure and PLAN B cannot be far away....

It was not all bad. Bloggers were allowed to video the initial few minutes the same as the laughingly called "accredited media."

Unfortunately the new table keeps the Panel at a distance from the Minister and his team so if an improved standard of "cooperation" and engagement is to be encouraged then something might need to be done about that. We don't want them getting too close of course but the House of Commons rule about two swords lengths apart should not apply in Jersey and I don't know where Charlie and his colleagues might have been sat if they had turned up. It also makes it difficult for the public to follow all the proceedings  in such a small room but the "ear phones" are still working and the "hearing loop" is marked as available.

The standard of discussion was high which came as a surprise since this was the first public appearance of the two teams. It all rattled along at a good pace and many topics were raised if not always answered.
Evidently there is much still in the planning stage and such important subjects as "disability" responsibility were yet to be sorted. Very worrying.

Also to be decided is the latest "population policy" which still needs more consideration (there is a COM meeting tomorrow) besides more data and "modelling". For certain is that the planned 11 September debate will not take place.
In the meantime the CM wants to proceed with police checks - if a way can be found - and he is still keen on "work permits" of some sort but apparently there is an imminent threat from something called BREXIT....

The transcript and podcast should soon be available for anybody wanting more details and "streaming" is still proposed.

One subject not discussed was democratic reform following the CPA Observers Report but there were several States members in the public seats so not all have flown off to Trumpland or other exotic places for their hols....

A promising start but as we all know the proof of the pudding is in the eating etc and there was not very much to sink the teeth into.  Maybe just the recipe book image today with better and more substantial dishes yet to be served up....

Saturday, June 30, 2018

Lord Nelson - access all at sea June 2018 in Jersey harbour....

The "Lord Nelson" is in St Helier for a few days and is open to the public. I went down to have a look since she is a fine vessel and always delights the eye....
but this time I was a bit unlucky because she is always moored in the least visible place and it was a low spring-tide due and she was already a long way down from the quayside...

However, by chance I met a couple on holiday who had also come down to see her and had a particular interest since the "Lord Nelson" flies under the flag of the Jubilee Sailing Trust and is specifically designed for people with disabilities to enjoy.

This elderly couple had managed to reach the quay - the wife pushing her husband in a wheelchair from their hotel near the Howard Davis Park -  a considerable distance - on a very hot day.

The ship was not open until 2pm for the public (it was about 12.30pm when this was  recorded) so no on-board visits were possible but I was very saddened at the poor access standards on-shore and the lack of information or directions.

Access down to the vessel is via a very steep ramp to the pontoon which could be very dangerous to many and if this couple had managed to get down, I don't think they would have climbed up again without the help of a crane.

It is all very sad especially since this vessel is all about access for all and the new Disability Discrimination laws are arriving in Jersey soon.

Also very sad is the state of the whole quay under management of the Ports of Jersey. This is certainly not a location to spend any time to enjoy the ships - a family day out at little cost. Parking is a nightmare if the signs are to be believed. This is potentially a great place for people to come and spend a few enjoyable hours....the couple of holidaymakers were last seen hurrying back towards St Helier....

Wednesday, June 6, 2018

Daisy Southard the woman in "The Cage" - Jersey in 1924


DAISY SOUTHARD WARREN - Jersey crime and punishment in 1924.

Daisy Southard appeared before the Jersey Royal Court on 16 August 1924.

She was 35 years of age, an “Exonian” - that is born in Exeter - and the widow of Jersey man George William Warren.

Over the next few days her name and details would be published in newspapers throughout Britain and many places overseas too.

George had been serving as a private with the Devonshire Regiment but was a 35 years old railway station master and bachelor living at St Lawrence when they married on 5 April 1916 at St. Helier.

His father was George a farm labourer who had various manual jobs over the years and had raised a family with his wife Elizabeth at several addresses throughout the Island.

Daisy was born in 1889.  She was a 27 years old spinster and brush maker when she married George William the station master in 1816 but when or why she had moved to Jersey is not known.

Her father Thomas Southard was described as a railway labourer on Daisy’s marriage certificate.

Thomas had married Evangeline and there had been at least five other children in their Exeter home.

The First Devon Regiment was stationed at Fort Regent and St. Peter’s Barracks and many local men had enlisted. They were sent off to the war in 1914 initially to France but then to campaigns much further away. George was awarded the 1914 Star for his service in France and Belgium.

The Regiment did not return to Jersey but George William had been injured or otherwise made unfit for further military duties.

He was presumably sent from the war zone back to Jersey where he was considered well enough to blow a whistle and wave a flag on a station platform and to marry.

There were several children born of the marriage. These might have been William George born in 1917, Daisy Doreen in 1920 and a Jesse Maud in 1921 but there were many Warrens in Jersey, especially in and around St Helier.

Elizabeth Warren a spinster of No 1 Dorset Street had died in 1868. She left her possessions to the six children of her deceased brother John Warren and her nephew George Henry Warren.

It was probably not coincidental that Daisy Southard/Warren lived predominantly at 4 Dorset Street subsequently although she entered nearby 41 Clearview Street on the false birth registration in 1924.

George William the former station master died at the Jersey General Hospital on 5 August 1921 from heart failure but was still described as a “soldier in the Devonshire Regiment” on the certificate.

Edward Warren, an ex soldier, had died in St. Helier of “heart disease” too in 1917 and might have been related. Charles George Warren from St Lawrence also served as a private in the “Devons.”

Three children survived from Daisy and George’s five years of marriage so it was a strange decision when the widow Daisy registered the birth of her own baby daughter, born on 12 July 1924, as being his child, three years after George had died.  

This was not true of course, but nevertheless, the false information was duly entered into the Registry of births by Registrar Arthur Hamon where the infant was named as Evelyn Muriel Ellen Warren on Tuesday 29 July.

However, somebody – presumably the Registrar - blew the whistle so that Daisy duly appeared in the Jersey Royal Court on Saturday 16 August 1924 charged with making a false declaration on a birth certificate, contrary to Article 5 ( among others) of the Law on the Registration of Births, Marriages and Deaths of 1842.

This was a criminal matter and was evidently considered serious enough to present before the Island’s Royal Court rather than before a Police Court Magistrate. 

That decision to prosecute had been made by Crown Officer Mr C. E. Mallet De Carteret the “acting” Attorney-General who was also the Solicitor-General.

Daisy probably received a visit at her home “Kendum” 4 Dorset Street or 41 Clearview Street, St. Helier from Parish Centenier Cabot (a police officer) to be charged and warned to appear in court although it was the newly elected Constable Ferguson of St. Helier who appeared there for the Parish.

Bailiff Sir William Venebles Vernon was the 71 years old presiding Judge for the Saturday Royal Court and he happened also to be chairman of the Jersey Railway Company.
Sitting alongside him were Jurats Crill and Renouf.
The Solicitor-General prosecuted and Advocate Duret Aubin defended.

Aubin might have been engaged to defend in accordance with the Advocate’s oath to represent the poor and widows of Jersey – a traditional form of legal aid.
For Daisy this prosecution must have been a frightening development.

She had just recently given birth and her financial resources were most likely limited, especially if she was already caring for the three children from her marriage.

She had no immediate adult family of her own to support her in Jersey and that of her former husband might not have been very sympathetic to her situation.

However, since there were three legitimate children of George to be cared for it is possible that the Warren family rallied round to keep them out of the care of the Island’s children’s homes.

In the grandiose, sombre court room, the 4 feet 11 inches tall, brown haired Daisy, weighing just 104 pounds (7 stones 6 pounds), equipped only with an “imperfect” education would have presented a weak and vulnerable figure before the intimidating and elevated judicial officers in their scarlet robes.

For some reason, the trial had attracted a large number of “onlookers” into the court.

The May Assizes in the same courtroom had included a major criminal trial before the Bailiff, eight Jurats and a lay jury of 24 men which was reported in the Jersey Morning News as “An Innovation” :
“For the first time in history the whole of the evidence, Public Prosecutor’s conclusions, Counsel’s pleadings and Bailiff’s summing -up were in English which should prove a welcome precedent at future Assizes when the accused have only knowledge of English language.”
Previously the language of the courts and judicial system was French and the acoustics were dreadful so it was traditionally difficult to follow the proceedings.

It was not the only challenge that Jersey was facing to its “traditions” either.
Not only was the constitution being tested over the “Imperial contribution” question but in February the Jersey States had agreed that women could be elected as “People’s Representatives” to the Legislative Assembly “but not as life members.”

It was to be 1948 before the first woman was elected.

This trial was not “an assize” but since Daisy was English with an “imperfect education” the court might have followed the recent precedent. The court proceedings were written in French.

After the charges were recited by the Public Prosecutor, Defending Advocate Aubin entered a plea of “Guilty.”

In court H.M.’s Solicitor-General described George, the late husband  as a “Private in the Devon Regiment” rather than a station master and explained that the law called for a fine of £50 or 12 months imprisonment but asked that a fine of £2 be imposed or one month’s imprisonment “without hard labour.”

Advocate Aubin argued that the Prosecutor was compelled by law to ask for a fine and imprisonment but “was sure that if he had his choice he would not have done so.”

He continued :
“The case was a sad one. There were three legitimate children. The accused had acted in ignorance. If the Court did wish to impose imprisonment he hoped they would grant the benefit of the First Offenders Act.”

Furthermore, he explained that the father of baby Evelyn Muriel Ellen was a married man who was prepared to hand his name to the Court and that he had been abandoned by his wife 5 years ago.
He was also willing to marry Daisy “but could not do so.”

Somewhat strangely, the report in the Morning News which was published on Monday 18 August ended :
“The Court granted the conclusions asked for and the accused was accordingly sentenced.”
This simple and incomplete statement not only failed to record what the sentence actually was but also omitted any reference to the issue that turned Daisy briefly into a media celebrity….

The report of the case in the late Saturday edition of the (Jersey) Evening Post – owned and edited by the Methodist Walter Guiton - did carry an account of the court case and sentencing but it was the UK Weekly Dispatch (aka Sunday Dispatch) that really exposed the most disturbing detail on Sunday 17 August.

This account was copied in the Evening Post on Monday 18 August and was headed:

WOMAN IN IRON CAGE – Exhibited in Court After Sentence.

“Following an old-fashioned practice that smacks of the Middle Ages, a woman sentenced by the Jersey Royal Court was placed in an iron cage and subjected to the gaze of a large crowd of visitors who out of curiosity had come to watch the proceedings. In her despair the poor woman went into hysterics and had to be removed.”
This account explained that Daisy was sentenced to pay a fine of £2 and to go to gaol for one month but was then “placed in an iron cage situated in a corner of the court for all to see, until her shrieks, compelled her removal.”

Who had ordered that she should be placed in the cage was not recorded.

The newspaper had explained that:  “In England the practice of publicly exhibiting minor offenders in the stocks fell into disuse about a hundred years ago.” (Weekly Dispatch - August 17)

Jersey’s pillory had stood in the Royal Square (formerly the Market Place) just outside the Court until 1836. It had been removed then following a scandalous case when three Jewish traders – Bersham, Myers and Cohen - had been tried and sentenced for frauds with counterfeited Guernsey bank notes They were sentenced to be jailed, had their property confiscated, stood together in the pillory for an hour and were banished from the Island.
Guernsey had a cage with a pillory attached so it was probably similar in Jersey with this being sited near the market place where the public could obtain suitable vegetable missiles to throw at the unfortunates on display.
The Guernsey cage was eventually mounted on a cart so that it could be stored and brought out as needed.

In London, It was not at all unusual for those pilloried to be killed by the violent actions of the mob until that facility was scrapped in 1816.

The Guernsey cage had metal rings attached which were used to restrain those sentenced to be whipped or mutilated in public. It was still used during the 1830s.

The Jersey cage was originally sited in the market-place and used to hold prisoners for trial in the adjacent court having been marched in from detention at Gorey Castle.
After a town prison was built in 1693 at Charing Cross those awaiting trial were kept detained there and the cage was removed from the market place in 1698.

It seems that a “cage” was then installed in the Royal Court to contain criminal prisoners during and after their trials. The pillory continued in use and was sited just outside the court in the Royal Square (Market Place) and under the constant gaze - after 1751 - of George ll’s gilded statue.

The Charing Cross prison was demolished in 1812 to be replaced by a newly built structure adjacent to the General Hospital in Newgate Street.

It was only after the campaigning of Elizabeth Fry the Quaker prison reformer that this unsatisfactory prison was in turn demolished and replaced in 1837 in a similar location with a “House of Correction.”

This was finally demolished and a new prison built at La Moye, St Brelade in 1975.

This prison too has been subject to several critical reports by the UK Prison Inspectorate and a UN Committee concerned with “torture or inhuman and degrading treatment” causing further improvements and extensions to be provided.

Appended to the Evening Post report was a letter from C.T. Maine of 35 King Street, St. Helier also dated 18 August.

Charles Maine was a silversmith, jeweller and clock maker whose premises were situated in the main retail street of St. Helier a just a few hundred yards from the Royal Court building.

It was possible that he was among the “large crowd of visitors” who had gone to watch the proceedings and it was also possible that he had contacted the Dispatch newspaper in London to express his disgust at the whole business.

A large number of UK newspaper reporters had been invited to Jersey in 1924 to hear the Channel Islands’ arguments against making a financial contribution to British defence expenditure and debts following the First World War. This had become known throughout the Empire as the “Imperial Contribution” question and raised important constitutional issues but had a special interest in the Channel Islands where many wealthy British had settled or contrived, to avoid paying UK taxes. Winston Churchill, appointed as Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1924, promised to curtail such tax dodging.

The case of Lady Lucy Houston and her late shipping magnate husband’s fortune of £7 million was one that came before the Bailiff and the Jersey courts over several years. It was widely reported outside the Island too not only because the UK tax authorities wanted a share but the Jersey court had its eyes on a £150,000 package of jewels which had arrived concealed in a fruit basket from Southampton and was held in care by a St. Helier Jeweller.

No Income tax was collected in Jersey until the law was introduced in 1928.

The Bailiff of Jersey was of course prominent in defending the Jersey point of view and he served as Chief Judge and the “principal citizen” for 32 years from 1899.
The Islanders he said “were proud of their autonomy” and “England had always helped the independence of the Island…and Jersey was always loyal to the throne.”
We are he said a “loyal and prosperous community “ but “we say no to a contribution in our spirit of independence” and “ there can be no taxation without representation.”

Or, it might have been that the Dispatch reporter was still in Jersey when Daisy went to trial.

Charles Maine’s letter to “The Editor of the Evening Post” revealed some specific observations about Daisy’s treatment besides knowledge of Royal Court procedures that suggest he had been observing these for some time and had reformist thoughts in his mind.
He wrote that Daisy “had sobbed bitterly when removed to the cage in the Court” and he congratulated the Editor for “having called the public attention to the continuance of this barbarous treatment and venture to suggest the petitioning of our authorities to discontinue this exposure.”
He continued:
“Let a room be arranged for the placing of prisoners before or after their trial and not an iron cage. How many instances are there where prisoners have been so exposed before trial, proven not guilty and yet they experienced this cruel exposure. An equal sympathy should certainly be also shown the guilty. Sad enough it is for prisoners to remain in the centre of the Court during trial without undergoing treatment as you describe on Saturday last.”

That this was evidently already a matter of public concern followed :
“Months ago this very question was raised at a meeting of the Rotarians who unanimously agreed to write our authorities asking were it not possible to  make other arrangements for prisoners by giving them accommodation whereby they would not be put in a cage.”
“How frequently there are two prisoners waiting trial the same day : the one is removed to the centre of the Court for trial : the other remains in the iron grill, possibly for hours, and the whole while gazed at by the folks attending Court.”

He concluded:
“I do sincerely hope that steps will be taken to discontinue this barbarous treatment.”


At the end of the Court’s proceedings on 18 August, Daisy was duly escorted - probably in a van -   the half mile or so to the Newgate Street prison which retained a treadmill (for grinding peppercorns), picking oakum (from old ropes and fabrics) and stone breaking as the usual employment for the inmates.
The prison usually accommodated about 100 convicts or debtors and included a female wing for about a dozen more.

Here she was measured and weighed and her details entered into the admissions ledger as number 8987.
She was 32 years old, the widow of George W. Warren, a brush maker with no particular marks but her hair was dark brown and her religion was “Church of England.”
Somebody assessed her education as “imperfect” and she had no previous convictions.

If her baby and three other children had not been taken-in by members of the Warren family or other friends they would have been removed to various homes around Jersey.
William the 7 year old boy was probably sent to the “Home for Boys” facility at St. Martin’s whilst his sisters were probably admitted to the Grouville “Girls Home.” There would have been little opportunity to visit or communicate with each other.
Daisy as a nursing mother, separated from her baby and other children and confined to the grim prison would have had to adapt to a strict regime. Yet her weight had increased by 4 pounds (to 108 pounds) when she was released on 16 September.

Why she made the false registration declaration is not clear. It is probable that this was from ignorance as her defence lawyer claimed in court and she was simply following the previous procedure without thinking too much that her husband was three years dead.

Her “imperfect” education was most likely relevant too but there might have been some financial inducement such as Parish Poor Law relief or an Army pension increase payable to an extra legitimate child.

Reports of the case and the scandalous use of the “medieval” and “barbaric” cage soon appeared in newspapers around the British Isles and overseas too.
Daisy Southard was briefly famous.

The cage was a “strange Jersey Custom” in the Gloucestershire Gazette.
It was “old fashioned justice” in the Dunbar Courier.
A “practice that smacks of the Middle Ages” in the Larne Times.
“Jersey’s barbarism” according to the Hull Daily Mail.
“Back to barbarity” in the Lincolnshire Echo whilst the Nottingham Evening Post noted the “vigorous protests from Jersey it is hoped will end the medieval practice.”

It was not the sort of publicity that Jersey welcomed.

Daisy was soon returned to her home, family and presumably, her brush making work.
Her moment of celebrity had passed but not her ability to produce babies.

Whether the same married lover was attending at “Kendum” 4 Dorset Street is not known but baby Joseph Alexander Southard joined his “sister” there in June 1926 and baby Irene Maud Southard was also squeezed into the little cottage in October 1928.
These babies were both registered by Daisy alone with no father being identified so she might have been looking after a family of six children when Christmas descended on St Helier in 1928.

In November of that same year Daisy’s little sister from Exeter - Mabel Amelia Southard – married Philip Misson Egan in St. Helier.
He was a 23 years old bachelor and labourer.  Spinster Mabel was just 15.
Daisy was a witness at the wedding which was unusual insofar as the newlyweds had brought their own new born son Philip Henry along too “in order to give him the sight of legitimacy.”
The fact that he was “presented at this marriage” was duly entered into the Register.

Whether it had been intended that young sister Mabel moved to Jersey in order to help out with Daisy’s many chores is not known but Mabel’s own little family did not survive.
At least, by the time that the German Occupation of the Channel Islands commenced in 1940 Philip Henry Egan had been placed in the Jersey Home for Boys at St Martin’s.
When his Identity Card was produced by the German forces in 1942 he was a schoolboy living – inevitably – at 4 Dorset Street.

Daisy Southard, Evelyn Muriel, Joseph Alexander and Irene Maud were all living there too. Daisy also had an address at “Meadow View”, Longueville, but what had happened to Philip Henry’s parents is not clear.
They possibly had sailed to England on one of the evacuation boats just before the German forces arrived.

Of the three legitimate children of Daisy’s marriage to George William only their son William George Warren has been identified with certainty among the Occupation Identity Cards.
His was issued in 1941 when he lived at “Evadale” Undercliffe Road, St Helier.
Most likely his two sisters had married and so changed their surnames.

What happened eventually to Daisy Southard is not known.

The “cage” was removed from the Royal Court but it is not known when or why.

There remains only a small room off the back of the Royal Court which is claimed by senior court staff to have been its former location.

 This is a Draft copy of this article.

Daisy Southard-Warren’s German ID card includes her photo. Subject to agreement with the Jersey Archives this may be copied here in due course.

This article has been researched with the help of staff and volunteers at the Jersey Archives, Jersey Library and Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths.


Monday, May 21, 2018

Sandra Buckley - Skydive Jersey - April and May 2018

Sandra's Skydive started on 22 April 2018 with training and preparation at the Jersey Aero Club HQ but the jump was called off due to low cloud/mist...

The training and preparation continued on 7 May in very fine weather and the take-off was at about 4.30pm...(above)
It takes about 30 minutes for the aircraft to reach 10,000 ft....
This video goes silent for about 50 seconds at 1min 50 seconds....

The "official"  on-board and off-board video recorded  by Liam Hardman follows and commences with some more basic training reminders....

Sandra's Landing near the Gunsite CafĂ© follows...

Sandra has not yet stopped laughing and screaming

Well worth every penny - contact JerseySkydive and book your parachute jump; 

Wednesday, May 9, 2018

CPA Jersey Election Observation Mission 2018 - Press Briefing 8 May

This is a two part video of the Press Briefing held in the Members Room of the Jersey States Building on 8 May 2018.

Part One is the introduction delivered by the Head of the Mission
Hon. Phillip Paulwell CD MP from Jamaica.

Part Two is the Q & A and discussion session with press and interested public.
32 minutes.

The sound is not very good because of the poor acoustics in the room.

This is the first such CPA (Commonwealth Parliamentary Association) Election Mission sent to Jersey, Guernsey or the Isle of Man.

The Mission will be in Jersey observing the election process and speaking to interested parties.
If you want to speak with them make contact;

Part One - Introduction - about 8 minutes

Part Two - Q & A discussion about 32 minutes

Friday, May 4, 2018

The Empire Windrush legacy and Jersey population control aspiration in the 2018 General Election

 HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT and TARGETS - the Jersey dimension.

“Hostile Environment” and “Targets” are words that have brought down the UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd. She has resigned.

Britain has suddenly woken up to the reality of the obscene policies that lie behind such words and has conveniently labelled this as the “Windrush” problem after the ship that brought in about 600 Jamaican ( and some Polish) immigrants to London in 1948.

Unfortunately the penny has not yet dropped in Jersey (or Guernsey) where the policy of creating a “Hostile Environment” for “immigrants” has been accepted for decades and is being enforced now with greater enthusiasm than ever.

During the current Jersey General Election there is hardly a candidate who does not propose the application of even harsher “immigration controls”.

Coupled to this is the demand for “targets” of the number allowed in each year and for a maximum population “target” to be achieved.

Making life unbearable so that “immigrants” leave the territory should be so obviously unacceptable to any decent person but where election votes are concerned such values can be trampled on with impunity.

Of course in the UK the pretence that it is “illegal immigrants” that are the “target” has now been exposed as wholly false because the use and mis-use of deportation powers and other punishments have been widely inflicted on almost anybody whose face did not fit the “British” profile.

In part of course, this prejudiced application of arbitrary controls has been fuelled by the campaigning of such groups as UKIP and the BREXIT referendum and its continuing aftermath.

In the UK, landlords, employers, the NHS, Charities, banks and many more have been sucked into the “policing” role of demanding ID cards and police checks to help create an underclass of “foreign”, mainly ethnic origin workers and their families, vulnerable to exploitation with limited access to the social and welfare safety nets.

Those persons in abusive relationships with partners, employers or landlords are often so intimidated that they do not seek help from the Police or other agencies.

UK Immigration laws do apply in the Channel Islands but how they are actually administered is vague.

Deportations from the Islands are usually made known only when a person enters the territory illegally and is arrested at the Ports – usually from St Malo.

However, the next stage of UK controls that demand English language tests, for example, will be in force here and will be added to the disgracefully discriminatory housing and work restrictions that are already in force in the Islands. Those “immigrant” persons who fail the language test – we are told - may be deported from the UK and presumably the Channel Islands too.

Furthermore, Senator Routier’s extraordinary Jersey “population control” measures based upon 10 months or 4 years work permits will be added to the controlling mix. These will apply to ALL so called immigrants into Jersey whether they are British from the UK or “foreign” from EU or any other “non EU” but “foreign” place around the globe.

The status of persons from the BOTs (British Overseas Territories) arriving in the CIs for work or play is not clear.

How the UK government will be induced to approve of such legislation which adds to the existing 5 years (work) and 10 years (housing) qualifications is anybody’s guess.

The Guernsey government already has had to relax recently introduced and restrictive regulations based upon short-term “work permits” because they caused so many workers to leave the Island. Some of these workers – rather like “Windrush” immigrants - were long term residents of Guernsey.

It was the loss of workers and complaints from business that stimulated the panic changes.
Not any sudden discovery of a lost morality.

But evidently, The Channel Islands have been operating policies specifically designed to create a “hostile environment” for decades and the deliberate intention has been to make life so difficult that many (so called) immigrants leave after a few years.

In other words they do not become established in order to claim the benefits of the Social Security and Income Tax or other impositions that they have paid and gain no status in the job market or to obtain proper housing accommodation.

They are second class residents by design.

The Jersey system already requires that all new arrival must obtain a “registration card” for a fee from the Social Security Department and this must be shown before taking employment.

Jobs for new arrivals (except special “key workers”) are generally restricted to those officially described as “low skilled” and not in demand by “locals” – such as catering, cleaning, tourism or agriculture.

After 5 years in such employment a person can enter the general employment market and claim Social Security benefits but there is no unemployment benefit payable in Jersey.

New arrivals are also restricted to lodgings type accommodation for 10 years continuous residence. All resident are supposed to notify changes of employer or home address to the Social Security Department and registration cards must be shown to employers and landlords.

Under the new Routier plan, “immigrant” workers will be required either to leave after about 10 months (seasonal workers) whilst longer term employed must leave after 4 years.

Thus neither category will progress to the 5 year (work and benefits) or 10 years (housing) qualifications sector.

The poor standards of housing accommodation currently available to the 13,000 resident “non quals” workers and their children have not gone entirely unnoticed.

The recent death of a farm worker in his accommodation has highlighted the dilemma and the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry Report (into child abuse since 1945) drew particular attention to the social problems created by such discriminatory policies.

It has featured in several past election campaigns and politicians have promised to deal with the problem and the allied lack of security, low pay and substandard working conditions.

So far there is little actual improvement to be seen although some legislation is now in place regarding the standards of properties to let.

Yet, the “hostile environment”  is  not a critical feature of the current Jersey election but rather - as already referred to - there is almost a competition among many  candidates to put forward the most repressive policies that purport to limit population growth and  preserve jobs and housing accommodation for “locals.”

What might happen as a result of BREXIT is also uncertain.

Whether there will be “free movement” across European borders is still being discussed in London but where those borders might be, whether visas will be required and if the “Common Travel Area” might survive are all uncertain.

What future relationships might exist for the Crown Dependencies with the UK, the EU and the rest of the world is not determined.

The status quo will not prevail.

So far it has been suggested that all those “EU” nationals resident in the UK and the Islands must apply for “settled status” and will thus have a “right to remain” but how this will relate to their dependents in other places, future children, marriages across nationalities or gender or changed circumstances and many other factors, is not at all clear.

Because of the difficulties already found in recruiting workers, the Islands are suggesting that (having virtually exhausted the supply from the UK and the EU) recruits might be found from such as Kenya or the Ukraine who are willing to accept the low pay and poor working conditions instead.

This seems very unlikely – even if the new post BREXIT arrangements with the UK and the EU allow it.

There are about 2 million Filipinos in the Middle East. Many are exploited and abused.

The Philippines government has responded to the death of 7 workers in Kuwait by banning nationals from taking up “low skilled” jobs in that country. The ban may be extended to other countries even though there is a great shortage of employment in the Philippines.

The artificial creation of a “hostile environment” for so called immigrants in Jersey is totally unacceptable and any population control policies based upon “targets” needs to be examined very carefully with Human Rights standards, rather than profit from growth, being uppermost in the minds of those who promote them.

The "Empire Windrush" made just one voyage in 1948 carrying Jamaicans and some Polish refugees to London.
She caught fire and sank in 1954. Four crew members died.
We should burn the "Hostile Environment" policy for Jersey in her memory.